Sitting of 18 November 2003

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  TRANSAS GROUP BILL
  Order for consideration of Lords amendments read. Lords amendments agreed to.

  LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [Lords]
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered on Tuesday 2 December.

Oral Answers to Questions
  TRANSPORT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  TRANSPORT

    Disabled Access
    Linda Perham: What recent discussions his Department has had with (a) other Government Departments, (b) transport network operators, (c) transport authorities and (d) passenger groups on measures to ensure that public transport networks are accessible for disabled people. [138853]
    The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Dr. Kim Howells): The Department has frequent discussions with industry, passenger representatives and other stakeholders about improving access to transport for disabled people. In addition, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), is giving evidence tomorrow to the Transport Committee inquiry on disabled people's access to transport.
    Linda Perham: The Minister may be aware that the recent "Mind the Gap" report by the disability charity Leonard Cheshire demonstrates the difficulties that disabled people face in gaining access to work and public services as a result of inaccessible transport. When will the Government announce their response to last year's consultation on the removal of the current exemptions for transport providers from the Disability Discrimination Act 1995? Can he assure the House that
    596
    the Department is moving quickly to ensure that transport does not continue to be a major barrier to the social inclusion of disabled people?
    Dr. Howells: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that and know that she has done a great deal of work with the Leonard Cheshire Foundation on the issue. The recent consultation on applying part 3 of the DDA to transport services was intended to help us formulate the necessary changes in legislation to implement the Disability Rights Task Force recommendation, which we have accepted. Those changes will form part of the draft disability Bill that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will publish before the end of the year for pre-legislative scrutiny. We will not publish a separate response to the consultation.
    Mr. Greg Knight: Does the Minister accept that the Opposition will support genuine and workable proposals to make public transport more accessible to the disabled? Does he share my anger, however, that earlier this year two disabled pensioners travelling together had to cancel a holiday in my constituency because the train company concerned would take only one wheelchair at a time on each train? Is not that a disgrace? Will he join me in congratulating another train company, First Great Western, on implementing its disabled persons protection policy, which covers problems facing the disabled while travelling and will improve facilities at every one of that company's 14 railway stations?
    Dr. Howells: First, I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new position on the Front Bench. It is good to see him there. We need jazz drummers in every position that we can get them.
    I share the right hon. Gentleman's anger and concern at the behaviour of the train company in question. He makes a good point in raising that. I also share his pleasure in seeing First Great Western take that very important initiative. Between 9 million and 11 million people are registered with some form of disability in this country. In addition to the duty to ensure that they have access to transport, companies should wake up to the fact that there is a huge commercial market to serve.
    Mr. Roger Berry: My hon. Friend referred to recommendations by the Disability Rights Task Force that transport should be included in the Disability Discrimination Act. I welcome his assurance that that will be done. Another recommendation was that there should be end dates for all rail vehicles to be accessible to the disabled. What are those end dates?
    Dr. Howells: My hon. Friend is well known for his work for many years on behalf of disabled groups, and he raises an important issue. He knows that the Government have already introduced regulations under the DDA to ensure that new buses and trains are accessible to disabled people. Last month, we announced our proposals for implementing the taxi provisions. Significant progress has already been made. For example, in the past two and a half years, 1,400 fully accessible new vehicles have been introduced on the railways, and there will be more than 1,000 more in the next 18 months. More than one third of buses are

    597
    already accessible, and the proportion is much higher in many major towns and cities. However, I take his point: we must ensure that access is as complete as is possible and practicable.
    Mr. Andrew Turner: Does the Minister think it appropriate that a vehicle should be described as wheelchair-accessible when a constituent of mine, who is a sixth former at Cowes high school and 5 ft 10 in, has to bow his head to sit in it in his wheelchair? Peugeot Eurotaxis have only 54 in of headroom, Volkswagen Transporters have 53.5 in, Mercedes Vitos have 52 in and the standard Ford Transit has only 52 in. Does not he believe that anyone in a wheelchair should be able to sit upright in a wheelchair-accessible vehicle?
    Dr. Howells: If the hon. Gentleman will do me a favour and send me those details, I shall try to take up the matter with the manufacturers.

    Bus Services
    2. Mr. John Grogan: What plans he has to increase the regulation of bus services. [138854]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): The current statutory framework for bus services is set out in the Transport Act 2000. As with all other legislation, the Government are keeping the position under review.
    Mr. Grogan: Since our good friend Ken, Mayor of London, is trusted to set fares, timetables and routes in the capital city, where bus use is increasing, why cannot councillors from the great northern cities of Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle and York be trusted to do the same? Surely the interests of bus passengers must come above those of bus companies, which make a rate of return of 14 per cent. outside London but 6 per cent. in London.
    Mr. McNulty: My hon. Friend knows that transport in London has been treated differently from that in the rest of the country since the 1930s. Our key role is to drive up standards and encourage more people to use buses. The key to that under any regulatory framework is a better partnership between operators and local authorities. In many areas, we have creative operators who do a good job with their local authorities under inspired political leadership. Sadly, that is not the case in many areas. We are considering that, and we work with areas constantly.
    John Thurso: Given that bus ridership outside London has fallen by 4 per cent. since 1999, does the Under-Secretary agree with the director general of Nexus, who said:
    "Letting the market decide what the bus network should look like frankly hasn't worked."?
    598
    Although no one would wish to return to pre-1985 regulation, is not it time to introduce a controlled market to allow for properly integrated transport to deliver the ridership figures that we all want and that the Government promised?
    Mr. McNulty: As ever with the Liberal Democrats, the premise is flawed and wrong. Bus patronage has not decreased but increased. Constantly to talk down such a key mode of transport, which opens access to parts of our towns and cities that other forms cannot, is to do a disservice to transport. Bus patronage has increased in Cambridge by 8 per cent., in York by 7 per cent., in Bolton by 4 per cent. and in Leeds and Nottingham by 3 per cent. The picture is not the one of doom and gloom that the dreary Liberal Democrats paint time and again.
    Mr. Colin Challen: The village of Thorpe in my constituency may not be as large as London, but the bus service is much worse, especially No. 130, which regularly fails to get its passengers on hoard because it does not turn up. I often write to my excellent passenger transport authority about the problem, but it always replies that the bus service is a commercial service and there is little that it can do. When will we tell bus companies that they provide a public service, not simply a private profit-making service for themselves?
    Mr. McNulty: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. I confess that I know nothing about the 130 that runs through his constituency, but I recently had a meeting with representatives of all the PTAs and they accepted that there were difficulties. Matters therefore remain under review, and there is much further to go in the existing regulatory framework. Simply reverting to the pre-1985 position is not the answer in the collective opinion of operators and local authorities.

