Sitting of 13 November 2003

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the chair
PRAYERS

  ROYAL ASSENT
  Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
  Waste and Emissions Trading Act 2003
  Arms Control and Disarmament (Inspections) Act 2003
  European Union (Accessions) Act 2003 Fires Services Act 2003

  PRIVATE BUSINESS

    LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [Lords]
    Motion made,
    That the promoters of the London Local Authorities Bill [Lords]shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so is lodged in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present session and that all fees due up to that date have been paid;
    That, if the bill is brought from the Lords in the next session, a declaration signed by the agent shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill brought from the Lords in the present session;
    That the Clerk in the Private Bill Office shall lay upon the Table of the House a certificate, that such a declaration has been deposited;
    That in the next session the bill shall be deemed to have passed through every stage through which it has passed in the present session, and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having passed those stages;
    That no further fees shall be charged to such stages.—[The Chairman of Wars and Means.]
    Hon. Members Hon. Members: Object.
    To be considered on Monday 17 November.

    MERSEY TUNNELS BILL
    Ordered,
    That so much of the Lords Message [11th November] as relates to the Mersey Tunnels Bill be now considered.
    That the promoters of the Mersey Tunnels Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so is lodged in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present session and that all fees due up to that date have been paid;
    That on the fifth sitting day in the next session the Bill shall be presented to the House by deposit in the Private Bill Office;
    394
    That a declaration signed by the agent shall be annexed to the Bill, stating that it is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present session;
    That on the next sitting day following presentation, the Clerk in the Private Bill Office shall lay the bill on the Table of the House and, when so laid, the bill shall be read the first, second and third time and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having been so read;
    That no further fees shall be charged to such stages.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
    Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Oral Answers to Questions
  TREASURY
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked;—

  Private Finance Initiative
  1. Chris Grayling: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his policy is on the use of the private finance initiative. [138323]
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): Since 1997, total investment in public services has grown from £23 billion to £40 billion, with private finance initiatives contributing £4.6 billion of that this year—around 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. in any one year. We now propose to extend by pilots the PFI into provision for prisons, urban regeneration, social housing and waste services. I can also announce to the House that I will present my pre-Budget report on Wednesday 10 December.
  Chris Grayling: Virtually all major capital expenditure is now being funded by PFI schemes through off-balance-sheet debt. In my constituency, a proposed hospital scheme would mean increased repayment costs of £20 million a year more than the local health economy can afford. When I asked the Treasury in a written question what the repayment costs are for existing schemes, it could not answer the question. Does the Chancellor know the true cost of the debt that he is building up for the nation through these off-balance-sheet schemes?
  Mr. Brown: The figures are published at table C20 of the Budget report, and I refer the hon. Gentleman to that. First, I congratulate him on his reappointment to the Conservative Front Bench, and all 88 Conservative Members who are now joining the slimmed-down Opposition Front Bench. We look forward to debating with the 20 Conservative Front-Bench Members who are now responsible for economic affairs. The Conservatives cannot complain any longer about public sector job creation.
  On the future of PFI, the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are completely wrong about the unfunded liabilities. We follow exactly the same rules as were followed by the previous Government, except for one thing—we tightened up the accounting standards. We follow exactly the same rule for disclosure, except that

  395
  we give every aspect, including maintenance, in the disclosure of figures in table C20. The Conservative party is now in the amazing situation in which it is against public investment and now appears to be again st PFI. It will spend nothing on hospitals and schools—how many hospitals and schools would close under the Conservatives?
  Mr. George Stevenson: Can I refer my right hon. Friend to the private finance initiative in Stoke-on-Trent, which after decades of Tory deprivation has resulted in nine new primary schools being built and every school in Stoke-on-Trent being refurbished? One of the strengths of this successful private finance initiative has been that not a school building or a single member of staff was transferred to the private sector. Will he revisit this successful scheme to see what lessons can be learned for the future?
  Mr. BrownOn the question of employment, we are discussing with the various parties concerned how we can secure the proper employment conditions for people who move from the public sector into PFI projects, as well as new recruits for PFI projects, just as we are doing for best value in local government. My hon. Friend is absolutely right the Conservatives said that we would never increase the PFI when we came into government. We are now spending in total £35 billion on PFI projects. It is costing £4 billion to £5 billion a year on the balance sheet, which is exactly how it should be. It is 2 per cent. of annually managed expenditure, and perfectly affordable. I find it amazing that the people who urged us to support PFI in the first place have now walked away from it entirely.
  Mr. Howard Fl: May I first congratulate the Chancellor and Mrs. Brown on the birth of their son? I hope that it will lead to benign views towards those of us who have many children to look after.
  The Chancellor will be aware that many large businesses have off-balance-sheet liabilities—I assume that that is, in part, where he spotted the opportunity for the Government. He will also know that auditors are quite rightly urging businesses to take those liabilities into account in the prudent management of their overall finances. What account has he taken of £100 billion of off-balance-sheet Government liabilities, which represent the present value of total PFI payments for the next 30 years and the guarantees given on behalf of Network Rail and London and Continental? What account will he take of them in his plans to address the rapidly deteriorating public finances?
  Mr. BrownI thank the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury for his good wishes. If I am to have sleepless nights, I fully intend that the Opposition should have some as well. As for the figure of £100 billion that he cited in a speech yesterday, it is totally bogus and completely wrong. Fifty-seven per cent. of PFI projects are on balance sheet, not off balance sheet. He is trying to count every PFI commitment from now to 2030. What is more, most of the PFI commitments are in relation to maintenance and repair rather than construction programmes.
  396
  I find it amazing that the Conservative party will not spend money on public investment and now will not spend money on the PFI. The new shadow Chancellor's policy is to cut public spending to 35 per cent. of gross domestic product a £50 billion cut. How on earth could the Conservatives finance any hospitals or schools? There are 110 hospital developments in this country and 20,000 schools have been upgraded. We have extended PFI to transport so that we can also invest in roads and railways. If the Conservatives are now saying that they oppose public investment and PFI, they are telling the electorate that they would close down hospital projects and schools.
  Mr. Barry Gardin: May I tell my right hon. Friend about the Jews Free school in my constituency, which was completely rebuilt using the PFI process? Some £47 million of investment went into the infrastructure of one of the best schools in the country. That is exactly the sort of thing that such oppositionist policies would stop.
  Mr. Brown: Eighty per cent. of all PFI projects are on time and on budget as a result of the controls that have been brought in. We have reviewed PFI projects over the past few months and decided to drop information technology from the project list because of uncertainties about IT funding. We are not doing PFI projects of less than £20 million, but I shall announce today the areas in which we will pilot further work on the private finance initiative. I find it quite amazing that the first announcement from the new Opposition Front Bench is that they no longer believe in PFI and they do not believe in public investment. How could we possibly finance the development of our public services if that policy were pursued by the Opposition?
  Several hon. Members rose
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I am going to move on to Question 2. I think that we have had a good airing of the failings of Her Majesty's Opposition, and we must get answers to the questions.

  Interest Rates
  Miss Anne McIntosh: What assessment he has made of the impact on the housing market of the increase in interest rates. [138324]
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): Despite the recent rise in interest rates, Britain still has the lowest interest rates for 40 years and the lowest mortgage rates for 40 years. At around 5 per cent., mortgage rates contrast with British rates of about 10 per cent. or more during the last world downturn. We estimate that households pay 7.5 per cent. of their disposable income in interest payments, which is half as much as 10 years ago. At all times, our policy is to maintain economic stability.
  Miss McIntosh: The Chancellor commented in his Budget speech in 1997 that stability would be the hallmark and central plank of the Government's housing market policy. How does he square that with the Governor of the Bank of England saying that we will

  397
  see a return to negative equity and some correction in the housing market? Where does that put the Chancellor's central plank of stability in the housing market?
  Mr. Brown: That is not what the Governor of the Bank of England said yesterday. He said that consumer spending is around trend and house price growth is moderating. He said, and he is absolutely right, that people should be vigilant about their debts. He also said that debt service payments are at a far lower level then they were 10 years ago in the last world downturn.
  The hon. Lady should look at what we have achieved in stability. Since 1979, house prices in her region rose by 9 per cent. a year. Since 1997, they have risen by 8 per cent. a year. There are 75,000 more homeowners in her region and 1 million more homeowners in the rest of the United Kingdom. The reason for that is not just economic stability, but employment growth as well. Unemployment in her constituency is 1.2 per cent.—indeed, only 11 young people are unemployed in her constituency. It is about time the Opposition recognised the obvious: that we have economic stability.
  Mr. John McFall: May I ask the Chancellor about the report that he commissioned from Professor David Miles into long-term fixed-rate mortgages? Does he agree that if we move to such a system it will take the volatility out of the housing market? He is aware of the interest of the Treasury Committee in that matter. Will the report be published before the pre-Budget report so that we can discuss it with him when he comes before the Committee?
  Mr. Brown: As my hon. Friend, who chairs the Treasury Committee, knows, two reports are being prepared on housing. One is on housing supply, which is being produced by Kate Barker, the former economic director of the Confederation of British Industry, now a member of the Monetary Policy Committee. At the same time, there is the report by Professor Miles on the housing market generally. We have not yet received his report, so it is too early to reach any conclusions, but interim reports will be produced at the time of the pre-Budget report. The reports cover big issues about the housing finance market and how it operates. I hope that the House will await the publication of them before drawing conclusions about the future system of housing finance.
  We will always remain vigilant about the need for stability in housing, the mortgage market and the economy in general. It would be foolish, however, not to recognise the achievements of economic stability, which have given us the lowest inflation and lowest interest rates for 40 years. At the same time, they have meant that our economy has grown while other economies have been in recession.
  Dr. Vincent Cable: May I add my best wishes to the Chancellor and his family? I also extend a welcome to the new Conservative Treasury spokesman, with the personal hope that he has a happier fate than an earlier commuter from Rothschild's to the House of Commons, Norman Lamont.
  398
  On the housing market, is not the brutal truth that with investment, exports and manufacturing output stagnating or falling, the growth of the British economy is sustained by consumer spending pinned against record levels of personal debt, which is secured, if at all, against house prices that the Bank of England describes as well above equilibrium level? If the Bank of England is correct in its expectations of a market correction and rising interest rates, what action will the Chancellor take on the problem of consumer debt, which is rapidly rising, with 8 million annual visits from the bailiff?
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman has been writing articles in the newspapers, as reflected in his contribution, that spread alarm, without substance, about the state of the British economy. As the Bank of England said yesterday, consumer spending is returning to trend. The Governor said:
  "there is no indication that the scale of debt problems have… risen markedly in the last five years."
  He also said that the fraction of household income used up in debt service is lower than it was then.
  I suggest that the hon. Gentleman look at the overall picture of the British economy. Yes, during the period of world downturn, when the rest of the European economy was not growing at all, it was necessary for both consumer spending and public investment to contribute to the growth that we have achieved in Britain; but he can see that business investment and manufacturing output are starting to return and that the export position will improve over the next period. What the Bank of England said yesterday about the prospects for growth, compared with what people said when we gave our Budget forecast in April, suggests that we have been right about the prospects for growth in the British economy, and the hon. Gentleman has been wrong.
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: It is generally accepted, and I agree, that it was a good idea by the Chancellor to hand control of interest rates to the Monetary Policy Committee, and I congratulate him on that. It is clear that the MPC's decisions have a considerable effect on house prices, but does the Chancellor agree that it cannot be expected to control the level of exports, the rate of productivity growth, the level of employment or, indeed, the general balance of the economy?
  Mr. Brown: That is why getting the fiscal and monetary balance right is the policy that is being pursued by the Government. I hope that in the spirit of cross-party agreement the right hon. Gentleman agrees not only that it was right to make the Bank of England independent, but that the policies we have pursued since 1997—which, uniquely among all the major industrial economies, have secured growth while other economies have experienced recession—are right.
  Let me welcome the shadow Chancellor to his new post—we will enjoy our economic debates with him. We were sorry that he mysteriously disappeared during the election campaign of 2001, so we welcome him back.
  Mr. Letwin: I think that that was a yes, so perhaps the Chancellor could now tell the House what aspects of his policies, other than the MPC's interest rates, have been

  399
  responsible for the fact that at a time when house prices are rising rather fast, household debt is now roughly the same size as the entire gross domestic product; that we have lost 700,000 manufacturing jobs; that we have a ballooning public sector deficit; that productivity growth has halved; and that we have the biggest traded goods deficit since 1697?
  Mr. Brown: The shadow Chancellor will have to get the economy in proper perspective. He is trying to imply that the only economy that has grown consistently over the past six years is facing fundamental problems—he is absolutely wrong. The reason we have managed to grow and others have failed to do so is, first, that we decided to make the Bank of England independent; secondly, we set down monetary rules; thirdly, we went for a symmetrical inflation target, which the previous Government refused to adopt; and fourthly, we have a medium-term fiscal strategy, which has shown that we can cut debt to a sustainable level and still secure the rises in public investment that are necessary while meeting our fiscal rules. The problem, however, is that on each of those policies the Conservatives either oppose us or, alternatively, they wish to reverse the policy, as is the case with fiscal policy. The right hon. Gentleman must answer the question of how Britain could possibly have avoided a recession with 35 per cent. of GDP spent on public services.
  Mr. Letwin: I am sure that the House will sympathise with the fact that the Chancellor has formed the habit of deploying a rather belligerent tone in his dealings with the Prime Minister, but I believe that our fellow citizens expect us in the Chamber to engage in a more rational discussion of issues, such as house prices and the balance of the economy, that closely affect people's lives.
  If the Chancellor does not want to deal with a string of inconvenient facts, let us focus on just one of them. When he told us that instead of setting interest rates he would focus on productivity, which he described as
  "a fundamental yardstick of economic performance",
  did he in fact mean that it was his intention to halve the rate of productivity growth, or did he make some kind of mistake?
  Mr. BrownThe right hon. Gentleman is wrong and ought to be corrected. First, productivity growth is rising by 2 per cent. and more at the moment. Secondly, manufacturing productivity is rising by 5 per cent. Thirdly, we have bridged the gap with the Japanese economy, we are now catching up with the German economy, we have reduced the productivity gap with the French economy, and we are making inroads into the very large productivity gap that we inherited with the American economy.
  The right hon. Gentleman should look at the facts on productivity, and he will see that we alone of recent Governments have had productivity rising every year, and that will continue to be the case. As for house prices and the housing market, if he wants to repeat what the shadow Chief Secretary said in a speech a few days ago and somehow predict a housing shock and a threat to the stability of the economy, I must remind him that at every point in the past six years the Conservative party has predicted that there would be a recession.
  400
  If we take house prices, then yes, they have risen as a percentage of income. If we take house prices as a percentage of wealth, that is not the case, because household wealth has risen by 50 per cent. in Britain over the past six years under a Labour Government. If we take the debt servicing payments that people have to meet for their mortgages, under the Conservative Government, at certain points, people had to pay nearly 30 per cent. as new homeowners, but under the Labour Government it is 17 per cent. In respect of the housing position, the right hon. gentleman is wrong, and wrong again.

  Private Health Care
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had on tax incentives for private health care. [138325]
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): I have met BUPA and others. We estimate the cost of tax relief for private medical insurance at a billion pounds, almost all of which will go to those who are already on private medical insurance.
  Mr. Cunningham: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and add my congratulations to those of others in the Chamber. What is my right hon. Friend doing to provide resources to ensure that the national health service remains free at the point of need?
  Mr. Brown: When we came to power, we had to take difficult decisions on the uses of public expenditure. One of the decisions that we made was to abolish tax relief on private medical insurance for over-60s. That was a difficult decision. but all the evidence showed that in the nine years in which private medical insurance existed, a billion pounds had been spent and there had been no appreciable growth in the numbers of people on private medical insurance, but that the state was subsiding people who already had such insurance in the first place.
  I cannot see how we can continue to finance both the development of the national health service and build the capacity in hospitals, with doctors and nurses being employed, and at the same time finance with a billion pounds of deadweight cost private medical insurance tax relief for people who already have such insurance. I suggest that the country has a choice—we can have a health service that is free at the point of need, where we invest in capacity, or we can spend money on private medical insurance. We will, at the same time as investing in the national health service, keep to the policy that puts the national health service, and not private medicine, first in this respect.
  Mr. Tim Boswell: Since the Chancellor announced the decision in 1997 to withdraw tax relief for older people in respect of private health insurance, can he tell the House how many older people have come off such insurance and what the costs to the NHS in current and capital terms have been in providing for those people in the public sector?
  Mr. Brown: I will write to the hon. Gentleman with the figures. There was no appreciable growth in the numbers of people who took out private medical insurance when the tax relief was in place. I may say that the former Chancellor, Lord Lawson, said that the relief was not good value for money and merely meant health service inflation. He was opposed to it all along, as those on the Conservative Front Bench should be.

  Barnett Formula
  4. Joyce Quin: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received about the operation of the Barnett formula. [138327]
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng): My right hon. Friend the Chancellor receives periodic representations about the operation of the Barnett formula. The Government have no plans to change the formula.
  Joyce Quin: My right hon. Friend will no doubt have seen the recent report of the Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister that recommended a review of the formula. The way in which the formula operates is politically indefensible on the doorsteps of voters in north-east England. Given that the formula is named after a former Labour Chief Secretary, will he not take the opportunity to introduce a new Boateng formula that is a great deal fairer to the nations and regions of the United Kingdom as a whole?
  Mr. Boateng: I must resist that temptation, although I appreciate the kind thought. I know that my right hon. Friend takes a great interest in this matter. However, while I respect her view and that of the Select Committee, I do not share her analysis. The Barnett formula is transparent and well tried. There is no consensus about alternative funding arrangements, and existing arrangements have delivered to the north-east the second highest level of identifiable public spending in England. I think that that is something to be welcomed and appreciated by all.
  Pete WishartHas the Chief Secretary had an opportunity to look at the latest edition of the Holyrood magazine? If he has done so, he will have found that the Secretary of State for Scotland has conceded that the Barnett formula is indeed a convergence formula. Does he agree with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and does he believe that the best way of ending this futile debate about the formula would be to give the Scottish Parliament responsibility for collecting its own expenditure and to make it fully accountable for how it is spent?
  Mr. Boateng: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman, who knows that examination of the figures shows that Scotland has done rather well out of the Barnett formula, as spending is 20 per cent. higher in Scotland. The reality is that the formula provides Scotland with a population-based share of comparable
  402
  English increases. That can hardly be regarded as unfair. I would have thought that he would welcome that on behalf of his constituents.
  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Obviously, the northeast would welcome a change in the Barnett formula, but may I reassure my right hon. Friend that in the north-west we would benefit simply from its extension to cover both the north-west and north-east, so that we not only reap the same benefits, but do not end up with top-up fees?
  Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend is always a reassuring figure, but there is normally a sting in the tail, as on this occasion. I fear that I must resist his blandishments, too. The Barnett formula is delivering to all the regions and to the kingdom. If Conservative Members have any alternative—he Letwin-Flight formula, perhaps—we should hear about it, because it would be about slash and burn and cuts, cuts, cuts; and we are not having that.

  Residential Property (Taxation)
  5. Mr. AndrewRosindell: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received on his policies on taxation in relation to residential property. [138328]
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey): As with all tax issues, the Government consider representations that are received as part of the normal Budget process.
  Mr. Rosindell: Does the Minister understand that since this Government came to power in 1997, their polices have been absolutely devastating for the hard-pressed homeowners of this country, with a 60 per cent. average increase in council tax and a devastating increase in stamp duty? When will the Government introduce policies that encourage, rather than discourage, home owning?
  John Healey: As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said, there are I million more homeowners in the United Kingdom since this Government came to power in 1997.
  Dr. Brian Iddon: Bearing in mind the Government's energy efficiency commitment, will my hon. Friend look again at the charging of VAT on refurbishing older properties and on do-it-yourself energy-saving products?
  John Healey: My hon. Friend is a passionate and long-standing advocate of energy efficiency measures, and he will be aware that we are arguing with the Commission and our partners in the European Union for greater freedom to allow a reduced rate of VAT on energy-saving materials that people use on a DIY basis. We are still constrained by European rules that prevent some of the measures that my hon. Friend would like.
  Mr. Andrew Tyrie: Over the past five years, the Government have clobbered homeowners with massive increases in stamp duty that have resulted in a nearly fivefold increase in the total yield to more

  403
  than £3.5 billion a year and hit many people's main source of saving. A few weeks ago, the Government ruled out taxing capital gains on first homes— a seemingly enormous pledge that I welcome. Will they now rule out further increases in stamp duty, at least for the forthcoming Budget?
  John Healey: I sometimes wonder whether Conservative Members are living in the real world. As I said to the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell), the Chancellor considers representations and makes decisions on tax as part of the Budget process. As for tax rises—[Interruption.The shadow Chancellor is shouting "60". The Tories treat this like a maths test for a seven-year-old. They go through our Budget documents looking for the plus signs and add them up, but they do not take into account the cuts in income tax, the pension credit, the working families tax credit or the child tax credit. The personal tax and benefit changes that have been made since 1997 have had a direct impact on householders, who are, on average, £775 a year better off: the poorest and those with children are better off still.
  John Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that council tax is fundamentally a regressive form of taxation because it was introduced by the Tories to replace Mrs. Thatcher's poll tax and is closely related to it? Will my hon. Friend the Minister consider making it more closely related to ability to pay, perhaps by extending the banding so that wealthier people in wealthier areas pay proportionately more?
  John Healey: Questions about council tax bands and the ratios between them will form part of the analysis and decision making in the revaluation of council taxes that starts in 2005 and will affect bills from 2007.
  I emphasise to my hon. Friend and Conservative Members that the average council tax per dwelling this year under Labour councils is £818, whereas under Liberal Democrat councils, it is £934 and £1,008 under Tory councils.

  Euro Roadshow
  6. Mr. George Osborne: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many euro roadshow events he has attended in the past month. [138329]
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): Ministers have held a variety of meetings to discuss the euro in the past month. In addition, Treasury officials have held more than 150 meetings with opinion formers in Britain and Europe since the Chancellor's statement on 9 June.
  Mr. Osborne: I gather from the Financial Secretary's answer that the Chancellor attended no roadshow events in the past month, unless one includes the radio interviews that he did last week. That is slightly surprising because the deal that he stitched up with the Prime Minister was that he kept the pound and the
  404
  Prime Minister launched a roadshow. Where is it? Why does not the Financial Secretary simply admit what we all know—that the roadshow does not exist?
  Ruth Kelly: I was going to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment to the Front Bench. However, given his preoccupation with Ministers' diaries and who answers the question rather than the substance of the issue, perhaps he has already decided that he prefers to answer questions from the Back Benches.
  Perhaps I can clarify a couple of points. Ministers continued to meet last month. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary addressed a meeting in Scotland and I filled in for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, who was taking paternity leave, at a meeting in London. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Treasury officials have been deeply engaged in continuing discussions with stakeholders in the past month as in previous months.
  Roger Casale: I invite the Financial Secretary to meet my constituents who have shown since at least May 1997 that it is possible to hold an open, balanced and rational debate about the euro and Britain's membership of the European Union. When she does that, will she remind them that a benefit of joining the euro would be the ability to lock in the economic stability that a Labour Government have created in this country and that entry would almost eliminate the risk of a return to the 15 per cent. interest rates that pertained when the Conservative party was in power?
  Ruth Kelly: I know that my hon. Friend takes a great interest in those matters and of course I would be willing to meet his constituents. We have to put the national economic interest first—that is why we set up the five-test procedure. We shall review that at the appropriate time in the Budget.

  Business Taxation
  Bob Spink: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for changes in the taxation of business. [138330]
  The Paymaster General(Dawn Primarolo): My right hon. Friend the Chancellor is considering representations on business tax, including corporation tax, and will make his pre-Budget statement in due course.
  Bob Spink: Did the right hon. Lady read the CBI's comments about the 19 new business taxes in the previous Parliament and the decision to drive up national insurance contributions, which destroy business competitiveness and productivity? Last year, business investment fell by more than at any other time in the past decade. Will she undertake not to introduce the Government's proposed new taxes on businesses?
  Dawn Primarolo: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is fully aware of all the international comparisons with tax levels for businesses in the United Kingdom. He also knows that the Government have undertaken huge reform of the corporate tax regime to support businesses

  405
  through provisions on intellectual property rights, the research and development tax credit and intangible assets as well as through lowering corporation tax for large and small companies. All the comparisons show that the United Kingdom is the best place in which to do business. Digby Jones, director general of the CBI, echoed that when he said:
  "I would much rather be doing business in Britain than anywhere else in Europe… We are still the most successful economy in Europe."
  That shows that the Government's policies are correct.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to encourage the vehicle industry to invest in future technologies, some of which have a long gestation period? Does she also agree that, as part of that, it is important that we show our commitment by continuing to give support to interim technologies?
  Dawn Primarolo: I am sure that my hon. Friend is fully aware of the importance of the research and development tax credit for innovation in any industry, and that its extension to the small and medium-sized enterprises has been crucial in ensuring that those ideas continue to be funded and developed. We keep the R and D tax credit continually under review, and the definition of it has reduced the maximum expenditure necessary to qualify for that tax credit. I will continue to look closely at its operation, to ensure that industry is rewarded for innovation and development and that the tax system encourages that.
  Mr. David RuffleyIs the Minister aware that Digby Jones also said recently:
  "Ministers cannot keep siphoning off company funds without damaging investment, productivity and competitiveness. That will reduce the ability for the government to invest in public services—the money will simply not be there."?
  Which part of that statement does the Minister not understand?
  Dawn Primarolo: We are not siphoning off funds, as the hon. Gentleman puts it. [HoN. MEMBERS: "It was Digby Jones."' The Government, in whose consultations Digby Jones is an active participant, want to reform the tax system to support growth, encourage stability, create investment and jobs, allow our businesses to grow and maintain the competitiveness of the British economy. All those things are being done, with stability at the heart of them, and Digby Jones agrees with that.

  World Debt
  8. Stephen Hesford: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on progress the G7 Finance Ministers are making in tackling world debt. [138331]
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): Twenty-seven countries are receiving debt relief that will be worth $70 billion. Of the other 10 and more that are eligible, most are in conflict.
  Stephen Hesford: Given the relative success of the debt relief talks, and the relative failure of the World Trade Organisation negotiations at Cancun, can my right hon. Friend see any possibility of convergence of the twin-track talks in order to benefit post-Cancun negotiations?
  Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who I know takes an interest in these matters. He is absolutely right: the prospects of the developing countries depend not only on debt relief and adequate aid but on their ability to participate in the global economy. What comes out of the world trade talks is therefore crucial to their future. When we met at the International Monetary Fund and World Bank meetings in Dubai a few weeks ago, it was agreed that we should try to do everything that we could to remove the barriers to the resumption of trade talks. That will require Europe to make a move forward on the competition and investment clauses that were preventing agreement and progress. It will also require countries to look very carefully at their proposals on agriculture. I hope to meet the head of the WTO, Dr. Supachai, very soon to discuss what other things can be done by Governments in Europe and elsewhere to help to progress the talks forward, but I agree with my hon. Friend that we must ensure that they resume.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the Chancellor's response. Could he tell us to what extent some of the debt has not been dealt with because of the recalcitrance of the Governments in certain countries about coming up to standard? Does he agree that, at a time when many people live in poverty even in the developed countries, we should not forget that those in the developing countries are much worse off?
  Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I know how much he does in Africa, working with the churches to help countries there to solve some of the problems that are preventing them from delivering decent health and education services to their people. The main reason debt relief has not progressed beyond the 27 countries is that most of the countries that would be eligible are in conflict, about to come out of conflict, or have made a decision to come out of conflict but not yet achieved it. I would bring debt relief up to $100 billion, which was our target, but we cannot sustainably give debt relief at a time when we have no clue as to how those resources would be used.
  If countries come out of conflict, we are prepared to work with them on a restructuring plan so that they can rebuild their infrastructure and, at the same time, get rid of their debts. Conflict is the major barrier to debt relief. Of course we require transparency, and corruption in countries that are eligible for debt relief is a major issue. That is why, at all the recent meetings of the World Bank and the IMF, the emphasis has been on developing countries pursuing an anti-corruption, pro-stability policy to enable them properly to participate in the world economy.
  Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: One way in which the developed world causes debt in the third world is by exporting heavily subsidised agricultural products, which devastates farming in those countries.

  407
  Would it not be a good idea to stop exporting surpluses, start buying more of those countries' food, and begin to seek the abolition of the common agricultural policy?
  Mr. Brown: Agricultural issues are complex, but the basic problem is that agricultural protectionism cannot continue if the countries of which my hon. Friend speaks are to develop. That is why it is incumbent on the European Union and the American Government to make progress by liberalising agriculture and removing what are, in effect, subsidies worth $350 billion—seven times the amount given to the poorest countries in development aid.
  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to push further in the agriculture talks. Agricultural protectionism serves the poorest countries badly, as well as being bad for the environment and bad in other ways. We also need to press on with the international finance facility plan to meet the millennium development goals. In return for countries' opening up to investment and pursuing stability policies, we must help them to deal with major health and education problems.

  Child Trust Funds
  9. Ms Meg MunnTo ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether building societies and other financial mutual organisations will be providers for the new child trust funds. [138332]
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): Any firm with a relevant Financial Services Authority authorisation will be able to enter the market subject to meeting the requirements of the child trust fund regulations. We expect a wide range of providers to offer accounts.
  Ms Munn: When setting any price cap for child trust funds, will the Government take account of the cost of administering savings for children and the need to raise awareness of the importance of saving? In particular, will they encourage providers to ensure that all families, particularly those with low incomes, benefit from the opportunity to save for their children?
  Ruth Kelly: I agree with my hon. Friend. When I decided to allow all FSA-authorised firms to enter the market, I paid careful attention to the impact on financial mutuals and building societies and decided to allow them to participate as well.
  My hon. Friend is right to mention the price cap. In view of the factors she cites, I have commissioned independent research from Deloitte Touche on the impact of the cap and its interaction with the target market. I shall publish it in due course.
  Mr. David LawsHow much consultation is going on with other Departments? Is it true that the Home Secretary is even less enthusiastic about the Chancellor's proposals than the Chancellor is about his proposals for identity cards?
  Ruth Kelly: I think the hon. Gentleman has completely misinterpreted the Home Secretary's position. He is a firm advocate of child trust funds.
  408
  Indeed, I shared a platform with him in Downing street to discuss the merits of the proposal. We have a once-ina-generation chance to open up opportunities for poor children as well as those from wealthier backgrounds.
  Mr. Nigel Beard: Would my hon. Friend consider allowing parents who are eligible for the savings gateway to pay top-up amounts into the trust funds on the same terms?
  Ruth Kelly: We have considered how to maximise the benefits for children from poorer families. We have decided both to make the policy universal—every child born after a certain date will have access to an endowment—and to concentrate Government resources on those who need them most. We have introduced a two-level endowment, which will apply at birth and when the child reaches the age of seven. Up to 40 per cent. of children will be able to benefit.
  Tim Loughton: Can the Minister answer a question that seems to be causing some confusion among her officials? Will the trust funds be taken into account in the calculation of benefits, and will they affect those benefits?
  Ruth Kelly: We have made it absolutely clear that in the assessment of family benefits for the purpose of calculation, child trust funds will be disallowed.

  Sustainable Development
  10. Mr. Colin Challen: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions have been held with Departments regarding their sustainable development objectives in the forthcoming comprehensive spending round. [138334]
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey): Departments will be required to consider sustainable development as part of the 2004 spending review process, as they were in 2002.
  Mr. Challen: I am sure that my hon. Friend will study very carefully the Environmental Audit Committee report entitled "Greening Government", which was published earlier today. One of its key observations is that the public service agreements in Departments other than the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have hardly any environmentally related targets at all. So will my hon. Friend and the Treasury put pressure on other Departments to increase the number of such targets in the next comprehensive spending review?
  John Healey: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's work on the Environmental Audit Committee, and to the work of the Committee itself. I should point out that we already have 14 departmental PSAs, deriving from the 2002 spending review, that incorporate sustainable development. But I shall indeed study his Committee's report carefully, and I will consider the case that he makes about targets. I shall of course then respond to the Committee, in full, in the normal way.

  World Debt
  Valerie Davey: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with African Finance Ministers on debt and the millennium development targets. [1383351]
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): To meet the millennium development goals, which include primary education for all by 2015 and the halving of poverty, we propose, in addition to the debt relief that we have given, the creation of an international finance facility that will provide $50 billion in additional finance per year. I am grateful to all parties in this House for their support for this proposal.
  Valerie Davey: Many of my constituents especially value my right hon. Friend's commitment to this aspect of his work. Will he further explain the extent of the Government's support for development projects in Africa?
  Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend takes a very keen interest in this issue and I thank her for that. We will raise aid to Africa to £1 billion a year, and that will be achieved before completion of this spending review, as the International Development Secretary announced last week. So more of the aid money that is being raised anyway is going to Africa, and more is going to antipoverty programmes such as tackling illiteracy and tackling ill health. I believe that the partnership for Africa initiative is the right way forward, whereby, in return for African countries tackling corruption, pursuing policies for stability and opening up to investment, we provide the resources to enable them to tackle their problems. At the moment, the chances of meeting the millennium development goals are slim, unless we get the additional finance that we are proposing, through the international finance facility. So I hope that not only politicians but the churches, non-governmental organisations and others interested in the future of Africa will look at this proposal very carefully.
  Richard Ottaway: Following on from that point, if I may, I shall paraphrase one of the millennium goals, which is to stabilise world population growth by choice. The Chancellor will be well aware that the funding levels were agreed at the Cairo international conference on population action, in 1994. In the eyes of many, insufficient funding is going into population programmes; what is more, the question arises of whether it is going to the right agencies. Will the Chancellor undertake to review this matter, so that the millennium goals can be achieved?
  Mr. BrownThis is not strictly a matter for the Treasury, as the hon. Gentleman knows, but I will report what he says to the International Development Secretary, who speaks for us on these matters. But whichever way he looks at it, the hon. Gentleman must know that population is going to rise. It is our duty to make sure that there is growth in African countries and in other developing countries by working with them to achieve the conditions for that growth. Such conditions include tackling corruption, ensuring macro-economic stability, and opening up to trade and investment. That
  410
  is what the Monterrey consensus was all about, but it will be achieved through partnership. In return, we must help those countries to solve the problems of HIV/ AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria; indeed, 2 million people a year are dying from tuberculosis, and 1 million are dying from malaria.
  Such problems are soluble, but those countries need the capacity to build health care systems, and in the end, they need the money that only the richest countries can provide at this stage. That is why the international finance facility— supported enthusiastically, I hope, on both sides of this House —can be useful not only if we can persuade other countries around the world to adopt it, but if we can work with Africa to implement it.
  Lawrie Quinn: On my right hon. Friend's discussions with African Finance Ministers, what is his assessment of the priority that they are giving to the need to ensure that every child in Africa gets at least primary-level education?
  Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has taken a huge interest in these matters. I met many African Finance Ministers only a few weeks ago under the chairmanship of the French Finance Minister, Mr. Mer. There will also be a meeting of African Finance Ministers in Paris in February to discuss the international finance facility. The priority attached to primary education is shown by the fact that 65 per cent. of the money released from debt relief is going into education and health. Uganda, for example, has made primary education free, which has increased enrolment by more than 50 per cent. in recent years. There are 120 million children around the world who do not go to school, but that problem can be overcome with an investment of about $10 billion a year, which is not a huge sum if the international community acts together. I believe that we should be prepared to make that finance available.
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: This is a very important question, and I am delighted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is answering it. Could he advise the House and me what particular discussions he has had with African Ministers about the deteriorating and highly serious problem in Zimbabwe, not least because it is currently excluded from the Commonwealth? Dreadful problems are occurring in that country, and debt is rising. Could he tell the House what we are seeking to do to help the hard-pressed people of Zimbabwe?
  Mr. Brown: I discuss that matter regularly with Finance Ministers around Africa, but the hon. Gentleman will understand that the precise policies pursued by the Government are a matter for the Foreign Secretary, who will discuss these matters with the rest of the Commonwealth very soon. I met the South African Finance Minister only a few weeks ago and that subject was on the agenda. One significant problem is that HIV/AIDS affects the whole of the southern part of Africa—24 million people in Africa either are infected or are likely to be infected. Some initiatives, including one through the WTO, have been taken on pharmaceuticals, and have proved beneficial. The hon. Gentleman knows that there is a long way to go, and we

  411
  need all-party co-operation here and the help of other countries so that we can increase the resources and the capacity of health care systems to cope.

  World Bank/IMF
  12. Ann McKechin: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on new agreements arising from the annual World Bank and International Monetary Fund meetings to allow greater diversity and representation of poor countries on the boards of (a) the World Bank and (b) the IMF. [138336]
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng): The Government welcome recent developments at the Dubai annual meetings, when Ministers committed themselves to improve the capacity of developing country representatives and asked the World Bank and the IMF to look further at those countries' level of representation within those institutions.
  Ann McKechin: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. However, does he agree that, if the IMF and World Bank are to take decisions that best reflect the development needs of the world's poorest nations, there is a need for a better balance between richer and poorer nations in the voting structure? The WTO, for example, allows for equal votes, and the voice of the developing nations is now being heard loud and clear.
  Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend, who takes a close interest in these matters, makes a very fair point about the balance of representation. That is why we are working to achieve a consensus in that regard, building on the pledge in our White Paper of 2000 and on the progress made at Monterrey. Building consensus is not easy, but we believe that a 25th seat on the IMF and the World Bank's board for sub-Saharan Africa is an option that ought to be explored and given serious consideration. We are working hard to that end.
  Mr. John Battle: My right hon. Friend will know that at the present rate of international aid, six out of eight of the millennium development goals are unlikely to be met until half way through the next century. What conversations have taken place at the IMF and World Bank to give support to the Chancellor's initiative for an international finance facility, which would boost immediate assistance and help to get those targets back on track?
  Mr. Boateng: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor works closely with others on those issues, not least with the faith communities, which have a crucial role to play.
  412
  That is why the recently announced support of the Vatican and His Holiness for the IFF was a particular help in taking that agenda forward. The issue was discussed recently with leaders of the World Bank and the IMF in Madrid. As a result of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's initiative, the World Bank and the IMF are carrying out studies and we are hopeful of increasing recognition on the part of donor nations that we have to do more and that the IFF is our best hope of achieving that. The example that this House sets of genuine bipartisan support for that mechanism is one that other nations, especially donor nations, might well follow.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Treasury Ministers have an outstanding record in helping developing countries, but is that record being damaged in any way by the increasing commitments to Iraq and, in particular, are the reports—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. My apologies for interrupting, but we have arrived at question 15. The hon. Gentleman should ask the Minister for the reply to that question.
  Mr. Boateng: I take the point that the Father of the House makes and—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. On the Order Paper, we have reached question 15. Question 14 has been withdrawn.

  Iraq
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his Answer of 30th October to the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson), Official Report,column 311W, on Iraq, when he expects to be able to provide the total cost of the military campaign in Iraq. [138340]
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng): The Chancellor announced in the Budget that £3 billion has been set aside to cover the cost of operations in Iraq. It would be premature to anticipate the total cost of the military operations at this time.
  Mr. Dalyell: Is it true that the commitment to the Amazon rainforest and other developing country commitments have been seriously damaged by an increasing commitment to the finances for Iraq?
  Mr. Boateng: No, the project that we are funding will be completed, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has made clear. No announcements that we have made in relation to Iraq, and the funding of operations there, will affect the UK's firm commitment to increase aid in poor countries. That we are determined to do and are doing. I welcome the support of the Father of the House for that objective.

Business of the House
12.31 pm
Mr. Oliver Heald: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 17 NOVEMBER—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Courts Bill [Lords],followed by money resolution relating to the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill, followed, if necessary, by further Commons consideration of Lords amendments.
TUESDAY 18 NovEMBER—Consideration of Lords amendments, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill, followed, if necessary, by further consideration of Lords amendments.
WEDNESDAY 19 NOVEMBER—Consideration of Lords amendments. Consideration of Lords amendments to the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, followed, if necessary, by further consideration of Lords amendments.
THURSDAY 20 NOVEMBER—Consideration of Lords amendments.
The House will be prorogued when Royal Assent to all Acts has been signified.
The House may like to be reminded that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just announced that the pre-Budget report will be on Wednesday 10 December.
Mr. Heald: May I begin by paying a warm tribute to my predecessor? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Apparently, several other right hon. and hon. Members wish to join in that tribute. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) brought his own inimitable style to these occasions. He apologises for not being here today, but he is at another parliamentary occasion. However, he promises that he will be back on these occasions, week after week. I cannot promise that I will tease the Leader of the House as much as my right hon. Friend did, but I will try to hold the right hon. Gentleman just as firmly to account.
Last week, the Leader of the House was asked whether arrangements could be made for the President of the United States to address both Houses of Parliament. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the House has the right to expect such an event, and will he explain what is being done about that?
On a more sombre note, the right hon. Gentleman will have seen the widespread reports about the handling of child abuse allegations in Islington and, more particularly, the insulting and demeaning way in which victims have been treated. May we have an urgent debate on that vital issue?
The local government settlement is a matter of great concern among hon. Members on both sides of the House, especially following the swingeing increases in council taxes that were forced on local authorities last
414
year. The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Local Government Association has already warned that next year there will be increases of more than 100 per home. Will he tell the House, therefore, whether that statement will be given next Tuesday, so that hon. Members may prepare? Will he accept a plea from me that it should not be given on Wednesday, when the business of the House will be taken up with contentious and difficult matters?
Last week, workers who had lost their pensions and whose employers are insolvent held a meeting at the House. It was organised on an all-party basis, and workers, including workers from the former Allied Steel and Wire in Cardiff, gave moving accounts of how they had lost their life savings. On that occasion, the Minister for Pensions said that he was considering the matter. May we have a statement and a debate in Government time on what the Government are prepared to do to help them?
Finally, I want to ask about the Government's controversial identification card scheme—not the one for people, but the one for horses and donkeys. The Horse Passports (England) regulations were laid on 4 November, and are due to come into force on 30 November. I understand that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has not been able to consider the regulations. What advice does the Leader of the House have for Britain's horse and donkey owners? Should they trot off to obtain a passport, or should they rein back and await further news? I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor would have been extremely concerned about the problem.
Mr. Hain: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, I understand that the problem is that we cannot get horses into photo booths.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new post. I shall not offer him my full support, however, as I did that last week to his predecessor and it proved fatal. Even so, I join the hon. Gentleman in paying a warm tribute to his predecessor, who is a real treasure in the House of Commons. I look forward to him terrorising me from the Back Benches, just as he did from the Front Bench.
I should note that, these days, it is very hard not to be a Front Bencher in the Conservative parliamentary party. The sketch writer for The Guardian, Simon Hoggart, wrote earlier this week:
"If you cut the ex-leaders, the very old and the certifiably insane, you need to have something startlingly wrong with you not be a Tory frontbencher these days."
The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) asked some specific questions. He pointed out, rightly, that the question of President Bush's very important visit has been raised before. I am not in a position to say whether the President will address both Houses. That is a matter for the palace, and the question of security must be considered, as the hon. Gentleman will understand. However, the day before yesterday was 11 November—Remembrance day. We must remember that America, one of our closest allies, stood solidly by us when this country faced one of its darkest hours in the fight against the Nazis. If it had not done so, it is possible that we in the House of Commons would not enjoy our current freedom. That is the context in which we should greet the state visit by the President of the United States.

415
The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire also asked about the difficulties of child abuse in Islington many years ago. Under the Minister for Children, in the past few months the Government have put together a policy that is the most rigorous and radical protection of children's rights that any Government of this country have ever devised. We intend to take that important policy forward.
The intention is that a statement on local authority settlements will be made next Wednesday. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire will understand that all days are potentially busy at this especially fraught time of year, shortly before prorogation. Therefore, I do not accept that it would be better to have the statement on one day or another.
The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire is right that the question of pensions and insolvencies is very serious. I know, from my personal knowledge as Secretary of State for Wales, that the plight of the ASW workers in Cardiff is very serious. The Government want to offer what help we can, and we are introducing new legislation to that end on the back of the pensions Green Paper. I hope that the proposals will have the support of the Conservative Opposition.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, earlier this week the Home Secretary made a statement on the general question of identity cards.
Mr. Paul Tyler: I warmly welcome the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) to his new post. There are now so many part-time spokesmen in the Conservative shadow Cabinet, but I notice that he is not addressing his questions to the part-time Leader of the House any more. That is perhaps a relief to the Leader of the House.
What is the position on the House of Lords reform? Last Friday the Secretary of State for Health announced that the House of Lords was not entitled to amend the foundation hospitals Bill because its Members were "unelected". When and how do the Government propose to redress that defect? Does the Leader of the House recognise that, since it was not a manifesto commitment, nobody has been elected to support those proposals in either House?
Will the right hon. Gentleman elaborate on the exchange of correspondence that was published yesterday between the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), the Chairman of the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform? I am sure that the Leader of the House has taken a close interest in the correspondence, and will have noted that the Secretary of State told the Committee that it could now consider not just the proposals made by the Government, including those in the consultation paper of 18 September, but any other proposals that it deems appropriate to the reform of the House of Lords. When will that take place? When will there be an opportunity for the House to discuss a motion on the remit of that Committee, if it is to continue? Is that the vote that, on 29 October, the Prime Minister referred to as a free vote on both sides of the House, or is the free vote for some other purpose? Will
416
it be, for example, on the Second Reading of the Bill that the Government propose to introduce? When will there be an open debate on an amendable motion and a free vote on the whole subject to which the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor referred?
The Extradition Bill will come before us in a few minutes' time. Is the Leader of the House aware that the amendments have only just arrived in the Vote Office? These circumstances arise every year and the Leader of the House referred to them just now. At this time of the Session, we are given so many amendments to consider in such a short time that the business of the House is indigestible. Will he give that consideration' and recognise before this situation arises next year that there must be a review of the amount of legislation that is pushed through at this time of the year?
Mr. Hain: I will certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's last point. Obviously, the House wants an opportunity to look at all amendments carefully and give them proper scrutiny. Pre-legislative scrutiny helps generally.
On House of Lords reform, I voted, possibly with the hon. Gentleman, for a fully elected second chamber. He will have to wait with bated breath to see what may be in the Queen's Speech in that respect. I will certainly consider the correspondence issue carefully.
The hon. Gentleman should not misinterpret what the Prime Minister said about a free vote. He did not say that there would be a free vote on any forthcoming legislation to abolish the right of the hereditaries to vote in the House of Lords; he was referring to the free vote that took place earlier this year. As the hon. Gentleman knows, to my regret, there was no conclusive outcome. In those circumstances, another free vote so soon afterwards would not be profitable.
Mr. Harry Barnes: When people have a stroke, not everyone is fortunate enough to be taken by the Speaker and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to the nearest accident and emergency unit to be treated in a specialist unit. Is my right hon. Friend aware that today the Stroke Association has launched a campaign, "Why are we Waiting?" to highlight the need for specialist stroke units to be added to hospitals throughout the country? The Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), claims that next year 94 per cent. of hospitals will have stroke units, but the Stroke Association disputes that. It feels that the Government are not meeting their national service framework provision for all people. This would be a good topic to debate, when we could sort out the statistics and discover whether the Department of Health is spinning this matter too far.
Mr. HainI join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Stroke Association on its commendable and important work. I am grateful to him for raising the matter. As he implied, the Under-Secretary said recently:
"We take services for stroke patients very seriously and are working hard to improve the care patients receive in hospital…By April next year, 171 out of 181 hospitals will be providing specialist stroke services with a team of dedicated health professionals in place with expertise in this area."
Mr.AndrewMackay: Why is the Minister for Children not coming to the House next week to

417
make a statement, in the light of the serious letter that she wrote to Gavyn Davies, the chairman of the BBC, in which she blackened a courageous whistleblower who brought to light the dreadful cases of child abuse in Islington that she so ignored when she was its leader?
Mr. Hain: I was expecting the right hon. Gentleman to raise that question, as he has pursued it tirelessly, week after week after week. What it cannot be allowed to obscure, however, is the Government's excellent record in providing additional rights, extra protection and additional investment for children: for example, the sure start programme, which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children was instrumental in bringing forward; significant rises in child benefit; successful literacy and numeracy strategies; and the "Every Child Matters" Green Paper, in the launch of which my right hon. Friend was involved. That is the important policy agenda. The Government's record on a joined-up children's policy is better than that of any of our predecessors.
Mrs. Louise Ellman: The Leader of the House may be aware that in Liverpool this morning the chief constable of Sussex made a public apology to my constituents, the Ashley family, concerning the killing of James Ashley five years ago during a bungled police raid. Will the Leader of the House ensure that both the Wilding and Hoddinot reports on that matter are given full public scrutiny and exposure? Will he take all possible steps to ensure that such an incident never happens again and that the subsequent attempts to cover it up and to discredit the people involved can never happen in future?
Mr. Hain: I welcome my hon. Friend's question. A repeat of such a dreadful tragedy should never be allowed. I commend the chief constable for taking that unusual initiative and travelling that distance to try at least to put the matter to rest and to assure the family that the police service is genuinely apologetic.
Mr. Michael Jack: This week, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs organised a presentation and a press conference to launch Lord Haskins' report proposing ideas for the most fundamental reorganisation of rural services for many years. In that context, the House was ignored. Will the Leader of the House look at the situation again and ensure that the Secretary of State comes to the House to make a statement, or that there is a debate in Government time, to enable all Members with an interest in the delivery of rural services to probe and evaluate those fundamental proposals from Lord Haskins?
Mr. Hain: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is always accountable to the House and would not want in any way to divert attention from or hide important reports such as that of Lord Haskins. On the contrary, she has already said that she wants to hold a debate when the Government have had time to consider the report. However, I acknowledge the right hon. Gentleman's expertise and interest in the matter, as, I am sure, will my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: In the interests of balance, will the Leader of the House accept that not
418
everybody in the House wants George Bush to address the Houses of Parliament? In fact, a considerable number of us—many are not in the Chamber at present —would be glad if he was not coming at all. Will the Leader of the House convey to the powers that be at the White House, and at the palace if necessary, that it would be in Bush's interests not to turn up? There are going to be some demonstrations, and that will not go down well at the White House and the Pentagon. Finally, what is the point of it, because he will not get any decent photo opportunities at the palace at present?
Mr. Hain: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, very much indeed for that question.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Answer it then.
Mr. Hain: Indeed—I am about to do so.
The state visit has been long arranged. The President of the United States is the president of an important ally, and his visit should be treated properly in that context. Of course, as my hon. Friend implies, people have the right to exercise their freedom to demonstrate peacefully. He will also understand that, in view of regular terrorist threats over the past few years, as well as actual terrorist attacks, the security around the visit is a very important matter, and I am sure that he will want to take that into account.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: The Leader of the House, as a Cabinet Minister, chairs an important Select Committee: the Modernisation Committee. I —one of the 49 per cent. of the main Opposition party who are not members of a shadow team—chair the Procedure Committee. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will indicate why he believes that that is so.
What thought is the right hon. Gentleman giving to the revised hours of the House, because he is aware that important Select Committees are finding it difficult to meet when the House is not meeting or when important debates are taking place in the Chamber? I refer particularly to the fact that both the Procedure Committee and the Modernisation Committee meet on the same afternoon. Is it not possible to make a better arrangement, whereby hon. Members who are interested in what goes on in the Chamber can also fully participate in the important work of Select Committees?
Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman does important work on behalf of the Procedure Committee. I well understand his point and I have it in mind to discuss it with him and other hon. Members.
I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman is not on the Front Bench, because he is most certainly not one of those whom The Guardian reported as being certifiably insane. On the contrary, he ought to be a rising star in the Conservative party, and his long experience on the Back Benches would add extra weight and extra credibility, which is badly needed on the new Tory Front Bench.
Keith Vaz: May we have an urgent debate on the availability on the national health service of the Prevenar vaccine, which, as my right hon. Friend

419
will know, is used to treat pneumococcal meningitis in children? I have been sent details of case of a two-year-old child who died because he did not receive the vaccine, which is readily available in America and Europe, but not in this country. May we have an urgent debate on this matter so that we can put that right?
Mr. Hain: That is obviously a very serious incident, and I understand why my hon. Friend raises it. I am sure that those responsible in the Government will want to take careful account of it, particularly as he raises it on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Adrian Flook: The Leader of the House may not be aware of the impending havoc in university admissions that is forecast for October 2005 because of the Government's proposals to introduce top-up fees. Many current year 12 or lower sixth form students who may have been expected to finish their A-levels in June 2005 and take a gap year will not take that gap year, which will create a logjam in October 2005. The Government have written to me saying that they have no plan to introduce any special arrangement to resolve that problem. Does he not think that the House should debate the Government's intransigence on this matter?
Mr. Hain: The Secretary of State for Education and Skills is well aware of the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises, but may I ask whether he supports the policy, advocated by those on the Conservative Front Bench, of depriving up to 100,000 students of the chance to get a university education?
Mr. Flook indicated assent.
Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman does support that policy, so he would deprive many potential students in his and every other constituency of the chance to go to university. That is the issue that he should be concerned about, and he should back the Government's policy of expanding university education and preventing universities from getting into precisely the kind of financial mess that they were in when we inherited our dreadful legacy in 1997.
Jim Knight: The Leader of the House will be aware that Royal Mail announced today that it was back in profit, which is good news, but that is an unfortunate coincidence for me as it coincides with a notice from Royal Mail saying that seven of the 16 post offices in Weymouth are due for closure. Will the Leader of the House agree to allow us to debate the closure of sub-post offices in areas such as mine, especially as it appears that sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses have already been asked to sign a contract agreeing to the closures even before the consultation has begun? All hon. Members are concerned about the elderly, the infirm and the immobile being able to gain access to local post offices when so many are closing in places such as Weymouth.
Mr. Hain: I very much sympathise with my hon. Friend's expression of concern. If those closures occur
420
in his constituency, it would undoubtedly be a real problem, not just for him and the House, but for his constituents. As I have said before, there has been a long-term trend under the previous Government and under us of local post offices being unable to survive in today's consumer climate, in which people make different choices. I very much regret that because, for example, in my own village, Resolven in the Neath valley, we have a local post office that is a centre of the community. It is important that as many local post offices as possible survive, and the Government are working to achieve that.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Following the disgraceful but not untypical failure of the Prime Minister yesterday to answer questions about the cost of running the Government and the recently published figures that show that the cost of running government has increased by a massive 50 per cent. since 1997, may we have a whole-day debate in Government time that draws on past, as well as present, examples of waste and inefficiencies under Labour Governments?
Mr. Hain: One of the wastes and inefficiencies under this Labour Government has been the huge taxpayer subsidy to the Conservative party. Over the past year, the Conservatives have received more in subsidy than they have raised in private donations. They have received £4 million of taxpayers' support, and have raised £3.5 million from private donations. That is an absolutely outrageous waste of public money, which ought to be addressed.
Mr. Heald: Would you take the Short money?
Mr. Hain: Indeed, I am happy to support that. Political parties in trouble ought to get all the help they can.
On the overall staff figures in the civil service, is the hon. Gentleman saying that, for example, the 4,000 extra staff recruited to tackle the problem of asylum seeking, which the leader of the Conservative party bequeathed to us from his time as Home Secretary—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Asylum policy was a real mess. We have had to recruit more people to combat that problem; as a result, the number of asylum applications is decreasing and the problem is being tackled seriously. Some 3,000 people have been recruited to organise the new deal, which has offered job opportunities to about 800,000 people. Is he saying that those people should be given the sack?
The truth is that we are addressing efficiency in the civil service. As a result of the Lyons review, which we set up, we are also ensuring that 20,000 jobs are shifted from London to the rest of the country—so there is a better opportunity to disperse civil service jobs. The hon. Gentleman should be asking those questions, rather than the spurious ones that he asked.
Mr. Alan Meale: Will the Leader of the House consider allowing time to debate the excellent work done by trading standards officers throughout the length and breadth of Britain, especially as we are approaching the festive season? As part of that debate,

421
perhaps we might also consider the problem of junk mail, which is already pouring through people's letterboxes all over the United Kingdom.
Mr. Hain: I guess that in the coming months more junk mail will pour through people's letterboxes from the new leader of the Conservative party. I am sure that it will go straight into the bin, along with the rest of the junk mail.
Trading standards officers do a valuable job, and I commend my hon. Friend for drawing the House's attention to that and for allowing us to support the work that they do.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Dr. Julian Brazier.
Mr. Julian Brazier: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am not a doctor, but I am flattered that you should think so.
May I press the Leader of the House for an early debate on the closure of so many local jobcentres? In Kent alone we are faced with the loss of three, including the essential one on Whitstable high street. Those centres are vital to many of the most vulnerable people in our communities—not only youngsters who may otherwise get into trouble but many disabled older people. Will the Leader of the House also look at the disgraceful way in which money is being put into posts for full-time public sector officials to work with the disabled in areas where voluntary organisations such as the Shaw trust are working far more cost-effectively than any public sector body?
Mr. Hain: Obviously, we want a balance between the excellent work of voluntary groups such as the Shaw trust and Government support provided through public subsidy for officials to help take that work forward. Unless this is one of the candidates for the 20 per cent. Conservative cuts—
Mr. Brazier: Yes, cuts in administration.
Mr. Hain: Ah, I see. The hon. Gentleman wants the further support that we have provided withdrawn from some of the most vulnerable groups in our communities.
On the wider issue what was it?
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Phil Woolas): Jobcentres.
Mr. Hain: Yes, jobcentres. As the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) will know, the Government are seeking to bring together benefits agencies with jobcentres, and I guess that that must at least in part be the explanation for the issue that he raises. It is a sensible thing to do, and I should have thought that he would support a one-stop shop to provide people with the opportunity to come off benefit and welfare into work in a way that record numbers of people are doing and have done under this Government. Employment is now at its highest ever, unemployment is at its lowest for a generation, and people who have not been able to get work because they have been caught between benefit and job opportunities are now getting the chance to
422
work and the extra hope and opportunity that that brings. The hon. Gentleman should be applauding that, not criticising it.
Mr. Jim Cunningham: May I ask my right hon. Friend when we shall have a date for a decision on the location of new airports in this country? I am sure that he will be aware that there is widespread concern in Coventry and in Warwickshire regarding a proposed airport for Rugby. May we have a date for that decision?
Mr. Hain: This is obviously a matter that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is actively considering. I know that my hon. Friend is a champion of airports in his area, and the Secretary of State is well aware of the importance that he attaches to those airports, and of the important role that they play in the region.
Tim Loughton: The Leader of the House has dealt very lightly with the concerns of my hon. Friends about the Minister for Children. The problem is that the last four or five months of her tenure in office have been completely bedevilled by her fighting rearguard actions about her suitability for that post, which has been seriously called into question by her irrational remarks this week. If the Leader of the House is so convinced that his Government now have the most rigorous policy on child protection, why cannot we have a debate on it? May I remind him that in the 10 months since Lord Laming produced his report on 28 January, there has been not a single debate in Government time on child protection matters? There was one statement on the Green Paper on 8 September, which lacked an awful lot of detail. If he is so impressed by his policy, cannot we have a debate in the House and put it to the test properly?
Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot anticipate at this stage what will come in the Queen's Speech. I assure him, however, that over the course of the coming year or so the work that was initiated in the Green Paper on children's rights, into which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children put a great deal of work, will be debated fully in the House, and he will have every opportunity to raise whatever issues he wants.
Mr. John Battle: Since I entered the House in 1987, I have been campaigning for victims and their families who suffered from asbestos pollution in my constituency. In the 1990s, we won a court case to prove that the company was liable. The company was then bought by an American company, Federal Mogul, which bought the parent company, Turner and Newell. Some three years ago, that American company put the whole operation in Britain into liquidation to avoid paying out to the families and their victims. We now learn that the administrators have in the last two years received £75 million from the funds—the victims have received nothing. I refer my right hon. Friend to the early-day motion tabled on this subject, and I ask the House and the Government to have a discussion on this

423
matter and to look into the responsibilities of corporate insurance. This issue affects hundreds of thousands of our constituents who suffer from asbestos pollution.
Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend has championed this cause—I am grateful to him because it is an issue that affects everyone—as he has championed many other causes both in his present role as a Back Bencher and in his distinguished ministerial career. On this particular issue, I shall consider his request. He has other opportunities to apply for a debate, and it would be good to give the issue an airing.
Mr. Richard Bacon: Given that the Treasury private finance initiative building incurred professional fees of £25,303,000, which is more than 20 per cent. of the total construction cost of the building, and the Home Office, for its PFI project, paid £2 million to the contractor for the insertion of a refinancing clause that should have been included anyway, can we have a debate next week in Government time on the Government's relationship with its PFI contractors? At the moment, it looks as though the contractors are running rings around this Government.
Mr. Hain: I do not accept that for a moment. I do not anticipate an early debate, but the hon. Gentleman is welcome to apply for one if he wishes.
Mr. David Wat: May I inform my right hon. Friend that there is still major confusion about the future of the west coast main line, with Ministers, the regulator, the Strategic Rail Authority and Virgin all saying different things? Can he arrange for the Secretary of State for Transport to come to the House to clarify whether he is still committed to the full modernisation of the west coast main line by 2005 to Liverpool, and by 2008 to Scotland? It would be an opportunity to clear up some of the confusion that now arises over the scheme.
Mr. Hain: I will certainly ensure that the Secretary of State understands my hon. Friend's point. I know that my hon. Friend will also want to commend my right hon. Friend, however, on the expert way in which he is driving forward unprecedented investment in railway stock and in the railways, to try to deliver the first-class railway service that this country needs but of which it has been deprived for many long years, not least because of the abject failure of the Conservative party in government to invest in the railway system.
Bob Spink: May we have a debate on the impact of overdevelopment in the south-east, which has been forced on us, against the people's wishes, by the Deputy Prime Minister? We could consider the impact of that overdevelopment on communities such as Castle Point, where the quality of life is already severely affected by congestion and by the lack of investment in our infrastructure.
Mr. Hain: The Government are very concerned about congestion in the south-east and are taking action to do what we can to address it in terms of modernisation of
424
our transport system and planning policy. The hon. Gentleman will understand, however, that powerful economic forces are at work in the south-east of England, which has been booming for a number of years. That is at the root of the problem. It is not easy to resolve that with any quick fixes.
Mr. Parmjit Dhanda: Is my right hon. Friend aware of my constituents, Mills and Poole, who served 13 years in prison for a murder that they did not commit? From answers to written questions over recent weeks, I understand that there are 58 people in this land in a similar position, who are waiting 182 days on average before their eligibility for compensation is assessed, and there are further processes to take place before they receive their compensation. That is a long time to wait for an interim compensation payment in relation to a crime that those people did not commit. Can my right hon. Friend prevail on the Home Office to make a statement on this issue?
Mr. Hain: One hundred and eighty-two days is indeed a very long time to wait. My hon. Friend will obviously understand that these claims must be properly assessed to conform to the correct procedures. I commend him on raising this matter, and I am sure that the Home Secretary will want to respond and look at the matter urgently, because it is a real concern, as he said.
Mr. Andrew Rosindell: The Leader of the House will be aware that we have regular opportunities to debate the affairs of Northern Ireland. Wales and Scotland. Although the House of Commons makes laws and decisions that affect the British overseas territories and the Crown dependencies, no debate ever takes place on those territories for which we are responsible. Will the Leader of the House allow the House to have an annual debate on the overseas territories so that we may discuss issues that relate to them, bearing in mind that the people who live there have no elected representation in the British Parliament?
Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman, of course, has the opportunity to apply for an Adjournment debate on a range of issues, and that subject could be one of them, if he wished.
Mr. Martin Salter: Will the Leader of the House give us some indication of when we shall have the opportunity to debate the higher education Bill and the flawed plans—in my view—to introduce student top-up fees?
Mr. Hain: We will obviously find time to discuss the matter and, indeed, it has been discussed regularly in Education questions and when the Secretary of State made his statement. I am sure that my hon. Friend would want to join me in opposing any policy that the Government could adopt that would echo the Conservatives' policy of denying at least 100,000 students the opportunity to study at university while plunging our universities into the financial chaos from which we have rescued them since we have been in government.
PaulFlynn: When can we discuss early-day motion 1902, which congratulates the

425
Government on their courageous and far-sighted proposals on identity cards, which will deal with the serious and growing problems of identity theft and fraud?
[That this House congratulates the Government on its far-sighted proposal to deal with the growing problems of identity theft and fraud; believes that conscientious objections to identity cards on the basis of liberty and privacy can be overcome by the use of zero knowledge protocol which will allow speedy identification while biometrically protecting confidential information which will not be stored on a central database; and is convinced that this protocol will make identity cards acceptable by also providing new access to services for users.]
The EDM urges the Government to examine ways in which objections on conscientious grounds about liberty and confidentiality could be overcome by using zero knowledge protocols, which would biometrically protect the confidentiality of the information and avoid the use of a central database. With that system in place, virtually all the objections to identity cards could be overcome.
Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend makes a very interesting point. As he knows, the Home Secretary announced the Government's intention to proceed with consulting on and taking forward a programme to introduce identity cards. He also knows that we are effectively a long way down that road, given the need for biometrics on driving licences and passports that is coming up. I am informed that it might not be possible to get into the United States of America in one or two years unless one carries a biometric because that is one of the security measures that the country is introducing. The Home Secretary will obviously consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.
Mr. Clive Betts: I am sure that the Leader of the House recognises that we in Sheffield warmly welcome the substantial increases in funding for the national health service, which has produced improvements in the treatment of cancer, heart disease and other illnesses. However, I hope that he will arrange a debate on the priority—some would say the lack of priority given to mental health services. The Sheffield community health trust recently announced an overspend for this year of £650,000, which has led to the partial temporary closure of a brand new respite care unit, among other things. We also have no 24-hour crisis intervention service in the city and there is inadequate funding for adult outreach services and early intervention services for young people. Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate so that we can give publicity to those issues and hopefully get more priority for those services?
Mr. Hain: Obviously, the issues to which my hon. Friend draws our attention are of concern and he will want to pursue them as a constituency MP. I am sure that he will agree that the Government have accorded mental health the status of being one of their four main priorities on health policy. There must be delivery across the board throughout the country, so perhaps the issue needs to be considered in the context of his Sheffield constituency.
Mr.DavidKidney: The water framework directive has massive implications for our water quality,
426
supply and cost in addition to much broader environmental implications. The directive must be transposed into national law by the end of 2003. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs officials tell me that our regulations are ready to be published but the House will consider them only under the negative procedure. Does my right hon. Friend think that the matter, which the Select Committee described as hugely important, will merit a full debate in Government time in December when the regulations appear?
Mr. Hain: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter but he will understand that, with the Queen's Speech debate ending in early December and the need to send him and colleagues packing in time for Christmas, it is not possible for me to promise him such a debate.
Mr. John Lyons: Is my right hon. Friend familiar with early-day motion 1793 on the topic of the 60th anniversary of D-day?
[That this House notes that 6th June 2004 will mark the 60th anniversary of the Normandy landings; recognises the sacrifice made by thousands of service personnel on this day and throughout the Second World War; congratulates the Government on issuing free passports for those veterans wishing to travel to France to mark the anniversary but expresses concern at the apparent low key nature in which the United Kingdom Government intends to commemorate this day; and calls on the Government to ensure that the 60th anniversary commemorations are a fitting tribute to the veterans who will attend and honour all those who paid the ultimate sacrifice to protect our freedom.]
Several people raised the matter with me last weekend at Remembrance day services. They want the House to find a proper and sensitive way to commemorate the event, and I think that there would be all-party support for that.
Mr. Hain: I am sure that there would be such support. The Government intend to ensure that the D-day celebrations are an important commemoration of the sacrifices made and the courage shown by those who took part in the D-day operation. I, too, was involved in Remembrance day services. I was greatly moved by the first ever national Welsh Remembrance day service on Sunday, as I am sure was the whole House.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: The House recently decided to pay some Select Committee Chairmen an additional £2,500 a year. However, there is no transparency about the way in which Members get on to Select Committees. Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House hold discussions with his opposite numbers in all political parties represented in the House and place in the Library a memorandum from each party specifying in some detail its procedures for putting Members on Select Committees?
Mr. Hain: This is obviously primarily a matter for the Committee of Selection but my hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion. It would be valuable if the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats—and other parties, no doubt—published details of the way in which they select Committee members. We in the

427
parliamentary Labour party have a transparent procedure. Nominations are invitedߞpeople may nominate themselves—and the names go to our parliamentary committee, which is the Executive of the parliamentary Labour party. Indeed, my hon. Friend sat on that parliamentary committee until a week or two ago. The parliamentary committee recommends names to the full membership of the parliamentary Labour party, so the process is fully transparent and democratic. The Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats should at least match that process and the House should know about their procedures.
Dr. Brian Iddon: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the significant growth of all-party parliamentary groups in this Parliament? The upside of that is that hon. Members can attend meetings of interesting groups but the downside is that pressure is being put on room bookings and attendance at meetings of long-established groups is going down. Has the time come to undertake a review of all-party groups, taking into account the views of all right hon. and hon. Members?
Mr. Hain: I understand the points that my hon. Friend raises, especially about congestion with room bookings. The matter is primarily for the Administration Committee and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards rather than me, but I shall certainly look into it. My hon. Friend might be interested to know that one of the groups that was turned down for all-party group status was the Manchester United football supporters group. Speaking as a Chelsea fan, that gives me great pleasure.
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: We have witnessed widespread failures across the board in all forms of privatisation. We have seen failing companies that work with local education authorities. There have been failures by Railtrack and the whole railway industry. The water industry has failed to invest in sewerage systems that need to be replaced because Victorian sewers are crumbling. There has been widespread failure in almost every area and we have heard comments today about PFI schemes, which are clearly causing problems and are horrendously expensive. Is it not time for my right hon. Friend to grant a thorough debate on the future of privatisation and whether we should think again about going back to proper public investment, which works better and is cheaper and publicly accountable?
Mr. Hain: I am sure that my hon. Friend also acknowledges that the Government have presided over record public investment in our infrastructure, including the areas that he mentioned, and public services. I would not want him to imply that that is not the case—I am sure that he does not. In addition, a great deal of private sector investment has been levered in through PF1s, whatever the problems associated with them—there is one in my county borough council and I know that there are issues to consider. My hon. Friend should not paint such a one-sided picture.
Shona McIsaac: Is it possible to have a debate in Government time, perhaps after the Queen's Speech—I realise there is pressure on next week's business—on the employment figures released this week, which were excellent news? In particular, I should like the debate to focus on the impact of the new deal on youth unemployment in every constituency the length and breadth of the land.
Mr. Hain: It would be very good to find time for such a debate. The Government's record on employment, including the figures announced today, is tremendous, as my hon. Friend implies. We have created a rise in employment of more than 1.6 million. More people are in work now than ever before in Britain's history and unemployment has come down. I am sure that the new deal has been a great success in her constituency, as it has in all constituencies, including mine.
Mr. Heald indicated dissent
Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but the figures speak for themselves. Some 810,000 people have been given job opportunities. The new deal has given many people in my constituency—lone parents. people with disabilities, people who have not worked for a long time and young unemployed people —the chance to work. They now have hope and opportunity. The Conservatives want to plunge those people back into the very despair that they reigned over in their 18 miserable years in office.
Kevin Brennan: We have codes of conduct for civil servants, special advisers, Members of the House and Ministers. Is there not a case for introducing a code of conduct for shadow Ministers, given the real possibility of conflicts of interest, and may we debate that?
Mr. Hain: It is a very interesting idea. Members are, of course, covered by the standards of conduct laid down by the House and set out in the Register of Members' Interests. Ministers are covered by the Government code of conduct, also approved by the House. There is, however, no code of conduct for shadow Ministers. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) may want to consider that, as, indeed, may the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.
Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Leader of the House confirm that the Sessional Orders that apply to the House also apply to access to the building by Members on a specific day when the House is sitting? Will he also confirm that demonstrations have frequently been held outside the Houses of Parliament during parliamentary sittings in the past five years? In light of that, it would be completely unreasonable to disallow a peaceful march to protest against the visit of President Bush next week from going across Westminster bridge and up Whitehall to the rally in Trafalgar square. Will the Leader of the House consult the Home Office on that so that arrangements can be made with the Metropolitan police to facilitate the march? While he is discussing those matters, perhaps

429
President Bush can do a question and answer session with Members of Parliament, because he appears not to be meeting any other members of the public during his visit.
Mr. Hain: I cannot comment on the details of President Bush's visit. Policing and the route of the march are matters for the Home Secretary and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. I emphasise that the Home Secretary has made it clear that people have a right to protest, which will be upheld provided that it is conducted and exercised peacefully.

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

NORTHERN IRELAND
That the Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections and Periods of Suspension) Act 2003 (Consequential Modifications No. 2) Order 2003 (S.I., 2003, No. 2752), dated 28th October 2003, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th October, be approved.—[Gillian Merron.]
Question greed to.

Extradition Bill [Money](No. 2)
Queen's recommendation having been signified—
1.26 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Caroline Flint)rose—
Mr. Nick Hawkins: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that the Extradition Bill only finished in another place at 6.19 pm last night and it is today's main business. Although the Clerks have been most helpful to me and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), as has the Minister's private office, is it possible to bring pressure on the Government so that in future business that finishes in another place the night before is not our main business the following day?
The Government could have listed the Extradition Bill for debate next week, which would have placed much less pressure on servants of the House, such as the Clerks. It would also have enabled the House of Commons Library to brief Opposition Members on what has happened. The Government made significant concessions on points made by both main Opposition parties, but those were only put on the record in another place yesterday. Surely we need a gap between when such important business finishes in another place and when it comes to us, so that proper advice can be taken; otherwise, the Government have an unfair advantage because they know what they are going to propose and it is difficult for the Opposition parties to prepare for it.
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). There is no need for us to be in this highly unsatisfactory situation. The Bill went to Committee in January. As the hon. Gentleman said, matters were, by and large, resolved in the other place, but had that not been the case, we would have been, to all intents and purposes, unable to scrutinise the measures introduced in the other place and the substantial raft of Government amendments passed.
Madam Deputy Speak(Sylvia Heal): I understand the difficulties outlined and the problems experienced by hon. Members and staff of the House in those circumstances, but it is not a matter for the Chair. The arrangements for the business of the House are not part of Mr. Speaker's responsibilities. It may have been more appropriate to raise that issue in business questions when the Leader of House was responding.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is precisely what I did just a few minutes ago. I am surprised that the Leader of the House was not prepared to respond to the points raised.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. The Leader of the House obviously heard what you said and he is present for this exchange. Perhaps the arrangements will be considered differently in future.
1.27 pm
Caroline Flint: I beg to move,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Extradition Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State under the Act.
The House will recall that a money resolution was duly tabled and passed at the conclusion of Second Reading in this House last December. Indeed, it was passed without debate or a Division. However, on closer examination after the Bill had reached another place, we discovered that the money resolution was not comprehensive enough and did not deal with one clause. That clause is clause 154 of the latest print of the Bill or clause 153 of the version of the Bill as it left this House for another place.
The clause deals with people who are extradited to the United Kingdom and then, for whatever reason, either not put on trial or acquitted. It provides that in such circumstances the person concerned can apply to the Secretary of State to have the costs of his or her return travel to the country from which he or she was extradited paid for out of public funds. Something very similar can be found in our existing extradition legislation in section 20 of the Extradition Act 1989.
It is an infrequently used provision. Nevertheless, I am sure that hon. Members will understand why it is desirable. If we are to use public funds to pay for the return travel of those extradited but not convicted, we need a money resolution to cover it. I apologise to the House for the fact that the original money resolution was not drawn widely enough to cover that, but I trust that hon. Members will be forgiving and agree to remedy that deficiency by passing this supplementary money resolution.
1.28 pm
Mr. Hawkins: I repeat what I said in my point of order: I am grateful to the Minister and, in particular, the private secretary and others in her office for their help, given the shortage of time. I have no difficulty agreeing to the money resolution. As the Minister says, it is unfortunate that the matter was not dealt with earlier, but she has apologised to the House on behalf of the Government for that. We would certainly not want to prevent those who are extradited but then not convicted from having the opportunity to apply to public funds for reimbursement. Each case would, of course, be considered on its own merits.
While we are on the subject of the costs incurred by British citizens who are dealt with by courts abroad, will the Minister undertake to look into a related matter? She will probably be aware that in Committee and in another place there was a great deal of discussion about the parallels with the British plane spotters in Greece, even though that was not an extradition case. Whenever any British citizen goes abroad to a face court they may well incur a large expenditure. I recently tabled questions to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), because the British plane spotters who were arrested in Greece and had to
432
surrender bail have not had their money returned. I received a reply only this week in which the Under-Secretary said:
"My right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Attorney-General have made no representations to the Greek Government to ensure repayment of the British plane spotters' bail money.
The Greek court released the bail money on 22 May 2003. One of the 12 has now received his money. The others are currently in dispute with their Greek lawyers, one of whom has taken out an injunction to prevent this money being released until a solution is agreed. This is now a private, legal dispute between the plane spotters and their lawyers."—[0fficial Report,11 November 2003; Vol. 413, c. 205W.]
I realise that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), cannot give me an answer today, but when she is looking at the costs of British subjects who face the courts abroad, particularly people who receive as much publicity as the plane spotters, to whom we shall undoubtedly return when we discuss the substance of the amendments, will she undertake to talk her colleagues in the Foreign Office? The Conservatives believe that it is unacceptable that British citizens who were taking part in a perfectly lawful activity and should never have been arrested in the first place are now substantially out of pocket. According to the answer that I received from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the British Government are not helping them. They need help, and I am sure that the case will again attract a great deal of publicity if the Government do not provide it, so I hope that the Minister will undertake to talk to her right hon. and hon. Friends in the Foreign Office.
1.31 pm
Mr. Carmichael: The Minister well knows that hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and myself, are, by our very nature, forgiving people. We have no difficulty at all with the comprehensive and eminently sensible money resolution.
The hon. Member for Surrey Heath made some interesting, if not necessarily germane, comments about the plane spotters in Greece. If I recall correctly, he has a constituency interest, although I may be wrong. When we first heard about the plane spotters in Committee, there was snow on the ground, but it has now been replaced by autumn leaves. Unfortunately, however, the plane spotters' situation has not been resolved satisfactorily.
1.33 pm
Caroline Flint: I shall raise this issue with my colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. To pick up a comment by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), I have yet to be involved with a piece of legislation in which the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) did not have a constituency interest. He is a diligent constituency MP, and always makes sure that when we are discussing legislation, we have a realistic view of the way in which it affects people outside. I would not be surprised if he mentioned a number of his constituents in our debates today, as it would be quite right to do so.
I welcome the comments made by both hon. Gentlemen. All the main Government amendments were made on Report in the Lords, which finished two

433
weeks ago, and the Government amendments that were considered on Third Reading in the Lords were tabled a week ago, so I hope that there was time to look at them. I was pleased to receive thanks from the hon. Gentlemen for the way in which the Department, particularly my private office, has helped them.
Question put and agreed to.

EXTRADITION BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO. 2)
Motion made, and Question proposed, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002],
That the following provisions shall apply to the Extradition Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 9th December 2002 and 25th March 2003:

Consideration of Lords Amendments
Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Six o'clock.

The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order, namely, Nos. 3, 26, 27, 72, 74, 111, 1 and 2, 4 to 25, 28 to 71, 73, 75 to 110, 112 to 244, and any remaining Lords Amendments.

Subsequent stages
Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question put.

The 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.—[Gillian Merron.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  Extradition Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendment No. 157. If the House agrees to the Lords amendment, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

  Extradition Bill

  PART I WARRANT AND CERTIFICATE
  Lords amendment:No. 3.
  1.35 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Caroline Flint): I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Government amendments (b), (c), (d) and (e).
  Caroline Flint: I invite the House to agree the to the Government amendments to the Lords amendment. We are trying to preserve the spirit of the Lords amendment while, at the same time, using language that is suitable for a piece of UK legislation. We are concerned about the information that an incoming Part 1 warrant should contain. In the Government's view, the Bill is explicit about that, but in another place Members took a different view. In particular, they decided to import wording from the framework decision on the European arrest warrant into the Bill. We have no objection to that in principle, but it is much more sensible to use language that can be readily understood by people in this country, and which has been prepared by our expert parliamentary counsel.
  We therefore propose to remove the requirement that the warrant should contain details of the nature and legal classification of the offence, as well as the applicable statutory provision, replacing it with any provision of the law of the category 1 territory under which the conduct is alleged to constitute an offence. Basically, what does the requesting country think that the person has done, and how is its law applied? I am sure that hon. Members will recognise that that is a slightly neater and more straightforward formulation. I should also make it clear for the avoidance of doubt that there is already a separate requirement to give details of the sentence that could he passed.
  Similarly, we are replacing a description of the circumstances in which the offence was committed with details of the conduct alleged to constitute the offence. It is important that the person's acts, not the reasons why he or she committed the offence, should be clear. The term "circumstances" could lead to confusion. The requirement is therefore expressed more neatly and clearly and in keeping with the way in which our legislation is usually drafted.
  We are seeking to remove one part of the Lords amendment without replacing it—the requirement that the warrant should contain information about the

  435
  degree of participation in the offence by the requested person. I am not sure that I understand what that means or why it is relevant. For extradition purposes, it does not matter whether the person is the ringleader or an accomplice, provided that they are alleged to have committed an extradition offence. For example, it does not matter whether someone was waving a sawn-off shotgun at the bank teller or driving the getaway car— it is the offence that is important. Clearly, the nature of participation may be an important consideration in the eventual trial and determination of sentence, but for the purposes of extradition to another EU country it is not relevant.
  As I have tried to suggest, we have sought to accept the spirit of the amendment made in another place, while ensuring that the drafting is as clear and effective as possible. I invite the House to accept the Government amendments.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: As I said earlier, only this week did the Government say that they were prepared to start to climb down in the face of the defeats that they suffered in another place. Even though it was a last-minute concession, or at least a meeting of the Opposition parties halfway, it was nevertheless welcome. I do not hold the Minister responsible in any way. Her predecessor, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) was very intransigent in Committee, but he has now resumed his role as the Government hard man or deputy Chief Whip. Baroness Scotland met my noble Friend Baroness Anelay of St. Johns, who is my party's spokesperson in another place, only on Tuesday afternoon, and discussed the climb-down that the Government were proposing to make.
  We have found that the Government are meeting us about halfway on this matter. Even though that is welcome, we have said throughout the proceedings on this Bill and in Committees in both Houses that the warrant relating to the extradition of a British citizen to a category 1 country should include detailed and specific information. Of course, the Opposition still have fundamental objections to the concept of the European arrest warrant and the way in which minor administrative judicial officials in other countries, working as investigators, juges d'instruction or the like, may be able to require the extradition of UK citizens, while the British courts will be unable to look behind the warrant. We maintain that objection.
  Yesterday, the Home Secretary referred in his statement on identity cards to the distinguished writer Frederick Forsyth and told us that he regarded him highly as a writer, but not as a political commentator. I regard Mr. Forsyth highly in both capacities, however, and I refer my hon. Friends and those outside the House who take an interest in these matters to his trenchant and accurate comments on this issue. I was reminded of his prescience in looking at the European arrest warrant, as well as the Government's proposed amendments to allow more to be included on the back of it, when I was stuck in traffic yesterday listening to a recording of one of his brilliant Saturday morning Radio 4 essays, which were broadcast before the BBC revealed its bias and took him off the air.
  436
  Unfortunately, despite the strong views on this matter that we expressed in Committee and in another place, the rules constraining today's proceedings allow us to debate only the matters coming from the Lords and the way in which the Government are responding to the defeats that we inflicted on them there. The Government's halfway house proposal is an attempt to soften the blow by ensuring that the warrant contains some details about what the requesting country alleges against the UK citizen. We hope that that may enable challenges if requesting countries make inappropriate requests and the warrant is clearly defective because it does not provide what amendment (a) will require.
  I should stress, however, that that does not entirely allay our fears, and I wish to refer briefly to what my noble Friend Lord Lamont and some other noble Friends said yesterday in another place in furthering the concerns expressed by distinguished jurists and commentators such as Leolin Price, QC, and Torquil Dick Erikson, who have helped us a great deal. Lord Lamont spoke about the difficulty that may arise if British citizens find that they are being summoned abroad on the basis of code Napoleon and corpus juristype requirements. At column 1412 of Hansard,he expressed concern about the way in which British citizens' rights may be trampled on by people investigating matters rather than prosecuting them.
  None the less, the European arrest warrant will now have to contain the details that we regard as equivalent to the legal classification of the offence in question, as set out in the original Opposition amendment and in the European framework decision. We will discuss the list of offences later in respect of Lords amendment No. 236. I understand why the Government do not feel able to include reference to the degree of participation, as we suggested in the original amendment, on which we defeated them. They believe that there is a danger that the question whether somebody was a ringleader, as the Minister puts it, or one of the hangers-on in an offence might cause confusion and create a loophole.
  That is why we have agreed, however reluctantly, to accept the Government's halfway house, but we still feel very strongly that, because extradition cases may now be much more common, as my noble Friend Lord Lamont said yesterday in another place, there may still be occasions on which somebody is arrested and brought before foreign courts without the degree of protection that British citizens have previously been able to expect.
  Mr. Alistair Carmichael: We have had confession and forgiveness from the Minister, and now we apparently have repentance, even though it has come at the eleventh hour, as the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) said. None the less, the Liberal Democrats welcome that repentance, which represents a significant improvement. Indeed, it is a tribute to the manner in which business is done in another place. I should like to observe in passing, however, that it is regrettable that one sometimes has to debate such matters in this place four times before the argument is finally accepted and that it is sometimes not the force of argument, but the force of timetabling, that seems to carry the day.

  437
  1.45 pm
  As I said, the safeguards that are being introduced are important and should be included in the Bill. The one significant change that the Government seek to make to the Lords amendment is the exclusion of the reference to the degree of participation. I agree with the hon. Member for Surrey Heath that that represents an improvement to the amendment, which strays from what we wanted the warrant to include and relates to what is properly a matter of evidence. It is important that such distinctions are maintained.
  I commend the Government for having taken the point that was made and improved on it.
  Caroline Flint: I welcome the support of the hon. Members for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael). We try to show that we are a listening Government and ensure that the process of scrutinising legislation—in the case of extradition, it is very detailed legislation—is seen to work, and I commend my noble Friend Baroness Scotland for all her endeavours in that regard.
  Obviously, we want to introduce legislation that clearly respects the rights of British citizens while recognising that the European arrest warrant has huge benefits in terms of securing effective arrests and a more open and transparent way of ensuring that nobody who commits a crime can escape the consequences by crossing a border. The measures in the Bill and the tightening up provided by the amendments will further reassure people about the way in which the European arrest warrant, and consequently extradition, will be applied.
  Government amendments (a) to (d) agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 3, as amended, agreed to.

  CASE WHERE PERSON HAS BEEN CONVICTED
  Lords amendment:No. 26.
  Caroline Flint: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment (a) in lieu thereof, Lords amendment No. 111, Government motion to disagree thereto and Government amendment (a) in lieu thereof.
  Caroline Flint: I invite the House to disagree with the amendments made in another place, and to agree to the amendments in lieu tabled in the name of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I shall seek to demonstrate that we have accepted the substance of the amendments made in another place.
  The Bill contains detailed provisions to cover a situation in which we receive an extradition request for a person convicted in absentia. They reflect the approach that the UK has always adopted, although I should add the rider that in absentia cases are very rare. The Bill provides that, where we receive a request in respect of a person who has been convicted in absentia, the judge, after considering all the main bars to extradition, must decide whether the person deliberately
  438
  absented himself from his trial. Clearly, if the person deliberately absented himself by not turning up for the trial or escaping from custody, he should not be entitled to any special treatment. However, if the judge concludes that the person did not deliberately absent himself, he can order extradition only if the person will be entitled to a retrial or a review amounting to a retrial. The reference to a review is intended simply to reflect the fact that not every other EU country uses the same terminology as we do. However, a review has to have the same features as a retrial in order for extradition to be permissible in those circumstances. A retrial differs from an appeal. An appeal starts from the basis that the original verdict stands unless the court finds to the contrary. A retrial, by contrast, begins with a blank sheet of paper with the case against the person having to be proved afresh.
  That is the background. Let me now say more about the amendments. In another place, the clauses dealing with in absentia convictions were amended to specify more precisely the features that a retrial or a review should include. Three particular features were specified—the right to be present at the trial, the right to call and cross-examine witnesses, and the right to legal aid. There can clearly be no objection of principle to those important features of any fair trial. We think, however, that some improvement could be made to the wording. That is hardly surprising, since the Government, unlike opposition parties, are able to call on the services of our expert parliamentary counsel, who are always there to serve us.
  Accordingly, the Government amendments achieve broadly the same results—but they do so in a slightly different way. They provide that the judge cannot conclude that that which is on offer amounts to a retrial or a review, and therefore cannot order extradition, unless the person has the right to legal assistance or legal aid—if he lacks means—and the right to cross-examine witnesses and call his own witnesses. The wording that we adopted is drawn straight from article 6.3 of the European convention on human rights, so it has an impeccable pedigree.
  On the third right that was dealt with in the amendment passed in another place—the right to be present at the retrial or review we simply do not believe that we can create an absolute right of that kind. As hon. Members will be aware, no such absolute right exists in this country. A judge at a trial has the power to order a person to be removed from the court if he is being abusive or disruptive. Exactly the same is true in other countries. We have to respect that, which is why the Government amendments in lieu do not refer to the right to be present.
  With that explanation, I hope that hon. Members will feel that the Government have gone as far as possible to meet the concerns that were expressed in another place. I therefore invite this House to agree to the Government amendments in lieu of those that were made in another place.
  Mr. Hawkins: Once again, the Government have responded to a defeat that was inflicted on them in another place by my noble Friends, those of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) and one or two Cross Benchers. I agree with the hon.

  439
  Member for Orkney and Shetland that given that the Bill is pretty much a year old—we debated it in Committee as long ago as January—it is a great shame that we finally have these last-minute concessions only because the Government were worried about fighting on too many fronts in the last few days of the Session and did not want a kind of ping-pong between the two Houses on several Bills at once. Nevertheless, the concessions are of course welcome.
  We defeated the Government on these matters in another place on 27 October—the debate starts at column 32 of that day's Hansard. We were seeking to provide further vital protection for UK citizens who may face extradition to countries with legal procedures that are very different from our own. We debated that at length in Committee back in January. Many organisations on both sides of politics—whether Liberty and Justice on one side, or the Freedom Association and the Democracy Movement on the other—expressed great concern about the provisions on the European arrest warrant. Organisations such as Fair Trials Abroad pointed out that because procedures in other countries are so different, the Bill needs to provide extra protection, especially in cases involving extradition for the purposes of retrial after conviction in absentia. As recently as yesterday, my noble Friends Baroness Anelay of St. Johns, Lord Lamont of Lerwick and Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Baroness Carnegy, among others, expressed concern about legal procedures in countries such as Italy. My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), who had hoped to speak in this debate but sadly cannot be with us because of other parliamentary commitments, has done likewise in respect of other countries, including Spain and France. I am very pleased that the Government have agreed, albeit at the last minute, to deal with that.
  The Minister has now finally agreed that there must be a right to legal aid and to recall and cross-examine witnesses. A great deal of discussion took place yesterday and on 27 October about the examples cited by organisations such as Fair Trials Abroad to the effect that legal aid, as we understand it, is sometimes unavailable even in major European countries such as Spain, Portugal and France. My noble Friend Lord Lamont, in particular, referred to that.
  The Government have made it clear that all UK citizens who are extradited must have the benefit of their rights under the European convention on human rights. We understand their wish, as reflected in their amendments, not to create any loophole that might enable someone to escape a deserved extradition simply by not being present in court. That was the basis of the discussions between the Minister's noble Friend Baroness Scotland and my noble Friend Baroness Anelay on Tuesday afternoon. Our intention, as the Government recognise, was to avoid an overseas country being able to hold an improper retrial, or trial in absentia, of a UK citizen.
  We are glad that the Government have accepted with good grace the defeat that we inflicted on them in another place, and we are reasonably content with their compromise version of our amendment. We wish, however, that it had not been necessary to keep pressing them—on three or four occasions, as the hon. Member
  440
  for Orkney and Shetland said. In all the previous debates, we were told that they had no plans whatsoever to give way; only at the very last minute, faced with the danger of ping-pong between the two Houses at the end of the Session, do we get some common sense. It would surely be better had the Government conceded this vital point at a much earlier stage, as they could have done.
  Mr. Carmichael: The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) made repeated reference to his noble Friend Lord Lamont of Lerwick. I may represent one of the smaller constituencies, but we in the northern isles punch above our weight in terms of our contribution to proceedings in both Houses.
  The Minister said that in absentia trials are relatively uncommon in this country. Indeed, they are extremely rare. I can think of only a small range of very minor offences, such as those under the vehicle excise duties legislation, where trials can be held in the absence of the accused. The situation is very different in other continental jurisdictions—in France, for example, one can be tried in absentia on a charge of murder. This is an important protection, and I am delighted that, albeit at this late stage in the proceedings, the Government have been persuaded of the merits of the arguments that were put to them in Committee and in the other place.
  The availability of state-funded legal assistance is important. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath speaks with justifiable pride of the practice in United Kingdom jurisdictions in that regard. Although I understand that that is a 20th-century phenomenon south of the border, the Minister may know that an Act of the Scots Parliament some time in the 15th century first provided for that north of the border. I am therefore delighted that those south of the border have been able to catch up with us over time.
  The right to be present at a retrial or review and to cross-examine witnesses is also important. I commend parliamentary draftsmen and counsel for their elegant re-expression of the provision, and the Minister for reintroducing the amendment in a way that does not significantly disturb the sense of the Lords amendment. Liberal Democrat Members have no difficulty with the amendments in lieu.
  2 pm
  Caroline Flint: Again, I thank hon. Members for supporting the Government amendment. It is designed to deal with those who commit crimes while ensuring that they have the protection that they deserve.
  Lords amendment disagreed to.
  Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 26 agreed to.

  After Clause 21
  Lords amendment:No. 27x2014;a —new clause.
  Caroline Flint: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  I invite hon. Members to agree to remove the new clause, which was inserted on Report in the Lords. It is unnecessary and inappropriate, as I shall endeavour to explain. Extradition is a classic balancing act, involving the rights of the person whose extradition is sought on

  441
  the one hand, and the need for society to ensure that those accused of serious crimes are swiftly brought to justice on the other.
  The Government believe that the Bill strikes the right balance between the rights of the fugitive and the interests of justice. We have built several important safeguards into the extradition process. Many are the same as those in existing extradition legislation but the most important of them are new.
  To ensure that the requested person's human rights are fully considered and safeguarded, we have included specific bars to extradition on the ground of human rights in part 1 and part 2—clauses 21 and 86 in the copy of the Bill that we are examining today. Those clauses are unambiguous. They provide that a judge must refuse to extradite a person if the extradition would be incompatible with the fugitive's convention rights under the Human Rights Act 1998. If extradition would breach the fugitive's rights under the European convention on human rights, it must not and cannot take place.
  Not only does that protect against infringing individual rights in this country, but ECHR case law has clearly established that those obligations extend to the fugitive's likely fate if he is extradited. If there is a significant risk that his rights under ECHR will be breached when he is returned to the requesting state, we cannot extradite. That is important, and it might help hon. Members if I gave an example.
  The key case is that of Soering. In its judgment in that case, the European Court of Human Rights stated:
  "It would hardly be compatible with the underlying values of the convention, were a contracting party knowingly to surrender a fugitive to another State where there were substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, however heinous the crime allegedly committed. Extradition in such circumstances would be plainly contrary to the spirit and intent of Article 3."
  On article 3, the Court stated:
  "The decision by a Contracting State to extradite a fugitive may give rise to an issue under article 3 and hence engage the responsibility of that State under the convention, where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person concerned, if extradited, faces a real risk of being subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the requesting country."
  The Court went on to explain that article 6 issues could arise in extradition proceedings when there was a significant risk of the denial of a right to a fair trial in the requesting state.
  Not only do our procedures have to comply with ECHR, but we could not extradite where there was a significant risk that the procedures in the requesting state would result in a breach of the fugitive's convention rights. We should be in no doubt that fugitives and their lawyers will not be slow to use the provisions and take every opportunity to argue that ECHR protection means that extradition should not take place.
  That brings me neatly to the amendment that was made in another place. It inserted a new clause that contains four subsections, with which I should like to deal. The first subsection requires the district judge to have particular regard to article 6.3 of the ECHR. As I am sure hon. Members know, article 6.3 guarantees the
  442
  right to a fair trial and refers to minimum rights, including the rights to mount a defence, to have publicly funded defence lawyers, to call and cross-examine witnesses and to have an interpreter if necessary. Although those rights are important, I do not understand why the article needs to be singled out.
  As I said, those who represent fugitives will doubtless try to argue that extradition should be barred on the ground of the ECHR. In many cases, their submissions will be built around likely breaches of article 6.3. However, there will be times when it could be argued that extradition would lead to breaches of articles 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6.2, to name a few. A breach of any would be serious, and the district judge would need to give all such arguments serious consideration. I do not understand why we should draw attention to one specific article, almost suggesting that breaches of other articles are a lesser matter. I am sure that those who devised the amendment did not intend that, but we should avoid that inadvertent effect. We should trust our judges to consider all possible ECHR breaches carefully.
  Subsection (2) of the new clause would enable the judge to accept a written assurance from the requesting state that the person's rights under article 6.3 will be properly observed if he is extradited. Apart from the general point that we should not single out article 6.3, the provision is unnecessary because the Bill already covers its substance. As the measure is currently drafted, it is open to the fugitive and the requesting state to make representations to the district judge on the ECHR question, to advance arguments and to present evidence—written or otherwise.
  In accordance with normal practice, the district judge will weigh up the evidence and arguments and reach a decision, which can be subject to appeal. In the course of that, it is open to the requesting state to submit evidence to the judge in writing if it wants—about its procedures or any other matter in an attempt to demonstrate that the person will receive a fair, ECHR-compliant trial. The judge will decide how much weight to attach to such assurances. I cannot understand what subsection (2) of the new clause would add, given that the requesting state can already give written assurances.
  Subsection (3) would require the Secretary of State to monitor proceedings once the person had been returned. A moment's thought would demonstrate that that was not practical. Apart from practical difficulties and the costs, on what basis would the monitoring be carried out? How would the monitors decide whether rights under ECHR had been upheld? I fail to understand how the provision would be workable.
  The amendment ignores the fact that the UK has had extradition relations with a variety of countries throughout the world for more than 100 years. We conduct a large proportion of our total extradition traffic with EU member states and we have not previously believed it necessary for the Secretary of State to monitor their internal systems. If the position in countries to which we already extradite were as bad as the amendment implies we would have stopped extraditing to them many years ago. Furthermore, for the UK unilaterally and directly to monitor other EU member states' judicial systems, whether generally or specifically in extradition cases, would be a flagrant abuse of their sovereignty.

  443
  I am sure that the House will appreciate that the UK would take great exception to other countries taking such drastically intrusive measures in respect of our procedures in this country. How would we feel if every time we got someone back from another country, they were accompanied by an official representative of that country checking on whether our criminal justice procedures were fully up to scratch?
  Subsection (4) would require the Secretary of State to bring any deficiencies that the monitoring process highlighted to the district judge when he considered fresh requests from that country. I doubt whether that will be necessary, as a fugitive will not hesitate to bring any human rights breaches to the attention of the judge, especially when the circumstances are similar. If a person is wanted by country x, the fugitive will be quick, if it helps his cause, to point out what happened to the last person who went from Britain to that country.
  There are deeper objections to the final part of the new clause. Requiring the Secretary of State to intervene in any subsequent cases involving requests from a particular country would effectively make the Secretary of State a party in an extradition case, and could have serious diplomatic ramifications if the requesting state took exception to his intervention.
  While it is true that the Secretary of State is currently involved in extradition cases, and will remain involved in part 2 cases, he very deliberately acts in a quasi-judicial fashion. Asking him to intervene to comment on the quality of another country's criminal justice system is a very different matter. On the other hand, if the Secretary of State did not become involved in a particular case, the fugitive could seek judicial review of the Secretary of State's decision not to intervene in his case. Of course, we would expect the vast majority of such attempts to fail, but we would nevertheless be bringing in another avenue of challenge and delay of exactly the sort which plagues our present system and which we are trying to avoid.
  It is already the job of the judge at the extradition hearing to determine under the human rights bar whether extradition poses a threat to the fugitive's convention rights. If there is a significant risk of article 6.3—or indeed any of the other convention rights— being breached in the requesting state, the bar to extradition will apply. The person will not be extradited. That could not be clearer and, indeed, the Bill has been given a clean bill of health in this regard by the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
  Ultimately, we have to decide whether we trust our extradition partners. We have had that trust in other European countries for more than 100 years. If we trust them, we should be prepared to extradite to them without putting in place a complicated monitoring system as envisaged by the new clause. In the light of all that, I see no need for the new clause. I apologise for having spoken at some length, but these are important issues and I wanted to take the opportunity to explain the difficulties that we have with each part of the new clause. I hope that the House will see fit to remove it and send the Bill back to another place on that basis.
  Mr. Hawkins: I certainly do not think that the Minister need apologise for speaking at some length, because we all recognise that these are important matters. The new clause, which the Government are now seeking to remove, was introduced by Lord Goodhart in another place on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, but with very strong support from my noble Friend Baroness Anelay of St. Johns and other noble Friends, including Lord Lamont of Lerwick, to whose comments I shall refer in a moment.
  The Conservatives are sorry that the minimum procedural rights clause—clause 22—which was inserted in another place, is to be removed. However, we have reluctantly agreed, in the light of the Government's helpful concessions on other matters, that we understand why the Minister believes that some of the monitoring might not be workable, and that the Government believe that highlighting article 6.3 of the European convention on human rights might suggest although we never intended to; nor, I am sure, did the Liberal Democrats—that the rest of the ECHR was somehow less important. Nevertheless, it is important, particularly in the light of what the Minister has said, to refer to some of the reasons why we think that these issues remain important, even if, somewhat to our regret, the Government have decided that they cannot live with clause 22 and that it will be removed.
  We believe that certain minimum procedural rights need to apply to any British subject who might be extradited, because of the concerns that have been expressed by organisations such as Fair Trials Abroad. The issue of British citizens being able to understand proceedings in another language is crucial, and I am sure that the Minister will say that the ECHR provisions elsewhere in the Bill will cover that. I should like to refer to what Lord Lamont of Lerwick said in another place on 27 October:
  "I recently watched a television documentary about a famous sporting English figure who was tried in France. When asked what he thought about the court verdict, which went against him, he said 'I did not understand a word of the proceedings'. I am not commenting on that case, but a person should not have to go through legal proceedings"—
  in one of our fellow EU countries—
  "without understanding a word of what is said.
  The second point on which a person can be at a huge disadvantage is not having legal aid. There was criticism in the famous case involving plane-spotters in Greece about the quality of lawyers provided."
  I was involved in the case of a British lorry driver who was arrested in Patras, Greece, earlier this year. He was put on trial in a Greek court within 24 hours. He was not given a choice of lawyer, and a local jeweller was pressed into service as an interpreter simply because he understood some English. That is clearly unacceptable, and is the kind of occurrence that led to the minimum procedural safeguards being introduced in another place in clause 22.
  2.15 pm
  I had the opportunity to raise that particular case with her Majesty's ambassador to Greece, Mr. David Madden, and he and the consul in our embassy in Athens were enormously helpful when I visited them at Easter this year. Coincidentally, while I was in Greece I

  445
  happened to meet a couple of United States federal marshals who had gone over to Greece from Seattle to try to extradite a drug smuggler and counterfeiter. I was able to have a very useful conversation with them about the different ways in which extradition procedures work. They were concerned to hear about the issues relating to the lorry driver, David Wilson, which I had been raising with our ambassador and consul.
  British citizens who get into difficulties are very well looked after by ambassadors and consuls all round the world. With the new European arrest warrant about which the Conservatives have strong reservations—and this new legislation coming in, we wanted to ensure that ECHR protections were incorporated in the Bill for the benefit of our citizens. My noble Friend Lord Lamont of Lerwick pointed out that, in the case of the plane-spotters, one was
  "a lady who merely sat in a car reading a newspaper"—
  while the plane-spotting was going on.
  "Most people would have thought that she should have a separate lawyer."
  That was not the case.
  "There is an absence of adequate legal aid in many Mediterranean European countries."—[Official Report, House of Lords,27 October 2003; Vol. 654, c. 41.]
  That applies even within the EU, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) described extensively in Committee.
  One reason my noble Friend Lord Lamont of Lerwick and I have been so uneasy about the Bill is that when the Government say that people should not evade justice by crossing national borders, they do not seem to acknowledge that British people in other countries are at a tremendous disadvantage when the legal proceedings under systems such as the Code Napoleon are unfamiliar to them. Similarly, non-British persons who had never visited the UK before might find themselves at a disadvantage before our courts. That is why we must have safeguards in relation to extradition proceedings.
  In the light of the Government's concessions on other matters that we are debating today, we reluctantly accept that they are going to remove clause 22, but I am glad that the Minister at least acknowledged that this proposal from the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in another place represented a worthy aim, and that we were trying to introduce an extra level of protection for British subjects. I am glad that she has put it on record today that she believes that all the things we intended to do in clause 22 are covered in other parts of the Bill. I would not want, in accepting the Government's view on this matter, to suggest that we are totally happy with the European arrest warrant or with everything that the Government are putting forward. We are not. We continue to have massive concerns about the European arrest warrant, as the Minister knows. Very reluctantly, however, in the light of the other concessions, we will go along with the Government on this.
  Mr. Carmichael: Yet again, I can say that the Liberal Democrats are broadly content with the totality of the deal that has been struck. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath ((Mr. Hawkins) said that the Conservatives had arrived at their position with some reluctance, and we
  446
  can understand that. I am pleased with the Minister's assurances that the aims that we were seeking to achieve, particularly in relation to article 6.3 of the ECHR, might be achieved in other ways. I also take on board the Minister's comments about the Secretary of State's role, as it would be under the new clause. I think it was confused, and would be confusing
  The hon. Member for Surrey Heath said that the clause had been added at the instigation of my noble and learned Friend Lord Goodhart, albeit with Conservative support. I pay tribute to him for all he did: he brought a wealth of experience to the proceedings, allied to good sound Liberal principles. I do not think I am giving away any secrets by saying that last night I received a memorandum from him about the arrangements arrived at in the other place. It says:
  "The Government says that the new clause is unworkable (probably correctly!)"
  I think it fair to say, apropos my earlier comments, that repentance will clearly not be the sole provenance of Ministers today.
  Caroline Flint: Let me first confirm that the ECHR deals with the language issue. It guarantees the right to an interpreter if that is necessary, which is entirely right.
  I welcome the endorsement of Opposition Members. As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), we can always present ideas but those ideas are always open to further scrutiny and change, regardless of which side of the House is involved.
  Lords amendment disagreed to.

Clause 63

  EXTRADITION OFFENCES: PERSON NOT SENTENCED FOR OFFENCE
  Lords amendment:No. 72.
  Caroline Flint: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendents Nos. 74, 77, 154, 219, 222, 223 and 236.
  Caroline Flint: Let me first deal with Lords amendments Nos. 72 74. Under the terms of the framework decision on the European arrest warrant, we are obliged to remove the dual criminality requirement for offences falling within the list if they attract a penalty of three years' detention or more in the requesting state. The Bill originally went further by removing the dual criminality requirement for list offences attracting a one-year penalty or more. It was amended in another place to bring it more closely into line with the terms of the framework decision. The Government continue to believe that there is no reason in principle why the United Kingdom should not exceed its international obligations when we think it is in our interests to do so, but on this specific point we recognise t/he strength of feeling in another place, and are keen to try to accommodate it.
  As the House knows, we have been investigating the offences that are on other EU countries' statute books but have no counterpart in the UK. We have found very

  447
  few, which is hardly surprising. I am sure Members would expect all EU states to have similar ideas of what constitutes criminal conduct. The practical consequence is that it is hard to conceive of circumstances in which a person might be accused of an offence in another EU country that attracts a penalty in the one-to-three-year bracket but which would not constitute a criminal offence in this country.
  Accepting the amendments, as we propose to do, should not result in the extradition of fewer people. We can therefore respond to the evidently strong and sincere feelings in another place safe in the knowledge that we will not, as we feared originally, be offering sanctuary to those who have committed serious crimes elsewhere in the EU.
  The other amendments seek to include the generic list of offence categories in the Bill. I know that both Opposition parties wanted that, and I am glad that we have been able to oblige. We have also ensured that the list can be amended only to reflect changes agreed at European level—although I hasten to add that we know of no plans for changes—and only by order subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. That is exactly in line with the recommendation of the Home Affairs Committee.
  Let me say a little more about the list. Various people have commented critically that the UK does not have offences of, for instance, swindling or xenophobia. The point is that the items in the list are not intended to be precise offences; it is a list of broad categories. While the UK has no offence described as swindling, plenty of our fraud offences fall into that category. Similarly, much of our race relations legislation falls into the racism and xenophobia category. As we have said before, we generally have much more extensive and developed race relations legislation than other EU countries.
  One of the great advantages of the European arrest warrant, along with the list, is that it will enable us to extradite those who come to this country and breach our laws. If someone comes to the UK from Portugal and, while here, incites racial hatred, we shall for the first time be able to secure his extradition. Had we adopted the Conservative stance, that person would have been able to act with impunity. We are still waiting for the Conservatives to explain how that can be in the interests of justice.
  The European arrest warrant offers real benefits to this country. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) has tried to be consensual and supportive in general, but when it comes to this issue he breaks in every now and again with a little snipe against the warrant. We do not think anyone should be allowed to go to another EU country, break its law and expect to get away with that. We have been happy to respond to the Opposition parties' request by including the list.
  Mr. Hawkins: We are very pleased about the major concessions made by the Government following the defeats that we, the Liberal Democrats and others inflicted on them in another place. There was a great deal of debate in Committee. This was the first group of amendments we discussed when we began the Committee stage here back in January. At that time, the
  448
  hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and 1 agreed that the Bill was "front-end loaded", in that so many of the big issues were being dealt with at the outset.
  Mr. Carmichael: The hon. Gentleman, my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome and I have served on many Committees this year, but according to my recollection my colleague in this instance was my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett). It is an easy mistake to make.
  Mr. Hawkins: I apologise. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon served on the Committee considering this Bill, but the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome and I have served together in the trenches during many Committee stages.
  On this occasion, the Government were defeated by 115 votes to 107 in another place on 27 October. The record of the debate begins in column 66 of that day's Hansard.We are pleased that the Government recognise that the operation of dual criminality should mean that what we proposed all along will not create any loopholes, although I am rather sad that they took so long to do so.
  I shall return shortly to issues relating to not gold-plating the European framework decision, because they were discussed both by us in Committee and in another place. But before I do so, I should point out that amendment No.236 has been helpfully included in this group at my specific request. I am grateful to the Minister and her private office, and to the Clerks of the House, for Mr. Speaker's deciding literally a few hours ago that it should be so included, rather than being grouped with the mere drafting amendments at the end.
  2.30 pm
  The European framework decision list was debated at length in Committee and in another place. In Committee, we were taunted somewhat by the then Minister, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), in respect of the Opposition parties' wanting to debate the framework list's contents and the fact that certain categories, such as xenophobia, are not#x2014;as the Minister herself concedes—precise. From our point of view, part of the mischief is the very point that she makes: they are broad categories. Part of our concern was that a British citizen might be subject to an extradition request in respect of an act that is not actually an offence in UK law.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) said on Second Reading, and I have said on many occasions, that we wanted part 1 of the Bill to apply only to terrorism, which is why we did not say in Committee that the entire framework list should be included in the Bill. However, following the debates in another place, and in the light of the Government's amendment No. 236, any British citizen who wants to see what extradition he or she might be subject to will at least be able to look at the categories in the European framework list.
  We have not changed our view. We still think that the draconian measures in part 1 of the Bill should have been restricted merely to terrorist offences, and I

  449
  discussed with the Clerks whether it was possible, even at this very late stage, for me to amend the Government amendments to achieve that end. However. I was advised that it was not possible to draft an amendment that restricted part 1 only to terrorism; it was possible only to draft a restricting amendment that would have included part 3 as well, thereby affecting those whom we want to extradite back to the UK. Had I drafted such an amendment, the Minister would have said, "The O pposition are trying to drive a coach and horses through this Bill." [Interruption.]She is smiling, so I know that that is precisely what she would have done.
  We are not trying to damage the Bill. We recognise that the Minister and Baroness Scotland have made a genuine concession, and we are very pleased that they accepted our point about the framework list. Even though we do not like the list very much, we would rather include it in the Bill than risk British citizens not seeing what they might be subject to. Moreover, we very much welcome the time limit change from 12 months to three years.
  I want to refer briefly to what was said in Committee about the framework list and the time limit. We said that we were seeking to
  "reintroduce the requirement for a possible sentence—for an offence for which someone is to be extradited—to be a minimum of three years. We should recognise that it always used to be three years: that was the minimum sentence specified in the framework directive. Instead, the Government want the sentence to be 12 months in accordance with previous extradition legislation".—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 7 January 2003: c. 14.]Our point, which we made throughout in Committee, is that there will probably be more extradition cases under the new provisions. The Minister's predecessor argued that the measure was first introduced in the Extradition Act 1989, but we said that that was not really a fair comparison. We referred at some length to the fact that even before we began our proceedings in Committee, the Labour-dominated Home Affairs Committee had said that it was not happy with the gold-plating of the framework directive. Given that Ministers were unable to convince their own colleagues on that Committee, I and other members of it, including my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson)—she played a distinguished part in our proceedings, and I am delighted that she is on the Front Bench with me—felt that it was absolutely necessary not to gold-plate. One of the main complaints from British citizens is that we so often gold-plate a European Union measure and attach all manner of extra sanctions, and that as a result, our citizens are more put upon by the EU than are those of other EU countries.
  The Government have accepted at the very last minute that, because of the dual criminality point that the Minister mentioned, no loophole is in fact being opened up, so we can return to the provision requested by us and by her own colleagues on the Home Affairs Committee, and in respect of which another place defeated the Government. This is very welcome, even though it has come very late. Members on both sides of the House can now say that as a result of the debates in Committee, on the Floor of the House and in another place, we will end up with a better and clearer Bill that will allow British citizens to see what the European framework decision really means. I do not agree with the Minister that broad categories are helpful. They will be a hindrance, and I predict that many cases will arise
  450
  about the vagueness of the European framework list. But it is at least better that we be able to see what the Government are doing in the Bill.
  Mr. Carmichael: I am delighted that the Government have now accepted amendments Nos. 72 and 74. If we have not quite achieved symmetry in this regard, we have certainly come full circle. As the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) said, these issues were debated in Committee on 7 January. I am delighted that, as we come to the end of the substantive part of our proceedings, we have managed to achieve some accord. I am pleased that the Government now accept that the gold-plating that the Bill previously sought to achieve is neither necessary nor desirable, and that the slightly intemperate language that was used in Committee about Opposition Members seeking to create loopholes was without foundation.
  I want to place on the record my feeling of relief at the fact that, despite the application of his ingenuity, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath was unable to find a way to re-engage in the debate on the restriction of part 1 to terrorist proceedings. He said that the matter was debated fully, and it is probably fair to say that it was debated to within an inch of its life; it was certainly debated to within an inch of mine. However, the remaining string of amendments are significant and to be welcomed. It is certainly desirable that they be included, because they provide an important safeguard. When an Act has to be used daily by lawyers and practitioners, it is preferable that it contain as much of such information as possible. Indeed, the scope for confusion and for the giving of poor advice is minimised by including such information, so from a practical point of view—if nothing else—the amendments are to be welcomed.
  I do not share the concern that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath expressed about the exact continuity between the nomen juris applied in foreign jurisdictions, and that which we would use in this country. I suspect that the difference between us is that he is a practitioner in England and Wales, whereas I was trained in Scots law. Scots law has a principle-based system, whereby the importance is not the name that is applied to an act, but the conduct that lies behind it. The Minister is right to say that the category of swindling, for example, could be well understood; it is clear that it could mean just about any species of fraud known to Scots law. To get too hung up on the label that we attach to an offence would not be helpful. I realise that the English and Welsh system approaches matters from a different standpoint: it is not a Roman or principle-based system, as ours is north of the border. I suspect that that is perhaps the genesis of the difference.
  The restriction to terrorism in respect of part I only was not something that the Liberal Democrats were able to support. Interestingly, however, having reviewed the Hansard report of Committee proceedings, I saw that, although we had said that we would not support the Conservatives, my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) and I recorded no vote at all. It could well be that at that stage were sufficiently bereft of the will to live even to express a preference.
  Caroline Flint: I welcome most of the comments from Opposition Members. On the matter of the one or three-

  451
  year threshold, I was not party to this Bill from the outset, but I see nothing wrong in seeking to set a gold standard in Europe. Unfortunately, on this occasion, other European countries were not prepared to follow our lead on that matter, but our intentions were right and good—to ensure that serious criminals had nowhere to hide. For an offence that carries a sentence of more than one year, we felt that that should be applicable, but we did not secure the support of other European colleagues. We listened to concerns coming from another place, and indeed expressed in Committee, so we believe it is now right to support the amendments on the three-year threshold.
  I am pleased with the comments of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) about the list and about the difficulties of being too prescriptive or defining too clearly each and every individual crime. Unfortunately, we could have a recipe for paralysis there, given the nature of the Bill's intention to tackle serious criminals. I provided one example of swindling, but looking down the list I note that No. 11 deals with computer-related crime, which is quite a broad category. As the Minister responsible for dealing with high-tech crime, I know that technology is changing all the time, so being too prescriptive in defining individual crimes can be a problem. Sometimes it is necessary to have a broader-based category, but what is important is where the list sits in the context of the Bill.
  We have already discussed some of the safeguards pertaining to the reasons for extradition, the use of the European arrest warrant and all the other associated procedures that would kick into action when a British citizen has committed an offence in Europe or when someone from elsewhere in the EU has committed an offence in the UK.
  I generally welcome the comments that have been made in the debate and I ask the House to support amendments Nos. 72 and 74 and associated amendments in the group.
  Lords amendments Nos. 72 and 74 agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 111 disagreed to.
  Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 111 agreed to.

Clause 1

  EXTRADITION TO CATEGORY 1 TERRITORIES
  Lords Amendment:No. 1.
  2.45 pm
  Caroline Flint: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker(Sir Michael Lord): With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2, 4 to 25, 28 to 71, 73, 75, 76, 78 to 110, 112 to 153, 155 to 218, 220, 221, 224 to 235, 237 to 244.
  Caroline Flint: This is a large group of amendments, which represents all the Government amendments that were passed in another place. I should explain why they have been grouped together: it is simply a reflection of
  452
  the fact that all the amendments were welcomed in the other place. I can assure hon. Members that the Bill was subject to intense and rigorous scrutiny there, and there was no question of the Government trying to sneak anything into the Bill. Every single Government amendment was carefully examined and, I repeat, Opposition Members or Cross Benchers opposed not one of them. I hope that the House will take a similarly positive approach and that we do not spend time unduly on this group.
  Having said that, I should like to make some brief comments about the amendments. Several deal with minor technical and drafting points, which is inevitable with a Bill of this size. However, quite a few make substantive changes to the Bill, and I should like briefly to highlight some of the more significant ones.
  We are providing that the designation of extradition partners will be by the affirmative resolution procedure in line with the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place. A part 1 warrant will be acceptable only if it has been issued by a judicial authority in the requesting state. We have imposed a requirement that any person arrested in an extradition case must be given a copy of the warrant as soon as possible, and we have put it beyond doubt that the partial removal of dual criminality cannot apply in any case where any part of the conduct occurred in the United Kingdom.
  We have widened the extraneous considerations provision to ensure that extradition cannot take place in cases where the person would be disadvantaged on the grounds of gender or sexual orientation, and we have tidied up the evidential provisions and clarified the rules on the receivability of documents. As we have already discussed, we have put into the Bill the generic list of 32 offence categories for which dual criminality is partially removed, and provided that it can be amended to reflect changes only at European level—an issue that we debated on the previous group of amendments.
  We have provided for the complete repeal of our existing extradition legislation and built that into the Bill. Incidentally, I should add that we have made a firm commitment that no existing cases in the system will be transferred to the new system. We have inserted a provision to allow the UK to comply with the extradition obligations arising from our ratification of various UN conventions. We have made it clear that the Crown Prosecution Service and other prosecuting authorities have a duty to act in extradition cases.
  I could go on, but that gives the House a flavour of the improvements to the Bill. I should add that many of the changes are responses to points and suggestions that were made, I acknowledge, by Opposition parties. Accordingly, I hope that the House will welcome the amendments and the transition of the Bill into law. The heart of the matter is that crime cannot be allowed to escape because people cross a border. We need to ensure that we work with other mature democracies to ensure that the system can be run as smoothly, efficiently and, I have to say, as cost-effectively as possible without putting at any risk the rights of the individuals concerned.

  453
  I again pay tribute to my noble Friend Baroness Scotland, who has worked exceedingly hard on this and countless other Bills in the other place. I also give my appreciation to hon. Members of all parties who have taken part in debates on the Bill in Committee and to officials who have ably supported Ministers and Committee members. I thank the staff of the House for their help. I hope for a speedy decision on this group of amendments so that the Bill can become law.
  Mr. Hawkins: I can, as the Minister hopes, be fairly brief in my response. I am grateful to her for her welcome remarks about Opposition parties in the House and in the other place, and I am pleased that the Government are able to accept some of the amendments. We particularly welcome the decision to ensure that any further changes are made by way of affirmative resolution. We debated that at some length in Committee, and I do not propose to go over it again, but it is very welcome.
  I should like to focus on a couple of amendments in the group, not to put any pressure on the Minister today, but to ask her to undertake to write to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) and me with further elucidation on any points that remain outstanding.
  First, amendment No. 205 relates to the role of the Lord Advocate in conducting extradition proceedings in Scotland, which is something that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will know more about than I do from his past professional experience north of the border. It would be helpful if the Minister could give me some information—we did not discuss it in Committee—about the number of extradition cases in which the Lord Advocate has been involved since the earlier Extradition Act 1989, and the Government's best estimate of whether a big increase in the Lord Advocate's work load is anticipated as a result of the changes. I realise that the Government may find it difficult to be precise, but some indication would be helpful.
  Secondly, amendment No. 213 deals with the transmission of warrants by electronic means. I am slightly concerned that electronic means other than facsimile transmission will be introduced. The only requirement is that the designated authority should receive the electronic communication in a form that is intelligible and capable of being used for subsequent reference. I hope that the Minister will be able to write to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and me to explain a little more about the Government's thinking. Obviously, other electronic means are now used regularly, but we do not want to see any downgrading in the significance of warrants in matters as important as extradition. Given the concerns that many of us have about the lack of security of email—many celebrated cases in other contexts have recently come to light—it would be helpful to know what extra safeguards might be introduced to ensure that electronic communication can be used without interference. Is it the case that something as important as an extradition request will come by other electronic means? I would prefer that such matters were dealt with more formally than in a mere email request. I have little doubt that other hon. Members would share my concern about the lack of security in such transmissions.
  454
  The Minister paid tribute, appropriately, to Baroness Scotland, and I wish to pay tribute to Baroness Anelay of St. Johns and my other noble Friends who made a significant contribution—as the Minister will acknowledge—to improving the Bill. It received many days of debate in the other place, and consideration of it continued there until 6.19 last night. It is a good example of how all the expertise in the other place can massively improve legislation, without the limitation of time imposed by the Government's guillotines. Perhaps the Government will learn the lesson for the purposes of this House. If we had had fewer guillotines, we could have made those improvements here. As it is, with the Government seeking to guillotine everything, such debates must take place in the other place, where there is time for proper debates.
  We are not completely happy with the legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) has repeatedly made it clear that he regards this as a bad Bill and the European arrest warrant as something deeply to be regretted. Many other Opposition Members also have considerable reservations, but we will have to see how it works in practice. However, I am certain that it is a much better Bill now, as a result of the Government's concessions and the improvements made by the other place, than when it was first presented to this House about a year ago. The Government need to learn the lessons of that.
  I am grateful to the Minister for the helpful way in which she presented the amendments today. We have had more of a meeting of minds than when the matter was last debated in the House.
  Mr. Carmichael: The Minister mentioned the amendment relating to the use of the affirmative procedure and the importance of judicial authority in the issuing of warrants. I welcome those two points, because the Liberal Democrats placed particular emphasis on them in Committee. I am delighted that they now appear in the Bill and that their importance has been accepted.
  I listened to the Minister waxing lyrical about proceedings in the other place. She explained how all the amendments had been considered and fully debated, and I almost began to look forward to a day when I might be translated to the other place. However, I hope that that will not happen for some years yet. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) made a good point when he said that the use of the guillotine in this House is having an adverse effect on our ability to scrutinise Bills. We must continue our attempt to find a better way to deal with legislation, because I am all too aware—as someone who has taken part in a significant number of Committees since I entered the House in June 2001—of the significant deficiencies in the present system. The caveat to that, however, is that any changes will have to be matched by responsibility on both sides of the House. The tendency towards filibustering and making specious and spurious points will have to be resisted by all hon. Members. The remarkable aspect of the way in which the other place operates is that there is a little more statesmanship and bit less politics. All parties in this House could learn something from that.
  The Minister said that the essence of the Bill was to ensure that people responsible for committing crimes could not escape responsibility simply by crossing a

  455
  border. Nobody could argue with that. Because it is now so much easier to cross borders within the European Union, legislation like this is inevitable. However, in our enthusiasm to reflect that, we should not lose sight of the need to protect the fundamental liberties and rights that we prize in this country. In some small measure, the amendments that we have discussed today and the issues that we discussed in Committee make a real contribution to that. With some reservations, we may be pleased with a job well done on this Bill.
  Caroline Flint: I will write to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath on the role of the Lord Advocate and the issuing of words by electronic means, both of which he mentioned. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland talked about how we perform our duties of scrutiny in both Houses of Parliament. It is fair to say that a combination of talents is brought to Parliament by those who represent their constituents—and therefore have direct experience of what the public feel about issues through surgeries and other activities—and by noble Lords as they perform the job of scrutiny.
  I have mentioned the work of the Home Affairs Committee, which adds to our debate in such areas. The all-party groups and people with particular experience of an issue also add to our discussions. It is important to have opportunities to debate, but that might not always happen on the Floor of the House or in Committee. We need an informed process, and I am pleased that the Government have considered other methods, such as pre-legislative scrutiny, to offer other opportunities to tackle some of the big issues of our time. The Bill deals with big issues, because it is concerned with the rights of individuals as well as the need to fight crime wherever it takes place. The Bill represents good work in both Houses of Parliament, and I look forward to its becoming law and being implemented.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Remaining Lords amendments agreed to.
  Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment No. 27 to the Bill: Mr. Alistair Carmichael, Caroline Flint, Mr. Nick Hawkins, Shona McIsaac and Derek Twigg; Caroline Flint to be the Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.—[Derek Twigg.]
  To withdraw immediately.
  Reasons for disagreeing to Lords amendment No. 27 reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order 119(9) (European Standing Committees),
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

    TRANS-EUROPEAN NETWORKS
    That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 12817/02, amended draft Decision amending Decision No. 1692/ 96/EC on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network, No. 13244/03 ADD1, amended draft Decision amending an amended draft Decision to amend Council Decision No. 1692/96/EC on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network, and No. 13297/03, amended draft Regulation amending an amended draft Regulation to amend Council Regulation (EC) No. 2236/95, laying down general rules for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of trans-European networks; and endorses the Government's approach to discussions on these documents.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
    Question agreed to.

  PETITION

    Fireworks
    3 pm
    Mr. Andrew Rosindell: I rise on behalf of my constituents Joanne and John Sifleet of Riversdale road in Collier Row, Romford. A horrifying incident took place at their house on the evening of 5 November, Guy Fawkes' night. The daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Sifleet cheated death when, just after 8 o'clock, a massive firework smashed through a double-glazed window and exploded in a room that she had occupied only a few minutes earlier.
    Joanne Sifleet and her husband John were sitting downstairs when a mammoth firework ripped through the upstairs bathroom window, devastating everything in its path. Their daughter Chloe, a pupil at the local Clockhouse infants school in Collier Row, had been in the bathroom only minutes before. Luckily, she escaped injury, having left the bathroom to join her sister Gemma, 4, in another room upstairs. As reported in the local Romford Recorder newspaper, her mother said:
    "We heard this almighty bang…the kitchen ceiling started to fall down. We raced upstairs and I could hear my children screaming, 'We don't want to die. Mummy."
    Clearly, that was a horrific incident for any family to endure. After it, Mr. and Mrs. Sifleet immediately organised a petition among residents of the Collier Row and Romford area. The petition was collected last weekend and contains well over 100 signatures.
    The petition states:
    To the House of Commons:
    The Petition of the residents of Romford and the Collier Row area
    Declares that "Display Fireworks" and imported non British Standards Fireworks have become such a nuisance to the general public that their sale and illegal importation must be restricted.
    The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Home Affairs to introduce Legislation which will ban the sale of "Display Fireworks" to the general public and stop the import and sale of non British Standard Approved fireworks.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Flooding (Eastleigh)
    Motion made, and Question proposed,That this House do now adjourn.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
    3.3 pm
    Mr. David Chidgey: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a matter of great importance to my constituents in Eastleigh. I want to draw the Minister's attention to the plight of the many local residents from foul water flooding after heavy rain.
    I appear to have about three and a half hours to entertain the Minister on this matter, and my file contains a great many complaints from constituents, received over a considerable time. However, he will be relived that I intend to stick to plan A, and be as concise as I can. He will therefore have considerable time to respond.
    It has become all too common in the Eastleigh area that the foul sewers serving residential areas overflow after heavy rain. Gardens and homes are flooded with raw sewage, and lavatories become unusable because the drains are full. Southern Water turns up promptly to clear up the mess afterwards, and that is all very well, but gardens are ruined and homes take many months to recover. If the storm-water drains cannot cope and surface water flooding is involved, residents often end up having to haggle with the water company and their insurers to determine which is responsible for reimbursing them for the costs of the flood damage.
    All too often, as I am sure that the Minister knows, residents who win a satisfactory result have to pay higher insurance premiums. In some cases, they cannot get their insurance renewed at all.
    I shall set out the scale of the problem. Since the 1980s, there has been massive housing development in Eastleigh. Tens of thousands of homes have been built in the area, around what used to be villages. We welcome the regeneration of our communities that has resulted. In recent years, thousands more homes have been built in brownfield developments in the heart of the old Victorian town of Eastleigh. We welcome that too, but it is clear that the drainage and sewage treatment infrastructure has not kept pace with housing developments on greenfield sites around the villages or on the brownfield sites around the old town.
    The Minister will know that water companies like to claim that the problem is that global warming has caused heavier rain, which overloads their systems. However, I doubt that that is entirely true. An analysis by Southern Water's experts of the Eastleigh drainage system shows that the town's sewerage system will not cope with the demands posed by the new housing. After some prodding by myself and others, the company has released the executive summary of a study currently under way of the effect that some 1,400 new houses will have. Those houses are being built on brownfield sites in central Eastleigh.
    The study predicts that a storm of a severity that might occur only once a year—a so-called "one in one year" storm—will cause such an overload on the drainage system that at five points the sewers will overflow on to the highway, and therefore into people's homes. It also predicts that progressively worse flooding will happen as a result of even more intense but less
    458
    frequent storm events—storms that might happen every 20 or 50 years, for instance. That shows that, without new investment to cater for housing development, residents can expect to suffer flooding at least once a year in five places in an area that is no larger than a square mile. More than half of the new development has already been built.
    Bad though the situation is, that is only half the problem. Sewage from the Eastleigh area is pumped directly into the Chickenhall waste water treatment works, located beside the River Itchen. The Minister will know of that river if he is a fisherman, and of the fine opportunities that it allows for sports fishing on inland water. He will know too that the river is the subject of a sustainability management project, and that an application has been made for EU designation as a special area of conservation. That designation would recognise the river's importance as a special environmental resource.
    Interestingly, Southern Water—like other water companies in a similar position#x2014;licensed by the Environment Agency to discharge partially treated effluent into the River Itchen through a storm-water overflow from its sewage treatment works. Because of the increase in flooding incidents over recent years and those projected for the future, the water company proposes to bring the storm-water overflow into full use, which will inevitably mean more partially treated effluent flowing into the Itchen. Only a few miles downstream, at Gaters Mill, is Portsmouth Water's water-extraction plant. While the people of Portsmouth may not take kindly to the thought of drinking from Eastleigh's effluent, it is a fact that the treatment at the extraction plant renders the water safe. However, what about that long stretch of river between the sewage treatment works and the extraction plant? What will be the impact of increasing the flow of partially treated effluent on the salmon spawning-grounds in the river, on the watercress beds and on the youngsters who use the water sports activity centre provided by the county council? Surely, planning to increase the discharge of waste-water floods into the Itchen flies in the face of attempts to create a special area of conservation free from pollution. We are suffering from a fundamental failure to ensure that our sewage and waste-water treatment systems have kept and do keep pace with demand, particularly in the area that I represent.
    It is important to recall that one of the great achievements in urbanisation in the 19th century was the building of water supply, drainage and treatment systems to serve the swelling populations of our towns and cities. Killer diseases, such as typhoid, were eradicated. Not for nothing did public health engineering become a highly respected profession. It is a sad reflection that all too often in the case of sewers, it is out of sight, out of mind. We are now painfully aware that following decades of underinvestment in the repair and maintenance of our main drainage systems we are left with literally thousands of miles of crumbling, failing sewers. What a way to treat such a valuable legacy left to us by our forefathers.
    How can it be that in the 21st century my constituents are faced with the fear of foul sewage flooding their properties on a regular basis—not because of some rare, exceptional weather occurring perhaps once in every 50 years or so, but every year and every time we get heavy

    459
    rain? How can it be that while Eastleigh borough council is making every effort to provide affordable homes on brownfield sites in line with Government policy, trying to address the needs of some 10,000 people seeking homes, our water company is wringing its hands over the lack of funds that are needed to expand its sewerage and treatment systems to meet the extra demands? How can it be that its existing sewerage and treatment system is so overloaded that the only recourse is to discharge partially treated effluent into a river that is recognised as being so important to the environment that it should have special protection from pollution?
    I fear that the residents of Eastleigh are not alone in their predicament. This pattern of failure is repeated across the country. One has merely to look at the statistics from Ofwat, from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and from Environmental Data Services to confirm that our water and sewerage companies are buckling under the strain of obsolete and failing infrastructure, increased demand from new development and inadequate streams of essential investment. Clearly, there needs to be a full inquiry into how we regulate, manage and resource the water and drainage industry. We need to look at the roles of local authorities, the Environment Agency and Ofwat and we need to see some joined-up government to ensure that the industry is working in the best interests of the community, the environment and, more important, the customer—my residents.
    We need to ensure that local authorities and water and sewerage companies are fully in the loop where planning applications impact on the demand for drainage. At present the system is that local authorities have recourse to the Environment Agency as a statutory consultee in the process. Surely there is a powerful case for water and sewerage companies to be made statutory authorities under planning regulations. That would end the practice of all too many companies who do not or, even worse, will not reply to planning application notices, leaving local authorities to make decisions in the dark and without expert guidance. We need a statutory consultation process with teeth, not just a rubber-stamp exercise—local authorities constantly complain to me about that—with regulations that place obligations and accountability on the consultees.
    We need to address the powers of the Environment Agency in controlling pollution. Just this week Southern Water—I mention it not because of any particular campaign against it, but because it is the company that serves my area was found guilty of pumping raw sewage into the Solent. The Minister will know that the Solent is an area of international environmental importance. It is nothing short of an outrage that such an area of water should be subject to such pollution, yet the fine was a mere £5,000. In 2001 the water company is on the record as coming second in the league table of the worst water company polluters in this country, yet its total fines for this year amount to a mere £64,500. That is hardly even an incidental running cost to a company with a turnover which last year was in excess of £436 million. Clearly, there is a powerful case for reviewing the regulation of the industry with regard to investment priorities.
    460
    For far too long maintenance and renewal of sewerage systems has been the poor relation in the industry. I am pleased that Ofwat is now expressing concerns which, I believe, the Government share, about the lack of investment in this area. It is clear that water companies have put the interests of shareholders first. That is not just a knee-jerk reaction such as we so often hear in relation to privatised companies. Ofwat's report for 2002–03 on the financial performance and expenditure of the water companies states:
    "In 2002–2003, dividend cover fell as a result of a higher level of dividends despite lower operating profit. We recognise that investor confidence must be maintained but the level of dividends also needs to be sustainable over the long term. Dividends from regulated business should reflect the cost of capital and distribution to shareholders of a proper portion of the benefits of greater efficiency".
    That leads us directly to the nub of the issue. Ofwat is calling for greater investment in tackling crumbling and failing sewage and waste-water treatment plant. Water companies have failed to make efficiency gains necessary to maintain profits, but have nevertheless maintained their dividends to shareholders. As a result, investment that should have been made in sewage and waste-water treatment has not happened. Having got Ofwat, their customers and my constituents over a barrel, the water companies have the audacity to raise charges by more than a third to meet their obligations. In Eastleigh my constituents face a price hike of 35 per cent.—the highest in the country.
    Eastleigh borough council wrote a letter to Ofwat regarding investment priorities. It concerns asset management planning 4. The first recommendation in the submission is:
    "That the funding currently being used to improve beach quality be diverted to improving the capacity of sewerage works. This would prevent blockages of the system caused by backing up and improve River Quality."
    The point about that is that the total package we are looking for, which would include improvements to our sewage treatment works to introduce techniques to remove nitrates and other chemicals, should not cause a cost increase, as we are told almost daily that beach quality is now up to standard in almost every area. Why, then, are we putting money into that area when we could be putting it into improving the sewerage system?
    The council's second point is that much of the infrastructure serving Eastleigh is reaching the end of its design life or has already passed it. However, technologies are available that could be used to seal the leaking pipes with minimal disruption. The council submits that significant expenditure is necessary to upgrade all existing substandard pipework. Where is the money to come from? It is suggested that the £2.2 billion underspend in asset management plan 3 of all water companies, including Southern Water, could be transferred to enable those works to be carried out.
    Like the council in its submission to Ofwat, we note that Southern Water proposes to increase its water bills by 35.1 per cent. during the AMP period and that such an increase is excessive, especially as in Eastleigh alone there have been two major sewer failures this year; gardens and homes were flooded with sewage and main roads were closed. That was the result of serious underfunding of the infrastructure during the past 20 years. Those are the views of my local borough council and I thoroughly endorse them.

    461
    To draw the attention of the House to the predicament suffered by so many people, I focus on the case of Mr. Alf Bushell, which was featured on Saturday in our local paper, The Southern Daily Echo,under the banner headline, "Veteran's Loo Trek Misery". Alf is an 81-year-old war veteran, a former Royal Marine who helped to shoot down enemy aircraft during the second world war and whose ship sank off the coast of Italy. This man should be treated with respect and dignity, but whenever it rains he has to walk 15 minutes to the nearest public convenience—whatever the weather—because his lavatory becomes blocked. Is it right that Alf and dozens of his neighbours in Consort road, my constituents, should suffer indignities that more correctly belong in the middle ages? I look forward to the Minister's response.
    3.22 pm
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): I congratulate the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) on obtaining this debate and on outlining such a thorough and comprehensive case. He has genuine concern about those complex problems and I express my sympathy with those of his constituents who have been affected, especially Mr. Bushell and his neighbours. The hon. Gentleman has raised several helpful points and I am pleased to be able to address them in some detail.
    Flooding problems are all too familiar and many hon. Members, including me, have constituents who have suffered. We know very well of the misery that such problems can cause. The Government are anxious that the problems should be addressed and I shall try to respond as positively as I can.
    Sewer flooding and the protection of the environment from waste water discharges from sewage treatment works and sewerage systems are a key concern for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. In tackling those issues we need to take into account such things as statutory obligations under European directives on waste water treatments and habitats—I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's comments about the Itchen. We also have domestic obligations in respect of sites of special scientific interest. Sewerage companies and regulators should, and generally do, take those obligations seriously.
    The hon. Gentleman described the particular problems in Eastleigh and I shall address those before setting out the Government's general response to some of the other issues that he raised. My understanding is that a substantial contribution to the problems in Eastleigh is the fact that the pumping station at Bishopstoke and the Chickenhall sewage treatment works are unable to cope with both foul water and rainwater during especially heavy rainfall. That is the root of the problem. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that, although increased heavy rainfall contributes to the problem, there is a range of other issues. I do not dispute that.
    The facilities at Chickenhall include tanks to store storm water until the increased flows subside. However, the tanks do not have sufficient capacity to contain storm water during severe weather conditions and that has led to occasional flooding of adjacent land and properties. Addressing that problem will also limit pollution of the River Itchen and could prevent flooding of upstream properties by restricting flows to the works. For those
    462
    reasons, I am glad to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that I understand that, by 31 March 2005, Southern Water plans to install additional storm water storage capacity at the Chickenhall works. Furthermore, the company proposes to change the storm water management arrangements at the works.
    Those proposals—if they go ahead—will allow excess storm water to be discharged directly into the river when the storage tanks are full, instead of flooding the surrounding area. Any discharges from the existing outfall, which are only consented to by the Environment Agency during heavy rainfall events, will contain screened foul water highly diluted by rainwater. No proposal has been made, or would be considered by the Environment Agency, for the construction of a new raw sewage outfall at the works. That would not be approved.
    Mr. Chidgey: I concur with the Minister: there is no question that raw untreated sewage will go into the river. However, as he knows, there are three stages in sewage effluent treatment. We do not have tertiary treatment, although the sewage is treated to ensure the removal of bacteria. I am worried that although we may be meeting the standards downstream at Gaters Mill, where there are excellent treatment works to make the water potable, we do not have the protection that I want in the river itself–between the sewage works and the water extraction treatment works. The area is supposed to have improved protection from pollution due to its environmental importance, so I am worried to hear the Minister say that Southern Water's management plan is to increase, at times, the flow of partially treated effluent into the river.
    Mr. Morley: I very much hope that will be an interim measure. In addition to the work to improve the storm-water handling capacity—in essence, at peak times—I expect the company to provide more stringent treatment standards by 31 December 2005. The hon. Gentleman is right to note that there is only secondary treatment, but the proposal is that standards should be tightened up.
    Tighter standards are required to take account of population growth in the area and to protect good water quality in the River Itchen. I expect improvements at the treatment works. A range of new technologies is becoming available, which will considerably improve discharge quality. They are currently under consideration by all water companies, and I hope that Southern Water will look into them.
    I shall touch briefly on the general principle of sewer flooding, as the hon. Gentleman is right about its prevalence. Last autumn, Ofwat asked sewerage companies to consider further measures to tackle sewer flooding. It specifically asked companies to prioritise sewer flooding alleviation projects primarily on an assessment of the severity and frequency of the problem, not simply on the cost. Companies were also asked to include the worst cases of external flooding in addition to internal flooding.
    We expect that additional investment by companies before 2005 will be considered by Ofwat, as part of the logging-up process, and I understand that Southern Water has agreed to spend an additional £10 million on major flood alleviation schemes in the period up to 2005. In the longer term, as part of the current price control

    463
    regime, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, Ofwat asked sewerage companies to include a prioritised list of projects and costs in their business plans for 2005–10. Companies could include costed proposals to extend or improve their sewerage network.
    I understand the pertinent points that the hon. Gentleman made about the level of investment and dividend, efficiency savings and costs to consumers. Southern Water's draft business plan suggested a 35 per cent. increase, but that was the initial business plan. The regulator will put those plans under rigorous scrutiny. I am sure that all the assumptions and bids will be carefully scrutinised. I want to see continued improvement, but I do not want the cost simply to be passed on to consumers. Efficiency gains, company profits and long-term investment programmes must be considered. We would expect the regulator to look at all those issues, and I have every confidence that the regulator will do so.
    My Department's role in the review is to make clear to companies, regulators, customers and investors the Government's views on such issues, as well as the maintenance and renewal of sewerage assets. In the initial guidance that the Secretary of State issued to the director general of water services in January, it was made clear that sewerage undertakers' assets should be maintained in a way that will deliver a high standard of serviceability to customers and the environment and that, within the priorities of water company programmes, there needs to be an increase in the rate at which companies rectify sewer flooding problems if they are to get on top of the situation. That guidance has been given to the regulator. We want to ensure that sewer flooding and sewer repair and maintenance continue to be high on the agenda of both Ofwat and the companies.
    As part of the current stage of the price review, we are considering issues that should be included in the final periodic review guidance to Ofwat, which will be published in January. That ministerial guidance relates to the kind of priorities that we want to see. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that all the issues that he has raised, including costs, will certainly be taken into consideration as we prepare that guidance.
    Mr. Chidgey: I can see that the Minister is getting to the end of his response, so I want to intervene quickly. One of the issues that he has perhaps not been able to address so far is that of local authorities being in the loop with water companies as statutory consultees. I mentioned that in my remarks. Could he perhaps give me some guidance on what is proposed in that respect?
    Mr. Morley: I am happy to do so. Those are important issues, and we are considering that point. It is true to say that water companies are not currently statutory consultees in the planning process. I agree that, in relation to further housing development in Eastleigh, it is important for Southern Water to be involved in the process to understand the projections, so that it can consider the implications for its infrastructure. We have addressed that to a very large extent.
    464
    Planning guidance, which is issued by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, makes it clear to planning authorities that they need to work closely and at an early stage with water and sewerage undertakers, so that new water supply and disposal infrastructure is timed to coincide with the development that it serves so that, if expansion in needed, the plans for that investment can be put in place. Of course, that is the point of structure plans and district plans, which are publicly available so that everyone who has an interest can be aware of what is planned for the long term.
    I understand that there is no evidence to suggest that those non-statutory arrangements are inadequate. My information is that Southern Water is often consulted on planning authorities by the local authorities and that it is happy to offer guidance and advice, so it feels very much involved. Of course, if it were felt that the current arrangements, which are based on planning policy guidance, were not satisfactory, we might want to consider that in the future.
    Mr. Chidgey: To provide a little more information, it is correct that discussions between Southern Water and Eastleigh borough council are good at present, but that is as a result of several years of frustration. I make the point again that planning officers in the borough council have had to suffer the frustration of asking for comment from the water company on large-scale planning applications coming through their office, and have had the sorry situation of not getting a response at all. That is the issue—is compulsion necessary? Does a statutory obligation need to be placed on the water companies so that they are part of this planning process?
    Mr. Morley: The simple answer to that, if the situation is working, is no. If the situation is not working, however, we may have to look at other measures.
    On the hon. Gentleman's final comment about fines in relation to pollution, I recognise that that is an issue. He will know that fines are a matter for the courts, and they often depend on the circumstances in relation to the particular advice. The issue is often raised with the Department, and I will certainly bear his comments in mind.
    I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's case. Southern Water has given undertakings that proposed improvements are to be made, which I hope will deal with some of the problems. In the longer term, on the price review, we expect water companies to put in place proper long-term plans to deal with the issue of sewer flooding, which will be part of the ministerial guidance. I repeat to him that that final guidance will go out in January. We are in the process of compiling it, and I will take seriously the comments that he has made.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes to Four o 'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Older People
2.30 pm
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)Order. For the convenience of hon. Members, I shall announce the groupings of questions for today. They are as follows: Questions 1 and 2 have been put together, as have Questions 3, 4 and 12, and Questions 5 and 8. We changed the practice on the number of questions to be listed to allow 15, but then there were withdrawals, including one even today, so there are 11. I still appeal for short questions and answers so that we can try to improve the flow. Where possible, I shall allow secondary interventions, but long statements rather than questions will inhibit that considerably.

Oral Answers to Questions

  The Government were asked— Age Discrimination
  Mr. James Gray: If the Government will make a statement on the steps they are taking to reduce age discrimination against older people. [137439]
  Gregory Barker: What proposals the Government have to reduce age discrimination against older people in England. [137440]
  The Minister for Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): Age discrimination can be as debilitating to individuals as other forms of discrimination. That is why we are tackling age discrimination in employment through our age positive campaign and through our code of practice on age diversity in employment. Legislation against age discrimination in employment and training will come into force in October 2006. We are tackling age discrimination in other arenas as well. The national service framework for the national health service is designed to outlaw and prevent age discrimination in our hospitals and other health care systems.
  Mr. Gray: The Minister's reply echoes the memorable words of the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), now the Minister without Portfolio, who said that age discrimination practices
  "are unacceptable, and an incoming Labour Government will give priority to ending them by introducing anti-discrimination legislation."—[Official Report, 9 February 1996; Vol. 271, c. 619.]
  He said that in 1996, but the legislation will not become effective until 2006. Was that another early pledge from the Labour party?
  I thought that I would find out what the Government have done as employers, and I learned that one has to retire at 55 in the Ministry of Defence and at 60 in the
  144WH
  Foreign Office. What does the Minister intend to do about raising the retirement age for Government employees?
  Malcolm Wicks: A lot.
  Mr. Gray: About time, too—only 10 years too late.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Malcolm Wicks: The hon. Gentleman asked a long question. He may like a concise answer. We are doing a great deal. We have said that, for civil servants, the normal retirement age in the future will be 65, not 60.
  I am also pleased that the employment rates—economic activity rates—are improving for those between 50 and the state pension age. We will outlaw discrimination. That is action from a Labour Government. I do not remember that happening during the Conservatives' 18 years.
  Gregory Barker: May I commend to the Minister the excellent campaign being run by the Sunday Mirror on respect for older people and draw his attention to the many facets of ageism that that campaign has highlighted in a survey of British seniors? May I press him specifically on age discrimination in the national health service? Just a couple of weeks ago, a leading conference organised by Cancer Research UK and Help the Aged highlighted the fact that elderly women over 70 are, because of their age, still being denied potentially life-saving surgery for breast cancer. That is happening two years after Ministers published a national service framework for older people and pledged to stamp it out. Why is it still occurring, and what will Ministers do about it?
  Malcolm Wicks: The question is asked at a time when our programme to help those with cancer is moving in the right direction and we are getting some very good results. I reiterate that my colleagues in the Department and all of us in the Government are determined to prevent any form of age discrimination from operating in the health service. If there are individual instances, such as those that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, I am sure that my colleagues in the Department of Health will consider them most carefully.
  Mr. John Hayes: As housing professionals are increasingly sceptical that the Government's target of bringing all social housing up to a decent level by 2010 will be met, does the Minister agree that the most vulnerable members of society—typically elderly people—will own or occupy a disproportionate number of indecent homes, and that there is no worse form of discrimination against the elderly than condemning them to inappropriate housing, which the Government have no plans to do anything about? Will the Minister state the specific measures that will be put in place for elderly people to ensure the end of that discrimination?
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Phil Hope): The decent homes target, is to have homes up to a decent standard by 2010. It is a very ambitious target, because, in 1997,

  145WH
  we inherited a housing stock that had been decimated by the Conservative party. There had been massive under-investment, and there was an £18 billion backlog of disrepair in the social housing stock.
  The Government have released £5 billion of local authority council house sales receipts to spend on improvement of that stock. That will disproportionately benefit elderly people who, as the hon. Gentleman rightly points out, occupy that social housing. The Conservative pledge to sell off social housing in local housing associations will do far more damage to affordable and decent housing for older people than any other single policy of his party.
  Mr. Hayes: The Minister stretches our credulity a little far given that the number of social houses built by the Government has fallen by one third, homelessness is at record levels and the number of people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation has risen.
  David Cairns: Rubbish.
  Mr. Hayes: It is not rubbish; all that can be found in information provided not by the Opposition but by experts in the field who work with people seeking homes and the developers who build them. Will the Minister answer my original question and tell us what specific measures the Government have put in place to help to ensure that the most vulnerable—the elderly—do not live in inadequate housing, and so meet the Government's targets?
  Phil Hope: The hon. Gentleman has decided completely to ignore the facts that I stated. The Government have allowed the release of £5 billion of local authority council house sales receipts, which has been specifically identified for improving the quality of social housing. We are well on track to achieve our target of raising to a decent standard every social housing home by 2010. I would like to see the Conservative party make a pledge to match that spending and guarantee that we achieve improvement in social housing over the next five years.
  Gregory Barker: I asked a question a moment ago and, given that we are dealing with cross-cutting questions, I was taken aback not to receive a response from the Health Minister who is present. I made a very serious point that women over 70 are being denied health care. That allegation was made by Professor Ian Fentiman of Guy's, King's and St. Thomas' medical school. Will the Health Minister, in his cross-cutting role, provide me with an answer to what the Government are doing and why, when they made a commitment two years ago, nothing has improved?
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): I reject that allegation. If the hon. Gentleman can provide evidence of discrimination, we will deal with it. We are committed to removing that sort of discrimination from the service. In support of my contention, surgery for people over 85 with breast cancer has risen by 13 per cent. Our target
  146WH
  for seeing people once cancer is first suspected is the same for all groups. All targets are the same for all age groups.
  Lady Hermon: Will the three Ministers reflect on their human rights obligations? They will know that article 3 of the European convention on human rights guarantees to everyone within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom freedom from degrading treatment. Article 14 prohibits discrimination on the grounds of any status whatever. Can the Ministers put their hands on their hearts and say that the measures, legislation and procedures in practice guarantee freedom for elderly people from discrimination and degrading treatment?
  Dr. Ladyman: Yes, we can give that commitment. The Government will not tolerate age discrimination anywhere that we find it. If any Members have evidence of it, bring it to us, and we will deal with it.

  Care Home Beds
  Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: How many care home beds for older people were provided by (a) the private sector and (b) local authorities (i) in May 1997 and (ii) on the latest date for which figures are available. [137441]
  Simon Hughes: What assessment the Government have made of care home provision in London for older people. [137442]
  Alistair Burt: How many care home beds for the elderly provided by (a) the private sector and (b) local authorities have been lost since May 1997. [137453]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): Overall, the total number of care home places for older people in England fell by 6 per cent. between 1998 and 2001, accounting for about 26,100 places. In local authority homes, the number fell by 21 per cent., or 10,900 places, compared with a fall of 4 per cent., or 15,200 places, in independent care homes. Information for 1997 is not available in a comparative format. The number of care home places in London was 47,430 in March 2001. The Government have encouraged local councils to commission an appropriate range of care services to provide older people with more choice of quality service. In London, more people have received care in their own home, as demonstrated by the 2001 figure of 17.1 households per 1,000 of population aged 65 or over receiving intensive home care, which compares with the average of 9.9 for England.
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger: It was so kind of you to mention London. I was going to talk about Somerset—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I suggest that the hon. Gentleman uses the correct parliamentary language in this Chamber? I am not involved in that at all.
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

  147WH
  The loss of care beds in Somerset and throughout the west country corresponds to the figures that the Minister gave, but the same is happening in local authority homes. The situation is getting worse. I am not surprised that neither the figures for 1997 nor the latest figures are available; they would be absolutely horrendous. When will the Minister stop the rot and start to provide beds and care for elderly people? More and more people in areas such as Somerset and the west country have to stay in hospital for longer, be looked after by people who are not qualified or, worse still, be pushed round the countryside by general practitioners to find beds. That is not a happy situation.
  Dr. Ladyman: I mentioned London in my answer because the hon. Gentleman's question was linked to the question of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), which specifically relates to London. The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) mentions Somerset, so I shall point out one other factor that he seems to have overlooked. There are in this country, according to Laing and Buisson's figures, 10,000 more care home beds than are actually needed. The idea that we have a shortage is completely wrong. With regard to Somerset, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to ask his council why only about 8 per cent. of people there have an intensive care home package. Most older people tell us that they do not want to be in care homes in the first place.
  Simon Hughes: Let me return to London. Does the Minister accept that, according to the National Audit Office report earlier this year, the figures for London and the south-east show that demand there is 12 per cent. above recommended occupancy rates? Speaking from constituency experience, I can say that the reality is that many people do not find homes in the communities where they live. As the report says,
  "a severe shortage of care homes in the capital means that London boroughs seek to place their clients outside the capital".
  What are the Government doing to ensure that people in the capital city who need care in a care home can find it somewhere near their family, friends and community?
  Dr. Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman should give London councils credit for the huge efforts that they are making to maintain people in their own homes. I give them great praise for being far ahead of the rest of the country on that. About 50 per cent. of people who need care in London receive it as an intensive care home package, and that is what most older people want.
  Clearly there is a problem if people who have to have a care home place cannot have one locally. However, we have given all councils, including those in London, sufficient resources to start to make interventions in the local marketplace and to pay the local rates needed to obtain care home places local to the people who need them.
  Simon Hughes: If I find, as I believe that I easily can, several London local authorities, irrespective of political management, who tell me that they cannot afford to provide in their boroughs the amount of residential care that people need who cannot have care at home—care at home is a good thing—will the Minister agree to see them? Will he explain to them why
  148WH
  he says that they have the money to provide the service when they say that they do not? Will he guarantee that the service that they can provide is of the quality that he would want for his parents and I for mine?
  Dr. Ladyman: I should be delighted to receive the names of such councils. If I do, I will look out the substantial increase in real terms resources that we have given those councils precisely so that they can deal with those issues. I will provide the hon. Gentleman with those figures so that he is aware that the councils have the money to deal with the issue if they wish to do so.
  Sandra Gidley: The Minister has obviously seen the Laing and Buisson report, but perhaps he will concede that he is being rather complacent about the fact that there are 10,000 vacancies. Last year there was a drop of 11,800, but all the predictions show that demand will double over the next 50 years and that we have reached a low plateau. What is the Minister doing to increase the number of care home places? It is not enough to consider the current situation; we must provide for the old people of the future.
  Dr. Ladyman: I reject the charge that demand for care home places will double over that time. Laing and Buisson is a respected consultant in the field, but it tends to take the view of the care home lobby. Let me put this to the hon. Lady: we have made available to local councils 25 per cent. more funding over and above inflation so that they can take local decisions about care home capacity. We cannot take decisions at the centre about the price that needs to be paid locally or the capacity required locally—that is a job for local government. Were we to take the view proposed by bodies such as Laing and Buisson that there should be a general and compulsory increase in care home rates across the country, it would cost us nearly £400 million. How would the hon. Lady guarantee that that money would get to the care homes when most councils tell us that they do not need to pay it, and where would she get the money from?
  Mr. Simon Burns: I agree with the Minister that Laing and Buisson is a highly respected independent body, but, whenever we have discussions of this nature, Ministers seem to be in denial. The Minister should be aware that his figures suggest that there has been a loss of just under 40,000 beds. Laing and Buisson's figures for the latest available period show that, between 1997 and 31 July 2003, the number of places in care homes fell from 572,600 to 501,900, which is a drop of 70,700. In his original answer, did the Minister include figures for the voluntary sector, as well as the private and local authority sectors? Can he explain why there is such a glaring discrepancy between his figures and what Laing and Buisson and people in the care home sector, who are at the sharp end of delivering care, believe is happening? Even if the Minister's statistics show that there are 10,000 surplus beds, he must understand that they are in the wrong place. Too many parts of the country have a severe shortage of beds, and people have to move further and further from their communities to find a place in a home.
  Dr. Ladyman: Let me start with the last point. Let the hon. Gentleman come to me with authoritative

  149WH
  statements from people who have the figures to demonstrate his case. Over the past month or so, I have had my officials ring around local authorities to ask, "Do you have an absolute shortage of care home beds or is it that the rate that you wish to pay for those beds is lower than the market in your area is demanding?" So far we have not found anywhere where there is an absolute shortage of care home places.
  I have had occasion before to remind the hon. Gentleman that he constantly quotes the reduction in care home beds since 1997. Why does he pick that particular date? Why does he not pick the date at which the contraction of the care home market began? The hon. Gentleman knows full well that it began as a result of the implementation of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, which was implemented in the mid-1990s. The peak in care home capacity occurred while the hon. Gentleman was Minister. That is when the contraction of the care home market began.
  Mr. Burns: I find that quite staggering. The Minister must know that, after the introduction of the policy in 1990, there was a significant increase in care homes and care home beds in this country. For him to try to suggest that there was a contraction in the number of beds as a result of that policy initiative is just gobbledegook.
  Dr. Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman is being economical with the actualité—I think that is the expression. He knows perfectly well that although the legislation was passed in 1990, it was not implemented until several years later.
  Mr. Burns: When?
  Dr. Ladyman: It was implemented from about 1993. If we use the figures from Laing and Buisson to determine when the peak in care home capacity was reached—and the Act started to kick in—we find that it began in 1995–96, just as the hon. Gentleman took over as Minister.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I say to Ministers in the hope that they pass this on to their officials, that it is extremely important when questions are being grouped that hon. Members are given notice of that fact? If someone's question is very low down in the order and is grouped with one higher up, it can be very misleading unless that information is passed on.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Bill Tynan: What action is being taken by the local Pension Service to encourage take-up of the pension credit. [137443]
  Kevin Brennan: What steps the Government are taking to maximise take-up of the pension credit. [137447]
  The Minister for Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): We want every pensioner to take up entitlement to the new pension credit. At the heart of our campaign is a direct mail pack to all pensioner households who have not been converted to pension credit automatically through
  150WH
  the old minimum income guarantee scheme. We have already written to 1.7 million households and we will be writing to the remainder by June next year. To support this process, we have a television, radio and press advertising campaign. The Pension Service locally is doing remarkably good work in spreading the word about the new pension credit.
  Mr. Tynan: "Give credit where it is due, and would you thank the Government from the bottom of my heart?" So speaks an ex-Conservative voter in Hamilton, South who received £46.20 in pension tax credit. However, there is concern regarding take-up. The Pension Service in Motherwell is in the constituency next door to mine. Would the Minister confirm that we have the resources to ensure that as many people as possible will receive personal information regarding the pension credit? Will he commit himself to ensuring that there are plenty of roadshows in my constituency and throughout the country, and will he ensure that adequate finance is available for that process?
  Malcolm Wicks: That is a very important question. We are absolutely determined that those entitled to pension credit should receive it. It is terrible to think that someone who could be better off by £30 or £40 a week will not hear about the pension credit. We all have a role to play.
  Despite much irresponsible scaremongering, pension credit has got off to a very good start. We reported to the House earlier this week that already 1.4 million individuals are better off because of pension credit. However, locally through advice surgeries, home visiting and in all sort of other ways—we need the advice of Members of Parliament about where best to locate advice surgeries—we are enabling the message about pension credit to get through. We all have a duty to make it a success. We are talking about some of the poorest and most vulnerable elderly people. They deserve pension credit; I am determined that they should receive it.
  Kevin Brennan: May I also commend to the House the campaign by the Sunday Mirror for respect for older people? In the implementation of the state pension credit, it is to the Government's credit that the check on the resources of people applying for the state pension credit will take place only every five years. That is an innovative way to show respect for older people while targeting the benefit at those who actually need it. In asking the Minister to make sure that the Government maximise the take-up of pension credit, I want him to minimise its take-up in one small respect by making sure that my constituents who used to work at Allied Steel and Wire and who have lost their pensions are compensated and therefore have no need to apply for it.
  Malcolm Wicks: My hon. Friend has led an important campaign for those workers. He knows that we are examining all reasonable ideas, but I must repeat that we cannot make promises because it would be wrong to raise false hopes. I commend his campaign and the skilful way in which he has brought that issue into a question about pensions.

  151WH
  We are determined to maximise the take-up of pension credit. We have got off to a very good start and are on course to meet our target of 3 million people receiving the credit by 2006.
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: Can the Minister confirm that far from getting off to a very good start the figures, that were produced two days ago show that only an extra 93,000 households out of a target of 1.2 million are getting the benefit? At that rate, it will take six and a half years for the Government to hit their modest targets. Can he confirm those figures? I am visiting the Pension Service in Eastbourne tomorrow and shall be keen to see whether the figures are borne out locally.
  Malcolm Wicks: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have a good visit and I should like to hear his impressions of it. Like many of us, he will be impressed by the Pension Service. When the shadow Secretary of State, who is the new director of policy development for the Conservative party, said how long it would take to reach our target on pension credit take-up, he was, with all due respect, talking nonsense and engaging in irresponsible scaremongering. I am confident that we will hit the target by 2006. It does not do much good if some people pretend that the pension credit is going badly when it is going very well. We all have a duty to try to ensure that people claim it.
  Mr. Waterson: The Minister speaks about targets, so can he confirm that it is still a Government target for 1.4 million of the poorest pensioners in this country—more than 2,000 of them live in my constituency—not to get round to claiming or receiving the pension credit?
  Malcolm Wicks: No, that is not the case. Some 4 million households are eligible, and our target is for 3 million households to receive the credit by 2006. The target is based on logistics and planning, but we want to go beyond it. My personal target is 100 per cent. take-up, because it is important that everyone who is entitled to the pension credit claims it. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Brennan) mentioned that the pension credit is 1 million miles away from the old-fashioned means test. The only thing that people must report is changes in their circumstances, and that will occur rarely. Allowing claims to be made over the telephone rather than by filling in a form is a new approach to targeting the poorest.
  John Robertson: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister, but unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan), I do not have any ex-Conservative voters in my constituency—come to think of it, there are not too many Conservative voters.
  I have asked the Minister several times about the simplification of the documentation—the forms and paperwork—that is used after the telephone conversation. I am still waiting for an answer on the documentation relating to the pension credit, which is compiled by a computer. I have read many of the letters, and I am starting to get my head round them. However, does not the documentation make it difficult for the elderly?
  Malcolm Wicks: As I have said before, my hon. Friend is a mighty champion for older people in his constituency. I thank him for that. It would probably be helpful if he and I could sit down together to consider the issue in detail. We obviously review the position and want to improve it, but the fact that elderly people do not have to fill in the form themselves—it can be done over the telephone or during a home visit—is a major breakthrough. If there are issues to resolve, however, I hope that my hon. Friend will accept my invitation to discuss them.
  Rob Marris: The telephone claim system is a great step forward, backed up by home visits for those who request and need them. Can the Minister give us some idea as to how the telephone system has worked? Sometimes, with private call centres, for example, one has to hang on a long time before the call is answered, and one call is not sufficient. What is happening with the call centres of the Department for Work and Pensions?
  Malcolm Wicks: Performance has been good, even during the first week of pension credit when, from memory, we had 160,000 phone calls. We are currently receiving fewer than that, but 95 per cent. of them are answered within 30 seconds. The system is standing up very well. Clearly, if telephony is at the heart of the service, the telephones have to be answered. We monitor the centres carefully, and so far the performance has been excellent. I congratulate the people in our pension centres and in the pension credit application centre on doing a good job in offering that public service.
  Mr. James Gray: If the use of call centres to apply for pension credit is so good, why did the Sunday Mirror—of all newspapers—say:
  "The very fact a senior has to pick up a phone, tell someone in a call centre they are poor, tell them how much money they have and ask 'can I have some more?' is very demeaning and straight out of a Dickens novel."?
  That is the Sunday Mirror's verdict on this Government policy.
  Malcolm Wicks: The previous Government relied heavily on means-testing, but the old-fashioned sort. It was a weekly means test, and any savings were knocked off the means-tested benefit, pound for pound. Our system is a long way from that. We have a savings credit, and we are not worried about people with £6,000 of savings, and that includes some 85 per cent. of those who are entitled to the pension credit. With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, how dare he lecture us about means-testing when his Government exercised that old-fashioned regime?
  I do not think, from the evidence, that there is anything demeaning about having a 20-minute conversation to apply for pension credit. One of the wonderful things is that people who are eligible for pension credit are hearing for the first time about

  153WH
  housing benefit, attendance allowance and other benefits. It is a success story, whether the hon. Gentleman likes it or not.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Lady Hermon.
  Lady Hermon: May I ask a question on pension credit, Mr Deputy Speaker, before moving on to my own question?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call the hon. Lady to ask Question 7.

  Domestic Security
  Lady Hermon: What resources were made available to provide security at the homes of elderly people in Northern Ireland in the last year for which figures are available. [137446]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): During 2002–04, the Government supported almost 50 projects under the community safety challenge funding initiative. Of those, 15 included measures related to community safety and older people. The value of those projects was estimated at £55,000. The awards were made to community safety partnerships, including four to Ballymena, three to Banbridge, two to Armagh and one each to Belfast, Fermanagh, Larne, Limavady, Lisburn and Antrim.
  In October 2003, the Government launched the lock out crime scheme, which will provide £2.25 million for the installation of security measures in the homes of older people during the next three financial years. Those measures will be available free of charge to those aged over 75 who are in receipt of housing benefit and rate rebate. The security features will include door and window locks, door bars, chains and external security lighting.
  Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I welcome his visit to Northern Ireland, and will take him to Limavady, where he will learn how to pronounce that name. It is not in my constituency, so he will have to come to North Down first.
  I welcome the Government's initiatives, but want to reflect on the answer, which I was given earlier, that there is no discrimination against elderly people. The Minister just said that the security measures are available only to those over 75 who are receiving housing benefit and who live in designated ward areas. Sadly, a gentleman called Mr. Ted O'Hare died in his home at the weekend as the result of a vicious attack during a burglary. He was 73, and would not have qualified. On Sunday afternoon, I visited two elderly constituents in North Down, both of whom have been burgled, but neither of whom would qualify under the criteria. One of them was intimidated by a young man in a balaclava wielding a gun, who threatened to shoot her dog. What criteria would accommodate such threats to elderly people in Northern Ireland? Will the Minister reflect on the importance of tight criteria and take into account the changes that are needed?
  Dr. Ladyman: First, I apologise to the good citizens of Limavady if I did not pronounce the name of their town
  154WH
  properly. Northern Ireland is not normally part of my portfolio. I am afraid that that is the only excuse that I can offer.
  The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Crime against anyone of any age is awful, but it is even more deplorable against older people. If we were to introduce the same measures for people aged between 60 and 75, it would cost about £25 million. We must draw a line somewhere. The Government believe that we should aim our resources at those aged over 75 because, according to the Northern Ireland crime survey, people over that age are more than two and a half times more likely to suffer from crime. However, I shall certainly pass the hon. Lady's comments on to my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office and ask them to reflect on her constituents' experiences.

  Pensioner Incomes
  Tony Cunningham: What assessment has been made of the effect of Government policy on the incomes of (a) all pensioners and (b) the poorest pensioners. [137449]
  The Minister for Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): At the heart of the Government's policy is our concern to get the appropriate balance between helping all elderly people and focusing extra support on the hard-pressed and the poorest. As a result, pensioner households will be some £1,250 a year better off in real terms compared with 1997, whereas the poorest one third of pensioner households will have gained some £1,600 a year in real terms. I hope that that demonstrates that we are getting the balance right.
  Tony Cunningham: I thank the Minister for that reply. I recognise and applaud both the fall in pensioner poverty and the huge sums of money that have been targeted at the poorest pensioners.
  A few people have mentioned the Sunday Mirror "Respect our Seniors" campaign. Incomes are not the only aspect of respect for our older people. I have lived in Africa, and I have been to many developing countries in which income is not great but there is huge respect for older people, their knowledge and experience. Many of our older people want to remain active but have problems with using buses, cashpoints and supermarkets. What are the Government doing to co-ordinate across Departments to ensure that our senior citizens get the respect that they richly deserve?
  Malcolm Wicks: We work closely with other Departments—most obviously with the Department of
  Health, but with others such as the Department for Education and Skills—to develop a co-ordinated strategy. That is important, and I hope to say more about it in due course.
  I, too, welcome the Sunday Mirror campaign. The fact that we tend to refer to older people as pensioners is extraordinary in a way. When my wife and I received child benefit, I did not think of myself primarily as a child-benefit recipient. Perhaps language is important. We need to develop the concept of seniors and senior citizens.
  Our analysis of need should be about not just dependency and disability but the commitments and contributions of many old people. Many of the younger

  155WH
  elderly are carers—often of the older elderly. Many are active citizens and may be school governors or justices of the peace. At 60 or 65, many want to remain in work, or to take up new training and IT opportunities. We need to develop that vision and match it with concrete policies. We are moving in the right direction, but our society has a long way to go to recognise the challenge of an ageing community in a positive rather than pessimistic way, and to recognise that many 21st century Britons will have retirements lasting 20, 25, 30 or more years. We need a revolution in our attitudes, as my hon. Friend suggested.
  Ms Oona King: One of the issues that impacts on the income of pensioners is the uprating of pensions. British pensioners moving abroad may or may not receive an uprating. For example, my mother, moving to France, did receive one, but a former constituent who moved to Australia did not. Pensioners who move to Canada do not receive an uprating either, but those who move to America, Israel or Jamaica do. When the Minister receives my letter on the subject, could he look favourably at extending reciprocal social security agreements to countries such as Australia, so that British pensioners do not have their pensions eroded?
  Malcolm Wicks: I always look favourably at my hon. Friend's letters, even though the replies sometimes do not find favour with her. We have agreements on that serious and complex issue with certain countries, and the situation in the European Union is different from elsewhere. Some difficult choices must be made, and this Government and previous Governments have judged that the costs of giving those pension rights in countries such as Australia and Canada are considerable—we are talking about several hundreds of millions of pounds. Notwithstanding those reciprocal agreements, our priority must primarily be to elderly people living in our own country.

  Delayed Discharge
  Mr. Julian Brazier: How many elderly were in an NHS hospital as a result of a delayed discharge in the last quarter for which figures are available. [137451]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): Some 4,710 adult patients remained in an acute hospital bed on any one day as a result of delayed discharge in June 2003, and 3,150 of those patients were aged 75 or over.
  Mr. Brazier: Is the Minister really comfortable with the introduction in Kent in January of fines for bed blocking under the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Act 2003? He knows as a Kent MP that the devastation in the care homes sector wrought by the botched Care Standards Act 2000 has badly affected the county, and he also knows about the rotten local government settlement. Is it fair that Kent county council should be penalised for the bed blocking in NHS hospitals, when central Government have done so much to make finding places for many elderly people impossible?
  Dr. Ladyman: I think that the situation in Kent is fair. I have talked about the situation with the director of
  156WH
  social services in Kent county council, who vehemently denies the charge that there is a shortage of care homes. He can buy his care home places at a particular price because there is overcapacity in Kent. That is the price that the council deals at, and the director is perfectly happy with the situation. Care home owners may not be happy with it, however, because the market is forcing their prices down.
  As for the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Act, every council in the country has been given a grant to cover their reimbursements. If they do the job efficiently and with a certain measure of good planning, the grant will be sufficient for them to deal with delayed discharges, pay any fines that may result and make a profit.
  Mr. Brazier: The Minister must know, as a Kent MP, that what he said is a severe distortion of the facts. Kent elderly people are in nursing homes side by side with people from London who receive funding from central Government that is, in some cases, up to twice as much per capita as that received by Kent. The Minister also knows that Kent runs one of the slimmest operations anywhere in the country in terms of overheads. Is he seriously asking the Chamber to believe that Kent's problems with funding are due to inefficiency, rather than to one of the three worst settlements in the country, which delivered an increase in real terms for every constituency represented by a Cabinet Minister?
  Dr. Ladyman: I did not say that Kent would have problems caused by inefficiency. I said that Kent was not going to have problems—it does not need to, because Kent county council is efficiently run. I work closely with Kent and I take great exception to the hon. Gentleman's implication that I am distorting the situation there. I can tell him from my own experience that, at the height of the problems that were caused by bed blocking two or three years ago, eight fully equipped nursing home beds in a nursing home in my constituency stood empty in the middle of winter, because it was not in Kent county council's interest to help to get people out of hospital and into those beds. The situation has changed throughout the country as a result of the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Act. For the first time, councils have a real financial imperative to work with the NHS to get people out of hospital beds and into the places where they can be properly cared for. That will happen, and it will be a great success.
  Alistair Burt: Does not the Minister recognise the concern behind the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) that the pressure in respect of delayed discharges is exacerbated by the loss of care home beds, and that it is not relieved by some notion of a national surplus if there is an especially acute problem in a particular local area? Mike Glynn of the Bedfordshire Care Homes Association told me that at a meeting last week. The members said that Bedfordshire care homes were running at a capacity of 95 per cent. or more, which gives them precious little leeway if a problem arises in the coming winter. How does the

  157WH
  Minister intend to avoid a crisis in delayed discharges during the coming winter if the margin for getting people into care homes is as tight as that?
  Dr. Ladyman: First, I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if, inadvertently, we did not tell him that his Question 12 had been grouped with an earlier question. I take full responsibility for that, and I will ensure that the question is dealt with.
  We gave substantial sums to local councils. We gave them a capacity-building grant to allow them to start preparing for the delayed discharge grant, so that they ensured that there was sufficient local capacity. This year, we also gave local councils throughout the country a delayed discharge grant of £50 million for six months while the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Act operates in shadow form. We gave them that money because there will be no reimbursements during that six-month period, and they can use it to build capacity locally. The reimbursements start only from next year.
  I believe, and I have no evidence to suggest otherwise, that all councils that undertake proper capacity planning and that are willing to alter the amounts that they sometimes pay, if that is what the local market requires, can prepare for the reimbursement system in such a way that they can avoid paying more money in fines than they have received in grants. I ask the hon. Gentleman to let me know if he has evidence to the contrary, or if there is an absolute shortage anywhere in the country. I will then talk to the local council in that area and find out what they have done with the capacity-building grants that we have given them.
  Mr. David Drew: Does my hon. Friend accept that considering the care home sector in isolation is the wrong way in which to approach the problem? My local authority, and I am sure that local authorities throughout the country are doing the same, is considering other ways in which to provide care, mainly at home but in another setting if necessary, which includes rehabilitation and respite. The NHS forgot about rehabilitation and respite for a long time, but it is vital that we consider those matters, because locking people into the care home sector, much as it does valuable work, and I have no reason to cast aspersions on it, is not the right solution for everyone. There is a need for greater flexibility, and I hope that my hon. Friend will tell us how that can be achieved.
  Dr. Ladyman: My hon. Friend is right: we need to consider the matter with better eyes and focus on more than the care home sector. We have done that. We have, for example, prevented local councils from charging for adaptations to homes, so that people can adapt their homes in order to stay at home if they need to. One reason why I took such exception to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) saying that I was accusing Kent county council of inefficiency was that I am working with that council on an innovative scheme that it is leading and that will involve 11 councils throughout the country. They have set themselves the target of preventing 30 per cent. of the admissions of older people into hospital by doing exactly the sort of things that my hon. Friend mentioned.
  158WH
  Only yesterday, I was in Torquay looking at something called the crisis, assessment and rapid reablement intervention for the elderly team, which is a rapid response team. When an older person has an event that would, under normal circumstances, require acute treatment, the CARRIE team moves in quickly, ensuring that the care the person receives enables them to stay at home to deal with it and that they do not need a hospital bed. We must consider admissions, discharges, home care and intermediate care provision in order to build a picture of how to deal with the wider problem.

  Council Tax
  Mr. George Osborne: What steps the Government are taking to reduce the council tax burden on pensioners. [137452]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Phil Hope): We understand the pressures that some pensioners face with their council tax bills, but we believe that we should target help through the benefits system to those in most need. Council tax benefit is paid to nearly 2.5 million pensioners. With the recent introduction of pension credit, almost 1.9 million pensioner households will qualify for more help, or qualify for help for the first time.
  Mr. Osborne: I did not really like the Minister's emphasis on the word "some". Many pensioners struggle with council tax bills. Pensioner are often, as the Minister knows, on tight budgets, and a sudden increase affecting one aspect of that budget has a disproportionate impact. Is he aware that some pensioners pay up to 10 per cent. of their income in council tax bills—[HON. MEMBERS: "Some?"]—and many more pay equally substantive amounts of their income? What does the Minister think would be a fair proportion of a pensioner's income to be spent on council tax?
  Phil Hope: The hon. Gentleman raises a key point, which is causing debate across the country. We are aware of it. The amount of council tax that pensioners have to pay is a matter for local councils. They are responsible for it and for its impact. The grant that local authorities have received has increased in real terms by 25 per cent. since 1997—in contrast with a cut of 7 per cent. in real terms during the last four years of the Conservative Government. When it comes to local councils deciding on tax levels, the Conservative party might like to reflect on its record in office and what it achieved—that 7 per cent. cut—compared with the 25 per cent. increase for authorities around the country under this Government.
  Mr. Osborne: As I am sure that the Minister knows, the Government's Red Book is already planning for an increase in council taxes of double the rate of inflation; it is not entirely up to local councils to determine the level of council tax. Perhaps I may ask again the question that I put in my first supplementary: what does he think would be a fair proportion of a pensioner's income to be spent on council tax?
  Phil Hope: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. My point is that the answer

  159WH
  depends on local authorities' decisions about council tax. Vale Royal authority, in his constituency, had a grant increase of no less than 12.5 per cent. in this financial year, and the county council of Cheshire had a 7.9 per cent. increase in grant from the Government. When local authorities make decisions about the amount of council tax that pensioners will have to pay, they will take into account the increase that they have received from this Government. We support local authorities. We have given them freedoms and flexibilities, starting from 18 November, to make choices about pension discounts and other ways of giving support to pensioners, if they so wish. The hon. Gentleman must take the matter up with his local authorities.
  Rob Marris: One aspect of the issue is the take-up of council tax benefit. Some innovative councils, such as Thameside, have fantastic take-up rates for council tax benefit. What sort of encouragement is his Department bringing to bear on local authorities to run innovative council tax benefit take-up campaigns, which would assist further in sorting out some of the issues?
  Phil Hope: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to the importance of take-up. Local authorities have a good record. However, in some areas, particularly those where pensioners own their homes, take-up is not as good as it should be—it can be as low as 40 per cent.—and we could do considerably more.
  I am pleased to say that the introduction of the pension credit gives us a good opportunity in that regard. It will go up, and the additional money will not be clawed back. We are going to increase pensioners' savings by as much as £14.79 per week for a single pensioner and £19.20 per week for a couple. The combination of pension credit and council tax benefit will make a real difference—it will reinforce the incomes of pensioners, particularly those in most need.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am grateful for the co-operation of hon. Members, which has enabled us to be inclusive this afternoon. I shall arrange for more questions to be printed on the Order Paper for the next cross-cutting questions sitting.
  3.24 pm
  Sitting suspended until half-past Three o'clock.

Housing
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Joan Ryan.]
3.30 pm
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill): Allow me to begin by expressing my pleasure that we are holding this debate under your wise chairmanship, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are aware that I have always been a fan, and I am sure that we shall have a well ordered, if vigorous, debate. While I am in congratulatory mode, I shall anticipate later developments in the debate by welcoming the hon. Member for the wonderfully named constituency of South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), to his new portfolio as the shadow Minister with responsibility for housing and planning.
I am delighted to have secured this debate to talk about the Government's determination to give everyone the opportunity to have a decent home in a sustainable community. We clearly set out that aim in the 2000 housing Green Paper and the subsequent policy statement, which together represented the first comprehensive review of housing for nearly a quarter of a century. We are pressing forward with the implementation of the actions set out in those policy documents to deliver quality and choice across all types of housing, owned or rented, private or public.
Our focus on delivery was sharpened when the Deputy Prime Minister set out his vision of sustainable communities in February 2003. That action programme recognises that to develop communities in which people wish to live, improvements in the supply and condition of housing need to be linked to improvement in economies, public services, transport and the environment. The communities plan sets out what the Government need to do to create thriving inclusive communities in all regions, backed by a significant increase in resources of £22 billion—an increase of 40 per cent. over the next three years—together with major reforms of the housing sector.
Hon. Members will be aware that in March 2003 the Government published a draft Housing Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny and public consultation. That was very much the next step in the process. The Select Committee on Housing, Planning and Local Government undertook an inquiry into the draft Bill, and I very much welcome its report. We found both pre-legislative scrutiny and public consultation extremely useful.
We have carefully considered all the Select Committee's recommendations and we published our response to its report earlier this week. We have accepted some recommendations unconditionally, and have undertaken to consider others further. We are using those recommendations to produce a final Bill ready for introduction when Parliamentary time allows. We have not been able to accept all the recommendations, and where that is the case we have set out our reasons clearly. I welcome the opportunity to respond to the Select Committee's report in this debate.
A good supply of decent quality, affordable housing is integral to any sustainable community. Today, I should like to focus on how the Government hope to achieve that goal in future legislation, and how we intend to deliver decent homes and decent places, and protect the most vulnerable in the housing market.

161WH
Our proposals in the draft Housing Bill tackle some of the most pressing problems in private sector housing. More than 80 per cent. of housing in England is in the private sector. We intend to give home owners and private sector tenants access to well managed, well maintained houses. That means raising the quality and management of some of the housing that is in the worst condition, tackling bad landlords and antisocial tenants, improving the process of buying and selling homes and, as I have said, protecting the most vulnerable in the housing market. Our proposals are not just about private sector housing; some will cut across all tenures, and others will tackle specific problems faced by the social sector.
More than two thirds of homes are owner-occupied. At some point, most people will buy or sell a property, and many of those people currently find that process fraught with problems, time-consuming, costly and stressful. The key problem is lack of transparency, and the Government are committed to taking action to improve that process. We will, therefore, press ahead with the home information pack provisions in the draft Bill.
The introduction of such packs is a manifesto commitment. They will make home buying and selling easier, more transparent and more successful by making key information available right at the start of the process. Recent survey research has shown that nine out of 10 people are unhappy with the process of buying and selling homes, and the majority believe that the introduction of home information packs could go some way towards easing the buying process. I am delighted that our home information pack reforms have the full support of the Consumers Association.
The Select Committee suggested further trialling of the packs before they are introduced on a compulsory basis. I do not agree. Home information packs are not new. International experience and the success of small-scale schemes in the UK have demonstrated the benefits. There has been a voluntary local pilot in the Bristol area, and we are currently testing home condition reports in different areas and markets. However, voluntary local pilots cannot replicate a compulsory national scheme, and I do not believe that further testing could tell us much more than we already know.
Mr. David Kidney: I know that there is a lot of nervousness about the introduction of the pack, but I welcome it as a consumer protection measure. Many people are asking whether the regulations that will determine what must be in the pack and the home condition survey will be available by Second Reading of the Bill. Will that be the case?
Keith Hill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for the proposed home information pack. We have consulted widely already, and the broad contents of the home information pack are already familiar to Members and practitioners. The home information pack will contain a home condition report, details of local searches, other legal documents and relevant planning consent. In future, after the introduction of European legislation on thermal efficiency, it will also
162WH
contain information about the energy efficiency of the home up for sale. We have sought to provide as much information as possible by way of draft regulation and guidance, and if such a Bill were introduced, we would endeavour to lay as much information before the House as possible.
Matthew Green: The Minister has said that most of the information is available. Estimates based on the information available suggest that it will cost the average householder about £1,000 to produce the information in the packs. How will that help the Government's other aim of making housing more affordable?
Keith Hill: Unusually, the hon. Gentleman has allowed himself to be misled by the mass media on this occasion. I do not for one moment recognise that figure of £1,000. Our estimate is that the pack will cost about £600, but it is important to remember that most of the elements of the pack are already elements for which the purchaser has to pay in normal circumstances. The only new element in the pack will be the home condition report.
I want to allay the scaremongering that has occurred on the matter. It is worth remembering, while we are on the subject, the extraordinary costs to the economy at large and to individuals that result from the present unsatisfactory nature of the home-buying process. It is estimated that one in three would-be home sales fall through. That costs the economy £1 million a day, as well as the stress, anxiety and, often, despair caused to individuals. Inaction is not an option. On the basis of the evidence from trials and surveys here, and from the experience of implementation of the arrangement in Denmark and Australia, and reassured by the support of the Consumers Association, we are confident that this will prove an extremely popular, helpful and efficient way of contributing to the housing market.
Mr. David Drew: Will my right hon. Friend accept that one of the most important elements is to inform buyers of what they are not being informed of at present? I know of countless cases—no doubt my right hon. Friend does as well—of people who bought a property and then found that it was subject to flooding, or subject to some joint access arrangement that they did not understand because their solicitors failed to do a proper search. The packs may not completely remove such problems, but they will substantially reduce them. I hope that my right hon. Friend agrees with that.
Keith Hill: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who makes a valid point. He is right to say that all MPs find such cases replicated in their constituency advice surgeries.
There have been calls to make the packs voluntary. Again, I disagree with that. Home information packs will be effective only if they are compulsory. Most transactions involve chains. Just one property marketed without a home information pack would negate the benefits that the packs provide for all the other transactions, as the chain will move at the pace of the slowest. There will always be people who want a free ride. They will look to benefit from others paying for a pack, but will not produce one themselves.