    Roads Expenditure (Sussex)
    Tim Loughton: How much has been spent in capital terms on (a) motorways and (b) trunk roads in Sussex since 1997; and how much this represents as a percentage of overall expenditure on motorways and trunk roads in England. [138855]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): On the basis of information available since April 1999, capital expenditure on motorways and trunk roads in Sussex amounts to £1.5million and £34.7million respectively. In total this represents some 2 per cent. of the Highways Agency's overall capital expenditure on motorways and trunk roads in the same period, and by pure coincidence—these things are not done on a pro rata basis—Sussex has 2.1 per cent. of the country's motorways and trunk roads.
    Tim Loughton: In other words, not a lot. People can drive all the way from Newcastle to Sussex on motorways or dual carriageways until they hit my constituency, where they will find single-lane gridlock

    599
    on the A27. We have about five miles of motorway in the whole of Sussex. In 1997, the hon. Gentleman's Government dropped every trunk road improvement scheme in Sussex, and now he has dropped any plans to provide bypasses around Worthing, Lancing and Arundel. Yet his Government want to subject West Sussex to another 46,000 homes, which will only add to the gridlock. When is Sussex going to get its fair share of road investment?
    Mr. McNulty: I am tempted to say, when it gets a rather better quality of parliamentary representation. The hon. Gentleman will know that I have had successive meetings about the A27 with West Sussex, the South East England Regional Assembly, the South East England Development Agency, and with the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight). I have still to have a meeting with the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson). I have had six or seven meetings about the A27, at which Conservative party members overall, whether local councillors or MPs, have been very serious about working with us and the Highways Agency to resolve the situation, rather than sitting on the sidelines throwing rocks as the hon. Gentleman is doing. Perhaps he should be a bit more positive in his approach.
    Gregory Barker: The Minister might know that my constituency is particularly poorly served in this regard, having practically no dual carriageways at all. However, there is one small stretch in Bexhill, the King Offa way, which is notoriously unsafe—in fact, it is extremely dangerous. Six months ago, there was yet another fatal crash, the second in as many months, after which the Highways Agency recommended a string of improvements, including a crash barrier, better speed signs, barriers on the central reservation and a speed camera. Six months on, however, nothing has been done, and the Highways Agency tells us that it is very unlikely that anything will be done in 2004 because of the cash crisis in Kent and Sussex. Given that there has been yet another accident, what does the Minister intend to do?
    Mr. McNulty: The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point. We have asked East Sussex to develop proposals for the Bexhill to Hastings link road, through the local transport plan process. We fully accept, however, that there are real difficulties along the entire south coast. All that we have said thus far is that the solutions that came up in the south coast multi-modal study were not appropriate. We are looking very seriously at each of the problems along the A27 with the Highways Agency, and we have a time frame within which to do that. We are seeking to resolve those problems, and I will be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the Bexhill issue specifically.

    Air Transport (Energy Efficiency)
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: What estimate he has made of the energy efficiency of (a) high-speed train travel and (b) short-haul flights for journeys (i) within the United Kingdom and (ii) between the United Kingdom and France. [138856]
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): I am aware there have been a number of studies, but with no firm conclusions.
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that if there were synchronisation between rail and air travel in the advance booking systems, more people would use the rail services?
    Mr. Darling: I agree that it is important to provide people with better choice in transport, and I can tell my hon. Friend that, once the first phase of the west coast modernisation is complete next year, journey times between Birmingham and London, for example, will come down to just over one hour and 20 minutes, and between Manchester and London to just over two hours. Those journey times will provide a favourable choice compared with travelling by air. In relation to domestic journeys and those made using the new channel tunnel rail link, I believe that rail can offer a very good choice, providing a faster journey. The key is to ensure that it is reliable as well.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Will the Secretary of State come to one firm conclusion now—namely that RAF Northolt should be eliminated from the review on airport facilities in the south-east of England for short-haul operations? The airfield is far too small, it is in a highly built-up area, and I am sure that his ministerial colleague, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) would concur that there would be fury from local residents if short-haul scheduled services were permitted there.
    Mr. Darling: I have made it clear on a number of occasions that we will deal with all airports in the aviation White Paper, which we will publish next month. The hon. Gentleman will just have to wait and see what our conclusions are.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Obviously we welcome my right hon. Friend's comments on using the tunnel. I think that it is a benefit, but it ought to be a benefit for all in the UK. Will he try to ensure that there are direct links from the north-west to give us the same service and benefits that people get in the south-west and the south-east?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The first stage of the channel tunnel rail link was opened in September, and I am pleased to tell the House that today the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), was able to present a bouquet of flowers to the millionth passenger to use that service since then. [HON. MEMBERS: Ooh!] I understand that the reaction of the passenger was just the same as

    601
    that of hon. Members, and that the upgrade to first class was probably more greatly appreciated than the opportunity to meet my hon. Friend.
    The point is that the channel tunnel rail link means that journey times between London and Paris and Brussels are reduced, and that the journey between London and Paris will come down to two and a half hours when the project is completed in 2007. When the route runs through to St. Pancras, it will allow for far better connections to the rest of the country. As I was saying a moment ago, that will provide a better choice for passengers wishing to go to the continent. It does not, of course, get round the point that it is likely that the demand for air travel—not just to Europe, but to other parts of the country—will continue to grow as well. That is one of the things that we have to consider as we reach our conclusions in relation to aviation.

    Strategic Rail Authority
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: If he will make a statement on the Strategic Rail Authority's strategic plan 2003. [138858]
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): The Strategic Rail Authority published its 2003 strategic plan in January of this year. It sets out the way in which the authority will work towards the Government's goals on the railway.
    Mr. McLoughlin: I have given the Secretary of State notice of this question: why in 2002 did the SRA's plan talk about East Midlands Parkway station opening in 2003? His predecessor wrote to me shortly after that, saying:
    "I understand from the SRA that the May 2003 opening date given in the Strategic Plan was an inadvertent error. May 2003 is the deadline in the franchise by which Midland Mainline can be required to have obtained all the necessary consents, permissions and rights over land to construct the station. Construction might then take about a year."
    That takes us to May 2004. So far, it does not look like any work is happening on that station. Can the Secretary of State give us the latest information?
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman has a perfectly good point. I am grateful to him for having told me earlier this morning of the problems in relation to this station and drawing my attention to the reply that he received from my predecessor. He should not have been given the wrong information, and it should not have been published in the SRA's then plan.
    In the past hour or so, I have had the opportunity to have a very preliminary look as to what has happened here. It would appear that the operators of the railway have been in discussions with Powergen, which for a number of reasons has expressed concern about building the station there. However, agreement has been reached to buy the land in question, and I am told that the operators are about to obtain the powers that they need under the Transport and Works Act 1992 to start building the station. The situation there is not very
    602
    satisfactory, however, and if the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I would like to make further inquiries. Then I will write to him again.
    Mr. George Stevenson: Given the vital importance of the upgrade of the west coast main line, particularly in areas of north Staffordshire in my constituency, will the Secretary of State support the SRA's view, expressed in its strategic plan, that that vital arterial rail link should be completed in total by 2006, and resist the blandishments of the regulator, who has suggested that the second phase could be deferred as a cost-cutting exercise?
    Mr. Darling: There are two points there. First, it is planned that the west coast main line will be completed by 2007, not 2006. That has always been the case. Secondly, the regulator is quite right to draw attention to the fact that this is a project in which costs need to be controlled. I remind the House that when Railtrack was responsible for the network, it promised to build that line for a price of £2.5 billion. By the time it stopped trading, the cost had gone up to £13 billion. Now, with proper control and discipline, we think that the cost will be between £8 billion and £9 billion. I am afraid that that is a price that we are having to pay, because the line did not get the investment that it needed for some 20 or 30 years—ever since the late 1960s.
    I agree with my hon. Friend that the project is well worth doing. It is one of the busiest passenger railway routes in Europe, it is critical to the railways in this country and I would like to see it completed by 2007. However, the regulator is right that we must ensure at every stage that we drive costs down to their absolute minimum.
    Mr. Damian Green: In June, the Secretary of State said:
    "The investment which is going into the railway is slowly but surely bearing results."
    If he still believes that, will he tell us what proportion of trains are now running late, according to the Strategic Rail Authority?
    Mr. Darling: First, let me welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new post. We had expected to see the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), who we were told was in charge of both transport and the environment. I can only conclude that she must be dealing with the environment this morning, and therefore cannot be with us. It is nice to see the hon. Gentleman, though. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Scotland?"] I have no difficulty in being present for Transport questions. I am always here: that is the big difference.
    Yes, the investment is "slowly but surely" making a difference. I have mentioned the west coast main line; let me now mention again that we are replacing nearly a third of rolling stock on the network over a five-year period.
    The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that, in terms of performance and reliability, things are not proceeding as quickly as they should. Although 80 per cent. of trains overall arrive on time, in far too many cases improvements are not being made fast enough.