163WH
However, I recognise the concerns raised by some in the industry about the readiness of the market. As I have said before, home condition reports will not be introduced until we are satisfied that sufficient numbers of home inspectors and satisfactory insurance arrangements are in place.
The Select Committee had concerns about the impact of packs on low-value properties and low-demand areas. We are considering the results of our consultation on that subject. I recognise the potential merit of a value-based approach to any possible exemption, but I wish to take full account of the consultation exercise before reaching a decision. The House will be aware that in the draft Bill, a power was proposed to make different provision for different areas. That power could be used to deal with the issue. We could also use the power to facilitate a phased introduction of compulsory home information packs as part of a roll-out across England and Wales, if that were found to be practicable and advantageous. I am discussing that possibility with consumer and industry stakeholders.
Most private sector housing is owner-occupied, but some 2 million people live in private rented accommodation. The private rented sector is growing again, and the Government are keen to work with landlords to improve its quality. Mandatory licensing of houses in multiple occupation is also a manifesto commitment, and we intend to set the scope of mandatory licensing in secondary legislation. We expect it to cover properties that have three or more storeys and house five or more people who constitute more than one household.
The Select Committee recommended extending the scope of mandatory licensing. I am not convinced that that would be the best approach. I am keen to limit mandatory licensing to the highest-risk properties to avoid unnecessary regulation and costs for landlords and tenants. The man in Whitehall does not always know best.
However, I fully accept that other HMOs could cause difficulties, and could benefit from licensing. There is scope in the proposed legislation to allow local authorities to apply licensing to problematic HMOs. Local authorities would need to consult those affected about their proposals for additional licensing. The proposals would then be subject to the consent of the Secretary of State. We are working with the Local Government Association to decide how best to operate such a consent scheme.
Introducing licensing will ensure that landlords are fit and proper and that they have adequate management standards in place.
Jon Trickett: While my right hon. Friend is on that theme, may I remind him of the interrelationship between poor landlordism, antisocial behaviour and decline in demand in areas of low housing demand? In a village in my constituency where there is very poor demand, a good landlord, with the support of the community and myself as the local Member of Parliament, evicted tenants who were guilty of disgraceful behaviour. They were moved four houses up the street to a landlord who does not give a damn about what happens in the community. That has led to a migration of people from the street, abandoned
164WH
houses, a further spiral of decline and problems with housing demand. Does the Minister accept that that is a problem and that, although we are not necessarily talking about HMOs, selective licensing might help? Next time he tours the north will he consider revisiting my constituency, which he enjoyed visiting in 1996 when he helped me to get elected?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Nicholas Winterton): Before the Minister replies, I must say that I have allowed what I consider to be rather a long intervention. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman will try to catch my eye later, but a number of people want to speak, so I hope that if there are interventions, they will be brief and to the point, and that the Minister will, as ever, deal with them expeditiously.
Keith Hill: I shall certainly that I will stick to your stricture, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I count the election of my hon. Friend in that notable by-election as one of the very few achievements to which I have personally contributed during my period in Parliament. I enjoyed my visit to Hemsworth, and I am always open to offers to return.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the devastating impact of poor management and criminality in areas of low demand, and that is why we are introducing a system of selective licensing, about which I will say more shortly. He identifies a problem that is repeated in city after city where there is so-called market failure. The Government are absolutely determined to take action on it as part of our antisocial behaviour agenda. I hope that I was sufficiently brief in my response to that intervention.
We believe that the introduction of HMO licensing will ensure that landlords provide fit and proper management, and have adequate management standards in place. The HMO sector has some of the properties in the worst condition. A licensing regime would operate alongside a new health and safety rating system for housing, aimed at high-risk properties, including HMOs. The new rating system would replace the existing housing fitness standard, and help local authorities to concentrate their attention on the properties in the worst condition, which often house some of the most vulnerable people. The fitness standard dates back 80 years. There was widespread support for moving away from the fitness standard when we first consulted on it in 1998, and again in 2001.
There is a close link between poor housing conditions and health. Our proposed new system would help local authorities target the properties where health and safety hazards present the greatest potential harm to occupants. The Select Committee report detailed some concerns, because we were unable to let the Committee see the detailed guidance for the system when it scrutinised the draft Bill. I revert to my earlier observations in response to my hon. Friend the Member for—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Stafford.
Keith Hill: How can I forget my ministerial visit to Stafford?
In the event of legislation, there will be two sets of guidance. I would intend to make a draft of the technical and enforcement guidance for the system available in

165WH
advance of any parliamentary consideration of the legislation. Final versions of both sets of guidance would be published for the benefit of local authorities in the run-up to any implementation of the system. The new system is more sophisticated than the current fitness standard. It is evidence-based and allows local authorities to consider the actual harm that hazards present to the occupants, rather than the very blunt "fit" or "unfit" categorisation that we have now.
I accept that the guidance material available to local authorities may be over-complicated for landlords who must understand their obligations, but do not need to apply the system. I am therefore committed to producing guidance aimed at landlords, which will be tested and trialled with them to make sure that it is user-friendly and understandable.
I shall now discuss the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett). Tackling antisocial behaviour and neighbourhood decline is a top priority for the Government. As we have indicated, we intend to give local authorities new powers to license private landlords selectively. The powers will add to local authorities' armoury of measures to tackle neighbourhood decline and antisocial behaviour, particularly in the private rented sector.
I know that the Select Committee argued for licensing to be as wide as possible, and I agree that we must consider further situations in which the power might be used. The draft Bill envisaged that it would be available to tackle low housing demand and other areas where there are problems such as antisocial behaviour and criminality. There may be other scenarios involving, for example, regeneration areas where selective licensing would help to involve private sector landlords in the redevelopment of communities. Again we are working with the Local Government Association to draw up the criteria for designating areas for selective licensing.
Selective licensing is entirely new. If the powers were introduced, local authorities would be required to consult those affected locally and to seek the Secretary of State's consent before designating an area for licensing. I am keen to work with local authorities to see how the power might best be used.
As we set out in our response to the Select Committee report, we want to introduce new provisions to help local authorities tackle antisocial behaviour in the social housing sector. Local authorities will be able to refuse mutual exchanges when tenants have been antisocial, and antisocial tenants could also lose their right to buy.
The draft Bill proposed further modernisation of the right-to-buy scheme. The Select Committee welcomed that but, characteristically, called for more. We have carefully considered the recommendations of both the Committee and the home ownership task force, whose report is published today. I pay tribute on behalf of the House to its work under the able chairmanship of Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde. In the light of both reports, the Government have decided to introduce at the appropriate time further right-to-buy measures, so that the right to buy can contribute more effectively and more fairly to the supply of affordable housing.
The Government also expect to make changes to the regulatory powers of the Housing Corporation and the National Assembly for Wales, which include allowing
166WH
payment of grants to organisations other than registered social landlords, such as developers and builders, to develop affordable housing. That should widen opportunities to develop new affordable housing.
During the consultation process on the draft Bill, there have, of course, been calls to add further provisions. Where there is a case for taking immediate action and where we are in a position to legislate, I have been ready to consider the addition of such provisions. However, I have not accepted all the proposed additions. I know that there is significant support for a tenancy deposit scheme and compulsory leasing of empty homes. In both cases, we must consider the issues carefully before acting. We are committed to considering tenancy deposits in the wider context of the Law Commission's proposals on housing tenure published earlier this month.
In introducing the debate, I have been concerned to set out the Government's latest thinking on the draft Housing Bill and how we might advance our proposals. All in all, I believe that the proposals that I have highlighted will make for a more efficient and effective housing market that better protects the most vulnerable people. I now turn with eager anticipation to hearing the views and responses of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members to those important proposals.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We thank the Minister for introducing the debate.
3.54 pm
Ms Oona King: I commend the Minister on securing this debate on improving housing conditions and making the market work better. Ironically, if we left housing supply to the market, it would cripple the economy. That is because without social housing or the subsidy of private sector housing to those on low incomes, areas of high-value housing such as London would be left with only the very rich. The very rich are very good for some things, but in other areas they are good for nothing. One of those areas is key worker activity. Millionaires never make good nurses, teachers, police officers, bus drivers or dustbin men. However, without those groups, the capital's economy would seize up.
I wish to structure my brief contribution around how to increase the supply of affordable housing and how to make that housing decent. We also need to consider how we are to bring the money into that area, because there is such a large backlog, which we heard about earlier. It stood at £19 billion in 1997. In Tower Hamlets, the council believes—as does PricewaterhouseCoopers, which it commissioned to research the matter—that in its case, of the various options that the Government gave to local authorities to bring their houses up to a decent standard, the only viable one is stock transfer. That is because Tower Hamlets has negative values. Even if we group together some of the good housing, it is so outweighed by housing that is of a poorer quality that we are unable to make the sums add up without extra help and private investment.
The other thing that both the Government and the council are keen to do is to increase local resident involvement. For that reason, Tower Hamlets embarked on housing choice, which was a programme

167WH
to allow local residents the chance to decide how they would like the future housing requirements of Tower Hamlets to be met. The majority of residents voted for further inquiries into stock transfer. The problem that we face, and it goes to the heart of this debate—making the market work better—is that the market on its own, and private investment on its own, cannot make our sums in Tower Hamlets add up.
Consider the Government's new decent homes standard: in London, 54 per cent. of council homes fail to meet the decent standard. However, in Tower Hamlets, 76 per cent. of council homes fail to meet it. That is because, historically, Tower Hamlets has had some of the worst housing in Britain, and that is why my constituency in the east end was home to the very first council estate ever built. However, for decades—[Interruption.] I hear my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) saying from a sedentary position that it was Bradford. However, I will have him know that the Boundary estate was set up in the very fine constituency of Bethnal Green and Bow. If he would like to challenge me to a duel on the matter, I shall be happy to undertake the challenge.
There has been under-investment for decades. It is not realistic to think that Tower Hamlets can, on its own, make good the lack of investment that has left us with 76 per cent. of council tenants living in homes that do not meet the decent standard. I therefore want to impress upon the Minister the urgency of the situation, because at the moment we have a programme ready to go, but we cannot move forward. There is some disquiet because we were given to understand in the communities plan that some money would be available to help stock transfer, just as money is available to help some of the other options. I have written to my right hon. Friend on that, and I hope to meet him very soon to put some of these concerns to him in much greater detail, but the long and the short of it is that if we do not get gap funding to help stock transfer in Tower Hamlets, we will not be able to meet the Government's decent homes target by 2010. We cannot fudge it. There is no simpler way of putting it than that. We will not be able to meet that standard.
Even sadder than that is the fact that we would lose the momentum that has built up around the current attempts, which have been supported by local residents. For example, I commend Bernie Cameron who has been working very hard with the tenant compact group to get the momentum going so that we are able to move forward with this programme of stock transfer. It is ironic that residents and the local authority in Tower Hamlets are trying to do what the Government are encouraging us to do, but—I am sure for purely technical reasons—we have not yet been able to move forward.
I understand that the Minister is not able to give me a substantial response now, and I would not expect that, but perhaps he can agree to meet constituents, or a group of residents, from Tower Hamlets in the future, after he has met the delegation from Tower Hamlets and heard what an astonishingly good case it has to put forward.
I said that I would be brief, and I shall be. In leaving this subject, I mention two other items, but shall not go into them in detail. The first is the tenancy deposit scheme. I have raised that in the House previously. I
168WH
seemed to detect from what the Minister said that the Government are perhaps evolving their thinking on the matter. I certainly hope that is the case.
My second point is on overcrowding. The Minister will be aware that my constituency has the worst overcrowding in Britain. I took one of his predecessors to visit an extended family where 16 people were living in two bedrooms. That really is unacceptable. Even stranger is that a family of eight people living in two bedrooms is not statutorily overcrowded under the overcrowding standard introduced in 1935. Obviously, I would appreciate some improvement there.
I just remind the Minister that one of the reasons why the Government are looking at improving housing conditions and making the market work better is that we want to reduce child poverty. That is a Government pledge: halving child poverty and then ending it within a generation. The fact is that in England 48 per cent.—nearly half—of all children who live in poverty live in inner London. For that reason, I urge the Minister to make progress on these issues.
4.3 pm
Mr. David Kidney: I shall start by discussing housing conditions, then move on to the need to make the market work better.
I shall start in a very good place: empty homes. Statistics show that 130,000 or so households are without a permanent home of their own, while at any one time 750,000 properties in the country stand empty, and that makes it easy to see why we should be determined to take more effective action on bringing empty homes back into use. I once promoted a ten-minute Bill, the Empty Homes Bill, which was published and had four elements. The first was that every authority should have a strategy for reducing the incidence of empty homes. The second was that data exchange should be available to enable authorities to identify empty homes. The third was that we should do something about the exemptions from paying council tax on properties standing empty, and the fourth was that we should strengthen local authorities' powers of compulsory purchase. I am pleased to say that that Bill obviously had some effect because, since it was published, the Government have taken action on all four matters. The provision to allow data exchange was a welcome recognition by the Government, but action on the other three was not quite as well achieved as I should have liked, so I shall give the Minister seven out of 10 on that subject.
I shall move on from empty homes to the renovation of homes in which people live that could do with being in better condition. There are problems. The Minister mentioned the experience we get from our casework. I have discovered from mine that people who are disabled and would like adaptations to their homes to make them suitable for their disability find that they face huge delays. They either experience delay in getting social services to make an assessment of their home or delay afterwards in getting help from public homes to make the adaptations, even when the disabled facilities grant is mandatory—and that is not to mention the discretionary grants they may also need. I hope that the Minister will pay some attention to that.
Beyond that, some people would simply like to renovate homes rather than build new ones. It seems curious to me that people still pay VAT to renovate

169WH
existing properties, but there is no VAT involved in building a brand new house on a greenfield site. It gives a rather curious sense of our values that we allow that to continue, but we do.
The Government deserve a huge pat on the back for their work on market renewal. Last Friday, I was able to attend a briefing for the market renewal pathfinder in north Staffordshire. Although that is not in my constituency, I regard my area as part of the north Staffordshire economy and, after all, Stoke-on-Trent is my home town, so I take a close interest in the matter. I say to the Minister that the pathfinder in Stoke needs close attention and support. There has been terrible neglect in the area, both in its physical fabric and the capacity of the local work force to be able to do the kind of work that is necessary. I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic when he faces requests for help, even in relation to the personnel needed to help with the work of the pathfinder.
I learned from that experience, and I appreciate from the national approach that there has to be a strategic approach both to housing problems that must be faced and met, and to wider community challenges such as infrastructure, jobs and training that go with housing. All those issues need to be addressed, supported, and publicised, so that the schemes—as they are seen to be successful—expand throughout the country.
My main plea concerning conditions of properties is that we should look to the future and make homes more environmentally sustainable. Some elements of sustainability are included in existing building regulations. Part L relates to energy efficiency, and part M relates to life-long standards and disability access, each of which is under some criticism. Part L is already outdated and part M, even though it was effective only from 1999, is already the subject of criticism. I saw some research findings from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation suggesting that there is wholesale ignorance or wilful disregard of part M standards, both by local authorities and developers. That is a worrying piece of research to read.
I hope that the Minister will reassure us that his Department is determined that existing building regulations will be properly enforced. Going beyond those regulations, the Building Research Establishment has done some excellent work in developing eco-homes standards. A good physical example of such eco-homes is the BedZED project, and we are all receiving invites to see it. I am sorry that I have not been yet; I want to go. It would be helpful to develop such schemes throughout the country so that they would be showcases of success. I would like to volunteer my area of the country for a pilot.
I congratulate WWF, which has a campaign promoting sustainable homes. Like myself, it thinks that there should be eco-homes demonstration sites throughout the country. It is trying to interest investors in taking an interest in investing in such developments, and it is looking to launch awards for good practice in that area. Next year, it hopes to sponsor jointly with the Housing Corporation a web-based toolkit of good practice. The urgency for such work is clear from a
170WH
report produced by WWF, called "One Planet Living in the Thames Gateway". I took notice of the very first sentence:
"If everyone on the planet were to consume natural resources and pollute the environment as we currently do in the UK, we would need three planets to support us."
That is a pretty frightening statistic. Does the Minister agree that we could update our building regulations to concentrate more on eco-homes standards? Is it right that that requires primary legislation? Is it right that the Minister and his Department want to set up a sustainable buildings task group to sort out the new building regulations, and if so, is it not time that such a task group was established? Having spoken to many people involved on all sides of the industry, I find that there is a great desire for things to move forward quickly, and everywhere I go I am told that people are not doing so because the Government are not acting quickly. Please can the Minister pay some attention to that? It is pretty urgent given that the Government are committed to such a lot of new building in the near future, including in the Thames gateway. It would be nice to think that we could build the next great developments to eco-standards.
I do not want to say more about housing conditions, but there is one point that the Minister did not mention when talking about the items that he rejected for inclusion in the Housing Bill: the situation of people who live in park homes. The subject has been well investigated, and the Government have accepted that existing legislation is inadequate. Retired people put their life savings into buying a park home, which they locate on a site where they must pay a licence fee. Existing legislation does not protect them from harassment, abuse of their rights or overcharging for the utilities that everyone else takes for granted, as long as they pay their bills. It really is time that such people had better protection. My plea is that the Housing Bill is a good opportunity to give them the modern law that is needed.
I want to mention several items in connection with making the market work better. I am concerned about the inability of young people in rural areas to remain in the communities where they grew up. They cannot do so because no affordable homes are left in their villages. My concern is shared by the communities themselves, all the councils—from parishes up to counties—the Country Land and Business Association and the Countryside Agency, representatives of both of which I met recently, and many others. There is a need for more intense effort to deliver more affordable homes and more homes generally in rural areas. I know that the Government have reviewed PPG3 and have recently completed consultation on the exceptions policy and whether to replace it with a new land-use planning designation of social housing. However, I ask the Minister to recognise the urgency of providing ways to deliver more homes in rural areas. With the development of quality town and parish councils, this could be a really good time for a renaissance of power and respect for those councils. If every one of them could be encouraged and required to carry out village appraisals and design statements for their areas, local communities might join in with the spirit of ensuring that there is enough housing in their area.

171WH
The appraisal of present options for council housing has just reached Stafford. The council is appraising its four options—or is it really only three? It cannot afford to reach decent home standards for council housing by 2010, and the Government will not say that it can have any extra resources to bridge that gap. Are people really being told that, practically, there is a choice of only three? I am a little worried about that approach. In Stafford, as in some other high-profile cases, the tenants like the council and its housing management enough to vote against a transfer. It would be embarrassing people were told that they had chosen an option that they could not have. I would like the Government to be a little more sympathetic towards good councils that want to continue their council housing. At the strategic level, council housing is important as part of a diverse housing market and can act as a restraint on house prices rushing ahead. It is a social service for those who cannot afford a home and is popular with some people I would like it to survive.
The Minister and I exchanged a few words about home information packs. I support the project as a consumer protection measure, but there are warnings about the difficulties. One is that there will not be enough surveyors. It is curious that people seem to want to turn away business. I would have thought that they would want to develop capacity. There are complaints about the cost, but I would have thought that the market would quickly develop to include options for sellers to have the cost added on to their mortgage and paid off when they sell their home. I would be surprised if cost was genuinely an objection.
I met representatives of the Council of Mortgage Lenders last week, and I am concerned about the attitude of lenders towards the surveyor's report. It is clear that they still want their own report to assess the good value of the security for the money that they lend. I like to think that they would be a little more co-operative, ensuring that they take account of the house condition report in the home information pack so that they can reduce or scale back the requirements for their own valuation report.
In the past, a lot of people mistakenly thought that because they paid the lender for a report, they had a report that guaranteed that everything was all right with their property. In fact, all it guaranteed was that the lender had good value for their security. Those people were not necessarily protecting themselves. I found many examples in my casework of people who many years later discovered that something was defective about their property or the area in which they lived, which then could not be put right. That is why I support the measure as a matter of consumer protection.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I want to help the Chamber. I wish to call the winding-up speakers at 5 o'clock at the latest. I am under the impression that something like four Members want to catch my eye. They can do a simple mathematical sum so that they know how long they each have to speak.
4.15 pm
Siobhain McDonagh: I did not anticipate that I would be called at this point, but I will be happy to make my points briefly. They may be
172WH
controversial to some of my hon. Friends, but I have been able to make them personally and directly to my right hon. Friend the Minister.
To make the market work, particularly in my area of south-west London, the Government and public need to expand the possibility for low-cost home ownership, whether outright or through shared ownership. My right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) made an interesting speech only last weekend. He identified home ownership as something that was not only desired by the majority of people in this country, but was an important force for social mobility. Home ownership leads to a greater likelihood of remaining in one's home for longer, to greater educational opportunities for one's children and even, surprisingly, to a greater likelihood of marriages lasting longer.
Mr. John Hayes: I am interested to hear the hon. Lady's comments, and I agree with her. On that basis, she will presumably acknowledge that the right to buy was a staggering success, and that its continuation is imperative in ensuring that home ownership of the kind that she describes, with all its virtues, continues into the future.
Siobhain McDonagh: I have to accept that the right to buy has been a great success, allowing estates to mature and allowing working-class people opportunities that they would never otherwise have had. I am disappointed that the money gained through the sale of homes was not reinvested to provide more homes. That was a major error in the plans.
I do not accept that council tenants and social tenants should be responsible for the housing of people on the lists. We have to increase supply. Figures suggest that one would need an income of at least £54,000 a year to get one of the cheapest homes in London. That is outside the best efforts of most of the people that we know. Last week, I made notes from my weekly advice surgery on the sort of housing problems that were identified. Nearly all involved people who would like to buy a home but cannot afford to. They included a couple with an income of £28,000, and two nursery nurses who work in a local school who, together with their partners, have incomes in the region of £26,000 to £30,000. They cannot take the first step on the ladder.
Although such incomes are not low in relation to the rest of the country, they still leave buying a home outside the scope of buyers in an area of London that is far cheaper than most others. I urge the Government to look at increasing the supply of shared-ownership houses, particularly in outer London and south-west London. Shared ownership offers an option for people who cannot take the first step. Making the first step is what is most important. It allows people to see that their lives will get better, and that they can take the next step. That is important not only for people who live with family or friends, but for people on estates.
I have spoken to the Minister about my constituents who live in housing association homes on large estate and who desperately want to buy their homes and stay there and who want to contribute to the community. They see housing prices going up everywhere else and feel that they are letting their children down by not being able to move off the estate and buy.

173WH
I do not want to let down my constituent Donna Neblett, who runs the south Mitcham community centre on the Phipps Bridge estate, and who is a south London family housing association tenant. She and her husband Trevor desperately want to stay there to continue the voluntary youth work that they do, to bring their children up and to send them to the local schools, but they feel that they have no option but to move out because they cannot buy where they are. I do not want to let down other people on that estate, many of whom work at the immigration and nationality directorate, who find that their options are cut off. Despite working a full week and being on an average salary, home ownership is out of their grasp.
I welcome today's home ownership report. I am sorry that I have not had the opportunity to read it in detail, but I hope that it contains exciting possibilities for people to get on to the home-ownership ladder.
4.20 pm
Mr. David Drew: I am delighted to take part in the debate under your chairmanship, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and with the Minister. I am afraid that my remarks will be brief as I have to leave slightly before the end to catch a train, but it is important that we bring a number of perspectives to the debate.
I was going to argue that housing in rural areas is a fundamentally different issue from that for some of my colleagues here from urban areas, but it is interesting how common themes arise. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) spoke with great authority about his area and about the mixed housing issues of some urban areas, not the big urban conurbations, but those areas with a rural hinterland around them. He rightly emphasised some of the issues that I wish to touch on, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) outlined some of the problems that she faces. They are the same problems that we face in rural areas, but on a different scale.
I will start with large-scale voluntary transfer, although I will not spend long on it as that would be improper. We are undergoing a ballot, so it would be most inappropriate to go into the details, but I must say that it has been a most divisive process. It has brought out the worst aspects of how campaigning can get the better of finding the best way forward. There should be genuine choice, but many tenants who have come to me feel that their choice has been at least restricted, if not taken away.
I will take up some of the issues of transparency and openness, because people have felt overwhelmed by the number of arguments. I have brought that point up before, but the way that the issue has been slanted on both sides has not been helpful. I know that I have taken a clear position, but we need to consider the process and get the best outcome rather than the one that has been most heavily weighted in a certain direction.
Jon Trickett: On the question of stock transfers, has my hon. Friend had the same experiences as I have? Elderly people who have no right to buy and who live in allocated houses fear that they will be stampeded by a majority yes vote. Those who vote yes will still retain the
174WH
right to buy, but elderly people who feel trapped in their homes may then be transferred to a new landlord, whom they voted against, and they will not have the option of the right to buy. That is a particularly difficult problem and, as my hon. Friend just stated, it is very divisive.
Mr. Drew: I will not repeat that I think that the process is divisive, but the arguments that my hon. Friend has advanced are certainly some of those that I have come across. It is all linked to issues such as the right to buy. I was on a council that propagated right to buy before it became the Conservative party's official policy, I have never been agin it, but I am agin the fact that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) said in response to the Conservative spokesman, the money obtained was never reinvested. That is where the scheme went wrong, and in rural areas in particular it has resulted in a form of social exclusion. A small number of council houses used to be available in every community in my constituency, but they have, virtually to a house, gone. That has excluded those communities from an important provision for ever.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford touched on a number of issues in the rural domain. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow talked about market failure in urban centres, and it is fair to say that there has been a market failure in rural Britain. The affordability index in the Joseph Rowntree Trust's research shows that many people are now completely excluded and cannot move to, let alone live in, rural Britain. That is not acceptable, and with the paucity of rented accommodation, the situation has been made that much worse.
It would take too long to analyse fully such a complex subject, and many people have done it much better than I have. However, the main issues are land availability, the planning process and the funding mechanism to make housing affordable. I am pleased that the Government have grappled with the planning process. My right hon. Friend the Minister put his finger on the problem when he talked about the important consultation on exceptions policy and whether we should move away from that. He covered that point, however, so I shall say no more about it.
There is a problem with the method of funding in rural areas. Much as I welcome the communities plan, I should like my right hon. Friend the Minister to say something about the rural dimension. We feel that we are still at the margins somewhat, which is perhaps inevitable given the scale of the housing problem that the country faces. We need to hear more about how to get affordable housing in rural areas, because the issue is not only about choice, but about providing both a balanced country and, dare I say it, a balanced economy.
The problem that my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow mentioned is the same in rural areas. People cannot afford to live there. Where do the social workers come from? Where do the police live? They cannot afford to live there and it is not sustainable in the long term for them to travel 50 miles to do the job. We must do something about that.
There is still disappointment that the local authority special housing grant was removed—there was even a delay in the removal. We need clarity on the current

175WH
situation. There has been no demand to reinstate the grant, because we accept that we are now part of the communities plan, but we need graduation towards the help that is needed, but that has not been forthcoming. Moira Constable of the Royal housing trust, who is an ally of mine, has sent my right hon. Friend the Minister a letter, although it was not written on my behalf. The trust has done some wonderful work on housing and has called for clarity on where the revenue streams will come from. The answer is not yet clear.
The other issue that needs to be addressed is the link with key worker housing. The price of land has taken us away from how we normally provide housing. I hope that the Government will be innovatory in considering that key problem. As much as I would like the existing choice to be broadened, we must look at some new ideas, one of which must be some form of community land trust. I will not bore hon. Members with the details, but, for those who want to read more, I draw their attention to the fact that, in the last few weeks the New Economics Foundation issued a good report at an event that I was pleased to host, called "Common Ground—for Mutual Home Ownership". It argues that if the land can be owned communally, and if people can be given the opportunity to have a stake in it by paying rent but can also benefit from the value of the appreciation of the land, they can see themselves gaining advantages that they are denied under council home ownership. They are locked into what I like to see—a mutual, co-operative solution that has many merits. It is new to this country, and it can work in urban areas, but we are especially interested in how it can be applied in rural ones.
I am pleased that one of the trial areas is my constituency, which has an acute problem with the affordability of housing. I hope that my right hon. Friend will listen to future lobbying and will read the report to see whether it is applicable. It has merit, but it needs to be properly analysed to see whether it can break through the terrible problem of the high price of land and therefore of housing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford identified park homes as a problem. I totally concur with what he said. I hope that there is a way of dealing with this problem under a new housing Bill, because park home estates are a real difficulty. We all have them in our constituencies, and people want answers. We have given them many promises and told them what needs to be done, and what could be done, but we must now come up with answers.
We are discussing ways in which we can improve housing, and I understand that we cannot discuss everything in such a short debate, but I spend a great deal of time examining one issue that we have not yet touched on. However, the fact that older people tend to live in older properties needs to be addressed. Much of that property is substandard. If we are to overcome the problems faced by older people and do what we can for them, as we discussed during cross-cutting questions, we must ensure that housing is at the centre of health care provision. It is, dare I say it, central to a good quality of life. One of the ways in which we can do that is by ensuring that we invest properly in property for older people.
For more than a decade, I have been proud to be associated with Care and Repair England, which was set up to improve homes. Care and Repair England, along
176WH
with other organisations, will often carry out the most basic tasks such as replacing plugs, ensuring that light bulbs work and installing smoke detectors. It sometimes does more substantial work by contracting that out to other agencies. We should not underestimate how important all this is, but it will not solve the problems of older people and their care needs on its own. Housing must never come third in the list of priorities, because the issue is often related to why people are readmitted to hospital.
Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman is right. As he will know, I took the opportunity in cross-cutting questions to draw attention to the plight of older people and their housing. Although the solution might not be quite so simple, he was also right to suggest that by assisting elderly people through the sort of services that he mentioned and by adapting their homes, they can often stay in their own homes and retain a dignity and an independence that is not usually allowed them. Does he not agree that we need to be much more ambitious in the ways that he described?
Mr. Drew: I totally agree. That is the only way to avoid the bottomless pit of moneys that will be required if we continue to have only one answer. We must find other ways of allowing people to stay in their own homes if they so wish, but they must be safe. Those ways can include new ideas such as telecare and telemedicine, which are as important in rural areas as they are in urban settings. More important, we must ensure that the strategy is cohesive rather than an ad hoc part of community safety endeavours, which it has tended to be. Again, the Government deserve to be congratulated on driving the agenda.
Many good things are going on, but much more needs to be done. I hope that my right hon. Friend will listen to some of the new ideas, which are desperately needed to crack this highly emotive problem. Housing has moved to the top of the agenda for rural Britain. It has overtaken transport, which was on its own five years ago as the problem we had to crack. It is a political issue but, with the right policies, I am sure that we can do a great deal to solve the problems.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We have had a good geographical spread of speakers, and I am now delighted to call Dr. Brian Iddon, a Member from the north-west.
4.35 pm
Dr. Brian Iddon: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am pleased that in this Parliament, unlike the last one, housing is high on the agenda. It is not as high on the agenda, nor are the resources for it as great, as some of us would like; nevertheless, it is in the ascendant. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on his ministerial position. I like a person who smiles a lot, because it radiates hope, and I am hopeful that we will continue to make progress as long as he has that job.
Let me first make a few points about the private sector. I have some fears about the thrust towards owner-occupation. In my town we are absolutely saturated with owner-occupation, which stands at 70

177WH
per cent.; I understand that the national average is 65 to 67 per cent. In some cases, owner-occupation is unsustainable. I congratulate the Government on the present low interest and mortgage rates, which have made a very positive contribution. I hope that they stay low. However, if they do not, I fear that hundreds of thousands of people will be caught out by increased mortgage rates. I have a feeling that people are borrowing well above their capacity, in order to buy a house.
Of course we all aspire to home ownership. I put my hand up, as I too am an owner-occupier—but I can afford to be one. Indeed, my mortgage is paid off, but some people are in a much more difficult position, with mortgages well out of the range for their earnings—or joint earnings, for a couple. That nettle has not been grasped by any Government.
Siobhain McDonagh: Does my hon. Friend agree that other European countries, including Ireland and Holland, as well as others that I cannot recall at the moment, have a substantially higher proportion of owner-occupation? The United States, too, has a higher rate of ownership. The present structure of mortgages and home ownership does not mean that innovative ways cannot be found to make purchasing more possible and home ownership more secure.
Dr. Iddon: My hon. Friend makes a good point. But the history of owner-occupation in this country shows that things have not always been as they are now. We ought to prepare ourselves to enable people to move in and out of tenures much more easily than has been possible in Britain. For example, if owner-occupiers—or perhaps hundreds of thousands of them if there is an economic crisis, which cannot be ruled out, regardless of the party in power—get into difficulty, why can we not persuade building societies, and especially registered social landlords, to take over ownership of the homes but allow the people to stay in them? Surely we could be a bit more radical with housing policy, so that people do not descend into disaster if there is a sudden change in economic circumstances.
I am worried about the saturation point of owner-occupation, and I am also concerned that people buy homes without realising how much the maintenance will cost. That is especially true for older properties, although new properties have their difficulties, too. People who can just about afford the mortgage move into older properties, and then when the roof trusses go and the whole roof has to be replaced, the family faces economic disaster. Building societies and local authorities do not give enough advice to people about what it will actually cost them to pay for not only the utilities, but the maintenance of a home. Owner-occupation is not all plain sailing, although, as I said earlier, we all aspire to it.
Turning to the subject of houses in multiple occupation, I thank the Government, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for helping Bolton when it was in a very difficult situation. A few years ago, the police put a lot of effort into clearing prostitution out of a commercial area; the only trouble was that they drove the prostitution over a main road into a residential area, merely displacing the problem.
178WH
The residential area is a lovely place called the Haulgh. Fred Dibnah, the famous steeplejack, is a resident, and he lives in a nice cottage called the cat cottage. It is not a stereotypically run-down area; it contains some very nice properties. In one corner of the Haulgh, there are some very large three and four-storey Victorian houses that have been broken up into flats. Police pressure drove the prostitution and the associated drug taking and antisocial behaviour into those flats.
Bolton council had an innovative scheme for enveloping the flats, because they were ready for refurbishment and some were in a terrible condition. The problem was that one landlord who owned a substantial number of flats would not pay his whack, so the scheme was going to fall through. The residents of the Haulgh, Greater Manchester police, Bolton local authority and I all pressed the Government to help us with that difficult problem, and a Government pilot scheme for tackling antisocial behaviour is now in place. With Greater Manchester police, the local authority and, in particular, the efforts of the local the residents association, we are starting to turn that area—or at least, that corner of it—around.
I look forward to seeing the Housing Bill. I hope that it will be in the Queen's Speech on 26 November, and that we can get to grips with some of the issues that we are only flagging up today. I want to license HMOs. Some landlords do not take their responsibilities seriously, although the vast majority are okay. As in any difficult situation, a small minority are spoiling the barrel. Some residents live in very unsatisfactory conditions, with heat escaping through windows. I am a great advocate of energy efficiency and we must put in more work to provide warm homes in the HMO part of the private sector.
In my town we have more than 20,000 unfit owner-occupied houses. Even with increased investment in Bolton, houses are becoming unfit for habitation faster than we can improve them. It is not surprising that in places such as Burnley and in many of the industrial towns on both sides of the Pennines people have been voting with their feet and leaving.
The houses are more than 150 years old, which in terms of Victorian and Georgian buildings does not sound very old, but those houses were not built to last. They were built largely by factory owners, who used the brick-on-end method, with inner and outer skins touching, and common attics that were, and still are, an absolute disaster if fire breaks out. It flashes through the attics and sets the other houses on fire.
I have argued with previous Governments, and the present Government, that the only way to deal with such areas is to free up some green space, introduce the best schools to attract people in, and knock down some of the properties. I am not suggesting that we ruin communities as we did in the 1960s and 1970s. When I joined Bolton housing committee in 1977, the housing clearance programme consisted of 1,000 properties. When I took over as chairman in 1986, I killed the clearance programme, because there was no money for it; now it has returned, but only street by street. In pathfinder areas such as Burnley, and in towns that might have been pathfinder areas, such as Bolton and Blackburn, we need help to clear clapped-out properties

179WH
in a sensitive way. If we do not, people will continue to leave those areas and we will not succeed in maintaining communities.
However, this issue is wider than just housing in pathfinder areas. It is about the infrastructure; it is about accessing a dentist, a doctor or a good school. If the infrastructure is not right, even if the houses have been improved, people will continue to leave those areas. I am pleased that the Government have created the pathfinder areas; they are experiments and I hope that they will be successful. I also hope that that success will be extended to similar areas in my town.
I am also in favour of sellers' packs, now known as home information packs. The figure of £600 sounds like a lot of money to assemble one of the packs. In fact, that is a lot higher than the figure given when we discussed the issue in a Standing Committee on a Bill that fell in a previous Session of Parliament, but I still support the idea.
I served on the Committee on the Water Bill, and was amazed to hear from colleagues, especially those from the midlands, that so many private sewers are to be adopted under that Bill. That will cost the Government a lot of money. I commented that I was surprised that the solicitors conducting the searches for people buying the houses had not flagged up the private sewer issue for them. It is important, especially with older housing, that all the information about the history of the house be in the sellers' packs. People should not have to pay again and again to do the same search to find the same information—and in some cases the information is not found, because a poor solicitor has been employed. Sellers' packs are similar to MOTs on cars. We know the history of the car from its MOT, and similarly we will know the history of the house from the seller's pack.
Mr. Kidney: I did not want to interrupt my hon. Friend's flow about home information packs, but I must tell him that the Government have inserted a provision in the Water Bill, so that if they decided that water companies should adopt more private sewers, the legal provision would be there. My hon. Friend said that, through the Bill, the Government are to make those sewers publicly owned, but we have not done that.
Dr. Iddon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for correcting me. He is right, and I apologise for misleading the Chamber.
I shall talk briefly about tenancy deposit schemes. A strong message must be sent from Parliament to landlords. If landlords continue to rob the poorest members of society of their deposits when they have done nothing wrong in the house, and have not broken anything or missed any rent, they deserve what they get. A small percentage of landlords are ruining things for the rest, but that is what happens when a small number in any group causes problems. We are under pressure to legislate. It would be nice if we did not have to legislate, but if landlords do not behave themselves and do not repay tenancy deposits to people who are eligible to receive them, we will have to do so.
There is another option. Several years ago it came to my attention that many people in Bolton were being asked to pay so-called key deposits. People had to put a deposit down before they could pay their first week's,
180WH
fortnight's or month's rent, but many poor people do not have that kind of money. Somebody suggested that I, as chairman of the housing committee, should set up a bond board, based on an Australian model. The housing committee still supports the bond board, which has to raise a considerable sum through charitable donations. The bond board pays the landlord a tenancy deposit to secure the property. The tenant does not pay the bond; the bond board pays it.
The bond board also follows the tenant and gives them any help that they may require to maintain the tenancy, but if the tenant leaves the private rented property there is an interest in getting the money back, because if nothing has been broken, it can be recycled. I am a great advocate of bond board schemes, of which there are not enough in Britain. The bond board that I started in Bolton was one of the first in Britain.
I have already mentioned to my right hon. Friend the Minister the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. It contains a section on nominated insurance, which is a common problem in the north-west, and particularly in my town, Bolton. When someone pays ground rent, some deeds give the owner of the ground rent the right to nominate an insurance company with which the property and its contents must be insured.
Many people have complained about companies that graze ground rents—my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) introduced the expression, "ground rent grazing". Such companies buy thousands of ground rents at auction and try to extort money from the people who pay the ground rents. The ground rents are worth about a fiver, but each time such companies write a letter they seem to stick on an administration charge. The main reason why they buy ground rents is to exercise their right to nominate an insurer, from which they get commissions. The insurance company involved used to be AXA, but in my town it is now Norwich Union.
We put a section in the 2002 Act to make that practice illegal, but that happened many months ago. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister examine implementing the 2002 Act, because the constituents whom we have told that that battle has been won cannot understand why they are still being exploited through the nominated insurance wheeze?
4.52 pm
Matthew Green: This has been a good debate, and I shall try to be positive. I usually try to find solutions and outcomes rather than just discussing problems—I leave that to the Tories.
First, I shall consider low-demand housing areas and market renewal. Liverpool is a growing success story. It is classified as a low-demand area, although in parts of Liverpool house prices are rising faster than in any other part of the country. When research was conducted in Liverpool about what people look for when they buy a house, the researchers quickly discovered that the last thing people look for is the house itself. People are far more interested in the area in which a house is located and, more importantly, how close services are. People with children look for a good school while the elderly or

181WH
infirm look for local health services—the important factor is the neighbourhood area. The approach in Liverpool has been to recognise that a city is more than just houses; it is a collection of neighbourhoods. One renews housing in a given area by making each neighbourhood fit for purpose, and hon. Members have already touched on that point.
Secondly, the researchers realised that one problem with low-demand housing areas is their image, particularly the image of Liverpool. Considerable work has been done on improving that—successfully, in that the city has been designated European capital of culture 2008. That has contributed to a renewal in the housing market: unwanted houses have been cleared and new neighbourhoods have been set up, with the effect that house prices are increasing faster than the national average.
Both Liverpool and Manchester have set clear targets for expanding their populations, which had been in decline. They look to take 100,000 more people between them in the next 15 years. That is important, because bringing people back into the cities will reduce the pressure on the green belt. That has an impact well beyond the economic well-being of Liverpool and the surrounding areas. When success occurs as a result of vigorous local council activity, particularly that of Councillor Richard Kemp, the lead on housing, who is involved with Local Government Association housing issues as a result of his success there, as well as—I do not deny it—help from the Government, it behoves us all to find out how it can be helped to happen in other parts of the country.
Renovation has been mentioned. When somebody renovates an existing property, he has to pay VAT on the products used, whereas if he builds a house anew, he does not. It would be perfectly possible, under European Union regulations, to equalise the VAT, reducing it for renovations—perhaps to about 6 per cent.—and introducing it for new build. That would not increase the amount taken out of the housing market by VAT, but would remove the disincentive to renovate properties and to reuse them. It would also help to reduce pressure on the green belt, something that many of us would welcome.
The biggest issue for the housing market in many areas is affordability. The problem affects not just London and the south-east, but rural areas, particularly my constituency. Just over a year ago, I became the owner of a small two-and-a-half-bedroom cottage, right at the limit of what I could afford on an MP's salary: in Shropshire, that is an outstandingly good salary; it may not be the case in London, but in Shropshire, an MP is among the highest-paid people in the county. I could just afford to get into the housing market on a maximum mortgage on that cottage. One year later, I could not have afforded that same property. House prices in my constituency are driven by people retiring from London and the south-east, selling properties for £300,000 or £400,000 and saying, "What a lovely cottage, we'll buy it for a quarter of a million pounds." The effect is that local people, for whom £15,000 a year is a good salary, have no chance of getting on to the property ladder.
182WH
We need to make houses affordable to live in, by considering building regulations. Much more could be done to ensure that homes are built to zero or near-zero energy standards. We heard about BedZED. I have helped to initiate a similar scheme in my constituency called the Craven Arms sustainable community. It is a live-work scheme and uses near-zero energy. It maximises daylight, just as BedZED does. It also minimises the use of energy, and that which it does use comes from green sources. Much can be done to minimise water usage. I recently opened the show home of the Wintles development in Bishop's Castle: it is an entirely private sector-driven eco-development that I hope will be very successful. The Government should be doing much, such as using building regulations, to make such houses standard. The CASCOM project estimates that building such houses, which look like conventional houses—they do not look odd at all—will cost only £3,000 or £4,000 more for each three-bedroom property than it would cost to build a conventional house. That is without the mass market: if more homes were built to those standards, that cost would come down. The argument against eco-standard housing, which is that it will cost too much, is frankly wrong. I urge the Minister seriously to consider introducing such regulations.
The Minister should talk to other Ministers about putting combined heat and power into properties. There have been improvements in boilers, and new condensing boilers will be introduced in 18 months. We are only a few years away from seeing combined domestic heat and power become commercially viable in properties. That, combined with net metering, would maximise energy use in the 70 per cent. of homes that are on natural gas. In 15 years, we could replace nuclear energy with the electricity produced through domestic combined heat and power by replacing boilers. We should realise that vision. It would have a dramatic impact on the affordability of homes, because it would seriously reduce the cost of heating and lighting homes. If we allowed net metering, we would also make photovoltaics and other forms of green energy more affordable. They are currently not affordable but are made because of a commitment to the cause of green energy. They would be more commercially viable.
We are short of homes to rent because we have not built enough and the right-to-buy scheme decimated housing stocks in areas where demand was highest. They have virtually all gone, not just in London but in rural areas, where there are desirable blocks of four and eight houses. Because of the right to buy, virtually no social homes are left in large parts of my constituency, unless they have registered social landlords. The Government have made some welcome changes, but they should let local councils decide whether there should be subsidy on right to buy. Local councils are best placed to decide what effects right to buy has had in their areas. In some areas, we should encourage right to buy, such as mixed-tenure estates that have not been fully developed. In other areas—not just London and the south-east—the scheme has decimated the housing stock. The Minister should consider making councils' ability to choose where right to buy happens more flexible.
We should get people on the housing ladder. We need to give tenants, either of council properties or registered social landlords, the right to invest. That is the

183WH
equivalent of shared equity, which currently happens where a set of properties is developed as such. I recommend that any council tenant or registered social landlord tenant should have the right to buy a proportion of their property—but not the whole lot. They would pay part rent, part equity and when they wanted to move on, they would sell either to the council or the RSL. That would allow them to keep pace with the housing ladder before they get off it without losing such homes from the social sector. Interestingly, the right to invest, which was introduced by the Conservatives in the early 1980s, was dropped because they also introduced the right to buy. Because right to buy was so heavily discounted, everyone took that rather than right to invest. Before the Conservatives start rubbishing it, it is worth remembering it was one of their ideas.
We must also look at producing a sector of housing that people own completely, but which stays affordable. One problem with building more starter homes is that they are affordable for the first person, if they are limited to people who live or work locally, but after that they are lost. When they are sold the second time, the price has raced up to the market values.
The Minister knows about the south Shropshire scheme, because I have discussed it with him before. It used section 106, the so-called golden share scheme, which allows people to own their properties in their entirety but means that when they come to sell, they are price limited. In effect, people purchase the property at its build price, so land is taken out of the equation. When they come to sell, they can do so only at an agreed growth rate. The Minister should look at that, not least because it could be used in the Thames gateway to solve the problems of key workers, particularly if the Government consider moving away from their preferred option of 30 per cent. affordable housing on sites of 19 houses or more towards a 50 per cent. affordable rate on sites of two or more houses, as has been done.
I could say much more. The Government need to look at four areas in the proposed Housing Bill. We will certainly try to bring them in. First, the exemption of student properties or any property containing a student from houses in multiple occupation licensing is unacceptable. Secondly, the Bill provides the ideal opportunity to introduce a tenancy deposit scheme. We will try to do that, but I am glad to hear that the Minister is considering something along those lines. Thirdly, we heard about overcrowding from the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King), and the Bill gives us a good opportunity for a better statutory definition of overcrowding. Finally, the Government have not shown sufficient interest in dealing with the issue of park homes. I have attempted to be positive in covering a range of issues, and I hope that the Minister will respond in a similarly positive light.
5.7 pm
Mr. John Hayes: I thank the Minister for his kind words when he welcomed me to my new role. He is a diligent Minister and a decent man. I look forward to exchanging some friendly, and some less friendly, comments over the coming weeks and months. I will not rubbish anything that the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) said. That would be cruel. Politics is about both the
184WH
positive and the negative. It is about cut and thrust. It is about opposition, attack and defence. He will learn that as he becomes more experienced in the House.
The issues that we can deal with first are those on which we agree. The Minister was right to say that the protection of housing for vulnerable people must be a key priority for all parties. He was also right to say that a supply of affordable homes is another key priority. He went on to talk about the effect of antisocial behaviour on the quality of life of people living in some of our most deprived areas, and of the Government's determination to deal with that. He talked about raising the quality of the housing stock, and we would all agree that that is essential.
The Minister and other speakers talked about the link between poor housing and poor health. I noted the comments of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King), who made a powerful case. I agreed with her about overcrowding, and I tried to intervene to say so. The most worrying thing is that it is a growing problem in certain areas, and, as she will know, it is concentrated in some of our poorest communities. We are in the ironic position that many large homes in the leafy suburbs are under-populated while crowded homes are concentrated in the poorer areas. The hon. Lady was right to draw attention to that, and I congratulate her on having done so.
It is also right to say, as many hon. Members did, that an appropriate balance has to be struck between landlord and tenant. I particularly noted the comments of the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), who made that point forcefully. We look forward to hearing what the Government will say about that in the Housing Bill. These are always difficult areas. There is always a tension between the various interests, but it is appropriate to move forward in the kind of spirit that the hon. Gentleman articulated. We will no doubt discuss that at greater length over the coming weeks and months.
Let me start with the negative stuff and then move on to the positive stuff. I do not want to frighten the hon. Member for Ludlow too much, as he is a sensitive soul.
I start by putting the matter into context. Homelessness has soared in England by 12,000 since 1997: those are not my figures; they come from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The latest available Government figures show that the number who are unfortunate enough to be in bed-and-breakfast accommodation has trebled under Labour, and that since this Government came to office, completions of new social houses have fallen by about a third.
The Government admit that their house-building targets, assessed in 2001, are not being achieved, and that house prices have risen beyond the reach of many households, and we must acknowledge that in some respects—I do not want to overstate the case—there is a real crisis. It is exacerbated by regional and local difficulties, some of which have been elucidated in the debate. The picture is not universal, but in some parts of the country there is a massive problem in terms of the balance between supply and demand, the affordability of houses and the decline of the stock.
Against that background, the Government's plans for house building were roundly condemned by the Select Committee. It is worth reminding hon. Members of

185WH
some of the comments made in the Select Committee report to which the Minister referred in his opening remarks. It stated:
"The impact of such a housing programme"—
the Government's scheme to build 200,000 houses—
"on the environment could be unsustainable … the impact of developing so many homes in the South East, one of the most densely populated regions of Europe, had not been fully assessed."
It continued:
"The additional homes can place excessive demands on the environment leading to the loss of green field sites, excessive pressure on the water supply and other natural resources … The Government has yet to estimate the cost of providing the transport links, health care, education and all the other facilities which neighbourhoods require."
I note the comments that were made during the debate about the need to balance the demands of the infrastructure with those of housing provision. The report stated:
"The Government's objective to bring down house prices is unlikely to be achieved."
I could go on, but suffice it to say that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation said:
"If the current situation continues, there will be a property shortfall of more than a million by 2022 … We estimate that the difference between housing demand and supply will have widened into a yawning gap of 1.1 million homes in England alone by 2022: most of it in London and the South East,"
Housing shortages will most heavily affect the poorest families, who cannot afford to buy houses and have little access to rented accommodation. Since 1997, a sharp increase in the number of homeless households housed in temporary accommodation has become a scandal. Subsidies to providers and consumers of housing have dropped in recent years.
Ms King rose—
Mr. Hayes: I am just coming to a point that the hon. Lady made in the debate. I will give way to her in a moment, although I am conscious that time is short. The debate is about both supply and quality, and I am dividing my remarks between those two categories. On the issue of quality, the hon. Lady made an interesting point about her own area, which I noted carefully. She said that 76 per cent. of council houses are not at a decent standard.
Ms King: Will the hon. Gentleman correct his perception that homelessness has grown under this Government? Does he accept that according to most people's definition of the word—people sleeping rough—homelessness has been cut by two-thirds under this Government because we poured huge resources into tackling it that were unfortunately not available under the Conservative Government?
Mr. Hayes: As the hon. Lady knows, homelessness is a complex subject. There is a way of measuring homelessness and a way of measuring priority homelessness. In fact, as she will know from her close reading of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's statutory homelessness table of August 2003, priority homelessness has risen, as well as homelessness as a
186WH
whole. The hon. Lady is right to say that the Government have had some success in some of the detail, such as the rough-sleeping initiatives. However, she will also recognise that ongoing difficulties are associated with the inability of people to get into social housing or affordable housing. That is creating massive problems in providing children, families and some of our most vulnerable citizens with the housing that they need. I know that we will debate that subject further when we have more time.
Ms King rose—
Mr. Hayes: Forgive me for not giving way again, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Lady made some good points, which I acknowledge to some degree, but time is short, and I want to give the Minister the maximum time to deal with the issues that have been raised. I shall therefore summarise, by identifying several key issues.
The key to the market is recognising that high and low demand are two sides of the same coin. Housing markets are dysfunctional in different ways in different areas. As the hon. Members for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) and for Bolton, South-East said, that creates all kinds of social problems and tensions. It is right to say that it is a rural as well as an urban housing issue. I am well aware of that from my own constituency.
The first issue that I wish to raise is that of standards. Have we got the criterion for decency right? I suspect that it is inadequate. I am also concerned about policy coherence: have the Government given enough thought to how local authorities will meet their targets? Moreover, in relation to targeting, it is likely that the houses that will be the most difficult to bring up to a decent standard will be those in the poorest communities—the communities that are currently the worst. I am concerned that the Government's strategy will mean that the people in the greatest need will be the last to get help. The Government's plans are not adequate to tackle housing shortages. The Select Committee and the Government's own figures confirm that.
Earlier, I discussed homelessness—through you, of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker—with the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow. It is a scandal that 750,000 houses in the UK are currently unoccupied, nearly 20 per cent. of them in the public sector. We must draw attention to that and plan to do something about it. The affordability of housing is a massive problem, which must be addressed. That can be done in a variety of ways, and the Minister should take into account some of the interesting remarks made during the debate.
There can be a measure of cross-party agreement on this issue. The concern expressed in this useful debate has been largely non-partisan. The Government have taken some useful steps, but have not yet got us to where we need to be. The Minister, under criticism and scrutiny from me, has another chance, but we will not let him off the hook. To do so would be to fail the House and to fail the people. The Government must do better.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the permission of the Chamber, the Minister of State will reply to this debate.
5.18 pm
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill): Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful that that permission has been granted. This has been a genuinely interesting and good debate; it is perhaps a happier excursion than my initial appearance in this Chamber.
Housing and regeneration, as well as planning, are now genuinely high on the political agenda. Wherever I go, people say that there is a new buzz in the atmosphere, which is a reflection of the new level of resourcing and prioritisation that the Government have given to those areas.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) remarked upon my smiling visage. I am smiling because this is such a good area in which to be involved. I am sure that he would agree that my smile is more innocent and less sinister than my smile in my previous incarnation as deputy Chief Whip. I hope that I will be able to carry on smiling. I have been reminded again of the great expertise on such matters in this House, especially on the Government Benches. Many issues have been raised, and I shall attempt to deal with as many as I can, as systematically as possible. I give the undertaking that I shall write to my hon. Friends and other hon. Members in response to the specific questions that they have raised, including specific issues of constituency concern.
The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) made some thoughtful points at the end of his speech, which I shall consider carefully—although he was a little more vigorous at the beginning of his speech. I would make the point that homelessness remains considerably lower now that it was in the Tory years of the early 1990s. On the question of families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, we are now on target to ensure that no family will spend more than six weeks in bed and breakfast by next spring. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) pointed out, we have cut rough sleeping by more than two thirds since 1997.
We had more housing completions in the year 2002 than we did in 1980 or 1990—both of which, if I am not mistaken, were years of Conservative Administration. Indeed, we have had more housing completions in 2002 than in the year 2000. We inherited, as my colleagues pointed out, a colossal £19 billion backlog in arrears for the refurbishment, modernisation and repair of social housing. Already, we have brought 1 million social homes up to the standards of the decent homes target. Another half a million will follow by spring 2004. In an achievement that in 1997 many of us would have thought impossible, we are on target for all homes to meet the decent homes standard by 2010.
Mr. Hayes: I know that the Minister is scrupulous about being accurate with the House, and I have his Department's figures. In the first quarter of 1997, the number of those living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation was 4,100. In the first quarter of 2003, it was 12,200. That seems to me to be a rise by any standards.
Keith Hill: If the hon. Gentleman studies the overall figures for homelessness from the early 1990s onwards, he will find that the figure in this country remains considerably lower now than it was in the Tory years of the early 1990s.
188WH
I ought not to dwell on the evidence of the Government's success in this area, but I cannot resist it. In the next three years we shall be spending £5 billion on housing: that is double the level of investment in housing that we inherited from the Conservatives. We shall spend £22 billion on communities and housing during the next three years, which is an increase of 40 per cent. on current figures. I would point out that I have not even mentioned negative equity; I have not breathed a word on the subject. However, if the hon. Gentleman wants to play the numbers game, I am more than happy to join in. I do not suppose that this is the last time we shall dance a tango on this subject.
In the brief time remaining, I shall turn to the issues raised by my hon. Friends and other hon. Members in the course of the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow raised the issue of key worker housing. Under the starter homes initiative, 9,000 key workers—such as nurses, teachers and police officers—will own affordable homes by the next spring, and 5,000 already do. We are committing a further £1 billion to that programme during the next two years, and we are working with other Departments to ensure that further large numbers of key workers in our essential services go into home ownership. My hon. Friend also asked about the decent homes target, and I have talked about our performance in general, but as she asked about Tower Hamlets, I shall add that I am aware that Tower Hamlets has placed a bid under ALMO 3—the third round of arm's-length management ownership.
We are investing a further £685 million of new private finance initiative credits to improve local authority housing. In addition to the £760 million already allocated, we are providing almost £2 billion for ALMOs over the next three years, which is a massive increase compared with the £460 million allocated in the 2000 spending review. Our new rate of funding improvements in the management and maintenance of council stock will mean that support will be £500 million higher in 2005 than would have been the case without that additional investment.
Many hon. Members mentioned tenancy deposit schemes. I agree that we cannot ignore that issue, but it needs to be considered in the context of the wider relationship between landlord and tenant. We have just received the Law Commission proposals on housing tenure, and my officials and I are now considering the recommendations in detail. I remain of the view that a tenancy deposit scheme can best be considered as part of the Law Commission's recommendations on a written agreement between landlord and tenant, but we will continue to take the representations of colleagues into consideration.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) raised many issues, including that of empty homes. He spoke about his earlier proposals for data exchange between authorities, and I am aware of the helpful LAWN scheme in London. In various parts of the country, especially London, choice-based lettings are providing a genuinely customer-oriented service to people who want to move within social housing. My hon. Friend mentioned the renovation of private

189WH
sector homes, and 200,000 private sector homes will be brought up to the decent homes target by next spring.
I was grateful for my hon. Friend's support for the market renewal of the north Staffordshire pathfinder. Our investment over the next three years in the pathfinders will be £500 million, but he is right that this is not only about the physical regeneration of areas, but about uplift and renewal in skills. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East also mentioned pathfinders, and it is worth remembering that the nine pathfinders cover some 50 per cent. of the areas identified as experiencing market failure. The £500 million is already being used for good purposes, and hon. Members will be aware that we recently announced £125 million for the Manchester and Salford pathfinder.
My hon. Friend made an acute point about the character of that regeneration. Last Thursday I visited Liverpool and the Bootle part of the projected Merseyside pathfinder, and people were saying that the scheme was not solely about the demolition of properties, despite the fact that it is easy to imagine that that would be the primary function of dealing with market failure. The Merseyside pathfinder proposes to demolish 20,000 properties, but intends to build 18,000
190WH
properties as well. It is about the revitalisation of communities and town centres, and of business opportunities in those places.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) talked about low-cost and shared home ownership, and her concerns about our policy on the right to buy. We have met separately. and I am sympathetic to her proposals. The Government remain wedded to the principle of a right to buy, and we have no intention of revoking that principle. However, we have anxieties about opportunistic and commercial exploitation of that in certain areas. We know that, in London especially, there have recently been many improper purchases under the right to buy, and we are determined to remedy that aspect of the policy.
I shall conclude my remarks at that point and, as I said earlier, I undertake to write to hon. Members on the specific questions and constituency issues that have been raised.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are grateful to the Minister of State for his reply, and I repeat that, as he has stated twice, where he was not able to reply to hon. Members' points during the course of the debate, he will write to them.
It being half-past Five o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

  COSAC
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Leader of the House what evaluation he has made of the proposals put forward by the Conference of Community and European Affairs Committees of Parliaments of the European Union (COSAC) in respect of the relative powers of national Parliaments. [138068]

  Mr. Hain
  I am aware of COSAC's Contribution of 7 October, and have noted that it proposes that all Parliaments within the EU should hold simultaneous debates on the Commission's legislative and work programme. I shall consider further, in discussion with colleagues, what forum might be most appropriate for debate of the Commission's programme.

  I note that the Contribution also endorses the provisions in the draft constitutional treaty for direct transfer of Commission documentation to national Parliaments and for an "early-warning mechanism" by which national Parliaments would be able to present a reasoned opinion if they felt that legislative proposals breached the principle of subsidiarity. The Government strongly support these provisions.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Libel
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Solicitor-General what guidance the Attorney-General has issued to judges in respect of the appropriateness of agreeing to injunctions to prevent a potential libel. [138582]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Attorney-General has not issued any such guidance.

CABINET OFFICE

  Departmental Costs
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the cost was to his Department for(a) ministerial cars and drivers, (b) taxis, (c) train travel, (d) the use of helicopters, (e) airline tickets and (f) chartered aeroplanes in each year since 1997. [123088]

  Mr. Alexander
  The responsibility for the provision of ministerial cars and drivers has been delegated under the terms of the Framework Document to the Government Car Despatch Agency. I asked its Chief Executive, Mr. Nick Matheson to write to the hon. Member. A copy of his letter has been placed in the Libraries of the House.
  398W

  The amount spent for official use of taxis in UK for financial years

  £

  1997–98

  25,535

  1998–99

  96,439

  1999–2000

  176,489

  2000–01

  220,720

  2001–02

  267,603

  The UK rail travel figures

  £

  1997–98

  89,937

  1998–99

  466,598

  1999–2000

  460,500

  2000–01

  407,354

  2001–02

  417,420

  The figures for all forms of air travel (UK and Overseas) inclusive for the same period

  £

  1997–98

  1,061,745

  1998–99

  1,218,293

  1999–2000

  1,155,755

  2000–01

  1,525,834

  2001–02

  1.780,405

  The figures above for air travel do not include ministers travel costs overseas costing more than 500.

  Since 1999, this Government have published an annual list of all visits overseas undertaken by Cabinet Ministers costing £500 or more during each financial year. The lists include details of the cost of trips involving charter and RAF flights. Copies of the lists covering the period 2 May 1997 to 31 March 2003 are available in the Libraries of the House.

  All official travel in my Department is undertaken strictly in accordance with the rules contained in the Cabinet Office Management Code. All Ministerial travel is undertaken fully in accordance with the rules set out in the 'Ministerial Code' and 'Travel by Ministers', copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Dr Walter King
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will reply to the letters from the hon. Member for Totnes of 16 June and 30 July concerning Dr. Walter King of Dart Sensors Ltd, Totnes, Devon; and what the reasons are for the delay. [132590]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 20 October 2003]A reply was sent directly to Dr. Walter King of Dart Sensors in September. I apologise that due to an administrative oversight, a copy was not sent to the hon. Member at the time. A copy of this letter has now been forwarded to the hon. Member.

  Champagne
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many litres of champagne were imported from France in each year since 1992. [138102]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Data on UK imports of champagne are given in the table.

  UK Imports of champagne from France

  1992

  11,097,820

  1993

  14,327,108

  1994

  17,805,364

  1995

  14,029,225

  1996

  15,633,002

  1997

  16,361,152

  1998

  18,145,100

  1999

  24,201,937

  2000

  14,386,442

  2001

  17,245,344

  2002

  24,398,314

  Note:

  Champagne is defined as code 22041011 of the harmonised commodity coding system.

  Source:

  HM Customs and Excise data

  Employment Discrimination
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what interim measures she plans to put in place to tackle discrimination on the grounds of(a) sexual orientation, (b) religious belief and (c) age in advance of the establishment of a Commission for Equality and Human Rights in 2006. [137465]

  Jacqui Smith
  Regulations to prohibit discrimination at work on the grounds of sexual orientation and religion or belief come into force on 1 and 2 December 2003. We are working to ensure that employers, individuals and intermediaries have access to information and advice about the Regulations. A guide to the sexual orientation and religion or belief regulations has been available on the DTI website since the summer. Acas has just published practical workplace guidance on implementing the new legislation, after extensive consultation with a wide range of bodies concerned with employment issues, including the TUC and CBI.

  This guidance has been available in draft form on the Acas website since the summer. In addition, DTI is raising awareness with intermediaries, including through regional events and by making available funds for which organisations from advisory, faith and lesbian, gay, bisexual backgrounds have been able to bid to provide relevant training. Acas are conducting a programme of training for intermediaries and employers.

  We are currently considering the position for the age strand, which is due to come into force in October 2006.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether atheists are to be entitled to the same holiday allowance as religious employees under forthcoming EU legislation. [137611]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) 2003 regulations, which come into force on 2 December 2003, do not introduce rights for additional time off but will prohibit discrimination on grounds of 400W
  religion or belief (including atheism). Employers will be required to treat people in an even handed way. If staff want time off for religious festivals employers will have to consider it in the way they would any other request for leave.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether, under the proposed European legislation to protect homosexual employees from discrimination, employers will be expected to identify the sexual orientation of their staff. [137645]

  Jacqui Smith
  No, other than in the very limited circumstances where being of a particular sexual orientation is a genuine occupational requirement for a job. If such a case arises, the employer may have to ask applicants and employees about their sexual orientation in order to find out if they are able to perform the functions of the job in question.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if she will make a statement on the proposed Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003; [137609]

  (2) if she will make a statement on the proposed Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003. [137610]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) and Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003, which come into force on 1 and 2 December 2003, are a major step forward in combating discrimination at work.

  For the first time the Regulations will put in place protection against discrimination and harassment on the ground of sexual orientation and religion or belief in workplaces in England, Scotland and Wales. The Regulations were developed following widespread consultation since 2000 and they implement the Employment Discrimination Directive of November 2000.

  EU Energy Chapter
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the impact of the Energy Chapter of the Draft EU Constitituion on private sector investment in the North Sea oil and gas fields; and what representations she has received. [137650]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department has made an assessment of the potential impact of the draft Constitution on the Department's powers to regulate recovery of hydrocarbons from the UK Continental Shelf. The potential impact of such changes on future private sector investment is a matter of some debate— not least owing to the changing roles of established players and a number of new entrants. There is considerable Community competence already in the field of energy, and a number of Directives and Regulations have been brought forward in the areas of energy and environment, often under qualified majority voting. Nevertheless, the Government will only agree to an extension of competence in energy policy if it is
  401W
  consistent with the UK interest, and a number of organisations with UK oil and gas interests have made representations to Ministers.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what impact she estimates the Energy Chapter of the Draft EU Constitution will have on the North Sea oil licensing regime. [137722]

  Mr. Timms
  EU competence in energy matters, including natural resources, will fall under Article 111–157 of the draft Constitutional Treaty, with voting by qualified majority. There is considerable Community competence already in the field of energy, and a number of Directives and Regulations have been brought forward in the areas of energy and environment, often under qualified majority voting. There is a carve out to preserve "Member State's choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply", where our understanding is that the EU would have to act by unanimity. Discussions on the draft Treaty are continuing in the framework of the Intergovernmental Conference: the UK Government would not agree to any proposals that was inconsistent with UK energy interest.

  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what effect she estimates the proposed energy chapter in the European Union constitution will have on licensing arrangements for the exploitation of the UK's offshore oil and gas. [137760]

  Mr. Timms
  EU competence in energy matters, including natural resources, will fall under Article 111–157 of the draft Constitutional Treaty, with voting by qualified majority. There is considerable Community competence already in the field of energy, and a number of Directives and Regulations have been brought forward in the areas of energy and environment, often under qualified majority voting. There is a carve out of preserve "Member State's Choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply", where our understanding is that the EU would have to act by unanimity. Discussions on the draft Treaty are continuing in the framework of the Intergovernmental Conference: the UK Government would not agree to any proposal that was inconsistent with UK energy interests.

  Exports Licences (Morocco)
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the arms export licences applied for, and her decision on each, for export of arms to Morocco in each of the past five years; and what her policy is towards such applications. [136512]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Details of all relevant export licences issued and refused are published by destination in the Government's Annual Reports on Strategic Export Controls, copies of which are available from the Libraries of the House. For the period between 1 January 2003 and 31 October 2003 details are set out in the tables, as the 2003 Annual Report is not due for publication until next year:

  Three Standard Individual Export licences (SIELS) were issued to end users in Morocco in that period. The export licences covered a range of items with various ratings, are set out as follows.
  402W

  Rating

  Item

  ML1

  3

  ML2

  18

  ML3

  1

  ML5

  1

  ML22

  8

  PL5017

  2

  S1P1

  2

  Four Open Individual Export Licences (OIELS) were issued to end users in Morocco in that period. The export licences covered a range of items with various ratings, are set out as follows:

  Rating

  Item

  ML1

  2

  ML2

  4

  ML5

  1

  ML9

  1

  ML13

  2

  ML22

  1

  PL5001

  1

  As with all export licence applications, all applications received for the export of arms to Morocco, are rigorously assessed on a case-by-case basis against the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria in the light of circumstances prevailing at the time, taking account of other previously announced Government policies.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what checks are in place to ensure that licensed strategic exports of arms to Morocco do not get used in the Western Sahara. [136726]

  Mr. MacShane
  When assessing strategic export licence applications to Morocco, the Government carefully consider the risk that the goods may be used in the Western Sahara.

  The criteria that we use to assess all strategic export licence applications specifically set out our commitment to take account of the risk of the goods being used aggressively against another country or being used to assert by force a territorial claim. We do not issue any export licences where a clear risk of such use exists. We use information, from a variety of sources, to monitor the use of UK-origin defence equipment overseas. We take very seriously any reports of misuse.

  Industrial Action
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the implications for safety of industrial action at BNFL's Sellafield nuclear site. [137612]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department is in regular contact with HSE's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII), the regulator of safety at licensed nuclear sites, regarding safety issues during the proposed industrial action at Sellafield. The site operator and the trade unions have given clear commitments to ensure safety is not prejudiced by any industrial action.

  NII have reviewed BNFL's contingency arrangements and are satisfied that they provide an adequate framework for safety cover. An enhanced team of NII

  403W
  Inspectors will be on site during normal working hours and will be carrying out safety related inspections during the strike in key areas to ensure minimum manning is in place and that contingency plans are followed. BNFL's risk assessments are also being examined to ensure adequate provisions are in place.

  Standby emergency response arrangements will remain unaffected.

  Internet
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many small businesses she estimates do not have broadband access; and if she will make a statement; [137301]

  (2) if she will make a statement on her Department's plans to increase broadband access in the small business sector. [137304]

  Mr. Timms
  Information on the number of small businesses that do not have broadband access is not held by my Department. Research for the DTI shows that 80 per cent. of homes and businesses in the UK are located in areas, that have access to a mass-market broadband solution.

  Encouraging the provision of broadband access to the whole of the UK is one of the Government's top priorities. For example, DTIs plans include:
  the UK Online for Business Programme, which promotes the benefits of broadband and ICTs more generally to SMEs;
  the DTIs Broadband Aggregation Project, announced in July 2003, which aims to secure value for money for the public sector and ensure this has maximum impact on broadband availability, including for SMEs;
  a joint DTI and Defra Rural Broadband Team, which was set up in May 2003 to address the issue of the availability of broadband in rural areas, including among SMEs;
  a £30 million Broadband Fund administered by the Regional Development Agencies and the Devolved Administrations to develop broadband networks and run pilot projects to benefit SMEs, among others.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the involvement of British Nuclear Fuels, through their Westinghouse subsidiary in the USA, in the development of new low yield nuclear weapons. [137641]

  Mr. Timms
  The Westinghouse Savannah River Company (WSRC) is a subsidiary of Westinghouse Government Services Company (WGS), in which BNFL has a 40 per cent. passive economic interest. WSRC and WRS are pursuing potential business opportunities in US defence programmes. BNFL's business interests on US DOE sites through its subsidiaries relate to the environmental clean up market such as managing the solid waste program at the Savannah River Site, and not the weapons production business. BNFL is precluded by US Department of Energy (DOE) Security Agreements from involvement in the US defence programme.

  Ofgem
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what reasons the change to the Gas Act 404W
  Order made by a letter by Ofgem on 1 April 1999 was not entered onto the public register until 8 January 2003. [138597]

  Mr. Timms
  This is a matter for Ofgem.

  Patents
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the 20 universities(a) which have taken out the most patents in the UK and (b) with the highest incomes raised through the development of patented products, broken down by amount raised in the past 20 years; and if she will list the 10 most commercially successful patents from British universities, giving the name of the product and the amount of income generated. [133825]

  Ms Hewitt
  Patent Office databases are not structured to provide information on categories of applicants for patents. Generating the data would involve disproportionate cost. Some limited information on numbers of patents filed and income generated by UK universities is available from the Higher Education Business Interaction (HE-BI) survey but only for the last three years. This information was gathered on the basis that it would remain confidential due to its commercially sensitive nature, and as such may not be divulged.

  The Government have asked Richard Lambert to examine how the long-term links between business and British universities can be strengthened to the benefit of the UK's economy. The full set of responses from institutions (who have given the review team permission to publish) is available on the Review's website (www.lambertrevlcw.Q-rR.uk) and the final report, will be submitted to Government shortly.

  Pebble Bed Modular Reactor
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with BNFL in respect of the company's involvement with the Pebble Bed modular reactor (PBMR) in South Africa; what information BNFL supplied to her Department on its research collaboration on the PBMR; and if she will make a statement. [138067]

  Mr. Timms
  I can confirm that BNFL has participated in the PBMR project since 2000, is discussing with its contractual partners how the project will move forward and is keeping my Department in touch.

  Power Cuts
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to the Answer of 29 October 2003,Official Report, column 252W, on power cuts, when she expects to publish the reports detailed in her Answer. [138025]

  Mr. Timms
  Ofgem and DTI are undertaking separate, but co-ordinated, investigations into the recent power cuts in London and Birmingham. PB Power was commissioned to investigate a number of technical issues which will help inform these
  405W
  investigations. PB Power's findings will form part of Ofgem's final investigation report, due to be released by the end of this year.

  The conclusions and recommendations of the Engineering Inspectorate's investigation will not be published without the consent of the companies involved, where such consent is required by section 105 of the Utilities Act 2000.

  Royal Mail
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if she will make a statement on(a) Postcomm's access proposals to Royal Mail and (b) the precedent it would set for other third party access; [138302]

  (2) what the reasons are for Postcomm's conclusion that the overall effect of their proposals concerning access points and prices would be contribution neutral; [138312]

  (3) what proposals Postcomm has suggested to stop cream-skimming, if the access plans concerning Royal Mail are accepted; [138303]

  (4) what assessment Postcomm made of the legal precedent set by its access proposals to Royal Mail; [138304]

  (5) what the reasons are for Postcomm's proposals that Royal Mail should be contractually bound to deliver 98.5 per cent. of UK mail's items on the due date of delivery; and from where this figure was derived; [138306]

  (6) if she will make a statement on the effect of increased competition on the Royal Mail's system of cross-subsidies; [138310]

  (7) if she will make a statement on Postcomm's proposed access cost; [138311]

  (8) what evidence she has assessed with respect to Postcomm's conclusion that its access plans are revenue neutral; [138314]

  (9) what proposals Postcomm has suggested to discourage Royal Mail's large customers from seeking direct access to their facilities. [138315]

  Mr. Timms
  Access pricing and the related regulatory issues are a matter for the regulator, whose primary responsibility is to ensure the provision of a universal postal service.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on(a) the proposal of Postcomm to allow Royal Mail's competitors direct access to their delivery offices and (b) the effect that this would have on the Three Year Renewal Plan, including (i) single daily delivery and (ii) simplified sorting. [138305]

  Mr. Timms
  This is a matter for Postcomm, whose primary responsibility is to ensure the provision of a universal postal service.

  It is for Royal Mail to make representations to Postcomm about the impact of the regulator's proposals on its business.
  406W
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on Royal Mail's proposal that a minimum entry level of 1,000 items to a single access point should be set. [138307]

  Mr. Timms
  Access pricing is a matter for Postcomm and it is for them to consider Royal Mail's proposal.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on how Postcomm's proposals concerning third party access by UK mail to Royal Mail's pipeline will effect its primary duty of protecting a universal service at a uniform tariff; and if she will make an assessment of the effect that the third party access will have on Royal Mail's long-term viability, with particular reference to its Three Year Renewal Plan. [138308]

  Mr. Timms
  Access price determination is a matter for Postcomm. It is for Royal Mail to assess the impact on its business and to make representations to Postcomm.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who the new Chair of Postcomm is; and if the new Chair will be asked to review the third party access proposals concerning Royal Mail. [138309]

  Mr. Timms
  The new Chair of Postcomm is Nigel Stapleton.

  Access pricing and the related regulatory issues are a matter for the regulator, whose primary responsibility is to ensure the provision of a universal postal service.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on Royal Mail's analysis of the effect on its profits of the access determination proposed by Postcomm. [138313]

  Mr. Timms
  It is for the Royal Mail Board to analyse the potential impact on its profits and to make representations to Postcomm.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many small businesses went(a) into liquidation and (b) bankrupt in each quarter since quarter 4, 1996–97. [137427]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The official insolvency statistics published by the DTI are not broken down by size of business.

  Telecommunications Ombudsman
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many cases were considered by the Telecommunications 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 the average cost per case. [137195]

  Mr. Timms
  The Office of the Telecommunications Ombudsman (Otelo) is an independent, industry-funded dispute resolution service which handles complaints from consumers about telecoms companies. This is a matter for Otelo and I have asked the Ombudsman to write to the hon. Member.

  Telephone Masts
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the number of third generation mobile telephone masts that will be required in(a) Somerset, (b) Devon, (c) Dorset, (d) Wiltshire and (e) Cornwall. [136900]

  Mr. Timms
  It is not possible to give a reliable estimate of the number of new masts that will be needed to fulfil the obligations of the 3G licensees, either in total or by area. The number of masts required in an area will be affected by the level of consumer demand for 3G services, by commercial decisions related to the design of the networks, by the physical topography and by the requirements of planning authorities.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  American Ships (Disposal)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what the Government's policy is on whether the United States vessels now en route to Hartlepool should continue their voyage; [137142]

  (2) what action she plans to take to manage the environmental risk posed by former United States naval vessels in British waters pending the resolution of the court proceedings due in December; [137700]

  (3) assessment she has made of the implications for the work of (a) her Department and (b) the Environment Agency of the injunction obtained against Able UK by Friends of the Earth on 5 November; [137702]

  (4) what representations the Government has made to the United States Marine Administration to secure the return of United States former naval vessels to the United States. [137701]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 November 2003]: Following discussions on Friday 7 November, between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and Secretary Mineta of the US Department of Transportation, it has been decided that for safety reasons, the first two ships currently on the way to the UK will continue to Hartlepool for safe storage, pending return to the US. This decision was taken after consideration by the Environment Agency and Government Departments of alternative storage sites. No other site is able to take the ships safely at short notice.

  The US authorities have been told that the proposed shipment of these vessels to Hartlepool for dismantling cannot be completed consistent with international rules and Community law. In this situation the law requires the ships to be returned to the United States. However, the immediate return to the United States of the first two ships, which are now approaching the Channel, would be impracticable, not least because of concerns about the weather.

  When the ships arrive at Hartlepool, the Environment Agency will place requirements on them to ensure the environment is fully protected and that the ships remain ready for return to the USA. No work is permitted on the ships given the current court injunction.
  408W
  The UK Government and its Agencies continue to work intensively with the US authorities to examine the safety and liability concerns they have raised to proposals that the second pair of ships, currently in transit to the UK, return to the US, and are looking for rapid resolution of that question.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what contingency plans have been made by the Environment Agency to deal with United States vessels bound for decommissioning at Hartlepool if they are unable to enter the port. [137146]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 November 2003]: The port authority concerned, PD Teesport, has confirmed that the vessels would be permitted to enter the port.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs at what level in(a) the Environment Agency and (b) the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs September's modification to Able UK's waste management licence was approved.[137698]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 November 2003]: The Environment Agency is the regulator of waste management issues in England and Wales. The modification was approved and signed by the local Environment Manager with specific responsibility for Teesside, in accordance with Agency procedures. The decision to sign the modification was cleared with the local Area Manager and appropriate Agency Directors.

  The Government have no direct role in the approval of applications for waste management licence modifications, though there is a right of appeal to the Secretary of State should a licence modification application be rejected.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the waste management licence originally issued by the Environment Agency to Able UK covered the dismantling of ships. [137699]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 November 2003]: No. The original licence issued by the Environment Agency for the site at Hartlepool did not specifically cover the dismantling of the ships. However, the licence authorises the dismantling of offshore structures, and any associated plant and equipment.

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the implications for the UK of their proposals to eradicate bovine TB. [136093]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We have announced a review of the TB strategy for Great Britain. In developing the strategy, one of the important questions we will need to consider is how realistic a goal total eradication of the disease would be within the 10-year period over which the strategy will apply, and the most appropriate ways of achieving it. We expect to go out to public consultation on the strategy around the end of year.
  409W
  In the meantime Defra is continuing to work hard to address the problem of bovine TB through its current programme of public health protection measures, cattle testing, cattle controls and extensive research.

  Climate Change
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the agencies that have responsibilities for planning for the consequences of climate change on coastal areas; and if she will make a statement. [137391]

  Mr. Morley
  All agencies whose areas of work and influence will be affected by climate change, in coastal areas and elsewhere, have a responsibility to plan for the consequences of those changes.

  Development planning in coastal areas is the responsibility of local planning authorities, while land and shoreline management is the responsibility of land owners, the Environment Agency and local athorities.

  This Department provides guidance and assistance to planners in coastal areas by funding the UK Climate Impacts Programme (UKCIP), other research and development programmes and by promoting the production of Shoreline Management Plans which are designed to assist local planners in making decisions on future development and coastal defence needs over a 30–100 year period, taking account of natural processes and climate change effects. The Department has provided guidance on sea-level rise allowances for design of coastal defences since 1989 and these were confirmed this year in the light of the UKCIP 2002 climate-change scenarios.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the area of coastal land that will be lost owing to the impact of climate change by 2050. [137392]

  Mr. Morley
  Estimates made by the Department suggest that some 400,000 ha of agricultural land and about 1 million properties are currently at risk of flooding from the sea. These all depend on coastal defences. In addition some 5,000 ha of agricultural land and 75,000 properties are at risk of coastal erosion. An assessment for Defra in 2001 suggested that the economic risk of coastal flooding could increase up to fivefold by the latter half of the century without any adaptation of defences. However, any loss of coastal land would depend almost entirely on the strategic coastal defence decisions made for each risk area.

  The Office of Science and Technology's Foresight project on flood and coastal defence is currently examining the factors that drive change in flood and coastal erosion risk, but it has not made any estimates of land loss.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with the insurance industry regarding the insurance costs arising from climate change; and if she will make a statement. [137393]

  Mr. Morley
  The Association of British Insurers (ABI) is involved with the work of the Defra-funded UK Climate Impacts Programme, which helps stakeholder 410W
  organisations assess how they might be affected by climate change, so that they can develop adaptation strategies.

  In addition, there have been extensive discussions with ABI over the past few years on the Government's flood management policy, the background to which includes awareness that future climate change could enhance flood risks in some areas.

  Dairy Farming
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many farmers there were in dairy farming in each year since 1992, broken down by(a) conventional and (b) organic farming. [137381]

  Mr. Morley
  Data for the total number of farmers, partners, directors and spouses combined are collected annually from the June agricultural and horticultural census as a total. The following figures relate to holdings where dairy is the predominant activity, a breakdown between conventional and organic farming is not available.

  Total farmers, partners, directors and spouses (full and part-time) in England on dairy type holdings

  Number

  Main holdings only

  1992

  40,464

  1993

  35,665

  1994

  39,744

  1995

  37,844

  1996

  36,656

  1997

  35,104

  1998

  34,405

  1999

  33,216

  Main and minor holdings

  2000

  31,418

  2001

  29,732

  2002

  30,014

  Notes

  1. Spouses are only included 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 Agricultural Census

  Foreign Ships (Disposal)
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many contracts involving the dismemberment of foreign ships have been entered into by breakers' yards in the United Kingdom in each of the last five years. [137067]

  Mr. Morley
  Records are only available for those ships that are notified under the transfrontier shipment of waste control system. In the last five years, only one contract has been entered into by a breakers yard in the UK.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will place in the Library copies of the assessments made by the Environment Agency of the environmental risk of the project by Able UK to decommission and recycle American ships in Hartlepool. [137188]
  411W
  Mr. Morley
  I will arrange for copies of the assessment to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Departmental Expenditure (Official Residences)
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much the Department spent on(a) maintenance, (b) renovation, (c) council tax and (d) running costs of residential properties used by Ministers and officials in each year since 1997. [134690]

  Alun Michael
  The amount spent on residential properties for Ministers and officials for the 2002–03 financial year is as follows:

  Costs for 2002–03

  Maintenance

  0

  Renovation

  0

  Council tax

  0

  Running costs

  276,398.01

  Notes

  1. The running costs are those paid by the Department to the Cabinet Office in respect of the capital charge and the costs for utilities, the Whitehall District Heating System, security and facilities management.

  2. The figures are subject to final audit.

  Information about the costs of official residences used by Ministers for previous financial years is already in the public domain.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether in the GM farm scale evaluations(a) commercially useful yield, (b) starch and (c) dry matter measurements of the final GM maize crop were independently obtained to confirm whether the use of this herbicide regime would allow an economically viable crop to be grown. [137656]

  Mr. Morley
  Such measurements were not made. The GM and conventional maize in each field evaluation were compared at every stage of growth and results were only included in the analysis where these correlates of yield were comparable and consistent with the protocol requiring 'cost-effective weed control'.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what yield penalty she predicts for GM crops if they are grown in the future using the management and herbicide regimes employed during the Field Scale Evaluation programme. [136804]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 6 November 2003]: Any new variety of a GM crop which has been approved for cultivation under Directive 2001/18 also has to comply with the relevant seeds legislation before it can be added to the National List or the EU common catalogue of plant varieties. The new variety must conform with certain requirements which include an assessment of its value for cultivation and use. The yield achieved in commercial cultivation of a crop depends on many factors including the particular variety chosen, the management system, the quality of the farmland, weather conditions and so on. Therefore predictions cannot be made.
  412W
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on(a) research into the overall efficacy of the Liberty (GA) herbicide regime in the Farm Scale Evaluation of GM maize and (b) research in the UK and other countries on the rate of development of resistance to the herbicide Liberty in common weeds. [136805]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 6 November 2003]The published results of the farm-scale evaluations present the most in-depth study of the efficacy of Liberty (GA), as used in the evaluations, ever conducted. For full details see Heard et al. 2003; "Weeds in fields with contrasting conventional and genetically modified herbicide tolerant crops. 1. Effects on abundance and diversity";Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (B). 358 (1439): 1819–1832. A copy of this journal has been placed in the Library.

  As part of the procedure to issue consent for the release of a herbicide tolerant GM crop the applicants must present evidence that the use of the associated herbicide (eg Liberty in this case) does not lead to environmental harm through the development of resistance in common weeds. This includes a consideration based on any available research findings. The issue of weed resistance to herbicides is not unique to GM crops.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measurements of GM crop yield were made during the recently completed Farm Scale Evaluation research programme to assess the commercial viability of the herbicide regimes adopted. [136806]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 6 November 2003]: The FSE research team measured surrogates of crop yield rather than yield directly. In particular these included repeated measurements of crop development for both the GM and non-GM crops. The data show little difference between the GM and non-GM. For further details see Champion et al. (2003) "Crop management and agronomic context of the Farm Scale Evaluations of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (B). 358 (1439): 1801–1818. A copy of this journal has been placed in the Library.

  The FSE research team compared the crop development with the audited management practices and concluded that the trials of the GM crops in the FSE were consistent with cost effective weed control. The scientific probity of this conclusion was independently verified by the publishing journal and endorsed by the scientific steering committee who advised Ministers accordingly.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what(a) herbicide mixes and (b) levels of application per hectare she proposes to permit for commercial cultivation of GM maize; and whether these differ from the levels used in the farm scale evaluations. [136807]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 6 November 2003]All pesticide products are approved on an individual basis. Only when we are satisfied that a pesticide is safe for the proposed use will approval for that use be granted.
  413W
  Growers may only use approved herbicides in a mixture in compliance with the statutory conditions of approval for each of the products.

  In practice throughout the farm-scale evaluations growers used the herbicide glufosinate ammonium alone on the GM maize fields.

  The recommended individual and maximum permitted application rates of the herbicide glufosinate ammonium used on GM maize in the farm-scale evaluations were defined by the conditions of the simulated product licence that formed part of the experimental pesticide approval. This specified a maximum permitted rate of 8 litres per hectare and a recommended individual rate of 4 litres per hectare, depending on the weeds present and their growth stage. Application was permitted until the nine-leaf stage of maize. Before glufosinate ammonium could be used on a commercial scale on GM maize it would need full pesticide approval. In seeking approval the necessary data package would have to be supplied by the applicant and be subjected to the considerations of human and environmental safety which have been established for all pesticide uses. Any approval given would specify recommended and maximum application rates in the same way as the experimental permit. These conditions would be determined by the Pesticide Safety Directorate taking due account of advice from their expert advisory committee the Advisory Committee on Pesticides.

  Where appropriate we shall be seeking to specify the management systems for the cultivation of GM crops through the conditions imposed with the consent.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when during the GM farm scale evaluations she was informed that neither the use of Liberty alone on GM maize nor the use of Atrazine on the non-GM control crop would replicate the herbicide use and management regimes which would be used in commercial plantings in the UK in future years. [136808]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 6 November 2003]: The farm-scale evaluations were set up to assess the relative impact on wildlife of GM and non-GM management of four crops, based on practices current at the time. They were not set up to investigate the impact of any potential future management changes for either crop, although they will provide an invaluable baseline in our understanding of any such future changes.

  The decision to phase out Atrazine in the EU was taken on 3 October 2003, over a year after the completion of the last maize field trials. During the time of the trials (1999–2002) conventional maize practice predominately involved the use of Atrazine; this therefore formed a large part of the sample of FSE fields.

  In 2002 some evidence emerged that farmers in the US often mixed Atrazine with glufosinate ammonium for use on GM maize crops. In the FSE, farmers of GM maize used glufosinate ammonium alone. The industry asserted that the UK and US differed in conditions and that glufosinate ammonium alone was typical of the likely practice in the UK. The scientific steering committee, whose role it is to advise me on the conduct of the FSE, considered that in the absence of evidence
  414W
  either way to justify the need for Atrazine to be used in conjunction with glufosinate ammonium in the UK that trials would continue as before. Accordingly, I was not advised that any action was necessary.

  Now that Atrazine is being phased out it clearly will not be permitted on any fodder maize crop, GM or otherwise. However, the issue of whether other licensed herbicides could be mixed with glufosinate ammonium on GM crops remains.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she will take to protect organic farming from possible effects of GM crops. [137261]

  Mr. Morley
  We will consider the co-existence of GM and organic crops in the light of guidelines issued by the European Commission and a report we expect to receive shortly from the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent bilateral meetings she has had with the United States Department of Agriculture at which the subject of GM crops was discussed; and if she will make a statement. [138216]

  Mr. Morley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State from time to time discusses issues raised by genetically modified crops with her counterparts from the United States and other nations. However, there have been no recent bilateral meetings with the US Department of Agriculture on this issue.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with her counterparts in(a) the Scottish Executive and (b) the Welsh Assembly on the regulation of GM crops. [138217]

  Mr. Morley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I hold regular discussions with our counterparts in the Scottish Executive and Welsh Assembly Government on a range of issues, including GM crops.

  Hunting
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment the Government makes of the environmental impact of trophy hunting of endangered animals around the world; what steps the Government is taking to encourage the control of hunting of endangered species; and if she will make a statement. [137548]

  Mr. Morley
  The United Kingdom is a Party to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), which regulates the trade in endangered species including those threatened by trophy hunting.

  The Convention is implemented within the EU by means of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97. The European Commission closely monitors the trade in CITES species and where scientific advisers judge that trade would be detrimental to the survival of a particular species in the wild, measures may be taken to suspend such trade.
  415W
  A good example of this was provided earlier in the year when, on the basis of advice provided by the Scientific Review Group on Trade in Wild Fauna and Flora, the EU suspended trade in brown bear hunting trophies from Slovenia on the grounds that this trade was unsustainable.

  Meadowland Protection
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to introduce protection for meadowland. [137291]

  Mr. Morley
  All uncultivated and semi-natural land is protected by the Environmental Impact Assessment (Uncultivated Land and Semi-natural Areas) Regulations 2001 (S.I.No 2001/3966). In addition, many meadows are protected by statutory designation as Sites of Special Scientific Interest. We also provide payments to farmers under agri-environment schemes for positive management and in some cases restoration or recreation of hay meadows.

  National Fruit Show
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what support Ministers have given to the National Fruit Show (The Marden Fruit Show) since 1997. [134138]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 27 October 2003]: Ministers have given no direct support to the National Fruit Show. However, exhibits at the show have illustrated how the fruit sector has benefited from Defra-funded research, including the breeding and development of new varieties, issues relating to storage and pest control, and the publication of best practice guides. Growers are also able to take advantage of funding opportunities that exist through England Rural Development Programme schemes, the Agriculture Development Scheme and the Organic Farming Scheme.

  Public Water System
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what(a) plans she has and (b) targets she has set to reduce fat and oil contamination in the public water system. [137252]

  Mr. Morley
  Changes to guidance to the Buildings Regulations recommend that measures to control grease should be installed in commercial hot food premises. There are no requirements in these Regulations or in water legislation that relate specifically to disposal of oils and fats from dwellings. However, under general provisions in section 111 of the Water Industry Act 1991, it is an offence for a person to empty into a public sewer, or any drain or sewer connecting with a public sewer, any matter which is likely to injure the sewer or drain, to interfere with the free flow of its contents or to affect prejudicially the treatment and disposal of its contents. Any person who is found guilty of an offence is liable to a fine or imprisonment.

  Recycling
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of household waste was recycled in each year between 1985 and 1995 in England. [136780]

  Mr. Morley
  Government do not have this information. However, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy have published the following percentage recycling rates for England and Wales:

  Percentage recycled

  1983–84

  0.8

  1991–92

  2.6

  1993–94

  3.4

  The Department's Municipal Waste Management Survey was first carried out for the year 1995–6. Since this survey's publication the recycling percentage given for 1995–6 has been adjusted in an attempt to make it more accurate, to 6.4 per cent. for England and Wales.

  Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 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.[136126]

  Alun Michael
  There is no equivalent of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 codifying the investigatory powers of Defra investigators. There is a patchwork of powers. In relation to a range of offences Defra investigators (and inspectors) have fairly standard statutory powers to enter and inspect business premises, powers to inspect and copy business documents and powers to require provision of information in relation to the conduct of the business —all these powers are normally set out in the specific legislation which creates the offence under investigation. Investigators have a surviving common law right to seize and retain any evidence relating to suspected offences. For some suspected offences a search warrant is also available eg under the Medicines Act 1968.

  None of these powers was superseded by any powers in RIPA 2000 and so there are no plans for removing `legacy powers'.

  Stewardship Scheme
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much money the United Kingdom has received from the EU under the Stewardship Scheme in each of the last three years. [137258]

  Mr. Morley
  The Countryside Stewardship Scheme in England has received the following EU funding:

  £ million

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Total

  9.4

  15.7

  22.0

  of which:

  EAGGF

  9.4

  11.5

  10.7

  Modulation

  0.0

  4.2

  11.3

  417W
  Notes

  European Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF)—these are funds allocated by the European Commission for rural development measures.

  Modulation—these are funds made available by reducing CAP Pillar 1 payments and redirecting them to certain rural development schemes.

  Years are EAGGF running from 16 October to 15 October each year.

  South West Water
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment she has made of the recent proposed investment programme and water bill charges for the period 2005 to 2010 by South West Water. [135144]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government have noted the proposed investment programme and bill charges for South West Water for the period 2005 to 2010. These figures are drawn from South West Water's own draft business plan for the 2004 periodic review of water price limits and represent the company's opening bid in what will be another 12 months of challenge, decisions and negotiation by the regulator Ofwat.

  Full assessments of all company draft business plans will be made following receipt of guidance from the economic, environmental and quality regulators in early November and these assessments will underlie the Secretary of State's Principal Guidance, which will be issued early next year. The Secretary of State's initial guidance to the Director General of Ofwat, setting out the Government's early objectives for the review, was published in January this year.

  Water Supplies
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with water companies on the adequacy of future supplies; and if she will make a statement. [137562]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency is the statutory body which has a duty to secure the proper use of water resources in England and Wales.

  Since the Water Summit in 1997, there have been a number of developments in terms of securing long-term future water resources. Each water company in England and Wales has produced a water resources plan setting out how it proposes to maintain the supply and demand balance of water for the next 25 years. These plans were assessed by the Environment Agency and are reviewed on an annual basis.

  As part of the fourth periodic review of water company prices, water companies are submitting updated water resource plans to the Environment Agency. The agency will report to Ministers on these plans as part of their advice for the fourth periodic review. The Ministerial guidance for the periodic review will be published in early 2004, and cover any related water supply issues.

  Wild Birds (Imports)
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps 418W
  her Department is taking to reduce the importation of wild caught (a) parrots and (b) other birds into the UK. [135811]

  Mr. Morley
  The international trade in all parrots and many other species of wild birds is strictly regulated under Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97, which implements the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) within the EU. It is an offence to import CITES specimens without the appropriate documentation and trade is only permitted if we are satisfied that the specimens have been lawfully acquired and that the trade will not be detrimental to the wild populations of the species concerned.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate her Department has made of the numbers of wild caught(a) parrots and (b) other birds brought into the UK broken down by each country from which these imports originated in each of the last five years for which records are available. [135812]

  Mr. Morley
  The available information is set out in the attached tables: Table A for parrots, Table B for other birds.

  Table A

  Imports of parrots

  Country

  Year

  Number

  United Arab Emirates

  2001

  1

  Angola

  1999

  1

  Argentina

  1998

  120

  1999

  410

  2000

  441

  2001

  58

  Australia

  2002

  3

  Benin

  1999

  1

  Democratic Republic of Congo

  1999

  1

  2000

  1

  Congo

  2002

  1

  Cote D'lvoire

  2002

  200

  Cameroon

  1998

  410

  1999

  2,065

  2000

  700

  2001

  600

  2002

  2,200

  Egypt

  2000

  1

  Ghana

  2000

  1

  Gambia

  2001

  1

  Guinea

  1998

  2,274

  2001

  600

  2002

  534

  Guyana

  1998

  1,192

  1999

  1,308

  2000

  1,115

  2001

  2,702

  2002

  2,655

  Indonesia

  1998

  182

  Kenya

  1998

  1

  1999

  1

  2000

  1

  2001

  1

  Mali

  1999

  1

  2001

  200

  2002

  550

  Mauritius

  2000

  1

  Malaysia

  1998

  620

  2002

  228

  419W

  Table A

  Imports of parrots

  Country

  Year

  Number

  Nigeria

  1998

  2

  1999

  1

  2001

  1

  Nicaragua

  2001

  115

  2002

  854

  New Zealand

  1998

  40

  Panama

  1998

  1

  Peru

  2002

  249

  Paraguay

  1998

  2

  2002

  1,961

  Senegal

  2001

  200

  Surinam

  2002

  723

  Total

  25,531

  Table B

  Imports of other birds

  Country

  Year

  Number

  Argentina

  1998

  2

  Democratic Republic of Congo

  2001

  6

  Congo

  2000

  8

  2001

  2

  Cameroon

  1998

  11

  2001

  19

  2002

  33

  Cape Verde Islands

  2002

  5

  Ghana

  2001

  31

  Guinea

  1999

  30

  2000

  8

  2002

  50

  Guyana

  1998

  62

  1999

  51

  2000

  95

  2001

  100

  2002

  67

  Iceland

  1999

  1

  Indonesia

  2000

  1

  Kazakhstan

  1999

  3

  Nicaragua

  2001

  6

  2002

  21

  Netherlands

  2000

  1

  Norway

  1998

  12

  Peru

  1999

  13

  2000

  56

  2001

  5

  2002

  12

  Poland

  2002

  1

  Paraguay

  2002

  387

  Russian Federation

  1998

  10

  1999

  33

  Surinam

  2002

  14

  Tanzania

  1998

  16

  1999

  24

  2000

  6

  2002

  35

  South Africa

  1998

  1

  2000

  2

  Total

  1,240

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the number of wild caught(a) parrots and (b) other birds imported into EU countries in each of the last five years. [135818]

  Mr. Morley
  Our CITES records show that the number of wild caught parrots imported into the UK in each of the last five years were as follows.
  420W

  Number

  1998

  4,844

  1999

  3,789

  2000

  2,261

  2001

  4,479

  2002

  10,158

  Total

  25,531

  The numbers of other wild-caught birds imported into the UK were:

  Number

  1998

  114

  1999

  155

  2000

  177

  2001

  169

  2002

  625

  Total

  1,240

  The Department does not keep records of imports into other EU countries.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact of Government support for the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species on the volume in trade of wild caught(a) parrots and (b) other birds imported into (i) Europe and (ii) the UK since the UK signed the Convention.[135820]

  Mr. Morley
  The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) aims to protect certain plants and animals by regulating and monitoring their international trade to prevent it reaching unsustainable levels. Currently CITES regulates international trade in over 30,000 species, of which approximately 25,000 are plants. The Convention came into force in 1975, and the UK became a party in 1976. Pre-Convention figures concerning the importation of parrots and other birds are not available.

  No specific study has been made of the impact of the Convention on the trade in these species. However, all EU member states are required to provide annual reports on the trade in CITES species. These are closely monitored by the European Commission, and powers are available to enable member states to take urgent action in the event that a particular pattern of trade is judged to be unsustainable.

  Wolves
  Sir Paul Beresford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the two grey wolves for which the former Department of the Environment issued a permit for importation from Canada in 1991 were(a) from a Canadian zoo and (b) from a wild population; which zoo was the intended British destination; whether grey wolves were classified as an endangered species in Canada in 1991; whether the wolves were imported; and if she will make a statement. [138046]
  421W
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 11 November 2003]: The Department issued a licence on 9 December 1991 for the importation of two wolves from Canada. In response to the specific points raised the answers are as follows:
  (a) The wolves came from a Canadian ranching operation which does not appear to be a zoo
  (b) The animals were captive bred not taken from wild populations and were brought into Howletts Zoo for breeding purposes.

  At the time of import wolves were listed upon Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). Appendix II species are defined as species not necessarily threatened with extinction, but in which trade must be controlled in order to avoid utilization incompatible with their survival.

  Work-related Stress
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many cases of work-related stress have been reported in her 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 she will make a statement. [136854]

  Alun Michael
  Defra has received a total of two centrally reported cases of work-related stress among staff over the past three years. No compensation has been paid in these cases. Our current sickness absence system does not differentiate between stress and work-related stress.

  The Department has set a target to reduce the number of working days lost from work-related injury and ill-health by 30 per cent. by 2010. This mirrors the Revitalising Health and Safety Strategy target.

  Defra was established in June 2001. Since then, the Management Board has established a sub-committee on Stress which recommended a number of actions. The Stress Policy was updated and relaunched this year.

  It is not possible to quantify the cost of this strategy without detailed analysis of all work groups which is not practicable.

TREASURY

  Pension Funds
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will calculate the amount in taxation he has levied from pension funds since May 1997. [138339]

  Ruth Kelly
  The amount of tax paid by pension funds since May 1997 is not held centrally. However, the Government do provide £13 billion in net tax relief every year for pension funds.

  World Debt
  Lawrie Quinn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with African Finance Ministers on debt and the millennium development targets. [138342]
  422W
  Mr. Boateng
  I refer my right hon. Friend to the answer the Chancellor gave my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey), earlier today,Offical Report, col. 409.

  Private Health Care
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost to public funds of tax relief on private medical insurance was in the last year for which figures are available. [138343]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The cost of tax relief on private medical insurance premiums in the last full year the relief was given, 1996–97, was around £110 million.

  Public Sector Borrowing
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how his projections for public sector borrowing have changed since the 2002 Budget. [138344]

  Ruth Kelly
  An interim forecast update for the public finances will be published in the pre-Budget Report as usual.

  ECOFIN
  Mr. David
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the issues he raised at the recent ECOFIN Council meeting in Brussels. [138345]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer attended the meeting of ECOFIN Ministers on 4 November. Discussion covered France's Excessive Deficit under the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP), an initial exchange of views on the proposed Transparency directive and taxation of Savings.

  ECOFIN also endorsed an Economic Policy Committee paper on the impact of ageing on public finances, and agreed conclusions on the role of customs in controlling external borders.

  Prior to the meeting there was a breakfast discussion of pension reform in the context of the Broad Economic Policy Guidelines, and a formal dialogue with all the Candidate Countries.

  Over lunch, Finance Ministers discussed the economic and finance elements of the Intergovernmental Conference. The Chancellor, in particular, stressed that tax harmonisation and EU control over fiscal policy would be damaging for Europe's economic interests.

  National Insurance
  Angela Watkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for future rates of National Insurance Contributions; and if he will make a statement. [138346]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Any changes to National Insurance rates will be announced, as usual, at the time of the pre-Budget Report.

  Government Economic Targets
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he intends to take to improve independent evaluation of compliance with Government economic targets. [138347]
  423W
  Ruth Kelly
  The Government's key economic targets are contained within the Treasury's latest Public Service Agreement (PSA), agreed as part of the 2002 Spending Review (SR2002). The Technical Note for these targets, published on the HM Treasury website, sets out exactly how performance will be judged, and the National Audit Office will validate the data systems underpinning each of the SR2002 PSA targets at least once during its lifetime. Furthermore, many of the key data used to measure performance against these targets are published as National Statistics, and thus compiled in accordance with the National Statistics Code of Practice.