    603
    There is a substantial variation between the best-performing trains, which are achieving 90 per cent. reliability or thereabouts, and some of the poorer performers, which are still in the mid-60s. The hon. Gentleman is right about that; the point on which we disagree is that whatever problems there may be on the railways, the answer cannot possibly be slashing investment, which is what the Conservatives favour.
    Mr. Green: I thank the Secretary of State for his kind remarks and his welcome. As he is so interested in the whereabouts of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead, let me tell him that she is at the CBI conference in Birmingham listening to the many complaints from British businesses about the Government's failure to provide a proper transport policy to help them to conduct their business profitably.
    The Secretary of State has just admitted that one in five trains run late. That is double the figure inherited by his Government. His response has been typical of this Government: he has abandoned the passenger growth targets, imposed above-inflation fare increases, and cut the number of services.
    The Deputy Prime Minister once promised to increase choice and cut congestion. Is it not true that, instead, the Government have cut choice and increased congestion?
    Mr. Darling: Not really, no. What is clear is that Britain's railways, and our roads for that matter, have suffered from decades of under-investment. Successive Governments, not just Conservative but Labour as well, have not spent as much as they should over a long period.
    Part of our current problem with the railways is that the investment was not made at the right time. Members will recall that before privatisation British Rail expected to replace some 500 miles of track each year; after privatisation the rate fell to 200 miles a year. This year we are replacing more than 700 miles of track. The obvious consequences of failure to invest are problems with the track and with reliability. What the hon. Gentleman says might be more credible had he not opposed every penny of public expenditure on transport, and on other matters.
    If the hon. Member for Maidenhead is indeed listening to CBI members, one thing they will be saying is that they want more investment to produce results more quickly. They are not calling for less investment. I just wonder what she is telling them she would do.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The Secretary of State will realise that value for money depends on a sensible set of priorities. Will he point out to the Strategic Rail Authority that ignoring the interests of freight and some of the smaller, more deprived parts of the UK is not a sensible way of keeping the whole system working? If we cut bits off, the core will suffer.
    Mr. Darling: I understand that point. However, I do not think that it is right to say that the SRA is ignoring freight—far from it. More goods are being taken by rail than two or three years ago. What the SRA and indeed the rail regulator both recognise is that parts of the
    604
    network are not used by high-speed trains and do not carry heavy freight. Just as motorways are constructed differently and are maintained to a different standard from A roads and B roads, it makes sense to ensure that our investment in the railways reflects the actual use of the rails. As I have told the House before, we spend about £73 million every week on the railways, matched by a similar sum from the private sector. It is a substantial sum. We need to ensure that it is spent properly and that we maintain the network according to the use of the trains on it.
    Pete Wishart: What comfort can the Secretary of State give his constituents that there will be no delay in plans to upgrade Waverley station in his constituency? He will know that Waverley is central to the Scottish rail network, so can he give a guarantee that the work will go ahead as a priority and that there will be no downgrade of the original plan?
    Mr. Darling: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking a question about my constituency. As I was on a train going through his constituency yesterday, I thought that he might ask about that. Waverley station is an important part of the network. The SRA, the Scottish Executive and Edinburgh city council are all discussing what the right level of improvements is and how they should be funded.
    One of the problems at Waverley is that, when Railtrack was responsible for it, it seemed more interested in building a shopping mall on top of the station than in improving the station itself. It is another example of the difficulties that were caused under Railtrack's stewardship of the railways. I hope that we can make the improvements that Waverley needs. It is an important station for the obvious reason that it connects so many services.

    Network Rail
    Alan Simpson: If he will make a statement on the decision by Network Rail to close its final salary pension scheme. [138859]
    Mr. David Drew: If he will make a statement on the decision by Network Rail to close its final salary pension scheme. [138864]
    The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Dr. Kim Howells): Network Rail is a private company and its decision about its final salary pension arrangements is a matter for Network Rail itself and the independent corporate trustee of the railways pension scheme.
    It is our understanding that there is no intention to breach the arrangements put in place to protect staff pensions on privatisation of the industry. The relevant final salary arrangement will still be open to protected rail industry staff who transfer voluntarily to Network Rail.
    Alan Simpson: The Minister will know that Network Rail is a publicly funded company and that that decision will make a large number of its members dependent on means-tested pensions. Will he confirm that the argument advanced by Network Rail for doing that is

    605
    that its pension bill has doubled to £42 million a year, but that has been as a consequence of the decision in 1994 to cut the contribution rate to the scheme by half.
    Will the Minister intervene to ensure, first, that the decision can be reviewed at the earliest possible opportunity and, secondly, that any moneys that the company takes out of workers' pension schemes is not used to pay off companies whose maintenance contracts are being terminated as a result of poor standards of work?
    Dr. Howells: I am afraid that my hon. Friend has been misinformed about the details of the pension scheme. I do not know where he has got his information from, but it does not square with the reality of the pension scheme. Network Rail has announced that new recruits to Network Rail will not enjoy the shared costs final salary section of the railways pension scheme and that the protection is there for all those members who are part of that section of the scheme.
    Mr. David Drew: Surely my hon. Friend will agree that it looks, certainly from the information that we have received, as though new employees will be somewhat put in jeopardy compared with employees in the previous good scheme. What is somewhat galling is that, at the same time as those employees could be faced with worsening conditions, Network Rail will continue to pay what look like very good bonuses to directors. Does not he agree that that is a somewhat hypocritical, if not contradictory, message to give to the industry?
    Dr. Howells: I am certainly not in favour of contradictory messages going out, but the question is about the new defined contribution arrangements for the pension scheme, which are as good as any in the private sector. My hon. Friend should realise that some train operating companies have already managed to introduce alternative defined contribution arrangements for new recruits in the industry without any serious dissension. I hope that he accepts that the rights of the many thousands of pensioners in the existing scheme will be protected.
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: I have received a number of representations on this, and I shall consider carefully what the Minister said. However, is he aware that 70 leading companies have closed their final salary schemes, affecting roughly 70,000 people? The total cost is about £100 million, but that compares with the £5 billion that the Chancellor has taken from pension funds through the change to tax credit. Does the Minister think that the Chancellor was right to do so?
    Dr. Howells: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that the Chancellor reduced corporation tax at the same time, and some of the people whom he seeks to represent are glad about that. He knows as well as I do that there have been difficulties with markets and the earnings of pension funds, so companies sometimes have to take such measures. He also knows as well as I do that we have to ensure that pensioners' rights are properly guarded.
    Mr. Christopher Chope: Does the Minister realise that reducing corporation tax does not
    606
    help Network Rail, a supposedly not-for-profit company? It has a £200 million pension deficit, so why does he not admit that the truth is that Network Rail's prospective employees will join thousand of others up and down the country who are victims of the Government's vicious pension tax?
    Dr. Howells: That was a nice piece of rhetoric, but it will not work. The Government will ensure that the gangster tactics that reigned under successive Tory Governments will not be repeated.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will my hon. Friend look into the fact that if 70 big business companies refuse to pay proper pensions it is incumbent on those who complain about it to say that they are against big business acting in that way? Moreover, they should tell members of the shadow Cabinet to stop moonlighting and taking £5 million from big business, because they are robbing the pensioners.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister can leave that point.

    Airports White Paper
    7. Mr. Peter Lilley: When he plans to publish his White Paper on airports in the south-east of England. [138860]
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): We expect to publish the air transport White Paper covering the whole of the UK next month.
    Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. When he publishes the White Paper, will he ignore the blustering threats of legal action by the operators of Luton airport and accept that there is massive local opposition—I have got another 1,000 signatures to add to the many that he has already received—to over-expansion of the airport to the size of Gatwick? There are no direct rail links to the airport, and the overflying stacked above it means that it will be less safe. The airport is closed more frequently than any other airport serving London because of weather conditions, and on the right hon. Gentleman's own calculations, development is the least cost-effective option of all those that he is considering.
    Mr. Darling: I am aware of the right hon. Gentleman's strong feelings about development at Luton because he has made them clear on previous occasions. My answer to him, as it will be to everyone else who catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, is that people just have to wait a short while longer before finding out our conclusions.
    Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: While there is always some opposition to airport development, my right hon. Friend must know that there is strong support for the development of Luton locally. There is unanimous support among Government Members for the development and even, I think, strong support

    607
    among Opposition Members. Is it not the case that Luton could be expanded quickly, simply and cheaply and contribute substantially to airport needs?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right that, in relation to just about every airport in the country, there are strong feelings both for and against. I am acutely aware of the fact that when I publish the White Paper there will be a lynching party from one direction or another.
    Mr. Mark Prisk: Regardless of what is in the White Paper, it is crucial that our scrutiny of the Government's plans is both informed and thorough. Will the Secretary of State therefore confirm that he will publish the evidence that he receives before the White Paper, and that he will give us a proper, full debate in this House in January?
    Mr. Darling: The question of whether the matter will be debated is in the hands of the usual channels, but for my part I would welcome a debate. As I have said, whatever we decide, our conclusions are bound to be controversial, and there are bound to be strong feelings on both sides of the argument. Indeed, I know of the hon. Gentleman's feelings about the issue of airports in his constituency, because he has spoken to me about it.
    When we publish the White Paper, we shall of course then publish the representations that have been received, but perhaps it would help the hon. Gentleman and the House if I point out that the White Paper will set out a framework against which the industry and people can plan for the future. It is not as if its publication will be the end of the story, with no more debate. If further expansion takes place, there are planning procedures to go through and there will be all manner of debate and discussion, so there will be plenty of opportunity in this House and elsewhere to discuss the proposals. But it is important that we publish the White Paper, because it will be the first time since the mid-1980s that a Government have set out what their strategy ought to be, taking into account the fact that more and more people are flying for business and leisure reasons. Any Government have a duty to set out a framework against which people can plan.
    David Taylor: Can the Secretary of State reassure the House that he will not seek to decant the excess growth that cannot be absorbed by London airports to other regional airports without there being environmental frameworks in place of a similar standard to those in the south-east, in order to protect the communities surrounding those airports?
    Mr. Darling: On the first point, the demand and pressure on airports is not just a phenomenon in the south-east of England—it is happening right across the country. As I have said many times, this year about half the population will fly at least once, and of course a substantial number fly more often than that. As I have also mentioned before, in 1998 about 5 million people flew on low-cost airlines, but this year the figure will be in excess of 45 million. That is happening throughout the country. However, my hon. Friend makes the important point that environmental measures must be put in place to ensure that the environment is preserved. As we have said on many occasions, aviation, like every
    608
    other industry, has to meet the consequences of the damage that it causes, so his point about environmental protection is very important.
    Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: The High Court ruled that the Government's air transport White Paper was flawed, and I trust that the Secretary of State will agree that the consequence has been even more delay. That has meant uncertainty for those who live around Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and other airports in the south-east, and a continuing planning blight. Has he ever apologised for getting the White Paper so wrong that the High Court had to throw it out and the Government had to start again?
    Mr. Darling: The White Paper has not been published yet, so if there has been a ruling against it I should be very surprised. What I think the hon. Gentleman is trying to get at is the consultation process, during which, as he rightly says, the Government took the view that Gatwick should be excluded because of the legal agreement between the then British Airports Authority and the county council. Before he starts demanding apologies, I should point out that many of his colleagues representing constituencies around Gatwick welcomed that decision when it was taken.
    The hon. Gentleman will recall that on 28 November last year, I told the House that, in the light of the High Court ruling, rather than prolonging the agony, we should consult on the basis that Gatwick had to be considered, and we are now doing that. As I pointed out 12 months ago, that would inevitably mean a delay in reaching our conclusions, which I had originally hoped to publish in the summer. I made it clear then that they would not be published until the end of this year, and I am determined that they should be published by then—that is, next month—so that the problems of blight and uncertainty that he complains of can be addressed.

    Bus Services
    8. Paddy Tipping: What representations he has received on the cancellation of bus services caused by the lack of availability of trained bus drivers. [138861]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): We are aware from the Department's monitoring surveys and other sources that unavailability of drivers is a significant cause of bus service cancellations. The bus industry is taking a number of initiatives to tackle that problem, and we will continue to assist where possible. My hon. Friend will know that the difficulties are caused as much by retention as by recruitment.
    Paddy Tipping: May I draw the Minister's attention to the case of Nottingham City Transport, which has rightly been told by the traffic commissioner that the lack of drivers is not an excuse for the unavailability of services? In response, it has reduced and withdrawn

    609
    services, causing great inconvenience. Is not the solution very simple: that Nottingham City Transport needs to recruit, pay and train its drivers properly?
    Mr. McNulty: I am not aware of all the details regarding Nottingham City Transport, but I shall happily take the matter up with it and look at its solutions to the problem—as I shall, in the wider context, take matters further with the Bus Partnership Forum, which I chair. The Department will continue to work with TransFed, the industrial training body, and with GoSkills, the sector skills council's co-ordinating body that comes into operation next year. To underline my hon. Friend's remarks, the crucial fact is that buses get to communities—often deprived communities—and serve them far better than any other mode of transport can.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: The problem is symptomatic of a wider issue that was identified in a recent report by the Select Committee on Transport—namely, that the Office of Fair Trading is failing correctly to apply the Competition Act 1998 to bus companies and passenger transport executives. Will the Minister address that?
    Mr. McNulty: When we recently met representatives of the Office of Fair Trading to discuss its taxi report, we raised some issues about buses. If the hon. Lady feels that the OFT is not carrying out its duties in full, she should write to me and we will happily look into it.