  Euro
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) personal and (b) business euro accounts had been opened at the latest date for which figures are available. [138099]

  Ruth Kelly
  The latest quarterly review by the Association for Payment Clearing Services (APACS) identified that, as at end September 2003, there were around(a) 76,000 personal, and (b) 116,000 corporate euro bank accounts held in the United Kingdom.

  Performance Monitoring
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total cost was of(a) setting, (b) monitoring and (c) measuring the performance targets for his Department in 2002–03; and how many and what grades of civil servants monitor these targets. [137948]

  Government Departments, agencies and NDPBs

  Inland Revenue

  Key performance targets for the Inland Revenue are agreed as part of the Spending Review. The performance targets for 2003–06 were published in the Inland Revenue Spring Departmental Report 2003 (Cm 5925), Performance against targets is reported regularly.

  HM Customs and Excise

  Key performance targets for HM Customs and Excise are agreed as part of the Spending Review and the latest set were published in spending Review 2002: Public Service Agreements 2003–2006 (Cm 5571). The department monitors progress towards the target along with HM Treasury and progress is reported regularly. The department has no agencies or NDPBs.

  Office of Government Commerce

  The Office of Government Commerce does not have separate PSA targets, they are included within HM Treasury targets.

  Office for National Statistics

  Key performance targets for the Office for National Statistics were set as part of the Spending Review 2002 and are monitored as part of departmental performance management. They are published on the National Statistics website www.statistics.gov.uk/about_ns/ONS/2002_ spending_review_sda.asp.

  The Royal Mint

  Key performance targets for the Royal Mint are detailed in their Annual Report for 2002–03 (Cm821). Ministers set these performance targets on the advice of HM Treasury in consultation with its Shareholder Panel and the Royal Mint. The Royal Mint, the Treasury and its Shareholder Panel, including through meetings with the Minister, monitor achievement of these targets.

  The Debt Management Office

  The Debt Management Office's performance targets are published in its annual business plan. The targets are developed jointly by the Debt Management Office and HM Treasury and approved by Treasury Ministers, Performance against the targets is monitored by the Debt Management Office and reported on a regular basis.

  The Valuation Office Agency

  The Valuation Office Agency currently has eight key performance indicators that are underpinned by 20 specific targets, These are published in the Forward Plan 2003–2008, Targets are approved by the Paymaster General and announced in Parliament. The monitoring of achievement against these targets takes place by staff at all levels under the direction of the management board and are subject to internal audit by their parent department the Inland Revenue.

  National Savings and Investments

  National Savings and Investments is an Executive Agency of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and as such agrees its performance targets within the Spending Review and annual planning process. These targets are published in its Departmental Report

  Government Actuary's Department

  The Government Actuary's Department's performance targets are published in its annual business plan. The targets are developed in consultation with the relevant HMT Spending Team and are discussed on an annual basis. Achievements against these targets are also reported in its Spring Departmental Report.

  424W
  Ruth Kelly
  Performance targets for the Chancellor's departments were agreed as part of the Spending Review 2002. The monitoring and measurement of these Public Service Agreement targets forms part of departmental performance management. Performance management is an integral part of the day-to-day running of the departments, and as such it is not possible to separate out specific costs. The monitoring of progress towards, and performance against, the Chancellor's department's PSA targets is undertaken by staff at all levels of the organisation.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the performance targets that(a) his Department and (b) its agencies and non-departmental public bodies are required to meet; and if he will specify for each target (i) who sets it and (ii) who monitors achievement against it. [137964]

  Ruth Kelly
  Key performance targets for Her Majesty's Treasury are agreed as part of the Spending Review and the latest set were published in Spending Review 2002: Public Service Agreements 2003–2006 (Cm5571). Targets measure progress towards objectives. Performance is reported regularly, both in the Departmental Report, the Autumn Performance Report and on the HM-Treasury website at http:// www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/performance/Treasury.cfm.

  Information on the performance targets of the Chancellor's other departments along with the agencies and non-departmental public bodies is given in the following table.

  Shipping Industry (NIC)
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effects of the change in employers' national insurance contributions in the shipping industry. [138326]

  Dawn Primarolo
  A Regulatory Impact Assessment covering the effects of the recent change in liability for employers' national insurance contributions on the shipping industry was published on the 18 September, when the relevant regulations were laid before Parliament.

  Timber
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Guildford of 3 November 2003,Official Report, columns 457–58W, on timber, what environmental criteria his Department has specified in respect of banknote manufacture, with particular reference to use and reuse of water. [138581]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Bank of England issues banknotes in England and Wales on behalf of HM Treasury.

  The contracted supplier of banknotes to the Bank of England is De La Rue International (DLR). DLR sources the paper from an internal subsidiary, Portals Ltd. based at Overton in Hampshire.

  Banknote paper manufacture is subject to a PPC (Integrated Pollution and Prevention Control) permit, which among other criteria addresses the efficient use of water. The relevant enforcement authority is the Environment Agency.

  VAT
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to reduce VAT on goods purchased by charitable organisations for export to deserving causes in developing countries. [137515]

  John Healey
  Charities do not bear the cost of VAT on goods purchased for export outside the European Community. Charities are entitled to register for VAT and reclaim any VAT they are charged on goods they buy for export to developing countries.

  This includes any VAT charged on the goods themselves and VAT charged on any other costs associated with the export of the goods.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Drug Misuse
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what additional resources his Department plans to use to counter drug misuse. [137822]

  Caroline Flint
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced a major increase in overall direct annual funding that will underpin the Government's updated Drug Strategy on 3 December 2002 as follows.
  426W

  Government direct expenditure

  (£ billion)

  2003–04

  1.244

  2004–05

  1.344

  2005–06

  1.483

  The Home Office is working in close partnership with other Government Departments, including the Department of Health, Department for Education and Skills and HM Customs and Excise, to ensure that these resources are invested to counter drug misuse and deliver Drug Strategy objectives and targets.

  Significant tranches of Home Office investment announced recently include £190.2 million to fight crime and drug abuse and £107 million to help steer young people away from a life of drugs and crime.

  Motor Vehicles (Blacked-out Windows)
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he gives to police forces on action to be taken against motorists who drive vehicles with densely blacked out windows; and if he will make a statement. [137394]

  Caroline Flint
  The blacking out of vehicle windows is governed by the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986. Regulation 32 prescribes minimum light transmittance (vlt) values, through the windscreen and to the windows to either side of the driver.

  In order to clarify the legislation applying to vehicle window tinting we plan to amend regulation 32 to make it clear that the vlt values apply not only to the 'glazing' itself but also to any 'tint' or 'tinted film' applied to the glazing. The Association of Chief Police Officers are aware of this proposed amendment.

  The enforcement of construction and use offences is an operational matter for individual chief officers of police. The police recognise the importance of such enforcement and ensure that these offences receive appropriate attention. They are aware of guidance employed by the Vehicle Operator Services Agency.

  Passports
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action the Immigration Crime Team is taking to target criminals who fraudulently obtain passports; and how many fraudulent applications for passports have been detected after the passport has been issued in the last five years. [131764]

  Beverley Hughes
  The remit of the Immigration Crime Team (ICT) is to tackle serious and organised immigration crime including, where relevant, identity fraud and theft. Since its inception in January 2002 it has conducted three major operations into identity fraud. Others are under development. The first concerned the identity theft of British passports and led to the arrest of 29 persons in a series of co-ordinated raids. The second involved the arrest of two men for the manufacture and supply of forged British passports and the dismantling of their criminal enterprise. Both pleaded guilty, one received a five year sentence and the other 18 months. The operation resulted in one of the largest ever seizures
  427W
  of high quality forged passports believed to have a street value of over £2 million. The third operation is currently sub judice.

  Such operations are complex, involving lengthy investigation and demanding a high level of inter-agency co-operation. The ICT operates as part of Reflex, the Government's inter-agency task force created to combat organised immigration crime. Targeting identity fraud is a key priority for Reflex and while the ICT has been at the forefront of major operations other successes have been recorded by other Reflex partners. For example using Reflex funding the Metropolitan police have established a joint intelligence unit under Operation Maxim involving the Immigration Service and UK Passport Service (UKPS) with a remit to investigate identity fraud alongside related criminality.

  UKPS records the number of fraudulent passport applications which have been detected after passports have been issued. Figures for passports detected in each of the last five years are shown as follows:

  Number

  1999

  153

  2000

  179

  2001

  161

  2002

  1,360

  2003 to date

  489

  The significant increase in cases detected in the last two years is a result of the UKPS' access to infant death data and greater proactivity in tackling fraud. The UKPS is taking forward a range of initiatives to improve fraud prevention and detection. These include better arrangements for the recording and dissemination of lost, stolen and recovered passport information; increasing the professionalism of its fraud and intelligence units; changing the law to make passport fraud offences arrestable; investigating the use of biometrics to improve passport security; and using from February 2004 secure delivery for the despatch of all passports; and finally continuing to work actively with law enforcement agencies to apprehend, disrupt and dismantle the activities of those involved in passport fraud.

  Prison Population
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the likely effect of the Criminal Justice Bill on the size of the prison population. [136255]

  Paul Goggins
  The projected net effect on the prison population of the implementation of the provisions to reform the sentencing framework is an increase of about 1,000 by 2009. These measures include the generic community sentence and more flexible types of custody such as intermittent custody, custody minus and custody plus. The long-term impact, once all these provisions have been implemented and sufficient time has passed for their full effects to be seen, is estimated to be an increase in the prison population of about 500.

  Of the other parts of the Bill that have any significant impact, the firearms offences provisions in the Bill will provide for a mandatory minimum
  428W
  custodial sentence for unauthorised possession of a prohibited firearm. The estimated effect on the prison population of the implementation of these provisions, and the implementation of the provision providing for an increase in penalties for certain driving-related offences causing death, is an increase of about 500 in the prison population.

  The life sentence provisions in the Bill will provide for the determination of a minimum custodial term in relation to mandatory life sentences. It is unlikely that the effect of these provisions on the prison population will be felt for at least a decade.

  The restriction on bail for drug users will be piloted in selected court areas. This provision aims to reduce re-offending by encouraging drug-misusing offenders into effective drug treatment programmes. Part of the pilot evaluation will focus on the likely impact of this measure on the prison population if it were to be extended more widely. A further study is being conducted to assess the likely effect on the prison population of the introduction of a presumption against the grant of bail to defendants who have failed to surrender.

HEALTH

  Commission for Social Care Inspection
  Rob Marris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason the four shadow commissioners, and the shadow chief inspector, of the Commission for Social Care Inspection are based in the South East of England; and for what reason no shadow commissioners have been appointed from other regions. [135663]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The appointments of the shadow chair and commissioners of Commissioner for Social Care Inspection were made by the independent NHS Appointments Commission, not by Ministers. The shadow chair and commissioners appointed the shadow chief inspector.

  These appointments have been made on the basis of ensuring that the best available people are appointed. It was important to ensure that the commissioners together were able not only to provide an appropriate range of experience and skill, but also diversity of background. Geographical origin was one of a number of factors considered. The fifth commissioner, who was appointed after the first four, is based in Sheffield and the shadow chair comes from Cheshire.

  The appointment of the shadow chief inspector, as for any chief executive appointment, took no account of geographical origin as this was not regarded as relevant. As it happens, the chief inspector is from the North of England where he has spent much of his career.

  Correspondence
  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter of 1 October from the hon. Member for Walsall, North regarding a constituent, ref: P0103700. [138381]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  A reply was sent to my hon. Friend on 12 November 2003.

  Delayed Discharge
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients over 65 remain in an NHS hospital as a result of delayed discharge. [137450]

  Dr. Ladyman
  4,170 adult patients remained in an acute hospital bed on any one day as a result of delayed discharge in June 2003. 3,150 of these patients were aged 75 or over.

PRIME MINISTER

  Departmental Costs
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Prime Minister what the cost was to his Department for(a) ministerial cars and drivers, (b) taxis, (c) train travel, (d) the use of helicopters, (e) airline tickets and (f) chartered aeroplanes in each year since 1997. [123072]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer the Minister for the Cabinet Office (Mr. Alexander) gave him today, at column 397–98W.

  House of Lords
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister if the Secretary of State will make it his policy to require the House of Lords Appointments Commission to give applicants for a people's peerage reasons for their rejection. [138512]

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister how many applications for a people's peerage received since 1 January were rejected in the first sift; and what proportion of the total this represents. [138523]

  The Prime Minister
  None. All nominations received since 1 January 2003 are still being considered by the Commission.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister how many civil servants are involved in the preliminary sift of applications for a people's peerage; at what grade; and if he will make a statement. [138524]

  The Prime Minister
  The House of Lords Appointments Commission is supported by a secretariat headed by a Senior Civil Servant.

  The sifting process is set out in Section 2 of the House of Lords Appointments Commission Report on the First Term 2000–2003, a copy of which is available in the House Library.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister what role recruitment consultants PWC play in the selection of people's peers. [138525]

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister how much time was spent in each of the last 12 months by(a) the chair and (b) other Members of the House of Lords Appointments Commission on its work. [138510]
  430W
  The Prime Minister
  The full House of Lords Appointments Commission has met five times in the last 12 months. During the same period, sub-groups of Commission members have met as necessary to carry out Commission business.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will require people's peers to publish(a) in the annual report and (b) on the website of the House of Lords Appointments Commission their assessments of their contribution to the work of the second chamber over the preceding year. [138513]

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will issue guidance to the House of Lords Appointments Commission to permit it to select a proportion of applicants for a people's peerage by lot. [138516]

  The Prime Minister
  I wrote to the House of Lords Appointments Commission in July reaffirming that its remit is to recommend individuals based on their merit and ability to contribute effectively to the work of the House. Copies of this letter are available in the House Library.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will require the House of Lords Appointments Commission to seek an undertaking from successful applicants for a people's peerage to participate fully in the work of the second chamber. [138517]

  The Prime Minister
  It is for every peer to decide for themselves how they attend the House. The House of Lords Appointments Commission has made clear both in its criteria and in discussion with appointees that wherever possible they should contribute when matters relating to their area of expertise arise. The Commission's information pack also makes it clear that this does not necessarily mean the same time commitment expected of "working peers".

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister how many roadshows the House of Lords Appointments Commission(a) has embarked on since its creation and (b) plans to undertake. [138518]

  The Prime Minister
  In autumn 2000, the House of Lords Appointments Commission held four meetings in Belfast, Cardiff, Edinburgh and Manchester to share its approach and to encourage people to think about putting themselves forward. There are no immediate plans to hold more, although the issue is being kept under consideration.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister what his reasons were for re-appointing Lord Stevenson as chair of the House of Lords Appointments Commission; and whether an open competition was held for the post. [138522]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 17 July 2003,Official Report, column 444W.

  An open competition was not held for the reappointment of any of the Commission members. This is in line with the Code of Practice of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.
  431W
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will restrict to two terms of three years the maximum length of service on the House of Lords Appointments Commission. [138660]

  The Prime Minister
  The House of Lords Appointments Commission comes within the remit of the Commissioner of Public Appointments and appointments to the Commission are made in accordance with the Code of Practice.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will limit the term of appointment of people's peers; and if he will make re-appointment conditional on a record of active participation in the work of the House of Lords. [138695]

  The Prime Minister
  No. Membership of the House of Lords is currently for life.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister how many applications from aspiring people's peers have been received in each month since the last group of successful applications was announced. [138509]

  The Prime Minister
  Applications from members of the public for peerages are given in the table.

  2001

  2002

  2003

  January

  —

  16

  2

  February

  —

  11

  9

  March

  —

  11

  2

  April

  5

  20

  3

  May

  24

  7

  3

  June

  38

  6

  3

  July

  27

  5

  7

  August

  11

  4

  2

  September

  15

  2

  8

  October

  16

  10

  9

  November

  23

  5

  12

  December

  8

  4

  —

  1 As from 10 November.

DEFENCE

  Accounting Methods
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what accounting methods are used to value assets in his Department; and if he will make a statement. [137913]

  Mr. Ingram
  As mandated by HM Treasury and in accordance with Government Accounting regulations, the Ministry of Defence applies the Modified Historic Cost Accounting convention to asset valuations. This requires assets to be valued at their actual or estimated current value to the Department. A mixture of regular professional valuations and the application of appropriate indices between formal valuations are used to meet the requirement. During 2002–03, some 95.4 per cent. of the eligible asset base was professionally revalued as reported in the Annual Report and Accounts published on 30 October.

  Chinook Helicopters
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what the total value of contracts in relation to the order for Chinook HC3 helicopters is; [137223]
  432W
  (2) on what date is it intended that the Chinook HC3 helicopters ordered by the RAF will be delivered to a squadron to undertake their envisaged duties; [137222]

  (3) pursuant to his answer of 12 May 2003, Official Report, column 37W, on Chinook helicopters, what reasons have been given to his Department by the US Department of Defense for its decision not to purchase the Chinook HC3 helicopters ordered by the RAF; whether the Chinook HC3 helicopters delivered to the United Kingdom have since been made airworthy; whether the Chinook HC3 helicopter retained by Boeing Helicopters at Philadelphia has been delivered to the United Kingdom; where the Chinook HC3 helicopters ordered for the RAF were stored prior to their shipment to the United Kingdom; what assessment was made of the conditions in which they were stored; what assessment was made of the condition of each of the helicopters following this storage; what his plans are for disposal of the fleet; what specific role the Chinook HC3 helicopter was intended to fulfil when the original order was placed with Boeing in October 1995; whether other helicopters have been evaluated for this role since then; and if he will make a statement. [137295]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 10 November 2003]: I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Departmental Current Account
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money is in his Department's current account; and if he will make a statement. [137516]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence, along with all other spending Departments, draws down Voted Supply at the beginning of each month from the Exchequer into its principal current account at the Office of Paymaster General. The amount of money in this current account will vary considerably during the month, typically from in excess of £2 billion at the beginning of the month to under £200 million at the end of the month. The balance in this account is monitored on a daily basis to ensure there are sufficient funds to meet the oncoming expenditure requirements in the rest of the month.

  Eurofighter
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Government's commitment to the Eurofighter Typhoon project. [138383]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Government remain committed to the Typhoon programme. Production of the Tranche 1 aircraft is well advanced. Discussions with our three partner nations and with Industry regarding the order for Tranche 2 are ongoing. The order for Tranche 3 is not expected before 2007.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what procedures would be followed in the case of the four Eurofighter Typhoon project partners choosing to reduce the number of aircraft ordered under the third tranche of the programme; [138384]

  (2) what financial penalties the UK would face in the case of it not proceeding with Tranche III of the Eurofighter Programme. [138382]
  433W
  Mr. Ingram
  Under the collaborative procurement arrangements for the project, the attribution of costs and savings from any reduction of the third tranche of aircraft would need to be discussed and formally agreed between the four participating nations. No such discussions have taken place.

  HMS Vanguard
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the expected commissioning date is of HMS Vanguard; where the nuclear reactor power range tests will be carried out prior to commissioning; and if he will make a statement. [137550]

  Mr. Ingram
  HMS Vanguard is currently undergoing a Long Overhaul Period (Refit) (LOP(R)) and has not been decommissioned. As with any United Kingdom nuclear-powered submarine that has been defuelled and refuelled, Vanguard's nuclear reactor will undergo power range testing in the final stages of the LOP(R). This testing forms part of the LOP(R) work package and all LOP(R)s take place at Devonport Dockyard. Vanguard is due to return to service during the fourth quarter in 2004.

  Infantry Battalions
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 3 November 2003,Official Report, column 425W, on infantry battalions, what discussions he (a) plans to hold and (b) has held with representatives of the Scottish infantry battalions prior to producing the Defence White Paper. [138203]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are currently no plans to hold discussions with representatives of the Scottish infantry battalions, prior to producing the Defence White Paper; nor have there been any recent discussions with them. Representations have, however, been received from representatives of a number of battalions throughout the United Kingdom.

  Investment Strategy
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Investment Strategy for his Department will be published for this year; and if he will make a statement. [137915]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Defence Investment Strategy is published biennially following the settlement of each Spending Review. The current strategy is set out in the 2002 Defence Investment Strategy, which can be found on the Ministry of Defence's web page at www. mod.uk/linked_files/issues/invstrat2002.pdf. We expect to publish the next Defence Investment Strategy in Autumn 2004.

  Iraq
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many investigations have been held in Iraq into incidents involving confirmed civilian fatalities allegedly caused by United Kingdom military personnel since the end of the conflict. [136966]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 6 November 2003]: We investigate every incident in which we can confirm that there has been a civilian fatality allegedly caused by
  434W
  United Kingdom military personnel. We record centrally cases in which the initial investigation finds there are grounds for the Special Investigations Branch to conduct a formal investigation.

  As at 12 November the Special Investigation Branch had begun 17 investigations.

  Menwith Hill/Fylingdales
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what applications have been made in 2003 for(a) extensions to existing facilities and (b) construction of new facilities at (i) the National Security Agency Menwith Hill Station and (ii) RAF Fylingdales bases in Yorkshire; and which were granted. [138069]

  Mr. Ingram
  In accordance with the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Circular 18/ 84, development by the Crown does not require planning permission. Government Departments do however consult with local planning authorities and provide "Notice of Proposed Development" before proceeding with work that would otherwise require planning permission. Local planning authorities treat such notices in the same way as they would a statutory planning application.

  Between 1 January and 31 October 2003, 15 Notices of Proposed Development were given to Harrogate borough council, the local planning authority for RAF Menwith Hill. Of these, six notices were for extensions to existing facilities and nine were for construction of new facilities. There were no objections by the planning authority to 11 proposals, and four proposals are awaiting a decision.

  During the same time period, two Notices of Proposed Development were given to the North Yorks Moors National Park Authority, the local planning authority for RAF Fylingdales. Both are for construction of new facilities. There was no objection by the planning authority to one proposal, while the other proposal is awaiting a decision.

  Missile Defence
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, pursuant to his written statement of 12 June 2003,Official Report, column 57WS, on missile defence, he is now in a position to publish details of the bilateral arrangements to which he referred. [138022]

  Mr. Hoon
  On 3 October, I placed a copy of the Framework Memorandum of Understanding on Ballistic Missile Defence in the Library of the House.

  As I set out in my Written Ministerial Statement on 12 June, further MOUs on the upgrade of the radar at RAF Fylingdales and on technical co-operation continue to be negotiated and remain confidential between the respective Governments at this stage.

  Note of Dissent (Directions)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his Answer of the right hon. Member for Dunfermline East (Mr. Gordon Brown), of 30 October Official Report, column 311W, on Note of Dissent (Directions), if he will place in the Library a copy of his direction; and if he will make a statement. [136968]
  435W
  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 6 November 2003]: A copy of the Ministerial Direction has today been placed in the Library.

TRANSPORT

  A36 (Safety)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what safety measures he will put in place on the A36 through Plaitford and West Wellow in(a) financial year 2003–04 and (b) the next financial year and beyond. [137463]

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

  Letter from Stephen Hickey to Mr. Robert Key, dated 13 November 2003

  I have been asked by David Jamieson to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what safety measures will be put in place on the A36 through Plaitford and West Wellow in this financial year, the next financial year and beyond.

  The Highways Agency has identified a number of schemes that will improve the safety on this length of road. Many of these measures are outlined in the draft A36 Plaitford to West Wellow Speed and Safety Study sent to you for comment on 26 September.

  During this financial year, signing improvements on both approaches to Blackhill Road have been completed. Works to improve the bus stop at Whinwhistle Road, providing raised kerbs, a new shelter and extended footway have also been completed. Also work is currently ongoing to install 2 safety cameras at Whinwhistle Road junction. Construction of a Toucan crossing at the eastern arm of Canada Common roundabout is planned subject to funding,

  Schemes proposed for the next financial year involve the reduction of vehicle speeds through Plaitford by signing, road markings and vehicle-activated signs. The provision of a vehicle-activated sign to warn of queues at the Whinwhistle Road junction is also planned. Alterations to the width of the circulatory carriageway on Canada Common roundabout is proposed to reduce vehicle speeds and surface treatments are planned to reinforce speed limits.

  Schemes being investigated for possible inclusion in future programmes include the provision of controlled and uncontrolled crossings along this length of road, and the reduction of the existing 50mph speed limit through Plaitford to 40mph.

  American Ships (Disposal)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what dates his Department held the discussions with(a) English Nature, (b) the Environment Agency and (c) the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which were referred to in the press releases by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency of (i) 6 October and (ii) 10 October about the decommissioning of United States vessels by Able UK. [137144]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 10 November 2003]: There were a number of discussions with English Nature, the Environment Agency and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs prior to the issue of press releases on 4 and 10 October. (MCA did not issue a press release on 6 October.)
  436W
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what date his Department was informed that the Environment Agency had warned(a) Able UK and (b) the United States authorities that the ships destined for recycling at Hartlepool should not sail. [137145]

  Mr. McNulty
  [holding answer 10 November 2003]: I refer to replies given by my noble Friend, Lord Whitty, Official Report, House of Lords, 7 October 2003, c. 145–48. The Department was informed on 29 and 30 October that the Environment Agency were about to advise both Able UK and the United States authorities of validity problems with the licences issued for the dismantling of these vessels in the UK.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) whether the Government advised the US ships(a) Canisteo and (b) Caloosahatchee on the courses they should take through the English Channel; [138379]

  (2) whether the US ships (a) Canisteo and (b) Caloosahatchee were advised to keep to the eastbound shipping lane off Start Point; and if he will make a statement. [138380]

  Mr. McNulty
  The original course, which was approved by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, took the vessels through the Casquets Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) in the eastbound lane. At the time of entry into the Channel, Able UK were contacted by officers of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and advised that this was the preferred route.

  In practice the vessels passed north of the Casquets TSS and then joined the north-eastbound lane of the Dover Strait TSS. While the eastbound lane through the Casquets TSS was preferred by MCA, the route taken by the tugs was legitimate and safe.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a chart showing the approved route in United Kingdom waters for United States ships sailing to Able UK's facility at Hartlepool. [137189]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I am arranging for copies of the relevant charts to be made available in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he has taken to prevent redundant naval ships from the United States of America from entering United Kingdom territorial waters for disposal. [137147]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Powers of intervention may be exercised only where a ship is in UK Waters and it is considered necessary for the purpose of securing the safety of the ships or other ships; the safety of persons or property; or preventing or reducing significant pollution. These ships do not present such a threat.

  Gatwick Airport
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to the Answer to the hon. Member for Horsham of 3 November 2003,Official Report,

  437W
  column 391W, on Gatwick airport, whether the net economic benefit quoted takes into account externalities, with particular reference to environmental damage. [138580]

  Mr. McNulty
  The net economic benefits estimated for Gatwick and other south east airport options take into account the externalities associated with aviation's climate change impacts. In producing calculations of economic benefits of additional capacity at all south east airport options, it was assumed that by 2015 an economic instrument would be in place to meet the climate change impact of aircraft emissions. This has the effect of reducing forecast passenger numbers by 10 per cent. and reducing the net economic benefits of all the capacity options.

  M4 and Severn Bridge
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the closure of

  Table 1

  Gust wind speed (Knots)

  Threshold requirement (i.e. criteria set within the monitoring equipment)

  Response (i.e. Action to he Taken)

  30

  30 Knots exceeded six times within any 10 minute period

  All matrix signs to be set to indicate 40MPH

  35

  35 Knots exceeded three times in any 10-minute period. Leeward lane identified by wind direction

  Alternate matrix signs to be amended to indicate leeward lane closed in each direction.

  40

  40 Knots exceeded six times in any 10 minute period

  Introduce height restriction strategy, (if unavailable close to all traffic)

  Decreasing

  No gust has exceeded 30 knots within 30 minute period

  Seek authority to remove the imposed restrictions

  Rail Industry
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the benefits to the travelling public of private sector involvement in the rail industry, with particular regard to(a) safety and (b) punctuality; and if he will make a statement. [137897]

  Mr. McNulty
  Our priority is to tackle years of underinvestment by working in partnership with the private sector. Network Rail's programme of substantial network renewals, much of which is financed by private investment, will deliver lasting improvements in safety and punctuality for the travelling public now and in years to come. Privately financed train construction has also enabled a major fleet replacement programme which will again benefit passengers as new trains are safer and more comfortable.

  Roadworks (Accidents)
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many accidents there have been in the roadworks on the M5 between junctions 21 and 20 since they began in October that have resulted in delays for drivers of more than 20 minutes. [137378]

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

  Letter from Stephen Hickey to Mr. Adrian Flook, dated 13 November 2003:

  I have been asked by David Jamieson to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the number of accidents there have been in the roadworks on the M5 between junctions 21 and 20 since they began in October that have resulted in delays for drivers of more than twenty minutes.
  438W
  the M4 and Severn Bridge on 2–3 November; what criteria were used in deciding on the closure; and whether the revised protocol by the steering group was applied. [137065]

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

  Letter from Stephen Hickey to Mr. Huw Edwards, dated 13 November 2003:

  I have been asked by David Jamieson to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question regarding the closure of the M4 and Severn Bridge on 2 to 3 November 2003.

  The Highways Agency took the decision to close the M48 Severn Bridge at 05.10 hours on Sunday 2 November when the wind was recorded as gusting in excess of 40 knots. The bridge reopened at 16.00 hours on Monday 3 November. The revised protocol by the steering group was applied; this protocol can be seen at Table 1. The M4 Second Severn Crossing was not closed.

  There have been two accidents in the roadworks since they began that have resulted in delays of more than twenty minutes.

  Rural Transport
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action the Government is taking to assist older people in rural communities who do not have access to a car. [138164]

  Mr. McNulty
  We are providing specific funding to improve public transport services for rural communities generally, including many of direct benefit to older people without access to a car. This funding is supporting new and improved scheduled bus services and the development of more flexible transport solutions such as demand responsive buses, dial-a-ride schemes and shared taxis. These developments will be further assisted by the forthcoming introduction of regulation changes to make possible the registration of flexibly routed local bus services which will also be entitled to receive Bus Service Operators Grant.

  We are also making legislative changes to improve older people's ability to access public transport. We have introduced the national statutory minimum concessionary fare scheme for older and disabled people. This guarantees half fare travel on local bus services with a free pass and covers rural areas which previously had no concessionary fare scheme. Also from 1 April 2003 we have ensured that concessionary travel schemes are available to men aged 60–64, bringing them into line with women of the same age. We have also introduced regulations to ensure that public transport is designed to meet the needs of older people with mobility problems.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Disability
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what powers exist to allow action to be taken against someone verbally abusing a person because of their disability; and if he will make a statement. [137856]

  Maria Eagle
  Under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the term 'harassment' extends to any form of persistent conduct which causes another alarm or distress, including harassment motivated by disability.

  The Government recently amended the Criminal Justice Bill to extend the current law to cover sentences for offences aggravated by the victim's race and religion, so that it also includes offences aggravated by hostility towards the victim because of his or her sexual orientation or disability.

  In October 2004 a number of changes will be introduced to the employment provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 as a consequence of implementing the EU employment directive, including a provision explicitly outlawing harassment for a reason relating to a person's disability.

  Absenteeism
  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on progress in reducing staff absences within the Department for Work and Pensions. [137356]

  Maria Eagle
  The Department for Work and Pensions has targets set by the Cabinet Office to help contribute to a reduction in public sector sickness absence. These involve an average working days lost figure of eight days by March 2006, and an interim target of 10 days by March 2004. The cumulative average working days lost figure for the period April to September 2003 was 12 days.

  Ministers and senior managers in the Department fully recognise the importance of good attendance. They are committed to ensuring that managers have effective tools to enable them to manage sickness absence, including support for individuals to facilitate a return to work after illness. People who work for the Department and who have to bear the consequences of colleagues' absence, together with the customers the Department serves, have a right to expect that level of commitment.

  A new Departmental Attendance Management policy was implemented in February 2003. This aims to encourage good attendance and provide support to enable people to return to work as quickly as possible following an absence. Formal unsatisfactory attendance action can be considered when an absence reaches eight days in a rolling 12-month period. To measure the effectiveness of the policy, an evaluation exercise will start shortly.

  Each of the businesses that comprise the Department has initiatives in place aimed at getting sickness absence levels down. Jobcentre Plus, which is the biggest of the businesses, has an 'Improving Attendance' task force in place. Its emphasis is on reducing long-term absences (ie those over 28 days duration), by either facilitating
  440W
  a return to work, or effecting a termination of an individual's contract. The Department is also participating in the 'Well-being at work' pilots that are being run by the Health and Safety Executive. These are intended to combat workplace stress. In addition, the Department is committed to discharging its responsibilities to people with disabilities by making reasonable adjustments to the workplace to facilitate an individual's return to work. A pilot will also commence shortly that will involve the early intervention of occupational health nurses in addressing, quickly, those absences which have the potential to become long term.

  Casual Appointments
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many employees have been employed on 13-week casual appointments in his Department in each year since 1997(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) broken down by region; and if he will make a statement. [136772]

  Maria Eagle
  The Department generally only employs people on casual appointments in order to fulfil a short term need. The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Maternity Allowance
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will amend the Maternity Allowance Claim Pack to inform applicants that there is a statutory time limit of three months in which to claim. [132800]

  Maria Eagle
  The Maternity Allowance claim form was amended from April 2003 to show the three month time limit for claims. The explanatory notes, which are included in the claim pack, will be amended from the next reprint, due in the new year.

  Pensions
  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment the Government have made of(a) the long-term cost of linking the basic state pension to earnings and (b) the effect on the incomes of the poorest pensioners if such a link replaced Pension Credit. [137448]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We estimate that introducing an earnings link in the basic State Pension from 2004–05 would cost around £600 million net in 2003–04 prices, rising to an extra £4.1 billion by 2010, £11.9 billion by 2020 and £25.0 billion by 2030 in today's prices.

  If we were to scrap Pension Credit in favour of an earnings link, but retain the income guarantee level, the poorest pensioners would lose an average of around £400 a year in Pension Credit and the very poorest would gain nothing.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to the answer of 6 November 2003,Official Report, column 806W, on pensions, if he will estimate (a) the gross cost and (b) the cost net of savings on means tested benefits and increased income tax revenues of a combined policy of age additions to the basic state pension of (i) £10 per week at 75 and (ii) a further £5 a week at 80 from April 2004. [138464]
  441W
  Malcolm Wicks
  The estimated gross cost and the cost net of savings on means tested benefits and increased income tax revenues of a combined policy of age additions to the basic state pension of £10 per week at 75 and a further £5 a week at 80 from April 2004 are set out in the following table:

  £ billion

  Gross cost

  3.0

  Net cost

  1.8

  Notes:

  1. Options (i) and (ii) have been costed jointly.

  2. Figures are in 2003–04 price terms and are rounded to the nearest £100 million.

  3. Gross costs are estimated by the Government Actuary's Department.

  4. Income-related benefit offsets are calculated using the DWP policy simulation model.

  5. Income tax revenue increases calculated by the Inland Revenue using the 2000–01 Survey of Personal Incomes and April 2003 Budget forecasts.

  6. The age addition increases are assumed to be flat-rate increases and are paid in full to all pensioners of applicable age.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Adam Smith Institute
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development on what grounds the Department agreed a contract with the Adam Smith Institute to offer support to the office of the Prime Minister; and what the purpose of the contract is. [137733]

  Hilary Benn
  The purpose of this short-term project was to provide consultancy support to develop the necessary skills and systems to enable the newly established Prime Minister's Office, of the Palestinian Authority, to carry out its functions effectively. The Adam Smith Institute had undertaken related work in Palestine. This enabled them to respond quickly and appropriately to this urgent short-term need.

  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what conditions relative to activity in the Democratic Republic of Congo his Department attaches to the provision of aid to(a) Uganda and (b) Rwanda; what reports the Government has received on compliance with those conditions; and if he will make a statement. [136404]

  Hilary Benn
  UK development assistance to Uganda and Rwanda is provided to enable those Governments to implement their poverty reduction strategies, which are developed in consultation with a wide range of stakeholders including the partner governments. Our assistance continues to be subject to these Governments' commitment to the promotion of peace and stability within the Great Lakes region, including the promotion of transparency and legality regarding the exploitation of the region's natural resources.

  Our judgment is that the Governments of Rwanda and Uganda are committed to regional stability, based on regular discussions with them and reports from Posts and other sources. Both countries have withdrawn their
  442W
  forces from the DRC. Both have also established commissions to investigate allegations made in the UN Panel Report about the exploitation of natural resources in the DRC. In Uganda, the Porter Commission reported to Government in May 2003. We are urging the Government of Rwanda to publish the findings of their National Judicial Commission and to take action where allegations are proven. Our assistance to Uganda is also conditional upon the Government conducting a comprehensive and strategic Defence Review, including a thorough analysis of external threats. The UK is providing support for this process, which is about to produce its recommendations.

  The UK seeks to help resolve conflict and establish conditions for genuine development in the whole of the Great Lakes region. We are beginning a significant development programme in DRC, following the establishment of the Transitional National Government in July. We hope that over the medium term, this will become a substantial Development Partnership, similar in nature to those we have with Uganda and Rwanda,

  Eritrea
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on the humanitarian situation in Eritrea. [137831]

  Hilary Benn
  The UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Eritrea has said that the situation has improved slightly but there is still major cause for concern. While the harvest is expected to be better than in 2002 it will be well below its full potential. We will continue to play our part in helping address urgent humanitarian needs, and have recently committed £500,000 to the UNICEF Appeal.

  Ethiopia
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps his Department is taking to help the Government of Ethiopia avoid future food shortages. [137830]

  Hilary Benn
  Our Country Assistance Plan for Ethiopia, which was published in March, outlines the various methods that we are using to take forward our longer-term food strategy. We work in support of the Government's own efforts to reduce food insecurity in the framework of Ethiopia's poverty reduction strategy, the Sustainable Development and Poverty Reduction Programme.

  We are working at federal and regional level in Ethiopia on key food security issues. The Ethiopian Government have themselves developed an Action Plan to address the issue of food insecurity, which we expect to be discussed at a meeting of donors and government in December.

  Gambia
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress is being made in tackling malaria among children in the Gambia. [137833]
  443W
  Hilary Benn
  Malaria is endemic in The Gambia. It is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality especially among children under the age of five and pregnant women. It has a significant negative impact on productivity and is a major cause of poverty. Recent studies in The Gambia have shown that malaria is on the increase. In 2000, it accounted for 60 per cent. of all out patient consultations and 57.2 per cent. of all admissions and 36.9 per cent. of all deaths, including 25 per cent. of all deaths in children under five years of age1.

  The Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (GFATM), to which DFID contributes, has recently agreed to provide US$13.8 million over five years for the prevention and treatment of malaria in The Gambia, The goal of this project, which is particularly focused on the coastal area, is the reduction of malaria morbidity and mortality in children under five years of age and pregnant women by 30 per cent. by the end of the project in the focus area.

  1 Figures from the Gambia Malaria Situation Analysis 2001.

  Global Fund
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps the Government is taking to ensure that there are sufficient funds in the Global Fund to meet the £5 billion target for 2005. [137456]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The UK has a long-term commitment to the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria (GFATM). We recognise that in order to be effective the GFATM needs predictable and sustainable financing—which is why the UK recently extended its pledge by a further two years to 2008 bringing our total contribution to US$280million.

  In addition, the Prime Minister has encouraged European Union member states to contribute to the GFATM. Last month the EC agreed to accelerate the disbursement of Euros 170 million to the Fund. Currently the 15 EU member states and the Commission are the largest donor to the GFATM, having contributed around 55 per cent. of the total pledge so far of US$4.8 billion.

  The Global Fund is one of a number of instruments to tackle these terrible diseases. 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 2nd 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.

  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps the Government is taking to ensure that the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and malaria is financially secure. [137457]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The UK was a high profile advocate for the Global Fund for AIDS TB and Malaria (GFATM) and nearly two years after its inception continues to give it its full support.
  444W
  The UK recognises that the GFATM needs predictable sustainable financing in order to be effective and therefore made a commitment to predictable multi year funding from the very start—increasing our pledge recently to $280 million through to 2008.

  The UK, a Board member of the GFATM, works closely with the Fund particularly on improving its financial effectiveness. Decisions taken at the 6th Board Meeting last month—including moving the Fund to a voluntary replenishment system, and to continue to develop financial models that provide regular estimates of resources available for commitment and of demand, will help to give greater clarity on what resources are assured and will provide the GFATM with a sounder financial footing.

  Iraq
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to his answer of 5 November, reference 135853, how many of the unexploded bomblets remaining as a result of the cluster bombs and artillery used in the UK area of operations around Basra have been found within the city limits of Basra. [137640]

  Hilary Benn
  The information requested is not available.

  Liberia
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what response he will make to the UN humanitarian appeal in Liberia. [138683]

  Hilary Benn
  In response to the humanitarian crisis there we have allocated £7.6 million this year to support humanitarian assistance in Liberia. The UN consolidated appeal will be announced on 19 November. We will consider whether to make a further contribution in the light of the appeal and the conclusions of a joint DFID/FCO mission that is visiting Liberia this month.

  Performance Monitoring
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the total cost was of(a) setting, (b) monitoring and (c) measuring the performance targets for his Department in 2002–03; and how many and what grades of civil servants monitor these targets. [137947]

  Hilary Benn
  Performance targets for DFID were agreed as part of Spending Review 2002. The monitoring and measurement of PSA targets forms part of departmental performance management. Performance management is an integral part of the day to day running of the Department, and as such it is not possible to separate out the specific costs. The monitoring of progress towards, and performance against, the Department's PSA targets is undertaken by a wide variety of staff at all levels of the organisation.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will list the performance targets that(a) his Department and (b) its agencies and non-departmental public bodies are

  445W
  required to meet; and if he will specify for each target (i) who sets it and (ii) who monitors achievement against it. [137963]

  Hilary Benn
  Key performance targets for DFID are agreed as part of the Spending Review and the latest set were published in Spending Review 2002; Public Service Agreements 2003–06 (Cm 5571). The department monitors progress towards the targets along with HM Treasury and progress is reported regularly.

  DFID does not have agencies or non-departmental public bodies required to meet targets.

  DFID has five targets in its Public Service Agreement 2003–06. Two are based on achieving the Millennium Development Goals in the key regions in Africa and Asia. These are also linked to the poverty reduction targets of our partner countries. Two are focused on improving the effectiveness of the international system in reducing poverty. These include targets which have been agreed jointly with other Government Departments. The final target encompasses the Value for Money indicators which cover the efficient allocation of funds.

  I am accountable for delivery of DFID's Public Service Agreement. The means of measuring achievement against these targets are set out in the Technical Note accompanying DFID's PSA. This note is available on the DFID website at: www.dfid.gov.uk.

  St. Helena
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance he intends to give to St. Helena before the building of the proposed airport to discourage residents from leaving the island; and if he will make a statement on the future viability of the economy of St. Helena. [137690]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  We continue to provide substantial assistance for St. Helena, which this year is expected to be more than £10.5 million. Much of this support is needed to maintain essential government services, including education and healthcare, and to subsidise the island's vital passenger/supply ship. These and other services will be maintained: but we hope increasingly to devote a greater share of our assistance to activities that will generate more local revenue and reduce St. Helena's reliance upon our aid.

  For example, in parallel with evaluating options for the possible development of air access and with the St. Helena Government we are reviewing the routing and scheduling of the RMS 'St Helena' to see if a better call pattern for the island can be established. We also are considering further strengthening of the St. Helena Development Agency (SHDA), in addition to some existing support through the SHDA from the FCO's Economic Diversification Fund, to help stimulate private sector growth. As regards staffing, some key posts in St. Helena have been advertised recently on enhanced terms that are designed to encourage key personnel to remain and/or to attract back suitable people with St. Helenian status who are living overseas. I understand that the first of these advertisements already has resulted in the appointment of a
  446W
  St. Helenian who currently lives in the UK; and the initial response to advertisements for two other posts last month has been encouraging.

  We remain committed to supporting the St. Helena Government's efforts to revitalise and regenerate the island economy to the benefit of its community. Our shared goal, which may take some years to achieve, is sustainable economic and financial self-sufficiency for St. Helena.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State, Department for International Development, what recent assessment he has made of the quality of treatment at Jamestown General Hospital, St. Helena. [137225]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  Healthcare services in St. Helena, including those available at Jamestown Hospital, are reviewed regularly. We are satisfied that both their quality and consistency are appropriate and proportionate to the needs of the island community. For example, the hospital incorporates: a modern operating theatre and maternity suite; a well equipped medical laboratory and blood transfusion services, and complete continuity of attendance by trained medical and nursing staff. The next review of our healthcare support is planned for early next year.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when he last examined the methods used by aid agencies funded by his Department to draw up lists of aid recipients in Zimbabwe; and if he will make a statement. [138409]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID routinely subjects all proposals for UK funding to detailed technical appraisal before spending is approved. In the case of food aid to Zimbabwe, our most recent pledge of £5 million to support the Emergency Operation of the World Food Programme (WFP) followed close examination of the operational procedures set out in the Memorandum of Understanding signed between the WFP and the Government of Zimbabwe on 25 September. This included the process for identifying those members of the community who are in greatest need, regardless of political considerations or affiliation. WFP conducts rigorous training of its Implementing Partners (NGOs) on these procedures

  In addition to UK's support for the WFP Emergency Operation, DFID is also providing funds directly to international and local NGOs who are undertaking humanitarian work in Zimbabwe, focusing on HIV/ AIDS affected households, malnourished children and other vulnerable groups. Again, approval of financial support has been based upon careful technical appraisal of the approach and procedures for each proposal.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to his answer of 5 November 2003,Official Report, column 653W, on Zimbabwe, if he will make it his policy to urge the United Nations to monitor delivery of food aid in Zimbabwe to its final recipients. [138550]

  Hilary Benn
  As I indicated in my previous reply, the United Nations closely monitors the delivery of food aid to its final recipients by the UN World Food Programme
  447W
  (WFP). In response to pressure from the UK and other donors, the WFP has already strengthened its own internal monitoring, evaluation and reporting activities. Particular emphasis is placed on monitoring and reporting of any incidences of political interference. WFP also undertakes post-distribution monitoring, in which vulnerable households who were targeted for assistance are interviewed to assess their views of the selection and distribution processes. Donors and the UNDP have jointly established a Relief and Recovery Unit with the purpose of co-ordinating information about all ongoing humanitarian activities funded by the international community. This covers not only food but also other forms of assistance such as medicines, seeds and fertilisers. It also covers the operations of NGOs directly funded by donors, outside the UN Emergency Operation.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH

  Animal Welfare
  Rob Marris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to ensure that the Protocol on Protection and Welfare of Animals enacted by the Treaty of Amsterdam remains part of European Union law by being annexed to the proposed new treaty establishing a constitution for the European Union; and if he will make a statement. [135664]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government support annexation of the Protocol on the Protection and Welfare of Animals to the EU Constitutional Treaty. We have put the case for doing so in the legal experts group mandated to consider this in the Intergovernmental Conference.

  Departmental Energy Use
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [135053]

  Mr. Rammell
  I refer the hon. Member in reply to parts(a) and (b) to the reply given to him by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) on 3 November 2003, Official Report, column 403W.

  Compared to the previous year, the FCO's projected energy consumption in 2003–04 is an increase of 3 per cent. in total electricity usage. This is accounted for by the demands in development of our major financial management system (PRISM) and the modernisation of FCO working practices and procedures. These both rely heavily on electrically powered electronic technology. A decrease of 1 per cent. in other energy usage is projected.

  We aim to achieve reductions by upgrading building facilities, using more energy efficient equipment, staff awareness campaigns and close monitoring of consumption.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the closure of the border between Spain and Gibraltar; and what steps he is taking to ensure that the border between Spain and Gibraltar is re-opened as soon as possible. [136915]

  Mr. MacShane
  The border between Spain and Gibraltar re-opened at 20:10 local time on 3 November.

  As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear, we regarded the closure as unnecessary, unwelcome and disproportionate. We take the same view of the "health checks" imposed by the Spanish authorities subsequent to the border re-opening.

  Government's Wine Cellar
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who is responsible for the management of the Government's wine cellar. [136355]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Government Wine Cellar is administered on a day-to-day basis by the Head of Government Hospitality, a civil servant in Conference and Visits Group of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Advice on the stock and quality of wines in the cellar is given by the Government Hospitality Advisory Committee for the Purchase of Wine (GHACPW), composed of four appointed Masters of Wine and a Chairman. The GHACPW is an advisory non-departmental public body that reports to me as the Minister responsible for Government Hospitality and FCO Services as a whole.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the numbers of UK citizens travelling to Iraq to fight against coalition forces; and if he will make a statement. [137140]

  Mr. Rammell
  [holding answer 10 November 2003]: We are aware of references in the media to this issue, but we have no reports to suggest that significant numbers of UK citizens are preparing to travel to, or are in Iraq, to fight Coalition forces. Nevertheless, we continue to investigate reports of this nature.

  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the intentions of aid agencies to stay in Iraq. [137523]

  Hilary Benn
  I have been asked to reply.

  In the current circumstances in Iraq, aid agencies are understandably keeping under review their security procedures, their ways of working and the extent to which they maintain a presence in the country. Decisions in these areas are of course for them to take. DFID keeps in close contact with the United Nations and non-governmental organisations, particularly those which receive DFID funding, and is able to offer advice where appropriate, 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

  449W
  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.

  Israel
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Israeli Government concerning the destruction of the shipment of vitamins meant for children in the Gaza Strip sent by The Holy Land Trust, Rabbis for Human Rights and the Palestine Children's Welfare Fund. [136783]

  Mr. Rammell
  We have not made representations to the Israeli Government about the specific shipment referred to. We have not been able to establish the fate of the shipment. But we continue to discuss with the Government of Israel the general humanitarian impact of its policies and the importance of unfettered access to humanitarian aid throughout the Occupied Territories.

  Morocco
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what purposes the export licences to Morocco listed in the Strategic Export Controls report 2002 as involving(a) toxic chemical precursors and (b) technology for the production of toxins were granted. [136741]

  Mr. Rammell
  The 'toxic chemical precursors' were to be exported to Morocco for use in toothpaste preparation.

  The
  'technology for the production of toxins'
  to be exported to Morocco was for regulatory dossiers relating to the manufacture, safety and efficacy of medicines.

  North Korea
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government is taking to help the development of good relations between the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and(a) the Republic of Korea, (b) Japan and (c) China. [136695]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Government actively support the six party process, begun in Beijing in August, to resolve the North Korean nuclear issue. The Republic of Korea, Japan, China and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea are all participants in that process.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea on the opening of an official embassy by the Republic in the United Kingdom. [136696]

  Mr. Rammell
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has had no discussions with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) on the opening of their embassy in London, During my own meeting with the new DPRK ambassador, I expressed concern about the nuclear issue and human rights. I made clear that 450W
  further development of our bilateral relationship would depend on North Korean actions to address these concerns, which are shared by the European Union and the wider international community.

  Nuclear Proliferation
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government is taking to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons-related technology. [136771]

  Mr. MacShane
  Preventing the spread of technology with WMD application is a high priority for the Government. All licences for the export from the UK of nuclear technology with possible weapons-related application are rigorously scrutinised. I refer the hon. Member to the Statement made by the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) on 15 March 2002,Official Report, column 1298W.

  The UK is a leading and active member of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), an international export control regime which seeks to contribute to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons by controlling the export of nuclear related and dual use items and related technology. These are identified in the NSG technical annex and are incorporated into national and EU legislation.

  Within the NSG the UK chairs the Licensing and Enforcement Experts Meeting where customs and other enforcement officials exchange information and intelligence relating to procurement methods, and discuss case studies on interdiction. The UK also provides technical experts who revise the lists of controlled goods to ensure that the NSG keeps pace with developments in technology, weapons systems and procurement methods.

  Within the NSG and other export control regimes the UK supports outreach activities, in the form of bilateral talks and awareness raising seminars, which play a key role in our efforts to promote and support the implementation of responsible export controls around the world. In addition, joint teams of officials from FCO, DTI, MOD and HM Customs and Excise conduct dedicated export control bilateral meetings to address the practical issues surrounding the implementation of export licensing and enforcement systems.

  Pakistan
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions(a) his Department and (b) the Government have had with members and representatives of the governments of (i) Pakistan, (ii) India and (iii) China on the proposed construction of a nuclear power plant at Chashma, central Punjab province, Pakistan; what concerns have been raised during those discussions; what assurances were (A) sought and (B) given; and if he will make a statement. [136931]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We are aware of the existing nuclear power plant at Chashma in central Punjab, and of the plans for a second reactor to be built at the same site with the co-operation of China. We understand that
  451W
  these plans only involve co-operation over energy production and we have not raised any concerns with the representatives of the governments of Pakistan, India or China

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he is making to Pakistan concerning the fight against terrorism, with particular reference to the case of Dawood Ibrahim; and if he will make a statement. [136829]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We regularly discuss the fight against terrorism with the Pakistani Government, most recently when I, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, met the Pakistani Foreign Minister, Khurshid Kasuri, on 4 November.

  On 3 November the al-Qaeda and Taliban Sanctions Committee of the UN Security Council added Dawood Ibrahim's name to its list of individuals linked to al-Qaeda. Like all UN members the UK is accordingly under an obligation to freeze his assets, and has now done so.

  Russia
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance the Government is giving to the Russian Federation to work towards a constructive and peaceful solution to instability in Chechnya and the Caucasus region; and what steps his Department is taking to ensure that proper democratic processes are taking place in the area. [136697]

  Mr. Rammell
  The UK Government undertake regular dialogue with Russian counterparts at both official and ministerial level about the on-going conflict in Chechnya and its resolution. The UK Government also substantially fund humanitarian aid by international organisations and NGOs in the region, totalling around £74 million.

  We have monitored the political process in Chechnya closely since its inception. We were disappointed by the conditions under which the recent Chechen Presidential elections were held, as I made clear in my 6 October press statement. A copy of the press release is available on the Foreign and Commonwealth website: www.fco.gov.uk/policy/news/press-releases. The UK supported similar statements by the EU. We have called on the new Chechen President to promote a genuinely open political process.

  Uzbekistan
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what dates since 1 January 2001 the British Government have held meetings with the Government of Uzbekistan; and what was discussed at each meeting. [137018]

  Mr. Straw
  We have regular contacts with the Government of Uzbekistan across a range of issues, including human rights, regional security, bilateral 452W
  co-operation, political and economic reform. It would incur disproportionate cost to compile detailed information about meetings of the kind requested by the right hon. Member.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has raised the issue of the closure of United Nations relief and recovery units in Zimbabwe with the UN; and if he will make a statement. [138406]

  Hilary Benn
  I have been asked to reply.

  The UN Relief and Recovery Unit (RRU) itself has not been closed. This unit, which was set up jointly by donors and the UN Development Programme (UNDP) in January 2002, continues to co-ordinate information sharing and to review policy issues, covering all humanitarian operations in Zimbabwe. The RRU publishes regular situation reports on the humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe.

  However, the Government of Zimbabwe has not yet approved UNDP to operate three regional offices (Relief Information Validation units) that RRU had been using to facilitate fieldwork until the Government closed them in the summer. All RRU operations are presently implemented from the Headquarters in Harare, which is feasible but more difficult to manage. At meetings with DFID and other donors, the UN Humanitarian Co-ordinator in Zimbabwe has agreed to continue to press the Zimbabwe Government to allow the regional offices to operate.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Adult Learning
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he is taking to facilitate adult learning in Northern Ireland. [137803]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Department for Employment and Learning offers a range of services and activities to facilitate adult learning in Northern Ireland, including:funding for widespread provision in the statutory FE sector;
  financial support for the Workers' Educational Association and the Ulster Peoples' College, to enable them to deliver adult education and training programmes;
  funding for learners undertaking a range of courses via learndirect;
  essential skills provision, which has been fully integrated into all the Department's programmes, to improve literacy and numeracy skills;
  a range of New Deal initiatives providing opportunities to learn new skills;
  the delivery of an all age guidance service providing career guidance to people in education and training and to the unemployed;
  a Training for Work (TfW) vocational programme, aimed at adults who have not reached the entry point for any of the New Deal options; and
  Worktrack, a temporary employment programme, focusing on the needs of unemployed adults.

  Flooding
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will designate an agency with the sole responsibility for flooding. [137662]

  Mr. Pearson
  There are no plans for such designation. However the need for co-ordination between Agencies in dealing with flooding emergencies has been given priority with the establishment of an inter-Agency Flood Strategy Steering Group (FSSG). Under the direction of the FSSG, the Rivers Agency, in conjunction with Water Service, Roads Service and others are progressing measures to improve inter-Agency response.

  Literacy
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures are in place to raise literacy standards among 14-year-old boys in Northern Ireland. [137671]

  Jane Kennedy
  Literacy standards among Key Stage 3 pupils are steadily improving and are currently at their highest ever. The literacy strategy element of the School Improvement Programme is particularly aimed at raising standards among all underachieving pupils, including boys, and this improvement reflects the contribution made by all education partners to its delivery. Specific guidance has been given to schools on maximising the performance of boys, particularly in literacy.

  Older People (IT Skills)
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he is taking to maximise the education of older people in Northern Ireland in the use of information technology. [137802]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Department for Employment and Learning supports adult learners to develop IT skills through a range of programme and policy initiatives, These include the New Deal for 25 + for long-term unemployed people, which offers participants a range of appropriate training courses. Clients who are eligible for the Training Grant of New Deal 50 plus can access up to £1,500 over a two-year period for in-work training which can include IT skills. In the further education (FE) sector enrolments on information and communications technology (ICT) courses attract an enhanced level of financial support. Some 75 per cent. of current enrolments comprise students aged 25 or over, Learndirect plays a major role in the delivery of ICT programmes. 34 community-based learning venues throughout Northern Ireland offer all adults flexible access to a range of IT programmes at minimal cost to disadvantaged learners, including those over the age of retirement. Recent modifications to the learndirect learner funding model have been introduced to attract older learners on low income.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Advocacy Services
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what discussions he has had with local authorities and social services departments about the provision of advocacy services. [118295]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has not held any substantive discussions with local authorities or social services departments on the provision of advocacy services.

  Community Centres
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proposals the Government have to expand the number of community centres in(a) the north west region, (b) Merseyside and (c) St. Helens. [137981]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister recognises the important role community centres can play in supporting sustainable communities. However their funding is not the responsibility of central government, it is a matter for local decision.

  Concessionary Fares
  David Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans the Government have to improve concessionary fare schemes for older people. [137445]

  Phil Hope
  The Transport Act 2000 and the Travel Concessions (Eligibility) Act 2002 ensures that people aged 60 and over in England are entitled to a free bus pass allowing half-fare travel on local buses. Local authorities may provide more generous concessions if they choose, but we have no plans to require them to do so.

  Council Tax
  Matthew Green
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the total collected council tax was in each financial year since 1996–97. [138149]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information requested is tabled as follows. The figures shown are the amounts of council tax collected during each financial year, irrespective of the year to which they related.

  Amounts of council tax collected, England

  £ million

  1996–97

  8,404

  1997–98

  9,570

  1998–99

  10,579

  1999–2000

  11,457

  2000–01

  12,242

  2001–02

  13,208

  2002–03

  14,511

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the average council tax payable for each Government Office Region, broken down by council tax band, was in each financial year since 1996–97. [138151]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information requested is tabled as follows.
  455W

  Average council taxes for Government Office Regions

  £

  Band

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  F

  G

  H

  1996–97

  North East

  482

  562

  643

  723

  884

  1,044

  1,205

  1,446

  North West

  497

  579

  662

  745

  911

  1,076

  1,242

  1,490

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  445

  519

  593

  667

  815

  963

  1,112

  1,334

  East Midlands

  444

  518

  592

  666

  814

  962

  1,110

  1,332

  West Midlands

  437

  510

  583

  656

  802

  948

  1,093

  1,312

  East of England

  403

  470

  537

  604

  738

  872

  1,007

  1,208

  London

  411

  479

  548

  616

  753

  890

  1,027

  1,232

  South East

  401

  468

  535

  602

  736

  870

  1,003

  1,204

  South West

  415

  484

  553

  622

  760

  898

  1,037

  1,244

  England

  431

  502

  574

  646

  790

  933

  1,077

  1,292

  1997–98

  North East

  521

  608

  695

  782

  956

  1,130

  1,303

  1,564

  North West

  532

  621

  709

  798

  975

  1,153

  1,330

  1,596

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  473

  552

  631

  710

  868

  1,026

  1,183

  1,420

  East Midlands

  470

  548

  627

  705

  862

  1,018

  1,175

  1,410

  West Midlands

  467

  545

  623

  701

  857

  1,013

  1,168

  1,402

  East of England

  426

  497

  568

  639

  781

  923

  1,065

  1,278

  London

  434

  506

  579

  651

  796

  940

  1,085

  1,302

  South East

  427

  499

  570

  641

  783

  926

  1,068

  1,282

  South West

  445

  519

  593

  667

  815

  963

  1,112

  1,334

  England

  459

  535

  612

  688

  841

  994

  1,147

  1,376

  1998–99

  North East

  561

  654

  748

  841

  1,028

  1,215

  1,402

  1,682

  North West

  571

  666

  761

  856

  1,046

  1,236

  1,427

  1,712

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  512

  597

  683

  768

  939

  1,109

  1,280

  1,536

  East Midlands

  517

  604

  690

  776

  948

  1,121

  1,293

  1,552

  West Midlands

  505

  589

  673

  757

  925

  1,093

  1,262

  1,514

  East of England

  473

  551

  630

  709

  867

  1,024

  1,182

  1,418

  London

  458

  534

  611

  687

  840

  992

  1,145

  1,374

  South East

  473

  552

  631

  710

  868

  1,026

  1,183

  1,420

  South West

  487

  569

  650

  731

  893

  1,056

  1,218

  1,462

  England

  498

  581

  664

  747

  913

  1,079

  1,245

  1,494

  1999–2000

  North East

  597

  696

  796

  895

  1,094

  1,293

  1,492

  1,790

  North West

  601

  701

  801

  901

  1,101

  1,301

  1,502

  1,802

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  540

  630

  720

  810

  990

  1,170

  1,350

  1,620

  East Midlands

  556

  649

  741

  834

  1,019

  1,205

  1,390

  1,668

  West Midlands

  541

  632

  722

  812

  992

  1,173

  1,353

  1,624

  East of England

  512

  597

  683

  768

  939

  1,109

  1,280

  1,536

  London

  487

  569

  650

  731

  893

  1,056

  1,218

  1,462

  South East

  509

  594

  679

  764

  934

  1,104

  1,273

  1,528

  South West

  521

  608

  695

  782

  956

  1,130

  1,303

  1,564

  England

  532

  621

  709

  798

  975

  1,153

  1,330

  1,596

  2000–01

  North East

  627

  731

  836

  940

  1,149

  1,358

  1,567

  1,880

  North West

  629

  733

  838

  943

  1,153

  1,362

  1,572

  1,886

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  568

  663

  757

  852

  1,041

  1,231

  1,420

  1,704

  East Midlands

  591

  690

  788

  887

  1,084

  1,281

  1,478

  1,774

  West Midlands

  574

  670

  765

  861

  1,052

  1,244

  1,435

  1,722

  East of England

  548

  639

  731

  822

  1,005

  1,187

  1,370

  1,644

  London

  519

  605

  692

  778

  951

  1,124

  1,297

  1,556

  South East

  542

  632

  723

  813

  994

  1,174

  1,355

  1,626

  South West

  557

  650

  743

  836

  1,022

  1,208

  1,393

  1,672

  England

  565

  659

  753

  847

  1,035

  1,223

  1,412

  1,694

  2001–02

  North East

  658

  767

  877

  987

  1,206

  1,425

  1,644

  1,973

  North West

  661

  771

  881

  991

  1,212

  1,432

  1,652

  1,983

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  604

  705

  806

  906

  1,108

  1,309

  1,510

  1,812

  East Midlands

  626

  731

  835

  939

  1,148

  1,357

  1,566

  1,879

  West Midlands

  614

  717

  819

  922

  1,126

  1,331

  1,536

  1,843

  East of England

  585

  683

  780

  878

  1,073

  1,268

  1,463

  1,756

  London

  561

  654

  748

  841

  1,028

  1,215

  1,402

  1,682

  South East

  577

  673

  770

  866

  1,058

  1,250

  1,443

  1,731

  South West

  590

  689

  787

  886

  1,082

  1,279

  1,476

  1,771

  England

  601

  701

  801

  901

  1,102

  1,302

  1,502

  1,803

  456W 457W

  Average council taxes for Government Office Regions

  £

  Band

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  F

  G

  H

  2002–03

  North East

  712

  831

  949

  1,068

  1,305

  1,543

  1,780

  2,136

  North West

  696

  812

  928

  1,044

  1,276

  1,508

  1,740

  2,088

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  647

  755

  863

  971

  1,187

  1,403

  1,618

  1,942

  East Midlands

  687

  801

  916

  1,030

  1,259

  1,488

  1,717

  2,060

  West Midlands

  663

  773

  884

  994

  1,215

  1,436

  1,657

  1,988

  East of England

  646

  754

  861

  969

  1,184

  1,400

  1,615

  1,938

  London

  597

  696

  796

  895

  1,094

  1,293

  1,492

  1,790

  South East

  633

  738

  844

  949

  1,160

  1,371

  1,582

  1,898

  South West

  652

  761

  869

  978

  1,195

  1,413

  1,630

  1,956

  England

  651

  759

  868

  976

  1,193

  1,410

  1,627

  1,952

  2003–04

  North East

  774

  903

  1,032

  1,161

  1,419

  1,677

  1,935

  2,322

  North West

  757

  883

  1,009

  1,135

  1,387

  1,639

  1,892

  2,270

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  714

  833

  952

  1,071

  1,309

  1,547

  1,785

  2,142

  East Midlands

  750

  875

  1,000

  1,125

  1,375

  1,625

  1,875

  2,250

  West Midlands

  729

  850

  972

  1,093

  1,336

  1,579

  1,822

  2,186

  East of England

  743

  867

  991

  1,115

  1,363

  1,611

  1,858

  2,230

  London

  705

  823

  940

  1,058

  1,293

  1,528

  1,763

  2,116

  South East

  732

  854

  976

  1,098

  1,342

  1,586

  1,830

  2,196

  South West

  742

  866

  989

  1,113

  1,360

  1,608

  1,855

  2,226

  England

  735

  857

  980

  1,102

  1,347

  1,592

  1,837

  2,204

  Ex-service Personnel (Housing)
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what guidance his Department has given to local authorities relating to the rights of persons leaving the armed forces to be included in council house waiting lists on conclusion of their service in the area in which they last served. [138220]

  Keith Hill
  As the hon. Member will be aware, housing is a devolved matter.

  The Code of Guidance on the Allocation of Accommodation which was issued to English housing authorities in November 2002 and came into force at the end of January 2003 states that housing authorities must consider all applications and cannot exclude applicants who, for example, are not currently resident in the district. However, the Code of Guidance makes clear that, in determining relative priorities for an allocation, authorities are able to have regard to whether or not applicants have a local connection with the district. The Code of Guidance does refer specifically to the rights of persons leaving the armed forces to be included in council waiting lists.

  Housing
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much was spent by each local authority planning Large Scale Voluntary Transfer; and whether this expenditure was within the guidelines set by the Department in each case. [138680]

  Keith Hill
  The information requested is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps his Department is taking to ensure that section 106 agreements between local authorities and housing associations do not provide a perverse 458W
  financial incentive to develop one and two bedroom properties at the expense of three and four bedroom properties. [138588]

  Keith Hill
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 6 November 2003,Official Report, columns 796–97W.

  Linda Perham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what plans he has to ensure that housing advice reaches older people from ethnic minorities; [136657]

  (2) what plans he has to develop proactive services for giving older people housing advice. [136658]

  Yvette Cooper
  Section 179 of the Housing Act 1996 requires local housing authorities to ensure that advice and information about homelessness and the prevention of homelessness is available free of charge to anyone in their district. The Homelessness Code of Guidance, to which local authorities must have regard by law, states that advisory services need to be accessible to everyone in the district, and well publicised. The Code also states that authorities need to monitor the provision of advisory services to ensure they continue to meet the needs of all sections of the community.

  In addition, the Homelessness Act 2002 requires local housing authorities to ensure that advice and information is available free to everyone in their district about the right to apply for housing. If anyone is likely to have difficulty in making an application without assistance, the housing authority must ensure that any necessary assistance is available free of charge.

  The Homelessness Directorate within the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has issued good practice guidance to assist local authorities in the development of their strategies on preventing and tackling homelessness in their area, to include information on addressing the needs of older people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness, and the needs of homeless black and

  459W
  minority ethnic people. This could include, for example, specialist mediation services for older people who have to leave a family home.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has invested £2.5 million in 2003–04 with Shelter's National Homelessness Advice Service (NHAS). NHAS is a secondary advice and support service provided by Shelter in partnership with the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and has been supported by Government since it was established in 1990. This service is open to anyone who is homeless or at risk of becoming homeless.

  The Housing and Older People Development Group—which advises the Department of Health and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on housing issues affecting older people—is looking into ways to develop and enhance advice, information and advocacy services nationally and locally for older people and their carers, to help them in making choices about housing, care and support options. The group is also looking at ways of sharing information across agencies and to support and advise the advisers.

  As part of its work, the Group is also considering strategies to improving access to information about mainstream services for black and minority ethnic older people.

  As part of the Government's Supporting People programme, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has published a guide: "Reflecting the Needs and Concerns of Black and Minority Ethnic Communities in Supporting People" for housing support service providers. This can be found on the Supporting People website address at: www.spkweb.org.uk/files/020429impreflect.pdf

  In addition to the Supporting People main website, a special BMESpark website has also been developed. This brings together expertise and experience in responding to the needs and concerns of black and minority ethnic communities as part of the Supporting People Programme. The BMESpark website address is www.bmespark.org.uk.

  Investment Frameworks (West Midlands)
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many area investment frameworks have been established in the West Midlands Region. [137774]

  Yvette Cooper
  Advantage West Midlands (AWM) has developed six Regeneration Zones in the West Midlands Region, five of which are in urban areas.

  The six zones encompass concentration of need and substantial opportunities, and include the most deprived wards in the region. They aim to regenerate communities by raising skills levels, creating development opportunities, reducing unemployment and tackling social exclusion.

  A Regeneration Zone Partnership, which includes representatives from local authorities, businesses and the voluntary and community sectors, heads each Regeneration Zone and it is responsible for developing the Regeneration Zone Strategy, identifying needs in the area and how they might be addressed by funding streams
  460W
  available to partners. Substantial work is underway with the West Midlands Regional Observatory, to identify baseline conditions and outcome targets in each zone.

  IT Contracts
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many outsourced IT contracts have been signed by his Department in each year since 1997; how much each of these contracts is worth; with whom they are signed; how many have been renegotiated; how many are still in place; and if he will make a statement. [126201]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) was created in May 2002. Since 1997, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and its central departmental predecessors (DTLR and DETR) signed two IT contracts, totalling £10.7 million. Of these, one is a Department for Transport (DfT) contract providing joint services to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the other is the sole responsibility of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. These contracts were let with:LogicaCMG for the provision of the corporate payroll service for DfT and ODPM
  Fujitsu for the provision of IT infrastructure and desktop services for the Government Office Network.
  Both contracts are still in place and one has been renegotiated.

  Referendums
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much has been spent by his Office on referenda since its creation. [137512]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has incurred no expenditure on holding referendums.

  The Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003 provides for the forthcoming regional assembly referendums. Expenditure for these will be incurred by the Electoral Commission, who will request resources from the Speakers Committee to cover its referendum costs. Costs incurred by local authorities in running the referendums will be met from the consolidated fund. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will bear the associated costs of the information campaign and the work of the Boundary Committee.

  The former Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions incurred expenditure of £1 million on the referendum held in London in 1998 on whether to establish the Greater London Authority.

  Rented Homes
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he expects the Law Commission to(a) publish its final report on renting homes and (b) publish draft legislation. [138058]

  Keith Hill
  On 5 November 2003, the Law Commission published "Renting Homes" (Law Com 284) in which they set out recommendations on the reform of housing law. The report was published ahead of the publication of a draft Bill in order to allow the
  461W
  Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and others in the housing field to consider the policy issues underlying the Commission's proposals.

  As the Commission pointed out in the press notice accompanying their report, the proposed new law will involve replacing a complex web of land law principles and statutory provisions that have grown up over the last 100 years.

  Work is well in hand at the Commission on drafting the necessary legislation. Their aim is to publish a final report, together with a draft bill, in 2004. At this stage, it is not possible to be more precise.

  Road Building
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) if he will make a statement on the proposal by Norfolk County Council's Planning and Transportation Department to build a Northern Distributor Road through Ringland Valley; [138207]

  (2) if he will undertake a full Environmental Audit on the proposals to build a road through the Ringland Valley in Norfolk. [138208]

  Keith Hill
  Options for a Northern Distributor Road form part of a review of the Norwich Area Transport Strategy currently being undertaken by Norfolk County Council. If, as an outcome of the review, the council decides to go ahead with preparation of plans for the Distributor Road, it would need to undertake a full appraisal of the scheme, covering the environmental impacts as well as the economic, safety, integration and accessibility effects.

  Tenancy Deposit Scheme
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the reasons private landlords have given for refusing to participate in the pilot voluntary tenancy deposit scheme [138056]

  Keith Hill
  Shortly after the publication of the consultation paper last year we published 'An Evaluation of the pilot Tenancy Deposit Scheme'—a report on a study carried out by the University of York. A digest of this report had been published alongside the consultation paper.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to the statement by the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper),Official Report, column 118WH, what estimate his Department has made of the potential costs of independent adjudication under a tenancy deposit scheme. [138057]

  Keith Hill
  The estimated maximum cost of adjudications would be £19 million. However, this is based on the assumption that the rate of disputes inside a statutory scheme (requiring adjudication) would be the same as the current rate of alleged unreasonable withholding of deposits.

  Travellers
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the implications for(a) traveller migration to the UK, (b) demand for
  462W
  traveller sites and (c) unauthorised encampments of the introduction of changes in the law of trespass in the Irish Republic. [137208]

  Yvette Cooper
  Officials of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister are currently reviewing policy on site provision and planning for gypsies and travellers. As part of this work they will also look into the wider implications of Irish traveller migration to the UK following the Republic of Ireland's legislative changes, and the possible demand for additional sites.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Capital Modernisation Fund
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport pursuant to her answer of 14 October 2003,Official Report, column 1534W, on the Capital Modernisation Fund, if she will provide a breakdown by governing body of the £20 million from the Capital Modernisation Fund. [138614]

  Estelle Morris
  The Rugby Football Union, the Football Association, the England and Wales Cricket Board, and the Lawn Tennis Association have been allocated £9.4 million each from the Community Club Development Programme over the period 2003–04 to 2005–06 (the first year of which is funded from the Capital Modernisation Fund).

  The following governing bodies have been allocated £20 million between them over these three years:

  the Badminton Association of England,

  England Basketball,

  the British Canoe Union,

  British Cycling,

  British Gymnastics,

  the English Hockey Federation,

  the British Judo Association,

  the All England Netball Association,

  the Amateur Rowing Association,

  the Rugby Football League,

  the Amateur Swimming Association, and

  the English Table Tennis Association.

  These allocations are subject to the amounts of governing bodies' bids to utilise funds from the Programme, and on the acceptance of their bids to do so.

  Industrial Buildings
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much English Heritage has spent on renovating and bringing back into use pre-First World War industrial buildings since 1997; and if she will make a statement. [137557]

  Mr. Caborn
  Since 1997 English Heritage has awarded £2,754,799 in grants to industrial sites that are either wholly or partly pre-First World War in date. A further £235,619 has been awarded through the Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund. In addition, some sites will have been supported through the Heritage Economic Regeneration Schemes, which English
  463W
  Heritage run in partnership with local authorities. Details of this further funding could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Prison Service
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will revoke the decision to exclude the prison service from the award of the Golden Jubilee Medal by Her Majesty The Queen. [133524]

  Mr. Caborn
  In February 2001 a decision was made by the Ministerial Group in charge of the Golden Jubilee to award a medal to commemorate the Queen's Golden Jubilee. The Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal would be awarded to members of the armed services, and Royal Fleet Auxiliary, who had completed five years service on 6 February 2002. In December 2001 a decision was made by the Ministerial Group to extend the eligibility for the Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal to the those members of the emergency "999" services, that had also completed five years service on the 6 February 2002. There are no plans to review these criteria and the Ministerial Group has long since been disbanded.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Volunteering
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action he is taking with the Home Office's Active Community Unit to increase volunteering in schools; and if he will make a statement. [137544]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Department is working closely with the Home Office's Active Community Unit (ACU) to ensure that volunteering by young people contributes to the Government's overall drive to increase community participation. One important element of the new Citizenship curriculum in schools is the involvement of pupils in the life and concerns of their neighbourhood and communities, including learning through community involvement and service. Since September 2002, we have been funding Active Citizens in Schools (ACiS)—a pilot which builds on aspect of Millennium Volunteers to encourage 11–15 year olds to

  Maintained primary and secondary schools: number of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals by ethnic group1 January 2003, England

  Pupils of compulsory school age and above

  Maintained Primary2

  Maintained Secondary2

  Number of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals3

  Percentage of pupils known to be eligible for free schools meals4

  Number of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals3

  Percentage of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals4

  White

  444,762

  15.6

  337,313

  12.3

  White British

  421,503

  15.3

  321,182

  12.1

  Irish

  2,962

  22.2

  2,448

  18.5

  Traveller of Irish heritage

  1,684

  64.5

  520

  44.9

  Any other White background

  16,263

  22.8

  12,416

  19.5

  Gypsy/Roma

  2,350

  54.2

  747

  48.1

  Mixed

  29,393

  28.2

  15,988

  48.1

  White and Black Caribbean

  13,099

  35.3

  7,163

  30.5

  White and Black African

  2,887

  30.1

  1,398

  26.0

  White and Asian

  4,186

  20.3

  2,108

  16.7

  Any other mixed background

  9,221

  25.1

  5,319

  22.9

  464W
  make a commitment to volunteering in line with the citizenship curriculum and encourage them to become Millennium Volunteers when they reach the age of 16.

  Free School Meals
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations he has received on setting minimum standards for the nutritional value of a free school meal; and if he will make a statement. [136734]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 10 November 2003]: The issue as to whether the national nutritional standards should be food or nutrient based was debated thoroughly during extensive consultation prior to the introduction of the standards in 2001. The overwhelming consensus was that food based standards would be simpler to implement and monitor, and would be consistent with cross Government messages aimed at teaching children to make healthy eating choices. There has been nothing in the intervening period to suggest that this decision should be reversed.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what information he has collated about the effect of the introduction of child tax credit on the numbers of children eligible for free school meals. [137166]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The information requested is not currently available.

  The number of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals is collected in January each year via the Annual Schools' Census. As a result, data on the number of pupils known to be eligible for free meals since the introduction of new rules in April 2003 will not be available until spring 2004.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children(a) were assessed as eligible for free school meals and (b) claimed free school meals in the most recent year for which figures are avilable, broken down by ethnic group. [137171]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The table shows the information that is available centrally. It relates to pupils who are known to be eligible for, and claim, free school meals. Equivalent information for the take-up of free school meals is not collected at pupil level and therefore cannot be broken down by ethnic group.
  465W

  Maintained primary and secondary schools: number of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals by ethnic group1 January 2003, England

  Pupils of compulsory school age and above

  Maintained Primary2

  Maintained Secondary2

  Number of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals3

  Percentage of pupils known to be eligible for free schools meals4

  Number of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals3

  Percentage of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals4

  Asian

  63,568

  27.0

  60,229

  29.4

  Indian

  8,852

  11.8

  9,474

  12.0

  Pakistani

  32,128

  32.5

  29,191

  38.3

  Bangladeshi

  17,864

  44.6

  17471

  57.8

  Any other Asian background

  4,724

  21.5

  4,093

  21.4

  Black

  48,990

  38.4

  34,971

  33.3

  Black Caribbean

  15,931

  31.2

  12,873

  27.9

  Black African

  27,865

  44.4

  17,804

  39.2

  Any other Black background

  5,194

  37.6

  4,294

  31.9

  Chinese

  1,150

  10.6

  1,250

  10.4

  Any other ethnic group

  11,964

  40.7

  1,250

  10.4

  Classified

  599,827

  17.8

  458,653

  14.6

  Unclassified5

  21,625

  19.4

  20,127

  12.5

  All pupils1

  621,452

  17.9

  478,780

  14.5

  1 Pupils of compulsory school age and above.

  2 Includes middle schools as deemed.

  3 Excludes dually registered pupils and includes boarders.

  4 Number of pupils known to be eligible for free schools meals expressed as a percentage of the number (headcount) of pupils in each ethnic group.

  5 Information was not sought or refused.

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children received free school meals at the beginning of each school year since 1997. [137205]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The number of pupils who took a free school meal on the day of the Annual Schools' Census and the number of pupils who were known to be eligible, and claimed, a free school meal are shown in the tables.

  Maintained nursery and primary schools1: School meal

  arrangements

  Position as at January each year—England

  Number on roll

  Number of pupils taking free school meals2

  Percentage taking free school meals

  Number of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals

  Percentage known to be eligible for free school meals

  19973

  4,479,454

  775,742

  17.3

  944,592

  21.1

  19983

  4,508,924

  731,576

  16.2

  891,048

  19.8

  19993

  4,507,663

  690,321

  15.3

  853,020

  18.9

  20003

  4,481.677

  671,486

  15.0

  821,521

  18.3

  20013

  4,451,224

  631,638

  14.2

  784,976

  17.6

  20023

  4,405,639

  616,625

  14.0

  754,511

  17.1

  20034

  4,350,260

  604,911

  13.9

  731,611

  16.8

  1 Includes middle schools as deemed.

  2 The number of pupils who took a free school meal on the day of the Census.

  1 Excludes dually registered pupils and boarding pupils.

  1 Includes dually registered pupils and boarding pupils.

  466W

  Maintained nursery and primary schools1: School meal

  arrangements

  Position as at January each year—England

  Number on roll

  Number of pupils taking free school meals2

  Percentage taking free school meals

  Number of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals

  Percentage known to be eligible for free school meals

  19973

  3,036,994

  381,243

  12.6

  552,903

  18.2

  19983

  3,069,029

  367,798

  12.0

  537,073

  17.5

  19993

  3,118,277

  367,795

  11.8

  527,339

  16.9

  20003

  3,177,998

  368,303

  11.6

  523,630

  16.5

  20013

  3,226,973

  353,469

  11.0

  509,676

  15.8

  20023

  3,260,931

  354,256

  10.9

  486,353

  14.9

  20034

  3,308,492

  349,777

  10.6

  478,915

  14.5

  1 Includes middle schools as deemed.

  2 The number of pupils who took a free school meal on the day of the Census.

  3 Excludes dually registered pupils and boarding pupils.

  4 Includes dually registered pupils and boarding pupils.

  Sexual Offences Bill
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) if he will reassess his guidelines on sex and relationship education for under 16-year-olds with reference to the Sexual Offences Bill; [137840]

  (2) if he will reassess his guidance to teachers of under 16-year-olds with reference to the Sexual Offences Bill. [137842]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 11 November 2003]: At present, the Department has no plans to revise its Sex and Relationship Guidance for schools. This position will be reviewed when the Sexual Offences Bill is passed.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prison Service
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins)
  The performance data for HMP Moorland and HMYOI Hatfield published in Appendix 1 of the Prison Service Annual Report and Accounts for 2002–03 are shown separately but should have been combined. In June 2002, HMYOI Hatfield became an integral part of HMP Moorland and it is not appropriate or accurate to show the figures separately. Indeed the figures for cost per prisoner and cost per place cannot be separated.

  In Appendix 1 of the published Prison Service Annual Report and Accounts, establishments are categorised by their main role only. Establishments that have more than one role have been placed in the category that represents the primary or dominant function of the prison. For this reason, performance of prisons ostensibly within the same category cannot necessarily be compared on a like-for-like basis. Performance at the following establishments in particular during 2002–03 was affected by dual functionality:

  Brinsford (YO/Juvenile)

  Moorland (Closed/Open)

  Castington (YO/Juvenile)

  Onley (YO/Juvenile)

  Durham (Adult Male/Female)

  Stoke Heath (YO/Juvenile)

  Feltham (YO/Juvenile)

  Thorn Cross (YO/Juvenile)

  Highpoint (Adult Male/Female)

  Winchester (Adult Male/Female)

  Lancaster Farms (YO/Juvenile)

  Wealstun (Closed/Open)

  A correction to the Prison Service Annual Report and Accounts 2002–03 covering these issues has been placed in the Library.

CABINET OFFICE

  Regulatory Impact Assessments
  The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander)
  The Government are committed to ensuring that regulations are necessary, give effective protection, balance cost and risk, are fair and command public confidence. In accordance with this, we require Departments to produce and publish RIAs for all regulatory proposals likely to have an impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies.

  I have today presented to Parliament a Command Paper listing RIAs published between 1 January and 30 June 2003. Copies of those listed have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. This is the 19th such Command Paper.

DEFENCE

  Defence Industrial Policy
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram)
  The Government launched their Defence Industrial Policy in October 2002. We sought to maximise the economic benefit to the United Kingdom from our investment in defence and to enhance the competitiveness and global sustainability of our defence industry. Since we launched the policy we have worked closely with industry to develop and pursue a joint implementation plan. We have completed a review of progress over the first year. During this time our close and productive relationship with industry has developed further and we have agreed how we will take forward our common aims over the next few years.

  The policy has been a significant driver in bringing together Government and industry, resulting in better communication and access to information. We both recognise that the policy is for the long-term and that it will take some time to measure the full effects on defence programmes and the industry that supports them. We remain committed to the policy and will continue to monitor its effectiveness and to develop best practice in this area among the MOD acquisition community. We will also continue to work to improve access to overseas defence markets and to maximise the benefits from our investment in research and technology. We will conduct a further review of progress in a year's time. Copies of the review have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and on the Ministry of Defence and DTI websites.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Derby.

Royal Assent
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Waste and Emissions Trading Act 2003,

Arms Control and Disarmament (Inspections) Act 2003,

European Union (Accessions) Act 2003,

Fire Services Act 2003.

Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Intrusive Surveillance) Order 2003
11.6 a.m.
The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith)The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th September be approved [28th Report from the Joint Committee ]
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the orders on behalf of my noble friend. It may be for the convenience of the House if I first explain the procedure which, following discussion, we propose to adopt. Subject to the leave of the House, we shall have one debate covering all five orders. Formally, it will take place on the first order on the Order Paper—the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Intrusive Surveillance) Order. I shall therefore move to approve the order and will speak to all five.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will then move her amendment and debate will take place on all five orders and all the amendments. I shall then close the debate, followed by the noble Baroness. The first Question to be put will be on the noble Baroness's amendment to decline to approve the intrusive surveillance order—unless, of course, she does not press it. I make it clear that although the debate will take place on all five orders and I am presently inclined to move all five orders when we reach them, I shall obviously want to consider the position in the light of any Divisions that may take place.
The order in which I now propose to speak to the orders—again, I hope that this will be for the convenience of the House—is, first to the intrusive surveillance order, then to the directed surveillance order, then to the communications data order and then, finally, to the two orders under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.
I therefore turn first to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Intrusive Surveillance) Order 2003. The order before the House is made under Sections 41(3) and (4) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and relates to the Northern Ireland Office. It designates the Northern Ireland Office as a public authority that may apply to carry out intrusive surveillance under Part 2 of the 2000 Act, so that the Northern Ireland Prison Service has statutory cover for intrusive surveillance operations. The order also specifies that within the Northern Ireland Office only staff in the Northern Ireland Prison Service may apply to use the power.
I should say a little more about what this covers. Under Part 2 of the 2000 Act, intrusive surveillance is defined in Section 26(3) as any covert surveillance carried out in relation to residential premises or private vehicles. The definition of residential premises includes prison cells. There may be occasions when such surveillance by the Northern Ireland Prison Service is considered necessary—for example, in prison hostage situations. So the order is necessary.
On intrusive surveillance, Part 2 of the Act provides that the authorisations that will permit the Northern Ireland Prison Service to carry out such intrusive surveillance will be given personally by the Secretary of State, who will have to be satisfied that the action is necessary on one of the grounds listed in Section 32(3), and that it is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by carrying out the surveillance. As with the rest of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act-authorised activity, those are important tests: the tests of necessity for one of the permitted reasons and proportionality.
In considering the circumstances of the individual case, the Secretary of State must also consider whether the information thought necessary to be obtained could reasonably be obtained by any other less intrusive measures. The oversight of the use of intrusive surveillance will fall to the Chief Surveillance Commissioner by virtue of Section 62(1)(a) of RIPA. Under Section 65(5)(d), the independent Investigatory Powers Tribunal is the appropriate forum to consider complaints about intrusive surveillance activity by the Northern Ireland Prison Service. It can award compensation for unlawful use of powers against an individual.
So I have identified the requirements—necessity and proportionality—authorisation by the Secretary of State; oversight by the chief surveillance commissioner; and complaints procedure with the independent Investigatory Powers Tribunal.
The Government's view is that the order represents an important move to ensure that public authorities carry out their activities in a strictly regulated manner, in a way consistent with the European Convention on Human Rights and Human Rights Act 1998. That is the purpose of the order. Throughout the debate noble Lords will hear me say on the orders that an important part, and the reason that the Government brought them forward, is to provide a strictly regulated manner for the exercise of the different powers that we will discuss. In the Government's view the order is

1523
compatible with the rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights. On behalf of my noble friend, I commend the order to the House.
I shall now speak to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Directed Surveillance and Covert Human Intelligence Sources) Order 2003. It is made under Section 30(l),(3),(5) and (6) and Section 78(5) of the RIPA Act 2000. It designates bodies as "relevant public authorities" that may grant authorisation to carry out directed surveillance and/or use covert human intelligence sources under Part II of the 2000 Act.
Directed surveillance, also defined in Section 26(2) of the Act, is covert surveillance that is not intrusive. On the first order I talked about intrusive surveillance relating to residential or private premises, but this is covert surveillance that is not intrusive but undertaken for a specific investigation or operation likely to result in obtaining private information. An example might be the use of a CCTV camera in a public place to survey an activity or people.
A covert human intelligence source, also known as a CHIS in the world of law enforcement, is defined in Section 28(8). It includes those previously known as agents, informants or undercover officers. A person becomes a covert human intelligence source if he establishes or maintains a personal or other relationship with someone for the covert purpose of obtaining information or to disclose information covertly obtained by the use of such relationships.
Part II of the 2000 Act provides for the first time a statutory framework compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights for the use of covert surveillance and covert human intelligence sources. Neither are new activities for law enforcement agents, but the Act provides a statutory framework compliant with the European Convention and strict requirements for the exercise of the powers. If the order is approved, as I hope it will be, it will ensure that the public authorities listed have their surveillance activities tightly regulated in such a framework. Let me be clear: the order is not about giving those public authorities any powers either to intercept the content of communications or to carry out intrusive surveillance. The only intrusive surveillance about which the debate is concerned is that of the first order on the Northern Ireland Prison Service.
The order will also repeal the previous order, Statutory Instrument 2000 No. 2417, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Prescription of Offices, Ranks and Positions) Order, which designated authorising officers for the public authorities listed in Schedule 1 to the Act. That will allow us to provide for the House and the public clarity in a single order about which authorising officers in what public authorities can authorise that activity under Part II. It restricts the power to authorise only to those people. That is why the order includes existing public authorities already listed in Schedule 1 to the Act as well as additional public authorities.
Not only does the order restrict who can authorise; for the first time, it also restricts the grounds on which authorising officers can grant authorisation. That ensures consistency with the Retention of Communications Data Order before the House today, to which I shall speak shortly. I wish to make it absolutely clear that we are not multiplying the number of agencies and public authorities included within the framework of the Act. We are adding only 12 public authorities to Schedule 1 to the Act and removing health authorities from the list of bodies that can authorise directed surveillance.
I recognise how complicated the order may appear, but perhaps I might explain how it works in practice. Article 2 adds to the list of public authorities contained in Part I of Schedule 1 to the Act, which are authorised, subject to the requirements, to carry out directed surveillance and to use covert human intelligence sources. It includes the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary, the Northern Ireland Office, fire authorities, the Charity Commission, the Gaming Board for Great Britain, the Office of Fair Trading, the Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and the Postal Services Commission.
Article 2 of the order also adds four public authorities, but only for the purpose of carrying out directed surveillance, not covert human intelligence. They are: local health boards in Wales, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England, the Information Commissioner and the Royal Parks Constabulary. Those are the authorities.
Column 2 of the schedule identifies the level of officer who may authorise the relevant public authorities. It covers both the normal situation and urgent cases, where there is a need to make special provision. In urgent cases the person listed may authorise where necessary. However, noble Lords will see that column 4 limits the grounds on which particular authorising officers can authorise surveillance, by reference to the list in Sections 28(3) and 29(3) of the 2000 Act. I remind Noble Lords that these powers—directed surveillance and covert human intelligence sources—are covered in Sections 28(3) and 29(3), but the lists are exactly the same in other provisions. Paragraphs (a) to (g) of subsection (3) list the permitted grounds for an authorisation, provided that it is necessary and proportionate and,

"(a) in the interests of national security;

(b) for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or of preventing disorder;

(c) in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom;

(d) in the interests of public safety;

(e) for the purpose of protecting public health;

(f) for the purpose of assessing or collecting",

any taxes. Finally, paragraph (g) permits the adding of another purpose, but no addition is being made.
That list of permitted grounds appears in the 2000 Act. They entirely reflect the permitted grounds under the European Convention on Human Rights. Privacy is not an absolute right under the European convention, as noble Lords well know, and the permitted exceptions are in the list. An authorisation would have to be necessary on one of those grounds.
Column 4 identifies which grounds are relevant to the particular agency. Noble Lords will also see that in relation to other orders. The Government want to ensure that the authorisation for particular bodies is appropriate and necessary for that body. We have therefore required the bodies to demonstrate what they need, and have included that in the provision. For example, the Charity Commission is listed in column 1 by virtue of its addition to Schedule 1 by Article 2 of this order. The rank of senior investigations manager has been designated as the appropriate rank of authorising officer to authorise either directed surveillance or covert human intelligence authorisations. If there is an urgent case, an investigations manager in the Charity Commission is prescribed to authorise either. However, in both routine and urgent cases, only the designated authorising officers can grant authorisations and they can do so only if such authorisations an; both necessary and proportionate for the purpose in paragraph (b):
"for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or of preventing disorder".
It may also help if I give examples of the type of activity carried out by some of the public authorities that we seek to add to the list by order. I will take the example of the Charity Commission, because noble Lords may wonder why it has been included. It is the statutory authority for the regulation of charities in England and Wales. It is a non-governmental ministerial department, which is accountable to the Home Office for its efficiency and to the courts for its decisions. However, within its general function of promoting the effective use of charitable resources, it has particular responsibility to investigate criminal offences under the Charities Act 1993.
Under Section 8 of that Act, the Charities Commission can institute a formal inquiry if it suspects that abuse has occurred. The Act therefore gives the commission a range of information-gathering and remedial powers, so such a body is already within a transparent framework. The commission may wish to use techniques such as directed surveillance and it may need to use people to provide intelligence or work under cover—to use that shorthand—to prevent or detect crime. I am afraid to say that crime such as fraudulent charity fundraising or the misappropriation of charity funds does happen, as noble Lords know. Having the additional powers in this regulated way would enhance the commission's regulatory role in a way that is strictly compliant with the ECHR and strictly regulated.
The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary is responsible for the policing and protection of special materials on designated civil nuclear sites in England and Scotland and when nuclear materials are being transported. The constabulary requires these powers as part of a package of measures to protect the civil nuclear industry from threats of terrorism, sabotage, proliferation and other criminal acts. I am sure that noble Lords would not hesitate to agree that to protect us all against such threats is an important objective.
Another example may raise questions in noble Lords' minds—that of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Schools. Ofsted is the non-ministerial department
1526
headed by Her Majesty's Chief Inspectorate of Schools for England. It is not an agency of another department and a person may be appointed chief inspector by Order in Council. Its principal task is the management of school inspection, originally defined by the Education (Schools) Act 1992. As noble Lords know, its role has expanded over successive years and now includes inspection of: teacher training courses; education in the private, voluntary and independent nursery sector; independent schools; LEAs; and sixth form and further education colleges. Ofsted does not need to carry out directed surveillance activities in connection with those functions.
Since 2001, however, the inspectorate has also been responsible for the regulation and inspection of child minding and day care in England. That responsibility was transferred from local authorities as a result of amendments to the Children Act 1989. Ofsted may need to undertake surveillance activities in connection with powers as the registration authority for child minders and day care providers. It has the responsibility for taking enforcement action when people are child minding or providing day care without being registered and when registered people contravene the terms of their registration.
I will put flesh on those bones to give a more practical example. The two most frequent uses of regulated surveillance—which is not intrusive or within the house—is the investigation of whether a person is acting as a child minder without being registered or whether registered child minders are caring for more children than they are allowed. I need not stress the importance of a properly regulated regime in relation to child minders, because it has already been the subject of comment in this House. There have been some worrying and tragic incidents. To achieve a properly regulated regime it may be necessary to carry out surveillance on people's homes to investigate whether children are being looked after illegally or record the number of children going in and out. Again, I emphasise that this is not intrusive surveillance, but surveillance from a public place. In either case, the person concerned could be committing a criminal offence. Even more importantly, the safety and health of the children being looked after may be at risk.
I would be happy to deal with how such powers may be used by other bodies. My speaking notes give the examples of the Office of Fair Trading and the Gaming Board for Great Britain, but we have quite a lot to cover. I hope that what I have said is sufficient to indicate, first, why the Government believe that it is important to regulate; and, secondly, the strength of the conditions imposed—that is, necessity, the level of authorisation, the purpose for the particular body, and the need for such action to be proportionate. I trust that I have given enough examples to enable noble Lords to recognise why directed surveillance or covert human intelligence sources may be appropriate for the important functions that these bodies carry out.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, perhaps the noble and learned Lord will forgive me; I am not a

1527
lawyer. How far are the rights to undertake such surveillance limited to the purpose for which the agency was created? How far is it limited in such a way that those investigations cannot go beyond that particular purpose? Finally, does there need to be evidence to show that there may be reasons to believe that a criminal act—for example, in the case of an unregistered childminder—has been suspected, so that this is not an open mandate to that agency to investigate every household in which there may be children?
11.30 a.m.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, it certainly is not an open licence. Perhaps I may take the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, in two parts. First, are agencies limited to their own statutory functions? The answer is absolutely yes. They have the powers to carry out their particular functions and no others. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for asking the question. In addition to the requirement that surveillance should be necessary for one of the listed purposes, it must also be within the functions of that particular agency. In relation to a particular agency, there may be only one listed purpose—namely, the prevention of crime—and no other. There are several layers of requirement.
Secondly, surveillance must be necessary for that purpose and proportionate. I would not say that a particular agency might not take the view that it is necessary by reason of knowledge about an individual or that it is necessary to use the powers in a particular case. The agency would also need to be satisfied that it was proportionate to what was being considered. I would not go so far as to say that it must already have evidence of crime, but it would have to be satisfied that it is necessary for the purpose and proportionate to the use of that purpose. In considering whether it is proportionate, the agency would also have to consider whether there is some other way of obtaining the same information.
I hope that that at least goes quite a long way to reassuring the noble Baroness that these are strict and well defined requirements. I am grateful to her for giving me the opportunity to make the point that as well as the requirement in the Act—for example, the prevention of crime—each agency in each of these orders is limited by its own functions. We absolutely are not suggesting that the chief inspector should suddenly take on, for example, a roving brief to investigate any crime of any kind that he comes across.
Passing over the further examples that I offered to give—to which I will return if any noble Lord would like me to deal with those particular agencies or any other agency listed—we have also taken the opportunity to amend the definition of "local authority" so that it now excludes parish councils and a meeting of a parish council. That was following a recommendation made by the Chief Surveillance Commissioner in his annual report of 2001–02 to the Prime Minister. That
1528
undertaking was given in response to a Parliamentary Question answered by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary on 11th February 2003.
I turn now to the two issues with which I dealt under the first order. What about oversight? What about complaints? Oversight of the use of directed surveillance and the use of covert human intelligence sources falls, in the main, to the Chief Surveillance Commissioner by virtue of Section 62(1)(a) of the Act. That excludes those authorisations granted by the intelligence services, the MoD and Her Majesty's forces, which are overseen by the Intelligence Services Commissioner. Either way, there is oversight by a commissioner.
As regards complaints, again, the independent Investigatory Powers Tribunal is the appropriate forum to consider complaints. As I said on the first order, it has power to award compensation for unlawful use of powers against an individual.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that if one does not know an abuse has taken place, it is not possible to complain? For every case that has gone before the tribunal to date, no single case has been found in favour of the complainant.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving me the information in her second point; I was unaware of it. No doubt, it will be checked. I take that as very reassuring. It indicates that the independent tribunal has not found evidence of misuse. I noticed that one or two noble Lords were amused by that remark, which I hope was because it was apposite rather than surprising. It certainly seems a proper response.
Lord Elton: My Lords, perhaps I may return to a point the noble and learned Lord made before he was interrupted. He said that, within the context of the powers, the definition of a local authority had been changed to exclude a parish council or a parish meeting. Do we imply from that that these powers will be available to district councils?
Noble Lords: Yes.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, everyone on this side of the House is saying, "Yes". I shall come back to that question in case there is an issue in relation to it. I am told that the answer is yes: I am delighted to say that there is unanimity on that point. I shall come back to the issues about where local authorities, at whatever level, have a role to play under these orders. One of the examples given in the consultation paper on the access to communications data is that of trading standards officers concerned with protecting people who may be at risk from those who provide defective gas installations. That may be something that local authorities will be responsible for policing and on

1529
which will need some powers in order to protect people. I shall come back to that when we deal with access to communication data.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord answer the first point of my noble friend Lady Blatch about how people will know whether there has been abuse or not?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I am obliged. I did not intend to overlook that point. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, asked a supplementary question before I managed to answer the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, fully. I want to deal with this issue more comprehensively. On looking at the powers of the oversight of the commissioner, we would expect commissioners to draw attention to abuses that they have discovered. I shall also come back to that issue later so that I can give a full answer. One of the difficulties of dealing with five orders together is the risk of moving from one to another. I want to be careful not to do that.
I repeat what I said in relation to the first order because it is apposite. It is another move to ensure that public authorities carry out their activities in a strictly regulated manner in a way that is consistent with the European Convention on Human Rights and Human Rights Act obligations. That is the purpose of the orders, which we believe they will achieve.
As we go through the orders, I want to make a general point. Of course, a great deal of the activity with which we are concerned is already capable of being carried out and is being carried out. In the orders, the Government are anxious to produce a strong regulatory framework, strictly regulated with requirements of necessity, proportionality and oversight. The whole framework of regulation should be ECHR compliant, which the 2000 Act sets down.
I turn now to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Communications Data) Order 2003. That was laid before Parliament on 1lth September. It is made under Sections 21(1), 25(2) and 25(3) and Section 78(5) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. Approval of this order will enable implementation of Chapter II of Part I of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. In the Government's view, that will bring long overdue regulation to public authorities' acquisition of communications data and will improve the protection of individual privacy rights.
The use of data, such as telephone and Internet subscriber information, itemised billing records—even mobile telephone location data—is a vital tool in the prevention and detection of crime and, in some cases, saves lives.
Communications data is information about communications. It is about who called whom, and when. It is not about the interception of communications—this is an extremely important point about which I want to leave no doubt. It is not about what is said in telephone calls or written in e-mails or letters. That is already regulated quite differently and very tightly by Chapter I of Part I of the 2000 Act. We are not concerned here with the content of phone calls and e-mails.
1530
Parliament has already approved that certain authorities—the police, Customs and Excise, the intelligence agencies and the Inland Revenue—may, when the relevant provisions are implemented, use the Act to acquire communications data. The draft order designates additional relevant public authorities that may use the provisions. For all of these authorities, that is, both the existing authorities and the additional ones, the order restricts the purposes for which they can acquire data.
Further, the order will restrict the type of data that public authorities may acquire. Where an authority, or type of authority, has demonstrated a necessary and proportionate requirement for access to a type of data, the order provides for that, but not otherwise. It also restricts those persons who may use the powers to identified, designated senior authorising officers.
As I mentioned a few moments ago, I want to make clear a further point. The acquisition and use by public authorities of communications data is not new. Noble Lords have seen references to such access even this week, as we noted in the reports of a particular case. This activity already goes on, but it is not subject to the regulation set out in the Act; in effect, it is unregulated. Most of the public authorities listed in the draft order already seek communications data from communications service providers, using existing statutory information-gathering powers and by providers exercising exemptions to non-disclosure set out in the Data Protection Act 1998.
Some public authorities with statutory responsibilities for the investigation of specific offences have identified a necessary and proportionate requirement for acquisition of communications data in particular cases, but have chosen not to pursue that. Instead, they have elected to wait until they can demonstrate very clearly that they have assessed their requirements against the principles of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the convention, as the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act explicitly requires.
The aim of the order, therefore, is to bring these public authorities within the strict control and oversight regime of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. This means that all requisitions for the acquisition of data will have to be subject to the following requirements: first, they will have to be for a specific purpose, one that is drawn directly from the European Convention on Human Rights—such as the prevention of crime, matters of national security and so forth, as set out in the Act. Secondly, it must be necessary for one of those purposes—not simply desirable, but necessary. Thirdly, it must be proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by obtaining the data; a balance will have to be struck between the potential importance and the degree of intrusion. Finally, it will have to be authorised by an officer at a specific and senior level within the public authority.
The exercise of these powers will be subject to oversight by the Interception of Communications Commissioner, Sir Swinton Thomas, a former Lord Justice of Appeal in the Court of Appeal and a very

1531
distinguished and experienced High Court judge. He is obliged to keep under review the exercise and performance of powers and duties relating to the acquisition of communications data under Chapter II of Part I of the 2000 Act.
The commissioner must report to the Prime Minister if, at any time, it appears to him that there has been a contravention of the provisions of the Act relating to the acquisition of communications data. His annual report to Parliament on the interception of communications includes details of all errors that are made. It will be for the commissioner to determine how he should fulfil his obligations in respect of the acquisition of communications data—this has not arisen because we have not yet managed to put this part into force, which we are seeking to do by way of this order. It will be for him to determine how this is reported to Parliament and to consider whether, and the extent to which, he should notify individuals affected by any inappropriate or deliberate misuse of the provisions for access to communications data.
In answer to the question raised a little earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, concerning access to communications data, it will be for the commissioner to decide the extent to which he thinks it right and appropriate to notify individuals affected by any inappropriate or deliberate misuse of the provisions for access. If so notified, those individuals will be in a position to act.
11.45 a.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am very reluctant to interrupt the noble and learned Lord, but it may be helpful to the House if I were to question the advice the Attorney-General has just given. So far as I am aware, there is no right under Chapter II of Part I of the Act vis-à-vis communications data for the Interception of Communications Commissioner to inform a citizen whose information has been purloined of that fact. I make the point now because it may be possible for advice to be given to the noble and learned Lord by his officials. However, it is an important issue.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me notice of his point and I shall take up his proposal with regard to advice. Others have heard his question and I shall come back to it with an answer.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, while the noble and learned Lord is having a break, may I ask him whether he considers that the commissioner, who I understand has a staff of only four people and receives in the region of half a million inquiries every year, has sufficient capacity to deal with the work that he is expected to do?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, again, I shall take advice. However, I think the answer is that if the commissioner considers that he does not have adequate resources and staff to his job, then he will make that plain to the Government. I shall come back
1532
to the noble Countess if I can give her any further information. Certainly no one has suggested heretofore that the commissioner will not be in a position properly to carry out his important functions, ones which the Government now want him to be able to exercise in relation to access to communications data, which is in part why we have brought forward this order.
I shall make an additional point. Whatever the commissioner may decide to do, anyone who thinks that their data have been wrongly acquired will have the right to go to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. The Home Secretary has made it quite clear that the commissioner will have the resources he needs to carry out his duties effectively; that is, to report to Parliament and the public. That is the assurance given by the Home Secretary. It corresponds exactly with what I have just said in response to the noble Countess, Lady Mar.
All the public authorities listed in this order must follow the procedures set down in the code of practice on acquisition of communications data explaining the statutory provisions in detail. A draft code has been published, has completed a public consultation exercise, and exists in draft for public authorities to follow. Further, the draft code will be laid before Parliament for approval.
In addition, public authorities may develop their own guidance material to foster professional standards. The Association of Chief Police Officers, working with the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and Customs and Excise, has developed a manual of standards for accessing communications data under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. That manual has already been published.
There are further administrative safeguards. These include a "double lock" safeguard where the acquisition of certain types of data, such as itemised call records, by certain authorities is granted only after prior approval by the Interception of Communications Commissioner. He will determine which authorities should be subject to such additional approval.
Specialist training for public authorities will support the proficient and appropriate use of the provisions, building on that developed jointly with the communications service industry by the police service and Customs and Excise. The accreditation of trained officials and authorising officers will ensure that those with legitimate and necessary access to such information know the legal and technical issues, which provides another safeguard. Accreditation of authorised officers will also support the authentication of disclosure notices served upon communications service providers.
I have spelt out a number of the safeguards that are in or lie behind the draft order. The regulation it provides and the clarity it introduces is welcomed by public authorities; it is welcomed by the communications service industry; and it was broadly welcomed by the public in response to the consultation issued by the Government last summer.