    Ormskirk Bypass
    Mr. Colin Pickthall: If he will make a statement on the provision of a bypass for Ormskirk. [138862]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): I fully understand the importance that local people attach to the bypass for Ormskirk, but it is for Lancashire county council to determine the priorities for local road building and to make bids accordingly.
    Mr. Pickthall: Is my hon. Friend aware that Ormskirk is one of the worst, if not the worst, bottlenecks in the north-west, because it is built around the crossroads of the A59 and the A570? That applies particularly to traffic heading from the M58 to Southport, which is very heavy in the summer, and sometimes queues up for more than 2 miles outside the town, leading to terrible conditions. The campaign for the bypass has been going on since before the first world war. It featured in the Department's programme until 1998, when it was picked out, and it is now joint second in the Lancashire plan. During my time in Parliament, six Ministers have been to see the problem—I would be delighted if my hon. Friend were to be the seventh. Even more importantly, will he talk to the council and the Highways Agency to get the project moving?
    Mr. Jamieson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his robust campaigning on this issue. I am very aware of the congestion in Ormskirk, and I would happily be the seventh Minister to visit that road. As he knows, it is due
    610
    for de-trunking, and should therefore become the responsibility of Lancashire county council. I have asked the Government Office for the North-West to reignite the discussions between the Highways Agency and Lancashire county council with a view to getting the council to take the road over. It will then be able to apply for local transport plan funding for the bypass. Although I cannot give my hon. Friend a guarantee that that will be possible, the very substantial increase that the council has received over the past three years should give him grounds for optimism.
    Dr. John Pugh: A bypass would bring economic benefits to my constituency, as well as to Ormskirk, and the fact that there is no opposition to it makes it all the stranger that it has not gone ahead. Is the Minister aware that recent, highly controversial changes in hospital configuration mean that ambulances going to accident and emergency departments in Ormskirk and Southport will have to criss-cross the busy town centre of Ormskirk? Will he look into that and speed up traffic in Lancashire?
    Mr. Jamieson: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we have already looked into that. I am aware that the reconfiguration of health services in the area has caused potential problems for ambulances on the road. I have asked the Government Office for the North-West to liaise with the health authorities in Southport and Ormskirk and with Lancashire county council about taking short-term traffic management measures to alleviate possible delays to ambulance services travelling along the road.

    West Coast Main Line
    Michael Fabricant: How many delayed train arrivals there were on the west coast main line in each year since 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [138863]
    The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Dr. Kim Howells): The Strategic Rail Authority publishes performance information in its six-monthly "On Track" publication, copies of which are placed in the Library of the House. Information is provided for the services of each operator in aggregate, but not—I am afraid to say—by specific routes.
    Michael Fabricant: The Minister will know, because the Secretary of State said so a few moments ago, that things are not happening as quickly as they should in terms of punctuality and timing. Can he imagine the frustration of people in Lichfield, who stand at Lichfield Trent Valley railway station and watch trains whizzing by and not stopping? There are only four trains a day to London, although there will soon be five. Lichfield Trent Valley also has no facilities for the disabled. Will the Minister meet the Lichfield commuters club, which I formed and which will meet regularly at the House of Commons, for a drink—or two or three—to discuss the
    problems that people encounter?
    Dr. Howells: I would be delighted to meet the Lichfield commuters club and to have a drink bought for me by the hon. Gentleman.

  The Minister for the Cabinet Office was asked—
  CABINET OFFICE

    Civil Service
    18. Kevin Brennan: What steps are being taken to increase the proportion of disabled people in the senior civil service. [1388311]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander): My Department undertakes a range of activities to encourage people with disabilities to apply to the civil service and to increase the proportion of disabled people in the senior civil service. For example, the civil service bursary scheme encourages disabled staff with potential to reach the senior civil service. The aim of such activities is to increase the proportion of disabled staff in the senior civil service to 3.2 per cent. from the current level of 1.7 per cent.
    Kevin Brennan: I thank the Minister for that answer. I am sure that he is aware of the groundbreaking and innovative work of the Public Administration Committee on developing a draft civil service Bill. Does he think that we should include in that Bill provision to ensure that the civil service provides equality for disabled people, or is the civil service doing well enough under current arrangements? For example, how well are we doing in comparison with the FTSE 100 companies?
    Mr. Alexander: My hon. Friend raises an important point. We are awaiting the outcome of work by the Public Administration Committee on the draft civil service Bill and we look forward to it with interest. The Government's commitment to publish a draft Bill thereafter endures. On the substantive point about the level of commitment in the civil service, I was greatly heartened by the words of Sir Andrew Turnbull on his appointment as Cabinet Secretary, when he personally committed himself to the diversity agenda in the civil service. As for comparisons with the private sector, some 12.9 per cent. of the economically active population are disabled, but data from the civil service diversity survey suggest that some 15 per cent. of civil servants have a disability or long-standing illness.
    Mr. James Gray: I welcome the Government's determination to increase the number of people who are disabled who work in the senior civil service. However, I am less convinced by the Government's press release of 16 October, which said that they would achieve that by
    "coordinating interdepartmental action to get better information on disabled staff at senior levels in order to understand better the barriers to progression."
    In that context, we are told by the press release that only 0.5 per cent. of the 190 senior civil servants in his Department are disabled. That is more than none, but less than one. How many senior civil servants in his Department are disabled?
    Mr. Alexander: I will happily write to the hon. Gentleman with the specific number. I have looked at
    612
    the facts that he elucidated and I would make the following observation. The total number of staff of the Cabinet Office is just below 2,000, and the number of senior civil servants is a significantly smaller proportion. Therefore, the number of staff directly affected is very small. None the less, he raises an important point. The Cabinet Office should lead by example, and that is why I welcome the initiatives that it has taken at a corporate level—in terms of the guidance that was issued, which the hon. Gentleman seemed to dismiss—and in the work that every Department should be doing on the diversity agenda.
    Mr. Wayne DavidWhat progress the civil service has made since 1997 in the employment of ethnic minorities. [138845]
    Mr. Alexander: This Government are strongly committed to diversity in the civil service and to ensuring that it is fully representative of the community that it serves. The latest data, for April 2003, show that ethnic minorities make up 8 per cent. of the civil service, an increase from 4.8 per cent. in April 1997.
    Mr. David: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but what efforts are being made to encourage ethnic minorities to enter the civil service, especially through the fast stream, which has long been the preserve of people from the white middle class?
    Mr. Alexander: My hon. Friend makes an important point, but I have some positive news in relation to the fast stream. The Government promoted the fast stream summer development programme for ethnic minorities, which now provides a training placement of six to eight weeks for 60 undergraduates. There are also grounds for optimism about the further scope for work in the fast stream in years to come. We have initiated work to that effect.
    Mr. Eric Forth: Can the Minister give an absolute guarantee that appointments and promotion will always be made solely on merit? Will he guarantee to the taxpayer that the best possible quality of public service will be provided?
    Mr. Alexander: I am happy to give the undertaking that civil servants are appointed according to merit. However, an important factor that must be borne in mind is that we need to realise the potential of all sectors of the community. I see no contradiction between a diversity agenda that recognises that and also secures and upholds the traditional principle of merit in the senior civil service.
    Tony Wright: Has not the time come now, through a single equality Act, to lay a duty on all public bodies to promote equality? The Public Administration Committee recommended that recently.
    Mr. Alexander: My hon. Friend is the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, and I take his point very seriously. I know that much work is being done on the matter of a single equalities commission, which will be given clear consideration by the Government.