1533
The scope of the order is constrained by what primary legislation permits it may cover. I know that in Committee in another place and in various public meetings concerns were expressed about the order. I anticipate that noble Lords will raise some of those concerns today and it may be helpful to noble Lords if I indicate the Government's response to them. This will enable noble Lords who wish to speak to them to know in advance the Government's position.
As we understand it, the concerns do not relate to the principle of regulating public authorities' acquisition of communications data—I hope that no one will disagree with the proposition that that is highly desirable—or the enhanced protection that will be provided to an individual's human rights. The concerns are not about what the order will put in place but about the practical arrangements and how the legislation will work in practice.
Let me deal with those concerns, one of which relates to the so-called legacy powers. At the moment, various public authorities undertaking their statutory function use powers that they have already for compulsory disclosure of information—usually defined in terms of information not restricted to communications data—to acquire communications data. RIPA approves a regulated scheme for acquisition of communications data which is specifically designed to be compliant with the purposes permitted by the ECHR.
The public authorities have identified that they can best demonstrate their compliance with the Human Rights Act by using the new specific legislation—the RIPA legislation—rather than relying, as they do now, on the pre-Human Rights Act legislation that gives access to this range of information. I hope noble Lords will agree that that is a very important step to bring their acquisition of communications data within the specific, human rights-compliant, regulated scheme.
But it would not be right to repeal the legislation that is already in existence—which still provides powers for necessary and proportionate disclosure of other information—because, since the introduction of the Human Rights Act, public authorities have to exercise those powers, however they are expressed, in accordance with that Act.
There has been only one example subsequent to the coming into force of the Human Rights Act and the passage of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act where Parliament approved specific provision—in the Social Security Fraud Act—for benefit fraud investigators, primarily those in the Department for Work and Pensions, to acquire communications data. That is why the Department for Work and Pensions and the Social Security Agency in Northern Ireland are absent from the public authorities listed in the schedule to the order.
These bodies have a requirement to acquire communications data to prevent and detect benefit fraud, and they intend to exercise that requirement using the legislation that Parliament has relatively recently approved—and, as I said, since RIPA and the Human Rights Act were passed—for that specific purpose.
1534
I turn now to the next issue: for what purpose may data be acquired? I hope I have made it clear, because it runs through all that I am saying, that the permitted purposes under the Act are derived directly from Article 8.2 of the European convention. In their consultation paper the Government invited views on whether public authorities' access to communications data under the Act could be restricted not only by purpose but also by function. Although the functions of some public authorities can be captured in a way that is meaningful in law, the functions of many others responsible for enforcing wide and diverse pieces of legislation cannot.
The Government have concluded that it is not necessary to restrict by function because, as I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, public authorities which try to do something that is not within their statutory remit would be acting ultra vires. They would not be acting in accordance with the law as required by the European convention and they could not properly and lawfully do so.
I know that there is some concern about the definition of communications data within Section 21 of the 2000 Act. The definition was deliberately conceived to be technology neutral and, as my note puts it, durable in a time of very rapid technological advance. Noble Lords will not need to be reminded how quickly this area can and does change—new methods of technology seem to come on stream all the time—and it was important that the definition should be neutral as to the form of technology so that it would be a durable provision. Parliament approved that definition rather than a complex and technically precise menu of categories of data. Those who work with the legislation will interpret the statutory definition. There was a guide to interpretation included in the consultation paper and, where necessary, the courts will interpret the definition.
I know that there is a concern about the transfer overseas of communications data. That subject will be raised later in an amendment and, given the length of time that I have been on my feet, I will deal with it when we come to that particular aspect.
The order represents a significant move to ensure protection and to ensure a regulated system of things which are happening already.
I turn now to the two orders arising under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act—that is, the Retention of Communications Data (Code of Practice) Order and the Retention of Communications Data (Extension of Initial Period) Order. I apologise for having to withdraw and relay the order originally laid on 11th September 2003. This was due to human error as the reference under Article 2 of the initial order for the code of practice did not precisely replicate the title of the code.
Part 11 of the 2001 Act allows for the publication of the code of practice for the voluntary retention of communications data by the communication service providers. It is not about the retention of the content of communications—it is not about the content of telephone calls and e-mails—but about the retention of related communications data such as telephone

1535
subscriber information, numbers dialled or addresses to which e-mails have been sent. It is, again, a vital tool in the investigation of terrorist incidents.
The purpose of the order is to bring into force the draft code of practice on the retention of communications data. The code relates to that information which is already kept by the communications service providers for their own business purposes. It does not require additional information to be stored. It sets out two matters: first, it identifies the kind of data that the Government would like to see retained by the communications service providers; secondly, it details the length of time for which they would like to see that data retained.
Terminologically, I should draw a distinction between "retention" and "preservation". "Data retention" means storage of everyone's communications data; "data preservation" relates to specific individuals—for example, those who are already under suspicion.
Past experience has shown that we are unlikely to know the identity of perpetrators of any attack at the time it takes place. Only painstaking investigative work after the event—which may depend upon identifying the communication trail of those who have committed such an outrage—will enable that to be done. The reason for the provision in the Act is the threat of terrorism. Regrettably, that threat is as clear and present today as it was when the Act was passed.
Sometimes this information may be the only piece of evidence that links a terrorist suspect to an attack. It may be available to identify any co-conspirator belonging to the same terrorist cell and ultimately it can provide clues as to how that cell links to others all over the world. There are many investigations in which the crucial steer for investigators has been communications data. I know that a number of issues have been raised about this—again, I will deal with them so far as they are raised by noble Lords.
Finally, the purpose of the Retention of Communications Data (Extension of Initial Period) Order is to extend the powers of the Secretary of State in Section 104 which would otherwise lapse on 14th December this year. It will extend those powers for a further two years. The powers in question allow the Secretary of State to give directions that he considers appropriate about the retention of communications data. Before using those powers, he must consult the communications service providers to whom it will apply.
The period of nearly two years between the passage of the Act and the presenting of the code to Parliament has been taken up with the consultative process required by the Act, but during that time the threat to the United Kingdom from terrorist activity has not diminished. This extension is necessary because by the time the voluntary code of practice has been in operation for three months and reviewed, the powers under Section 104 would have lapsed. It is essential that the Secretary of State should retain the ability to make such directions. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th September be approved [28th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Goldsmith. )
Noon
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch rose to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, to leave out all the words after "That" and insert "this House declines to approve the draft order laid before the House on 11th September".
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I should like to take the opportunity to address all five orders and the associated amendments. I have to say that we regret that the retention orders have not been withdrawn and their inclusion on the Order Paper.
I thank the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for his speech, particularly as I believe he was posted in only last night to deal with these extremely complex orders.
These orders have had a chequered passage so far. The Home Office has not distinguished itself in the process. The parent Act for the amendments to the first three orders is, as Home Office officials and Ministers have admitted, flawed. Sadly, that means that many of our concerns that will be expressed during the course of this debate cannot properly be addressed without amendment of the primary Act. This is an issue which I hope the noble and learned Lord accepts requires urgent redress.
When these orders were produced last year, there was widespread concern about them—so much so, that the Secretary of State withdrew them. Unfortunately, when they were re-presented, they were hardly changed. When the Home Office was asked about this, officials replied that the time was used not to amend the orders but to improve the presentation of their case. Although some concerns have been allayed by the process of consultation, it still has to be recognised that the substance of the orders remains substantially unchanged from the text of a year ago, which earned the tag "snoopers charter".
The orders before us pose a huge dilemma. However, let me make one thing crystal clear right from the start. We do not underestimate the immense value of communications data in the fight against crime and terrorism. None of us on these Benches disputes that. Nor, in opposing these orders, are we seeking to obstruct or undermine the superb service that our agencies of law enforcement, especially the police, provide. Quite rightly, they have an expectation that they will be granted all appropriate means to safeguard our citizens.
We accept that some form of data retention should be part of their armoury, and we endorse the desirability, as expressed by law enforcement agencies, of having an effective system of data access in place as a matter of urgency. However, the Government's proposals in respect of data retention access justify what some have described as flawed legislation. That said, this House has a responsibility to ensure that what is enacted into law not only is fit for purpose but affords the ordinary citizen adequate protection—the more so, given the Human Rights Act.
I recognise that several problems are more relevant to primary legislation, aspects of which are to be found at the margins of these orders. We find the first order the least controversial. The arguments put during debate on these issues in another place, coupled with discussions I have had with the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, an Assistant Surveillance Commissioner, have eased my worries. However, could the noble and learned Lord provide the answer for the questions outstanding from another place which have yet to be answered? For example, can he comment on how the proposed regime in Ireland will differ from that in England, Wales and Scotland? Why was it that the powers given to the Northern Ireland Prison Service could not have been exercised through the Northern Ireland Police Service?
To comment generally on the communications data order and the directed surveillance order, I simply make the obvious point that the Joint Committee on Human Rights highlighted grave misgivings regarding the risk of,
"undermining the proportionality of the statutory scheme".
In particular, we are profoundly concerned about the disparity between the requested retention of data under the anti-terrorism legislation and the retention orders for national security, and the access of this data using Clause 22(2) of RIPA for other purposes.
Linked with this is the idea that Parliament really needs to make a judgment about whether the level within each public authority at which authorisations for data access are determined are, in fact, appropriate to take the decision regarding whether the necessity and proportionality of individual requests are compliant with the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Data Protection Act. For example, should a team member of the Environment Agency have power to access forms of communication data or a service manager at a county or district council? Just as a matter of interest, will the noble and learned Lord tell me what a service manager is? Could it be the head of catering services of an LEA? Could it be the head of refuse collection at a district council? There is no qualification or definition of these posts.
The communications data order specifically extends the list of public authorities which will have access to data under RIPA. These bodies are, according to the Home Office, already accessing data using other statutory powers. This raises two questions for consideration: first, those using previous legislation are apparently accessing communications data under the definition of "information". There is some question as to whether the use of "information" in the 48 different Acts used to collect data would have been designed with communications data in mind.
The oldest Act on the list was enacted in 1930. There is no way that in 1930 Parliament could have envisaged the mobile phone and Internet system that we have now. Therefore, there is a very real question about whether the Home Office is exceeding its legislative
1538
authority in applying an information rather than a communications data test to assess which public authorities should be included in the RIPA regime.
There is no provision to rescind any of the existing orders under RIPA when it comes into force. How crazy—the whole rationale for introducing this system was to replace the old, disparate system.
I understand but do not accept that other powers are tied up in the old laws so that they cannot be rescinded. The Home Office has made it perfectly clear to public authorities and communications service providers alike that RIPA is the only scheme to be used. Whatever the Home Secretary may say, as long as the legacy powers remain on the statute book, the Home Secretary has no power to prevent them being exercised legitimately and legally. That situation is unacceptable.
I support each of the amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, my noble friend Lord Northesk, and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. They will speak in detail to their amendments, so I will be brief in my comments on them.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, is rightly concerned about the interaction and tension between the working of the RIPA scheme and other statutes, particularly focusing on personal privacy.
In his amendment, my noble friend Lord Northesk addresses a real anomaly. If the new RIPA system is designed to be inclusive and bring in all the disparate bodies under one regulatory umbrella, it makes no sense whatever to leave on the outside the Department for Work and Pensions or the Northern Ireland social security office. Even, as my noble friend will argue, notwithstanding the Social Security Fraud Act 2001, nothing that the Home Office has said convinces me about the rationale of that anomaly.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has raised an extremely important point—that a person could be adversely affected by the wilful and/or reckless abuse of the system. That issue requires remedy along the lines of the noble Lord's amendment.
The issue of oversight of the system is particularly crucial, and the Interception Commissioner has been particularly silent on his methods of oversight. That is yet another flaw to which the Home Office has admitted, arguing that it cannot pre-empt what the commissioner might want or need to fulfil his role with regards to RIPA. Yet we, in this House, are being asked to agree legislation without knowing what proper safeguards are in place.
Some of us heard at a gathering last week that there is little communication between the various commissioners who will have oversight of the RIPA scheme. Will the noble and learned Lord tell me what is being done to improve collaborative working between the different oversight bodies? I take it from what he has already said that there is an absolute commitment that the office of the Interception Commissioner and all oversight policing of the activities that we are discussing will be adequately funded to do a thoroughly effective job.
My amendments focus on the international dimension in the communications data order. This is a non-fatal amendment, as can be seen, exhorting the Government to consider an area linked to these issues, which I and various NGOs consider to have been sorely neglected. Much of the debate to date has focused on the necessary grounds listed under Section 22(2) of RIPA, under which data can be accessed, and the list of UK authorities which would be able to use RIPA to access communications data.
However, there are significant international dimensions to the policies, not least due to the disparity already mentioned between the ability to retain data for one purpose under the anti-terrorism order and the ability to access that data under RIPA for other purposes. The potential for overseas countries to access communications data via RIPA comes from both UK legislation and a range of international treaties. Part 1, chapter 1, Section 5 of RIPA allows, under a mutual assistance agreement, for the disclosure of interception and communications data, which may also be used for intelligence purposes.
I understand that under the EU Mutual Legal Assistance Convention, retained data will be shared across member states. That was decided originally on the grounds of international co-operation, since when there has been an EU/US international co-operation agreement, which allows for the sharing of communications data across the Atlantic. The recent Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime also allows for mutual law enforcement assistance between nations. So far, 37 countries have signed the treaty, including ex-communist countries. Countries such as Armenia, Greece, Lithuania, Turkey, Estonia and Croatia have signed it. So, a Greek police officer could gain access to my communications data for whatever purpose he or she thinks fit. What safeguards are there in the Greek system to ensure that their requests are necessary and proportionate? What are the oversight safeguards in Croatia?
What authority do our public authorities have to assess any requests that they might channel on behalf of a foreign country? How are those making the requests identified? It has been suggested that a private investigator from, say, France or Turkey could make a request. Surely, that could break the necessity and proportionality conditions that the Government are so keen to impose. Even more chilling, can we be guaranteed that countries such as Zimbabwe would be denied access to communications data when their protection schemes leave much to be desired?
To my mind, it would be an international breach of Article 8 of the ECHR in respect of all 56 million citizens in the United Kingdom, an opinion supported in recent months and years by various sources. Groups such as Privacy International and the Foundation for Information Policy Research argue that the minimal standard of evidence and authentication required for the transfers could create dangers for many people in the United Kingdom. The current conditions for sharing communications data are such that the
1540
transfer does not require the condition of dual criminality, and the grounds for the refusal to disclose are very limited.
Second to the USA, the UK is the most likely candidate to receive communications data requests from countries with which we have mutual legal assistance treaties. Therefore, the situation portrayed is one in which the current orders and the implementation of data retention would make communications data regarding UK citizens available to governments around the world, with little oversight or control. Data may be made available without regard to dual criminality, which may in turn be kept by foreign authorities as they see fit, and without guarantee that their data protection regime is sufficiently robust.
The Home Office has predicated the composition of the list of authorised bodies on equivalence between information and communications data. In pursuing that logically, any countries with which the UK has a tax treaty, in so far as those treaties contain information-gathering provisions, could have access to communications data about individuals within the UK. If the Minister argues that there is no difference between information and communications data, the Home Office cannot have it both ways. On one hand, it says that the reason why the legacy powers cannot be easily rescinded is because information-gathering involves more than merely access to communications data. However, the concern exists that some countries around the world could adopt the same logic and thereby gain access to communications data on any United Kingdom citizen.
I want to preface my comments on the data retention orders, for the avoidance of doubt and in order not to be misunderstood, by repeating that we agree with the need for a scheme that is properly regulated, as a tool against the fight against crime and terrorism. I also repeat that it should be introduced in a way to protect, that the legislation should be fit for purpose, and that safeguards protecting the British public should not be ignored. As the legislation stands, I am far from convinced that the Home Office has achieved that.
One can only say that the passage of the retention orders has been a chequered one. The code of practice order in particular has been chaotic. There is some doubt as to whether the order that has been published is consistent with the parent Act, Sections 102 and 103. Some of my colleagues believe that the code should have been laid before the order, but I leave that aside, as I do not believe it to be a very strong point to raise at this stage.
There has also been confusion about the availability of the code in the Printed Paper Office. We have been asking for it and were told that it was not there. Yesterday, it was there, and this morning we have been told that it has been there since 18th September. I simply say that that has caused very real confusion for those of us working on the orders.
The laying and relaying of the order has not helped. However—
12.15 p.m.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, given that the noble Baroness raised the question of the availability of the code, I should put it on record that the House authorities have made inquiries and are satisfied that the code was provided to the Printed Paper Office on 1lth September, and has been available ever since.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the information that we had this morning was that it had been available since 18th September, but that does not alter the fact that those of us who asked for it have not received it.
The most extraordinary point that I want to raise relates to a Written Question put down by my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, which was answered on 5th November, one week ago. The Question was as follows:
"Which orders give directions about retention of communications data under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001; and on what dates such orders were made [HL5107]".
The Answer given by the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, was:
"No orders giving such directions have been laid".—[Official Report, 5/11/03; col. WA 111]
That Answer came one week ago.
Even the Joint Committee on Human Rights, in its latest report, has argued that after a draft of the code has been laid and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament, the Secretary of State should bring the code into force by statutory instrument. As we all know, the code, unlike the order, is not subject to the parliamentary approval of both Houses.
Due to the emergency nature of the anti-terrorism Act itself, the parent Act, there has been insufficient discussion in both Houses. There was no discussion whatever in the House of Commons about the issue of retention. There was, fortunately, some discussion in this House, but there was not enough.
I turn, finally, to the orders dealing with retention. It would be wholly wrong to ratchet up the powers granted to law enforcement and government without ensuring that a correct balance is struck between those powers and individual rights. We have palpable concern that the proposals for data retention fail this test, as the Joint Committee on Human Rights said. It observed that it was not able to say that it was satisfied that the arrangements in the draft code would be proportionate to legitimate objectives. That should, and does, set alarm bells ringing as to whether it is right to pass these orders into law.
Contemplating the Retention of Communications Data (Extension of Initial Period) Order 2003, it is worth reminding ourselves of the thinking that underpinned the House's scrutiny of Part 11 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. The Government's proposals for data retention were deemed a legitimate and appropriate response to the emergency situation. However, and evidently this is acceded to by the Government, it was also added that,
1542
because of the threat to civil liberties and individual rights posed by the proposals, it was appropriate to make any mandatory scheme specifically subject to a sunset clause. In fact, the presumption at the time, and certainly the impression conveyed by Ministers, was that not only could a voluntary scheme be put in place relatively quickly, but also that there were no reasons to move a mandatory scheme.
During your Lordships' scrutiny of Part 11 of the Act, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, in particular sought to persuade the Government to recognise how muddled that approach was, not least because of the likely futility of a voluntary scheme and the absence of any proper linkage back to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, the Data Protection Act and the Human Rights Act—a matter with which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, will no doubt deal in speaking to his amendment. For whatever reason, those warnings went unheeded. It cannot be denied that there is a serious tension between the passage of these orders and other statutes.
We are now nearly two years on and, contrary to expectation, the Home Office has so far been unable to initiate the voluntary scheme. Indeed, far from showing any sense of urgency, it could be said that they have been somewhat lackadaisical in their efforts to implement one. In these circumstances, we feel that it is inappropriate that the will of Parliament as expressed in the sunset clause—and I repeat that the Government have also acceded to this point—should be subverted for the convenience of the Home Office, the more so because it has demonstrated such a casual attitude. At the heart of this is the sense that, if data retention is so important and so urgent, two years should have been more than enough time to implement a voluntary scheme in the first instance. In effect, by accepting this order, we are circumventing the very purpose for which this House put the sunset clause on the face of the legislation. That strikes me as ludicrous.
I turn to the Retention of Communications Data (Code of Practice) Order. I have already suggested that a voluntary scheme for data retention is doomed to failure. In fact, I suspect that the Government have come to the same conclusion—that was more than hinted at in our meetings with officials. Bluntly, it is unsettling to realise that in all sorts of ways, the Home Office is only going through the motions of attempting to establish the voluntary scheme because it is the only route to what, despite protestations and commitments to the contrary, it has decided it wants all along— namely, a mandatory scheme.
However, be that as it may, it is generally recognised that very few, if any, communications service providers will sign up to a voluntary scheme. The reasons are obvious. The proposals are fraught with legal uncertainty, a matter with which, as I say, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, will no doubt deal in due course. There are myriad issues here, including potential breaches of Article 8 of the ECHR and so on. However, I shall confine myself to what I understand to be the nub of the issue.

1543
Communications service providers will be legally required to retain data under the code of practice in breach of the provisions of the Data Protection Act. It is unreasonable to suppose that a CSP should be required to expose itself to that sort of liability. What flows naturally from that is that it is inconceivable that the voluntary scheme in the code of practice can be effective.
For avoidance of doubt, I repeat that we on these Benches are well seized of the significance and importance of data retention in the fight against crime and terrorism. We would welcome the opportunity to make common cause with the Government in implementing a scheme that is fit for the purpose and that strikes the right balance between the needs of the state and the rights of the citizen. Part 11 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act and these orders are not such a scheme. It is in the gift of the Government to introduce a new Bill in the next Session to deal with this matter properly and sensibly. We would welcome that and we would give it all possible co-operation. In such circumstances, I can offer the Minister a guarantee. If such a Bill were to come forward, we would work tirelessly with the Government to ensure its enactment at the earliest opportunity.
I have covered many issues of real concern. There will be more elaboration by other noble Lords during our debate. My plea is to invite the noble and learned Lord to accept that there is real desire on our part to arrive at an effective, deliverable scheme with proper safeguards for the British people. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the above Motion, to leave out all the words after "That" and insert "this House declines to approve the draft order laid before the House on 11th September".—(Baroness Blatch.)
Lord Richard: My Lords—
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Elton): My Lords, the original Question was that the draft order laid before the House on 1lth September be approved, since when an amendment has been moved, to leave out all the words after "That" and insert the words, "this House declines to approve the draft Order laid before the House on 11th September". The Question I now have to put is that this amendment be agreed to.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I was trying to ask the noble Baroness a question before she sat down. Perhaps I can at least metaphorically ask her a question before she sits down. I should start by apologising for having missed the first two or three minutes of her speech.
Do I take it from what the noble Baroness has said this morning that the Front Bench of the Official Opposition are moving a fatal Motion on a statutory instrument? She will know, as I do—I have good cause to know—that throughout the whole period when we were in opposition we did not move a fatal amendment. We certainly did not vote on a fatal amendment. Indeed, there was a practice, verging on a convention of this House, that statutory
1544
instruments were not voted on in a fatal way. The only example I can think of in recent years, I suppose, involved the Rhodesia order in the mid-1960s.
If the noble Baroness will be kind enough to address herself to that question, I would be greatly obliged. Is it now the policy of the Official Opposition to move fatal amendments to statutory instruments in this House?
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General a question on the intrusive surveillance order. Is there expected to be any provision by which the Northern Ireland Assembly will be able to monitor the activities of the Prison Service?
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendment in my name on the Order Paper.
There is no doubt that communications data can be of immense help in the fight against terrorism and crime. None of us would disagree with that. Moreover, I readily accept that law enforcement agencies believe delivery of powers to retain and access data to be a matter of urgency. Equally, I am entirely happy to state my support for the underlying principle of the RIPA orders; namely, that activity which has thus far been unregulated should be regulated under a single— I repeat, single—procedure. Notwithstanding my support for those general principles, the devil is in the detail, as usual. Happily, the eloquent contribution of my noble friend Lady Blatch has covered many of the points of concern. It would be invidious for me to repeat her arguments. I merely say for the record that I wholeheartedly support and endorse her comments. That said, there are a few additional points that I believe are relevant.
There is a perception that the subject matter of all five of these orders is the exclusive province of "anoraks", or "geeks" or "techies". It is true that it would be quite easy to fall into the trap of mouthing incomprehensible techno-babble in speaking to them. However, I shall try to avoid that. Rather I think it useful to attempt to measure them against a statement of general principle. One that I have in mind is the following:
"Any limitations on individual freedom must be proportionate to the threat; they must be sanctioned by law and cannot take place on an ad hoc basis; and they must be implemented in a way which ensures that there are safeguards and that the activities of the executive are subject to monitoring, scrutiny and accountability".— [Official Report, 26/3/03; col. 852.]
Those are fine words, but they are certainly not mine. They are those of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in March of this year in his then incarnation as a Home Office Minister. I think we can therefore safely assume that they are a fair representation of the Government's view.
Evidently these orders represent a "limitation on individual freedom". The Joint Committee on Human Rights has highlighted the fact that data retention and access raise,
"very important issues relating to the rights to respect for private life and for correspondence".

1545
That being so, I fear that, as a generality, the orders do not stand up to the general statement of principle of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I quote again from the Joint Committee's report on the data retention orders:
"It is [therefore] particularly important to establish the necessity for and proportionality of standard retention of all communications data. However, we have insufficient information which would enable us to satisfy ourselves that those requirements are met".
Evidently there is doubt that the Government's proposals for data retention are "proportionate to the threat".
It is appropriate here for me to turn to the amendment in my name on the Order Paper. It is, of course, the case that in respect of the RIPA orders the Home Office is seeking to establish a single procedure for regulation of surveillance activity that is ECHR compliant. As I say, I adjudge that to be both welcome and desirable. However, because it has separate legislative provision under the Social Security Fraud Act 2001, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Northern Ireland social security investigators, in so far as they need access to communications data in their investigations, have elected to exclude themselves from the regime. To my mind that is nonsense. Either we have a single procedure with all—I stress "all"— appropriate public authorities bound by it, or we do not. Leaving the Department for Work and Pensions outside the regime wholly undermines the premise upon which this Home Office policy is based.
There is the additional problem here already mentioned by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General and by my noble friend Lady Blatch. In determining which public authorities should be included on the face of the communications data order, the Home Office has assumed that there is equivalence between information and communications data. The justification for inclusion of the authorities listed is that they have all been granted "information gathering" powers in previous legislation. Yet, as my noble friend observed, there are no plans to repeal or rescind any of the "legacy legislation" powers because, so the Home Office argues, information is a different commodity from communications data. The simple fact that the Department for Work and Pensions is outside the RIPA regime and a host of unregulated information-gathering powers remain in statute—again outside the RIPA regime—cannot mean anything other than that an ad hoc approach is being adopted to the whole issue.
I need not dwell on the issue of whether adequate safeguards are in place to protect individual rights. The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, will no doubt cover that ground much more adequately and with far more expertise and eloquence than I. However, I would just make one small point. It is important to realise that, by definition and of necessity, data access under the existing communications data proposals would be to all intents and purposes covert in character. Data subjects, individual citizens, can have no way of knowing whether or not their data have been accessed or for what purpose. That must be wrong. As I understand it, knowledge of this by an individual is a specific right granted by
1546
provisions in the Data Protection Act. To this extent the safeguards for the individual citizen are less robust than they should be.
There are considerable problems too with "monitoring, scrutiny and accountability" of both the retention and access regimes. I acknowledge that this is probably not relevant per se to the orders. Nevertheless it is important to understand the context in which the respective regimes will operate. It has been estimated that the Office of the Interception Commissioner will have oversight of more than a million surveillance requests per year, although I suspect that the Home Office considers that that figure is rather overstated. Whatever the true figure, even when properly resourced, it is unlikely that the office will be able to examine more than a fraction of the total requests made. It should be noted too that the Information Commissioner has already reported "significant" and "unacceptably high" numbers of errors in RIPA Part 1, Chapter I interception warrants. The Home Office, and, indeed, the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, may wish to parade the success rate of the interception of communications and investigatory powers tribunals as testimony of the robustness of this element of the oversight regime. However, for the convenience of the noble and learned Lord I confirm that of the 470 cases considered by them between 1996 and 2003, none was adjudicated in favour of the complainant.
As Dr Chris Pounder has observed—in contrast to the Attorney-General's view—
"This 100% 'perfection', like 100% support for Saddam Hussein in the recent 'presidential election' in Iraq, is simply not credible".
From a broader perspective he adds:
"The oversight system is fragmented, overlaps and is riddled with competing bodies".
In effect there is a justifiable case for arguing that "monitoring, scrutiny and accountability" of the oversight regime is less than adequate.
I turn to a matter of which I have given the Government advance notice—the status of the orders in respect of the technical standards and regulations directives. I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, for the promptness of her written reply to me on that yesterday. None the less I think that it would be helpful if the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General could state the position for the record.
My antipathy towards data retention as encapsulated in Part 11 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act is well known. I stand by the remarks that I made at that Bill's Second Reading; namely, that the provisions fail four essential tests: those of effectiveness, necessity, proportionality and consequence. I need not rehearse those arguments here. They are a matter of record. Quite apart from that, as my noble friend Lady Blatch has already said, the implementation of the Government's voluntary scheme is an exercise in futility. It will be wholly ineffective if only because there is every prospect that very few, if any, CSPs will sign up to it. Nor should we lose sight of the fact that a form of data retention is

1547
already permitted under extant statute. As the Explanatory Notes to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill stated:
"Whilst the Regulations permit the retention of communications data on national security and crime prevention grounds there is currently no general guidance given as to when these might apply".
To my perception the Government could more usefully have turned their attention to determining appropriate general guidance for the exercise of those extant powers rather than getting bogged down by their ill fated attempts to make credible sense of Part 11 of the Act. I have pursued this issue on a number of occasions and have yet to receive an adequate reply. So, can the noble and learned Lord now confirm that powers for data retention already exist, irrespective of the status of Part 11? Can he also confirm that, in so far as such powers do exist, they were exercised in the wake of the September 11th atrocity? Can he shed some light on the period of time for which these powers were granted, indeed, whether or not even now they are still being actively exercised in the interests of national security and criminal investigation? Can he indicate whether the exercise of retention powers has led directly to any arrests?
I have a host of other issues and concerns—the blurring of the data categories on the face of RIPA, the single point of contact arrangements, the absence of appropriate sanctions against abuse of the access regime, and so on. However, time is short and in the circumstances I refer to them only in passing. In sum, I have deep misgivings as to the wisdom of enacting the communications data order and the two data retention orders irrespective of whether they are amended. I ask myself a simple question; should flawed law be entrenched?
12.45 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I should like to speak to the two amendments in my name to the communications data order and the code of practice order. I am very pleased that the Official Opposition, led by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, have supported the principles underlying my amendments.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, is not in his place when I say that my amendments are not fatal. I would not have dreamed of tabling fatal amendments unless the clock had stopped at 13 and we really were in George Orwell's world of Nineteen Eighty-Four. In those circumstances, I would have done, but I did not. My amendments are designed to send back the orders, to have them returned to us in a form that gives adequate respect to personal privacy.
It is very agreeable to be able to say that I am particularly glad that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General introduced the debate, not only because he and I are old and good friends, but because we were colleagues on the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I have no doubt about his personal commitment to human rights as Attorney-General, and it is very good that he should be dealing with the subject today.
1548
As a member of that committee, I pay tribute to its chair, the right honourable Jean Corston MP. Although she is also chair of the Parliamentary Labour Party, she and my colleagues have always performed their jobs on the committee with conspicuous independence. We do not play politics, as I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, who is a member of the committee, would confirm.
I said that the clock had not stopped at 13, as it did at the beginning of George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, but the debate raises very important issues about the right to personal privacy and the principles of legal certainty and proportionality to which the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General referred. No one other than him has yet said something that I recognise; namely, that such orders are necessary to meet one important principle of the convention, that of legal certainty. That is to say that there has to be lawful authority for the kind of invasions of personal privacy that would otherwise not be regulated by law. Therefore, if one is to have a regime of this sort at all, such orders are certainly necessary. As the noble and learned Lord recognises, that leaves over the key issues of proportionality.
The House has the benefit of two reports that had not been before the other place when it debated the matter. The first is that of the Joint Committee on Human Rights of 10th November, and the second is that of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments of 12th November, although the subject matter of that came earlier. When the matter was debated by the Third Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation on 4th November, it was made clear that several Members of the other place wished to have the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights before them before they approved the orders. However, they did not have that benefit.
That is why it is important in this House to give careful attention to what the Human Rights Committee said. Although reference has been made to part of the report, I would like to focus on the main issues, if I may without boring the House to death, so that the House fully understands the context. I was not present at the meeting that finalised the report on Monday, but I was present before that, and I respectfully agree with what my colleagues put in the report.
There are four main important issues. The first issue dealt with in the report was that:
"The communications providers which retain the communications data are nearly always likely to be private businesses rather than public officials. If they are not 'public authorities' for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998, they are not directly subject to the legal obligation imposed by section 6 of that Act to act compatibly with Convention rights".
The committee was concerned, because it is,
"unclear how the Draft Code would ensure that the state can discharge its obligations under ECHR Article 8 in relation to the retention and storage of the data".

1549
The second important issue is that:
"It is not clear how the Draft Code's standard periods of retention would meet the requirement of proportionality",
in accordance with Article 8. The third issue is that:
"The availability of the communications data to agencies for purposes other than the protection of national security would call in question the legitimacy of the aim for which the data are to be retained, the necessity for that retention and its proportionality, all of which are elements",
required by our convention rights.
The fourth and final issue is that:
"It is not clear how thoroughly the consultation exercise required by section 103 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was carried out and how far the frui:s of it have been taken into account in the Draft Code".
I shall go back to the first issue, which is about the fact that the communications providers are mainly private and not public, and therefore not subject to direct liability under the Human Rights Act.
We asked the Government,
"whether it considered that service providers holding information for the purposes of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 were to be regarded as functional public authorities for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998. The Home Secretary told us that the Government takes the view that the retention of communications data by communications providers is 'a private function that arises out of the commercial service that the communication services providers provide"'.
We pointed out that that had "the disadvantage"—it is a serious one—that,
"the communications providers are not public authorities for that purpose and are not bound by… section 6 of the Human Rights Act".
We then pointed out that that makes it absolutely vital to ensure that other safeguards can deal with the problem that the communications providers are not public authorities yet can exercise the powers given to them under the orders. That is a real problem that the House needs to consider.
The more substantial matter is that of:
"Across-the-board standard retention periods for communications data in various categories".
As the House will know, in:
"Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Draft Code … the Secretary of State considers it to be necessary for the purpose of national security for service providers to retain communications data for the periods set out in Appendix A to the Draft Code … This would not deal with the position under ECHR … and the Human Rights Act 1998. If a service provider is a functional public authority when retaining data for national security purposes, it would have to show both that the retention is necessary (… to a pressing social need) and proportionate … We therefore asked the Government why it considers that it would be proportionate to retain communications data by reference to across-the-board standard periods of time, without reference to the identity of the user of the service or the circumstances in which the communications took place".
We expressed the view that whether or not the service provider is a functional public authority, the state has an obligation under the convention to take positive steps to safeguard the service user's right to respect for private life and correspondence. I would be grateful if the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General would confirm that it is the Government's view that they do have a policy of obligation, under Articles 1 and 8 of the convention, in that respect.
1550
We also asked the Government whether, and if so why, they consider that a code that does not mention the requirement of proportionality would discharge the UK's international obligations. In paragraph 18 of our report, we give the Government's response. Although the following point has been partly quoted, I want to emphasise it because it illustrates the importance of our debate and the view taken by this House. We noted that the provisions had not been debated in another place at all and that after receiving evidence from the Home Office, we had not been able to establish for ourselves how pressing is the need or how often the police and the security and intelligence services find it necessary to make use of such data or are significantly hampered by their absence. We stated:
"Those matters seem to us to be relevant to the assessment, to be made by each House, of the necessity for the retention which would be sought by the Draft Code, and of the proportionality of the periods set for retention".
Having raised the issue clearly in our report, we hope that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General will give more than a blanket or general reply to our dilemma in paragraph 19 of the report. It is important that he satisfies the House on those matters.
We dealt thirdly with the equally important matter of the transfer of data from the terrorist context to other contexts, because of the interaction of the two statutes. We pointed out that the draft order would greatly extend the range of bodies by whom the data could be obtained and how they could be disclosed. The Home Secretary told us the Government do not intend to take any legal or technological measure to restrict the use of the data for national security purposes, because it is their view that if the data are available, they should be accessible to other public authorities for other purposes.
After considering the matter, we recognised that there may be cases not involving national security where it is necessary, as the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General has submitted, that there should be access to that data; for example, for the investigation of a murder. We pointed out in the report that,
"we do not consider the relationship between the powers under the two Acts is as straightforward as the Government suggests".
Your Lordships can read that in paragraph 24 of the report.
The report goes on to state:
"It seems to us that the main safeguard against abuse of the power to access for non-national-security purposes communications data retained under the 2001 Act is the fact that any access will have to be authorised or required by a designated person in a public authority empowered to access such data by the 2000 Act. The designated person will be a public authority, bound by the Human Rights Act 1998".
I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General was gratified to read that:
"On balance, we were prepared to accept the Government's view that, as a matter of policy, it should be possible to have access to any communications which are available and are relevant to a case if those conditions are satisfied on the facts of a particular case".
We came to the conclusion that the safeguards already mentioned, plus the availability of judicial review of a notice or authorisation and the need to

1551
comply with the data protection legislation, are capable of being proportionate. I would be grateful if the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General could tell the House exactly how the judicial review would provide an effective remedy in the sensitive context that we are discussing.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, the noble Lord quoted the conclusion from the Joint Committee's report. Would he agree that while it expressed the view that the safeguards are capable of being adequate, the conclusion of the committee was that, "on balance", it was "satisfied" that those safeguards,
"are likely to provide adequate safeguards for Convention rights"?
I am reading from paragraph 32 of the committee's conclusion. It is an important point.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I was reading from paragraph 25. In that paragraph, we reported in the way in which I have just described. In paragraph 32, we reported in the way in which the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General has quoted. I regard that as confirmation that, on balance, the requirement of proportionality would be satisfied, but perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General exactly how he believes that the availability of judicial review could provide an effective safeguard. That is obviously important to this House.
I shall not detain the House much further on consultation. I shall not repeat the views that were expressed so eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, but in paragraph 30 of the report, we made an observation on the parliamentary procedure and stated:
"The total sitting period allowed for consideration of these proposals… amounts to about five weeks. In our view, this is not sufficient in view of the importance of the measures, their potential to affect human rights, and the long period of gestation of the proposals since December 2001".
The Joint Select Committee on Statutory Instruments was also concerned about that. The Government are therefore confronted by two watchdog bodies, neither of which has been satisfied by the manner in which the consultation on matters of such great importance to the citizen has been handled. I would be grateful if the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General would express at least some regret on behalf of the Government at the way in which the matter has been handled. The other place has not been allowed to consider the proposals properly and it now requires us to do so in a hurry, not in terms of the length of the debate, but of the length of the consultation.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I want to speak to the amendment standing in my name, which would amend in a non-fatal way the orders before us; in particular, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Communications Data) Order 2003. We are not staging in any sense a contest about who has the best
1552
civil libertarian credentials. Our debate might well have taken place during the course of the RIPA legislation itself. However, as the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General has rightly said, and others have reflected, I not aware of any measure during my five years in this House where your Lordships' House has been so at sea for so much of the time. The issues with which we are contending are arcane, complicated and interlocking, and one of the dangers in such circumstances is that the politics of the issue does not reach the wider public. If ever a measure affected the wider public—not in thousands, but in millions, because the communications data of millions will be accessed under the order—this is it. However, as I have said, it is not a contest, but rather a challenge to try, even at the eleventh hour, to improve an order that everybody believes needs to be improved.
It would be cynical and irresponsible for us to pretend that we protect the citizen against abuse of his communications data while denying the selfsame citizen the information without which he cannot protect his personal data, because he will not know that an abuse and a breach has taken place. That is most vividly demonstrated by the whole tribunal mechanism to which the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General referred in his opening remarks. The tribunal exists to protect aggrieved citizens. Section 65(4) of the Act states:
"The Tribunal is the appropriate forum for any complaint if it is a complaint by a person who is aggrieved by any conduct falling within"—
and so forth. I suggest that it is a farce to have that section and the others alongside it if there is no means of the citizen knowing of the abuse. Judge Brandeis of the Supreme Court said:
"Experience should teach us to be most on guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent".
And that they are beneficent there is no doubt. We support the broad thrust of the legislation in the orders, but this is a challenge to our ability.
While thanking Home Office officials for the help they have tried to give to those of us who are bemused by these orders, I remind the House that the Home Office has form when it comes to legislation of this kind. Perhaps I may take noble Lords' minds back to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. In my view, and in the view of many Members of this House, it was not proper, correct or right that on the back of emergency anti-terrorism legislation the Government should sweep up many petty offences which had nothing whatever to do with terrorism—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
1 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, if there is a touch of extra caution, that must be excused. In any event, we must be jealous and vigilant when liberties are at stake, particularly when seeing the libertarian woods for the bureaucratic and state trees is hugely difficult, as it is here.

1553
Let me come to the point. What are the protections for a citizen whose communications data rights have been abused? First, the communications data definition in the RIPA is not at all clear. That is an impediment to the huge number of officials who under the order will have the right and duty to seek authorisation to tap into the communications data concerned.
Secondly, the Attorney-General repeats the mantra of proportionality. That is all very well because lawyers, particularly the able, senior lawyers such as himself and my noble friend Lord Lester, live by proportionality— they wake up breathing proportionality. However, the officials who will have to deal with this legislation are not chief constables and the like; they are middle-ranking civil servants. In the Charity Commission, their rank is PB5, if that means anything to your Lordships. That is a middle-ranking civil servant. It is totally excessive for the Government to place such huge reliance on this rubbery word that only expensive lawyers can understand—and even they cannot because they have to go to the House of Lords to have it decided.
Furthermore, the severe drawback in the regime on communications data compared with any other part of the RIPA is that there is no pre-event check on a decision made by a middle-ranking civil servant to seek authorisation. Under any other part of the Act, it is necessary to go to the Secretary of State for an interception warrant. That is a massive protection of the citizen because the Secretary of State will be extremely cautious and judicious in the way he exercises the power. Above all, if there is no second check, the matter is left solely in the hands of the official who is personally involved in wanting the information, and who may have an excessive zeal in relation to his actions. That is not good enough.
I have referred to the fact that without information, the tribunal protection which exists in the RIPA is useless. Furthermore, the Interceptions of Communications Commissioner has no duty to tell a citizen when his or her information has been purloined or otherwise abused. I am afraid to say that I take no solace from the point made by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General in his opening remarks that under Section 58(2)(a) he will be required to report to the Prime Minister. We achieved that change to the Bill. The duty report is in respect of contraventions of the provisions of the Act. That refers to the many criminal offences that are available as a protection for the citizen in all other parts of the Act except this. In Chapter 2 of Part 1 of the RIPA legislation there is no criminal offence. Therefore, I do not believe that there will be a duty to report to the Prime Minister because I do not believe that there will be contraventions within the technical meaning of that word.
Even if I am wrong on that, what solace to the citizen? The matter goes to the Prime Minister, but he has no duty to do anything in regard to it. There is a duty to report and the report is laid before Parliament. Jolly good, but there is no warrant in the legislation to name names in the report. The most recent report of
1554
the Interception of Communications Commissioner for 2002 is extraordinarily cautious in its detail. For example, at paragraph 34 he states:
"I can only provide the information on the total number of complaints made to the tribunal".
Nothing more. One assumes that the Interception Commissioner has a great body of people charging around the country seeing that nothing amiss is occurring. I have to tell the House that the staff available to the commissioner is not remotely sufficient to do that. At paragraph 7 of his recent report, he talks of his twice yearly visits to various bodies, which he names. He then states:
'"I then select, largely at random … a sample of warrants for close inspection".
Fair enough, but how big is the sample? And what about the majority—I suggest the vast majority—of matters which are not investigated at all? This is the only protection for the citizen against this massive extension of state surveillance. And it is a massive extension. We are not talking about 10,000, 20,000 or 50,000 because estimates from the industry are between 1 million and 1.5 million authorisations a year. I put it to the House that that is not good enough.
We then come to the question of whether the interception of communications data is important. There was a hint that it was pretty minor beer compared with interception, direct surveillance, covert human surveillance and so forth. I suppose in the sense that it does not go to the contents, that is a fair point. However, sometimes what is not said is more important than what is and often actions are more important than communications. Communications data include who, when, where and how any of us communicates at any time with any other person by any technological means. I am told by people in the industry that an extremely sensitive profile can be built up of any of us who uses any of those instruments frequently. There can be built up an extremely sensitive profile of our life patterns, our contacts, where we go and when we go—not why we go, but the "why" can be built up out of a great deal of data. The Rio Ferdinand case gave one a slight hint of the kind of thing that can occur.
Therefore, the reason for putting forward the amendment—I am grateful for the support of others who have spoken and I, in my turn, extend my support for their amending resolutions—is that there are simply not sufficient and adequate protections in place for the so-called "ordinary" citizen.
I extend to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General my deep sympathy for the fact that he is sitting where he is today. I would extend it to him even if he had had three years to prepare for the occasion. However, when he comes to respond, I should be grateful if he could say whether or not the Government would be minded to make a wilful or reckless abuse of the communications data chapter the subject of an offence. The same protection might be afforded as under the Data Protection Act, which, incidentally, provides all the protections that do not occur in relation to personal data. The protection would be that there would not be a

1555
prosecution without the consent of the Interception of Communications Commissioner or the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Blatch delivered what I can describe only as a devastating attack on the way that this whole matter has been handled by the Home Office. I have every sympathy with the plea that she has made for the Government to take away these orders and think again. We have heard other attacks. My noble friend Lord Northesk and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, have very much reinforced that case.
I ask only one question and, in a sense, I ask it of my noble friend Lady Blatch. I do so on behalf of the local authorities. I declare an interest in that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association and a joint president of the Association of London Government.
Local authorities make regular use of the powers to intercept—in particular, with the communications data and the directed surveillance and covert human intelligence sources—frequently to detect and so prosecute serious fraud, which they are under a duty to do in order to protect local communities and local families. However, if the orders are now withdrawn, as has been sought, or if they are voted down—the noble Lord, Lord Richard, made the point that this is a somewhat unusual procedure—will local authorities continue to have the powers which they currently use?
Can I also be assured that there would be no lacuna between the powers being defeated today and the point at which the orders are brought back in a more acceptable form? Local authorities would be devastated if they found that suddenly their powers to detect rogue traders were stopped. Glass fitters have been mentioned. There is another case of an electricity fitter who left equipment in a thoroughly dangerous state. The only way that local authorities can get such people is through the use of telephone and other information. I hope that I can be given that assurance.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords,—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I respond to my noble friend, given that he directed the question to me. In the meetings that we have had, I have received reassurance on two points. One is that the RIPA scheme is doing no more than bringing under a single umbrella and a single regulatory framework all the organisations which currently have powers to seek and access information. It is absolutely true that no single power to access information is being rescinded as a result of the orders, and we believe that that is a problem. It means that the orders under which local authorities presently operate will continue and that there is respite time for the Government to take away the orders and bring them back in good order. However, in the mean time, having spoken to Home Office officials, my
1556
understanding is that local authorities will be able to continue to pursue crime and disorder in their localities.
1.15 p.m.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness is correct. I declare the interest that she has already declared to the House—that is, I am a Surveillance Commissioner. I operate under Part 2 of RIPA and I have visited a very large number of local authorities under the aegis of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. I am sure that they will be able to continue to act in the way described, whether or not the orders are made. However, I wish to put in a word for the RIPA orders to be endorsed by this House. I shall do so very briefly, otherwise we shall never finish in time for the Law Lords.
The first one brings the intrusive surveillance procedures and safeguards in Northern Ireland prisons on to the same basis as prisons in England, Wales and Scotland. At present, there is no system to deal with that. I have talked to the Prison Service in Northern Ireland, which would benefit from having this power, and I am sure that the prisoners would benefit from the supervision that they would receive under that order.
So far as concerns the communications data order, there is, indeed, great confusion, particularly among local authorities and, I believe, other public bodies as well. Until Chapter 2 of Part 1 is brought into force, there is a very haphazard system whereby they can find out the type of information about which the noble Lord has just spoken. They need it to enforce their duties and the powers that they have under other legislation. Therefore, it would be very convenient for them, although perhaps not essential, that this order should be made.
I believe that the third order should be approved. It brings up to date Statutory Instrument 2417, which is now hopelessly out of date. It includes a whole collection of public authorities which no longer exist but it does not include many public authorities that do exist. The whole system of authorising officers needed to be reviewed, and a fourth column has now been included in the schedule, which describes under which category of necessity each public authority can operate. All those issues will make for greater clarity, will bring the measure up to date and will make it far easier to carry out the duties that the Office of Surveillance Commissioners must carry out under Part 2. It would be the greatest possible pity if the order were to fail.
I do not want to say very much about the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act matters because they are not in the least within my jurisdiction or much within my knowledge. However, I believe that two things could be said. Earlier, a noble Lord said that there are a large number of commissioners and other bodies that supervise this whole matter. So there are, and one will now be the Information Commissioner under the orders and procedures that occur in Part 11 of the 2001 Act.

1557
I want to ask the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General a question. There is now a directive—2002/58/ EC—which pulls together this whole matter. Having read it, it seems to me to provide a very sensible regime— probably rather better than cobbling together Part 11 of the 2001 Act with the Data Protection Act, which, although it bears some resemblance to the ECHR regime, certainly preceded it and is not entirely in tune with it. When will the directive be implemented? It would take the place of both these matters; it is entirely up to date; and it should have been introduced in this country by 31st October last. Perhaps that would be a good opportunity to reconsider this issue and pull together all the threads.
Lord Cobbold: My Lords, briefly, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. My personal concern is that there are still inadequate safeguards for the individual citizen against the possibility that those gathering permitted information may accidentally or deliberately come across data of a personal or market-sensitive nature which they can obviously exploit.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I want to make one or two comments on the commercial side of this subject. I shall not take very long because I agree with, and shall heartily support, everything that has been said so far.
In principle, like everyone else I thought that the concept of RIPA was good as it would bring everything together. Then I suddenly remembered the old saying: "Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean to say they're not out to get you". So, what is the fear?
My remarks will address the second order, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Communications Data) Order 2003. As the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, so accurately said, the terms of the order enable a picture to be built up of a person's life. The definition of data which fall within Section 24(4)(a)(b) will determine the information district authorities and people working at fairly low levels can obtain to build up a picture of someone's life. Some of that could be commercially sensitive, and on this point I agree with my noble friend Lord Cobbold.
Unscrupulous people could build up a picture of someone's life. For example, a person trying to "chase up" a divorce case, who knew someone at the right level in the local authority, could, if the right data were released, obtain a picture of when and where someone was at a particular time and with who they communicated. As has been mentioned, from the point of view of foreign agencies and commercial intelligence, it could be useful to know who senior executives are talking to in other companies, particularly if one were bidding for large contracts. One would be able to build up a picture of what was going on. I do not think people realise how much intelligence information is gathered from analysing publicly available data. The order would
1558
make a lot of data more or less publicly available, particularly if one was abroad because of the lower level of scrutiny. Assurances on that point would be useful.
The key words here are "strictly regulated", on which I agree with the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General. The problem is the word 'strictly". I am concerned about self-authorisation—authorities will authorise themselves to proceed with inquiries— and the word "proportionate". Thousands of people will be involved. The police, four other bodies and intelligence services will be authorised under RIPA. This will add another 28 bodies or types of body to that. Will the people who are trained to carry out such authorisations understand the word "proportionate" and what that is to mean?
I am told that there will be checks from around eight oversight bodies. However, according to Home Office figures, we are talking of half a million general requests per year. That is some 2,500 inquiries per working day. Not many of those will be got through and checked by just four people. I do not know what the resources are, but that needs to be considered.
There is no requirement in the code of practice to report to the oversight bodies what one is up to; they will have to come in and investigate. The other point is that you do not know what it is that you do not know. Will you catch in your trawl what is going on?
One of the interesting points made is that if we do not pass the order it will cause a lot of trouble but that it does not really matter because the police carry out 85 to 90 per cent of the requests. I find that interesting. If only 10 per cent of requests are to come from all the other bodies, why are they not channelled through the police, who would do a brilliant job of ensuring that other authorities are not abusing their power? Police services would have to be increased slightly to do that, but it would be a wonderful check. I would prefer checks to be done by the police than by an outside body. The other threat is that we should have to proceed under the existing powers of PACE: and so forth, and for authorisations to be carried out by circuit judges. That would be wonderful as there would be yet more checks. We are removing the checks and balances, which concerns me.
We are talking about people trying to investigate information on other people—communications data are a subdivision of that. This is where I find real difficulty with the comments of the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General. On the one hand he says that we need RIPA in order to be compliant with the ECHR. Part of the ECHR concerns the right to a personal and private life. Therefore, paper files are equally relevant to the ECHR. Either these powers are ECHR compliant, in which case RIPA is not so urgent, or they are not, in which case they have to be repealed and come under RIPA, and requests for all information on a person must be regulated by RIPA.
Equally, if it is so important to bring all of this under one umbrella—I echo the noble Earl, Lord Northesk— so that the communication service providers (CSPs)

1559
know what they are doing and there is one single training process, why are we excluding the Department for Work and Pensions? Unfortunately, we did not realise the implications when this was slipped through. Therefore, it is no good saying that Parliament approved this. Parliament did not understand the implications at the time. A small Bill to remove those powers and bring them under RIPA is essential.
I have two final points. First, I do not know whether people realise but there are 500 to 600 small internet service providers (ISPs) employing five or fewer people. As these 2,500 inquiries go out, some of them will have to trawl for data and will have a serious problem responding to requests. I am not sure how they will handle that without going bankrupt.
Secondly, paragraph 32 of the code of practice states:
"Once the individual communication service provider has the technical capacity to retain data for the extended time periods-then the communication service provider shall inform existing and new customers that the purpose for retention and the periods of retention have been varied to meet with the needs of the Act".
There are no powers to do anything about that; they cannot reject it. Yet that means that everyone with a mobile telephone, an e-mail address and a landline telephone will have to be mailed or informed somehow by their CSP that information has been retained. There is nothing they can do about it anyway. What a waste of money. Of course, I may be wrong.
I do not understand the undue haste. Protections are in place. Interestingly, I learnt that at present, CSPs vet applications. Some are referred to the information commissioner under the Data Protection Act and some are turned down. So, we are not unprotected at present. Measures are in place. I believe that this is a better way to proceed and that this is the way forward for the future but we must get it right. I shall vote to approve the first order. I shall vote in favour of all the non-fatal amendments. I shall not vote for the fatal amendments, with the exception that I shall think about data retention.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, by the leave of the House I shall seek to respond briefly to the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, as it affects the Department for Work and Pensions. This was picked up by the noble Baroness and referred to as a major anomaly. That is why I intrude on your Lordships' time.
There has been no challenge that DWP needs the powers it has. I bridle a little at the assumption that your Lordships did not scrutinise the Bill. I remember vividly the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, pressing me on credit agencies, fishing trips and the like. But it was a Bill which passed through this House without Division.
No one denies that the powers that the DWP has are ECHR-compliant. No one would deny that fraud is a major concern of the department and of your Lordships costing perhaps £2 billion or very much
1560
more per year. Each year we initiate around 330,000 to 340,000 inquiries and take around 9,000 to prosecution. Therefore, given that communications information is vital to us, why are we not happy to accept the amendment standing in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Northesk?
The noble Earl raises three basic issues concerning RIPA: first, the issue of transparency and accountability, which was the particular concern of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips; secondly, cost; and, thirdly, effectiveness. As regards transparency and accountability, I am perfectly happy on behalf of my department to take away some of the concerns to see whether in the annual report to Parliament and the like we could increase the transparency of our procedures. That would be entirely proper. If I can meet the concerns of the House in that way I am very happy to do so and would do so in good faith.
However, I wish to explore briefly two other options. The first is that of cost. Ever since the foundation of the Department of Social Security in 1948, on behalf of taxpayers and to protect taxpayers, it has requested information as of right from employers for National Insurance purposes and from landlords for housing benefit and the like. If within RIPA we were required to pay, as we would be, for telecommunications details and then were not able to refuse similar requests from banks, building societies and other agencies which give us information about health, income, capital, identity, address and family circumstances—all of the bread-and-butter data of the department which piggybacks on other sources of information for the benefit of the taxpayer—we would face multi-million-pound bills in order to pay for what we currently get with consent in the public interest. So I urge the House not to go down that path.
The third consideration—to my mind the most important—is the consideration of effectiveness. As I say, we lose something like £2 billion—perhaps £4 billion—per year in fraud. We need this information. Since the enactment of the Social Security Fraud Act 2001 we have had an integrated, robust and effective structure for pursuing fraud. Let me give one example. Operation Utah was an investigation in which four defendants pleaded guilty to 25 charges of benefit fraud of a total overpayment of nearly a quarter of a million pounds. The Act was used for 42 credit references, 25 bank checks, eight credit finance checks and one telephone subscriber check.
Is the House really asking us to pay for each and every one of those checks? If so, does it then become financially worthwhile pursuing fraud, in particular low-level fraud? Is the House asking our staff— recently trained—to seek two sets of authorisation where now they operate within—thanks to the Act— an integrated and robust structure?
Let me explain to your Lordships what would happen if the House took the amendment on board. We would have to return to Parliament to change the legislative framework of the Social Security Fraud Act, within which we operate. We would probably have to change and amend the statutory code of

1561
guidance, which was the result of extensive consultation and laid before Parliament. On the ground we would require more senior staff and our recent training of staff would be wasted. We would have to retrain and restructure our existing fraud teams. Essentially, we would have to run two parallel routes to seek authorisation for data requests instead of, as now, one integrated coherent structure.
In other words, to bring telecommunications used by the department into RIPA, we would have to fragment our integrated coherent structure, which allowed us to be so effective with Operation Utah. As a result I suspect—I have checked this information this morning—we would disrupt the use of our fraud powers for anything up to three months.
1.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. She has made coming under the RIPA regulatory framework sound extremely laborious, very time-consuming, extremely expensive in staffing and very expensive in terms of paying the providers. Do not these arguments apply to all other bodies which operate under different statutes? All the arguments put to us about coming under the regulatory framework indicate that it will not make any difference to these bodies, and that the position will not be as the noble Baroness has just described. It seems extraordinary that it should apply only to DWP and not to any other body.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that is precisely why, as I was trying to say, our legislation was introduced in 2001; it is ECHR-compliant; and it builds on existing practices of obtaining the information which protects all our interests at no public expense. The noble Baroness may not like the information I am giving. It is information from my department about the implications on the ground of the cost, the laboriousness, the expense to staff training and our effectiveness. I know that the noble Baroness will not feel comfortable with any—
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, is not this a very good argument for using the DWP model for the code of practice under RIPA, to bring everything into the DWP-type framework, and call that RIPA? Then everything is under a united umbrella. I have been told that the DWP has better procedures for checking the identity of a person making a request than those under the code of practice proposed under RIPA. So I am not against it at all.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, as I understand the position, one of the powers under RIPA is to require payment for all requests for such information. I spent some time trying to explain that since 1948 we have not, for the most part, paid for such information, whether to employers for information about national insurance and earnings, to landlords
1562
for information about housing benefit or to banks and building societies and so on. That was thoroughly discussed in your Lordships' House. It was recognised that, in pursuing the protection of taxpayers' financial interests, we all had a public policy duty to persist in allowing the department to acquire the information it needs. To do as the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. suggests would add to public cost, add to delay, add to complexity and would actually reduce the capacity of the department to be effective on the ground.
The noble Earl's amendment would be wholly negative and disrupt the Department for Work and Pensions' capacity to pursue and eradicate fraud. We have a good coherent, integrated and robust structure in place. To disrupt it now would be to undermine the very thing that this House has called for on several occasions, which is the effective and proper pursuit of fraud at the taxpayers' expense.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, perhaps I may clarify one point with the noble Baroness. The purpose underpinning my amendment is to make sure that, where the DWP has a need for access to communications data, communications data alone are brought within the RIPA regime. That is the logic of it. The rest of the DWP's investigatory activity would not be in any way affected. So I do not see how the nightmare scenario painted by the noble Baroness can be generated.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I tried to give the answer in the example called Operation Utah. I could have given any other example. Our staff have a single route to acquire a range of data which include bank credit references, credit checks, information from building societies, information about utility bills to get people's addresses and so on. What the noble Earl's proposal—
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, they are not covered by RIPA. That is the point.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, as I understand the position, RIPA would require us to seek to establish separate routes of authorisation and payment for the information we seek. Both would be severely disruptive and entirely negative for the department.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the debate on the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, be adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 1.37 to 2 p.m. for Judicial Business and to 3 p.m. for Public Business.]

Iraq: Increased Aid
Baroness Northover Baroness Northover asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the increase in aid to Iraq is at the expense of aid to other parts of the world.
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, the Government are committed to spending 90 per cent of Department for International Development country programmes in low-income countries by 2005–06. That, together with contributing to the cost of recovery in Iraq, is leading to some reductions in aid to other middle-income countries in future years.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that precise reply. On Monday, she told me that I had misunderstood the matter. I remind her that DfID stated to the International Development Select Committee—
Noble Lords: Question!
Baroness Northover: My Lords, does the noble Baroness recall that DfID stated that it would clearly be wrong to consider withdrawing DfID funding from development efforts elsewhere in the world; that she said a week later that money for Iraq would come from DfID's reserves; and that the Prime Minister wrote to a director of Christian Aid on 25th April stating:
"Funds will not be redirected to Iraq from programmes supporting poor people elsewhere"?
Is that not clear?
As the security situation in Iraq worsens—
Noble Lords: Order!
Baroness Northover: My Lords, you do not want to hear it, do you? What assurance can the noble Baroness give the House that the poorest people elsewhere in the world will not be affected by this situation?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I shall repeat what I said on Monday. We are currently spending 78 per cent of our bilateral funding on the poorest countries in the world. We have a target to increase that to 90 per cent of our bilateral funding by 2005–06. That commitment remains. In addition, we shall be spending £1 billion in Africa by 2005–06. That commitment remains.
Again, as I said on Monday, we are considering our spending in middle-income countries. Iraq is a special case as a post-conflict country. That is the basis on which the World Bank will make a special case of Iraq for the next two years.
So our spending in middle-income countries for the current financial year will be sustained, but the ongoing reprioritisation—it is ongoing because we are moving from 78 per cent to 90 per cent—will continue. We will have to advance the closure of some programmes in middle-income countries to fund our
1564
programmes in Iraq as a special post-conflict country. That will not affect our commitment to the poorest countries in the world.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, in the light of the decision of the Red Cross and other charities to close their offices in Baghdad and Basra, what discussions have the Government had with non-governmental organisations about the reallocation of funding?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we have had ongoing discussion with NGOs, especially about security issues in Iraq. In fact, we have told NGOs that we will help to fund some security measures that they need to put in place, and which can be expensive, to enable them to continue to work in Iraq. Several NGOs have expressed concern about our long-term programme in middle-income countries more generally, but that would have been the case regardless of the situation in Iraq.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that the best way to ensure effective aid in Iraq would be if all our allies, especially some other countries in the European Union, would accept all the obligations of the most recent Security Council resolution, which calls on them to provide all sorts of assistance to create the security environment in which that aid can be properly dispersed?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. The UN Security Council resolution put in place a framework that would enable other countries to engage more effectively with that agenda. We will continue to work with our partners to ensure that they can contribute to the longer-term future of Iraq.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, is there any truth in the reports that the Government are going to cut back the extremely important funding that they provide in support of the G7 pilot programme for the conservation of Brazilian rainforests? If so, why?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, that is not correct. A number of projects were agreed. They are all approaching the end of their funding period. Only one of them will undergo review because it has come to the end of its funding period, but it will continue. I will be happy to write to the noble Lord with details.
Lord Renton: My Lords, in order to restore prosperity in Iraq, should not the priority be the restoration of the oilfields, which in the past have brought a good income to Iraq?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. We need to ensure that Iraq's own resources, which will be fundamental for the longer-term development effort, are restored. Noble Lords will know that the current security situation and the

1565
ongoing programme of sabotage is the result of a deliberate effort to ensure that Iraqi resources cannot be used in that way.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, as the noble Baroness mentioned middle-income countries, what does she expect to be the effect of the money spent in Iraq on our aid to Latin America by 2005–06? In particular, Brazil has been mentioned as a middle-income country. Is she aware that some of the poorest people in the world are in middle-income countries such as Brazil?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, of course I am aware that there are poor people in many middle-income countries, but this country's strategy for our development effort has been clear. It was set out in our White Paper in 1997, when we stated that our core commitment was to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. The continent in the world in which we are least likely to achieve the Millennium Development Goals is sub-Saharan Africa. That is why our focus on increasing our spending in sub-Saharan Africa to £1 billion by 2005–06 remains.
It is important for noble Lords to remember that all our spending does not go through the bilateral route; 40 per cent of our expenditure goes through multilateral channels. As for Latin America, in 2001, our share of European Commission spending in Latin America was about £21 million. That level of spending will continue. The total for all multilaterals, including the Commission, was £49 million.

Rural Delivery Review
3.8 p.m.
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they will take in response to the Lord Haskins' rural delivery review.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the report of my noble friend Lord Haskins was published on Tuesday. It recommended significant and wide-ranging changes to modernise the way in which government delivers rural policy. The Secretary of State's Statement in the House of Commons set out the Government's initial response. Her first priorities are immediately to review rural funding schemes and to set up an integrated agency to conserve and improve the natural environment. The Government will publish a practical implementation plan in the spring.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, what is the Minister's response to the remarks yesterday of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, at the crops conference at which I spoke? He said:
"Defra will fall flat on its face when it tries to cope with CAP reform if it does not respond"—
1566
that is, to his report. Secondly, the Minister said that the department will have a review and will be modernised, but that will not happen until next year. What urgent action will the Government take to address the description of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, of Defra's current structure as,
"a dog's dinner of the highest order"?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we asked the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, to look at the delivery of the policy and the mechanisms for delivery. Defra's inherited structure, particularly from MAFF, has long been recognised as in need of serious reform. But we should also look at each of the agencies and NDPBs involved in delivery and, as the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, said, bring delivery further down the line so that the regions and, to some extent, local authorities bring the action closer to rural businesses and farmers. That will take time, but we need to do it in parallel with the delivery of the change in the common agricultural policy, whose implementation starts at the beginning of 2005. We intend to clarify by then the proposed structure and to deliver the outcome of CAP reform in that way.
Earl Peel: My Lords, does the Minister not agree with me that, if the Government are to remain consistent with their previous responses to other reports produced by the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, they have only option: to disregard completely this new tome from the noble Lord?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not clear what report the noble Earl attempts to draw to our attention. We have had very effective reports from my noble friend Lord Haskins, particularly on recovery from foot and mouth disease, much of which was implemented and has guided government policy. That will also be the case with this report. We accept the broad principles of the report. We will need to sort out some details. But the most important thing is to find the best means of delivery for the best policy. Those two aspects need to be taken in parallel.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, although there are convincing arguments in the report about the devolution of the delivery of many rural services to a more local level, can the Minister assure us that there will be proper parliamentary debate before any firm changes are established? Is he aware of the strong need to maintain the autonomy and the expertise of English Nature, and to give a great deal of training to RDAs if they are to take over, with their present strong urban bias, the delivery of rural services?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, devolution of responsibility will need to be accompanied by an assurance that we have the correct staff in place with the correct orientation, towards rural business in particular. On English Nature, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State made clear that we will continue to rely heavily on independent advice from the new agency proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Haskins. General parliamentary debate is not a matter for me.

1567
However, if we are to change the status of English Nature and other agencies, there will be legislative implications, which, I am sure, will receive thorough consideration by this House.
Lord Carter: My Lords, there is an overdue need for the rationalisation of the plethora of local schemes and initiatives in the countryside. However, if responsibility for delivery is transferred from the centre to local authorities and the RDAs, will they have the necessary expertise? The existing agencies have that expertise at ground level. Can we ensure that it will survive after the changes are implemented?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there is substantial expertise at the centre, both in the department and the agencies. The noble Lord, Lord Haskins, proposed that we bring those together and move them closer to where rural businesses operate and farming is carried out, so many of the same people will be involved and undoubtedly that expertise will be retained.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, there is no doubt that local authorities, as democratically elected bodies, are in a very good position to receive information from communities and to deliver services. However, can the Minister assure me that in this case the Government will not do their usual trick of asking local authorities to deliver an awful lot more with no extra money?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that is not a correct description of providing greater powers to local authorities to deliver closer to where enterprises operate. If significant responsibilities for delivering schemes are devolved to local authorities, or indeed to RDAs, we will ensure that the resources go with them.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, what role will broadband play in delivering his department's services to small businesses, post offices, farmers and schools? I have read the report— cursorily, only twice—and can see no reference to easy broadband access for any of the units that would require its services.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is to be hoped that discussions on the changes to the CAP, for example, can be delivered via broadband to the central systems. We therefore need to provide farmers with the means to deal with detailed information, such as mapping, that can be delivered only through broadband. My colleagues in the DTI have committed themselves to ensuring that we get broadband to rural areas so that farmers and other rural businesses can take advantage of it.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, to what knowledge was the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, privy that was not available to Ministers when they created that dog's dinner, Defra?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, in the creation of government departments, we
1568
are often required to accept an inheritance that has had its own ethos and status for many years. Under all governments MAFF had operated in a certain way. There may have been an era when that was the appropriate way, but it was more akin to a Stalinist production ministry than to a department trying to engage the enterprise and creativity of our agricultural sector to meet the economic and environmental needs of the modern age. We had to live with that and to change it; we need to change it further. The insights of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, have been very helpful in pointing the way.

Yoghurt
3.16 p.m.
Lord Monro of Langholm Lord Monro of Langholm asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there are any plans by the European Union to ban the use of the descriptive term "yoghurt" as used in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): My Lords, the European Commission issued a consultation document in October covering the composition and labelling of yoghurt and yoghurt-like products. The Food Standards Agency is consulting interested parties on the document and will seek to ensure that the interests of UK consumers are fully taken into account.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. However, how come all the information in press reports suggests that yoghurt must now be labelled as "fermented milk pudding", which would be a disaster for the British dairy industry? I hope that the Government can squash that rumour forthwith.
Does the Minister agree that the farming industry is going through very difficult times? It still awaits good leadership on the common agricultural policy and how the grants system will work. The National Farmers' Union has not been consulted in enough detail on the host of orders coming out of Brussels. Farmers are finding the provisions difficult, expensive and time-consuming to implement. It is time that the Government began to help agriculture instead of sitting on top of it.
Lord Warner: My Lords, as I recall, the question was about yoghurt, which is what I proposed to respond to. The noble Lord may be aware that most of the yoghurt that we eat in this country is mild, using lactobacilli species other than the real McCoy, which is lactobacillus delbrueckii sub-species bulgaricus. Other countries who eat the real McCoy are very concerned

1569
that there should be no misleading labelling. Those countries are as entitled as this one to have their views considered by the Commission.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, can the Minister assure us that those plans will be reconsidered when, and if, Turkey joins the European Union?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I have no idea how long the consultation process on the Commission's document will take.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if the word "yoghurt" is a misleading description, does the noble Lord not agree that "fermented milk pudding" is even worse and more misleading?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I have no idea whether we are going along the path of "fermented milk pudding", but I see nothing in this document to suggest that we are.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is an important scientific point that live yoghurt has been demonstrated to have pro-biotic qualities and is important in the treatment of conditions such as candidiasis? It is therefore important that consumers have full knowledge and choice. Does he agree that if we do not go down that route it will not be long before we have on our supermarket shelves small pots labelled "I can't believe it's not milk"?
Lord Warner: My Lords, the noble: Baroness is exactly right. This issue is about the public not being misled by the labels on particular products. It is important that the public understand what they are eating.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, will not the Minister fight the corner of British producers to keep the name "yoghurt", which we all understand? Why have milk and milk chocolate been allowed to keep their names when people on the Continent view those products in a different light? Surely, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Lord Warner: My Lords, noble Lords on the Benches opposite seem to get rather excited when any document emanates from the Commission. There is no plan to drop the word "yoghurt". We are considering only whether there are problems with products being properly labelled. I am confident that the term "yoghurt" will survive whatever the outcome of the consultation. The question is whether any qualifying words should be added to make it clear to the public what is in the container.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the general public think that yoghurt is a healthy product? In view of the fact that one in three adults and one in four children are either overweight or obese, it is probably regarded as a good thing to eat yoghurt. However, there is a problem if it is labelled as
1570
fermented milk pudding because, by its nature, "pudding" means something that is fattening and not very good. The Government should resist any attempt, even if it does not come about, to ensure that we can still have our yoghurt.
Lord Warner: My Lords, the Government's policy is that people should pursue a healthy balanced diet— children included. I do not know where this argument about fermented milk pudding comes from. It is not part of the consultation in which the Food Standards Agency is involved.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, is the Minister aware that behind these problems is a serious issue. I was with a manufacturer of healthy bacilli yesterday. It is a growing UK industry and also has great benefits in animal husbandry. The manufacturer said that it is now quite impossible to trade with Europe because the degree of regulation and complication has made it impossible to carry on any active trade in that area at all.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I fundamentally disagree. This exercise it is about ensuring that consumers throughout Europe do not have misleading labels on their products.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the Minister has said that he does not know where the term fermented milk pudding comes from. I flew back on a British Airways flight from Lyons on Monday and at lunchtime I was served exactly that—fermented milk pudding. It splattered all over me, which tends to happen on planes because of pressurisation.
Lord Warner: My Lords, the fermented milk pudding eaters of this world should have their product properly labelled in the same way as consumers of yoghurt.

Judicial Independence
3.24 p.m.
Lord Dholakia Lord Dholakia asked Her Majesty's Government:
In the light of recent comments made by the Lord Chief Justice, what discussions are taking place with him to ensure that the independence of the judiciary is not compromised.
The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I have had several constructive meetings with the Lord Chief Justice about the constitutional reforms I announced to this House on 14th July. I expect to have further discussions. Protecting judicial independence is fundamental and was one of the principal reasons why the reforms were introduced. I am committed to ensuring that such independence is maintained and strengthened.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that Answer. However, despite all the assurances given to the your Lordships' House, it is clear from the comments of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice only last Friday that judicial independence is at risk from the Government's constitutional reforms. The Judges' Council report states that the reforms that are proposed,
"would enable a future government to create a judiciary that was committed to its own political agenda by selecting criteria that would result in the appointment of judges sympathetic to its policies".
Does the noble and learned Lord accept that judicial independence is at the heart of our democratic process? What action does he propose to take to ensure that the appointment and functions of the judiciary are not tampered with?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I entirely accept that judicial independence is at the heart of our constitution and our democratic process. I would also entirely accept that the judges, the Government and I are at one in ensuring that that independence is preserved under the changes that we introduce. One way in which we seek to embed and strengthen judicial independence is by taking the ability to appoint judges from the hand of a government Minister and placing it much more firmly in the hands of an independent appointments commission. We must discuss the matter in detail with the judges to ensure that we get the detail right.
Lord Sheldon: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that the law of unintended consequences can have powerful results in a country without a written constitution? What we do have is a tradition that has given the judiciary the independence that has been entrenched in that particular tradition. Will my noble and learned friend acknowledge that the role of Lord Chancellor has provided the high position and special standing as the head of the judiciary from which we have all benefited? Is he absolutely certain that, before tinkering with one of the foundations of our liberties, he will be able fully to justify these changes?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as we have made clear at every stage, the preservation and strengthening of the independence of the judiciary is what we seek to achieve. As I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, it is a fundamental part of our constitution. That is why the detail matters and that is why we have adopted our approach. As somebody said this morning, imagine if we had said to Parliament or the judges, "How about having a Cabinet Minister appoint the judges, discipline a large number of them and decide where individual judges sit?". We do not believe that that is a sensible basis on which to continue. The independence of the judiciary is embedded in our constitution. We will ensure that that is reflected in the statute that we introduce.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord explain why the Sentencing Guidelines Council set up by the Criminal Justice Bill was pre-empted by the Home Secretary producing Schedule 19, which ups by 50 per cent the sentence previously approved by the Lord Chief Justice himself and the Lord Chancellor? In the words of the Lord Chief Justice in his memorandum deposited in the Library, that has made it quite impossible to accommodate those who, as a result of that upping by 50 per cent—without any consultation—will over-fill the prisons and, as a result, it will show that judicial discretion has been tampered with by ministerial decree.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, there is no doubt that sentencing is a matter for judges and Parliament together, sometimes by setting minimum sentences, sometimes by setting maximum sentences and, in the case of murder, by setting out principles in statute. As has been made clear in all of the debates in this House, the provisions set the starting point in each individual case. It is then for the judge to reach a conclusion about the right sentence based on the merits of the case.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, to what deficiency on whose part does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor attribute the Lord Chief Justice's present anxiety for the future independence of the judges?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, so far as the current position is concerned, there is absolutely no deficiency whatever in the independence of the judges. However, as was made clear on 12th June when the reforms were first announced and on 14th July, we need to embed that independence and look forward to the future. As we made clear, having one person making all the appointments is not an appropriate way forward. An independent Appointments Commission preserves independence and provides a better way for the future. Every other modern, developed democracy has been able to have that. I think that we can.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, will the supervising and disciplining of the judiciary be in the hands of an elected government Minister, such as the Home Secretary, after these reforms come into effect?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the disciplining of the judiciary is absolutely vital to ensure the independence of the judiciary. We made it clear in the paper that we produced on 14th July that, with the absence of the Lord Chancellor—with the abolition of that role—new arrangements would have to be introduced. Those arrangements must give the judiciary

1573
confidence. They cannot be ordered to give particular decisions by the executive. That is vital. It would have to be a partnership between the executive and the judiciary.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord confirm that some of our ablest judges have served in Parliament and belonged to various parties?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, indeed, if one looks back in history, some of our ablest judges have indeed served in Parliament and have been members of political parties.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor concerned that in the Criminal Justice Bill the minimum starting point is being raised from 12 to 15 years old for those children who kill? Only last May, the Lord Chief Justice, with advice from the Sentencing Advisory Panel, decided that the minimum starting point should be 12 years old. Is the Lord Chancellor concerned that a minimum starting point at 15 years old is being imposed on the judiciary? Does that not inevitably lead to an increase—perhaps only a slight increase—in the likely length of sentence for those children? Is he not concerned about that?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I know that the noble Earl has participated fully and helpfully in all the debates on the schedule in which the juvenile figure is mentioned. There are different starting points for different ages. Most juveniles convicted of murder are convicted at the age of 16 or 17. The schedule allows a starting point for different ages. It also allows judges to take into account the precise age at which the offence was committed. There is still a substantial discretion.

Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Intrusive Surveillance) Order 2003
3.30 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, those noble Lords fresh to the debate, who did not attend before lunch, will have missed the extraordinary spectacle of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, arguing vigorously against government legislation—that is, the orders regarding the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act being considered today—being applied to her own department. A number of noble Lords in the Chamber seemed to have puzzled faces because the noble Baroness's comments appeared to drive a fairly substantial coach and horses through the arguments being advanced by her noble and learned friend the Attorney-General as to the effectiveness and the necessity of the regime.
Indeed, we live in dangerous times. No Member of the House who spoke on any of the orders today—either against or for the amendments—would do anything
1574
which would weaken the ability of the appropriate agencies to prevent terrorism, nor to prosecute serious offenders. However, we must recognise that the public's trust in the integrity of the law enforcement process will be weakened if advantage is taken by the Government to take additional powers in this climate without proper safeguards. If it were realised beyond this Chamber and beyond the speciality press the degree to which the Government have awarded themselves new powers under the two Acts to which we are referring—that is, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act—there would be considerable disquiet.
In addition, there is the great laundry list of organisations contained in the communications data order which is being added to those bodies which can acquire communications data. Not only the police, security services, Customs and that type of organisation, but also National Health Service trusts, ambulance services, the Department of Transport and fire authorities will be able to acquire all types of data under Section 21(4) of the Act. Of course, those are all very worthy bodies, but as the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, asked just before lunch, why could their inquiries not be forwarded through the police? Would it not be much more appropriate to use a regime through the police, such as that for search warrants? If the net is cast absurdly wide, abuse would not be just expected, it would be guaranteed. With the addition of the bodies contained within the communications data order, how many additional individuals will be authorised to acquire the data?
There has also been a great deal of argument about whether the requisite powers already exist and whether they are just being brought under the safeguards of the Act. Up to a point, that may be so. But are the original powers being rescinded? When my noble friend Lady Blatch asked that question this morning, I think that the answer from the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General was that if the powers were rescinded, it would be difficult not to disrupt other powers. That appears to be an extremely weak argument. How can the Government have it both ways? How can they say that while they have the existing powers they would like to have them under a new regulatory regime, but they will retain the old powers, just in case.
We are also concerned about the definition of communications data. I recall the long and tortuous debates—the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, represented the Government—when we discussed the original Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill and the great changes made in another place because of those representations. The key point is that it is far from clear. It was not clear three years ago and it is less clear now.
In an age of cookies and hyperlinks being attached to e-mails and voice mail being accessed electronically, are these communications data or communications themselves? They may sound like esoteric points, but they are very important. The noble and learned Lord drew a firm parallel between the interception or the monitoring of communications data and the interception of communications itself. When communications largely were written by letter, that clear definition could be

1575
made; now it cannot. As we have heard, a firm picture can be built up of an individual's life and with whom he or she is in contact, just by the use of communications data.
We need specific answers from the noble and learned Lord about the capacity that the commissioner will have to oversee the enormous number of requests. The Home Office has admitted to at least 500,000 possible requests. I should be interested to know how that figure compares with the total number of police investigations. But it is a huge number, which the industry thinks might be three times higher. We have heard from some speakers today that the commissioner will have a staff of four to monitor a possible 1 million transactions, which would be extraordinarily difficult to do. What is the commissioner's budget? How many staff will there be? How many inquiries do they expect?
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, also put a powerful case for a provision to be made to require the commissioner to inform the subject of a wilful misuse, subject to the interests of national security. At Question Time yesterday, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, was asked that exact question by the noble Countess, Lady Mar. The Minister ducked the question just as it was ducked earlier today. How can one complain without knowing whether abuse has been made of one's own data?
A number of serious concerns have come from around the House. I suggest that satisfactory answers are needed before accepting the orders.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I shall take the orders in turn. Many points have been raised; I shall try to deal with what seem to be the main points raised in opposition to the orders. If there is a point or a question that I do not address, I shall seek to do that later. No doubt noble Lords who consider that it is necessary for the purposes of the debate to ask questions will do so, but I am very conscious of the time and the other business of the House.
I shall start with the intrusive surveillance order. If my memory and my notes are right, the only questions in relation to that order were those asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. First, how will that now relate the system in Northern Ireland to that in England, Wales and Scotland? Secondly, why cannot the Northern Ireland police deal with the matter?
As the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, said, this will bring Northern Ireland into line with England and Wales. It will mean that the Northern Ireland Prison Service will be able to do what the Prison Service in England and Wales can do. Rather than creating a different system, it will be brought into line.
In answer to the question why the police cannot deal with it, it is for the prison services to manage their estate, not for the police to do so. Just as in the case of England and Wales, if there were any concerns that a mutiny or a hostage situation in a prison might arise,
1576
it would be for the prison services to take steps to deal with it, and so it will be for the prison service in Northern Ireland to deal with.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for giving way. I apologise for having intervened at an inappropriate moment but I, too, asked a question about the prison service for Northern Ireland.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right; I was just about to come to that. He asked whether the Northern Ireland Assembly can be told about intrusive surveillance conducted by the Northern Ireland Prison Service. The answer is no, but the Chief Surveillance Commissioner reports on the exercise of powers under Part II of RIPA, and that report will be published by Parliament. So the information will be made available in that form, certainly to the Northern Ireland Assembly. However, no report as such is made to the Northern Ireland Assembly. I hope that I have given a reasonable assurance.
As regards the first order on intrusive surveillance, the only objection raised about it, if objection it was, was the question: why cannot the police deal with it? The answer is that it is simply not appropriate to tell the Prison Service that, while it is responsible for managing the estate, it must look to someone else for this. We do not expect that to happen in England and Wales and we should not expect it in Northern Ireland. I hope that, at least so far as concerns that issue, the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.
I turn now to the second order covering directed surveillance and covert human intelligence sources. I did not note any specific objection made to that order. Thenoble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked a question about the definition of a "service manager". Perhaps I may deal with that.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, for the sake of accuracy, I believe that the noble and learned Lord is speaking to the third order on the Order Paper, not the second one.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, yes, but it is the second order that I dealt with earlier; I addressed them in a different order. However, the noble Baroness is quite right. Perhaps I may continue to deal with the orders in the same way that I addressed them in my opening remarks.
The only point I noted in relation to this order was a concern expressed about the description of a "service manager". I took that reference in the order to be the identification of prescribed officers for local authorities. The description does not arise in relation to any other body, but I want to refer to a comment made by the noble Baroness about the Environment Agency. The order states that the prescribed officer for local authorities is an assistant chief officer, assistant head of service, service manager or equivalent.

1577
The simple point is this: to find titles for different local authorities which represent the same level of seniority requires the use of a number of terms, reflecting how they are used in different local authorities. I am told by the local authorities and by the commissioners that it will be well understood that to describe someone as a "service manager or equivalent" is to describe someone who is second or third in the chain of command, similar to an assistant chief officer or an assistant head of service. I can assure the noble Baroness that the term does not cover a catering services manager.
The noble Baroness raised this point in relation to the Environment Agency, as I recall, to ask whether it could be someone who is simply a team manager. I may have misunderstood her, and if so I apologise unreservedly.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is what it says in the order.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, the order does not refer to a "team member", it refers to an "area management team member". Being a member of an area management team is not the same as being simply a team member. With respect, that point is not a reason for opposing the order.
I turn to the communications data order, listed second on the Order Paper and probably the one on which most time was spent in debate. I start by addressing a question that was touched on by many noble Lords: why does it matter to pass this order? Two things will happen if noble Lords do not accept the order. First, by voting it down, noble Lords will be voting to strip away the safeguards which are contained in the Act and the order. It will mean that there will be no purpose limitation on access by individual agencies; there will be no limitation on the type of data that they can access; there will be no limitation on the level of person who has to authorise; there will be no independent oversight; and there will be no report to Parliament.
3.45 p.m.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I rise to correct the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General. Under the existing powers on which we would have to fall back, all those protections are already in place. Further, under the Data Protection Act 1998, the Chief Surveillance Commissioner is at present referring material to the information commissioner in order to protect the individual. I agree that, under a proper R1PA, the position would be better, but we now need the safeguards to be properly in place.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, in a moment, I shall outline the present position as regards the way that particular agencies access information. However, there can be no doubt about the safeguards which are set out in the order, requiring that data can be gathered only for particular purposes, only for certain types of data and authorised only by particular persons, and
1578
oversight carried out only by a particular commissioner who reports to Parliament. All those would disappear if this order does not go through.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General. Does he agree that that catastrophic consequence would arise only if the orders were not replaced by new orders that contained more effective safeguards? There is nothing to stop the Government coming back to the House with fresh orders containing more effective safeguards.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, we are now bringing to the House orders containing effective safeguards. To reject the orders would mean that the safeguards that we are seeking to put forward, safeguards that the industry wants, will not be put in place. With respect, it is perverse to say, "We are not prepared to accept an order containing safeguards because we are concerned about those safeguards". If we want to build on the safeguards which are set out in the order, there are ways to deal with those concerns.
I do not doubt for a moment the importance and sincerity of the questions that have been raised. The Government have made it clear that they accept entirely that the question of privacy is extremely important. Last year the Home Secretary accepted that we had got it wrong. A consultation document was put out that was well received, and I hope that noble Lords will have had the opportunity to look at it.
Let me identify some of what will happen in the future if this order goes through. We will be able to look at the commissioner's annual report. Some of the questions raised by noble Lords were based on the assumption that either there is or there might be abuse. The commissioner's report, enabled by this order, would allow us to look at what the commissioner finds. If the commissioner finds general abuse and the need for more safeguards, then that would be a matter for consideration. Alternatively—I suggest 1o noble Lords that this would be very important—if the commissioner finds that a particular authority is using the powers in inappropriate ways, he can recommend to the Home Secretary that such a person should be taken off the list. That safeguard would not be introduced if the order is voted down.
We will be able to look at the commissioner's resources. The question has been put to the commissioner as regards what resources he will need in order to take on these new responsibilities. He has not yet come back to the Home Secretary with his response. However, what resources he needs will be made available to him.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. Is he suggesting that the Government are minded to bring in further powers, ones that are not available either in the present RIPA order or in the Act, which would enable the Interception of Communications

1579
Commissioner to take steps with regard to individual transgressions and to name the people concerned in his report?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, this relates to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. If he will permit me, I should like to deal with it when I come to the amendment because I have something to say which I hope he will find helpful in relation to that issue.
I said that I wished to make two points. The first point is that the safeguards and the strict regulation that we have been discussing will not be brought in if the orders are voted down. The second point concerns what will happen to the requirement that authorities should be able to exercise these powers, which all noble Lords who have spoken agree is extremely important.
Without bringing in the RIPA power for access to communications data, authorities will be thrown back on one of two alternatives. The first alternative, which many authorities adopt at the moment, is to call upon communications service providers voluntarily to disclose data under the Data Protection Act. There is an exemption for non-disclosure. The noble Baroness looks surprised, but that is the fact. Communications service providers currently provide information voluntarily under an exemption in the Data Protection Act, most usually under the crime exemption provided in Section 29(3).
This voluntary disclosure places the communications service providers in the difficult position of having to make a decision of whether or not to exercise the exemption. With the police service, that may well be a clear decision, but with other public authorities exercising their statutory functions it may be less clear. Where a public authority which does not have an investigatory function tries it on, it may have no idea whether or not it should exercise the exemption.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General said that if the order was not passed the public authorities would have to fall back on the voluntary powers. But it is the Government's intention to have a voluntary scheme. They have not yet expressed their intention for a compulsory scheme. Is the noble and learned Lord now talking about the merits between a voluntary and a compulsory scheme?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, unless I am very much mistaken, the powers in RIPA which would be conferred as a result of the access to communications data would enable people to require information to be passed to them. I am getting strong nods from the Box. We are not talking about retention of data; we are talking about the access to communications data. RIPA provides powers which do not exist at the moment and which will not exist unless and until this order is brought into effect.
As to what will happen if communications service providers simply go back to the Data Protection Act exemption, there are potential difficulties. Some have
1580
already arisen in certain cases. I am told that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has been frustrated in trying to obtain communications data that would assist in the location of individuals reported lost in coastal waters. What happens there is that someone manages to make a call but locating that person, who does not know where he is in a storm, depends upon being able to track traffic data. The agency has been unable to obtain that information in certain cases because the service providers have been unable to assure themselves that they were exercising their exemption under the Data Protection Act appropriately.
The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, referred to the NHS. The NHS Counter Fraud and Security Management Service has tried to obtain communications data to investigate NHS fraud—which is very important to the taxpayer and to the country—and it has found that providers are unclear about what is their service function and whether it is appropriate to disclose data.
Communications service providers have made clear that once this part of the Act comes into force they will no longer disclose information under the Data Protection Act. There is a real risk that, if this order does not come into effect, some providers will take it as a signal that Parliament is of the view that they should not provide the information. That would create further confusion and could lead to great problems, an inability to deal with important matters and perhaps even a risk to lives.
The Association of Chief Police Officers has told the Home Office and, I understand—if I am wrong, I shall withdraw the point—the official Opposition that should the communications data order fail the police service will decide to stop relying on the good will of communications service providers, as they do at the moment, and instead rely upon compulsory Police and Criminal Evidence Act production orders issued by circuit judges.
The problem in relation to that is that some crimes will go uninvestigated because the powers relate only to the investigation of serious arrestable offences; the industry will not be recompensed because the arrangements in place for providers to be recompensed will not be required; the Crown Courts would be flooded with applications for production orders; industry would incur extra legal costs in attending hearings; and there would be inconsistency because the established single point of contact system between the police and the industry would break down. The Government want to ensure that a single point of contact with the industry is established.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, asked about local authorities. There will be some cases where local authorities will be able to rely upon existing powers—for example, under the Timeshare Act trading standards officers have powers to obtain information. But they do not have such powers in all cases and they would have to go back to relying upon voluntary disclosure by service providers—if they will do it—under the Data Protection Act.
So there is absolutely no certainty at all that voting this order down will not matter or that everything will go on as it does at the moment. There will not be the

1581
regulation in place; there will not be the safeguards in place; and there is a very real risk that information that ought to be provided for the protection of all our citizens will simply not be available.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord's reply is predicated on an all or nothing approach. He is saying, "You either accept the orders or you have no orders, and then look where we are". But I do not understand why one cannot have the orders reconsidered to include more effective safeguards than there are already. In that way we could reach a fair compromise that protects the right of privacy and balances it more appropriately.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, we need the orders now. We have reached the stage where, having brought forward the orders, the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch—I am not talking about the non-fatal amendments—would prevent the orders having effect at all. There is no getting away from it. That is what would happen.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may suggest to the noble and learned Lord that he is being extremely disingenuous. During the course of my speech to these amendments I emphasised many times that the purpose of both my fatal amendment and the supporting amendments was to give the Home Office time to take them away and re-present:hem. I made it clear time and again that we support the principle; that we support the framework of regulations; and that we believe it is right that all people should come under the same regulatory framework. Everything I said was constructive to that end. The idea that we would be voting the orders out for all time so that their powers are never exercised was not part of my presentation.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I hope, in turn, that noble Lords opposite have heard what I have been trying to say about how we can see if the scheme is operating. I shall deal with some specific points, including those made by the noble Lords, Lord Phillips and Lord Lester, but if the orders are voted down and do not go through today, they will not come into effect.
The question of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, presupposed that the order could introduce more safeguards. The power that Parliament has given under this order is to add authorities and to place restrictions. That is what has been done. I do not believe that the order could, for example, do what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, would like it to do. There may be another way of achieving that, but it cannot be done by this order. It is not, therefore, a reason for not accepting the order now. Those concerns have been expressed.
4 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. Could the orders not be amended or brought back with additional restrictions not only in terms of the four
1582
columns detailing the bodies that can acquire data at the moment but also to restrict the type of data, not just the purpose for which they can obtain them., which is an existing restriction? I am talking about an additional restriction to acquire the type of data—not just that described under paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d). In that way, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency could acquire location data about mobile telephones, for example.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, it is already restricted in two ways. First, the order carefully identifies which sort of communications data a particular agency can obtain. There is a difference between what is called traffic data, which tells you about the location of individuals, and subscriber details, which tell you who has a certain telephone number. Certain agencies are limited to the lowest category of communications data. Someone wanting to know who is the cowboy who has been going around fitting dangerous gas heaters, to use the example of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, may be able to identify someone only because they have a card with a telephone number. That is subscriber information which one would need.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, with respect, the local authorities are already using many of these powers under RIPA. Of course they do not deny that if the order comes in, there would be additional safeguards and additional powers. As they point out, the same powers will be conferred on a number of additional bodies. I was greatly reassured by what my noble friend said; the local authorities will not be deprived of using their powers—they have RIPA powers already.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, they do not have RIPA powers at the moment to access communications data because the order has not been passed so the powers have not come into force. They have the ability to ask communications service providers voluntarily to provide information to them under the exemption in the Data Protection Act. That is a voluntary provision by the communications service providers except in those cases where there are specific powers. There are some specific powers—there are timeshare powers, the Serious Fraud Office has powers, and so forth. Local authorities are not operating powers under RIPA to get access to communications data because the order has not come into force.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord made a point about traffic data. This is where we had problems, as I mentioned in my speech. Regarding paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), I cannot find the Maritime and Coastguard Agency among the bodies that are allowed to access the traffic data which the noble and learned Lord has defined as the stuff that tells you where the person is. I cannot find the agency in the list of bodies that can access such information. I can only see the security services, intelligence services, Government HQ, the Armed Forces and the police. In fact, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency will not be able to access such data under these powers unless it

1583
comes under paragraph (b), in which case a huge number of bodies also have access to them, which was my point earlier. Subsection (4)(a), (b) and (c) give the definitions of data. This is one of my points—it is not clear and the blurring of the edges is causing us problems. The Government should go through this; some caveats have to be included so that they can come back with something better in the future.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, with a little assistance, I am sure I can answer the noble Earl's question in a moment.
I said in answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, that there were two points. First, the order restricts the type of data. Secondly, as I said this morning, the authorities cannot use their powers except for a function that they have. That, in itself, results in a significant restriction on what they do. I respectfully commend the consultation paper to noble Lords because it sets this out so clearly and deals with a lot of the concerns that have been expressed.
In answer to the noble Earl, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency comes under the area operations manager of the Department of Transport. That is on page 5 of the order.
I want to deal next with the shortcomings that are alleged. I am trying to identify from what noble Lords have said what the shortcomings in the legislation are. The first such concern is whether there is any penalty for misuse in the legislation. There are other sanctions for misuse of data. Section 55 of the Data Protection Act makes it an offence knowingly or recklessly to obtain personal data without the consent of the Data Controller. An official of a public authority misusing the power to acquire communications data could commit this offence.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I am terribly sorry, but the answer the noble and learned Lord has given me is nothing to do with the question. Page 5 is about the people who are authorised and the purpose for which they are authorised. My question was about having access to traffic data, which the coastguard agency is not allowed, which will give them the location.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, may I draw the noble Earl's attention to page 4? In Part 1, under the heading to Schedule 2, it reads:
"Individuals in additional public authorities that may acquire all types of communications data within section 21(4)".
I hope the noble Earl is now satisfied.
The Earl of Erroll: Absolutely, my Lords.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, again, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. The definition of personal data in the Data Protection Act is much more limited than communications data under RIPA. I have checked that with the noble and learned Lord's officials.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I was going on to say that there are certain safeguards and penalties already.
1584
However, the Home Secretary acknowledged in the consultation paper that there is a concern about where the balance should lie between respect for individual privacy and the need to protect the public from crime and terrorism. It is not limited to access to communications data—it is much wider than that. It includes the use of CCTV, the use of automatic number plate recognition cameras, covert surveillance, and so forth. I entirely understand why notifying individuals where that right has been improperly interfered with is a concern. It has been raised by noble Lords and has been acknowledged in the consultation paper.
The Home Secretary and his officials are working on proposals which will address the privacy balance with the organisation Liberty and researchers working for the office of the Information Commissioner. Obviously, it is for the Home Secretary to say when he will bring forward proposals for consultation by the public and Parliament, but proposals will be brought forward, perhaps early next summer. So the issue about which the noble Lord is concerned is under active consideration as part of a wider question of the balance between privacy and powers. I hope that the noble Lord will find it helpful, therefore, to know that the issue he is concerned about, which cannot be sorted in this order as there is not the power to do it, is under active consideration. The very cogent remarks that he and other noble Lords have made on this subject will be taken into account in that consideration. I hope that he finds that assurance helpful.
The noble Baroness referred to the sharing of information, particularly with overseas authorities. I want to deal with the big points. This raises two issues: first, will United Kingdom public authorities acquire communications data on behalf of foreign agencies? The answer to that is yes, but it will happen only where the normal safeguards apply—that is, it is necessary for the prevention of crime and, in this respect, contrary to the belief of the noble Baroness, the dual criminality requirement applies in relation to the use of this part of the powers. It will have to be proportionate in the particular circumstances of the case, and the authority in question will have to assess that for itself.
The second issue concerns what other restrictions are in place. The vast majority of public authorities which obtain communications data have no need to disclose them to anyone outside the United Kingdom. There are some occasions when it might be necessary and right to do so. As noble Lords said, in debate on the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill, with trans-national organised crime it is often very important that there is co-operation between international agencies in the right case.
If the foreign agency is within the European Union, it will be bound by the data protection directive and its own data protection legislation. The data will be protected in the same way there as they are here. The directive also recognises the need to protect data that might be transferred out of the European Union. The eighth data protection principle says:
"Personal data shall not be transferred to a country or territory outside the European Economic Area unless that country or territory ensures an adequate level of protection for the rights and freedoms of data subjects in relation to the processing of personal data".

1585
That is a requirement before such information should be passed across. The public authority that contemplated disclosing information would need to assess that data would be adequately protected and what steps could be taken to ensure that. We would be happy to set out and lay in a report before the House the particular circumstances in which that might happen—saying, for example, under what treaties it might happen.
As regards legacy legislation, I repeat what I said in opening. Some authorities have general powers. The Serious Fraud Office, for which I have ministerial responsibility, has them. Those powers can be, and are occasionally, used to access communications data, but they are also used to access a great deal of other information. It is the basic power under which directors can be required to answer questions. We cannot conceivably repeal that section, because that would prevent all other methods of gathering information from being operated. Once the order is in place, the communication service providers will be saying, "We will provide information to you under RIPA—that is what the order says, and in accordance with the safeguards set out in it". That is what will happen.
The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, asked whether the number of instances of requiring information data would go up. We cannot be precise until the order comes into effect, but the indications are that, in so far as authorities and providers have followed the RIPA model not in force in relation to access to communications data, the number of requests has gone down. Other parts of RIPA are in force—in relation to directed surveillance, for example. That may be why the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, has information from local authorities. There has been something like a 6 per cent reduction in authorisations sought from police forces, the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the National Crime Squad and others in the past year. That is an indication that applying the safeguards in the RIPA order has the result of reducing the number of authorisations and access taking place.
One or two noble Lords asked why the police did not use the provisions in every case. There are specialist investigators for specialist issues. If a trading officer was concerned to investigate defective gas fittings, it would not be sensible to say that the police had to take over part of the investigation. It is more than that, however. There will be a number of areas, such as the Financial Services Agency, where there are specialist investigators who need the powers to do it themselves. It simply is not sensible to say that they cannot make those investigations and that the police must take on that responsibility. The police do not want it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, raised one point with which I must deal. She complained about an Answer given to a Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. The Question was specific. The noble Lord asked:
"Which orders give directions about retention of communications data".—[Official Report, 5/11/03; col. WA 111.]
I emphasise the word "retention".
1586
The Act is very specific; no orders for the retention of communications data—not access but retention— can be given, until the voluntary approach has been reviewed. None of the orders gives directions, and the reply to his Question reflected that. The orders open the way for the voluntary code to be put in place in relation to the retention of data.
The noble Earl, Lord Northesk, referred to an answer that he had received from the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland. I am happy to have that put in the Library, if that would satisfy him as having the answer on the record, to save time reading it out. I am glad to see the noble Earl nodding assent to that.
Finally, in relation to communications data, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said that nothing had changed since last year. With respect, that is simply not the case. The order that the Home Secretary put forward and withdrew was simply a list of public authorities, which did not include the qualifications or restrictions. The new order not only lists the public authorities but restricts access to data to specific purposes, restricts access by the type of data, and restricts who may give authorisations. It is significantly different from the previous order.
4.15 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I apologise for intervening on the noble and learned Lord. My understanding was that last year there were two orders; one of them was the list and the other contained safeguard elements. What happened in the intervening period was that the Home Office compiled a single order rather than two.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I shall deal with the next issue and get information on that, as I do not have the previous order in front of me. I am working from what I have been told, and do not have it in my recollection.
I turn to the retention of data and the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. The Government have stated consistently that Part 11 of the 2001 Act provides for the retention of communications data and chapter 2 of Part 1 of the 2000 Act provides for the regulated acquisition of communications data in a way that requires explicitly respect for individual human rights. It follows that the legislation already provides that any communications data retained under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, only because of that Act and for no other purpose, can be obtained or disclosed under RIPA, but only in accordance to the fundamental right to personal privacy. That is what lies behind the access to communications data order.
I repeat what I said to the noble Lord when he was speaking—that the Joint Committee on Human Rights, for which I, like him, have great respect, reached the conclusion that, on balance, it was satisfied that other safeguards within the structure of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and the procedures for judicial review were likely to provide adequate safeguards for convention rights. That essentially deals with the issue. I wanted to take that point a little further, as the noble Lord asked who would form the view that retention of

1587
data was necessary. The Secretary of State would form the view that data retention was necessary in order to safeguard national security. His decision is based, as it always is in matters of that sort, on reports given him by the relevant agencies. He is not under an obligation to prove that case to the industry; the view has been echoed by the Information Commissioner, who told industry that it was entitled to rely heavily on the conclusions formed by the Home Secretary.
Under the Act, communications data can be accessed only if it is proportionate and appropriate to do so. There will be the stringent oversight regime to which I referred. The clear view of the Government is that the additional retention period is for retention of information that the service providers already keep for business purposes. The retention period may add up to additional days or months, but not years, and is nothing that people need to fear.
Before I turn to the final order, I want to return to the question that I was asked by the noble Earl, Lord Northesk. The second order to which he referred was never laid. The proposal last year did not restrict access to any type of data. Every authority potentially had access, for example, to traffic data. That has been restricted this time round. It is plain that I overstated the case in what I said before but there are still important differences, if only in that respect. But the purposes—in that respect and in the respect that we are discussing—open to authorities have been restricted as well so that now the permitted purposes that each authority may rely upon are clearly identified. That has been done as a result of a process of asking them to prove what they actually need.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that reply but I now have to ask another question as I fear that he is about to leave the code of practice order. Will he respond to the specific questions that I asked in my speech regarding what kind of data retention regime emanated as a result of the September 11th atrocity, and how longstanding has that been post that event? Have any arrests emanated directly from that?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot answer the question regarding the use of the information that the agencies have retained and what that has given rise to. I certainly cannot do so in terms of the number of arrests. I shall see what more detailed information can be provided and write to the noble Earl. I know from my own responsibilities as Attorney-General the amount of work that has been carried out by agencies since September 11th in order to try to track down those who put our citizens, and citizens of other countries, at risk. Communications data are often a key part of being able to track down such people. I personally have no doubt at all that they are important.
As regards the length of time for retention, as I said previously people do not leave their calling cards at the time that an atrocity takes place. Often it is possible to track the information only after painstaking work
1588
undertaken over a period of time. If by the time one tracks information back to a particular individual the communications data is no longer being retained, one comes to a dead end. This is an important matter and the Government so regard it for the reasons that I have given.
I am conscious of how long I have spoken, although I pray in aid the number of questions that I have attempted to answer in the course of speaking. I refer to the extension of the initial period. We now have a voluntary code that can be tested. Until that has happened, it is not possible to enforce a mandatory code. I suggest that the kind of extension which the order seeks is reasonable.
I am conscious that I have not touched at all on the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, about the Department for Work and Pensions. My noble friend Lady Hollis, as a Minister in that department, set out the position. The fact is that the department has a special power post-dating the two Acts. Noble Lords heard what my noble friend said about the circumstance in which that came into effect. The fact that the department seeks to stay outside the regime does not undermine the great benefit to the public, providers and authorities of bringing in this strictly regulated scheme which will apply to everyone else.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. In deciding what position I should take on behalf of the committee on which I have the privilege of serving, it would help me if the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General could be a little clearer about what is proposed to occur between now and July—next summer. During that period will there be full consultation on how the right to privacy might be further strengthened without damaging the legitimate aims of this legislation? It would very much help me if we could be told something a little more specific about that.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot be more specific than I have been. The issue was stated very clearly in the consultation paper and discussions are already taking place with Liberty and with officials from the office of the Interception Commissioner. Although I cannot tie the Secretary of State regarding when matters will be brought forward, I hope that it will be by the date that the noble Lord indicated.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord comment on the issue raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, regarding the status of the draft directive on data retention? That would be extremely helpful.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, the noble Viscount gave me leave not to reply to that point as he cannot be present this afternoon. However, I thought that I should inform him of the position. I promised to write to the noble Viscount with the answer. I understand that the directive will come into force and that the noble Viscount may be mistaken regarding the date. I

1589
am told that there is no question about our not having implemented the directive in time. I think—but I shall clarify this in writing—that there will be implementation of the directive by the due date which is December of this year. I cannot assist further on that matter. I hope that the noble Earl will forgive me on the basis that I have been relieved of answering the examination paper in that respect.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that if there is any further information that I can provide about the detail of what is going to take place, I shall write to him and place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House so that other noble Lords are aware of it.
I have spoken for a very long time. I have tried to answer what I believe are the main points. The noble Earl, Lord Northesk, might think that there is a directive regarding data retention. That is not the case. The directive concerns electronic communications and privacy. I do not know whether that helps him.
The noble Earl also asked about the length of retention following the atrocity of September 11th. Communication service providers voluntarily preserved data generated on September 11th and the days immediately around it. The Home Secretary is very grateful for that assistance.
I have attempted to demonstrate why these orders are important. The Government recognise the concern that arose last year and carried out an important consultation that contained considerable detail. That consultation was welcomed. The orders that are now proposed—particularly regarding communications data, which has been the subject of most debate—are welcomed by the industry. The industry wants certainty and clarity. Other measures may emerge that can be put in place but they are not for this order. By putting these orders in place we can get on with the regulatory scheme that Parliament wanted to have when it passed RIPA. For that reason I very much hope that noble Lords will support all the orders.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down I should be most grateful if he would help me decide exactly how to react on the Motion in my name. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his sympathetic comments vis-à-vis the prospect of an offence being legislated for breach of Chapter 2 of Part I, bearing in mind that at present there is none. The noble and learned Lord said that the consultation would take place and held out the implicit promise that legislation may arise in its wake.
However, the noble and learned Lord did not refer at all—I do not blame him given the massive task he has this afternoon—to my amending resolution. That of course was concerned with requiring the interception of communications commissioner to inform citizens where there had been a wilful or reckless breach of their communications data. I got no hint from the noble and learned Lord on whether that would form part of the consultation and ensuing legislation. I would be most grateful to know.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, the answer to that clear question is yes, that will form part of the legislation. I should also have said—we had the short passage of arms before—that we take a different view at the moment on what the commissioner could in any event do under the powers that he has, but he could in the Government's view take on further reporting tasks if he wished to do so.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords, and in particular to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General. As I said at the outset of the debate, he undertook to deal with these complex orders at very short notice, and his expertise has certainly shown through in the way in which he has dealt with some pretty penetrating questions from all parts of the House.
There have been many powerful and persuasive speeches in favour of the amendments. I speak now of the non-fatal amendments as opposed to my own amendments, which are fatal. Many of the concerns that I flagged up at the start of the debate have been reinforced by almost all the speeches that followed. The cases put via the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Lester and Lord Phillips of Sudbury, and my noble friend Lord Northesk were advocated with care, were constructive and were based on points of principle.
I want to pick up some of the points mentioned by the noble and learned Lord in his response on the amendments. First, I shall deal with the discussions taking place with Liberty. We have all been in receipt of a missive from Liberty that is as current as only yesterday. There is no hint whatever from Liberty that any discussions are taking place along the lines suggested by the noble and learned Lord. I am not suggesting that he is personally responsible for what he has said, because he is in receipt of advice from Home Office officials.
However, we have been with such officials, met Home Office Ministers, been to conferences, and met people from the industry and all sorts of very learned people concerning the orders. On no occasion whatever have our fears been allayed and have we been told that there are constructive, active discussions to address some of the points made in the amendments. Had we been told that, it might have made quite a difference to what appeared on the Order Paper today.
However one looks at the present statute, there is no duty to inform. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, is as much concerned about duty to inform the person aggrieved by the abuse as about simply informing the Prime Minister or some third-party body that abuses have taken place. The individual citizen who is on the receiving end of malicious, vexatious abuse of the system has a right to be informed. If we do not do that, trust in the system will be destroyed.

1591
I shall deal with penalties. Again, if wilful, vexatious and reckless activities take place that result in abuse of the system against an individual by an invasion of privacy for the wrong reasons, that must be considered a breach of the law. That needs to be addressed.
The noble and learned Lord was very careful—he used his words wisely, as he always does—on the intrusive surveillance order to refer to the system as it covered England and Wales. He did not mention Scotland. Therein lies an interesting point.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I am so sorry. The noble Baroness is quite right. I have a note on that. The answer is that the Scottish regime is dealt with by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act, which I am told—I have not checked it myself—is in the same terms as the English Act so far as the matter is concerned.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that there is a difference, but I would be dancing on the head of a pin if I pursued that any further.
The concern addressed by the noble and learned Lord on directed surveillance referred to my query about service managers. I have had his interpretation of what such a manager is. That is either a personal view of his or the view of the Home Office, but there is no definition or qualification anywhere in the statute. It is not referred to in the primary Act or the order, so it is very much in the interpretation of the chief executives who appoint people for such purposes to be responsible for a level of authority. That is a very real area of concern. If what the noble and learned Lord said was somewhere in statute and there was some qualification, we would feel more assured.
I am winding up on all the orders, so that I save time later.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, as the noble Baroness pauses for breath, as it were, I want to come back on her point about the involvement of Liberty. Obviously, I am grateful that she said that I had not said anything false, but I am told that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury—he may be able to confirm it—is participating with the Home Office in the Liberty work. If that is right, it may give the noble Baroness assurance that the work is actually taking place.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, perhaps I should speak for myself. Liberty and Justice are running a project into the whole realm of privacy, and what we are discussing today is at the heart of it. I chair an advisory committee on which certain noble and learned members of the Home Office team are lending their great knowledge. If that helps, I shall be happy.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my point stands, because it was in the context of something happening imminently. I took from the noble and learned Lord the first thing that he said rather than the qualified statement
1592
that came later, which was that something was going to happen, and it was likely to do so in spring or summer next year. If that is the case, in 13 days' time we expect a line in the Gracious Speech to indicate that the work is going ahead and that something will appear on the statute book during the coming legislative Session. However, I hold out no great hope on that.
The noble and learned Lord suggested that the communications data order would have two results. First, it would strip away safeguards. There would be no purpose definition, no limitation on access, no definition of what the level of person was to authorise such applications for access, and no independent oversight. The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, dealt with some of that. However, one of the interesting points— it links to a point made by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding—is that the local authorities and many other bodies that exist have more scope to do what they are doing at the moment.
One of the arguments put forward by the Home Office was that the provisions were about regulating and making things more restrictive. More restrictive was the very phrase used by the noble and learned Lord. At the moment, bodies are relatively unrestricted and relatively unregulated. That is why we always agreed in principle that to be restricted and have proper definitions of types of access, and certainly to have a regulatory framework, was right. That is rather a weak first point.
The second point was that authorities with RIPA powers would be thrown back on the alternative voluntary system. I make an abject apology to the noble and learned Lord, because my mind jumped— not surprisingly; I have had a towel round my head for about a month on these orders—from the RIPA orders to retention. I apologise most profusely to him for that. I understand what he is saying about the voluntary scheme, but the system is in place now. The past two years are probably some of the most vulnerable years in terms of possible acts of terrorism and such activity. It does not seem to me that the world has fallen apart and that people have been prevented from accessing the kind of information that they need.
Something that the noble and learned Lord said over and again gives me cause for concern. I shall ask him a direct question. Does the RIP Act override the Data Protection Act in terms of protection of the individual? Service providers might be concerned about their vulnerability—about betraying the privacy of an individual—but he went on to say that the information could be found under RIPA. What is the interaction between the two Acts? Which has primacy over the other? To what extent is the individual protected, and under which statute?
I repeat that the purpose of voting down the orders is to give an opportunity to the Government to strengthen the safeguards rather than to go away and lose them in the back room. That would act as a spur and we might just see something on the statute book by June or July of next year.

1593
Interestingly, the noble and learned Lord pointed out that if the orders were voted down, the safeguards would not be put in place. That is a decision for the department. If they are threatening to do nothing if the orders are voted down, one has to ask what the Home Office is doing. We regard them as important; I believe that the Liberal Democrats regard them as important; the Government say that they regard the provisions to be important; they sympathise with the safeguard that we would all like to see in the orders. The case for getting a move on is more than made.
The Government said that the current situation cannot continue while they rethink the flaws. The world will not fall apart if RIPA is not introduced and the situation continues. The noble and learned Lord described a chaotic situation, but the Home Office and the Government have sat on their hands for two years and allowed that to exist. They have had two years in which to be much more proactive on the matter. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot claim, on the one hand, that the world is pretty chaotic, but, on the other, sit around and do nothing about it.
Until now, Ministers and Home Office officials have argued that the RIPA orders do not represent more powers. They have said that since we currently have 48 different statutes operating in many different ways, with unregulated bodies and no restriction on the type of access, we need a single framework under which everybody operates. We have accepted that argument. The noble and learned Lord may claim that only if the orders are passed will the Government gain more powers. There are either more powers or there are not. I do not know what they are if that is the noble and learned Lord's argument.
I turn to my final point. The noble and learned Lord said nothing about my example of Zimbabwe or about that of the Greek policeman seeking access to information. I understood his response to everything else. I understood his comments on the difficulty of rescinding legacy powers. However, his comments on legacy powers totally answer the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. All the fears that she expressed about the Government's impotence under RIPA were answered simply and succinctly by the noble and learned Lord.
On retention, I wish to be clear. I said unequivocally that retention is an important weapon in the armoury for those who are seeking to detect crime and fraudulent activity. It is also the case that if the orders are not put in place, there is nothing to stop the Government introducing a voluntary scheme. They have had two years in which to do so. The sunset clause could be enacted in a couple of weeks. Nothing has been done in those two years. The voluntary scheme is not in place. It could quite easily have been brought into play. If the two retention orders are not enacted, that would not prevent the Government putting a voluntary scheme into place. We all know that it is a doomed scheme anyway. Anyone
1594
who knows anything about the subject will say that the only scheme that will work is a compulsory one, but the Government have not shown their hand on that.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness is not aware that under the Act, we cannot put forward a mandatory scheme until a voluntary scheme has been tried.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall come to that point. The Government have had two years in which to put a voluntary scheme in place, to make a judgment about whether it works and to move on to a compulsory scheme. They have chosen not to use the two years that Parliament gave to them. If the Government put a voluntary scheme into place now and if, in 18 months' to two years' time, they believe that the case is made for a compulsory scheme, that is such an important issue that the Government should come back to Parliament. There are two reasons for that; first, because it is such a fundamental issue; secondly, because the issue rode on the back of an emergency anti-terrorism Bill. It spent one day in the Commons and was shunted through this House under the emergency procedures. There has not been a full discussion in either House on the ramifications of the measures.
If the Government wish to proceed to a voluntary scheme, we will co-operate in making sure that that has full parliamentary time.
Lord Richard: My Lords, when the noble Baroness spoke earlier, I tried to ask her a question before she sat down. If the noble Baroness comes to it, perhaps she will allow me to ask a question on it after she has spoken.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that will be my final point. The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General introduced the debate on the basis that RIPA does not grant any new powers. He cannot claim on the one hand that it does not grant any new powers, while claiming on the other that it does. If the orders are not enacted, the sky will not fall in and the Government will have an opportunity to get the orders right.
Finally, I shall address the specific point of the noble Lord, Lord Richard. First, the power to divide was exercised as recently as 2000 on the matter of a free leaflet that was being sent to all voters in the London mayoral elections. Although the exercise to vote down an order is a rare occurrence, this House affirmed in 1994 its unfettered freedom to vote on any subordinate legislation submitted for its consideration.
I shall add my own words to that. If a question comes before Parliament, whether it be this House or another place, to which the answer is yes or no, with no powers to amend, we must have the freedom to say yes or no.

1595
I agree that that freedom should be extremely rarely used and that the reasons for it should be carefully thought through, but the whole area of invasion of privacy, of getting the balance right between detecting fraudulent and terrorist activity, and of the freedom of the individual is fundamental to the people of this country. That is why it is an important issue.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am bound to tell the noble Baroness that her argument is casuistic verging on pedantic. We had a clear convention in this House when I was Leader of the Opposition; namely, that the Opposition did not vote on statutory instruments. That was a firm convention. It was urged on me when I was Leader of the Opposition by, among others, the noble Baroness herself. It now seems that we are moving into a new doctrine for a new era, where if the Opposition take the view that an issue is so fundamental, they will vote against a statutory instrument. That is wrong and the Opposition should not do it.
Lord Carter: My Lords, perhaps I may add my voice to that of my noble friend Lord Richard. He is absolutely right. The noble Baroness is not out of order if she divides the House. As she said, a Motion tabled in 1994 by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, showed that the House has the power to divide on orders if it so wishes. It was used once, in 1968, under a Labour government; it was not used at all during the 19 years when we were in Opposition; it was used once during the five years when I was Chief Whip—on the GLA Bill, when the Opposition also divided on the negative instrument for good measure. I accept that it is not out of order, but there has been a long-standing convention that this House does not divide on orders. They cannot be brought back to the House and they are not subject to the Parliament Act. I have no doubt that they will fall in this Session if the noble Baroness divides the House. It is her choice. Her Back-Benchers divided the House last night on the cannabis order and her Front Bench abstained. Only a few weeks ago, I was on the Woolsack when she spoke to an education order. She had put down a Motion to decline to approve the order, but said that she would not change the habit of a lifetime and divide the House. The House should be aware of what we are embarking on. Last night, there was a Division on an order that the Government won, but that changed the convention. If the Opposition choose now to go down that road, they should know where they are going. At the moment, we are the Government; one day, no doubt, we will be the Opposition. We have long memories.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I have been listening to the debate and I understood the noble Lord, Lord Carter, to say that one day our party will be the Government and his will be the Opposition and we are doing something silly. I hope then he will divide the
1596
House because there seems no point in the convention that an order cannot be amended and we can never do anything about. We might as well let everything go through completely and not allow any change to be made.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the noble Earl must realise that that has been the state of affairs for a very long time. For 19 years when his party was in Government that was the state of affairs that this House accepted and the Labour Party lived up to. Now we find that because the Conservative Party does not like a particular resolution they want to divide the House against it. It is a denial of the conventions of this House and I am bound to say that I feel very strongly about it.
Lord Roper: My Lords, it is worth remembering that we are discussing a group of amendments and that the majority of them are non-fatal. The amendment we are now discussing is fatal, but that is not the case with a number of others, which I trust we shall reach shortly.
Earl Russell: My Lords, as one who took part in the debate on 20th October 1994, perhaps I may point out that there was a general agreement in the House that there was in normal circumstances a convention that one did not divide on fatal Motions. However, that convention was dependent on another convention; that was the exercise of restraint by the Government in the importance of the matters they put into fatal Motions. If the noble Lord would care to read the debate, he will find that recollection borne out. That is the point at issue.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am not sure whether that remark was addressed to me, but if it was perhaps I may reply. When I was leading the Opposition, there were many occasions on which I took the view that what the then government were doing was absolutely appalling and that they had done it without sufficient consultation and discussion. I felt strongly that they should not do it. However, if a proposal came in front of the House as a statutory instrument, I did what all in opposition have done up until now; that is, I held my nose and did not vote against it.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the patience of opposition is very great but it is not total.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, on the particular amendment before us, I was not influenced one jot by what has just been said. However, as I said in my first speech today, I have been influenced by my discussions with the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, with those in the Home Office and other colleagues. I shall not move the first fatal amendment.
[Amendment not moved.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Communications Data) Order 2003
4.52 p.m.
Lord Goldsmith Lord Goldsmith rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 1lth September be approved [28 th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 1lth September be approved [28th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Goldsmith.)
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch had given notice of her intention to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, to leave out all the words after "That" and insert "this House declines to approve the draft order laid before the House on 1lth September".
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment not moved.]
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill had given notice of his intention to move, as an amendment to the Motion, at end to insert "and this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to lay a new draft order containing effective safeguards to ensure that communications data retained pursuant to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 will not become liable to be obtained or disclosed under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 unless the criteria for obtaining or disclosing communications data under the 2000 Act are met in relation to those data in accordance with the fundamental right to personal privacy".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment not moved.]
The Earl of Northesk The Earl of Northesk rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion, at end to insert "and this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to lay a new draft order wherein, notwithstanding the provisions of the Social Security Fraud Act 2001, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Northern Ireland Social Security Investigators are included in the list of named public authorities on the face of the order and thereby subject to Part 1, Chapter 2, of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000".
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion, at end to insert "and this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to lay a new draft order wherein, notwithstanding the provisions of the Social Security Fraud Act 2001, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Northern Ireland Social Security Investigators are included in the list of named public authorities on the face of the order and thereby subject to Part 1, Chapter 2, of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000".—(The Earl of Northesk.)
4.53 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 92; Not-Contents, 108.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Ashcroft, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Attlee, E.

Liverpool, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lucas, L.

Biffen, L.

Luke, L.

Blackwell, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Blatch, B.

MacGregor of Pulham Market,

Bridgeman, V.

L.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

MacLaurin of Knebworth, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Byford, B.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Monson, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Montrose, D.

Chorley, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Coe, L.

Moynihan, L.

Colwyn, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Noakes, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Northesk, E.

Darcyde Knayth, B.

Norton of Louth, L.

Denham, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Onslow, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Elton, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Erroll, E.

Rawlings, B.

Feldman, L.

Reay, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rees, L.

Flather, B.

Renton, L.

Freyberg, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Geddes, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Seccombe, B.[Teller]

Glentoran, L.

Selborne, E.

Goschen, V.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hanham, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Higgins, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Howe, E.

Swinfen, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Tebbit, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hylton, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Jopling, L.

Vivian, L.

Kingsland, L.

Waddington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Brookman, L.

Ahmed, L.

Burlison, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Carter, L.

Alli, L.

Christopher, L.

Amos, B. (LordPresident)

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Andrews, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Bach, L.

Crawley, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Berkeley, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Billingham, B.

Dixon, L.

Blackstone, B.

Donoughue, L.

Bragg, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Brennan, L.

Dubs, L.

Brett, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

1599

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord

Mallalieu, B.

Chancellor)

Massey of Darwen, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Mishcon, L.

Fitt, L.

Mitchell, L.

Gale, B.

Morgan, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Golding, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Pendry, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Radice, L.

Hannay of Chiswick, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Harrison, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Richard, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Sandwich, E.

Hoyle, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Sewel, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Sheldon, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Simon, V.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Slim, V.

Stallard, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Strange, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Jordan, L.

Tenby, V.

Judd, L.

Thornton, B.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Turnbere, L.

Layard, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Warner, L.

McCarthy, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Whitaker, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Whitty, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Wilkins, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.3 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion, at end to insert "and this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to lay a new draft order requiring the Interception of Communications Commissioner to inform any person who appears to have been adversely affected by any wilful or reckless failure on the part of any person exercising or undertaking any of the powers and duties conferred or imposed on him by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 in relation to the acquisition or disclosure of communications data, subject to national security safeguards".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion, at end to insert "and this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to lay a new draft order requiring the Interception of Communications Commissioner to inform any person who appears to have been adversely affected by any wilful or reckless failure on the part of any person exercising or undertaking any of the powers and duties conferred or imposed on him by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 in relation to the acquisition or disclosure of communications data, subject to national security safeguards".—(Lord Phillips of Sudbury.)
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 126; Not-Contents, 99.

Division No.2

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Luke, L.

Addington, L. [Teller]

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

MacLaurin of Knebworth, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

McNally, L.

Attlee, E.

Maddock, B.

Avebury, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Barker, B.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Methuen, L.

Biffen, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Blackwell, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Blatch, B.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Monson, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Montrose, D.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Moynihan, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Byford, B.

Newby, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Noakes, B.

Chorley, L.

Northesk, E.

Cobbold, L.

Northover, B.

Coe, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Colwyn, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

O'Cathain, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Onslow, E.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Denham, L.

Patten, L.

Dholakia, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Rawlings, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Reay, L.

Elton, L.

Redesdale, L.

Erroll, E.

Rees, L.

Falkland, V.

Rennard, L.

Feldman, L.

Renton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Flather, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Freyberg, L.

Roper, L.

Geddes, L.

Russell, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Sandberg, L.

Glentoran, L.

Seccombe, B.

Goodhart, L.

Selborne, E.

Goschen, V.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Hanham, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Slim, V.

Higgins, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Howe, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Strange, B.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Hylton, L.

Swinfen, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Tebbit, L.

Jopling, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Kingsland, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Vivian, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Waddington, L.

Liverpool, E.

Walmsley, B.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Lucas, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

1601

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Ahmed, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Alli, L.

Hoyle, L.

Amos, B. (Lord President)

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Andrews, B.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Bach, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Berkeley, L.

Joffe, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Jordan, L.

Billingham, B.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Blackstone, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Bragg, L.

McCarthy, L.

Bramall, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Brennan, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brett, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Brookman, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Burlison, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Carter, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Christopher, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Mishcon, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mitchell, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Morgan, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Crawley, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Pendry, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Pitkeathley, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Radice, L.

Dixon, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Donoughue, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Richard, L.

Dubs, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Falconer of Thoroton. L. (Lord

Sewel, L.

Chancellor)

Sheldon, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Simon, V.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Stallard, L.

Gale, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Tenby, V.

Golding, B.

Thornton, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Turnberg, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Whitaker, B.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Whitty, L.

Hannay of Chiswick, L.

Wilkins, B.

Harrison, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.14 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion, at end to insert "and this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to lay a new draft order only when a full report has been given to Parliament on the entitlement (and the conditions attaching thereto) on the part of any foreign government, body or person to require access to communications data in the United Kingdom pursuant to any legislation, agreement, treaty or convention whether national, international or in relation to the European Union and when the Government have taken note of Parliament's view on that report".
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion, at end to insert "and this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to lay a new draft order only when a full report has been given to Parliament on the entitlement (and the conditions attaching thereto) on the part of any foreign government, body or person to require access to communications data in the United Kingdom pursuant to any legislation, agreement, treaty or convention whether national, international or in relation to the European Union and when the Government have taken note of Parliament's view on that report".—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 120; Not-Contents, 98.

Division No.3

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Addington, L. [Teller]

Higgins, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Ashcroft, L.

Hooper, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Howe, E.

Attlee, E.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Avebury, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Barker, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kingsland, L.

Biffen, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Blackwell, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Blatch, B.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

Liverpool, E.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lucas, L.

Byford, B.

Luke, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

MacLaurin of Knebworth, L.

Chorley, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Cobbold, L.

McNally, L.

Colwyn, L.

Maddock, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Methuen, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Denham, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Dholakia, L.

Monson, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Montrose, D.

Eden of Winton, L.

Moynihan, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Murton of Lindisfame, L.

Elton, L.

Newby, L.

Erroll, E.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Falkland, V.

Noakes, B.

Feldman, L.

Northesk, E.

Ferrers, E.

Northover, B.

Flather, B.

Norton of Louth, L.

Freyberg, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Geddes, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Onslow, E.

Glentoran, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Goodhart, L.

Patten, L.

Goschen, V.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Hanham, B.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Quirk, L.

1603

Rawlings, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Reay, L.

Slim, V.

Redesdale, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Rees, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Rennard, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Renton, L.

Swinfen, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Tebbit, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Roper, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Russell, E.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Sandberg, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Vivian, L.

Selborne, E.

Waddington, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Walmsley, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Ahmed, L.

Hoyle, L.

Alli, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Andrews, B.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Bach, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Jordan, L.

Berkeley, L.

Judd, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Billingham, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Blackstone, B.

McCarthy, L.

Bragg, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Brennan, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brett, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Brookman, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Burlison, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Carter, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Christopher, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Mishcon, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mitchell, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Morgan, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Crawley, B.

Pendry, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Radice, L.

Dean of Thomton-le-Fylde, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Dixon, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Donoughue, L.

Richard, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Dubs, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Sewel, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord

Sheldon, L.

Chancellor)

Simon, V.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Stallard, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Gale, B.

Tenby, V.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Thornton, B.

Golding, B.

Turnberg, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Warner, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Whitaker, B.

Hannay of Chiswick, L.

Whitty, L.

Harrison, L.

Wilkins, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.

Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Directed Surveillance and Covert Human Intelligence Sources) Order 2003
5.25 p.m.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Scotland, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th October be approved [28th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Goldsmith.)
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch had given notice of her intention to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, to leave out all the words after "That" and insert "this House declines to approve the draft order laid before the House on 15th October".
[Amendment not moved.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Retention of Communications Data (Code of Practice) Order 2003
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Scotland, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th October be approved [30th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Goldsmith.)
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch had given notice of her intention to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, to leave out all the words after "That" and insert "this House declines to approve the draft order laid before the House on 29th October".
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I wish to say just a few words on this order. We are closely watching the Home Office and its statements today about the concerns we have expressed. Those concerns will apparently be addressed in the coming months. We look forward to something perhaps in the gracious Speech. We hope that something will happen between June and July of next year. However, I put it on the record that if we have an opportunity and there is no activity from the Home Office, we will resort to a Private Member's Bill to amend the primary Act.
[Amendment not moved.]
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill had given notice of his intention to move, as an amendment to the Motion, at end to insert "and this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to lay a new draft order containing effective safeguards to ensure that communications data retained pursuant to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 will not become liable to be obtained or disclosed under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 unless the criteria for obtaining or disclosing communications data under

1605
the 2000 Act are met in relation to those data in accordance with the fundamental right to personal privacy".
[Amendment not moved]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch had given notice of her intention to move, as an amendment to the Motion, at end to insert "and this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to lay a new draft order only when a full report has been given to Parliament on the entitlement (and the conditions attaching thereto) on the part of any foreign government, body or person to require access to communications data in the United Kingdom pursuant to any legislation, agreement, treaty or convention whether national, international or in relation to the European Union and when the Government have taken note of Parliament's view on that report".
[Amendment not moved.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Retention of Communications Data (Extension of Initial Period) Order 2003
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Scotland, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th September be approved [28th Report from the Joint Committee].—{Lord Goldsmith.)
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch had given notice of her intention to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, to leave out all the words after "That" and insert "this House declines to approve the draft order laid before the House on 1lth September".
[Amendment not moved.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Sexual Offences Bill [H.L.]
5.27 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to HL Bill 128 as first printed for the Commons.]

COMMONS AMENDMENT
1 Clause 2, Leave out Clause 2
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.
1606
We recognise the difficulties associated with this area of law. Being accused of a sex offence often carries with it a great social stigma, and the adverse publicity that often results from being linked to such an allegation can have serious consequences for a person's status and reputation in the community, employment and sense of self-worth. Amendment No. 1 leaves out the clause introduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, at Lords Report which gave defendants in rape and other cases the same right to anonymity as that enjoyed by the defendants.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
Clause 2, The Lord Ackner rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 1, at end insert "but do propose the following amendment in lieu of the words so left out of the Bill—
1A Clause 2, Insert the following new Clause—
"Disclosure of matter likely to identify defendant
In section 1 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, after subsection (3) insert—
"(3A) Where a person ("the defendant") is accused of an offence to which this Act applies, no matter likely to lead members of the public to identify the defendant as the person by whom the offence is alleged to have been committed shall during the defendant's lifetime be included in any publication unless the defendant has been convicted of the offence.""
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, who provided at my request this particular drafting of my amendment in lieu. My original draft had to be done in a hurry, but it served its purpose. My amendment reads as follows:
"Disclosure of matter likely to identify defendant
In section 1 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, after subsection (3) insert—
"(3A) Where a person ("the defendant") is accused of an offence to which this Act applies, no matter likely to lead members of the public to identify the defendant as the person by whom the offence is alleged to have been committed shall during the defendant's lifetime be included in any publication unless the defendant has been convicted of the offence.'"
Amendments Nos. 1B and 1C—tabled respectively by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford—although using different language, point to the contrast with my amendment. Instead of giving anonymity to the defendant right up until conviction or acquittal, they say that he should have anonymity only so long as he has not been charged.
I shall submit to your Lordships that that is quite inadequate because the period between charging and trial is the vital period. It is in that time that newspapers get to work and a defendant's life can be rendered utterly miserable.
I should point out that when I tabled my amendment, which provided that anonymity should last until the defendant was convicted or acquitted, I had the support of both the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of

1607
Gresford. I remind your Lordships of the substance of the debate on this matter on Report. I pointed out that the anonymity which I sought had been granted by Section 6 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 and enjoyed for some 12 years until Section 158 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 withdrew it.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred to the Heilbron committee report which ante-dated the 1976 Act. It suggested that it was not right to select out sexual offences concerning anonymity for the defendant, although it recommended and achieved anonymity for the complainant. Her approach was not adopted by Parliament in the 1976 Act; and it is interesting to note that one of the strongest proponents of anonymity was the noble Lord, Lord Ashley.
On Report I said:
"The Government's cri de Coeur has been that we must adjust any imbalance that exists between complainant and defendant in criminal trials".—[Official Report, 2/6/03; col. 1084.]
I hope noble Lords will have noted that I used the word "complainant". I am averse to using the word "victim" because that reverses the whole onus of proof and presupposes that the complainant has already shown the validity of her complaint, which of course she has not.
I was supported by a number of noble Baronesses. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, was the first speaker in my favour. She said:
"My Lords, from these Benches"—
I underline the word "Benches"—
"we support the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. We strongly believe in equality under the law".
She went on to say that she raised the subject at Second Reading because of her conviction that,
"we are to be seen to be as fair to the defendant as we are to the complainant".
She recalled the Minister's response:
"'Well, if rapists; why not murders or shoplifters?'".—[Official Report, 2/6/03; cols. 1085–86.]
The difference is quite important and has been overlooked by the Government. It is that that we live in a society that is obsessed with sex. As a result the publicity given to a person accused of a sexual offence occupies front page space whereas that dealing with murderers and shoplifters—unless of course little children are concerned with murders—receives very much back page response.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, who also supported me, said in terms:
"In recent cases involving Mr John Leslie and Mr and Mrs Neil Hamilton, they were subjected to appalling adverse publicity with no charges pressed. But there are people who will always say, "There is no smoke without fire". The intention behind the amendment is wholly laudable. I hope that the Government will say that they are prepared to consider introducing a provision to deal with the issue both pre-charge and during the course of a case, once it is decided to press a charge".—[Official Report, 2/6/03; col. 1087.]
The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, who has enormous experience in trials involving sexual offences, said in terms that she thought that it was clear
1608
that some protection was needed for those who are not subsequently charged, as well as defendants awaiting trial. She said at col. 1088:
"That is a real problem. As noble Lords have said, whether or not there is ultimately a charge, reputations are wrongly ruined and a great deal of suffering is caused".
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, whom I hope will remain faithful—in a forensic sense of the term—to me, said that she hoped that the Minister would take the amendment away and even consider anonymity beyond the point of charge. She preferred that amendment to that which provided anonymity only up to charge. She continued:
"Some men in such situations are driven not just to the point of, but to actual, suicide. I cannot think of anything more dreadful to someone who is completely innocent and vexatiously charged with such a serious offence than having to live through the kind of publicity that goes with it. We should not underestimate the effect of that".—[Official Report, 2/6/03; col. 1088.]
Not long ago, on the Isle of Wight, a suicide case received a great deal of publicity. The explanation was that the person concerned, although protesting his innocence, could not stand the stress and strain of the publicity.
I also pray in aid the support of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester, who considered the arguments for anonymity only up to charge and for anonymity right up until the court's decision. He said:
"On balance, the argument comes down in favour of granting the same rights of anonymity in principle to those who are accused".— [Official Report, 2/6/03; col. 1089.]
Later he said:
"My Lords, the noble and learned Lord referred to the guidance issued last November"—
that is the guidance to the police not to provide any information until charge. He continued:
"Soon after that a well-known entertainer, Matthew Kelly, was dragged through the papers in an unfortunate way. He was dragged from his pantomime performance and it was in the press within five minutes. This was on the back of the guidance being issued. I happen to know this because my wife is involved in charitable affairs in my diocese. I know the impact on him and his family. Unless the guidance the Association of Chief Police Officers has issued is given some teeth, it is not worth the paper it is written on".—[Official Report, 2/6/03; col. 1094.]
Those are excerpts from our debate.
If your Lordships are persuaded, as you should be, that the media, with the sexual obsession that nowadays enters all aspects of society, treats publicity for sexual offences so differently from the publicity accorded to offences even more serious, there is a whole justification for singling out the defendant and allowing him to have the same anonymity as that provided, which we all agree should be provided, to the complainant. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1, at end insert Amendment No. 1A in lieu of the words so left out of the Bill.—(Lord Ackner.)
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, this group includes Amendment No. 1B, which stands in my name. It proposes a different anonymity in cases involving

1609
sexual offences. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, pointed out, my amendment proposes anonymity running only until a defendant has been charged.
We debated the issue in your Lordships' House on Report, what seems almost half a lifetime ago. The case was made forcibly then that defendant anonymity in rape cases throughout the process could prevent other victims of rape or sexual offences coming forward. That was a very powerful point, which, on reflection, has led these Benches to propose the variant of pre-charge anonymity. We do not believe that justice would be served sufficiently by total anonymity for defendants as proposed in the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner.
My amendment and that of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, allow publicity to ensue once the police have established that there is a case to answer and to charge the individual. But if there is not enough evidence to warrant a charge, publicity of any kind would be against the law. The Minister will argue that sexual offences should be treated no differently from other serious offences, such as murder, where defendant anonymity does not apply. But, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has already pointed out, society is obsessed with sex, and for that reason, a particular social stigma is attached to those accused of sexual crimes. The celebrity cases that we debated when we discussed the issue previously are very pertinent and reputations have been damaged unnecessarily.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, whose legal abilities are infinitely superior to mine, tells me that his amendment is superior to mine. Both amendments are directed at granting anonymity pre-charge, but the precise wording of each differs. Given that I am surrounded by very eminent lawyers, as a mere accountant, I am extremely humbled and bow to all their legal expertise. I did, however, put one non-lawyer's question to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, yesterday. I asked him why his amendment, unlike mine and that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, had no prescribed penalty. I think that I managed the beginner's luck of scoring a bull's eye. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, will address that point when he speaks to his amendment.
The Minister may argue, as did her honourable friend Mr Goggins in another place, that serious discussions are in train between the Home Office, the police and the media to try to find a solution based on self-regulation. I am sure that if a self-regulatory solution could be found and made to stick, that would be the most satisfactory way forward. But I hope that the Minister will forgive the touch of cynicism on these Benches, as the plain fact is that sex sells and the pressures on a self-regulatory system would be very intense.
I hope that the Minister will be able to accept pre-charge anonymity for defendants in sexual offences cases. In accepting that, it need not imply early commencement. Indeed, we would be more than happy if the Government did not commence a new section to deal with the issue if that was the result of
1610
a self-regulatory system that actually worked. But we believe that the offence as set out in my amendment or that of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, should be available to the Government in case their discussions break down or if a future self-regulatory system breaks down.
Let me conclude by saying for the guidance of my noble friends that we do not support the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. As between my amendment and that of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, I am persuaded that his formulation of the offence is preferable, subject to the issue that I have raised concerning the penalty. Subject to that point, which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, intends to address, I shall advise my noble friends to support Amendment No. 1C.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, is about to leave this area of legislation. I thank her for the way in which she has conducted this brief on behalf of her party. This is her swansong, and as she flies away to a larger pond she cannot resist swiping me with her wing on the way. It is perfectly true that she discovered that I was in error in omitting the prescribed penalty from my amendment.
I had in mind to move a manuscript amendment in order to put that right, but I read a book that said that that could not be done on Third Reading—I see that the Minister is nodding her head. However, about five seconds ago I was handed a manuscript Motion in the name of the Government, so it looks as though they are about to propose one. We propose that, if this House accepts my amendment, the prescribed penalty can be put in place in another place. If that does not happen, it could be added on the Bill's return to this House.
The answers that the Government have given to the question of anonymity are that it should be open justice. However, when we talk about open justice in the field of sexual offences, we swiftly run into a brick wall, certainly with regard to rape cases. In such cases, the anonymity of the claimant is preserved. If the naming of an arrested person may bring forward more complaints from other people who may have been subject to similar conduct, the naming of the complainant may similarly bring forward other witnesses who can aver that she has made false allegations in the past. What is good for one person for open justice must be good for the other.
However, I would not for one moment suggest that a complainant should lose her anonymity in such cases. There are much larger reasons why that is so. The effect of the trial on a victim of a sexual offence is bad enough, but the effects of the publicity are far worse. Rape is indeed a terrifying crime when it is committed. It is a violation of both body and mind and is rightly visited by very harsh punishment. The guidelines for rape start at a minimum of five years' imprisonment, but sentences are usually longer than that.

1611
The other sexual offences that are listed in Schedule 3 that are the subject of my amendment also carry heavy punishment, especially allegations of child abuse. This is a very serious crime with very serious effects, but it also has a peculiarity that other crimes do not have. Nobody complains that their house has been burgled when it has not. However, in my experience and, I am sure, in that of the Minister, in sexual cases complainants do not always tell the truth. I have experience in my capacity as an advocate of a daughter bursting into tears on returning home when asked by her parents why she has been out so late. She is swiftly taken to the police with a false complaint of rape. I also knew a woman who fell out with her partner and used the police to punish him, and another woman who was seduced into a consensual act but very much regretted it later. Those are circumstances that are peculiar to sexual offences when complainants are not always truthful.
An acquitted defendant carries a very heavy burden, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, pointed out. There may be permanent damage to his reputation, to his family and to his state of mind. I have great sympathy with the proposal in the noble and learned Lord's amendment for anonymity to remain for all time for an acquitted defendant. However, we must take one step at a time in this area. We have focused on what I regard as the most pernicious aspect of the present time, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, referred— the pernicious practice of the leaking of names of arrested persons to the press, sometimes for cash.
The noble Baroness referred to the Hamilton case. The Hamiltons had their names leaked to the press before they ever arrived at Barkingside police station in the first place. When they emerged from that police station 90 minutes later, they stumbled into a barrage of cameras and reporters. From there they were forced to go on the offensive. We now know beyond peradventure—because the complainant has been convicted of attempting to pervert the course of justice— that the complaints made against the Hamiltons were completely untrue. In our amendment, we have attempted to deal with that situation; namely, the leaking of the names of arrested persons before charge and the publication of them in newspapers. Our amendments seek to make it an offence for the editor or publisher of a newspaper or the controller of a programme to publish the identity of an individual before a charge has been brought.
However, we recognise that there may be two exceptions to that, which are included in paragraph (3) of Amendment No. 1C. The person against whom the allegation has been made may waive his right of anonymity for the very reason that I suggested at the beginning of my remarks: he believes that other people may come forward to say, "This woman is a liar".
Alternatively, it may be that the police have reason to suppose that the person who has been caught is a serial rapist. Under paragraph (3)(b) of Amendment No. 1C, they may apply to a magistrates' court for the section to be disapplied, giving proper grounds for it and being subject to judicial control. In our view, those two
1612
exceptions to the basic anonymity of the defendant deal with the problems outlined by the Minister on the earlier occasion. In due course, I shall press this amendment.
The Government say that we have a voluntary scheme, that we have the Press Council and that the police have disciplinary powers. Those have not worked in the past. If the Government want to try a voluntary arrangement, perhaps they could defer bringing the clause into operation while they have that attempt. But the last pint would have been pulled in the last chance saloon.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by apologising for not taking part during the Report stage on this topic. I apologise specifically to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. When his amendment on Report was put to the vote, regrettably, I went into the wrong Lobby. I am being frank about that and I regret it very much. I say that because it was a Private Member's Bill that I sponsored in 1976. It was taken through this House by the late Lord Willis, which gave matching anonymity to the defendant in a rape trial unless convicted. That became the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 with the sponsorship and support of my noble friends Lady Hayman and Lord Ashley of Stoke, and others, when we were all in another place.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said, anonymity for the complainant woman had been argued for in a report by Justice Heilbron. She said that it should apply from the time that a man was accused of the offence. That anonymity was meant to protect women from the salacious intrusion of the press—in both words and pictures—which, in my view, it was rightly felt could deter some women from reporting rape to the police. We can all recall cases of that.
Initially, in Committee, I resisted the move to give matching anonymity to the male defendant. But I was persuaded on the grounds of equality of treatment, which won all-party support in that Committee. The argument for anonymity for the defendant, unless convicted, is—in my view, it still remains—that an accusation of rape, even where there is an acquittal, is so uniquely damaging to a man's reputation among his family, friends, those with whom he works, and in his community, that this matching protection is exceptionally warranted.
Because of the interest taken by the press and media in rape trials where, say, a vicar's daughter is involved or a footballer or show business personality is accused, there might be a disproportionate degree of pre-trial publicity as compared with other serious criminal offences. I do not regard it as any part of the criminal justice system to help newspaper editors sell extra copies on the basis of prurient reporting and coverage.
There are those who say that this is an attempt to do justice in the dark. I deny that. Names are used in court, but what can be reported is restricted in the way that matters in other kinds of trials are restricted. Blackmail and espionage trials come to mind.

1613
When the other place considered the anonymity clause added by your Lordships to the Bill, it was argued that its restoration would restrict the police in trying to trace possible witnesses or to hear from other women who might have been raped by the defendant, but had not reported it. I have to say to noble Lords that during the 12 years that anonymity for the defendant was provided under the 1976 Act, I am not aware of any complaint made either by the police or prosecution on those grounds in rape trials.
In any event, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, reminded us, the 1976 Act gave the judge powers to remove anonymity if she or he felt it to be in the public interest to do so, or it could be removed at the request of the defendant. So I do not believe that the argument is at all convincing.
The present law recognises that in rape trials it is very much the complainant woman who feels on trial. A verdict turns on whether it is the woman complainant or the defendant man who is most believed. But in law, of course, it is the defendant man who is on trial and I remain of the view that justice is neither damaged nor denied if he has matching anonymity unless convicted.
The other amendments which have been tabled acknowledge the justification for matching anonymity for the defendant, but seek to provide it only up to the point of charge. I see no good reason for stopping at that stage. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, argues in his amendment, anonymity should extend throughout the trial and be removed only upon conviction. I hope that your Lordships will agree.
Lastly, I wish to echo what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. If there are people around who believe that there will be a voluntary agreement by the Press Complaints Commission that will be enforceable in all circumstances, then I have to say to them that they have not learnt from past experience.
6 p.m.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I thought that I had been brought up in a civilised country in which a person was innocent until proved guilty. That is not worth much if an innocent person cannot return to a normal life. I therefore support the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner.
Lord Monson: My Lords, although I tend to prefer the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, when considering realistically the voting strengths in this House, we probably ought to go for one of the other two.
I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, in speaking to his amendment. I do not know whether the noble Lord is allowed to respond to me, but is he absolutely certain that, if the other place declines to add the prescribed penalties to his amendment—which it is perfectly entitled to do, assuming that his amendment is accepted this evening—it will be technically possible to add the penalties, with no slip-ups, when the Bill
1614
returns to this House? If there is any doubt whatever, it might be better to support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, even if it is not quite as good as that of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I rise to support every word just spoken by my noble friend Lord Corbett, and to reassure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, that I have not got cold feet since the last occasion on which we discussed this matter. I am sorry about the approach that has been taken by both the Front Benches opposite because the principle is clear and I do not think that either of the proposed amendments will cover the full position.
I can quite understand that no government would want to be seen either by the press or by the public as trying to stifle proper public knowledge and discussion, but no one in this House or anywhere else could argue that self-regulation has worked effectively. As my noble friend has just pointed out, which of us would put money on even sabre-rattling in a measure such as this producing any better effect? The reality is that sex and well-known people sell newspapers. The temptation will always be there and usually people will give in to it in order to print the story.
If we go along the line of, in a sense, taking a small bite at this, as is suggested in the amendments from both the Front Benches opposite, we shall still be left with the very considerable difficulty that now arises in almost every case involving either someone well known or something notorious. I speak of the applications that are made before the trial can even begin to try to deal with the prejudicial publicity which has taken place. As we know, the tip-off starts— perhaps sometimes it is given by the police themselves; who knows?—before anyone even arrives at the door and knocks on it to arrest or question the suspect.
It is said that we should restrict ourselves in order that there can be publicity which may bring forward other complainants. Over the past few years, in that area we have seen a number of miscarriages and potential miscarriages of justice where, by publicising, people have in a sense been trawling—the police particularly—for additional evidence to back up cases which they know to be lacking in strength. Those who are attracted to come forward may, in some cases, be genuine complainants—but there may also be those seeking attention.
I do not accept the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. His amendment seems to me to be second best. If he moves it later, as he said he will, I shall support it, but only if the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, is either not pressed or fails. We are in danger of letting go an opportunity which will not come again in the near future, and certainly will not come again until other people's reputations have been destroyed, jobs lost and untold distress caused to people who should not have suffered.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. In the absence of

1615
the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester on this occasion, I also support the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner.
I agree that there is an urgent need to protect innocent people from undesirable press publicity and intrusion. I am not persuaded that the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, are sufficient to outweigh the potential danger of false accusation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, clearly explained. I should need to be persuaded that there was a sufficient reason for limiting anonymity to the point of charge rather than to the point of conviction. I should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, or the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, could be rather more persuasive on that before I have to make up my mind one way or the other.
I hope very much that the Minister will understand the extreme strength of feeling that there is on this matter and that the Government will accept, at the very least, the lesser amendment, but I hope the greater one.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I have listened carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, but there is one genuine problem: what do you do during the course of a trial if the anonymity of the defendant is to remain at that time? You will be immediately accused by the press of interfering with its right to report public trials. If there is a sensational trial taking place, say, at the Old Bailey, and you attempt to retain anonymity, everyone will know effectively who the defendant is. He will be seen walking to court and coming back from court. Or, if he is not recognised, rumours will start that it is someone else being tried.
Obviously the ideal would be to have anonymity all the way through but there is a practical argument that the time when it is really effective is up until charge, when there is no reason, if anonymity is imposed, for people to get round it. In other words, anonymity would work until charged, but I wonder whether it would work during the course of a trial.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and support the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner.
I do so because I have met quite a number of people who have been accused falsely of sexual offences. The moment the accusation was made—or before even the accusation became public knowledge—the fact that they had been accused was in the public domain. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, made the point about the police giving such information to the press and to the media, sometimes before even the so-called accused has any knowledge of what is about to overtake him.
I have met men whose lives have been completely ruined as a result of what has taken place, yet when the facts have been impartially examined, or when their case has gone to trial, the accused has been shown to be innocent. We ought not to allow this sort of situation to continue.
1616
I take the point that my noble friend made about the difficulty of retaining anonymity during the course of a trial. However, by notifying the media in this way, I believe that there will be at least some restraint imposed upon the reporting that might take place. I think it is illusory to expect any form of self-regulation in cases of this kind. That will not happen, for the reasons advanced by my noble friend Lady Noakes when she said, in effect, that sex sells copies. It does, and the media will got out of their way to find opportunities to give publicity to such cases. Therefore, I support what has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and noble Lords who spoke from the Benches opposite. Like them, if the noble and learned Lord's amendment should not pass, I shall support the amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, I, too, am moved to support the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, if he seeks the opinion of the House, for the reasons which have already been given.
I have heard the argument from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that there might be some difficulty in persuading people—or hoping that there will be volunteers—to complain of such sexual attacks, if publicity were not available. However, in the event of there being a conviction, it appears to me that publicity of a kind would certainly be released at the conclusion of the trial which would encourage others who had experienced comparable events to come forward. It does not seem necessary to have the long, protracted, prurient reportage of these cases in order to achieve the result that the noble Baroness had in mind.
My noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford described his amendment as a step. It is indeed a step, but it does not go far enough to deal with the mischief that was eloquently described by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. Like other noble Lords, I would support my noble friend's amendment if it were to follow that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and an opportunity presented itself. However, I am bound to say that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has put forward an irresistible case.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as I said in moving the government amendment, we very much recognise the difficulties associated with this area of law. As the noble Lord, Lord Eden of Winton, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford and my noble friend Lord Corbett have made plain, it is a matter which can carry great stigma and difficulty.
I have a word of comfort for the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, who drew attention to the flaws identified in her amendment. Each of the amendments has fundamental flaws, but for different reasons, so she need feel no anxiety that her skill has in any way

1617
been compromised by the nature of her original profession. I shall not repeat all the details, but we prefer self-regulation and a code of practice as the better way. The noble Baroness acknowledged that. We are not without hope in that regard.
It might assist if I identified why we believe that each of the amendments moved by noble Lords opposite, and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, is flawed. The noble and learned Lord's new amendment would extend anonymity to defendants up to the point of conviction. It is the only amendment of the group that does so. I recognise that it is supported by many in the House, the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, being the last to speak in support of it.
The previous amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord suggested that the defendant should have the same right to anonymity as complainants. In effect, that would have provided life-long anonymity, regardless of whether a defendant was convicted. This amendment would amend the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, which provides anonymity for victims of some offences. Although the amendment is similar to his previous amendment, which was narrowly successful in your Lordships' House, it does not reflect the general sentiments expressed so far in both Houses.
The main concern in this matter relates to the pre-charge period. For that reason, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble Baroness limited their amendments. It would appear that the noble and learned Lord's amendment does not cover the pre-charge period at all. It provides for anonymity from the point where the defendant is accused of an offence. It does not define what is meant by a person being accused of an offence, but the definition in the 1992 Act of "being accused" is essentially "being charged". Thus the amendment appears to cover the post-charge period but not the pre-charge period, which is of most concern.
Amendment No. 1B would provide anonymity to persons suspected of an offence listed in Schedule 3, up to the point of charge. The schedule lists a wide range of offences that trigger registration on the sex offenders' list. That amendment would also introduce a penalty, including a maximum of two years' imprisonment. There are various deficiencies to the clause; I do not know whether they were all enumerated by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, but it may assist if I do so.
First, it imposes criminal liability on proprietors, editors and publishers, regardless of whether they are aware that the person's identity is being revealed. That unfairness is compounded by the risk of a fairly lengthy term of imprisonment—a deficiency also arises in Amendment No. 1C. If that provision had been in force at the time of the unexpected revelation of the identity of John Leslie by a TV presenter on a live show, the editor of the broadcast would have been liable and could have faced a prison sentence.
1618
Secondly, the proposed penalties are inconsistent with reporting restrictions relating to persons under 18 in the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 and anonymity of complainants in the Sex Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, and in the Criminal Justice Bill. A level 5 fine, which is a maximum of £5,000, is sufficient for those purposes.
Thirdly, the proposal makes no provision for lifting reporting restrictions in exceptional circumstances, such as when a dangerous suspect is at large and the public needs to be warned or if a suspect needs publicity for alibi purposes. Failure to provide the defence with the ability to waive anonymity, for, say, the purposes of obtaining alibi information may in certain circumstances impede the right to a fair trial thereby making this amendment in contravention of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Similarly, the fact that the courts have no discretion whatever to lift reporting restrictions is likely to make the provision incompatible with Article 10 and the right to freedom of expression. Finally, this amendment and Amendment No. 1C—the noble Baroness can feel comforted that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, shares this position with her— refer to applying the measure to offences listed in Schedule 3 of this Bill.
If I may respectfully say so, referring to an offence listed in Schedule 3 does not make sense pre-conviction as it would bring in all the thresholds in Schedule 3 which would include those relating to imprisonment. For example, Schedule 3 applies only to a young person who commits a child sex offence if he is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of at least 12 months. It is difficult to see how that would be applied at the pre-charge stage.
I turn to Amendment No. 1C. This amendment seeks to improve Amendment No. 1B by adding exceptions to reporting restrictions. The exceptions would provide that a suspect may waive his right to anonymity and that a court may lift the restrictions on application by a police officer at least of the rank of inspector. Such a delay in making an application to a court could still leave the police with operational difficulties which could put the safety of the public at risk. Furthermore, it would still mean an application to a court in any case where a TV programme such as "Crimewatch"—I am sure that noble Lords will be familiar with that programme—or a newspaper asked to give publicity involving identifying the suspect in order to apprehend him. This amendment does not make provision as to the test that should be used by the magistrates' court for disapplying anonymity. We believe that the court should have power to disapply anonymity only if it would be in the interests of justice to do so. There is also no provision for allowing the press to apply for the lifting of reporting restrictions.
The term "publication" is left undefined in this amendment. Yet what constitutes a publication is critical to the scope of the amendment. We believe that it should be defined in the same way as it is for the purposes of the reporting restrictions in the Youth

1619
Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. If I may respectfully say so, the amendment makes no sense because it refers to a "relevant programme" without defining what that is and without explaining how it relates to a "publication". Again, we would have thought that the term should be defined in the same way as it is in the 1999 Act.
Finally, this amendment does not spell out the appropriate mode of trial or penalty for this offence— a point which the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, with her usual acuity, alighted upon. The effect of this is that the offence would be triable on indictment only with a limitless penalty meaning that a defendant in such a case could, at least in theory, face an unlimited fine and/or a term of life imprisonment!
We have listened very carefully indeed to representations from those concerned about the very real harm that can be caused through the reporting of defendants' details. We also recognise that much concern in these cases arises from the damaging publicity that is often generated pre-charge.
We believe that informed and strengthened guidance to the police and the media is preferable to any change in legislation. The police code of conduct provides that information which comes into the possession of the police should be treated as confidential. It should not be used for personal benefit and nor should it be divulged to other parties except in the proper course of police duty. The code also demands that police officers have a particular responsibility to act with fairness and impartiality in all their dealings with the public and their colleagues. Regardless of whether on or off duty they should not behave in a way which is likely to bring discredit upon the police service. Unauthorised disclosure of information on the suspect by a police officer is likely to be considered a breach of the code. Such a breach means that an officer's conduct has not met the appropriate standard for the purposes of the police conduct regulations, and disciplinary proceedings may commence.
An officer could face dismissal or even prosecution, depending on the circumstances of the case. In 2002–03, approximately 61 such cases were substantiated. An agreement has been reached with ACPO that it would amend its media and disciplinary guidelines to all forces, to give greater prominence to the rules that govern the release of information about anyone suspected but not yet charged with an offence. That stronger guidance has already been put into effect, bringing the importance of the issue to the attention of police officers.
The Government have also engaged in detailed discussions with the chairman of the Press Complaints Commission. As a result, the press is now looking at its code of conduct to see how that can be strengthened to ensure that those suspected but not yet charged with offences are not named in the media.
1620
The Government have gone much further than the amendments would do. They are limited to certain sexual offences under the Bill. We have made it clear in our dealings with the police and the media that we expect them to apply such self-regulation in relation to all offences, including the heinous crime of murder. The Government have never been of the view that sexual offences should be singled out in the way proposed by the amendments.
Of course I have listened with great care to what has been said. The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, was right in saying that the matters might be capable of being contained pre-charge, but that there would be a terrible hornets' nest if one were to extend further than that. There is a balance between the freedom of the press to report in a proper way and liberty in that sense, and the interests of the parties concerned.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I hope that the Minister is not suggesting that I in any way withdrew my support of the position pre-charge. I believe that there should be anonymity pre-charge.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: No, my Lords. I was merely alluding to the fact that the noble Lord was referring to the difficulty that comes after charge in managing. He was quite right to raise concern about the practicality of how one would seek to manage that. That does not mean in any way a failure to appreciate the concerns so ably outlined by my noble friend Lord Corbett, who mentioned the work that he and my noble friend Lady Hayman did when they were in the other place, in relation to the 1976 legislation.
I want to make it clear that the sentiments mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and my noble friend Lady Mallalieu have been very much at the forefront of the Government's thinking. We have come to the decision that the balance is properly struck by strengthening the code as I have just indicated. I invite noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, at the outset of the debate on Report, I drew attention to the gap between 1976 and 1988, 12 years during which the defendant enjoyed anonymity. I said in terms that there had been no evidence of that giving rise to injustice or causing any problem at all. That was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, for whose speech I am much indebted. Where is the problem? We have had a situation where the defendant enjoyed anonymity. What is the anxiety about putting that back? I will tell noble Lords what the anxiety is. It is the fear of criticism by the press.
In a speech which I and all other High Court judges had to make once a year at the University of Birmingham, I said in terms that the greatest problem facing any democracy is how to achieve a responsible

1621
press. Your Lordships may agree that recent events concerning the Prince of Wales make that position even clearer today.
This Government, like any other, refuse to face up to the need for legislation on privacy and they have left it entirely to self-regulation. One of my critics was the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. She said that one would lose the willingness of people to come forward, but she also said this about the press:
"The editor of one of our tabloid newspapers recently gave evidence before the Home Office Select Committee and said that her newspaper had paid money to police officers for information. It is well known that there are leaks from the police, particularly when the people involved have a public profile or an eminent position, whatever it might be. There are frequently leaks because it makes for good tabloid coverage".—[Official Report, 2/6/03; cols. 1092–3.]
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. made a strong point on the subject. She said:
"The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The: Shaws, said that others may come forward. If someone has a complaint, he or she should make it. It is rare for people to come forward when there is publicity. It is much more important that both the defendant and the complainant are treated equally in these exceptional circumstances".—[Official Report, 2/6/03; col. 1086.]
That is why she supported the amendment.
Returning to other matters that have been raised, perhaps I may deal first with the law on rape as it is now. An obligation on the judge to give the jury a warning about the absence of corroboration has been removed. I suppose that that was because pressure groups said that it was rude to suggest that women make up false allegations.
I have had the pleasure of listening, in Privy Council in particular, to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, but I have never had the pleasure of leading him. I am grateful to him for being an efficient junior by pointing out the fact that there are frequently cases that are made up. Your Lordships may recall that they are made up not only maliciously, but also by an illusion. That was firmly demonstrated in that fine drama, A Passage To India. A wretched Indian was put into prison, but while he was being tried, the situation suddenly became clear to the complainant. The penalty deficiency can easily be put right as has been properly pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, during the course of his observations.
That completes the points I want to raise because it deals with the various criticisms which have been made. I do not believe that the timid reliance on self-regulation, in order to ensure that you do not fall out with the press, is any argument at all. It is the Government's function primarily to stand up to the press. Until they do so, we shall continually have an irresponsible press.
1622
Having listened to what has been said, I believe that this is an appropriate case in which to test the opinion of the House.
6.36 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1A as an amendment to Amendment No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 26; Not-Contents, 86.

Division No.4

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Hylton, L.

Ashcroft, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Monson, L. [Teller]

Craigavon, V.

Palmer, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Renton, L.

Erroll, E.[Teller]

Sandwich, E.

Feldman, L.

Slynn of Hadley, L.

Hannay of Chiswick, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hayman, B.

Tebbit, L.

Hereford, Bp.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Weatherill, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Gilbert, L.

Ahmed, L.

Golding, B.

Alli, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Amos, B. (Lord President)

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Andrews, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Bach, L.

Harrison, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hollick, L.

Berkeley, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Bhatia, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Billingham, B.

Hoyle, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Borrie, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Bragg, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Brett, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Judd, L.

Brookman, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Burlison, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Carter, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Chandos, V.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Christopher, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Crawley, B.

Mitchell, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Morgan, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Parekh, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Pendry, L.

Donoughue, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Dubs, L.

Rea, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Richard, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Chancellor)

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Sewel, L.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Simon, V.

Gale, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

1623

Thornton, B.

Whitty, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Whitaker, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.46 p.m.
[Amendment No. 1B not moved.]
Lord Thomas of Gresford rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1, at end insert "but do propose the following amendment in lieu of the words so left out of the Bill—
1C Insert the following new Clause—
"Anonymity of suspects and defendants in certain cases (No. 2)

(1) Subject to subsection (3), where an allegation has been made that a person has committed an offence listed in Schedule 3, no matter relating to that person shall be included in any publication if it is likely to lead members of the public to identify that person as the person who is alleged to have committed the offence, until and unless that person is charged.

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

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

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

(c)in the case of a matter included in a relevant programme, any body corporate which is engaged in providing the service in which the programme is included and any person having functions in relation to the programme corresponding to those of an editor of a newspaper;

shall be guilty of an offence.

(3) Subsection (1) shall not apply—

(a) if the person against whom the allegation has been made waives his right to anonymity; or

(b) if it is disapplied in relation to a specific person by a magistrates' court on application by a police officer of at least the rank of inspector.""

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment in the debate on Amendment No. 1A. I have nothing to add. I ask the House to agree to it. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1, at end insert Amendment No. 1C in lieu of the words so left out of the Bill.—(Lord Thomas of Gresford.)
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1C) shall be agreed to?
✶Their Lordships divided: Contents, 101; Not-Contents, 79.

Division No.5

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Attlee, E.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Avebury, L.

Ashcroft, L.

Barker, B.

Astor of Hever, L. [Teller]

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

1624

Bridgeman, V.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Monson, L.

Byford, B.

Montrose, D.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Moynihan, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Newby, L.

Colwyn, L.

Noakes, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Northesk, E.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Northover, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Craigavon, V.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Denham, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Dholakia, L.

Onslow, E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Palmer, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Erroll, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Falkland, V.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Feldman, L.

Rawlings, B.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Razzall, L.

Flather, B.

Redesdale, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Rennard, L.

Geddes, L.

Renton, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank., L.

Glentoran, L.

Roper, L.[Teller]

Goodhart, L.

Russell, E.

Hanham, B.

Sandberg, L.

Hannay of Chiswick, L.

Sandwich, E.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Hereford, Bp.

Seccombe, B.

Higgins, L.

Selborne, E.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Howe, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Slynn of Hadley, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Listowel, E.

Tebbit, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Lucas, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Luke, L.

Tope, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

McNally, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Maddock, B.

Walmsley, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Methuen, L.

Weatherill, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ahmed, L.

Donoughue, L.

Alli, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Amos, B.(Lord President)

Dubs, L.

Andrews, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord

Bach, L.

Chancellor)

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Berkeley, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Gale, B.

Billingham, B.

Gilbert, L.

Blackstone, B.

Golding, B.

Borrie, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Bragg, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Brookman, L.

Grocott, L.[Teller]

Burlison, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Carter, L.

Harrison, L.

Chandos, V.

Hollick, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Crawley, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.[Teller]

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

1625

Judd, L.

Rea, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Richard, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Sewel, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Simon, V.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Temple-Morns, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Thornton, B.

Morgan, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Parekh, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Pendry, L.

Whitaker, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Whitty, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

[✶The name of a Lord who voted in both Lobbies has been removed from the voting lists.]
Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
On Question, Motion, as amended, agreed to.
6.59 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENTM
2 Clause 9, page 4, line 2, leave out "(A)"
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2. This group of government amendments deals with several issues; namely, minor drafting matters to tidy up certain clauses, some consequential alterations to other legislation, the extension of the Bill to Northern Ireland: and Scotland and the application of Part 2 of the Bill in the services' courts. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
7 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
3 Clause 9, page 4, line 7, leave out from "section," to "if" in line 11
4 Page 4, line 16, at end insert ",
is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.
( ) Unless subsection (2) applies, a person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

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

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years."

5 Clause 10, page 4, line 26, after "section" insert ", if the touching involved—

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

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

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

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

6 Page 4, line 27, at end insert—
"( ) Unless subsection (2) applies, a person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

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

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years."

7 Clause 11, page 4, line 37, after "section" insert ", if the activity caused or incited involved—

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

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

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

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

8 Page 4, line 38, at end insert—
"( ) Unless subsection (2) applies, a person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

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

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years."

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 3 to 8.
This group of amendments is intended to bring more consistency to the offences in the Bill with respect to the mode of trial. Some offences in the Bill, whether committed against adults or children, are so serious that trial should be on indictment only. Rape and sexual assault by penetration fall into that category.
However, many of the offences in the Bill against children or against vulnerable adults which do not require lack of consent to be proved cover behaviour of a range of seriousness. The amendments would mean that where the specified offence involves penetration by an adult of a child under 16 or of a vulnerable adult, the mode of trial should be on indictment only. Where the activity falls short of penetration, the offence should be triable either way.
Amendments Nos. 3, to 8, 27 to 30, 41 and 42, 48 and 49, 55, 61, 64 and 65, 68 and 69, 101 and 102 and 103 amend the mode of trial for the offences in Clauses9 to 11, 27 and 28, 32 to 37 and 49, so that where the activity does not involve penetration, the offence will be triable either way. Those changes strike a sensible balance between ensuring that manifestly serious cases will always be dealt with at Crown Court while retaining a degree of flexibility about other behaviour that covers a range of seriousness.
I invite your Lordships to accept the amendments for the sake of greater consistency.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 3 to 8.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
9 Clause 12, page 5, line 3, leave out from "it" to "knowing" in line 4 and insert—

"(i) when another person (B) is present or is in a place from which A can be observed, and

(ii) "

10 Clause 13, page 5, line 19, leave out "a photograph or pseudo-photograph" and insert "an image"
11 Clause 15, page 6, line 15, after "not" insert "for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification or"
12 Clause 16, Leave out Clause 16
13 Clause 17, page 7, line 21, leave out "7" and insert "10"
14 Clause 20, page 9, line 10, leave out from "it" to "knowing" in line 11 and insert—

"(i) when another person (B) is present or is in a place from which A can be observed, and

(ii) "

15 Clause 21, page 10, line 5, leave out "a photograph or pseudo-photograph" and insert "an image"
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 9 to 15.
The purpose of the amendments is to make changes to Part 1. A loophole in Clause 12—"Engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child"—meant that the situation in which a person engages in sexual activity and sends the live image of that via a webcam or other electronic means to a child was not covered. Government Amendments Nos. 9, 14, 50, 70 and 85 have closed that loophole in Clause 12 and in other clauses that involve engagement in sexual activity in the presence of a person.
The police raised concerns that offences involving causing a person to watch a sexual act extended only to showing photographs or pseudo-photographs. The police gave us examples whereby paedophiles had shown children tracings of indecent photographs and drawings and cartoons of sexual activity. Government Amendments Nos. 10, 15, 56, 74 and 90 extend those offences to cover any form of visual representation.
Amendment No. 11 excludes from the exception at Clause 15—"Arranging or facilitating commission of a child sex offence"—people acting for their own sexual gratification. Amendments Nos. 128 and 129 make a similar change to Clause 74. That will ensure that a person does not commit an offence if he acts for the purpose of protecting a child's physical safety, protecting a child from pregnancy or sexually transmitted infection, or promoting the child's emotional well-being by the giving of advice, provided that he is not acting to cause or encourage an offence and that he is not acting for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification.
Government Amendment No. 12 removes the marriage defence in Clause 16 for the child sex offences. We do not believe that someone should be able to engage in sexual activity with a child under the age of consent just because the two are married. However, government Amendments Nos. 25, 34 and
1628
96 retain a marriage defence where offences criminalise sexual activity with children over the age of consent—for example, in the abuse of a position of trust offences—but only in circumstances where the child is 16 or over.
Government Amendment No. 13 increases the penalty for the grooming offence in Clause 17 from seven to 10 years. That will enable appropriate sentences to be passed in the most serious cases. The situation could arise, for example, whereby a paedophile with many previous and serious convictions had repeatedly communicated with children on the Internet, there was clear evidence that he intended to commit maybe a violent sex offence against one or more of them, and he set off to meet one of those children for that purpose but the police were able to intervene to protect the child. In such cases, a maximum sentence of seven years' imprisonment may not be adequate. The proposed new maximum penalty of 10 years brings the offence in Clause 17 into line with the preparatory offences in Clauses 62 to 64, which also carry 10-year maximum penalties.
Government Amendments Nos. 17 to 24 extend the scope of the abuse of trust offences in Clauses 18 to 21. The circumstances in which step-parents fall within the scope of the familial child sex offences have been changed by government Amendments Nos. 31, 32 and 33 so that they are treated equally with foster parents.
The offences involving a person with a mental disorder have been amended by government Amendments Nos. 36, 39, 43, 46, 51, 54, 57 and 60 so that the link between someone's inability to refuse and their mental disorder does not exclude persons who are unable to refuse because of medication that they have received to treat their mental disorder. Furthermore, the term "mental disorder or learning disability" has been replaced with "mental disorder", by government Amendments Nos. 37, 38,44, 45, 52, 53, 58, 59, 62, 63, 66, 67, 72, 73, 75 to 89, 91 to 95 and 211 to 213. Given that the definition of "mental disorder" as stated in the Mental Health Act 1983, which we adopt in Clause 80, covers all forms of learning disability, the inclusion of "learning disability" in the text of those clauses is redundant.
Following debates in this House, the wording of Clauses 32 and 33—on sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder and causing or inciting a person with a mental disorder to engage in sexual activity— was changed by government Amendments Nos. 40 and 47. An understanding of the "reasonably foreseeable" rather than the "possible" consequences of what is being done is now required to qualify as being unable to refuse.
Amendment No. 98 addresses concerns that the effect of the wording in Clause 47 of the exception relating to indecent photographs featuring a child aged 16 or 17 did not cover those in a lawful enduring relationship with one another while it included some people we would not wish to cover.
Amendments Nos. 99 and 100 would provide a workable and secure defence to the offence of making child pornography based on proof—on the balance of

1629
probabilities—that it is necessary to do so for one of the specified purposes: detection, investigation or prevention of crime, for criminal proceedings or by members of the security service or GCHQ for the function of their services.
The trafficking offences have been amended by government Amendments Nos. 107, 109 and 111 to criminalise someone intentionally moving a person to where they believe another person is likely to do something to the victim that, if done as intended, will involve (he commission of a relevant sexual offence. That addresses concerns raised by the police that trafficking offences would be extremely difficult to prove.
The scope of offences relating to sex with an adult relative has been widened by government Amendments Nos. 112 and 113 to include blood uncles and aunts and their blood nieces and nephews. That is because there exists the same amount of genetic similarity between blood uncles and aunts and their blood nieces and nephews as between half-brothers and sisters, who are already included in the offence.
As previously drafted, the exposure offence required a person who exposes his genitals to know or intend that someone will see them and be caused alarm or distress. There was still some concern that that might criminalise legitimate naturist behaviour. The clause has been altered by Amendment No. 121 to limit the offence of exposing the genitals to the situation in which a person intends that someone will see them and be caused alarm or distress.
The term "structure" has been removed by government Amendments Nos. 124 and 126 from the definition of "private act" in the interpretation of the voyeurism offence. The offence will now protect anyone engaging in a private act in any place where they would have a reasonable expectation of privacy, not just when they are in a structure.
Finally, a further category has been added to the list of circumstances giving rise to the rebuttable presumptions. Government Amendment No. 130 includes in the list in Clause 76(2) the situation in which the defendant knows that someone has administered a substance to the victim that would render him incapable of resisting sexual activity.
With your Lordships' leave, I have taken a little time so that we are absolutely clear about what these amendments do. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, this is a large group of amendments and noble Lords will be pleased to hear that I will not be speaking at length to any of them. The amendments in this group reflect the careful scrutiny that this Bill has received both in your Lordships' House and in another place. Many of the points that we are seeing brought back again in amendments from the Commons originated on issues that were first debated in your Lordships' House. Almost everybody got something changed that they tried to get changed in the Bill—if not quite a lot. That goes not only for responses to issues raised by the Front Bench, but for those raised by other colleagues in the House.
1630
My noble friend Lady Blatch, who is unable to be in her place for this stage of proceedings, has asked me to place on record her thanks for the amendments that have come back dealing with trust provisions and the exclusion of sexual gratification from the Clause 15 exception. We support the amendments.
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford My Lords, I add my thanks to the Minister and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, for the lengthy discussions that he and the Minister permitted us to have on this Bill. That has resulted, we believe, in a very significant improvement.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, for Amendment No. 130, on which we had long discussions when the Bill was in the House. He promised to do something about the matter and I am delighted with the result. I would also like to thank Lesley Dix, an official in the criminal law policy unit and, doubtless, others like her who took up the point that I raised, which is now the subject of Amendments Nos. 112 and 113.
My point was completely nerdy and made no impression at all on the Minister in debate, but I am delighted to say that it was taken up by officials and has emerged as an amendment, which I am delighted to see. That deserves a very special thank you, because one thinks ill of officials from time to time, especially when they are supporting the government line. It is very nice to have the chance to say, "Thank you".
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
16 Clause 23, page 11, line 4, leave out "subsections (2) to (8)" and insert "the following subsections"
17 Page 11, line 30, at end insert—
"( ) This subsection applies if A is appointed to be the guardian of B under Article 159 or 160 of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/ 755 (N.I. 2))."
18 Page 11, line 32, leave out from "under" to end of line 33 and insert "—

(a) sections 8 to 10 of the Employment and Training Act 1973 (c. 50), or

(b) section 114 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 (c. 21)

and, in that capacity, looks after B on an individual basis.

( ) This subsection applies if A regularly has unsupervised contact with B (whether face to face or by any other means)—

(a) in the exercise of functions of a local authority under section 20 or 21 of the Children Act 1989 (c. 41), or

(b) in the exercise of functions of an authority under Article 21 or 23 of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/755 (N.I. 2))."

19 Page 11, line 33, at end insert—
"( ) This subsection applies if A, as a person who is to report to the court under section 7 of the Children Act 1989 (c. 41) or Article 4 of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (S.I.I 995/ 755 (N.I. 2)) on matters relating to the welfare of B, regularly has unsupervised contact with B (whether face to face or by any other means)."
20 Page 11, line 39, at end insert—
"( ) This subsection applies if—

(a) B is subject to a care order, a supervision order or an education supervision order, and

(b) in the exercise of functions conferred by virtue of the order on an authorised person or the authority designated by the order, A looks after B on an individual basis.

( ) This subsection applies if A—

(a) is an officer of the Service appointed for B under section 41(1) of the Children Act 1989 (c. 41),

(b) is appointed a children's guardian of B under rule 6 or rule 18 of the Adoption Rules 1984 (S.I. 1984/265), or

(c) is appointed to be the guardian ad litem of B under rule 9.5 of the Family Proceedings Rules 1991 (S. I.1991/ 1247) or under Article 60(1) of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/755 (N.I. 2)),

and, in that capacity, regularly has unsupervised contact with B (whether face to face or by any other means)."

21 Clause 24, page 12, line 9, leave out "alone"
22 Page 12, line 23, at end insert—
""care order" has—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, the same meaning as in the Children Act 1989 (c. 41), and

(b) in relation to Northern Ireland, the same meaning as in the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/755 (N.I. 2));"

23 Page 12, line 34, at end insert—
""education supervision order" has—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, the meaning given by section 36 of the Children Act 1989 (c. 41), and

(b) in relation to Northern Ireland, the meaning given by Article 49(1) of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/755 (N.I. 2));"

24 Page 13, line 8, at end insert—
""supervision order" has—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, the meaning given by section 31(11) of the Children Act 1989 (c. 41), and

(b) in relation to Northern Ireland, the meaning given by Article 49(1) of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/755 (N.I. 2));"

25 Clause 25, page 13, line 18, leave out from "if to end and insert "at the time —

(a) B is 16 or over, and

(b) A and B are lawfully married"

26 Page 13, line 19, leave out "A to prove that he" and insert "the defendant to prove that A"
27 Clause 27, page 14, line 12, after "liable" insert "—

(a) where subsection (6) applies, on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years;

(b) in any other case—

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

(ii) "

28 Page 14, line 19, at end insert—
"(6) This subsection applies where the touching involved—

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

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

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

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

29 Clause 28, page 14, line 43, after "liable," insert"—

(a) where subsection (6) applies, on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years;

(b) in any other case—

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

(ii) "

30 Page 15, line 4, at end insert—

"(6) This subsection applies where the touching to which the incitement related involved—

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

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

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

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

31 Clause 29, page 15, line 13, leave out from beginning to second "or"
32 Page 15, line 18, leave out "partner of the other's parent" and insert "other's step-parent"
33 Page 15, line 40, at beginning insert ""step-parent" includes a parent's partner and"
34 Clause 30, page 15, line 43, leave out from "if" to end of line 44 and insert "at the time—

(a) B is 16 or over, and

(b) A and B are lawfully married"

35 Page 16, line 1, leave out "A to prove that he" and insert "the defendant to prove that A"
36 Clause 32, page 16, line 20, after "of insert "or for a Amendment related to"
37 Page 16, line 20, leave out "or learning disability"
38 Page 16, line 23, leave out "or learning disability"
39 Page 16, line 23, after "it" insert "or for a reason related to it"
40 Page 16, line 28, leave out "possible" and insert "reasonably foreseeable"
41 Page 16, line 31, leave out from "section" to "if in line 35
42 Page 16, line 40, at end insert ",
is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.
( ) Unless subsection (3) applies, a person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

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

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years."

43 Clause 33, page 17, line 7, after "of insert "or for a Amendment related to"
44 Page 17, line 7, leave out "or learning disability"
45 Page 17, line 10, leave out "or learning disability"
46 Page 17, line 10, after "it" insert "or for a reason related to it"
47 Page 17, line 15, leave out "possible" and insert "reasonably foreseeable"
48 Page 17, line 18, leave out from "section" to "if in line 22
49 Page 17, line 27, at end insert ",
is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.
( ) Unless subsection (3) applies, a person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

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

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years."

50 Clause 34, page 17, line 33, leave out from "it" to "knowing" in line 34 and insert—

"(i) when another person (B) is present or is in a place from which A can be observed, and

(ii) "

51 Page 17, line 36, after "of insert "or for a reason related to"
52 Page 17, line 36, leave out "or learning disability"
53 Page 17, line 39, leave out "or learning disability"
54 Page 17, line 39, after "it" insert "or for a reason related to it"
55 Page 18, line 1, after "liable" insert "—

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

(b)"

56 Clause 35, page 18, line 8, leave out "a photograph or pseudo-photograph" and insert "an image"
57 Page 18, line 11, after "of insert "or for a reason related to"
58 Page 18, line 11, leave out "or learning disability"
59 Page 18, line 14, leave out "or learning disability"
60 Page 18, line 14, after "it" insert "or for a reason related to it"
61 Page 18. line 21, after "liable" insert "—

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

(b)"

62 Clause 36, page 18. line 32, leave out "or learning disability"
63 Page 18, line 34, leave out "or learning disability"
64 Page 18, line 35, leave out from "section" to "if in line 39
65 Page 18, line 44, at end insert ",
is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.
( ) Unless subsection (2) applies, a person guilly of an offence under this section is liable—

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

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years."