    Regulatory Costs
    Hugh Bayley: What assessment the Better Regulation Task Force has made of the number of regulations imposing costs on business which were made in (a) 1992-1997 and (b) 1997-2002. [138846]
    Mr. Alexander: The Better Regulation Task Force, which was established by this Government in 1997, carries out detailed studies of specific regulatory issues on which it makes recommendations to Government, rather than general surveys of regulations. The task force has published 29 substantive reports and made more than 350 recommendations, almost all of which have been accepted by the Government.
    Hugh Bayley: Does my hon. Friend recognise the burden of regulation placed on tourism and hospitality businesses, especially the small ones? Tourism is important to the city of York, which is one of the country's most important tourism centres. It is just as important to many other towns and cities in the beautiful and historic county of Yorkshire. What is the Minister doing to speed the reform of regulation in his Department and in the House?
    Mr. Alexander: I know that my hon. Friend's tireless work on behalf of the tourism and hospitality sectors in his constituency is recognised on all sides of the House, and I pay tribute to it. Specific measures taken by the Government include the licensing reforms and deregulation orders that covered the golden jubilee and new year's eve, and permanent changes have been made to the licensing regime around the latter date. Those changes are expected to save business about £1.9 billion in the first 10 years. Also, in its hotels and restaurants report of June 2000, the Better Regulation Task Force called for a major overhaul of the planning system. The Government have introduced a Bill to reform that system.
    Mr. Richard Allan: In the 2002 annual report, the chair of the Better Regulation Task Force says:
    "If we are half way through the better regulation journey, Europe is just at the beginning."
    Will the Minister say what progress he has been able to make in the context of European regulatory impact assessments in the past year? Does he plan to make those assessments available to the House, so that we can take a view while directives are still at the discussion stage, rather than when they have been finalised. when it is too late?
    Mr. Alexander: I shall certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's final point. I can also inform the House
    614
    that only last week I met my equivalent Minister in the Spanish Government to discuss exactly that matter. I made clear to him the Government's pride in the fact that the European Commission has begun to take forward the British agenda on better regulation. I also impressed on him the urgency of that agenda, as a way of ensuring Spanish support while we try to gain wider acceptance for it across Europe.
    Mr. Peter Pike: My hon. Friend the Minister will know that the Regulatory Reform Committee published a report a few weeks ago, and I am sure that he has been studying it. The Committee expressed some concern that the Government were not delivering quite what they had forecast. How will the Government speed matters up? Now that the Opposition have had a reshuffle, does he hope that they will be able to appoint hon. Members to take part in the Committee's work?
    Mr. Alexander: I certainly value the work of the Committee. I have appeared before it and had the opportunity to read the report in question. I can give my hon. Friend some comfort as the reform of patents legislation and fire safety proposals are due to be laid before the House along with other measures in the next few months. The target set for the Government in the regulatory reform action plan is stretching, but I continue to believe that it is achievable.
    Mr. Oliver Heald: The Minister will know that we are losing 2,000 manufacturing jobs from this country every month. He will also know that the Confederation of British Industry survey of business leaders showed that 60 per cent. of them are likely to move jobs abroad in the next two years. Is not the reason for that the 15 new sets of regulations penned by this Government every day of the week? Is that not why 95 per cent. of business leaders report that they are spending more time on complying with Government regulations than ever before? Will he give them a Christmas present by telling British companies now that there will be no new regulations for the rest of this year?
    Mr. Alexander: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position on the Front Bench shadowing the Cabinet Office. He has offered the House a characteristically thought-out policy proposal in his first appearance at the Dispatch Box on this agenda. If we are going to discuss the work of the CBI in this area, a better starting point might be the words used by Digby Jones yesterday on the "Today" programme on Radio 4. He said:
    "We've low inflation, low interest rates, low unemployment and some sustainable growth. In fact, we're the most successful economy in Europe".
    I could hardly have put it better myself.

Points of Order
12.31 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you are the spokesman for the House of Commons, would you be kind enough to inform the President of the United States, whom you will certainly see during his visit, that there is great disappointment in all parts of the House that he is not to address both Houses of Parliament? Even at this late stage, would you be prepared to issue an invitation to the President to do so?
Mr. Dennis Skinner: He's not speaking for everybody.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will be at a state dinner tomorrow night but it would be inappropriate for me to say anything other than, "I am very pleased to meet you, Mr. President." I think that I can anticipate what the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) would like to say. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) is not speaking for the whole House in this matter. [Interruption.] Perhaps, but it is not something that I want to take up tomorrow night.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise, as I did not have time to give you notice of this point. Under the guise of security changes for the presidential visit, various doors that would normally give Members of Parliament access to their office buildings are being closed. I do not wish to discuss this matter in public, but I hope that decisions will not be taken that will affect Members of Parliament on the basis of present and immediate security considerations.
Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Lady is annoyed about the entrance to Norman Shaw south.
Mrs. Dunwoody: North.
Mr. Speaker: I beg your pardon. I am usually a man of the north. I take my guidance from the Serjeant at Arms, whose concern is security at all times—not only for Members but for those who visit the building and, of course, our staff. I must bear all those things in mind when such decisions are taken.
Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you been informed how many Ministers are being flown back from faraway places at huge expense in a Government panic to try to save their skin in key votes tomorrow? I have heard, although I can scarce believe it, that the Minister for Sport and Tourism is being flown back from Australia to try to prop up the Government in a very controversial
616
vote. Have you heard about that, Mr. Speaker, and if so, will you be asking how much taxpayers' money is being spent to do that?
Mr. Speaker: I have enough to worry about without worrying about the business of the Whips. That matter is for them to worry about.
Norman Baker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your help on a matter relating to written parliamentary questions. You will know that the new system allows Members to prioritise five questions a day. I have to tell you that a large number this week have come back with holding replies. You will also be aware that if those questions are not answered by Thursday, they fall and do not have to be answered at all. Will you please give Departments guidance that priority questions and other questions that have been tabled for answer should indeed be answered before we prorogue?
Mr. Speaker: I am responsible only for the questions, not the answers.
Mr. Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that I asked the Leader of the House at business questions last Thursday if there were any plans for the President of the United States to speak to both Houses of Parliament. On that occasion, the right hon. Gentleman had no news on the matter. Given that the House expects such an event, have you had any notification from the Leader of the House that he intends to make a statement today or tomorrow to explain the position? If not, why not?
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the House has not been in touch with me on that matter.
Miss Anne McIntosh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Further to the point raised by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), will you give us an undertaking that we will have access to our offices in Norman Shaw north at all points during this week?
Mr. Speaker: It is my understanding that Members' offices will be available to them. Access is the concern, not the offices or entry to them.

BILL PRESENTED
  FISHERIES JURISDICTION
  Mr. Alex Salmond, supported by Mr. Roy Beggs, Mr. Alistair Carmichael, Mr. Eddie McGrady, Mr. Austin Mitchell, Ann Winterton, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Angus Robertson and Mr. Michael Weir, presented a Bill to make provision for withdrawal from the Common Fisheries Policy of the European Union; to amend the Fishery Limits Act 1976; to make provision about the exercise of functions under that Act by Northern Ireland Ministers, Scottish Ministers, the National Assembly for Wales and the Secretary of State; to provide that that Act shall have effect regardless of the provisions of the European Communities Act 1972; to define English, Northern Irish, Scottish and Welsh waters; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 183].