66 Clause 37, page 19, line 8, leave out "or learning disability"
67 Page 19, line 10, leave out "or learning disability"
68 Page 19, line 11, leave out from "section" to "if in line 15
69 Page 19, line 20, at end insert ",
is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.
( ) Unless subsection (2) applies, a person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

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

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years."

70 Clause 38, page 19, line 26, leave out from "it" to "knowing" in line 27 and insert—

"(i) when another person (B) is present or is in a place from which A can be observed, and

(ii) "

71 Page 19, line 29, after "present" insert "or in the place referred to in paragraph (c)(i)"
72 Page 19, line 32, leave out "or learning disability"
73 Page 19, line 34, leave out "or learning disability"
74 Clause 39, page 20, line 1, leave out "a photograph or pseudo-photograph" and insert "an image"
75 Page 20, line 7, leave out "or learning disability"
76 Page 20, line 9, leave out "or learning disability"
77 Clause 40, page 20, line 21, leave out "or learning disability"
78 Page 20, line 23, leave out "or learning disability"
79 Page 20, line 26, leave out "or learning disability"
80 Page 20, line 28, leave out "or learning disability"
81 Clause 41, page 21, line 6, leave out "or learning disability"
82 Page 21, line 8, leave out "or learning disability"
83 Page 21, line 11, leave out "or learning disability"
84 Page 21, line 13, leave out "or learning disability"
85 Clause 42, page 21, line 36, leave out from "it" to "knowing" in line 37 and insert—

"(i) when another person (B) is present or is in a place from which A can be observed, and

(ii) "

86 Page 21, line 39, leave out "or learning disability"
87 Page 21, line 41, leave out "or learning disability"
88 Page 21, line 44, leave out "or learning disability"
89 Page 21, line 46, leave out "or learning disability"
90 Clause 43, page 22, line 13, leave out "a photograph or pseudo-photograph" and insert "an image"
91 Page 22, line 16, leave out "or learning disability"
92 Page 22, line 18, leave out "or learning disability"
93 Page 22, line 21, leave out "or learning disability"
94 Page 22, line 23, leave out "or learning disability"
95 Clause 44, page 23, line 6, leave out "or learning disability"
96 Clause 45, page 23, line 31, leave out from "if to end and insert "at the time—

(a) B is 16 or over, and

(b) A and B are lawfully married"

97 Page 23, line 32, leave out "A to prove that he" and insert "the defendant to prove that A"
98 Clause 47, page 24, leave out lines 8 to 27 and insert—
"" 1A Marriage and other relationships

(1) This section applies where, in proceedings for an offence under section 1(1)(a) of taking or making an indecent photograph of a child, or for an offence under section l(l)(b) or (c) relating to an indecent photograph of a child, the defendant proves that the photograph was of the child aged 16 or over, and that at the time of the offence charged the child and he—

(a) were married, or

1635

(b) lived together as partners in an enduring family relationship.

(2) Subsections (5) and (6) also apply where, in proceedings for an offence under section 1(1)(b) or (c) relating to an indecent photograph of a child, the defendant proves that the photograph was of the child aged 16 or over, and that at the time when he obtained it the child and he—

(a) were married, or

(b) lived together as partners in an enduring family relationship.

(3) This section applies whether the photograph showed the child alone or with the defendant, but not if it showed any other person.

(4) In the case of an offence under section l(l)(a), if sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether the child consented to the photograph being taken or made, or as to whether the defendant reasonably believed that the child so consented, the defendant is not guilty of the offence unless it is proved that the child did not so consent and that the defendant did not reasonably believe that the child so consented.

(5) In the case of an offence under section l(l)(b), the defendant is not guilty of the offence unless it is proved that the showing or distributing was to a person other than the child.

(6) In the case of an offence under section l(l)(c), if sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue both—

(a) as to whether the child consented to the photograph being in the defendant's possession, or as to whether the defendant reasonably believed that the child so consented, and

(b) as to whether the defendant had the photograph in his possession with a view to its being distributed or shown to anyone other than the child,

the defendant is not guilty of the offence unless it is proved either that the child did not so consent and that the defendant did not reasonably believe that the child so consented, or that the defendant had the photograph in his possession with a view to its being distributed or shown to a person other than the child."

( ) After section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c. 33) (possession of indecent photograph of child) insert—
"160A Marriage and other relationships

(1) This section applies where, in proceedings for an offence under section 160 relating to an indecent photograph of a child, the defendant proves that the photograph was of the child aged 16 or over, and that at the time of the offence charged the child and he—

(a) were married, or

(b) lived together as partners in an enduring family relationship.

(2) This section also applies where, in proceedings for an offence under section 160 relating to an indecent photograph of a child, the defendant proves that the photograph was of the child aged 16 or over, and that at the time when he obtained it the child and he—

(a) were married, or

(b) lived together as partners in an enduring family relationship.

(3) This section applies whether the photograph showed the child alone or with the defendant, but not if it showed any other person.

(4) If sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether the child consented to the photograph being in the defendant's possession, or as to whether the defendant reasonably believed that the child so consented, the defendant is not guilty of the offence unless it is proved that the child did not so consent and that the defendant did not reasonably believe that the child so consented.""

99 Clause 48, page 24, line 31, leave out from beginning to end of line 16 on page 25 and insert—

"(1) In proceedings for an offence under section 1(1)(a) of making an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child, the defendant is not guilty of the offence if he proves that—

(a) it was necessary for him to make the photograph or pseudo-photograph for the purposes of the prevention, detection or investigation of crime, or for the purposes of criminal proceedings, in any part of the world,

(b) at the time of the offence charged he was a member of the Security Service, and it was necessary for him to make the photograph or pseudo-photograph for the exercise of any of the functions of the Service, or

(c) at the time of the offence charged he was a member of GCHQ, and it was necessary for him to make the photograph or pseudo-photograph for the exercise of any of the functions of GCHQ.

(2) In this section "GCHQ" has the same meaning as in the Intelligence Services Act 1994.""

100 Page 25, leave out lines 20 to 46 and insert—

"(1) In proceedings for an offence under Article 3(l)(a) of making an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child, the defendant is not guilty of the offence if he proves that—

(a) it was necessary for him to make the photograph or pseudo-photograph for the purposes of the prevention, detection or investigation of crime, or for the purposes of criminal proceedings, in any part of the world,

(b) at the time of the offence charged he was a member of the Security Service, and it was necessary for him to make the photograph or pseudo-photograph for the exercise of any of the functions of the Service, or

(c) at the time of the offence charged he was a member of GCHQ, and it was necessary for him to make the photograph or pseudo-photograph for the exercise of any of the functions of GCHQ.

(2) In this Article "GCHQ" has the same meaning as in the Intelligence Services Act 1994.""

101 Clause 49, page 26, line 17, leave out from "where" to "is" in line 24, and insert "subsection (5A) applies,"
102 Page 26, line 26, after "liable" insert "—

(a) where subsection (5A) applies, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years;

(b) in any other case—

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

(ii) "

103 Page 26, line 33, at end insert—

"(5A) This subsection applies where the offence involved—

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

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

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

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

104 Clause 53, page 27, line 35, leave out "moving or still"
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 16 to 104. I spoke to these amendments with Amendments Nos. 2,3 and 9.
Moved, That the House to agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 16 to 104.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
7.15 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
105 After Clause 56, Insert the following new Clause—
"Penalties for keeping a brothel
In paragraph 33 of Schedule 2 to the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (c. 69) (mode of prosecution, punishment etc. for offences under section 33 of that Act)—

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

"(i) On indictment

Seven years

(ii) Summarily

Six months, or the statutory maximum or both";

(b) omit the entry in the fourth column."

105A After Clause 56, Insert the following new Clause—
"Penalties for keeping a brothel used for prostitution

(1) The Sexual Offences Act 1956 (c. 69) is amended as follows.

(2) After section 33 insert—

"33A Keeping a brothel used for prostitution

(1) It is an offence for a person to keep, or to manage, or act or assist in the management of, a brothel to which people resort for practices involving prostitution (whether or not also for other practices).

(2) In this section "prostitution" has the meaning given by section 53(2) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003."

(3) In Schedule 2 (mode of prosecution, punishment etc.), after paragraph 33 insert (as a paragraph with no entry in the fourth column)—

"33A

Keeping a brothel used for prostitution (section 33A).

(i) on indictment

Seven years,

(ii) summarily

Six months, or the statutory maximum, or both.""

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 105 but propose Amendment No. 105A in lieu thereof.
Amendment No. 105, tabled in the other place, raised the maximum penalty available for the offence of keeping a brothel at Section 33 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 from three months' imprisonment, or six months for a second or subsequent offence, to seven years' imprisonment.
Currently, where the police need to prosecute those who derive income from the management of several brothels at which prostitution takes place, but who distance themselves from the day-to-day running of
1638
the brothel, they use the offence at Section 30 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956—that is, living on the earnings of prostitution. However, the sex offences review recommended the repeal of Section 30 because it is not focused solely on exploitative behaviour. Potentially, it also captures the genuine, long-term partner of a woman who is supported by her earnings from prostitution or the daughter of a woman involved in prostitution who is supported through university by her mother's earnings. That is why we are repealing Section 30.
However, the police raised concerns with us that, in some cases, it would be difficult to prove the new offence of controlling prostitution for gain, at Clause 55 of the Bill, where a person was not involved in the day-to-day running of the brothel but none the less derived his income from it. It has always been our position that the law on prostitution fell outside the scope of the sex offences review but that the targeted exploitation of the prostitution of others did not. The review of sexual offences recommended that there should be a further review of the law on prostitution. We are currently scoping a review of prostitution, organised criminality, class A drug abuse and social nuisance associated with it.
Pending the outcome of that scoping exercise, we did not want the repeal of the offence of living on the earnings of prostitution to create a loophole that could be used by those who derive money from exploiting the prostitution of others. After consultation with the police, we therefore decided that the best way to tackle the issue was to raise the penalty for the offence of keeping a brothel, at Section 33 of the 1956 Act, from its present relatively low level of three months' imprisonment for a first offence, or six months for a subsequent offence, to seven years' imprisonment. That brings it into line with the offences at Clauses 54 and 55 relating to the exploitation of prostitution.
That gave rise to Commons Amendment No. 105 and the consequential amendments to the schedules— that is, Commons Amendments Nos. 274 and 291. But it was brought to our attention on Report in another place that the "keeping a brothel" offence is sometimes used to target the proprietors of saunas and clubs where people go to have consensual sex with each other, without money being paid for the sexual encounter. Case law confirms that the term "brothel" does not just apply to places where prostitution takes place.
Our policy intention was limited solely to places where prostitution took place. We are therefore proposing government Amendment No. 105A to replace Commons Amendment No. 105. It inserts new Clause 33A into the Sexual Offences Act 1956, providing for a new offence with a higher penalty of seven years for keeping a brothel where prostitution, as defined by Section 53(2) of this Bill, takes place, whether or not it is also used for other purposes. Where the brothel does not have any prostitution taking place, existing Section 33 of the 1956 Act remains in force and unchanged, and can be used by police in those cases where they decide to take action.

1639
Amendments Nos. 274A and 291A make the necessary consequential drafting amendments to Commons Amendments Nos. 274 and 291 to take account of the switch from Commons Amendment No. 105 to the new clause introduced by Amendment No. 105A. I invite the House to accept the new clause introduced by Amendment No. 105A.
Moved, That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 105, but propose Amendment No. 105A in lieu thereof.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
106 Clause 58, page 28, line 36, leave out "(A)"
107 Page 29, line 4, leave out from "he" to second "done" in line 6 and insert "believes that another person is likely to do something to or in respect of B, after B's arrival but in any part of the world, which if
108 Clause 59, page 29, line 14, leave out "(A)"
109 page 29, line 19, leave out from "he" to second "done" in line 21 and insert "believes that another person is likely to do something to or in respect of B, during or after the journey and in any part of the world, which if
110 Clause 60, page 29, line 29, leave out "(A)"
111 Page 29, line 34, leave out from "he" to "done" in line 36 and insert "believes that another person is likely to do something to or in respect of B, after B's departure but in any part of the world, which if
112 Clause 65, page 31, line 37, leave out "or half-sister" and insert "half-sister, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece.
( ) In subsection (2)—

(a) "uncle" means the brother of a person's parent, and "aunt" has a corresponding meaning;

(b) "nephew" means the child of a person's brother or sister, and "niece" has a corresponding meaning."

113 Clause 66, page 32, line 17, leave out "or half-sister" and insert "half-sister, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece.
( ) In subsection (2)—

(a) "uncle" means the brother of a person's parent, and "aunt" has a corresponding meaning;

(b) "nephew" means the child of a person's brother or sister, and "niece" has a corresponding meaning."

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 106 to 113.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 106 to 113.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
114 Clause 67, Transpose Clause 67 to after Clause 72
115 Page 32, line 32, leave out "public lavatory" and insert "lavatory to which the public or a section of the public has or is permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise,"
116 Page 32, line 33, leave out "activity within subsection (2)," and insert "an activity, and"
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 114 to 116.
Government Amendment No. 114 moves Clause 67,
"Sexual activity in a public lavatory"
to the end of the section of the Bill dealing with "other offences". Government Amendments Nos. 115 and 119 are designed to make Clause 67 more workable in practice and to remove the possibility of trial on indictment and the maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment that attaches to it. Government Amendment No. 131 provides that the definition of "sexual" in Clause 79 does not apply to the offence at Clause 67.
The definition of "sexual" at Clause 79 was amended in the Commons in response to concern that the original definition was too complicated. The sense of the definition and its practical effect were not changed in any way.
I do not know whether it would be convenient for me to speak now to Amendment No. 132A, to be moved in due course by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. However, I see that the noble Lord shakes his head.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 114 to 116.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, Clause 67, which is the subject of most of these amendments, was inserted into the Bill in your Lordships' House. I had feared that the Government would seek to overturn it. I should like to place on the record my appreciation to the Government for choosing not to overturn the amendment, but to improve it by way of the amendments in this group. We regard the outcome as very satisfactory and I thank the Government for that.
While I am on my feet for what I hope is the last time in connection with this Bill, I should like also to place on the record the appreciation of Members on these Benches not only for the co-operation that we have had from the Minister and her predecessor, but also from the Bill team, which has been quite exceptional. Even after the Bill had left this House, the Bill team kept us fully informed of what was happening in another place, which made the task of dealing with the Bill when it returned to your Lordships' House much easier.
My final thought is to suggest to the Minister that she should distil the essence of her Bill team and market it to her colleagues.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I, too, should like to express my thanks to the Bill team, which has worked exceptionally hard on this legislation and has helped us all the way.
Amendments Nos. 117A and 132A tabled in my name seek to probe the reasons why the purpose of a person in relation to sexual activity is regarded as irrelevant. I ask the question because in the case of Court, which was heard before the Judicial Committee

1641
of the House of Lords some 10 to 15 years ago, the activity committed by the defendant was that of smacking the bottom of a young girl. That was an assault, but the question was whether it was a sexual assault. His purpose was probed because, when interviewed by the police and asked why he had done it, his reply was, "I don't know. Bottom fetish, I suppose".
The whole case was concerned with what was his purpose, and whether his purpose would turn what was otherwise an ordinary assault into a sexual assault. Noble Lords in this House, in a case in which I appeared for the defence, my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew appeared for the prosecution, and to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, was a party, decided that neither of the arguments put forward by my noble friend Lord Carlile and myself were right, but that the purpose of the defendant was in fact material.
The wording in both of these clauses seems to move away from that finding. Presumably, therefore, if there is an activity which is not overtly sexual, it will not be a sexual assault, whatever may be in the mind of the defendant. It is for the reason of securing enlightenment on that point that I have tabled these amendments.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I want to add another thank you. During the passage of the Bill we had long arguments on the definition of "sexual" and we made, I felt, remarkably little progress. We talked a lot but we did not get anywhere. The last concession I got out of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was that he would find me someone to talk to further. That someone turned out to be Sarah Cookson from the Legal Adviser's Department. One of the highlights of my year is the way in which she dealt with the points and the arguments I was making on that and the results it has had.
Back-Benchers like me come into the House in the hope that we will be able to influence and make small improvements to legislation. This is something I cared about immensely and thought that I had lost. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, thinks it is coming through imperfectly, but I believe that it is so much better than it was and I am absolutely delighted.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am grateful for the warmth of the noble Lord's commendation and, indeed, for the words of commendation of the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for the Bill team. The Bill team has worked extremely hard, but I should say that their efforts have been emulated by the teams that have assisted me on the Extradition Bill, the Criminal Justice Bill and the Anti-social Behaviour Bill. They must all be drinking from the same well, and long may it continue.
I am very happy to elucidate on the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, in terms of his request for an annual explanation of the scope of the definition of "sexual". I understand that he has tabled the amendment to seek
1642
an explanation of why this offence contains a specific definition of the term "sexual" and does not rely upon the generic definition at Clause 79.
The purpose of this is to prevent sexual activity taking place in public lavatories because people find it offensive. In practice, people only find it offensive to see or to hear acts which, from all their circumstances, appear to be sexual. If an act takes place which, unbeknown to anyone other than the perpetrator, gives that individual a sexual thrill, no offence could possibly be caused to another person and we see no reason to ban it from taking place in public lavatories.
We firmly believe that this is the right threshold to apply to what is essentially a public order offence. It would not be right to use the definition at Clause 79(a) because it includes a test based on the defendant's purpose. This would bring into the scope of the offence activity that is only sexual because of a person's purpose. Although it is right for such activity to be included within the scope of offences that are designed to protect people, particularly children and vulnerable adults, from abuse, we can see no justification for applying the same test in this offence, which is, as I have said, essentially a public order offence. So while it may seem undesirable to have two different definitions of prohibited sexual activity in the same Act, we feel that this is unavoidable if we are to ensure that the right test is applied to the right circumstances.
I hope the noble Lord finds that explanation helpful. For the reasons I have given, I obviously cannot accept his amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
117 Clause 67, page 32, line 35, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
"( ) For the purposes of this section, an activity is sexual if a person would, in all the circumstances but regardless of any person's purpose, consider it to be sexual."
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 117, to which I spoke on Commons Amendment No. 114.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 117.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
[Amendment No. 117A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 117, not moved.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
118 Clause 67, page 33, line 1, leave out subsection (3)
119 Clause 67, page 33, line 5, leave out from "exceeding" to end of line 7 and insert "level 5 on the standard scale or both."
120 Clause 68, page 33, line 9, leave out "(A)"
121 Page 33, line 11, leave out "knows or"
122 Page 34, line 2, leave out subsection (1)
123 Page 34, line 3, at beginning insert "For the purposes of section 69,"
124 Page 34, line 3, leave out "structure" and insert "place"
125 Page 34, line 10, leave out subsection (3)
126 Page 34, line 12, leave out "and this section"
127 Page 34, leave out line 13
128 Clause 74, page 35, line 38, after "not" insert "for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification or"
129 Page 35, line 38, leave out "either"
130 Clause 76, page 36, line 36, at end insert—
"( ) any person had administered to or caused to be taken by the complainant, without the complainant's consent, a substance which, having regard to when it was administered or taken, was capable of causing or enabling the complainant to be stupefied or overpowered at the time of the relevant act."
131 Clause 79, page 37, line 33, after "Part" insert "(except section 67)"
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 118 to 131 en bloc, to which I spoke with Amendments Nos. 2 and 9.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 118 to 131.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
132 Clause 79, page 37, line 34, leave out from "if to end of line 39 and insert "a reasonable person would consider that—

(a) whatever its circumstances or any person's purpose in relation to it, it is because of its nature sexual, or

(b) because of its nature it may be sexual and because of its circumstances or the purpose of any person in relation to it (or both) it is sexual."

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 132. I have spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 114.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 132.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
[Amendment No. 132A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 132, not moved.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
133 Clause 80, page 38, line 3, at end insert—
"( ) "Image" means a moving or still image and includes an image produced by any means and, where the context permits, a three-dimensional image.
( ) References to an image of a person include references to an image of an imaginary person."
134 Page 38, line 6, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
"( ) References to observation (however expressed) are to observation whether direct or by looking at an image."
135 Clause 83, page 41, line 16, at end insert—
"( ) in the case of a person within section 82(7), the date which, for the purposes of Part 1 of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 (c. 51), was the relevant date in relation to that person."
136 Clause 84, page 41, line 25, leave out first "the" and insert "a"
137 Page 41, line 32, after "82(1)" insert "or an order within section 82(7)"
138 Page 41, line 33, leave out "or caution" and insert "caution or order"
139 Page 41, line 40, leave out first "the" and insert "a"
140 Clause 85, page 42, line 29, leave out "the" and insert "a"
141 Page 43, line 4, leave out "Part" and insert "section"
142 Clause 86, page 43, line 9, after "must" insert ", within the period of one year after each event within subsection (1A),"
143 Page 43, line 10, leave out from "84(5)" to of line 11 and insert ", unless within that period he has given a notification under section 85(1).
(1A) The events are—"
144 Page 43, line 12, at end insert "(but only in the case of a person who is a relevant offender from that commencement);"
145 Page 43, line 13, leave out from "given" to end of line 15 and insert "by the relevant offender under section 84(1) or 85(1), and"
146 Page 43, line 16, leave out from "given" to end of line 17 and insert "by him under subsection (1)."
147 Clause 89, page 44, line 41, at end insert "or a finding in relation to such an offence;"
148 Page 44, line 42, at end insert "or a finding in relation to such an offence;"
149 Page 45, line 8, at end insert ";
and in paragraphs (a) and (b), "finding" in relation to an offence means a finding of not guilty of the offence by reason of insanity or a finding that the person was under a disability and did the act or omission charged against him in respect of the offence."
150 Clause 90, page 45, line 20, leave out "conviction" and insert "offence"
151 Page 45, line 22, leave out "conviction" and insert "offence"
152 Clause 91, page 46, line 24, after "Scotland" insert ", where the appropriate court is a civil court"
153 Page 46, line 28, at end insert—
"and in any other case, the prosecutor;"
154 Page 46, line 34, after "Court" insert "(or in Scotland a criminal court)"
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 133 to 154. I have spoken to these amendments with Amendments Nos. 2 and 9.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 133 to 154.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
155 After Clause 93, Insert the following new Clause—
"Abolished homosexual offences
Schedule (Procedure for ending notification requirements for abolished homosexual offences) (procedure for ending notification requirements for abolished homosexual offences) has effect."
156 After Clause 93, Insert the following new Clause—
"Part 2: supply of information to Secretary of State etc. for verification

(1) This section applies to information notified to the police under—

(a) section 84, 85 or 86, or

(b) section 2(1) to (3) of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 (c. 51).

(2) A person within subsection (3) may, for the purposes of the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of offences under this Part, supply information to which this section applies to—

(a) the Secretary of State,

(b) a Northern Ireland Department, or

(c) a person providing services to the Secretary of State or a Northern Ireland Department in connection with a relevant function,

for use for the purpose of verifying the information.

(3) The persons are—

(a) a chief officer of police (in Scotland, a chief constable),

(b) the Police Information Technology Organisation,

(c) the Director General of the National Criminal Intelligence Service,

(d) the Director General of the National Crime Squad.

(4) In relation to information supplied under subsection (2) to any person, the reference to verifying the information is a reference to—

(a) checking its accuracy by comparing it with information held—

(i) where the person is the Secretary of State or a Northern Ireland Department, by him or it in connection with the exercise of a relevant function, or

(ii) where the person is within subsection (2)(c), by that person in connection with the provision of services referred to there, and

(b) compiling a report of that comparison.

(5) Subject to subsection (6), the supply of information under this section is to be taken not to breach any restriction on the disclosure of information (however arising or imposed).

(6) This section does not authorise the doing of anything that contravenes the Data Protection Act 1998 (c. 2)).

(7) This section does not affect any power existing apart from this section to supply information.

(8) In this section—

"Northern Ireland Department" means, the Department for Employment and Learning, the Department of the Environment or the Department for Social Development;

"relevant function" means—

(a) a function relating to social security, child support, employment or training,

(b) a function relating to passports,

(c) a function under Part 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) or Part 2 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/154 (N.I. 1))."

157 After Clause 93, Insert the following new Clause—
"Part 2: supply of information by Secretary of State etc.

(1) A report compiled under section (Part 2: supply of information to Secretary of State etc. for verification) may be supplied by—

(a) the Secretary of State,

(b) a Northern Ireland Department, or

(c) a person within section (Part 2: supply of information to Secretary of State etc. for verification)(2)(c),

to a person within subsection (2).

(2) The persons are—

(a) a chief officer of police (in Scotland, a chief constable),

(b) the Director General of the National Criminal Intelligence Service,

(c) the Director General of the National Crime Squad.

(3) Such a report may contain any information held—

(a) by the Secretary of State or a Northern Ireland Department in connection with the exercise of a relevant function, or

(b) by a person within section (Part 2: supply of information to Secretary of Stale etc. for verification)(2)(c) in connection with the provision of services referred to there.

(4) Where such a report contains information within subsection (3), the person within subsection (2) to whom it issupplied—

(a) may retain the information, whether or not used for the purposes of the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of an offence under this Part, and

(b) may use the information for any purpose related to the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of offences (whether or not under this Part), but for no other purpose.

(5) Subsections (5) to (8) of section (Part 2: supply of information to Secretary of State etc. for verification) apply in relation to this section as they apply in relation to section (Part 2: supply of information to Secretary of State etc. for verification)."

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 155 to 157.
Amendments Nos. 155 and 261 introduce a new schedule that provides a procedure for the removal of the notification requirements from offenders convicted of buggery and indecency between men where the activity was consensual and the victim was aged 16 or 17. However, it has come to my attention that Amendment No. 261 is insufficient; it does not cover those who have been convicted of, or as well as, offences themselves and attempt conspiracy or incitement to commit the offences or of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of offences.
This mistake came to our attention only this morning and it is important that we get this procedure right. I will ask the House to reject Amendment No. 261 so that we may rectify the omission in the other place. My manuscript Motion No. 261A to this effect is in the Printed Paper Office.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 155 to 157.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
158 Clause 93, page 47, line 24, after "where" insert "on any date"
159 Page 47, line 34, leave out "to which this Part applies" and insert "listed in Schedule 3"
160 Page 47, line 39, after "where" insert "on any date"
161 Page 47, line 43, leave out "to which this Part applies" and insert "listed in Schedule 3"
162 Clause 95, page 48, line 16, after "includes" insert "any part of"
163 Clause 102, page 51, line 36, leave out "a conviction for"
164 Page 52, line 2, leave out "the" and insert "a"
165 Clause 106, page 55, line 41, after "2" insert "or 20"
166 Page 55, line 42, after "Wales" insert "or Scotland"
167 Clause 107, page 56, line 2, after "102(5)" insert "or 103(1)"
168 Page 56, line 18, leave out subsections (5) and (6) and insert—
"( ) Section 105(3) to (5) apply to an interim sexual offences prevention order as if references to an order were references to such an order, and with the omission of "as renewed from time to time" in both places."
169 Page 56, line 27, after "2A" insert "or 20(4)(a)"
170 Page 56, line 28, after "Wales" insert "or Scotland"
171 Clause 110, page 57, line 30, leave out "an offence listed at paragraph 64" and insert "any offence listed at paragraphs 64 to 64ZU"
172 Page 57, line 32, leave out paragraphs (c) and (d)
173 Clause 111, page 58, line 46, at end insert "or, in Scotland, a probation order"
174 Clause 112, page 59, line 3, leave out "the" and insert "a"
175 Clause 121, page 63, line 24, leave out "the" and insert "a"
176 Page 64, line 11, leave out "5" and insert "2"
177 Clause 123, page 65, line 17, leave out "5" and insert "2"
178 Clause 127, page 66, line 39, leave out "in England and Wales or Northern Ireland"
179 Clause 129, page 68, line 17, after "of insert "or paragraph 10(l)of Schedule 5A to"
180 Page 68, line 18, after "of insert "or paragraph 10(1) of Schedule 4A to"
181 Clause 130, page 68, line 35, at end insert "(a "sentencing condition").
( ) Where an offence is listed if either a sentencing condition or a condition of another description is met, this section applies only to the offence as listed subject to the sentencing condition."
182 Page 68, line 37, leave out "such an offence" and insert "an offence to which this section applies"
183 Page 68, line 40, before "condition" insert "sentencing"
184 Page 69, line 15, leave out from "a" to "this" and insert "sentencing condition,"
185 Clause 131, page 70, line 7, after "order" insert";
"community supervision order" means an order"
186 Page 70, leave out lines 11 and 12
187 Page 71, leave out line 17
188 Page 71, line 41, at end insert—
"( ) Where under section 138 different days are appointed for the commencement of different provisions of this Part, a reference in any such provision to the commencement of this Part is to be read (subject to section 96(4)) as a reference to the commencement of that provision."
189 Clause 132, page 72, line 10, after "discharge" insert "or community supervision order"
190 Page 72, line 11, leave out "This section" and insert"Subsection (1)"
191 Page 72, line 11, at end insert—
"( ) The provisions listed in subsection (l)(d) do not apply for the purposes of this Part to a conviction for an offence in respect of which a community supervision order is or has (before or after the commencement of this Part) been made."
192 Before Clause 135, Insert the following new Clause—
"Service courts

(1) In this Act—

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

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

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

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

(2) In sections 93 and 102(1), "court" includes a service court.

(3) Where the court making a sexual offences prevention order is a service court—

(a) sections 102(l)(a) and (4) to (6), 103, 107, 109 and 110 do not apply,

(b) in section 106, "the appropriate court" means the Crown Court in England and Wales, and

(c) in section 108(3)(a), the references to the Crown Court and Court of Appeal are references to the Crown Court and Court of Appeal in England and Wales.

(4) In this section "service court" means a court-martial or Standing Civilian Court."

193 Clause 139, page 74, line 19, leave out "Except as follows," and insert "Subject to section (Service courts) and to subsections (2) to (3A),"
194 Page 74, line 21, after "48" insert "to 56, 58"
195 Page 74, line 21, at end insert—
"( ) Schedule 2,"
196 Page 74, line 23, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
"(c) sections 135, 138,140 and this section."
197 Page 74, line 25, leave out "121 to 127" and insert "(Abolished homosexual offences) and 121 to 127 and Schedule (Procedure for ending notification requirements for abolished homosexual offences)"
198 Page 74, line 26, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
"(b) sections 135, 138, 140 and this section."
199 Page 74, line 26, at end insert—
"(3A) Unless otherwise provided, any amendment, repeal or revocation made by this Act has the same extent as the provision to which it relates."
200 Schedule 2, page 76, line 15, leave out "15 and"
201 Page 76, line 31, leave out "an offence of"
202 Page 76, leave out line 32
203 Schedule 3, page 78, line 36, at end insert "and—

(a) the conviction, finding or caution was before the commencement of this Part, or

(b) the offender—

(i) was 18 or over, or

(ii) is sentenced in respect of the offence to imprisonment for a term of at least 12 months."

204 Page 78, line 41, at end insert "and—

(a) the conviction, finding or caution was before the commencement of this Part, or

(b) the offender—

(i) was 18 or over, or

(ii) is sentenced in respect of the offence to imprisonment for a term of at least 12 months."

205 Page 79, line 3, at end insert "and—

(a) the conviction, finding or caution was before the commencement of this Part, or

(b) the offender—

(i) was 18 or over, or

(ii) is sentenced in respect of the offence to imprisonment for a term of at least 12 months."

206 Page 79, line 6, leave out paragraphs 17 to 19 and insert—
"( ) An offence under section 1 or 3 of this Act (rape, assault by penetration).
( ) An offence under section 4 of this Act (sexual assault) if—

(a) where the offender was under 18, he is or has been sentenced, in respect of the offence, to imprisonment for a term of at least 12 months;

(b) in any other case—

(i) the victim was under 18, or

(ii) the offender, in respect of the offence or finding, is or has been—

(a) sentenced to a term of imprisonment,

(b) detained in a hospital, or

(c) made the subject of a community sentence of at least 12 months.

( ) An offence under any of sections 5 to 7 of this Act (causing sexual activity without consent, rape of a child under 13, assault of a child under 13 by penetration).
( ) An offence under section 8 of this Act (sexual assault of a child under 13) if the offender—

(a) was 18 or over, or

(b) is or has been sentenced in respect of the offence to imprisonment for a term of at least 12 months.

( ) An offence under any of sections 9 to 13 of this Act (causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity, child sex offences committed by adults)."
207 Page 79, line 30, leave out", where the offender is under 18, he" and insert "the offender—

(a) was 18 or over, or

(b) "

208 Page 79, line 39, at end insert—
"23A An offence under section 27 or 28 of this Act (familial child sex offences) if the offender—

(a) was 18 or over, or

(b) is or has been sentenced in respect of the offence to imprisonment for a term of at least 12 months."

209 Page 79, line 40, leave out "27, 28 or"
210 Page 79, line 40, leave out "familial child sex offences,"
211 Page 79, line 41, leave out "or learning disability''
212 Page 79, line 42, leave out "or learning disability"
213 Page 79, line 45, leave out "or learning disability"
214 Page 79, line 45, after "if insert "—

(a) where the offender was under 18, he is or has been sentenced in respect of the offence to imprisonment for a term of at least 12 months;

(b) in any other case,"

215 Page 80, line 3, leave out from "least" to end of line 7 and insert "12 months."
216 Page 80, line 9, at end insert ", and the offender—

(a) was 18 or over, or

(b) is or has been sentenced in respect of the offence to imprisonment for a term of at least 12 months."

217 Page 80, line 13, at end insert—

"(a) where the offender was under 18, he is or has been sentenced in respect of the offence to imprisonment for a term of at least 12 months;

(b) in any other case—"

218 Page 80, line 20, at end insert "—

(a) where the offender was under 18, he is or has been sentenced in respect of the offence to imprisonment for a term of at least 12 months;

(b) in any other case,"

219 Page 80, line 25, after "sentenced" insert "in respect of the offence"
220 Page 80, leave out lines 34 to 38 and insert" 12 months."
221 Page 80, line 40, after "sentenced" insert "in respect of the offence"
222 Page 80, line 46, leave out "or"
223 Page 81, line 1, at end insert ", or
(c) made the subject of a community sentence of at least 12 months."
224 Page 81, line 3, after "if insert"—

(a) where the offender was under 18, he is or has been sentenced in respect of the offence to imprisonment for a term of at least 12 months;

(b) in any other case,"

225 Page 81, leave out lines 17 to 19 and insert "every person involved in the offence was 16"
226 Page 82, leave out lines 12 to 18 and insert "every person involved (whether in the offence or in the homosexual act) was 16 or over and was a willing participant"
227 Page 82, line 31, leave out paragraph 59
228 Page 83, line 11, leave out "18" and insert "12"
229 Page 83, line 13, at end insert "if the offender—

(a) was 18 or over, or

(b) is or has been sentenced in respect of the offence to imprisonment for a term of at least 12 months."

230 Page 83, line 14, leave out "consent was not present or"
231 Page 83, line 17, leave out" 17" and insert"18"
232 page 83, line 19, leave out "17" and insert "18, and the offender—

(a) was 18 or over, or

(b) is or has been sentenced in respect of the offence to imprisonment for a term of at least 12 months"

233 Page 83, line 32, leave out"18" and insert "12"
234 Page 83, line 34, at end insert "if the offender—

(a) was 18 or over, or

(b) is or has been sentenced in respect of the offence to imprisonment for a term of at least 12 months."

235 Page 83, line 36, at end insert "if the offender—

(a) was 18 or over, or

(b) is or has been sentenced in respect of the offence to imprisonment for a term of at least 12 months."

236 Page 83, line 38, at end insert "if the offender—

(a) was 18 or over, or

(b) is or has been sentenced in respect of the offence to imprisonment for a term of at least 12 months."

237 Page 83, line 41, at end insert "if the offender—

(a) was 18 or over, or

(b) is or has been sentenced in respect of the offence to imprisonment for a term of at least 12 months."

238 Page 84, line 2, leave out from "if" to end of line 3 and insert"—

(a) where the offender was under 18, he is or has been sentenced in respect of the offence to imprisonment for a term of at least 12 months;

(b) in any other case—

(i) the victim or (as the case may be) other party was under 18, or

(ii) the offender, in respect of the offence or finding, is or has been—

(a) sentenced to a term of imprisonment, or

(b) detained in a hospital."

239 Page 84, line 4, leave out from "if" to end of line 5 and insert

(a) where the offender was under 18, he is or has been sentenced in respect of the offence to imprisonment for a term of at least 12 months;

(b) in any other case—

(i) the victim or (as the case may be) other party was under 18, or

(ii) the offender, in respect of the offence or finding, is or has been—

(a) sentenced to a term of imprisonment, or

(b) detained in a hospital."

240 Page 84, line 8, at end insert "if the offender—

(a) was 18 or over, or

1652

(b) is or has been sentenced in respect of the offence to imprisonment for a term of at least 12 months."

241 Page 84, line 9, at end insert "if the offender—

(a) was 18 or over, or

(b) is or has been sentenced in respect of the offence to imprisonment for a term of at least 12 months."

242 Page 84, line 11, at end insert "if the offender—

(a) was 18 or over, or

(b) is or has been sentenced in respect of the offence to imprisonment for a term of at least 12 months."

243 Page 84, line 16, at end insert ", and the offender—

(a) was 18 or over, or

(b) is or has been sentenced in respect of the offence to imprisonment for a term of at least 12 months."

244 Page 84, line 19, at end insert "if the offender—

(a) was 18 or over, or

(b) is or has been sentenced in respect of the offence to imprisonment for a term of at least 12 months."

245 Page 84, line 23, at end insert "if—

(a) where the offender was under 18, he is or has been sentenced in respect of the offence to imprisonment for a term of at least 12 months;

(b) in any other case, the offender, in respect of the offence or finding, is or has been—

(i) sentenced to a term of imprisonment,

(ii) detained in a hospital, or

(iii) made the subject of a community sentence of at least 12 months."

246 Page 84, line 26, at end insert "if the offender—

(a) was 18 or over, or

(b) is or has been sentenced in respect of the offence to imprisonment for a term of at least 12 months."

247 Page 84, line 28, leave out "was 20 or over" and insert ", in respect of the offence or finding, is or has been—

(a) sentenced to a term of imprisonment,

(b) detained in a hospital, or

(c) made the subject of a community sentence of at least 12 months."

248 Page 84, line 34, at end insert "and the offender—

(a) was 18 or over, or

(b) is or has been sentenced in respect of the offence to imprisonment for a term of at least 12 months."

249 Page 85, line 2, leave out "18" and insert "12"
250 Page 85, line 11, at end insert "and the offender—

(a) was 18 or over, or

(b) is or has been sentenced in respect of the offence to a term of imprisonment of at least 12 months"

251 Page 85, line 13, after "sentenced" insert "in respect of the offence"
252 Page 85, line 22, leave out "18" and insert "12"
253 Page 85, line 24, after "sentenced" insert "in respect of the offence"
254 Page 85, line 30, leave out "or"
255 Page 85, line 31, at end insert ", or
(c) made the subject of a community sentence of at least 12 months."
256 Page 85, line 33, after "if" insert "—

(a) where the offender was under 18, he is or has been sentenced in respect of the offence to imprisonment for a term of at least 12 months;

(b) in any other case,"

257 Page 85, line 43, leave out "under a provision"
258 Page 85, line 43, at end insert—
"( ) A reference in any of those paragraphs to being made the subject of a community sentence of at least 12 months is to be read, in relation to an offence under an enactment referred to in sub-paragraph (1), as a reference to being sentenced to a term of service detention of at least 112 days."
259 Page 86, line 11, leave out from "In" to 'the" in line 18 and insert "this Schedule "community sentence" has—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, the same meaning as in the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (c. 6), and

(b) in relation to Northern Ireland,"

260 Page 86, line 26, leave out "(b)"
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 158 to 260. I have already spoken to these amendments.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 158 to 260.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
261 After Schedule 3, Insert the following new Schedule—
"PROCEDURE FOR ENDING NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR ABOLISHED HOMOSEXUAL OFFENCES.
Scope of Schedule
1 This Schedule applies where a relevant offender is subject to the notification requirements of this Part as a result of a conviction, finding or caution in respect of an offence under—

(a) section 12 or 13 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (c. 69) (buggery or indecency between men), or

(b) section 61 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (c. 100) or section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 (c. 69) (corresponding Northern Ireland offences).

Application for decision
2 (1) The relevant offender may apply to the Secretary of State for a decision as to whether it appears that the person with whom the act of buggery or gross indecency was committed—

(a) where paragraph l(a) applies, was aged 16 or over at the time of the offence,

(b) where paragraph l(b) applies, was aged 17 or over at that time,

and that that person consented to the act.
(2) An application must be in writing and state—

(a) the name, address and date of birth of the relevant offender,

(b) his name and address at the time of the conviction, finding or caution,

1654

(c) so far as known to him, the time when and the place where the conviction or finding was made or the caution given and, for a conviction or finding, the case number,

(d) such other information as the Secretary of State may require.

(3) An application may include representations by the relevant offender about the matters mentioned in sub-paragraph (1).
Decision by Secretary of State
3 (1) In making the decision applied for, the Secretary of State must consider—

(a) any representations included in the application, and

(b) any available record of the investigation of the offence and of any proceedings relating to it that appears to him to be relevant, but is not to seek evidence from any witness.

(2) On making the decision the Secretary of State must—

(a) record it in writing, and

(b) give notice in writing to the relevant offender.

Effect of decision
4 (1) If the Secretary of State decides that it appears as mentioned in paragraph 2(1), the relevant offender ceases, from the beginning of the day on which the decision is recorded under paragraph 3(2)(a), to be subject to the notification requirements of this Part as a result of the conviction, finding or caution in respect of the offence.
(2) Sub-paragraph (1) does not affect the operation of this Part as a result of any other conviction, finding or caution or any court order.
Right of appeal
5 (1) If the Secretary of State decides that it does not appear as mentioned in paragraph 2(1), and if the High Court gives permission, the relevant offender may appeal to that court.

(2) On an appeal the court may not receive oral evidence.

(3) The court—

(a) if it decides that it appears as mentioned in paragraph 2(1), must make an order to that effect,

(b) otherwise, must dismiss the appeal.

(4) An order under sub-paragraph (3)(a) has the same effect as a decision of the Secretary of State recorded under paragraph 3(2)(a) has under paragraph 4.

(5) There is no appeal from the decision of the High Court.

Transitional provision 6 Until the coming into force of the repeal by this Act of Part 1 of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 (c. 51), this Schedule has effect as if references to this Part of this Act were references to Part 1 of that Act. "
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Geddes): My Lords, subsequent to Amendment No. 261, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, has tabled a manuscript Motion. I now call manuscript Motion No. 261A.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 261. I have spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 155.
Moved, That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 261.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
262 Schedule 4, page 89, line 30, leave out lines 30 and 31 and insert—
"64 Murder.
64A Culpable homicide.
64B Assault.
64C Assault and robbery.
64D Abduction.
64E Plagium.
64F Wrongful imprisonment.
64G Threatening personal violence.
64H Breach of the peace inferring personal violence.
64I Wilful fireraising.
64J Culpable and reckless fireraising.
64K Mobbing and rioting.
64L An offence under section 2 of the Explosive Substances Act 1883 (c. 3) (causing explosion likely to endanger life or property).
64M An offence under section 3 of that Act (attempt to cause explosion, or making or keeping explosives with intent to endanger life or property).
64N An offence under section 12 of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937 (c. 37) (cruelty to persons under 16).
64O An offence under section 16 of the Firearms Act 1968 (c. 27) (possession of firearm with intent to endanger life).
64P An offence under section 16A of that Act (possession of firearm with intent to cause fear of violence).
64Q An offence under section 17(1) of that Act (use of firearm to resist arrest).
64R An offence under section 17(2) of that Act (possession of firearm at time of committing or being arrested for offence specified in Schedule 1 to that Act).
64S An offence under section 18 of that Act (carrying a firearm with criminal intent).
64T An offence under section 1 of the Taking of Hostages Act 1982 (c. 28) (hostage-taking).
64U An offence under section 1 of the Aviation Security Act 1982 (c. 36) (hijacking).
64V An offence under section 2 of that Act (destroying, damaging or endangering safety of aircraft).
64W An offence under section 3 of that Act (other acts endangering or likely to endanger safety of aircraft).
64X An offence under section 4 of that Act (offences in relation to certain dangerous articles).
64Y An offence under section 105 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 (c. 36) (ill-treatment of patients).
64Z An offence under section 1 of the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985 (c. 38) (prohibition of female circumcision).
64ZA An offence under section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c. 33) (torture).
64ZB An offence under section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (causing death by dangerous driving).
64ZC An offence under section 3A of that Act (causing death by careless driving when under influence of drink or drugs).
64ZD An offence under section 1 of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 (c. 31) (endangering safety at aerodromes).
64ZE An offence under section 9 of that Act (hijacking of ships).
64ZF An offence under section 10 of that Act (seizing or exercising control of fixed platforms).
64ZG An offence under section 11 of that Act (destroying fixed platforms or endangering their safety).
64ZH An offence under section 12 of that Act (other acts endangering or likely to endanger safe navigation).
64ZI An offence under section 13 of that Act (offences involving threats).
64ZJ An offence under Part II of the Channel Tunnel (Security) Order 1994 (S.I. 1994/570) (offences relating to Channel Tunnel trains and the tunnel system).
64ZK An offence under section 7 of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 (c. 39) (procuring).
64ZL An offence under section 9 of that Act (permitting girl to use premises for intercourse).
64ZM An offence under section 11 of that Act (trading in prostitution and brothel-keeping).
64ZN An offence under section 12 of that Act (allowing child to be in brothel).
64ZO An offence under section 13(9) of that Act (living on earnings of male prostitution etc.).
64ZP An offence under section 50A of that Act (racially-aggravated harassment).
64ZQ An offence under section 51 or 52 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 (c. 17) (genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and related offences), other than one involving murder.
64ZR An offence under section 1 of the International Criminal Court (Scotland) Act 2001 (asp 13) (genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and related offences as specified in Schedule 1 to that Act).
64ZS An offence under section 22 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003 (asp 7) (traffic in prostitution etc.).
64ZT An offence to which section 74 of that Act applies (offences aggravated by religious prejudice).
64ZU An offence under section 315 of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 (asp 13) (ill-treatment and wilful neglect of mentally disordered person)."
263 Page 92, line 25, leave out "16" and insert "17"
264 Page 92, line 26, leave out "52" and insert "54"
265 Schedule 5, page 93, line 20, at end insert—
"Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (c. 12)
In Schedule 1 to the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (offences to which special provisions of that Act apply), for the entry relating to offences under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (c. 69) substitute—
"Any offence against a child or young person under any of sections 1 to 43, 49 to 55, 58 to 62, 68 and 69 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, or any attempt to commit such an offence.
Any offence under section 63 or 64 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 where the intended offence was an offence against a child or young person, or any attempt to commit such an offence."
Visiting Forces Act 1952 (c. 67)
(1) Paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the Visiting Forces Act 1952 (offences referred to in section 3 of that Act) is amended as follows.
(2) Before sub-paragraph (a) insert—
"(za) rape and buggery (offences under the law of Northern Ireland);".
(3) In sub-paragraph (a), omit "rape" and "buggery".
(4) In sub-paragraph (b), after paragraph (xii) insert— "(xiii) Part 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003."
Army Act 1955 (3 &4 Eliz. 2 c 18)
In section 70(4) of the Army Act 1955 (person not to be charged with an offence committed in the United Kingdom where corresponding civil offence is within the subsection)—

(a) omit "or rape", and

(b) after "International Criminal Court Act 2001" insert "or an offence under section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (rape)".

Air Force Act 1955 (3&4 Eliz 2.c. 19) in section 70(4) of the Air Force Act 1955 (person not to be charged with an offence committed in the United Kingdom where corresponding civil offence is within the subsection)—

(a) omit "or rape", and

(b) after "International Criminal Court Act 2001" insert "or an offence under section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (rape)"."

266 Page 93, line 23, leave out ", 41 to 43, 45, 46A and" and insert "and 41 to"
267 Page 93, line 24, at end insert—
"Naval Discipline Act 1957 (c. 53) In section 48(2) of the Naval Discipline Act 1957 (courts-martial not to have jurisdiction as regards certain offences committed in the United Kingdom)—

(a) omit "or rape", and

(b) before "committed on shore" insert "or an offence under section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (rape)"."

268 Page 94, line 4, at end insert—
"Firearms Act 1968 (c. 27)
( ) In Schedule 1 to the Firearms Act 1968 (offences to which section 17(2) of that Act applies), for paragraph 6 substitute— "

6. Offences under any of the following provisions of the Sexual Offences Act 2003—

(a) section 1 (rape);

(b) section 3 (assault by penetration);

(c) section 5 (causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent), where the activity caused involved penetration within subsection (4)(a) to (d) of that section;

(d) section 6 (rape of a child under 13);

(e) section 7 (assault of a child under 13 by penetration);

(f) section 9 (causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity), where an activity involving penetration within subsection (3)(a) to (d) of that section was caused;

(g) section 32 (sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder), where the touching involved penetration within subsection (4)(a) to (d) of that section;

(h) section 33 (causing or inciting a person with a mental disorder to engage in sexual activity), where an activity involving penetration within subsection (4)(a) to (d) of that section was caused.""

269 Page 94, line 22, leave out paragraph 13 and insert—
"Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (c. 53)
( ) In section 7 of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (limitations on rehabilitation under that Act), in subsection (2), for paragraph (bb) substitute—
(bb) in any proceedings under Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, or on appeal from any such proceedings;"."
270 Page 94, line 25, leave out paragraph 14 and insert—

"(1) The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 1 (meaning of "rape"), omit subsection (2).

1658

(3) In section 7 (citation, interpretation etc.)— (a) for subsection (2) substitute—

"(2) In this Act—
(a) "a rape offence" means any of the following—

(i) an offence under section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (rape);

(ii) an offence under section 3 of that Act (assault by penetration);

(iii) an offence under section 5 of that Act (causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent), where the activity caused involved penetration within subsection (4)(a) to (d) of that section;

(iv) an offence under section 6 of that Act (rape of a child under 13);

(v) an offence under section 7 of that Act (assault of a child under 13 by penetration);

(vi) an offence under section 9 of that Act (causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity), where an activity involving penetration within subsection (3)(a) to (d) of that section was caused;

(vii) an offence under section 32 of that Act (sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder), where the touching involved penetration within subsection (4)(a) to (d) of that section;

(viii) an offence under section 33 of that Act (causing or inciting a person with a mental disorder to engage in sexual activity), where an activity involving penetration within subsection (4)(a) to (d) of that section was caused;

(ix) an attempt, conspiracy or incitement to commit an offence within any of paragraphs (i) to (vii);

(x) aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of such an offence or an attempt to commit such an offence.

(b) the use in any provision of the word "man" without the addition of the word "boy" does not prevent the provision applying to any person to whom it would have applied if both words had been used, and similarly with the words "woman" and "girl".";
(b) omit subsection (3)."
271 Page 94, line 32, leave out paragraph 16 and insert—
"Internationally Protected Persons Act 1978 (c. 17) In section 1 of the Internationally Protected Persons Act 1978 (attacks and threats of attacks on protected persons)—

(a) in subsection (l)(a)— (i) omit "rape,"; (ii) after "Explosive Substances Act 1883" insert "or an offence listed in subsection (1 A)";

(b) after subsection (1) insert—

"(1A) The offences mentioned in subsection (l)(a) are—

(a) in Scotland or Northern Ireland, rape;

(b) an offence under section 1 or 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003;

(c) an offence under section 5 of that Act, where the activity caused involved penetration within subsection (4)(a) to (d) of that section;

(d) an offence under section 6 or 7 of that Act;

(e) an offence under section 9 of that Act, where an activity involving penetration within subsection (3)(a) to (d) of that section was caused;

(f) an offence under section 32 of that Act, where the touching involved penetration within subsection (4)(a) to (d) of that section;

(g) an offence under section 33 of that Act, where an activity involving penetration within subsection (4)(a) to (d) of that section was caused."

Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978 (c. 26)

(1) Schedule 1 to the Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978 (offences for the purposes of that Act) is amended as follows.

1659

(2) In paragraph 3, after "Rape" insert "under the law of Scotland or Northern Ireland".

(3) For paragraph 9 substitute—

"9. An offence under any of the following provisions of the Sexual Offences Act 2003—

(a) sections 1 or 3 (rape, assault by penetration);

(b) section 5 (causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent), where the activity caused involved penetration within subsection (4)(a) to (d) of that section;

(c) section 6 or 7 (rape of a child under 13, assault of a child under 13 by penetration);

(d) section 9 (causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity), where an activity involving penetration within subsection (3)(a) to (d) of that section was caused;

(e) section 32 (sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder), where the touching involved penetration within subsection (4)(a) to (d) of that section;

(f) section 33 (causing or inciting a person with a mental disorder to engage in sexual activity), where an activity involving penetration within subsection (4)(a) to (d) of that section was caused.""

272 Page 94, line 36, at end insert—
"Rehabilitation of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 (S.I. 1978/1908 (N.I. 27))
In Article 8 of the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 (limitations on rehabilitation under that Order), in paragraph (2), for sub-paragraph (bb) substitute—
"(bb) in any proceedings under Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, or on appeal from any such proceedings;"."
273 Page 95, line 2, leave out paragraph 18 and insert—

"(1) The Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 103 (evidence of persons under 14 in committal proceedings), in subsection (2)(c), after "the Protection of Children Act 1978" insert "or Part 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003".

(3) In Schedule 7 (consequential amendments), omit paragraph 18."

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 262 to 273.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 262 to 273.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
274 Page 95, line 5, leave out paragraphs 19 to 21 and insert—
"Criminal Justice Act 1982 (c. 48)

(1) The Criminal Justice Act 1982 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 35 (abolition of enhanced penalties on subsequent conviction of summary offences) for subsection (3)(a) substitute—

(a) sections 34 to 36 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (letting premises for use as a brothel and prostitution); or".

(3) In Part 2 of Schedule 1 (offences excluded from early release provisions), after the entry relating to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (c. 29) insert—

"SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 Sections 1 and 3 (rape, assault by penetration).
Section 5 (causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent), where the activity caused involved penetration within subsection (4)(a) to (d) of that section.
Sections 6 and 7 (rape of a child under 13, assault of a child under 13 by penetration).
Section 9 (causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity), where an activity involving penetration within subsection (3)(a) to (d) of that section was caused.
Section 32 (sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder), where the touching involved penetration within subsection (4)(a) to (d) of that section.
Section 33 (causing or inciting a person with a mental disorder to engage in sexual activity), where an activity involving penetration within subsection (4)(a) to (d) of that section was caused."
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60)

(1) The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 80(7) (sexual offences for purposes of compellability of spouse), after "the Protection of Children Act 1978" insert "or Part 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003".

(3) In Schedule 1A (specific arrestable offences), after paragraph 25 insert—

"Sexual Offences Act 2003

26. An offence under—

(a) section 67 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (sexual activity in public lavatory);

(b) section 68 of that Act (exposure);

(c) section 69 of that Act (voyeurism);

(d) section 71 of that Act (intercourse with an animal); or

(e) section 72 of that Act (sexual penetration of a corpse)."

(4) In Part 2 of Schedule 5 (serious arrestable offences), after the entry relating to the Obscene Publications Act 1959 (c. 66) insert—

"Sexual Offences Act 2003

16 Section 1 (rape).

17 Section 3 (assault by penetration).

18 Section 5 (causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent), where the activity caused involved penetration within subsection (4)(a) to (d) of that section.

19 Section 6 (rape of a child under 13).

20 Section 7 (assault of a child under 13 by penetration).

21 Section 9 (causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity), where an activity involving penetration within subsection (3)(a) to (d) of that section was caused.

22 Section 32 (sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder), where the touching involved penetration within subsection (4)(a) to (d) of that section.

23 Section 33 (causing or inciting a person with a mental disorder to engage in sexual activity), where an activity involving penetration within subsection (4)(a) to (d) of that section was caused.""

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 274 and do propose Amendment No. 274A thereto:
274A Schedule 5, Line 3, leave out from beginning to "Part" in line 8 and insert "In the Criminal Justice Act 1982, in"
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment Nos. 274 and do propose Amendment No. 274A thereto.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
275 Page 95, line 14, leave out paragraph 22 and insert—

"(1) The Criminal Justice Act 1988 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 32 (evidence through television links), in subsection (2)(c). after "the Protection of Children Act 1978" insert "or Part 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003".

(3) In section 160(1) (possession of indecent photograph of child), at the beginning insert "Subject to subsection (1A),"."

276 Page 95, line 17, leave out paragraph 23 and insert—
"Criminal Justice Act 1991 (c. 53)
In section 34A of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (power to release short-term prisoners on licence), in subsection (2)(da), for "Part 1 of the Sex Offenders Act 1997" substitute "Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003"."
277 Page 95, line 20, leave out paragraph 24 and insert—

"(1) Section 2 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 (offences to which that Act applies) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1) (England and Wales)—

(a) after paragraph (d) insert—

(da) any offence under any of the provisions of Part 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 except section 65, 66, 67 or 71;";

(b) in paragraph (e) for "(d)" substitute "(da)".

(3) In subsection (3) (Northern Ireland)—

(a) after paragraph (hh) insert—

(ha) any offence under any of sections 17 to 23,49 to 55, 58 to 60, 68 to 70, 72 and 73.";

(b) in paragraph (i) for "(hh)" substitute "(ha)"."

278 Page 95, line 23, leave out paragraph 25 and insert—

"(1) The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 25 (no bail if previous conviction for certain offences), for subsection (2)(d) and (e) substitute—

(d) rape under the law of Scotland or Northern Ireland;

(e) an offence under section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (rape);

(f) an offence under section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (rape);

(g) an offence under section 3 of that Act (assault by penetration);

(h) an offence under section 5 of that Act (causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent), where the activity caused involved penetration within subsection (4)(a) to (d) of that section;

(i) an offence under section 6 of that Act (rape of a child under 13);

(j) an offence under section 7 of that Act (assault of a child under 13 by penetration);

(k) an offence under section 9 of that Act (causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity), where an activity involving penetration within subsection (3)(a) to (d) of that section was caused;

(l) an offence under section 32 of that Act (sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder), where the touching involved penetration within subsection (4)(a) to (d) of that section;

(m) an offence under section 33 of that Act (causing or inciting a person with a mental disorder to engage in sexual activity), where an activity involving penetration within subsection (4)(a) to (d) of that section was caused;

(n) an attempt to commit an offence within any of paragraphs (d) to (m)."

1662

(3) Omit sections 142 to 144.

(4) Schedule 10 (consequential amendments) omit paragraphs 26 and 35(2) and (4)."

279 age 95, line 29, at end insert—
"Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 (c. 39)
In section 5(6) of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 (which relates to construing the expression "a like offence"), after paragraph (c) insert "or
(cc) any of sections 10 to 15 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003;"."
280 Page 95, line 31, leave out paragraph 26 and insert—
"Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995 (c. 53)
In section 11 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995 (approval by parliament of certain alterations to the Tariff or provisions of the Scheme)—

(a)in subsection (3)(d), after "rape" insert "or an offence under section 32 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003";

(b)after subsection (8) insert—

"(9)In subsection (3) "rape", in relation to anything done in England and Wales, means an offence under section 1 or 6 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003."

Sexual Offences (Conspiracy and Incitement) Act 1996 (c. 29)
In the Schedule to the Sexual Offences (Conspiracy and Incitement) Act 1996 (sexual offences for the purposes of that Act), in paragraph 1 —

(a)for sub-paragraph (I)(b) substitute—

"(b)an offence under any of sections 1 to 13,15 and 17 to 28 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.";

(b)in sub-paragraph (2), for "In sub-paragraph (l)(a), sub-

paragraphs (i), (iv), (v) and (vi) do" substitute "Sub-paragraph (l)(b) does".

Sexual Offences (Protected Material) Act 1997 (c. 39) In the Schedule to the Sexual Offences (Protected Material) Act 1997 (sexual offences for the purposes of that Act)—

(a) after paragraph 5 insert—

"5A. Any offence under any provision of Part 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 except section 65, 66, 67 or 71.";

(b) in paragraph 6, for "1 to 5" substitute "5 and 5A"."

281 Page 96, line 31, at end insert—
"Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (c. 23)

(1) The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 35 (cross examination of child witnesses), in subsection (3)(a), after sub-paragraph (v) insert "or

(vi) Part 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003;".

(3) In section 62 (meaning of "sexual offence" etc.), for subsection (1) substitute—

"(1) In this Part "sexual offence" means any offence under Part 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003."

Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 (S.I 1999/ 2789 (N.I. 8))

(1) The Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 is amended as follows.

(2) In Article 3(1) (meaning of "sexual offence"), after sub- paragraph (gg) insert—

"(ga) any offence under any of sections 17 to 23,49 to 55, 58 to 60, 67 to 70, 72 and 73 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003."

1663

(3) In Article 23 (protection of child complainants and other child witnesses)—

(a) in paragraph (3), after sub-paragraph (c) insert—

"(cc) any offence under any of sections 17 to 23,49 to 55, 58 to 60, 67 to 73 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003;";

(b) in paragraph (4)(a), after "(3)(a)" insert "or (cc)"."

282 Page 96, line 33, at beginning insert—

"(1) The Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 91 (power to detain offenders under 18 convicted of certain offences), for subsection (l)(b) and (c) substitute—

(b) an offence under section 4 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (in this section, "the 2003 Act") (sexual assault); or

(c)an offence under section 14 of the 2003 Act (child sex offences committed by children or young persons); or

(d) an offence under section 27 of the 2003 Act (sexual activity with a child family member); or

(e) an offence under section 28 of the 2003 Act (inciting a child family member to engage in sexual activity)."

(3) In section 109 (life sentence for second serious offence), in subsection (5), after paragraph (0 insert—

(fa) an offence under section 1 or 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (in this section, "the 2003 Act") (rape, assault by penetration);

(fb) an offence under section 5 of the 2003 Act (causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent), where the activity caused involved penetration within subsection (4)(a) to (d) of that section;

(fc) an offence under section 6 or 7 of the 2003 Act (rape of a child under 13, assault of a child under 13 by penetration);

(fd) an offence under section 9 of the 2003 Act (causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity), where an activity involving penetration within subsection (3)(a) to (d) of that section was caused;

(fe) an offence under section 32 of the 2003 Act (sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder), where the touching involved penetration within subsection (4)(a) to (d) of that section;

(ff)an offence under section 33 of the 2003 Act (causing or inciting a person with a mental disorder to engage in sexual activity), where an activity involving penetration within subsection (4)(a) to (d) of that section was caused;

(fg) an attempt to commit an offence within any of paragraphs (fa) to (ff);"-

(4) In section 161 (definition of "sexual offence" etc.), in subsection (2)—

(a) after paragraph (0 insert—

(fa) an offence under any provision of Part 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 except section 54, 55 or 67;";

(b) in paragraph (g), for "(a) to (0" substitute "(f) and (fa)". (5)"

283 Page 96, line 33, leave out from "9" to end
284 Page 96, line 36, leave out paragraph 32
285 Page 97, line 2, leave out paragraph 33 and insert—

" (1) The Criminal Justice and Courts Services Act 2000 is amended as follows.

(2) Omit sections 39 and 66.

(3) In section 68 (sexual and violent offenders for the purposes of risk assessment etc.), in subsection (2), for "Part I of the Sex Offenders Act 1997" substitute "Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003".

1664

(4) In section 69 (duties of local probation boards in connection with victims of certain offences), in subsection (8)(b), for "Part I of the Sex Offenders Act 1997" substitute "Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003".

(5) In Schedule 4 (offences against children for the purposes of disqualification orders)—

(a) in paragraph 1, for sub-paragraph (m) substitute—

"(m) an offence under any of sections 6 to 28 and 49 to 52 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (offences against children).";

(b) in paragraph 2, for sub-paragraph (n) substitute—

"(n) an offence under any of sections 1 to 5, 32 to 43, 54, 55, 58 to 62, 68 and 69 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.";

(c) in paragraph 3, after sub-paragraph (s) insert—

"(sa) he commits an offence under section 63 or 64 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (committing an offence or trespassing with intent to commit a sexual offence) in a case where the intended offence was an offence against a child."

(6) Omit Schedule 5."

286 Page 97, line 17, leave out paragraphs 35 and 36 and insert—
"Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (c. 29)

(1) The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 (lifestyle offences: England and Wales), for sub-paragraph (2) substitute—

"(2) An offence under any of sections 58 to 60 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (trafficking for sexual exploitation)."

(3) For paragraph 8 of that Schedule substitute— "Prostitution and child sex

8

(1) An offence under section 33 or 34 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (keeping or letting premises for use as a brothel).

(2) An offence under any of the following provisions of the Sexual Offences Act 2003—

(a) section 15 (arranging or facilitating commission of a child sex offence);

(b) section 50 (causing or inciting child prostitution or pornography);

(c) section 51 (controlling a child prostitute or a child involved in pornography);

(d) section 52 (arranging or facilitating child prostitution or pornography);

(e) section 54 (causing or inciting prostitution for gain);

(f) section 55 (controlling prostitution for gain).

(3) In paragraph 4 of Schedule 5 (lifestyle offences: Northern Ireland), for sub-paragraph (2) substitute—

"(2) An offence under any of sections 58 to 60 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (trafficking for sexual exploitation)."

(4) In paragraph 8 of that Schedule—

(a) after sub-paragraph (1) insert—

"(1 A) An offence under any of the following provisions of the Sexual Offences Act 2003—

(a) section 50 (causing or inciting child prostitution or pornography);

(b) section 51 (controlling a child prostitute or a child involved in pornography);

(c) section 52 (arranging or facilitating child prostitution or pornography);

(d) section 54 (causing or inciting prostitution for gain);

(e) section 55 (controlling prostitution for gain).";

(b) omit sub-paragraphs (2) to (5)."

287 Page 97, line 35, at end insert—
"Protection of Children and Vulnerable A dulls (Northern Ireland) Order 2003(S.I. 2003/417 'N.I. 4))
In paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults (Northern Ireland) Order 2003, after sub-paragraph (n) insert—
"(o) any offence under any of sections 17 to 23 and 49 to 52 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003."
Access to Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 (S.I. 2003/435 (N.I. JO))
In Schedule 2 to the Access to Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003, in paragraph 2(d)—

(a) omit sub-paragraph (x),

(b) omit "or" at the end of sub-paragraph (xi),

(c) at the end of sub-paragraph (xii) insert "or (xiii) under section 90, 91, 95, 98, 102, 106, 107, 112, 116, 121, 123 or 124 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003,"."

288 Page 98, line 1, leave out from "(a)" to "and" in line 2
289 Schedule 6, page 98, line 21, at end insert—

"Visiting Forces Act 1952 (c. 67)

In the Schedule, in paragraph

l(a) the words "rape, buggery"; paragraph l(b)(viii).

Army Act 1955 (3&4 Eliz. 2 c.18)

In section 70(4), the words "or rape".

Air Force Act 1955 (3 &4 Eliz.2 c. 19)

In section 70(4), the words "or rape"."

290 Page 98, line 25, column 2, leave out from "to" to "47" in line 28l
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 275 to 290.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 275 to 290.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
291 Page 98, line 29, at end insert—

", and in paragraph 33, the entry in the fourth column.

Naval Discipline Act 1957 (c. 53)

In section 48(2), the words "or rape"."

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 291 and do propose Amendment No. 291A thereto:
291 A Schedule 6, Leave out lines 2 and 3
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 291 and do propose Amendment No. 291A thereto.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
292 Schedule 6, page 98, line 43, at end insert—
"Criminal Justice Act 1972 (c. Section 48." 71)
293 Page 99, line 9, at end insert—

"Internationally Protected Persons Act 1978 (c. 17)

In section l(l)(a), the word "rape,".

Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978 (c. 26)

In section 4(l)(a), the word "11,".

In Schedule 1, paragraph 11."

294 Page 99, line 10, column 2, at beginning insert—

"In section 103(2)(c), the words from "the Indecency with Children Act 1960" to "1977 or".

In Schedule 1, paragraphs 23,27 and 32."

295 Page 99, line 11, at end insert—

"Criminal Attempts Act 1981 (c. 47)

In section 4(5), paragraph (a) and the word "and" immediately after it."

296 Page 99, line 15, at end insert—

"Criminal Justice Act 1982 (c. 48)

In Schedule 1, in Part 1, paragraph 2, and in Part 2, the cross-heading immediately before paragraph 12, and paragraphs 12 to 14 "

297 page 99, line 30, at end insert—

"Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60)

In section 80(7), the words from. "the Sexual Offences Act 1956" to "1977 or".

In Schedule 1A, paragraph 4 and the cross-heading immediately before it.

In Part 1 of Schedule 5, paragraphs 4 and 6 to 8.

In Part 2 of Schedule 5, paragraph 2 and the cross-heading immediately before it.

In Part 1 of Schedule 6, paragraph 9."

298 Page 99, line 31, column 2, at beginning insert—

"Section 3."

299 Page 99, line 35, at end insert—

"Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c. 33)

In section 32(2)(c), the words from "the Sexual Offences Act 1956" to "1977 or""

300 Page 99, leave out lines 37 and 38
301 Page 99, line 40, at end insert—
"Criminal Procedure and Section 56(2)(a).

Investigations Act 1996 (c. 25).

Sexual Offences (Conspiracy and Incitement) Act 1996 (c. 29)

In the Schedule, paragraph 1(l)(a).

Sexual Offences (Protected Material) Act 1997 (c. 39)

In the Schedule, paragraphs 1 to 4."

302 Page 100, line 17, column 2, leave out "paragraph" and
insert "paragraphs 36 and"
303 Page 100, line 23, at end insert—

"Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (c. 23)

In section 35(3)(a), sub-paragraphs (i) to (iv)."

304 Page 100, line 24, at beginning insert—

"Section 161(2)(a) to (e)."

305 Page 100, line 28, at end insert—

"In Schedule 4, paragraphs l(c) to (i), 2(g) to (m) and 3(b) to (r)."

306 Page 100, line 36, at end insert—

"Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (c. 29)

In Schedule 5, paragraph 8(2) to (5)."

307 Page 100, line 39, at end insert—

"Access to Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 (S.I. 2003/435 (N.I. 10))

In Schedule 2, in paragraph (2)(d), sub-paragraph (x) and the word "or" at the end of sub-paragraph (xi)."

308 Page 100, line 40, column 2, leave out from "(a)" to end of line 41
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 292 to 308.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 292 to 308.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Water Bill [H.L.]
7.37 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to HL Bill 149 as first printed for the Lords.]

COMMONS AMENDMENT
1 Clause 1, page 1, line 4, leave out Clause 1.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. In so doing, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 82.
The amendment relates to the issue of water conservation, to which your Lordships prefer to refer here. The House of Commons and spokespeople of all parties accepted that the amendments rightly gave greater prominence to water conservation in the Bill, by inserting Amendment No. 82, which we shall reach in due course. The intention of the amendments was to strengthen the duty to conserve water resources. They retain the principle driven at in Clause 1 while addressing concerns about the potentially adverse consequences of such a wide and general duty.
1668
I note that Amendment No. 1A, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, seeks to reinstate Clause 1 with an additional reference to the duty to encourage water conservation.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I believe that the amendment is in my name.
Lord Whitty: I apologise to the noble Baroness. Indeed, the amendment is in her name. I am not sure to whom I should apologise most, but I apologise to both noble Baronesses.
I note that Amendment No. 1A, to which the noble Baroness will no doubt speak shortly, seeks to go back to Clause 1, whereas the insertion of Amendment No. 82 was intended to replace Clause 1. I believe that the retention of Clause 1 would cause further confusion.
As I explained when the Bill was previously debated in this House, there are difficulties with the wording of Clause 1, and they have not disappeared. It would oblige the Secretary of State to take action, regardless of whether it was beneficial or cost-effective, and, more directly, it cuts across the statutory duties of regulators and water undertakers, which would weaken the provisions for them. It is also unclear how the Secretary of State would implement measures referred to under Clause 1 with no further statutory provision as to how that should be done. As a matter of law it is unclear what entities are in Clause 1, and that could cause additional confusion.
Whether a particular activity constitutes an appropriate use of water or a waste would also be a difficult question and that is not a strong basis for a statutory duty. It will be far more constructive for the Secretary of State to look towards the clear objective of conserving water, which will be placed in Part 3 of the Bill through Amendment No. 82.
By placing the new duty in Part 3 of the Bill it probably also has a wider application than in Part 1, where it may be taken to relate primarily to abstraction and impounding. In that respect the Environment Agency already has a duty to secure the proper use of water resources, and this has been clarified in the Bill to require the agency to secure the efficient use of abstracted water.
Amendment No. 82 places a new duty on the Secretary of State and the Welsh Assembly to take steps to encourage water conservation and report to Parliament or the Assembly on progress and proposed steps. This will advance the interests of water conservation and give Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise the sufficiency of the steps taken.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(Lord Whitty.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
1 Clause 1, page 1, line 4, leave out Clause 1
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment

1669
No. 1, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment 1, but do propose the following amendment to the words so restored to the Bill—
1A Clause 1, page I, line 6, at end insert ", and in carrying out his duty, shall have particular regard to the steps to be taken under section (Duty to encourage water conservation)""
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in our various discussions during the passage of the Bill through the House we tried desperately to persuade the Government that there was a need to have a duty to conserve water placed at the beginning of the Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who wrote to me on 12th September 2003. The letter states:
"While the intention of the amendment is sound"
in other words, the Government accept the thrust of what we are trying to do—
"as drafted it presents a number of significant concerns. The duty is very wide so there is a danger that it might have unforeseen and undesirable implications. In particular, it has been suggested that it could cut across the statutory responsibilities of regulators".
I read that very carefully and I am still not convinced that we should not try to proceed with our amendment.
As noble Lords will realise, last summer was extremely dry. It is said that unless we get rainfall this winter that is 30 per cent higher than average it is likely that we shall have a serious drought next spring. I return to the Minister's letter. I understand the term "unforeseen"; obviously, crises can arise. I have no difficulty with that. However, I should like the Minister to explain further the term "undesirable implications". In what way could such a duty have undesirable consequences unless the Secretary of State took actions which were ill-judged or poorly implemented? I do not see where the Minister is coming from.
I turn to government Amendment No. 82. I am grateful to the Government for having taken on board the thrust behind our original amendment which we pursued at every stage of the Bill's passage through this House. I realise that the measure is an important addition to the Bill but I should like to see it at the beginning of the Bill. I think that the Minister will not be surprised to hear me say that that is where I think it should be. It is very important that one of the first things that a reader of the Bill sees is a duty to encourage water conservation. I cannot understand why there is so much resistance from the Government to that particular aspect.
I am trying to be constructive and helpful, as one does at the end of a Bill's passage. I suggest therefore that my amendment would partly meet the Minister's concerns in that it would make the reader of the Bill refer to the terms of government Amendment No. 82, which I presume he is happy with as he is proposing it. I am in a slightly difficult position, and would like to hear further from the noble Lord on that. My real desire is to see the duty to conserve water resources moved to Clause 1.I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1, leave out from "House" to end and insert Amendment No. 1A as an amendment to the words so restored to the Bill.—(Baroness Byford)
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I support the noble Baroness's amendment. Since we discussed the matter in the House, we have seen rainfall continue to diminish during the year. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, in reply to my Question only on Tuesday said that we had had the worst rainfall figures for February to October for 74 years, with the exception of 1959. Under those circumstances, even the past few months could show us why it is more important than ever that we have the provision at the beginning of the Bill. After all, many of its clauses are concerned with changing the water regime so that it is more sustainable and more about conserving water. That is what the extraction changes and the drought plans are all about.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, also said on Tuesday, the drought plans are applied region by region and are for water companies to implement. Of course, what was not said on Tuesday was that we now have Water Grid Ltd, which is to do with moving water around the country. That and Mr Morley's comments at Third Reading in another place—he said that a measure to deal with the very low levels in reservoirs was to pump the rivers out—leads me to lend the noble Baroness even stronger support for the amendment. The scenario that we have seen this year is likely to be repeated in other years if we are to believe, as I do, the forecasts by scientists who study climate change. We cannot afford to be complacent in this area.
I, too, look forward to hearing exactly what the problem is with underlining the importance of conservation as one of the prime purposes of the Bill. The Minister mentioned adverse effects. I cannot understand what the adverse effects of the Secretary of State having such a duty could be.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment No. 82. Before I do so, I declare an interest as a director of a water-only company in the South East. As we know, Amendment No. 82 inserts a new clause requiring the Secretary of State and the Assembly in Wales to take appropriate steps to encourage the conservation of water. I agree wholeheartedly with my noble friend Lady Byford that that really should be at the beginning of the Bill, because it is one of the most important issues.
I should like to ask the Minister what action the Government intend to take in respect of the water-resource situation in the south-east of England. We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that there had been a huge drought. It makes me smile wryly when I consider that, in Committee, we talked about drought and were not quite laughed out of court, but we were told that the matter was not in our ken, that

1671
the country had too much water and had not had drought for seven years, and goodness knows what else. The situation is now very serious.
As I explained many times during the passage of the Bill, the south-east region is water-resource deficient. A recent Environment Agency report, State of the Environment 2003—The Environment Agency's assessment of the environment in South East England, showed that Kent, Sussex, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight's water resources were the most precious in the UK. More water is consumed for each person in the South East than anywhere else in the country, which, combined with the fact that it is more deficient there, sets up a real problem. The area receives one of the lowest amounts of rainfall each year.
The amount of water available to each person is already lower than in Egypt, Morocco and Kenya, and less than a fifth of that in Turkey. As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has said, drier summers are predicted in Britain in the future as a result of climate change. Added to that, a huge increase in demand for water in the South East is forecast as a direct result of population growth. Our population is going to grow by about 2 million. According to the Environment Agency, that will cause more unsustainable water abstractions unless demand is managed and new resources are developed. We all know about the outcry that greets new resource development such as reservoirs.
At last month's Economist Water Conference, the Environment Minister, Mr Elliot Morley, was quoted as saying that the South East has already been officially recognised as a water stressed area. In that context I want to ask the Minister what the Government's intentions are regarding demand management measures for the South East and, in particular, for water metering? The Defra policy paper, Directing The Flow: Priorities For The Future of Water Policy, published in November 2002, discusses the water resource situation and identifies as a priority for water policy,
"prudent use of water resources and keeping its use within the limits of its replenishment".
That point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and my noble friend. The paper goes on to state:
"We will continue to use the twin track approach of demand management and development of resources to achieve sustainable management of water resources".
The Water Bill takes forward the main supply measures set out in the Defra paper, putting water resource and drought plans on a statutory basis and makes changes to the abstraction licensing system. The Government are also aware of the need for water companies to reduce their leakage rates. However, as the Environment Agency has pointed out, the majority of the region's water companies achieved a reduction in their leakage rates between 1997–98 and 2000–01.
I turn to demand management measures. The Government's policy is to permit the growth of metering on a voluntary basis. It is now clear that that
1672
approach is less than equal to the water resource challenges that we face in the South East. The agency's report, State of the Environment 2003, the Environment Agency's assessment of the environment in south-east England, published in June this year, states:
"All water companies in the South East have seen an increase in the number of metered properties since 1997/98. This increase has mainly been through voluntary take-up, installations in new homes and the metering of sprinkler or swimming pool users".
But it goes on to state:
"Continuation of this policy is unlikely to achieve the metering levels the Environment Agency believes is necessary. Most of the companies are unlikely to achieve the forecasts for 2004/05 and 2024/35 proposed in their water resource plans".
For some time, the agency has accepted that real water savings from metering will come only when there is sufficient metering penetration to introduce innovative tariffs that dissuade high domestic use.
As I have explained previously, the reality is that pursuit of a policy of optional metering, at the request of customers and free of charge, is ineffective as a demand management tool. Compulsory metering is much more economical than optional or selective metering. Optional metering is more costly because meters may be situated only in every third, 10th or 20th house. In other words, compulsory metering is the only economic way of applying demand management in a scarce water area.
Furthermore, the situation in the South East has deteriorated since we last discussed the Bill and since the agency produced its report. For eight consecutive months, the region has had below-average rainfall. According to the Met Office, 575 mm of rain should have fallen in south-east England during the first 10 months of the year where only 346 mm fell. River flows have continued to fall throughout the autumn, which has been the third driest in the region since records began. As has been pointed out, if we do not have substantial rainfall this winter, the region faces water shortages next spring.
The water companies that serve the region have called on their customers to help conserve water supplies, but it seems ludicrous to suggest to people in the middle of November that there should be a hose-pipe ban, because few hose-pipes are used at this time of year. I note that WaterVoice Southern, which is the voice of the consumer, is backing these efforts.
Therefore, in light of the new Clause 81 and the deteriorating situation in the South East of England, do the Government have any plans to change their policy on metering? If not, do they believe that the situation in the South East is now sufficiently serious to warrant the Secretary of State declaring it "an area of water scarcity" and therefore to be subject to compulsory metering without the need for a company application, which would only delay the inevitable that a change in policy is required to recognise the seriousness of the situation?
Lest I should be accused of worrying only about the South East, although that is where the situation is serious, the whole of England and Wales is seriously water deficient. According to a press notice from the

1673
Environment Agency this month, throughout England and Wales there is less water available per person than in some countries in Africa and the Middle East. Given the Government's own projection that there will be an increase of 3.3 million households in England and Wales between 1996 and 2016, and that the population is set to increase by 2 million over the same period, the situation is serious. Can the Minister inform the House what other measures the Government are considering in terms of demand management or resource development in order to comply with their new duty to take appropriate steps to encourage the conservation of water?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, raised a number of points which go beyond the terms of the alternative amendments. Clearly, there is a serious situation in the South East. We recognised that in this House and during the course of this Bill. The water resource plans, parts of which are reflected in the Bill, are aimed at ensuring that long-term planning of water supply meets the demand. The restrictions on abstraction, the powers given to water companies, the requirements on them to have drought plans, and their powers of persuasion and ability to impose, for instance, hose-pipe bans all go together to mitigate the potential water shortages in areas such as the South East. Water companies can also require the metering of new developments, which also helps the situation.
I am not trying to belittle the problems in the South East, but there are a number of different measures—
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. In the case of new housing developments, water companies can ask for meters to be installed but it is not a statutory requirement. That would help.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, no, but in practice water companies take advantage of the ability, in particular in the South East. New developments could be covered by that. However, we are talking about encouraging water conservation and the argument is. about where, and the form in which, the provision should appear in the Bill. I interpreted the noble Baroness as saying that she had no real objection to Amendment No. 82, merely its place in the Bill. We could always argue about that, but the problem with putting it where she should wish it—as an additional amendment to Clause 1—is that Part 1 is described as "Abstraction and impounding" and it deals with restrictions on impounding. On the other hand, as regards some of the more general provisions in Part 3, the duty on conservation would apply more widely.
Ultimately, where we put the provision in the Bill is to some extent a matter of taste because every part of the Bill has the same legal significance. The more important objection to the noble Baroness's amendment is the form in which Clause 1 came out of the House and has been deleted in the Commons amendment. It states that:
1674
"The Secretary of State shall have a duty to devise and implement measures to ensure that all entities and persons who use water do so without wasting it".
That is a somewhat wider power than others given to the Secretary of State in the Bill. It could cut across powers which are given to other entities in the Bill. The term "entities" here is not described and the term "persons" could mean that the Secretary of State in some sense has the ability to check the level of water in our baths or the number of showers we take per day. That may be at the extreme end of interpretation, but it is a legitimate and logical interpretation of this clause because there is no limitation on it; nor are any powers, other than those already in the Bill or in existing legislation, given to the Secretary of State to carry out that rather wide-ranging duty.
The other reason for placing the provision in Part 3 of the Bill is that that would apply to all aspects of water legislation. It would apply to parts which amended the Water Industry Act and those which amended the Water Resources Act. Therefore, the key issue is that the new clause, which would place a duty on the Secretary of State to carry a responsibility for water conservation, would apply throughout all the powers which accrue to the Secretary of State in the Bill, but it does not imply that she would have more powers, nor that her powers might override the powers given statutorily, for example, to the Environment Agency and the regulator. Those are prescribed separately in the Bill and in previous legislation.
That is my objection to keeping Clause 1 as it stood when we last saw the Bill. My objection to it being in this place in the Bill is perhaps more marginal. There are obviously advantages to having the duty up front but, in practice, that would limit its application to the areas covered by Part 1, which includes amendment to one piece of legislation but not the other.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank both the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, and my noble friend Lady O'Cathain. I particularly thank my noble friend Lady O'Cathain because she explained in great detail why she considers this amendment to be important.
I listened with care to what the Minister said but I am afraid that he has not convinced me either way. I believe that I quote him correctly. We shall have to wait until we read Hansard tomorrow before we can be sure, but I think that he implied that the Secretary of State should not have powers to override other people who have responsibilities. I believe that the Secretary of State should be able to do that. Ultimately, someone must be able to do so.
The Minister said that his feelings about where the clause appeared in the Bill were "marginal" but that he was not so concerned about that matter. However, I believe that the Secretary of State should have the power to dictate other aspects of responsibility in the Bill. I am not very happy with the answer that I have been given and I believe I should seek the opinion of the House.
8.3 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1 A), as an amendment to the Motion, shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 43; Not-Contents, 72.

Division No.6

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Methuen, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Montrose, D.

Attlee, E.

Newby, L.

Barker, B.

Noakes, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Northesk, E.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Northover, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Byford, B.

Onslow, E.

Cope of Berkeley, L.[Teller]

Palmer, L.

Person of Rannoch, L.

Craigavon, L.

Phillips of Sidbury, L.

Dholakia, L

Razall, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rennard, L.

Geddes, L.

Roper, L.

Glentoran, L.

Seccombe, B.[Teller]

Hamwee, B.

Selborne, E.

Hanham, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Higgins, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Luke, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hayman, B.

Alli, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Amos, B. (Lord President)

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Andrews, B.

Hoyle, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Bach, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Borrie, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bragg, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Burlison, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Carter, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Chandos, V.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Morgan, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Parekh, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Crawley, B.

Rea, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Donoughue, L.

Richard, L.

Dubs, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Sawyer, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Sewel, L.

Gale, B.

Simon, V.

Gilbert, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Golding, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Turnberg, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Whitaker, B.

Hannay of Chiswick, L.

Whitty, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Wilkins, B.

Harrison, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
8.13 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
2 Clause 2, page 1, line 7, leave out Clause 2
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2. The government amendment removes Clause 2 from the Bill that left this House. Clause 2 placed a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations to implement aspects of the Water Framework Directive. That clause as it stood when it left this House did not transpose the directive and in some respects went beyond its requirements. An enabling power to transpose the directive already exists in the European Communities Act 1972. The Government published a third consultation paper, in August, with proposed draft transposing regulations. October marked the end of successive government consultations on transposition, which started in March 2001.
As with most European legislation, it has been the longstanding practice, agreed in the House and used by successive governments, to transpose European legislation using the European Communities Act. The regulations will of course come to Parliament in the normal way.
The Government obviously are already under a legal obligation to implement the directive because it is a piece of European legislation. No specific provision along the lines proposed in Amendment No. 2A is necessary. Indeed, it would duplicate the powers under the European Communities Act.
The Government's proposed regulations to transpose the directive, which were published in August, already contain regulations transposing Articles 5 and 8, to which the noble Baroness's amendment refers. The corresponding draft regulations are already there. No further provision along the lines of subsections (2) and (3) of the amendment is therefore needed in the Bill.
I therefore hope that the noble Baroness, and others who support the amendment, will recognise that it would be counterproductive and duplication to provide this provision under the Bill, and that the normal procedure should apply to the Water Framework Directive as it applies to the vast majority of European legislation and regulation.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.—(Lord Whitty.)

MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 2
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2, at end insert "but do propose the following amendment in lieu of the words so left out of the Bill—
2A Clause 2, Insert the following new Clause—
"Compatibility with EC Directive

(1) Wherever applicable, all provisions of this Act shall be implemented in such a way as to comply with and contribute to the requirements of the EC Water Framework Directive (2000/ 60/EC).

(2) The Secretary of State and the Assembly shall prepare and publish targets, together with a timetable by which each shall be achieved, for Articles 5 and 8 of the EC Water Framework Directive.

(3) The targets and timetable shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament and the Assembly within one year after the Directive has been transposed.""

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Minister says that there is a usual way to transpose directives. I agree. Does he also accept that the UK has an astoundingly poor record in transposing environmental directives? It is so bad that the UK came bottom of the league in Europe in the European Commission's Fourth Annual Survey on the Implementation and Enforcement of Community Environmental Law. That is enough proof of why the old method of transposing directives is simply not good enough. In my view, that alone would be good enough reason to use primary legislation.
There is astounding agreement between all sides involved with anything to do with water. The water industry—that is the companies themselves, the environmental NGOs and academics—£.nd everyone I have spoken to about the Bill have one thing in common: they are all angry, disappointed and disbelieving that the Government could have put this legislation through without as much as a reference to the Water Framework Directive. After all, this will be the biggest change in our water management, certainly in living memory. They are worried for very good reason. Without the backing of primary legislation, the Water Framework Directive has been downgraded in importance. It is likely to be implemented in a non-cost effective way and without the urgency needed.
To be effective, the implementation really needs to mesh with planning and spatial planning functions, for example—hence my reference to Article 5. Article 5 is concerned with the type of measures that will be needed in the planning process to enable the Water Framework Directive to be properly implemented.
It is very difficult to see how the framework's objective of reducing, for example, diffuse pollution will possibly be achieved unless those changes are given the kind of urgency and planning that is needed. If the Government do not achieve the timescale, which my amendment also requires them at least to set out, it will cost us all in infraction proceedings.
More importantly, perhaps, the Minister will remember that the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, spoke exceedingly well in Grand Committee of the costs to industry—not only the costs of all the lost opportunities that innovation will bring in having industries that seek to clean up pollution. They are opportunities to be grasped and not to be taken at the last minute.
Article 8 is about monitoring surface and groundwater status. That work will tell us what needs to be done and where, and how difficult it is likely to be. Again, there is no use in leaving that until the last possible moment.
I hear the Minister's remarks that there is plenty of time and that people are fully seized and prepared to put the Water Framework Directive into action in the timescale. However, since the Bill left this House, when the Minister asserted that that would happen, I have spoken to all sorts of people, from local authorities throughout the country, those concerned with development control issues, developing local plans, spatial planning and transport, who are unaware of the demands that the Water Framework Directive will make, if they are aware of it at all. It is an extremely serious situation. If, at least, the provisions were included in primary legislation, the Government would have made a statement that it was important. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2, at end insert Amendment No. 2A in lieu of the words so left out of the Bill.—(Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer.)
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. Throughout the proceedings we have run a duet, supported by other noble Lords around the House, who are unfortunately absent, on the need to include in the Bill the Water Framework Directive responsibilities. It is a timely occasion, as there will not be a water Bill for many years to come. I wish to add to the noble Baroness's comments.
In his letter on the Water Framework Directive, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said:
"Clause 2 of the Bill simply provides an enabling power to implement aspects of the Water Framework Directive—it does not transpose the Directive. An enabling power already exists in the European Communities Act. Formal transposition of the Directive must be achieved by 22 December this year"
The letter was originally sent on 12th September. It continued:
"The Government published a consultation paper in August with proposed draft transposing regulations. Our consultation period runs until October".
I ask the Minister whether that consultation has finished; what has happened to it since then; and will the aims be achieved by 22nd December, bearing in mind that it is now 13th November? The noble Lord said:
"You will remember from the exchanges during the Bill's passage through the Lords that the Government firmly believes that there is no need to depart from the longstanding practice".

1679
He has referred to that today. He adds:
"The amendment to leave out clause 2 reflects this".
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has said that the changes are major and will affect us whether we are individual users or business users, in whatever capacity. Can the Minister assure us that everything that has come from Europe has been transposed using the European Communities Act? Are other important things being dealt with differently, or is just this Bill involved?
The Government's reply to the Water Framework Directive, which was printed on 4th June 2003, underlines the importance of what the noble Baroness is trying to do. Chapter 1, paragraph 1, states:
"The Water Framework Directive offers the potential of enormous environmental and social benefits, but at the same time it will dramatically affect the ways in which farming, industries and others conduct their activities. Therefore the first—and perhaps over-riding—conclusion of our inquiry is that the Directive needs much greater public promotion".
That is the exact issue on which the noble Baroness has just touched. At chapter 10, on page 11, it clearly states:
"The Government should now clarify the timetable for completion of the strategic review of diffuse pollution from agriculture".
It continues:
"We trust that the review will consult as widely as possible about the scale of the problem, and the strategies and resources needed to bring this most intractable of pollution sources under control".
Most importantly, it states:
"Given the likely impact that dealing with diffuse pollution will have on the agriculture industry we recommend that the review assess carefully the financial implications of the Directive for the agricultural industry to ensure that costs of implementation for this sector are proportionate in respect of its present ability to pay".
I cannot help but reinforce that point. It is hugely important.
I now turn to page 13, chapter 15, which deals with administration and the directive. It states:
"The Directive requires legal effect to be given to the Directive by December 2003".
It is now 13th November, so when and how?
Page 15, paragraph 20, on integration and powers, states:
"We strongly recommend that the Government begin now to develop the arrangements, agreements and protocols which will be needed to ensure that the river basin management plans drawn up by the Environment Agency as competent authority carry sufficient force—and to ensure that the Agency is required to take into account the views of others in drawing up the management plans".
There are many other examples that I could cite, but those are the particular ones to which I wish to refer tonight.
The Minister should be in no doubt that there is extreme concern, not only on the part of noble Lords on these Benches and others in the House, but also in the wider domain outside. The Government need to explain more fully why they think that the measure will
1680
not be necessary and, even more importantly, how they will achieve their own objectives. I would be grateful if the Minister would answer those questions.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the first answer to the question asked by the noble Baroness, which, in a sense, is the key answer, is that the vast majority of European regulation is implemented under the European Communities Act 1972. It is very rare that we use primary legislation. In this particular respect, we have been through three periods of consultation on all aspects of the Water Framework Directive. The consultees, the stakeholders, the industry, the consumers, and those representing environmental concerns were all involved in that process.
The noble Baroness rightly referred to the time-scale. The Government intend to bring forward regulations following that consultation—which finished in October—next month. That is the normal process. A whole range of people have been engaged in that process. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, says that nobody understands it, but I cannot accept that. All those people have been involved. Indeed, they would expect to be involved in that degree of consultation over proposed regulation on an extremely complex and—I agree—vitally important piece of European regulation.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I did not say that people did not understand it, I said that those involved in planning, development, control and spatial planning were barely aware of it.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, perhaps I misunderstood. I thought that the noble Baroness said that people could not understand why the Water Framework Directive was not in this Bill. However, those same people have been consulted about the Water Framework Directive over a period of years, at least since March 2001—in some cases earlier than that because the directive was in a draft form.
It would require very special circumstances for us not to use the normal process, especially when we are 99 per cent of the way through it, rather than put in this Bill at this stage a particular form of ability to transpose a part—admittedly an important part—of the Water Framework Directive. I am afraid that I have not heard tonight or in earlier discussions any reason why we should depart from normal practice in that respect. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will not pursue this matter tonight.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he said that legislation would be brought before Parliament next month. We have no more time in this Session. When we return we start with the Queen's Speech, which will take us to the end of the first week of December. Is the statutory instrument already written or is it not in being? If 99 per cent of it is ready, what is not ready?
We want it in the Bill because this is a major change; it is not a minor change. I suspect that many of the statutory instruments taken through in the normal

1681
way are of a minor rather than a major nature. That is why, on these Benches, we are trying to push the Minister further than he is obviously willing to go. Perhaps he could comment on my two questions.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am unsure of what else I can say. The fact is that we are well through the process of drafting, but it is not quite completed. It is scheduled to be in a form to place before Parliament next month. Everyone who has been consulted expects that to be the way in which we proceed. I do not understand why, either at earlier stagss or now, we should propose to shove into the Bill a partial transposition trigger. As everyone recognises, the actual implementation will take time. It is a massive change to the way in which we regulate water. But the whole of it can be done under the European Communities Act in the normal way. The noble Baroness is wrong to say that it applies only to minor pieces of legislation. There are some serious Euro-sceptics on both our Back Benches who complain about it, but huge parts of European regulation are used in that way. It is the way in which Parliament and successive governments have seen fit to transpose European regulation.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister when he is in full flow. Is he saying, in code, that there are some legal procedural difficulties with incorporating the EC directive into UK legislation in the way that is proposed in the amendment and that he is prevented from accepting it because of legal advice?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not speaking in code. There is no hidden agenda here. Our way is better than the partial way proposed by the noble Baroness.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer:My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, particularly for her support. I can understand the Minister having difficulty hearing me, but there is a very good reason why the "normal way", as he puts it, of transposing environmental directives—as I said at the beginning of my speech—is not satisfactory. We have the worst record in Europe.
That said, I am surprised that the Minister has not heard the voices from the consultations that came to me and to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, from the industry, the utility sector and the environment, which said that it was important that the directive was in primary legislation. If there have been three consultations, surely it cannot have escaped the Government's notice that that is what everyone on the outside concerned in any way with water has been saying.
That said—bearing in mind that I cannot continue to speak for much longer because my voice will give out and that there is one further amendment I wish to move today—it is with great regret that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
3 Clause 3, Page 2, leave out lines 39 and 40 and insert—

"(i) transferring water to another source of supply; or

(ii) transferring water to the same source of supply, but at another point, in the course of dewatering activities in connection with mining, quarrying, engineering, building or other operations (whether underground or on the surface),

in either case without intervening use (a "transfer license");"

4 Clause 4, page 4, line 7, leave out " "relevant" and insert " "the relevant"
5 Clause 5, page 4, line 38, leave out paragraph (a)
6 Page 4, line 40, leave out "such notices" and insert "notices of appeal under subsection (4)"
7 Page 5, line 28, leave out "otherwise," and insert "in relation to England,"
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that this House agrees with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 3 to 7 In speaking to those amendments, I shall refer also to Amendments Nos. 8 to 35.
All but one of the amendments in this group are technical or drafting changes. I shall be happy to explain any of them if pressed to do so. They deal with issues such as tightening the wording of the Bill and do not introduce issues relating to any change of substance to the Bill when it left this House.
Amendment No. 3, however, amends the definition of a transfer licence to include movements of abstracted water from one part of a source of supply to another part of that source, as well as between sources of supply. The amendment arises from our discussions with the Quarry Products Association. It will ensure, for example, that a transfer licence rather than a full licence can be granted where water abstracted from one end of a quarry is reinjected into the aquifer at the other end and where there is no intervening use of the water. We have discussed this at some length.
The only other amendment not strictly related to technical or drafting issues is Amendment No. 8. This amendment removes the change to Section 29 of the Water Resources Act 1991 that was introduced by an amendment moved on Report in this House. I understand that the intention of that amendment was to ensure that in individual licensing decisions, the Environment Agency must consider how long irrigation has been practised and that applications are fully considered in that light. If that was the intention behind the amendment, we fully agree with it.
I am happy to make it clear to the House that when transitional regulations are made to bring irrigation under licensing control, the agency will be required, as a matter of law, to consider the history of the irrigation in question. Also, there will be a period of up to two years for licence applications to be made. Abstractions for existing operations will continue to be lawful during this period. It is government policy that the Environment Agency should not issue any other licence that might derogate a currently exempt

1683
abstraction for irrigation operations during the period. I can reassure noble Lords that the transitional regulations will include those provisions.
When considering a licence it will not, therefore, be a case of the Environment Agency putting applications for licences for irrigation to the bottom of the pile. The agency will be able to set aside some of its normal considerations when determining a licence, such as whether the licence will derogate on others' rights. Clause 103(5) provides for this.
These provisions are helpful to irrigators in just the situations which the original Amendment No. 15 tabled on Report in this House was intended to address. It is, in fact, dealt with in other ways.
I would also note that the Environment Agency will be discussing this with groups representing all abstractors being brought into the system; that will include irrigators. It has already issued a briefing note on trickle irrigation to clarify how the new regime will work.
I hope that noble Lords will agree that, with those provisions safeguarding the position of irrigators, the change originally agreed by this House to Section 29 of the Water Resources Act 1991 is not necessary and that the Commons amendment will be agreed.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 3 to 7.—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
8 Clause 9, page 10, leave out lines 36 to 39
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8.—(Lord Whitty.)
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 8A as an amendment to Amendment No. 8. These amendments are very confusing and I hope that I am in the right place. The comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, have been quite helpful, but I should like to go over the ground again. I wish to speak to Amendment No. 8A with Amendment No. 3.I hope that that is in order.
The question of trickle irrigation was debated at length during the passage of the Bill through this House and I still have one or two observations that I should like to make. I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify a few points. We feel that existing users should be given priority over new applications. I have
1684
read carefully what was said in Standing Committee D by Mr Elliot Morley in response to our amendment on crop rotation. He said:
"We understand that the intention behind the amendment was to ensure that, when the agency takes individual licensing decisions, it must consider how trickle irrigation has been practised. If that was the intention, we have no problem—it is not an unreasonable position to take".
The Minister has slightly clarified the matter for me and I am grateful for that. He continued:
"When making transitional regulations that will bring trickle irrigation under licence control, we can include a requirement that the agency should consider the history of the irrigation scheme".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee D, 16/9/03; col. 76.]
I am grateful that that issue has been clarified but I am not clear whether in the overall scheme someone who had come in within, say, the last two years would take preference over someone who traditionally had been drawing water for a longer period in the past.
Obviously the Environment Agency will have to consider whether such people are using water efficiently and whether there is good practice. If they are not, that would be an extra reason for the Environment Agency not to renew their licence or, in this case, approve their licence.
We believe that extra consideration should be given to those who have had long practice. For example, it takes some 50 years to establish watercress beds and, although their water requirements are high, they would be very much at jeopardy if the amount of water allocated to them was withdrawn or not approved.
In moving the amendment to the amendment, I am seeking greater clarification on this issue. Why should someone who has had a licence since 2002—or has been in business; they have not needed a licence—take precedence over someone who has been using water without a licence because in the past the law did not require them to have one? Ministers at both ends of the Corridor have stated quite clearly that trickle irrigators did not require licences.
I am trying to clarify how the Environment Agency will go about its business. I accept the base premise that there must be good practice and efficient use of water but, other than that, I am not quite clear as to how people will be judged in the current situation. I seek greater clarification. That is the reason for bringing forward the amendment and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".—(Baroness Byford.)
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there is not a huge amount of contention between the noble Baroness and myself. The problem with keeping in the amendment which was carried here and is proposed to be deleted by the Commons is that it would appear to allow the Environment Agency to make a policy decision as to whether the current exempt irrigators would be subject to licensing. The noble Baroness is speaking in terms of preference but the wording seems to suggest that they

1685
would not be subject to the provisions of licensing at all—that they would be granted a licence— whereas the Act provides that they should be subject to licensing and, therefore, to the same conditions as any other licence.
I was trying to reassure the noble Baroness that the Environment Agency is bound to take into account the history and the length of time that irrigators have been using the abstraction in making that decision. That is not systematic preference. It will deal with matters on a case by case basis and take fully into account the amount of time that people have been using the abstraction. Therefore, in that sense, someone who has been using it for a long time in a sensible way would have some degree of preference over someone who had been taking it for a short period of time in an excessive way. So it is not absolute preference, but it reflects the history for those irrigators who have been operating an efficient irrigation system for some time. Keeping in the original amendment implies absolute preference in the sense that they would be exempt from the conditions of licensing entirely.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. Am I to understand that the Environment Agency will not make policy decisions anyway? I am not quite clear about that.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the implication of the wording of the original Lords amendment was that the Environment Agency was free to make a policy decision on whether irrigators should be in or out. In fact, the rest of the Bill has already made that policy decision. Irrigators are subject to the same licensing conditions as anyone else, but in making that assessment the agency has to take account of the history of the irrigator and others who have come in to the system of licensing for the first time. The Environment Agency will not make the policy decision—the legislation has done that. In the assessment, the history of the irrigator will be fully taken into account.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation. As he said, we are not poles apart. I sometimes wish that when that is the case, the Government would accept some of our amendments, but not tonight, I think. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
9 Clause 12, Page 14, line 26, leave out "be taken to continue" and insert "continue to be taken"
10 Clause 17, Page 19, line 38, at end insert "or a transfer licence"
11 Page 19, line 40, leave out "full licence" and insert "licence of the same type"
12 Clause 19, Page 21, line 13, leave out "is taken to continue" and insert "continues to be taken"
13 Page 21, line 16, leave out "(subject to subsection (11) of that section)"
14 page 21, line 18, leave out "is taken to continue" and insert "continues to be taken"
15 Page 21, line 21, leave out "is taken to continue" and insert "continues to be taken"
16 Page 21, line 29, leave out "that quantity or, if lower,"
17 Page 21, leave out lines 31 to 37 and insert—

"(3) The maximum quantity is the lower of the following—

(a) twenty cubic metres;

(b) if, by virtue of an order under section 27 A(1) above, section 27(1) above has, or has ever had, effect in relation to the source of supply and point of abstraction in question as if it referred to a quantity lower than twenty cubic metres, that lower quantity (or, if more than one, the lowest of them)."

18 Page 22, line 8, leave out "other provision mentioned in" and insert "provision mentioned in paragraph (a), (c), (d), (e) or (f) of"
19 Page 22, line 19, leave out "be taken to continue" and insert "continue to be taken"
20 Page 22, line 22, leave out "be taken to continue" and insert "continue to be taken"
21 Page 22, line 35, after "or", insert "abstractions"
22 Page 22, line 38, leave out "subsection (8)" and insert "subsections (8) and (9)"
23 Clause 21, page 24, line 4, leave out "(4)" and insert "(4A)"
24 Page 24, line 24, at end insert—
"(4A) In subsection (7), for "or by different means" there is substituted ", by different means or for different purposes"."
25 Clause 25, page 28, line 32, after "licence", insert "other than a temporary licence"
26 Page 29, line 8, leave out "it is proposed he be permitted" and insert "he proposes"
27 Page 29, line 11, leave out "it is proposed he be permitted" and insert "he proposes"
28 Page 29, line 12, leave out from "which" to "abstract" in line 13 and insert "those persons referred to in paragraph (a) above who would require a new licence granted under subsection (5) below would"
29 Page 29, line 17, leave out "those persons would be permitted to" and insert "that the persons referred to in paragraph (a) above would"
30 Page 30, line 23, leave out "of four years" and insert "mentioned in subsection (11A) below" "that the persons referred to in paragraph (a) above would"
31 Page 30, line 27, at end insert—

"(11A) The period referred to in subsection (1 l)(a) above is—

(a) four years; or

(b) if the abstractions authorised under the old licence were abstractions planned to be carried out at intervals of more than four years, or abstractions for emergency purposes only, such longer period as the Agency may determine on the application of the person in question."

32 Page 30, line 29, leave out from "treated" to end of line 32 and insert—

"(a) as if it had been granted at the time the old licence was granted; and

(b) as if it and any other new licence granted by virtue of the relevant apportionment notice had been granted in place of the old licence."

33 Clause 26, page 32, line 2, leave out second "loss or damage"
Page 32, line 3, after "and", insert "is loss or damage"
Clause 29, page 34, line 4, after "WRA", insert "(which provide for the Secretary of State to direct the Environment Agency to revoke or vary a licence in certain circumstances)"
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 9 to 35. I have spoken to these amendments with Amendment No. 3.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 9 to 35.—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
36 Clause 33, page 37, line 41, leave out Clause 33
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 36.I shall refer also to Amendments Nos. 37 and 49.
When we debated Clause 33, there was a bit of confusion about what it applied to at that point in the Bill. The objective of inserting Clause 33, which noble Lords opposite supported, was that it would apply to the Environment Agency. There was confusion about whether it applied to Ofwat or the Environment Agency. The part of the Bill to which it relates deals with the powers of Ofwat and not a right of appeal against decisions by the agency.
I believe that in practice this change does not alter the current provision in relation to Ofwat because the company can already appeal to Ofwat if it makes an order that is not within its powers. I think, therefore, the insertion at the earlier stage was due to a misunderstanding that this part of the Bill related to the Environment Agency where different arguments apply. As it stands, the clause was not necessary because there already is an appeal system in relation to Ofwat.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 36.—(Lord Whitty.)
36A Baroness Byfordrose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 36, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".
The noble Baroness said: I thank the Minister for accepting that there was slight confusion in Committee. I accept that the clause before us relates to Ofwat and not the Environment Agency. The Minister was kind enough to write to me, saying:
"Clause 33 amends the Water Industry Act 1991 to include additional provision for appeals against enforcement orders proposed by the regulator. I should emphasise that those enforcement orders are the function of Ofwat, not the Environment Agency".
I am happy to accept that. He continued:
"The Act already contains considerable safeguards so that the regulator must consult the company and then consider any representations or objections. This procedure will ensure that errors are avoided".
I must say that I asked myself, "Why is he so confident?" I fear that errors still occur even with the best will in the world. He continued:
"The purpose of enforcement orders is to protect consumers or the environment against company shortcomings".
I accept all that the noble Lord wrote in his letter. However, unless I have misread it, it still leaves the regulator as judge and jury. We are concerned, because that is not an ideal situation. When we debated the matter earlier, we received support from my noble friend Lady O'Cathain, and the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, when the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and I spoke to it. So I raise the issue again. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said:
"But let us suppose that the agency's exercise of a power is questionable. Can it be questioned at all? Under Section 21 of the Water Industry Act 1991, the only possible remedy that I can see for a company aggrieved by an enforcement notice is either unlawfulness or failure of the agency to comply with statutory procedures. However, as the power is expressed in very subjective terms, it is difficult, if not impossible, for any aggrieved company to cross the huge hurdle of demonstrating that the Environment Agency has acted unlawfully.
"The amendment would add two grounds: error of law or fact, and unreasonable use of power".—[Official Report, 24/6/03; cols. 156–7.]
When we continued to debate the matter, it was suggested that judicial review was the only option open to the company. That is unsatisfactory, which is why I move this amendment to the Motion moved by the Minister.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 36, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".—(Baroness Byford.)
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I shall speak briefly to the amendment to reinforce what the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said. Clearly, there must be redress if there are errors on orders; if orders are unreasonable, they must also be open to challenge and redress. If that cannot be done, that leaves those who want to appeal in a difficult situation, as the noble Baroness said.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I fear that neither the noble Lord nor the noble Baroness have really heard what I said. There may well be queries about appeals against the Environment Agency; I think that the comments of my noble friend Lord Borrie in the Moses Room largely related to that.
I could go into a long riposte in defence of the protection that we have against inequitable decisions by the Environment Agency, but the point tonight is that reinserting the clause that the Commons want to remove would be of no benefit in relation to the Environment Agency. It relates to Ofwat, as I thought that the noble Baroness recognised in her remarks, and therefore does not meet any of the objections to which the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, or the noble Baroness, in the latter part of her remarks, referred. It is not logical for us to pursue the matter at this stage.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response, although I am not thrilled with it. If he says that that is factually correct and that I am under a misunderstanding, which I think he is suggesting, we have clarified that the provision does not refer to the Environment Agency. I am happy with that. Even if it

1689
is Ofwat, that body will still be the judge and jury, will it not? That is the point that I am trying to make. I have accepted that perhaps we were at cross purposes, because in Committee we were getting confused over whose responsibility it was—whether it was the Environment Agency's, or not. I have accepted that, and it does not worry me. What does worry me, however, is that Ofwat will still be the judge and jury unless the Minister is telling me otherwise. That is the point that I am trying to make.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, recognised, there are already grounds for appeal against Ofwat if it exceeds its powers, perhaps due to making a mistake, to the application of the law to the facts, or to administrative error. The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, says that those are restrictive powers, but they are substantial powers of appeal and they are already there. If the proposal applied literally to Ofwat, it would duplicate the powers that already exist in the existing legislation. However, most of the arguments in support of the noble Baroness, which were made at previous stages, related in fact to grievances with the Environment Agency's decisions, not with Ofwat's.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, perhaps it would be better at this stage of the Bill not to press the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 36A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 36, by leave withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
37 Clause 38, page 41, leave out lines 4 to 6 and insert—
"( ) The Council shall exercise and perform its powers and duties in the manner which it considers is best calculated to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development."
38 Page 41, line 13. after "or", insert "by"
39 Clause 42, page 47, line 5, after "or", insert "by"
40 Page 47, line 22, leave out "(3)" and insert "(4)"
41 Page 47, line 24, leave out "(3)" and insert "(4)"
42 Page 47, line 26, leave out "(3)" and insert "(4)"
43 Clause 47, page 57, line 36, leave out "such"
44 Clause 50, page 60, line 14, leave out "Office of Fair Trading" and insert "OFT"
45 Clause 57, page 71, line 8, leave out "14A and 14B" and insert "16A and 16B"
46 Clause 58, page 74, line 32, leave out "has been" and insert "is"
47 Page 74, line 35, leave out from "which" to "within" in line 36 and insert "such a direction may be given"
48 Clause 60, page 75, line 37, at end insert—
"( ) Any such proceedings by the Assembly may be instituted and carried on in the name of the Chief Inspector of Drinking Water for Wales, if there is one (or, if subsection (1B)(b) above applies, in the name of the Chief Inspector of Drinking Water)."
49 Page 76, leave out lines 3 to 5
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their
1690
Amendments Nos. 37 to 49. Amendment No. 37 reshapes the sustainable development duty on the Consumer Council, bringing it into line with the duty imposed on the authority, and reconfirms our commitment to sustainable development, which all sides of the House welcomed as a feature throughout the passage of the Bill.
The remaining amendments, Amendments Nos. 38 to 49, are minor drafting amendments that tidy up and update the text of the Bill, and do not raise any substantive points.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 37 to 49.—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
50 Clause 61, page 76, line 28, leave out from "until" to end of line 30 and insert "an indemnity with respect to the arrangements has been given by virtue of section 90 below—

(a) to the water undertaker; and

(b) to any licensed water supplier which is entitled to one."

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 50. I shall speak also to Commons Amendments Nos. 51 to 79. Most of the amendments deal with the fluoridation issue.
Amendment No. 50 and the remaining amendments ensure that there are no disincentives to water suppliers bidding to supply water in a fluoridated area by providing for them, as well as for strategic health authorities, to be indemnified against liabilities arising from the fluoridation in the water supply that they provide. The remaining amendments in the group deal with various aspects of ensuring that the fluoridation consultation and operation are undertaken in line with what the Government intend. That meets some of the concerns that may lay behind Amendment No. 50A. We do not believe that they would be dealt with by that amendment, which would effectively put the power into the hands of the local authorities rather than the strategic health authority.
At a previous stage, the House supported the option of fluoridation for the strategic health authorities, and the amendments tidy up and protect that situation. With Amendment No. 50A, we would be moving into another direction entirely in relation to the fluoridation issue.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 50 to 79.—(Lord Whitty.)

MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 50
50A Clause 61, Line 2, at end insert "providing that the opinion referred to in section 89(1)(a) has been gained by the principal local authorities in the area in question"
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I beg to move, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 50, Amendment No. 50A.

1691
Amendment No. 50A states:
"Line 2, at end insert 'providing that the opinion referred to in section 89(1)(a) has been gained by the principal local authorities in the area in question'";
in other words, the local community must be questioned to establish its views on the fluoridation issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, intended to move this amendment but she is unable to do so. I have done a fair amount of homework on the matter and I shall do my best in presenting it to the House.
I refer to the whole question of indemnity. Indemnity should be provided only when fluoridation is the clear wish of a community to be affected. Local authorities are clearly best placed to test that opinion. They have no axe to grind, unlike strategic health authorities which are promoters and judges of opinion.
I would not have returned to this subject except that the Commons had a big vote on this point. The result, 200 to 243, constituted possibly the smallest majority that the Government have had on anything since 1997. Honourable Members in another place clearly hoped that we would tackle this matter.
As my honourable friend the Member for Lewes, Norman Baker, said, local authorities might not be perfect but they are local, democratically elected and accountable, which is more than can be said of strategic health authorities. Indeed, Mr Wiggin MP stated that strategic health authorities are neither democratically elected nor accountable. Their accountability comes only through the Secretary of State, which is not a direct local mechanism. They do not match up with the Government's insistence on local consultation.
The situation that I am discussing allows for local referendums in the areas of local authorities. The indemnity will kick in only if local authorities have tested public opinion. It is extraordinary that the Government in the House of Commons would not accept the principle that local authorities could decide whether or not to add fluoride to a public water supply in their locality without first testing local opinion.
There is no doubt that fluoride has a beneficial effect on teeth, but no one truly knows what side-effects the addition of fluoride may have on a wide spectrum of aspects of human health. Indeed, this is a matter on which science is inconclusive. As we know, there are supporters of both sides of the argument.
The important point about the amendment is that it gives the residents of an area a vital element of choice on whether or not to have fluoride added to the local water supply. The Government ignore that principle at their peril.
Moved, That Amendment No. 50A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 50, be agreed to.—(Lord Livsey of Talgarth.)
9 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, on Amendment No. 50A. The noble Lord said that he considered that the responsibility for deciding whether fluoride should be added to a local water supply should lie with local authorities.
We debated this matter at length during the Bill's passage through this House. As it was suggested that the responsibility in this regard should lie with the strategic health authorities, I decided to table an amendment to the relevant health Bill to try to obtain greater clarification on that responsibility. In the end, we still do not know how they will achieve getting a public view. What came out of that is that there will not be a local referendum, as the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, may not be surprised to know. That is the one fact that has clearly come out of discussions both at earlier stages of this Bill and when I spoke on the health Bill.
Again, we were told that the decision would be made by regulation. I do not know how many times when we debate matters in this House, particularly when we have the opportunity to put something in a Bill, we are told that they will come through by regulation. To have to accept that again is yet another time that it is unacceptable, certainly to us on these Benches and I suspect to colleagues on the Liberal Benches as well.
Voting in the House of Commons was really quite close, and many questions are still unanswered. I hope that noble Lords will not mind if I take a minute or two to raise some of them again. Only recently it was claimed by Dr Dean Burk, who has worked with the National Cancer Institute in America for the past 35 years, that it is possible that fluoride is killing up to 2,000 people per year. He gave the All-Party Fluoridation Group a hearing in a House of Commons meeting, and said that the American evidence showed a significantly higher cancer death rate in fluoridated areas.
There was also evidence of higher incidence of breast, colon, rectum, kidney and thyroid cancers in Britain's fluoridated areas. Mr Lawrence said that many MPs were appalled at the complete refusal of Britain's medical hierarchy to recognise the evidence when challenged on fluoride's absolute safety. He went on to say:
"The arrogance of those who blundered in giving their endorsement to the safety of thalidomide, asbestos and other disasters"—
to which I might add BSE—"seems to be boundless".
This is really our last chance to try to persuade the Minister that the matter should not be left to strategic health authorities that are not elected. Instead, the role should be transferred to local government. People in local government are obviously elected in a proper manner. They are not there because they are asked to serve on the health authority. We feel very strongly that the Minister might consider that in the light of the evidence.

1693
When we debated the issue earlier in this House, reference was made to the research undertaken at York. In fact, many have questioned that research as being inadequate. I press the Minister again tonight to tell us what research has been undertaken since the York experience. Is the matter something that the Government think of concern, or do they say that the claim made by that American is completely unfounded? We really do not know, and have no evidence at all in support of the Government's persistence that fluoride is the best way.
I accept and have accepted all along that fluoride can make a difference to people, and to children's teeth particularly. However, fluoride toothpaste makes a difference, too. Why have the Government not come forward with any facts to support their view that fluoride addition to the water has no side effects that support our concerns?
Tonight I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Livsey—the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, is quite right to be silent at the moment. I question the grounds on which the Government base their assumptions. I support the amendment.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, when the House debated the issue at earlier stages, there was acceptance that public health was a matter for the health authorities— that the strategic health authority would be the body that made the proposition, and that fluoride should be added to the water in those parts of the country where that was not already the case. That was to be subject to major consultation within each health authority's area, but of course that area will not be the same as a local authority area. Indeed, most strategic health authority areas will include several local authorities.
The reference in the amendment to putting the local authority in pole position, effectively, is not appropriate. It is important that local authorities play a major part in reaching the decisions on the proposition from the strategic health authority on whether an area should or should not fluoridate. I understand some of the anxieties about decisions that are taken solely by the strategic health authority. While the burden of science seems to be in favour of fluoridation, there are alternative arguments. In answer to the noble Baroness's specific question, the Government have commissioned two research studies by the MRC and the University of York and neither found any association with cancer. However, we are not complacent about that. Strategic health authorities must make a judgment on the latest science and on how it affects their particular areas, types of water and populations, but it is a public health decision and the strategic health authorities must make it.
However, because it is an issue about which there is uncertainty and some doubt, it is important that strategic health authorities engage in public consultation and that public opinion is assessed objectively. Local authorities must play a full part in the opinion-sounding process, be it by open debate or other forms of participation, but a single local authority within a strategic health area could not make
1694
or block the final decision. The decision must be taken across the strategic health area as a whole following area-wide public consultation.
On a technical point, the amendment is in the wrong place. It conflicts with Section 89(1) of the Bill, which would require the relevant strategic health authority to ascertain public opinion. That relates to indemnity issues. Even if the amendment were carried, it would not achieve what the noble Baroness apparently seeks, which would be to involve local authorities in the public opinion-gauging exercise, because strategic health authorities would be given that authority by Section 89 of the Bill.
Nevertheless, while the strategic health authority is responsible for assessing public opinion, it is right that local authorities should play a major role in that exercise and ascertain opinion within their own areas to feed into it. Ultimately, however, it is a public health issue and the strategic health authority is the body that should make the proposal and test opinion on it.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, responds, I must say that I am intrigued. The noble Lord said that several local authorities should be involved. It is true that there will be several different strategic health authorities in exactly the same place, so I do not accept the distinction between local authorities and strategic health authorities. The borders of strategic health authorities do not match those of water companies and different points of view will be expressed for one place.
The amendment is not my own, so I shall weigh in heavily. I am extremely disappointed that the Minister should leave it until the ninth minute of the ninth hour of the ninth day to tell us that the amendment is in the wrong place. That is amazing and very unlike the Minister, who is normally most helpful. His argument is not very good at all.
In response to my question, the Minister said that the research had been continued. He did not reveal what has happened since the research in York and how long it is since it was completed; in other words, has research been going on in the past six months while we have been debating the Water Bill? My understanding is that there has been no more up-to-date research. He certainly did not answer my question on what possible dangers there are. We would like to hear a little more from the Minister before the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, decides whether to proceed with the amendment.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the most up-to-date research does not show any link with cancer. The noble Baroness referred to the American experience and that is the latest information that we have.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, the Minister has made a number of statements about local authorities and strategic health authorities, as though they did not talk to each other. Often, local authorities consult the strategic health authorities and I believe that the local authority is the right body to conduct a referendum on this issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, is right in saying that there is no coterminousity between water

1695
companies, local authorities and strategic health authorities. None the less, it is possible to co-operate and for the local authority to be the vehicle through which a referendum is held. I see no problem with that.
In these circumstances, it must be right that the addition or not of fluoride must be tested by public opinion in the district and the amendment is the correct way of achieving that. It may not be in the right place, which I concede, but we saw this as a way of including the provision in the Bill in relation to indemnity. As the Minister has a little more legal fire power than we do, he may well be correct in saying that it ought to be in another place.
Reference has been made to research and America has been mentioned. Noble Lords have also said how good are the teeth of people in Birmingham because fluoride has been added to the water for the past 40 years. As far as I know, no tests have been undertaken in Birmingham as to the possible impact of that on other aspects of human health, nor has Birmingham been compared with somewhere else of similar population which does not add fluoride to its water. As the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, correctly said, scientists are not agreed on the situation in York, and I quoted that in detail in Committee.
In my opinion, it is important to test the opinion of the House because it is one of the most important amendments we are discussing today.
9.17 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 50A as an amendment to Amendment No. 50) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 26; Not-Contents, 57.

Division No.7

CONTENTS

Attlee, E.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Barker, B.

[Teller]

Bridgeman.V.

Montrose, D. [Teller]

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville L.

O'Cathain, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Palmer, L.

Byford B

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Rennard, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Roper, L.

Craigavon,V.

Selborne, E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Geddes, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Borrie,L.

Amos, B. (Lord President)]

Bragg, L.

Andrews, B.

Brett, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Brookman, L.

Bach, L.

Burlison, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Carter, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Chandos, V.

1696

Crawley. B.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Donoughue, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Dubs, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting,L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Morgan, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Gale, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gilbert, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Golding, B.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Sewel, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Simon V

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Hannay of Chiswick, L.

Turnberg, L.

Hayman,B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Whitaker, B.

Hoyle, L.

Whitty, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Wilkins, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
9.27 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
51 Clause 61, page 77, leave out lines 3 to 6
52 Page 77, line 10, leave out "The terms may, for example," and insert "Those terms shall"
53 Page 77, line 11, leave out from "requiring" to end of line 12 and insert "the relevant authority to meet the Amendmentable capital and operating costs incurred by the water undertaker in giving effect to the arrangements;"
54 Page 77, line 20, at end insert—

"(8A) If two or more relevant authorities request a particular water undertaker to enter into arrangements in respect of adjoining areas—

(a) the authorities shall co-operate with each other so as to secure that the arrangements (taken together) are operable and efficient; and

(b) if suitable terms are not agreed for all the arrangements, a combined reference may be made by the relevant authorities under section 87A below to enable the terms of each set of arrangements to be determined

so that they are consistent. (8B) If a relevant authority requests a water undertaker to vary arrangements, the authority shall co-operate with any relevant authority for an adjoining area which has entered into arrangements with the same water undertaker so as to secure that following the variation the arrangements (taken together) will be operable and efficient. (8C) If suitable terms are not agreed for a variation mentioned in subsection (8B), a combined reference may be made by the relevant authorities under section 87A below to enable the terms of the variation to be determined so that (following the variation) both sets of arrangements are consistent."

55 Page 77, line 20, at end insert—
"(8D) Before carrying out the consultation required by subsection (1) of section 89 below in relation to a step mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of subsection (2) of that section, a relevant authority shall consult the water undertaker in question as to whether the arrangements which would result from taking that step would be operable and efficient (or, where it is proposed to terminate the arrangements, as to whether it would be Amendmentably practicable to do so)."
56 page 77, leave out lines 21 to 27
57 page 77, line 27, at end insert—
"87ZA Target concentration of fluoride

(1) Arrangements under section 87(1) above shall include provision for securing that, so far as Amendmentably practicable, the concentration of fluoride in the water supplied to premises in the specified area is maintained at the general target concentration of one milligram per litre.

(2) But the arrangements may provide for the concentration in the specified area (or any part of it) to be lower than that if the relevant authority considers that it is not Amendmentably practicable to achieve the general target concentration in the specified area (or that part of it).

(3) Any such lower concentration must still be as high as is Amendmentably practicable in the circumstances.

(4) If, in relation to any area ("area A"), an order under section 88A(1) below specifies a general target concentration lower than that for which any arrangements effective there provide (or, by the previous operation of this subsection, are taken to provide), the arrangements shall have effect from the coming into force of the order as if they provided for the general target concentration specified in the order (subject to the operation again of subsections (2) and (3) above).

(5) If the result of the operation of subsection (4) above in relation to arrangements in area A is that in an area adjoining area A ("area B") it is not Amendmentably practicable to maintain the concentration of fluoride in the water supplied by virtue of arrangements made in area B with the same water undertaker, the order shall be taken to extend also to area B so far as those arrangements are concerned, and subsection (4) above shall apply accordingly.

(6) An order under section 88A(1) below which in relation to any area specifies a general target concentration higher than that for which any arrangements effective there provide (or are taken to provide by virtue of subsection (4) or (5) above) does not have effect to increase the concentration for which the arrangements provide (or are taken to provide).

(7) In this section, "specified area" means the area specified in arrangements under section 87(1) above."

58 Page 77, line 30, leave out from "agree" to end of line 31 and insert "—

(a) the terms of arrangements requested by the relevant authority pursuant to subsection (1; of section 87 above; or

(b) a variation in the terms of those arrangements following a request by the relevant authority pursuant to subsection (7)(c) of that section."

59 Page 77, line 32, after "England", insert "(except where subsection (3A) below applies)"
60 Page 77, line 35, leave out from "State" to end of line 36 and insert "may—

(i) determine the terms of the arrangements as he sees fit; or

(ii) refer the matter for determination by such other person as he considers appropriate; and"

61 Page 77, line 37, after "State", insert "or, as the case may be, the other person"
62 Page 77, line 38, after "Wales", insert "(except where subsection (3A) below applies)"
63 Page 77, line 45, at end insert—

"(3A) Where the Assembly is one of the relevant authorities which has made a combined reference under section 87(8A)(b) or (8C) above—

(a) the terms of the arrangements shall be determined by a person appointed by the Secretary of State and the Assembly acting jointly; and

(b) the determination of that person shall be final."

64 Page 79, line 3, at end insert—
"( ) But (except where it is Amendmentably practicable to terminate the arrangements separately), arrangements to which section 87(8A)(a) or (b) applied may only be terminated by the relevant authorities acting jointly.""
65 Page 79, line 8, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "appropriate authority"
65 Page 79, line 9, leave out "87(5)" and insert "87ZA(1)"
66 Page 79, line 15, after "made", insert "by the Secretary of State (or by the Secretary of State and the Assembly acting jointly)"
68 Page 79, line 16, at end insert—

"(4) In subsection (1) above "appropriate authority"—

(a) in relation to an area which is partly in England and partly in Wales, means the Secretary of State and the Assembly acting jointly;

(b) in relation to an area which is wholly in England, means the Secretary of State; and

(c) in relation to an area which is wholly in Wales, means the Assembly.

(5) An order amending or revoking an order under subsection (1) above made by virtue of subsection (4)(a) above must also be made by the Secretary of State and the Assembly acting jointly.""

69 Page 79, line 22, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "appropriate authority"
70 Page 79, line 23, leave out "any prescribed requirements" and insert "the requirements set out in regulations made by the appropriate authority"
71 Page 79, line 33, leave out from beginning to "requirements" in line 36 and insert—
"( ) Regulations—

(a) under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) above shall include provision about the process which relevant authorities are to follow for the purposes of that paragraph;

(b) under paragraph (b) of that subsection shall include provision about the"

72 Page 79, line 41, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 80 and insert "if the appropriate authority so directs by an instrument in writing (and such a direction may apply either generally or in relation to a particular proposal)."
73 pAge 80, line 2, at end insert—
"( ) In this section "appropriate authority"—

(a) in a case where two or more relevant authorities (one of which is the Assembly) propose to request a particular water undertaker to take a step mentioned in subsection (2)(a), (b) or (c) in respect of arrangements in adjoining areas, means the Secretary of State and the Assembly acting jointly;

(b) in relation to England (except in a case to which paragraph (a) applies), means the Secretary of State; and

(c) in relation to Wales (except in a case to which paragraph (a) applies), means the Assembly.""

74 Page 80, line 9, at end insert—

"(1A) The Secretary of State may also, with the consent of the Treasury, agree to indemnify any licensed water supplier in respect of liabilities which it may incur—

(a) in supplying water to which fluoride has been added by a water undertaker by virtue of any such arrangements;

(b) if the licensee is introducing water into the water undertaker's supply system) in complying with any obligation imposed on it by the undertaker in consequence of the arrangements."

75 Page 80, line 13, after "(1), insert "or (1 A)"
76 Page 80, line 15, at end insert—
"90A Review of fluoridation

(1) A relevant authority which has entered into arrangements under section 87(1) above shall—

(a) monitor the effects of the arrangements on the health of persons living in the area specified in the arrangements; and

(b) in accordance with subsections (3) to (5) below publish reports containing an analysis of those effects.

(2) The relevant authority shall make available—

(a) any information collected by it for the purposes of subsection (1) above; or

(b) summaries of that information.

(3) The relevant authority shall publish a report under subsection (l)(b) above within the period of four years beginning with the date on which the arrangements come into force (unless section 91(1) below applies in relation to the arrangements).

(4) Where section 91(1) below applies in relation to the arrangements, the relevant authority shall publish a report under subsection (l)(b) above within the period of four years beginning with the date on which section 61 of the Water Act 2003 came into force.

(5) The relevant authority shall publish a further report under subsection (l)(b) above within each period of four years beginning with the date on which their last such report was published.

(6) This section ceases to apply in relation to any arrangements under section 87(1) above if those arrangements are terminated.""

77 Page 80, line 16, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
"(7) For section 91 (pre-1985 fluoridation schemes) there is substituted—
"91 Pre-1985 fluoridation schemes

(1) With effect from the appointed day, relevant pre-1985 arrangements shall be treated for the purposes of this Chapter as if they were arrangements entered into by the water undertaker in question with the relevant authority under section 87(1) above.

(2) The relevant authority may request such modifications to the arrangements as it considers necessary in order to give effect to subsection (1) above, for example to insert the terms mentioned in section 87(7) above.

(3) If the relevant authority and the water undertaker fail to agree the modifications requested by the authority—

(a) subsection (2), (3) or, as the case may be, (3A) of section 87 A above shall apply as if the parties had failed to agree the terms of arrangements requested under section 87(1) above; and

(b) following determination of the modifications—

(i) the relevant authority shall give notice of the determination to the water undertaker; and

(ii) the arrangements shall be deemed to have been modified as so determined with effect from the day after the date of the notice.

(4) Sections 87(8D) and 89(1) above (which relate to consultation) shall not apply to the deemed entry into, and modification of, arrangements by virtue of this section.

(5) References in this Chapter to arrangements entered into under section 87(1) above shall include arrangements treated as entered into by a water undertaker by virtue of subsection (1) above.

(6) In this section—

"the appointed day" means the day on which section 61 of the Water Act 2003 comes into force; and

"relevant pre-1985 arrangements" means arrangements in pursuance of which a scheme for increasing the fluoride content of water was being operated by a water undertaker by virtue of paragraph 1 of Schedule 7 to this Act immediately before the appointed day.""

78 Page 80, line 16, at end insert—
"( ) In section 213 (powers to make regulations), after subsection (1) there is inserted—
"(1A) But on the occasion of the first exercise by the Secretary of State of the power to make regulations under each of sections 89 and 90 above, the instrument containing the regulations shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(1B) The power of the Assembly to make regulations under section 89 above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.""
79 Page 80, line 18, at end insert—

"(9) In section 1(7) of the Water (Fluoridation) Act 1985 (c. 63) (water fluoridated outwith Scotland), for the words from "by a water undertaker" to the end there is substituted "pursuant to arrangements—

(a) entered into under section 87(1) of the Water Industry Act 1991; or

(b) treated, for the purposes of Chapter 4 of Part 3 of that Act, as if entered into under that section."

(10) With effect from the commencement day, any relevant application shall have effect for the purposes of subsection (1) of section 87 of the WIA as a request made by a relevant authority under that subsection.

(11) Any other application made before the commencement day ceases to have effect on that day.

(12) In subsections (10) and (11)— "commencement day" means the day when this section comes into force, and

"relevant application" means an application which—

(a) was made before the passing of this Act,

(b) has not been withdrawn, and

(c) has not been rejected in writing by the water undertaker to which it was made.

(13) In subsections (11) and (12) "application" means an application made under section 87 of the WIA as it was in force at the time when the application was made (and includes an application made under section 1 of the Water (Fluoridation) Act 1985 (c. 63) and having effect as if made under section 87 of the WIA)."

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 51 to 79. I spoke to these amendments in relation to Amendment No. 50.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 51 to 79.—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
80 Clause 65, page 81, line 23, leave out "and in accordance with"
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 80.I shall speak also to Amendment No. 81 and Amendments Nos. 83 to 155. Most of these amendments are technical or drafting amendments, which do not have an effect on policy or any wider implications.
However, Amendment No. 90 presents a change of policy in response to a Back-Bench amendment in another place, which was widely supported. The government amendment also gained support from all parties in the other place. Noble Lords will recall that the issue of private sewers was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, and the noble Baroness, Lady

1701
Miller, at earlier stages and their amendments were intended to address the problems caused by private sewers. It may be of reassurance to note that the new clause provides for regulations to be subject to affirmative procedure. While this is necessarily a broad enabling power, it will be subject to that procedure.
The reason that this power is necessary is that there is a growing concern about the very serious problems faced by householders whose properties are connected to a private sewer. It is estimated that about 50 per cent of domestic properties are connected to private sewers in one form or another. Many householders are often unaware that their property is connected to a private sewer or that they are responsible for its maintenance and repair—sometimes directly and sometimes jointly with others—and remain unaware until a problem occurs.
The difficulties include how to establish the ownership of and responsibility for the maintenance of private sewers; the unwillingness of some owners to accept their responsibilities and the costs involved; owners and occupiers being unable to afford the high cost of repairs; and sewer flooding in emergency situations from private sewers.
A consultation paper on private sewers was published on 1st July and set out these problems. As noble Lords will recall, the consultation process had not come to an end when the issue was last discussed in this House. It did come to an end, however, during Committee stage in another place. Although the responses are still being considered in detail, the initial indications are that around 85 per cent of respondents are in favour of a change of ownership of private sewers. Of that number, a vast majority feel that sewerage undertakers are best placed to take on that responsibility.
Therefore, although the Government have not come to any detailed conclusions on the best way forward, it would be a wasted opportunity if this Bill were not used to enable us to take action in regulations to tackle the misery caused by this problem. The Government are committed to finding the best solution to this problem. We will be producing regulations under Amendment No. 90 in order to do so. The clause gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations allowing for schemes for the adoption of private sewers. I emphasise that the amendment introduces an enabling power and does not imply the automatic transfer of all private sewers to sewerage undertakers. I hope that the House will recognise that that amendment is an important change which I think can be widely supported. As I said, the rest of the amendments in this group are technical.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 80.—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
81 Clause 81, page 96, line 40, leave out "in pursuance of" and insert "pursuant to"
82 Before Clause 84, Insert the following new Clause—
"Duty to encourage water conservation

(1) The relevant authority must, where appropriate, take steps to encourage the conservation of water.

(2) The relevant authority is—

(a) the Secretary of State, in relation to England,

(b) the Assembly, in relation to Wales.

(3) After the period of three years beginning with the date on which this section comes into force, and after each succeeding period of three years, the Secretary of State must prepare a report about the steps taken by him under this section, and about any such steps which he proposes to take.

(4) The Assembly may make an order requiring the preparation by it of corresponding reports, and such an order may make provision about when, or in relation to what periods, they are to be prepared.

(5) Each such report must—

(a) if prepared by the Secretary of State, be laid before Parliament,

(b) if prepared by the Assembly, be laid before, and published by, the Assembly."

83 Clause 85, page 98, line 23, at end insert "or to be supplied"
84 Page 98, line 38, after "is", insert "or is deemed to be"
85 Clause 91, page 106, line 20, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
"(b) in subsection (6), at the end there is inserted "and "controlled waters" has the meaning given by section 104 of the Water Resources Act 1991"."
86 Clause 94, page 114, line 17, leave out "subsections (4) and (5)" and insert "subsection (4)"
87 page 114, line 27, leave out from "of" to "whether" in line 28.
88 page 114, line 31, at end insert—
"and in subsection (4) of that section, after "subsection (1)" there is inserted "or (1A)"."
89 Clause 98, page 121, line 8, leave out "sewerage" and insert "sewage"
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 81 to 89.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 81 to 89.—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to. 9.30 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
90 After Clause 99, Insert the following new Clause—
"Schemes for the adoption of sewers, lateral drains and sewage disposal works
After section 105 of the WIA there is inserted—
"105A Schemes for the adoption of sewers, lateral drains and sewage disposal works

(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for him to make schemes for the adoption by sewerage undertakers of sewers, lateral drains and sewage disposal works of the descriptions set out in paragraphs (a), (aa) and (b) of section 102(1) above.

(2) The regulations may require sewerage undertakers to prepare draft schemes and to submit them to the Secretary of State.

1703

(3) Each scheme shall relate to—

(a) the area of a sewerage undertaker, or part or parts of it; or

(b) the areas of more than one sewerage undertaker, or part or parts of them.

(4) It shall be the duty of a sewerage undertaker, in specified circumstances, to exercise its powers under section 102 above with a view to making the declaration referred to in subsection (1) of that section in relation to sewers, lateral drains or sewage disposal works which—

(a) fall within the area to which a scheme relates; and

(b) satisfy specified criteria.

(5) The circumstances and the criteria shall each be—

(a) specified in the regulations; or

(b) determined in accordance with the regulations and specified in the scheme.

(6) In relation to the exercise of those powers pursuant to that duty-

(a) section 102 above shall have effect—

(i) with the omission of subsections (2), (5) and (7);

(ii) as if in subsection (1) the words "sections 103, 105 and 146(3) below" read "section 105B below";

(iii) with the omission of the words "or application" in subsection (3);

(iv) as if for subsection (4)(a) there were substituted—

(a) shall give notice of its proposal to the owner or owners of the sewer, lateral drain or works in question unless, after diligent enquiry, he or they cannot be traced;

(aa) shall publish notice of its proposal in the prescribed manner; and";

(v) as if in subsection (4)(b) "two months" read "two months or, if longer, the period specified by virtue of section 105B(5) below" and "section 105 below" read "section 105B(4) or (5) below, or "; and

(vi) as if section 98(3) of the Water Act 2003 did not apply;

(b) sections 103 and 105 above shall not apply; and

(c) if the regulations so provide, section 146(3) below shall not apply in circumstances or cases specified in the regulations.

(7) A duty imposed on a sewerage undertaker under subsection (4) above shall be enforceable by the Secretary of State under section 18 above.

(8) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1) above shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.

105B Adoption schemes: appeals

(1) Any person falling within subsection (2) below may appeal to the Authority if he is aggrieved by—

(a) the proposal of a sewerage undertaker to make a declaration under section 102 above in relation to a sewer, lateral drain or sewage disposal works, pursuant to the undertaker's duty to do so under section 105A(4) above (the "relevant duty"); or

(b) the failure of a sewerage undertaker to make such a proposal pursuant to that duty.

(2) The persons referred to are—

(a) an owner of a sewer, lateral drain or sewage disposal works;

(b) any other person affected by the proposal, or the failure, in question.

(3) The grounds upon which a person may appeal are—

(a) in a subsection (l)(a) case, that the relevant duty is not owed in relation to the sewer, lateral drain or sewage disposal works, or that the making of the proposed declaration would be seriously detrimental to him;

1704

(b) in a subsection (l)(b) case, that the relevant duty is owed in relation to the sewer, lateral drain or sewage disposal works; or

(c)any other prescribed ground.

(4) An appeal under subsection (l)(a) above shall be made within two months after notice of the proposal is—

(a) served on the owner of the sewer, lateral drain or sewage disposal works; or

(b) published in accordance with section 102(4) above as modified by section 105A(6) above,

(or, if both occur, within two months after whichever is the later).

(5) An appeal under subsection (l)(b) above shall be made within such period as is specified in the scheme (not being less than two months).

(6) On the hearing of an appeal under subsection (1) above,

(a) the Authority may— (a) in a subsection (l)(a) case, allow or disallow the proposal of the sewerage undertaker; or

(b) in a subsection (l)(b) case, determine that the undertaker was not under the relevant duty in relation to the sewer, lateral drain or sewage disposal works in question,

or, in either case, make any declaration that the sewerage undertaker might have made, unless the proposal is disallowed.

(7) If, in a subsection (l)(a) case, the Authority finds that the making of the proposed declaration would be seriously detrimental to the appellant, it shall disregard any duty on the part of the sewerage undertaker to make the proposal for the purpose of determining whether to allow or disallow the proposal.

(8) If, in a subsection (l)(a) case, the Authority disallows the proposal of the sewerage undertaker, the scheme pursuant to which it was made shall have effect as if there were no duty under section 105A(4) above on the sewerage undertaker in relation to the sewer, lateral drain or sewage disposal works in question. (9) Where the Authority makes a declaration under subsection (6) above, it may, if it thinks fit— (a) specify conditions, including conditions as to the payment of compensation by the sewerage undertaker; and (b) direct that its declaration shall not take effect unless any conditions so specified are accepted. (10) A declaration made under subsection (6) above shall have the same effect as if it had been made by the undertaker. (11) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision in connection with appeals under this section. (12) The regulations may, in particular, require the Authority to have regard to prescribed matters when determining an appeal under this section.

105C Adoption schemes: supplementary

(1) The Secretary of State may vary any scheme, or revoke it.

(2) Before making regulations or any scheme under section 105A above, and before amending or revoking the regulations or varying or revoking a scheme, the Secretary of State shall consult—

(a) each sewerage undertaker which would be affected;

(b) the Authority;

(c) the Council;

(d) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(3) The Secretary of State shall publish each scheme he makes, and any such scheme as varied, in the way he considers best for the purpose of bringing it to the attention of those likely to be affected by it.""

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 90.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 90.—(Lord Whitty.)
90A Lord Dixon-Smith rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree wit:h the Commons in their Amendment No. 90, leave out "agree" and insert '"disagree".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my objection to Amendment No. 90 is not so much its content as the procedure that has led to it. I supported the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, on this issue. In summarising the position I shall start at Report stage; I will not bother to take the House back to Grand Committee. I will also not bother with the debate. I shall concentrate only on what the Government said in response. On Report, the Government said:
"'The next stage of the work is to look at existing private sewers. We will shortly produce a consultation paper engaging with everyone concerned about solutions for dealing with existing private sewers in England and Wales. I am not sure of the outcome of the consultation. However, it will not be the same sort of protocol to which I referred in Committee".
The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, had proposed a protocol to deal with this problem. The Government went on:
"Therefore, it is premature, and probably inappropriate, to stipulate a protocol in this part of the Bill. I must therefore resist the noble Lord's amendment".—[Official Report, 24/6/03; col. 266.]
So that is what happened on Report.
On Third Reading, when the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, again returned to the subject, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said:
"My Lords, I recognise the noble Lord's views. It is one of the main options on which we are proposing to consult, but he is doing what he said that he would not do: trying to pre-empt the consultation by inserting the amendment in the Bill. Indeed, there would be a number of consequentials in terms of funding and responsibilities that would have to be faced, were we so to do. I cannot accept his amendment".—[Official Report, 9/7/03; col. 423.]
So far, so good. The consultation document Review of Existing Private Sewers and Drains in England and Wales was then produced. It was published in July, with the consultation date running out on 26th September. That was immaculately in the middle of everyone's major holiday period of the year, when most of the interested parties would probably not be able to consider that kind of an issue. so be it. I do not think that there was anything underhand in that, it was just the unfortunate way it worked out.
Seeking further enlightenment I went to the report of Standing Committee D, which was the Standing Committee in the other place dealing with the Water Bill. It was its eighth sitting. Just before lunch Mr Morley, on behalf of the Government, said this:
"We are trying to address the situation. We commissioned a study by W.S. Atkins to ascertain the scale of the problem and to give us some options for tackling it. The results of that consultation are being analysed and will probably not be known until the beginning of next year. One problem with the parliamentary question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood is that the results are still coming in, but I can tell him that so far we have received 150 responses from individuals and organisations. He might also like to know that 86 per cent"—
which is the figure the Minister has just given—
"of respondents are in favour of a change of ownership of private sewers. Of that 86 per cent., 92 per cent, consider that sewerage undertakers are best placed to take on that responsibility".— [Official Report, Commons Standing Committee D, 21/10/03; col. 344.]
So, at the end of the Committee stage there was still nothing. I then turned to the Hansard debate of the Report stage in the other place. After a great deal of debate on the Water Bill, this is what I found
"MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [5 November]."
And under that:
"Remaining government amendments agreed to".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/11/03; col. 131.]
Amendment No. 90 has not been debated in either House. That is not to say that there has not been debate around the subject of private sewers, but this amendment has not been discussed. I think it is not unreasonable to call that an abuse of parliamentary privilege. That is the reason I object to it.
There are many detailed points which other Members may wish to raise. I have read the amendment with some considerable care. It depends on the drafting of regulations. We do not have those regulations. We have no chance of seeing them. There is nothing said about the financial arrangements, which everyone has acknowledged will be a problem. We are talking of up to 300,000 kilometres of private sewers. That is a huge quantum. The Minister has indicated that a vast number of houses have this problem.
This is no way to deal with a problem of this nature. It is for that reason that I have tabled the amendment.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 90. leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".—(Lord Dixon-Smith.)
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 90 and 90A. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, for his forensic research in discovering what has been going on. We have spent so much time on the issue that we have covered much of this ground. There are many unsatisfactory matters outstanding. To shorten my contribution, I shall ask the Minister three questions. It would be better to include the amendment in the Bill than to have nothing at all. There are many loose ends.
The Minister may have answered my first question, but I shall recap: is the legislation on the adoption of private sewers mandatory or optional for undertakers? Secondly, who is to bear the capital cost of the schemes? The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has just referred to that. Thirdly, are any timescales enforced for completing schemes? In the first amendment that I tabled in Committee, I included a timescale of 12 or 15 years—I cannot remember which—for all schemes to be completed.
Perhaps the Minister can answer those three questions, because they are pertinent to our attitude to Amendment No. 90A and Amendment No. 90, which acknowledges that there is a problem and that there are ways of dealing with it. The questions of capital and the enforcement procedures for private sewers to be adopted are important, as hundreds of thousands of

1707
people are suffering through inadequate sewers. They are being asked to pay extortionate prices into schemes that they cannot afford.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I support my noble friend's amendment and wish to say what a great job the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has done. The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, referred to his forensic skills. My noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, referred briefly to the cost of the schemes. The cost will fall on the water companies, but, as I said at several previous stages, they already contend with the rising cost of household customer debt and debt recovery. The latest figures from Ofwat show that the total outstanding household revenue up to four years old is £781 million, an increase of £115 million since 1998–99. That figure is significant, because 1988–89 is when the prohibition of disconnection for non-payment came into force.
Since then, the cost to water companies recovering debt has increased by 28 per cent to £56 million. Revenue written off on the year to March 2003 was £93 million. Those are just bald figures, about which people ask "So what?". How can water and sewerage companies be expected to carry that additional burden? Has the Minister any estimate of the cost of going through with Amendment No. 90?
There is another cost issue, but I shall not go into it in further detail because it is on the record of previous debates on the Bill. However, other utilities share information about people who do not pay debts; for example, council tax officials can give information to other utilities. The water companies are hit by the Data Protection Act. That effectively prevents the bodies that have the information about where people are and where they have moved to from supplying water companies with that information.
The real issue is that this is the only opportunity that we have to bring this matter to the fore again. The water and sewerage companies are in a serious situation and there is no doubt that in the long term it is a strategic nonsense to allow this to continue.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I was surprised when the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, complained about procedure and said that this was an abuse of parliamentary power. After all, we have discussed very similar amendments to this in Committee in this House. The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, proposed a protocol and we are proposing regulations, but they are designed to do the same thing. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, supported that. At that time, we had not had the results of the consultation. It was therefore premature then but not premature now that we have the outline results.
As for business in another place, I have never been clear about how much in order it is for us to discuss such details in this House, but a Back-Bench amendment was put forward in Committee in another place and debated at length. The Minister indicated that he would take those arguments on board, and he came forward with this amendment, which was
1708
discussed on 10th November. The Minister explained how he had taken up Paddy Tipping's Bill and that this amendment had the same substance as Paddy Tipping's amendment, which tidied up the legal side. All of that was debated at some length on 10th November, so I am not entirely sure what the noble Lord is complaining about. In any case, it is probably out of order for him to do so or for me to comment.
In response to the other questions, we have a broad result of the consultation. Almost everybody out there recognises that there is a problem—85 per cent of people said that something needs to be done. It is too early for us to say precisely what we will do about it, but rather than going for a protocol, which would not be subject to further parliamentary procedure, we have chosen affirmative action. Of course, there are some outstanding questions, which mainly relate to costs and who bears those costs, and whether the measure is mandatory and in what circumstances it would be mandatory. All that would have to be laid down in legislation. Issues about whether a timescale could be applied in certain circumstances would also have to be laid down in regulation.
The point of introducing this amendment now is that it is in recognition of the consultation. The inclinations of the noble Lords, Lord Livesey and Lord Dixon-Smith, were clearly correct. They were reflecting broad public opinion—also reflected in another place—that we need to do something about this problem. This measure gives us a permissive power to do so. If the regulations coming forward do not meet the case, no doubt that could also be discussed in the House.
I cannot yet go into any greater detail about what those regulations will contain, but the fact that we need to be able to make such regulations seems widely accepted. Indeed, it was the purport of the discussion that we had in Grand Committee several months ago, which has now been confirmed by the consultation. I would therefore hope that the noble Lord, despite his misgivings about procedure, would be prepared to accept that this provision is actually doing what we all wanted.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I certainly did not claim that there had been no discussion. The fact that I had to quote the Minister himself on two occasions in this House must have indicated that there had been debate. However, there has been no discussion on the amendment before us. That is the problem, because we have not had time to study it. That is my objection to the process. Yes, there was discussion in Committee in another place and I have no complaints about that, but the amendment was passed under the nine o'clock rule as far as I can establish. If I am incorrect I can only apologise. That is how it seemed to me.
However, we are still left with a dilemma. The fact is that this is almost a paving amendment. We have no knowledge in any way, shape or detail of how it would work. There is no financial information that would enable us to judge whether or not it is in the interests of householders connected to existing private sewers. There is nothing but what is before us; that is, a few

1709
lines on two or three sheets of paper. That is not sufficient process for me. I should like to test the opinion of the House.
9.51 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 90A), as an amendment to the Motion, shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 14; Not-Contents, 61.

Division No.8

CONTENTS

Attlee, E.

Howell of Guddford, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Montrose, D. [Teller]

Byford, B.

Northesk, E.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [ Teller]

Palmer, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Selborne, E.

Geddes, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hannay of Chiswick, L.

Amos, B. (Lord President)

Harris of Richmond, B.

Andrews, B.

Hayman, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Ashton of Upholland. B.

Hoyle, L.

Bach, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Borrie. L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Bragg, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brett, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Brookman. L.

Methuen, L.

Burlison L

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Carter, L.

Morgan, L.

Chandos, V.

Pitkeathley B.

Crawley, V.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Davies of Coity. L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Davies of Oldham. L. [Teller]

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Dubs, L.

Roper, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Sewel L

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Simon V

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

slynn of Hadley, L.

Gale, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Gilbert, L.

Turnberg, L.

Golding, B.

Wallace of Saliaire, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Whitty. L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Wilkins, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
91 Clause 100. page 124, line 13, leave out", 114"
100 Clause 101. page 125, line 17. after "86(1 A),", insert "87B, 88A, 89,"
93 Page 125, line 31, at end insert—
"( ) for "94 to 96," there is substituted "94, 95, 96,",
( ) after "104," there is inserted "105A to 105C,","
94 Clause 102, page 128, line 15, after first "amendments". insert "(including the repeal of certain spent enactments)"
95 Clause 103, page 128, line 36, leave out "be taken to continue" and insert "continue to be taken"
96 Page 128, line 38, leave out "be taken to continue" and insert "continue to be taken"
97 Page 128, line 43, after "or'", insert "abstractions"
98 Page 129, line 11, leave out second "(6)" and insert "(5)"
99 Clause 104, page 129, line 21, at end insert "(including in particular any instrument appointing a company to be a water or sewerage undertaker)"
100 Clause 106, page 131, line 39, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "appropriate authority"
101 Page 131, line 41, at end insert
"(4A) Except as stated in subsection (4B), the appropriate authority for the purposes of subsection (3) is the Secretary of State after consulting the Assembly.
(4B) In relation to the sections and Schedules listed in the first column of this table, the appropriate authority is as listed in the second column—

Section or Schedule

Appropriate authority

Section 76

The Secretary of State.

Section 70

The Assembly after consulting the Secretary of State.

Sections 61, 72, 78, 80, 81, 83, (Duty to encourage water conservation) and 88

The Secretary of State, in relation to England; the Assembly, in relation to Wales.

Section 102 and Schedules 7, 8 and 9

As respects any amendment or repeal consequential on a provision referred to above in this table, the same appropriate authority as listed in respect of the provision in question; otherwise, the Secretary of State after consulting the Assembly."

102 Page 131, line 43, at end insert—
"( ) Section 39 and Schedule 3 extend also to Scotland and Northern Ireland."
103 Page 131, line 44, at end insert—
"( ) section 56(1) and (2),"
104 Page 132, line 1, at end insert—
"( ) section 76,"
105 Page 132, line 3, at end insert—
"( ) section 87(3),
( ) section 104(1), (2). (7) and (8),
( ) section 105."
106 Page 132, line 3, at end insert—
"( ) Section 61(9) extends to Scotland only.
( ) Any amendment or repeal of a provision of the WRA made by this Act has the same extent as the provision being amended or repealed.
( ) Sections 5, 6, 12 and 29 have the same extent as they would have if they were contained in the WRA, and section 224 of the WRA (application to Isles of Scilly) applies in relation to those sections as it applies to the WRA."
107 age 132, line 4, leave out "7, 8 or 9" and insert "7 or 8"
108 age 132, line 5, at end insert—
"( ) Any repeal contained in Schedule 9 has the same extent as the provision elsewhere in this Act which provides for the repeal."
109 age 132, line 6, leave out subsection (8)
110 chedule 4, page 159, line 48, leave out "and" and insert "or"
111 age 162, line 43, leave out "and" and insert "or"
112 age 164, line 34, leave out "Office of Fair Trading" and insert "OFT"
113 Page 169, line 30, after "primary", insert "water"
114 170, line 1, after "primary", insert "water"
115 170, line 8, after "primary", insert "water"
116 170, line 11, after "primary", insert "water"
117 172, line 4, leave out "Office of Fair Trading" and insert "OFT"
118 173, line 28, after "secondary", insert "water"
119 177, line 7. leave out "section 66J" and insert "sections 66J and 66L"
120 schedule 6, page 183, line 10, leave out "4B" and insert "4C"
121 Page 183, line 18, leave out "4B" and insert "4C"
122 Page 183, line 27, leave out "4B" and insert "4C"
123 Page 185, line 9, leave out "4B" and insert "4C"
124 Schedule 7, page 186, line 16, after "access;", insert "or"
125 Page 187, line 5, leave out "date" and insert "notice"
126 Page 190, line 14, at end insert—
"( ) The Environment Act 1995 is amended as follows."
127 Page 190, line 15, leave out "of the Environment Act 1995" and insert "(general provisions with respect to water)"
128 Page 190, line 22, at end insert—
"( ) In Schedule 22 (amendment of enactments), paragraph 181 is omitted."
129 Schedule 7, page 192, line 43, at end insert—
"( ) In Schedule 3 (Director General of Water Services), paragraphs 6 and 7 are omitted.
( ) In Schedule 4 (customer service committees), paragraph 6 is omitted.
( ) In Schedule 25 (amendment of enactments), paragraphs 68(2)(a) and 76(a) are omitted."
130 Page 194, line 37, leave out from "Director" to "there" in line 38 and insert "General of Water Services under section 29(6)""
131 Page 194, line 39, leave out "above or"
132 Page 195, line 8, after "1991)", insert "; or" Page 195, line 16, at end insert— "( ) The Water Consolidation (Consequential Provisions) Act 1991 is amended as follows.
( ) In Schedule 1 (amendment of enactments), paragraphs 10, 28(a) and 29(a) are omitted."
134 Page 195, line 17, leave out from "Schedule 2" to "(transitional" in line 18 135 Page 195, line 28, leave out from "paragraph" to "the" in line 29 and insert "(o) there is inserted— "(P) " 136 Page 195, line 36, at end insert—
"( ) In Schedule 10 (regulators), the following are omitted—

(a) paragraph 5(3),

(b) paragraph 13(2) and (3)."

137 age 196, line 6, leave out from "paragraph" to "the" in line 7 and insert "(gh) there is inserted—
"(gi) "
138 age 196, line 20, leave out from "paragraph" to "the" in line 21 and insert "(ra) there is inserted—
"(rb) "
139 Page 197, line 5, at end insert—
"Reservoirs Act 1975 (c. 23) In Schedule 1 to the Reservoirs Act 1975 (index of general definitions), the entry for "Local authority " is omitted. "
140 Page 197, line 6, at end insert—
" ( ) The WIA is amended as follows."
141 Page 197, line 7, leave out "of the WIA"
142 Page 197, line 11, at end insert—
" ( ) In section 213(1) (powers to make regulations), after "or 17D(8)" (which is inserted by paragraph 49(2) of Schedule 8) there is inserted "or 105A"."
143 Schedule 7, page 197, line 20, at end insert—
"Health Authorities Act 1995 (c. 17) In Schedule I to the Health Authorities Act 1995 (amendment of enactments), paragraph 120 is omitted. "
144 Schedule 7, page 197, line 20, at end insert—
"Environment Act 1995 (c. 25) In section 101 of the Environment Act 1995 (grants in connection with drainage works), subsection (1) is omitted. "
145 Schedule 8, page 202, line 15, after "licences", insert "(within the meanings of Chapter 1A of this Part)"
146 Page 205, line 8, leave out "(7)" and insert "(8)"
147 Page 213, line 17, after "after "", insert "by"
148 Schedule 9, page 222, line 25, column 2, leave out" "in" and insert" "and in"
149 Page 223, line 30, column 2, at end insert—

"In Schedule 1, the entry for "Local authority"."

150 Page 223, line 41, column 2, at end insert—

"In Schedule 3, paragraphs 6 and 7.

In Schedule 4, paragraph 6.

In Schedule 25, paragraphs 68(2)(a) and 76(a)."

151 Page 224, line 37, at end insert—

"Water Consolidation (Consequential Provisions) 28(a) and 29(a)." Act 1991 (c. 60)

In Schedule 1, paragraphs 10,

152 Page 224, line 39, at end insert—

"Health Authorities Act 1995 (c. 17)

In Schedule 1, paragraph 120."

153 Page 224, line 40, column 2, at beginning insert—

"Section 101(1)."

154 Page 224, line 43, column 2, at end insert—

"In Schedule 22, paragraph 181."

155 Page 224, line 44, column 2, at end insert—

"In Schedule 10, paragraphs 5(3) and 13(2) and (3)."

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 91 to 155.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 91 to 155.—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Iran
10.2p.m.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick Lord Hannay of Chiswick rose to ask Her Majesty's Government how they see the prospects for Iran's relationship with the rest of the world in the light of the recent visit by the Foreign Secretary.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I feel some shame at taking the time of the House at this rather late hour but the subject on which I have tabled an Unstarred Question is a topical and important one. It is probably one which we shall have to debate on a number of future occasions because it is not a subject that is going to go away.
Iran's relationship with its neighbours and the rest of the world has, since the Islamic revolution which saw the fall of the Shah in 1979, been a troubled and turbulent one. Soon after that revolution Iran was attacked by its neighbour Iraq and a long and bloody war then ensued. During that struggle Iran received little comfort or support from the international community, despite the clear evidence of Iraq's aggression and despite its use of chemical weapons. At the same time, a long-running confrontation with the United States following the holding of the US Embassy staff as hostages resulted in isolation and economic sanctions.
Even before that revolution, Iran's 20th-century history was one of constant intervention by outside forces—by tsarist Russia, by Britain, by the Soviet Union and by the United States. I have no intention of going into the rights and wrongs of those events—that is for the historians to judge—but it is important to understand some of that background if the mistakes of the past are not to be repeated and if there is to be a genuinely constructive dialogue and engagement with Iran in the future.
Now Iran is again in the headlines as a result of perfectly legitimate concerns about its nuclear programme, and we seem to be approaching a time when its relationship with the rest of "he world could either steadily improve or take a dangerous turn for the worse. Last month's visit to Tehran by our own Foreign Secretary, together with his French and German colleagues, and even more the indications given to them that Iran would sign the additional IAEA protocol and would make a full accounting to the IAEA of all its nuclear activities, was a very welcome development, as was the more recent news that Iran had indeed provided substantial new information. Obviously, that is only the beginning of what could be an improving trend, not the end of it. Actions from now on will speak louder than words. It would be of great value if the Minister could say a bit about the next steps and the way ahead.
In handling Iran's nuclear programme, and in pressing the view—in my view, the correct one—that Iran should not develop further its capacity to enrich uranium or to separate plutonium from its spent fuel, I hope it will be possible to ensure that Iran's concern to be able to develop and operate a civil nuclear programme will be taken fully into account.
However, we surely need to look well beyond Iran's nuclear programme if we are to avoid slipping into one of those zero-sum games which so seldom end satisfactorily. Iran, like any country, has concerns about its own security. It lives in an unstable neighbourhood; some part of those concerns has been addressed by the removal of the Taliban from Afghanistan and of Saddam Hussein's regime from Iraq. But that could be only a temporary relief, unless steps are taken to ensure medium and long-term stability in the region.
It used to be said that nothing meaningful could be done about Gulf security so long as Saddam Hussein ruled in Baghdad. Well, that is no longer the case. Has not the time now come to look again at the whole question of security in the Gulf, to consider whether, and if so how, the three key countries involved—Iran, Saudi Arabia and a new democratic Iraq—could work together in co-operation with the other states in the region? I should be interested to hear what the Minister has to say on the prospects for that.
Quite apart from the regional aspects of security, there is a concern felt by many Iranians that there still exists in the West the old hidden agenda of regime change. In that context, the very clear statement made three weeks ago in a Congressional hearing by the US Deputy Secretary of State that regime change was not part of the US agenda was very welcome. Is it not right to recognise that Iran does already possess elements of democracy, that elections are held there and that they are capable of bringing about policy changes, albeit very slowly? If so, it is surely then for the Iranians to determine their own political future without interference from outside. It may be necessary to find some way of saying that more formally than has been done hitherto.
If we are to address Iran's security concerns, as I suggest we should, it is reasonable that it should be asked to address some of ours. Foremost among those is the war against terrorism. Iran is evidently a key player in this respect. Its wholehearted participation in the efforts to deny a safe haven or funds or material to Al'Qaeda and other such groups would be of great value. Anything less than that leaves the collective effort that we and our allies are supporting seriously weakened. So far, the jury seems still to be out on this matter. Perhaps the Minister can say something about that.
Then there is Iran's attitude towards efforts to achieve a peaceful settlement in Palestine. In the past, that has been aggressively negative. So long as events on the ground continue to deteriorate, so long as the peace process lacks genuine credibility, I suspect we are not likely to have much success in influencing Iran on this matter. But if the quartet of the UN, the US, the European Union and Russia can move things back to the negotiating table and, even more, if a serious negotiation can be got under way on the final status issues, it will be important to engage Iran, too, in a serious dialogue, to seek to enlist its support and to press on it the case for so doing.
Even this rather cursory analysis shows, I think, just how complex but also how necessary constructive engagement with Iran is likely to be. It is good that three of the main members of the European Union are back in harness after the disagreements over Iraq and are working together to achieve agreed objectives. That is a necessary, if not a sufficient, condition for a successful common foreign and security policy in this area. It is good, too, that those objectives are shared, trans-Atlantic ones and that there, too, some of the disagreements that arose over Iraq are diminishing. Indirect US support for what the Europeans are doing with Iran is welcome but one day, direct US involvement will surely be needed as well. It would be good to hear what the Minister considers may be the prospects for that.
One further point is relevant to any consideration of the relationship between Iran and the non-Islamic world. That is the need to avoid any suggestion of that clash of civilisations that could have such disastrous consequences if it ever came to pass. It was President Khatami of Iran who proposed some years ago that we should be thinking rather in terms of a dialogue of civilisations. He was surely right. But that dialogue cannot be a purely cultural manifestation; it must be situated within a framework of civility and co-operation between states if it is to flourish. I argue that that is yet another reason to work hard to improve the relationship between ourselves and our allies on the one hand and Iran on the other.
In all that consideration of geo-strategic issues, we clearly cannot and should not lose sight of problems over human rights in Iran. Those persist, whether it is a matter of the role of women or the persecution of religious minorities. But the recent award of the Nobel Peace Prize to an Iranian who lives in Iran and works on human rights issues should be an encouragement to us to sustain a dialogue rather than simply to resort to the language of condemnation.
No Briton who has lived in Iran, as I did rather more than 40 years ago, can be ignorant of the legacy of suspicion and distrust that hangs over a historical relationship that has always been close but has not always been happy. Is it too much to hope that, in the very different circumstances of the 21st century, we can get off to a new start? I know that the Foreign Secretary has devoted much thought and effort to achieving that. I would like to encourage him to continue on that course and to play a leading role within the European Union and within the trans-Atlantic alliance to define a more satisfactory and equal relationship with Iran than has existed in the past.
10.12 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, for having introduced the debate. It is no fault of his that we are conducting it at this anti-social hour. I should briefly declare two interests: the first is as secretary of the British-Iranian Parliamentary Group; the second is as president of the British-Iranian Chamber of Commerce.
1716
I should also declare a particular affection and admiration for Iran. I have been visiting the country since I was an undergraduate. It is a greatly misunderstood country. It has an ancient culture and a tradition of crafts skills, arts, science and poetry. If they were better understood in the West, that would, I sense, avoid some of the rather ludicrous caricaturing of Iran that occurs, such as suggesting that it is a collection of fanatical peasants. It has a passionate, proud and particular people. Too little is understood of the progress it has made in the past 20 years in moving towards a more modern and democratic state, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, mentioned. It is worth remembering that the past two presidential elections saw a turnout that we in this country can only envy. The election to the Majlis and more recently to local councils were firsts in Iranian history and should be given more recognition and support. As the noble Lord deftly outlined, its history with us and other great world powers, including, in particular, the United States, has been far from happy. It is no surprise that it has a dual approach to the British—part admiration and part considerable suspicion.
I turn to the way forward—there is no point in having this debate unless one concentrates on that. I do not disagree with a single remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, but there are optimistic signs towards a multi-faceted opening up of the relationship between Iran and the world at large.
I am sure that continued engagement and dialogue and constructive criticism, which has been the policy of Her Majesty's Government, must be the right way forward. I take my hat off to Jack Straw for his five or six visits to the country since he became Foreign Secretary. That has been hugely important and has created a bond and degree of trust, which will stand both countries—and the world—in good stead.
I am encouraged by the engagement of the European Union with Iran in recent times, and the various agreements with regard to trade and human rights that are now making an impression. Noble Lords should not forget that the United Nations also has a growing involvement with Iran, which represents a lowering of the suspicions of the Iranians towards outside involvement. In February, WGAD—the Working Group on Arbitrary Arrest—made a visit to Iran. That would have been unthinkable until recent times. So, too, in this month, the UN special rapporteur on freedom of expression and association has been in Iran, preparing a report. Again, that was unthinkable until very recently.
There have been several bilateral exchanges between our two countries in the past two years. There have been parliamentary visits both ways, and I was lucky to be part of the first parliamentary delegation to go out there. A group of British parliamentary women went out to Iran, and came back pleasantly surprised at the state of Iranian women and the progress that they are making. This year, we have had visits of judges and human rights lawyers, both of whom I had the good fortune to meet. A great deal is happening.

1717
I have to say—perhaps with a good deal less diplomacy than the noble Lord, Lord Hannay—that the role of America in all that is parlous and, I believe, counter-productive. It is not in the interests of the United States and certainly not in the interests of Iran. It is not in the interests of the American policy towards pacification of terrorism and the Middle East.
One must acknowledge and be frank about the fact, not only that Iran was involved a devastating eight-year war, but that that war was supported to the hilt by the United States and, to a lesser extent, by our own country and France, in supplying Saddam with arms. The Iranians then had to put up with the constant American warning that they should not meddle in Iraq, when Iraq is their neighbour and was their assailant and when only Iran supported the Iraqi Shias during a time when the West ignored their awful plight.
The axis of evil and the placement of Iran within that was an historic error, and the sooner that the Americans can withdraw from that, just as they have withdrawn from the ludicrous notion of effecting regime change, the better. In the past two days, we have seen the United States rejecting the clearance given by the IAEA vis-a-vis Iran's nuclear energy programme. That has a rather unhappy resonance with American attitudes towards the reports by Mr Blix and their view of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
I sincerely hope that Her Majesty's Government will, in a much more effective and influential way than the approach that 1 am taking tonight bring pressure to bear as far as they can on the United States to drop the trade embargo that has now existed for 22 years. That embargo has been extended to non-US companies if they have the temerity to invest more than 10 million dollars in the Iranian oil industry. That is entirely counter-productive, because the one thing that would support moves towards democracy, greater regard for human rights and modernisation, would be to allow the Iranian economy to grow and expand and take up some of the damaging level of unemployment—particularly among young graduates, where there is more than 15 per cent unemployment. As I say, the Americans, by dropping that embargo and engaging with Iran in a way that I have no doubt at all the Iranians would want to reciprocate, would, I believe, bring about the goals of American policy which are, of course, admirable but which are impeded by the present approach.
I should like before finishing to say a few brief words about the constitution of Iran. It is certainly not our role to tell the Iranians how to run their affairs. We have done that for far too long and too often vis-a-vis Iran. They are independent, intelligent people who must find their own destiny in their own way within their own cultural context. That will be different from our own. We need to be far more patient and a good deal more humble, frankly, in the way we view their affairs.
However, one also cannot help acknowledging— this is something that some Iranians are very vocal about—that the Iranians have a Byzantine
1718
constitution. The checks and balances which are built into it are to my knowledge by far the most complex of any nation on earth. Those checks and balances have led to immobilism and deep frustration, particularly as regards the relationship between the Parliament, the Majlis, and the Guardian Council, which has the role of approving legislation but which is not itself elected. Anything we can do—it would need to be done with the greatest delicacy—towards assisting the Iranians to evolve their own constitution in a peaceable way would be of the greatest possible assistance. I refer to the kind of help that we are giving in terms of their judiciary and legal profession, which are certainly highly developed as regards the region of which Iran is the linchpin. There we are perhaps setting a model of what might be done.
On the human rights front, Iran is constantly frustrating. It is a case of two steps forward, one back, occasionally even two back, but little by little the Iranians are making progress although not as fast as many of them want and not as fast as we would like. From time to time some terrible things go on but I think that what Maurice Copithorne, special representative of the UN Commission on Human Rights, said to the Economic and Social Council of the UN in 2001 still holds true. It struck me as being a very wise statement. He said:
"Iran is going through a period of critical turmoil, the struggle for the soul of lranian society, for certain values such as justice, one of the oldest political values going back, scholars say, to the Achaemenian period, and for the more modern ones of accountable governance and a welfare and dignity of all citizens".
Mr Copithorne went on to say that he,
"believes that change is clearly underway and that given certain foundational improvements that have taken place in areas such as women's education, democracy and health, the trend is now irreversible".
It is, and I sincerely hope that we shall continue to support, wherever we can—at governmental level, business level and NGO level—the emergence of this great country into a destiny that it deserves.
10.23 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, it is a very late hour to discuss an important but complex topic and we have been asked to be relatively brief. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, on the high topicality of this debate particularly in the light of the IAEA report just published.
I should like to start by saying that we on these Benches are often very critical of the conduct of British foreign policy but this is an area in which we strongly support what the Government have been doing. They have exactly the right approach. We trust that Her Majesty's Government will continue along their constructive line.
We all recognise that relations with Iran have been extremely difficult since the revolution and continue to be difficult. There is divided authority within the country—partly democratic, partly clerical. However, one of the more positive developments is that a number of Shia authorities are beginning to say openly that the claim for clerical authority in the temporal

1719
order is against the entire tradition of the Shia branch of Islam. There is a large younger generation that is much more open to the West. All that makes Iran not a state comparable to Saddam Hussein's Iraq or Kim Il-sung's North Korea. That is why the linking together of Iran with Iraq and North Korea into a single "axis of evil" was very much a mistake.
However, the IAEA report is very serious and damning in many ways. It confirms what many had feared—that Iran has had and still has a nuclear development programme, although the programme appears far less advanced than that in North Korea. The emergence of Iran as a nuclear power would have contributed further to tension in the region, but I agree strongly again with what the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said about the insecurity of the region. If I were in the Iranian Government, I would have been very concerned about being surrounded by the levels of threat, and the response has to be to try to build a regional security order.
It is also a concern that there is evidence of active help from a number of unnamed outside states in the Iranian nuclear programme, which raises some large questions about the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. It is clear that Pakistan was very much part of the external assistance for Iran.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, also talked about Iran and the war on terrorism, the Israel-Palestine link, and of course the Iraqi link. My understanding is that the Iranian Government have been fairly helpful in our dealings with the Taliban. Again, I regret that the Americans have not done more to encourage closer co-operation with the Iranians on that. We need Iranian assistance, and we need to reward what they have done so far in order to build on that and encourage closer collaboration. So far as Israel and Iraq are concerned, that has to be part of a western policy towards the Middle East as a whole. One cannot deal with Iraq, Iran and Israel separately.
The best way to deal with that important, large, unstable and potentially threatening state seems to be the British and European approach of diplomacy backed by the threat of sanctions, but nevertheless offering potential rewards and keeping the doors open. We welcome the visit of the three Foreign Ministers together as a positive move towards closer European co-operation. We also welcome the way in which smaller states within the European Union have not attacked that initiative on behalf of the European Union by its three most active international states.
The American approach has been damaging and confused. I welcome what Richard Armitage said, but if the deputy Secretary of State has been constructive, the assistant Secretary of State for arms control has been extremely destructive all the way through. I have met John Bolton on a number of occasions, and I regard him as an actively destructive force in international diplomacy. That is deeply unfortunate. Again, if I were watching the United States from Tehran and hearing the highly confused and contradictory messages that come from different elements within the divided Bush administration, I
1720
would be confused and worried. There are still calls from think-tanks to which President Bush gives major foreign policy speeches for regime change in Iran. The issue has not yet entirely gone away.
The Americans still have deep hang-ups over the humiliation of 1979 and 1980. That is not forgotten. They identify Iran as a threat to regional order, partly because they see it as a threat above all to Israel, and see Israel as the centre of any future regional order in the Middle East. They attack Iran's support for Hezbollah and therefore identify it as a terrorist state without recognising that the Shias in the Lebanon are a legitimate concern for any Iranian government.
We welcome the British approach. We all have to admit, I am afraid, that the soft cop European approach has actually been eased because of the toughness of the American hard cop behind it. That may be partly why we have made progress and why the Iranian Government have made their recent concessions to the IAEA and the admissions that they had previously resisted.
Where do we go from here? We clearly need to have as closely co-ordinated a European approach as possible. I repeat that we welcome what the Foreign Secretary has achieved with his French and German opposite numbers and we hope that that will be maintained.
We recognise that the European approach must be co-ordinated as closely as possible with that of America, even though that will continue to be difficult for so long as Washington's approach to the Middle East is as confused and internally contradictory as it is. We have to take a regional approach; we cannot deal with Iran as a whole. American troops are on its border, guarding Iraq. There are now American bases to its north. The question of Israel cannot be ignored given that it comes within the entire American approach to Iran and the Iranian approach to the United States and to the western part of the Middle East.
We have to keep the door open. We have to provide incentives as well as penalties. After all, we have seen China emerge in the past 25 years from a radical revolutionary situation, involving intense nationalism and its shutting itself off from the outside world, to a state which has reintegrated itself into the world economy and the multilateral international system. We should all hope that that is the path that the Iranians will take in moving from a revolutionary state to a more open society, a more open economy and a more peaceful relationship with its neighbours. We encourage Her Majesty's Government to do everything they can to lead the Iranians down that path.
10.32 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, like others, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, for initiating our debate. I should tell my few colleagues and friends here tonight that, by the old standards of another place, this is not a late hour at all. Most of the business of the other place used to be conducted in the early hours of

1721
the morning. Nowadays, they all go home at 7 p.m. and the late hours seem to have moved to this House instead. Perhaps my own move from that place to this was not a good career change. I seem to have brought the late hours with me.
We are faced with the enigma that is the amazing country of Iran. On the one hand, as all noble Lords have indicated, it is a brilliant, cultivated, clever nation of highly creative people with a dazzling history that stretches back to the Sassanids and to many generations before them—our own history seems modest by comparison. On the other hand, it is today, and has been for the past two decades, a country of evasions, cruelties, human rights abuses, mass executions—not so very long ago—and shocking persecution of religious minorities, particularly the revolting treatment of the Baha 'is, both adults and children.
Until recently, the country believed—and its leaders still believe it—in exporting Islamic revolution and preaching Islamic world dominance as an inevitability. That is the classic language of 20th-century religious ideology of the kind which cost millions of lives and which we do not want to see survive into the 21st century or prosper on this planet during the next 100 years.
Furthermore, as other noble Lords have mentioned, there is clear evidence that Iran has succoured not only the Hezbollah, but also organisations such as Hamas, and that it is therefore a supporter, directly or indirectly, of the ultimate barbarism of deliberately targeting innocent women and children for slaughter. That is the bad side of it and one cannot just shut one's eyes and brush it aside.
Although it is true that long ago Iran signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, it turns out in the IAEA report that for many years it has not been conforming to the treaty and has not been reporting its activities and developments. In other words, not to put too fine a point on it, it has been cheating for the past 18 years. Some years ago it developed uranium enrichment processes with the help of Pakistan. It is also in the business of plutonium reprocessing, which is said to be for civil use. However, when the Americans say, perhaps with a little hyperbole, that they find it impossible to believe it is for civil use and that it must lead straight to nuclear weapons, the Iranians have to make a case in response. The fact is that plutonium, in the Iranian context, is needed only for weapons. They do not need it for their civil nuclear power development—whether for their older Russian station at Bushier or any other development. There may be some justification, but it is not there yet. It certainly is not in the IAEA report.
Having put the black side—and I agree that I have done so—Iran is a major nation. It is centrally positioned in our concerns about global security. It is next door to Afghanistan and has been helpful and sensible over dealing with the reverberations of the Taliban affair and the Afghanistan war. Clearly, it goes without saying that we must work with this nation. It may even be possible to recognise that it feels
1722
surrounded and isolated. Nuclear powers all around may cause some justification for that. Perhaps we would think like that if we were in Tehran.
As for the recent visit by the French, German and British Foreign Ministers on 21st October, like the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Hannay, I believe that it was an excellent affair. To me, it was a perfect model of the right form of flexible, agile, European foreign policy co-operation. Perhaps I may not resist the temptation to remark that it seemed far better than the over-elaborate common foreign security policy machinery, which certain enthusiasts are always pressing us to adopt and which is not task-specific. This was task-specific; Foreign Ministers got together, just as they should, and it was an excellent example of the way things should work in European foreign policy co-operation.
It is also true that Iran is central to the Iraqi problem. It is essential that the border is not porous and that Iran stays out of Iraqi affairs, as it seems to be doing. That is encouraging. Furthermore, as we were reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, Iran is one of the world's major oil producers. However, I disagree with the noble Lord and those who seem to believe that more oil production and oil investment are the best way forward for that kind of nation. The truth is that over-dependence on oil is a curse and not a blessing. If one looks around the world, one sees that wherever there is over-dependence it is far from promoting enterprise, the opening up of markets and liberal governance; it has held back the societies which are often swamped in gigantic oil revenues. Therefore, in wishing the future of Iran well, I hope that it does not remain solely and overly dependent on oil development.
As to nuclear developments, I have made some comments. The whole saga of Iran's apparent cheating but now readiness to comply, and the question of whether it is developing weapons-grade uranium and plutonium for any purpose other than civil nuclear power, prompts us to rethink generally on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Frankly, I do not believe that that is sustainable in its present form or, indeed, enforceable. I would urge that we all applied minds to better ways of shoring up the non-proliferation process because the NPT is clearly not working. When we do shore it up, that will have implications not only for the countries that are not supposed to be existing nuclear powers but are, or the countries that are moving in that direction, as Iran may or may not be doing, but also for the five existing nuclear states as well. That includes our own country. If we want non-proliferation to work, we all have a duty to think how better to minimise our own holdings and involvement in nuclear weaponry.
Therefore, in this brief debate, my conclusion is perhaps the obvious one: we must engage with this nation and do so with our eyes wide open, without false enthusiasm but in a practical spirit. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, that Iran is not a rogue

1723
state. That is an absurd label and part of the sillier neo-conservative rhetoric, which does not seem to be a very good guide to judgment in Washington policy-making.
However, we must be realistic: Iran is not yet a state that can be fully trusted. I, like others, hope that reform is under way but I believe that far more needs to be done before Iran can return to the status that it once enjoyed as a noble people and which it could enjoy again if liberalisation and reform were to go ahead in a genuine spirit of co-operation with the rest of the world community.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, it was not my intention to say— I do not believe that I did say it—that Iran needed more oil investment. I absolutely agree with the point that the noble Lord made about over-dependence—90 per cent of Iran's GDP is in that one element. Therefore, to set the record straight, that was not my proposition.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I fully accept that. I am glad that the noble Lord was urging not more but less oil dependence to achieve some balanced development. I accept that.
10.42 p.m.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, tonight we have had a short but very expert and useful debate about a key aspect of our foreign policy. I thank noble Lords for their encouragement for Her Majesty's Government's approach to Iran.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, raises an important and timely Question. This is certainly the right moment to debate Iran, and who better to open that debate than the noble Lord with all his experience in these matters?
Iran's decisions about how it deals with the rest of the world have an impact that goes far beyond its borders. As noble Lords have said, Iran sits at the centre of one of the most volatile regions of the world. Its size alone—its population is larger than Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries combined—gives it a leading role and influence. How Iran chooses to use that influence—in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example—can affect the security of countries well beyond the Middle East and South Asia.
As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, said, the UK's own relations with Iran have not always been straightforward. That has not been by our choice: the past few months have been made difficult by extradition proceedings against Mr Hadi Soleimanpour, a former Iranian ambassador in Buenos Aires now resident in the UK. I understand that the case against Mr Soleimanpour has today been discharged. I hope that any difficulties resulting from that may now be behind us.
The Government's overall approach towards Iran is one of constructive, but critical and conditional, engagement. In answer to the noble Lords, Lord
1724
Phillips and Lord Hannay, we recognise and welcome President Khatami's vision of a democratic, Islamic civil society, based on the rule of law. We seek to support reform in Iran. We co-operate successfully with Iran in a number of areas. We are, for example, the largest supporter of assistance to Iran to counter the drugs trade, and we have worked well together on the reconstruction of Afghanistan.
At the same time we fully share the view of our European Union partners that the development of relations with Iran, which we want to see, must be on the basis of Iranian willingness to address areas of political concern. Those include Iran's nuclear programme and approach to terrorism, human rights and, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, mentioned, the Middle East peace process.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, asked how the Government see the first of those, Iran's nuclear programme. We start from a simple premise. We do not question the right of any country to generate electricity by nuclear power, provided—this is an important condition—that it complies fully with its international obligations on the subject. The joint statement in Tehran last month by the Foreign Secretary and his French and German counterparts, to which the noble Lord referred, stated that clearly.
However, under the non-proliferation treaty it is unacceptable for non-nuclear weapon states to seek to acquire nuclear weapons. In the Middle East it could seriously destabilise international peace and security. Recent reports by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have given reasons to suspect that Iran has not been fully transparent with the agency or fully compliant with its safeguards obligations under the non-proliferation treaty.
Those suspicions cannot be dismissed as part of a western scheme against the Islamic Republic. They are shared by the entire international community, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, stated. We saw that clearly in September when the IAEA board of governors passed its resolution by consensus. That resolution is intended to exercise a constructive influence. It requires Iran to take measures that would enable it to resolve the outstanding issues of concern identified by the IAEA in its reports.
As the House is aware, the Foreign Secretary and his French and German counterparts visited Tehran last month. The aim was to bring home to Iran the seriousness and urgency of international concerns and the need to act decisively to address them. Following that visit, Iran has undertaken to sign, ratify and implement an additional protocol to its safeguards agreement. That will allow for short-notice visits by IAEA inspectors to a wider variety of nuclear sites. Iran has also undertaken to act right away as if such a protocol were already in force. It has said it will co-operate in full with the IAEA and be fully transparent with the agency about its nuclear activity. It has undertaken to suspend all uranium enrichment and reprocessing activity as defined by the agency. Those are welcome promises and reflect the main points in the IAEA board resolution. They are, indeed, a step in the right direction.

1725
The key is Iran's willingness to turn them into reality. In our view Iran could create an atmosphere of increased trust quickly and easily. The onus is on Iran to take action. Iran has already taken some welcome steps in the past three weeks. It has supplied the agency with further details of past nuclear activity. It has sent the IAEA a formal letter signalling its intention to sign an additional protocol and announced a halt to enrichment and reprocessing activities. We recognise that those have been significant steps. We also believe that they are in Iran's interest.
The next step will be discussion at the IAEA board of governors' meeting on 20th November and although noble Lords have referred to it, I hope that they will understand that it would be imprudent of me to speculate today on the outcome of that meeting. The agency's director-general, Dr Mohammed El-Baradei, submitted his latest report on Monday. It needs careful reading and analysis.
The Government's view is that the board should work to maintain the credibility of the IAEA and of the non-proliferation regime. It would be damaging if the agency were to accept less than full co-operation and transparency from a member state or, having set out the requirements in its September resolution, were now to accept less than full compliance.
I am confident that the agency will likewise be clear in reporting Iran's past failures to disclose information or breaches of its safeguards obligations. Iran should not see this as a negative step. It is one that can be used to build trust and help address the long-running challenge, which is to establish international confidence that the intentions of Iran's nuclear programme are solely peaceful.
The nuclear programme is not, of course, the only security question on which we are now engaging Iranian leaders. We have regular exchanges with them on efforts to reconstruct two countries on Iran's borders, Iraq and Afghanistan. We recognise that Iran has legitimate interests in the future of both. In recent years, for instance, Iran has played host to more than 2.5 million refugees from the conflict in those two countries. As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said, we should recognise, and we do recognise, the concerns felt by many in Iran towards the Shia population in Iraq, and the wish of Iranian pilgrims to have easier access to holy sites in Karbala and Najaf.
Like noble Lords, we welcome Iranian support for the Iraqi Governing Council and the formation of a broad-based government in Afghanistan. In the case of both Iraq and Afghanistan, we hope that Iran will see that its interest lies in promoting the most rapid transition possible to stable and functioning democracy. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, described, the defeat of Saddam Hussein has also created new opportunities for regional security structures. To be effective, those probably need to originate with initiatives from players within the region. However, any structures that can deliver greater peace and stability would be warmly welcomed and certainly have our support.
1726
Sunday's bombing of an Arab residential compound in Riyadh brought home once again that security challenges in the region do not originate only from states but also from terrorists. President Khatami has stated Iran's principled condemnation of all terrorism, and his government were quick to condemn the latest attack. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, rightly states, Iran is an important potential partner in the fight against terrorism. We have called on Iran to exert all possible efforts and to ensure that terrorists receive no refuge or assistance from within its borders. As the EU has made clear, positive action against terrorism is a precondition for further developing relations.
As noble Lords have said, another area that Iran must address if relations with the EU are to develop is human rights. We indeed recognise that there has been some progress since the election of President Khatami in 1997, but we and other EU partners continue to have many concerns in areas such as freedom of expression, torture and the rights of religious and ethnic minorities, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, reminded us.
Noble Lords asked one or two specific questions. Several noble Lords—the noble Lords, Lord Hannay, Lord Phillips and Lord Wallace of Saltaire—referred to the issue of US contact with Iran. I would say to noble Lords that renewed contact between the US and Iran is a matter for those two countries. However, our US partners are very aware of our own position. I would add that, on 28th October, deputy US Secretary of State Richard Armitage told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:
"We are prepared to engage in limited discussions with the government of Iran about areas of mutual interest as appropriate. We have not, however, entered into any broad dialogue with the aim of normalising relations".
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, talked about the Baha 'is and about religious persecution. The Government fully share his concern about religious persecution in Iran, including that of the Baha 'is. We raise these concerns regularly with Iran's leaders, including through the EU-Iran Human Rights Dialogue.
I began by saying that Iran's choices about its relations with the rest of the world have an impact well beyond its borders. On all these issues, with our partners in the EU, we are involved in the process of political dialogue with Iran. As the Foreign Secretary's recent visit shows—and again I thank noble Lords for their encouragement for the Foreign Secretary—we are committed to this policy of engagement. In any dialogue, and any international relationship, there will be points of difference. But I think that his visit showed that the strategy of engagement enables us to resolve those differences and encourage Iran to make choices that will contribute positively to the peace and security in the region.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn. In doing so, I am sure that noble Lords will forgive me if I take the opportunity on behalf of us all to apologise to our staff

1727
who were not expecting to be sitting this late, and not forgetting the Hansard reporters who were expecting to finish much earlier.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Mersey Tunnels Bill
A message was brought from the Commons that they have considered the Lords Message of 11th November and have made the following orders:
That the promoters of the Mersey Tunnels Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so is lodged in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all fees due up to that date have been paid;
That on the fifth sitting day in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House by deposit in the Private Bill Office;
That a declaration signed by the agent shall be annexed to the Bill, stating that it is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
That on the next sitting day following presentation, the Clerk in the Private Bill Office shall lay the Bill on the Table of the House and, when so laid, the Bill shall be read the first, second and third time and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having been so read;
That no further fees shall be charged to such stages.

Extradition Bill
Returned from the Commons with certain amendments agreed to with amendments; certain other amendments disagreed to but with amendments proposed in lieu thereof; one of the amendments disagreed to with a reason for such disagreement; and with the remaining amendments agreed to; it was ordered that the Commons amendments and reason be printed. (HL Bill 122)
House adjourned at four minutes before eleven o'clock.

  Ulster-Scots Agency
  Ulster-Scots Agency
  Northern Ireland: Tourism in County Antrim
  Northern Ireland: Tourism in County Antrim
  Northern Ireland: MoT Tests
  Northern Ireland: MoT Tests
  Northern Ireland: Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure
  Northern Ireland: Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure
  Parliamentary Website: Languages Other Than English
  Parliamentary Website: Languages Other Than English
  Replica and Deactivated Firearms
  Replica and Deactivated Firearms
  Racial Discrimination: EC Legislation
  Racial Discrimination: EC Legislation
  Police: Racism
  Police: Racism
  Faith Communities
  Faith Communities
  Prisons: Visitors' Centres
  Prisons: Visitors' Centres
  Sex Offender Treatment Programme
  Sex Offender Treatment Programme
  Criminal Justice Act 1988: Section 134
  Criminal Justice Act 1988: Section 134
  Prisoners: Family Links
  Prisoners: Family Links
  Nigeria: Recovery of State Funds
  Nigeria: Recovery of State Funds
  Planning Policy
  Planning Policy
  Ministry of Defence: Water Services
  Ministry of Defence: Water Services
  Defence Industrial Policy
  Defence Industrial Policy
  Telephone Preference Service: Political Parties
  Telephone Preference Service: Political Parties
  Income-Contingent Student Loans
  Income-Contingent Student Loans
  Condoms
  Condoms
  Sex Education
  Sex Education
  Star Awards
  Star Awards
  Vitamin B6
  Vitamin B6
  Food Supplements Directive
  Food Supplements Directive
  Milk
  Milk
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Baku-Tiblisi-Ceyhan Pipeline
  Baku-Tiblisi-Ceyhan Pipeline
  Credit Cards: Annual Percentage Rates
  Credit Cards: Annual Percentage Rates
  Electricity Generation: Renewable Sources
  Electricity Generation: Renewable Sources
  Parliament Square: Loudhailers
  Parliament Square: Loudhailers
  Common Agricultural Policy: Expenditure in UK
  Common Agricultural Policy: Expenditure in UK
  Demonstration Farms
  Demonstration Farms
  Whole-farm Assessment Schemes
  Whole-farm Assessment Schemes
  Water Poisoning
  Water Poisoning
  Research and Development Tax Credit Scheme
  Research and Development Tax Credit Scheme
  Inheritance Tax
  Inheritance Tax
  Government Departments: Unused Accommodation
  Government Departments: Unused Accommodation
  Government Departments: Accommodation Leases
  Government Departments: Accommodation Leases
  Illegal Meat Imports
  Illegal Meat Imports
  Buckingham Palace: Paying Visitors
  Buckingham Palace: Paying Visitors
  Royal Palaces: Public Access
  Royal Palaces: Public Access
  Cyclists: Casualties
  Cyclists: Casualties