  Grammar Schools (Ballots and Consultation)
  12.36 pm
  David Taylor: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 in order to remove the powers to hold grammar school ballots and to require the Secretary of State for Education and Skills before the end of the next Parliament to consult all maintained primary and secondary schools in each local education authority in England on the future arrangements for secondary school admissions within that authority; and for connected purposes.
  The grammar school system
  "was a response to the needs of a vanished society which required a small educated class and a large number of manual workers. It is no longer the appropriate model for a world where most jobs require educated men and women."
  Those are not my words, although I agree with every one, but those of our present Prime Minister a short time before the momentous victory in May 1997, which was famously founded on the policy tripod of education, education, education. In that brave new dawn, many hoped for an early end to selection, but here we are in the second half of a second Labour Government with a second large majority, with more children facing the 11-plus or selective entry tests for secondary education than did in 1997. In England, 36 of the 150 local education authorities still have selective systems, 15 of them wholly so. After 1997, the movers and shakers who shape our party's policies lost their nerve and abandoned our historical commitment to end selection by ability, which had been so memorably and visibly articulated through the lips of the present Home Secretary.
  The idea of local ballots on the future of the remaining 164 grammar schools was introduced with a set of rules structured so that it is utterly impossible to win that ballot for change. Kafka would have swooned at the byzantine complexity of it all. It is that deeply flawed approach to consultation that my Bill seeks to set aside. That approach is shot through with anomalies, drawbacks and stumbling blocks, and it has led to only one ballot being held—in Ripon in 2000.
  The practical difficulties and absurdities in the present arrangements inevitably prevent any parent, anywhere, ever again, from being given the chance to decide on the admission policies of their local grammar schools. The law must be changed. The view of every affected parent in the locality is key to the whole process, but must it be parents alone who can contribute to the debate and have a veto on change? Many educational writers argue that parental involvement in schools is too short term and too naturally entwined with the interests of their own children for them to see—in that classic Downing street phrase—the big picture. There is a strong argument that the whole community should vote, but my Bill does not tread that path. While parents are probably better placed than voters at large to know the effects of selection on children, the importance of the ultimate decision being theirs is more that it would be politically problematic for a future Government to override that decision locally or nationally, so I would expand the electorate only by including staff at local schools, whose opinions at present are either stifled or marginalised.
  618
  Mere tinkering with the regulations is wholly inadequate to extracting us from the quagmire that impedes progress. The many parents and schools seeking change are bogged down by apparent Government indifference to the outcome of local decisions. My party's commitment to lifelong learning and comprehensive education must mean the end of the division that segregation always brings for education and for society as a whole. Parental choice is actually denied where selection by examination persists, so the Government have to decide that they really want to see change. The educational and social imperatives that lead inevitably to that conclusion have to be spelled out by the Government in clear terms.
  The vacuous vacillation that characterises the present arrangements is unsustainable. The status quo must go. The Government cannot just stand aside during a review, without giving any information, resources or commitments on future funding support for a reformed system, if that is indeed what parents and schools want to endorse.
  My Bill's other provision would offer the Secretary of State an early opportunity to bring about historic and long-overdue reform in our nation's schools, for the enactment of the Bill would launch a large-scale, systematic and balanced debate on secondary school admission policies in each English local education authority. There would be no hiding place for the myths, distortions and half-truths that are routinely used to permit the continuance of those dodos in the educational aviary.
  Some hon. Members and vested interests outside the House will fight to retain or extend secondary school selection by ability, or by its close relative, aptitude. They will doubtless cite past evidence from an imaginary golden era, when selection into grammar schools was said to offer the only escape from poverty for academic young people who would otherwise have had poorer educational opportunities, notwithstanding the fact that then, as now, grammar schools were predominantly socially selective as well—overwhelmingly peopled by children from better-off homes.
  The dinosaur defenders would then fall back on the fallacious argument that standards in comprehensive education are sacrificed in an egalitarian levelling-down process. They say that the collective overall performance of schools is better in selective areas, but a proper value-added analysis and comparison of selective and non-selective LEAs shows clearly that community educational performance is actually depressed, not enhanced, in selective areas, so bang goes another stock myth.
  Those who try to rationalise the irrational and promote the unpalatable will now be forced to dig deep into their reasons rag-bag. An old mantra from new Labour seeps into their thinking: people want choice and diversity, they will assert triumphantly. Sadly, in a selective system, only children able to pass the test on a wet Tuesday in February, and their parents, have more choice of school. Only when all schools in an area are comprehensive do families have access to a real and more meaningful choice.
  So finally, in desperation, the republican guard around the final citadels of privilege will deploy their Exocet excuse. They will say, "What's wrong with

  619
  selection? It happens in real life." But selection takes no account of the fact that children develop at different rates. It sets at naught the facts that there cannot be selection for the few without rejection for the many and that selection separates children socially at an early age, dividing families and friends. Is that not social exclusion for those who may see themselves as failures?
  There is renewed pressure to end secondary selection—for example, the recent launch of a parliamentary campaign to modernise secondary school procedures, called "Comprehensive Future", the aims, values and philosophy of which are contained in early-day motion 1859. I hope and believe that my Bill is entirely consistent with those ideals. Last weekend, in the Caroline Benn memorial lecture, Professor Sally Tomlinson excoriated the present mania for diversity, which frustrates the comprehensive ideal.
  Let me offer some final perspectives, all three from men educated in boys' grammar schools. First, Shakespeare was over-critical of selection when, in "Henry VI, Part 2", he wrote:
  "Thou hast most traitorously corrupted the youth of the realm in erecting a grammar school".
  Secondly, Alastair Campbell was unjust in his facile phrase, "the bog-standard comprehensive". Finally, my modest measure triangulates a third way between my two fellow midlanders. There is solid evidence identifying the links between high levels of segregation in secondary schools and increasing levels of social exclusion, and the relationship between the difficult circumstances of many inner-city schools and the selective admissions strategies of neighbouring areas and adjacent boroughs. Ofsted regularly reports on the narrow social base of grammar schools in terms of free school meals, ethnic minorities and students with special needs.
  The case for change is completely compelling. There is a mood for change out there; the means for change lie in here; the time for change is right now. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Chris Grayling: Let me start by welcoming two things that I heard during the contribution of the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor). First, the concept of scrapping provisions to hold ballots about the future of grammar schools is an excellent one. The sooner the House enacts such a measure, the better, because those provisions are proving hugely disruptive to schools. Last week, I spoke to the head of a grammar school who said, "The fact that we have this hanging over our heads year after year is enormously disruptive." It takes the leadership of a school away from what it should be doing— educating the pupils. I therefore think that it is a superb idea, and if the Bill were merely about removing that provision, I have no doubt that it would receive overwhelming support from the Opposition.
  The second welcome thing about the hon. Gentleman's speech is that it shows clearly that old Labour is alive and well on the Labour Benches. This is an old Labour measure writ large. It is all about the old days of the Labour party and the desire to end the things that worked for this country. It is the living proof of why what was done in 18 years of Conservative Government was right, and why this country would be a worse place
  620
  were the Government to fall back into the hands of Labour Members like the hon. Gentleman. This is yet another Labour attempt to undermine and destroy grammar schools, which are doing a first-rate job educating pupils in many parts of the country. I am surrounded by representatives of those areas, such as Buckinghamshire, Trafford, Bromley and Salisbury. Sadly, I am not surrounded by those who represent the excellent grammar schools in Kingston and Sutton, as they sit on the Liberal Democrat Benches, but I hope that in the near future those areas too will be represented by people who will sit on the Conservative Benches.
  The reality is that grammar schools today provide an opportunity for all, and they have always done so. They do not, as our education system does all too frequently today, select by estate agent. Today, one's choice of school is determined by where one lives, and where one lives is all too often determined by the wealth of one's family and one's parents. If one happens to have been born on the wrong side of town, therefore, there is, in those areas where there is a grammar school, a chance to move into the best school in the area, selected by ability and intelligence, not by one's ability to pay or by the wealth of one's family. There are many places in this country where the great grammar schools provided that route to academic success for people from all walks of life. It is no accident that back in the 1960s a higher proportion of those who went to university came from working-class backgrounds than do today. That is no coincidence, because grammar schools provide a quality education and quality educational support for people from all walks of life.
  I freely admit that the difficulty with grammar schools was related to transfer at age 11. Undoubtedly, there were those who suffered in an arbitrary system. The Labour alternative to deal with potential injustices in the system, however, is to dumb down the best schools. Rather than finding an alternative ladder for those who have the opportunity to achieve, Labour wants to take away that ladder from the best and most able in our society. That is madness.
  Grammar schools provide an excellent academic environment, which affects not only those who attend them: they pull up the whole education system. It is no coincidence that even non-selective schools in the London boroughs of Kingston and Sutton do better than the comprehensive schools in their neighbouring boroughs. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire might say that that is not true, but I speak as a former opposition education spokesman in the London borough of Merton, which directly abuts Sutton and Kingston. What I said is absolutely true, because grammar schools contribute to an overall sense of excellence in their local education systems. They provide opportunities and encouragement, and they pull up standards. The idea that their removal would enhance educational success and performance is complete nonsense.
  Most importantly, parents want grammar schools—the few that survive are hugely over-subscribed. Nonsuch high school for girls, which is on the fringe of my constituency, had its test for children who wished to attend it last week. It was heaving with applicants, showing that hundreds of parents want their children to attend grammar schools. Who are we to deprive them of that choice?

  621
  It is worth telling Labour Members that such schools are especially popular with pupils from ethnic minority backgrounds. The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire will remember the comments made by Trevor Phillips from the Commission for Racial Equality when the education debate was focused on entry to university for pupils from independent schools. He rightly pointed out that many families, especially Asian families, work extremely hard to send their children to independent schools because they want the best education for them. The same is true of grammar schools. Those who were involved in the test at Nonsuch school noted with a wry smile that one room was almost entirely filled with young girls with the surname Patel. Asian families are desperate, enthusiastic and determined to help their children into grammar schools so that they get the best education. Are we seriously to say to those families and families from other ethnic minority groups that their children should no longer have that opportunity? It would be wrong to do that.
  Parents want grammar schools, and grammar schools deliver results of excellent quality. They pull up educational standards in their areas, and local education authorities that contain grammar schools are among the top-performing authorities in the country. Taking the opportunity to pursue academic excellence away from the children of people from all walks of life would be a total travesty and utterly inappropriate. It would once again do what the Labour party has delighted in doing over the years: destroying excellence in search of equality. That is the wrong way to go about things and this latest attack must not be allowed to succeed.
  Sadly, I fear that we will return to the issue year after year as more old Labour Members try to send the wrong message to our grammar schools and those who teach in and lead them. They do not congratulate them on the excellent work that they do for their pupils or the opportunity that they provide for people from all walks of life, but say, "Actually, we think you're a bit too good, and we want to get rid of you." That is not the right way to make progress. We should champion excellence rather than dumbing it down. We must oppose the Bill.
  Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business ):—
  The House divided: Ayes 132, Noes 105.

  Division No. 368]

  [12:53 pm

  AYES

  Allan, Richard

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Allen, Graham

  Burgon, Colin

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Challen, Colin

  Baird, Vera

  Chaytor, David

  Barnes, Harry

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Beard, Nigel

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Berry, Roger

  Cohen, Harry

  Best, Harold

  Coleman, Iain

  Betts, Clive

  Colman, Tony

  Brennan, Kevin

  Connarty, Michael

  622

  Cousins, Jim

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

  Crausby, David

  Cruddas, Jon

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Martlew, Eric

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Mole, Chris

  David, Wayne

  Mudie, George

  Davidson, Ian

  Organ, Diana

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Perham, Linda

  Dismore, Andrew

  Picking, Anne

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Edwards, Huw

  Pound, Stephen

  Efford, Clive

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Farrelly, Paul

  Purchase, Ken

  Fisher Mark

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Rooney, Terry

  Gerrard, Neil

  Salter, Martin

  Gidley, Sandra

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Sawford, Phil

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Sedgemore Brian

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

  Sheridan, Jim

  (Rhymney)

  Short, rh Clare

  Heath, David

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Skinner Dennis

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Illsley, Eric

  Stevenson, George

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Stewart, David (Inverness E &

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Lochaber)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  stinchcombe, Paul

  Jenkins, Brian

  Tipping, Paddy

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Trickett Jon

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Truswell, Paul

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Tynaa Bill (Hamilton S)

  Kidney, David

  Wareing, Robert N.

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

  Watts, David

  Bow)

  white, Brian

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  wills, Michael

  Lepper, David

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Wray, James (Glasgow

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Baillieston)

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Yarmouth)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Wright, David (Telford)

  MacDougall, John

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  David Taylor and

  Mallaber. Judy

  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Curry, rh David

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Howden)

  Barker, Gregory

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bercow, John

  Fallon, Michael

  Blunt, Crispin

  Field, Mark (Cities of London &

  Boswell, Tim

  Westminster)

  Brady, Graham

  Flight, Howard

  Brazier, Julian

  Flook, Adrian

  Butterfill, John

  Francois, Mark

  Cameron, David

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

  Garnier, Edward

  Barnet)

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Clappison, James

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  623

  Goodman, Paul

  Paterson, Owen

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Pickles, Eric

  Grayling, Chris

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Randall, John

  Greenway, John

  Redwood, rh John

  Grieve, Dominic

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hague, rh William

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

  Hammond, Philip

  M-Kent)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Roe. Mrs Marion

  Heald, Oliver

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Hendry, Charles

  Ruffley, David

  Hermon, Lady

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Selous, Andrew

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Sheerman, Barry

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Lait.Mrs Jacqui

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Lansley, Andrew

  Streeter, Gary

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Syms, Robert

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Lidington, David

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Lilley, rh peter

  Trend, Michael

  Loughton, Tim

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Watkinson, Angela

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Whittingdale, John

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Maclean, rh David

  Wiggin, Bill

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Wilkinson, John

  Malins, Humfrey

  Willetts, David

  Mercer, Patrick

  Wilshire, David

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Coldfied)

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  (Macclesfield)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Ōpik, Lembit

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Mr. Eric Forth and

  Page, Richard

  Mr. Andrew Turner

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by David Taylor, Mr. David Chaytor, Mr. Colin Challen, Tony Lloyd, Mr. Gordon Prentice, Mrs. Janet Dean, John Austin, John Cryer, Mr. Kelvin Hopkins, Mr. Roger Berry, Valerie Davey and Dr. Doug Naysmith.

  GRAMMAR SCHOOLS (BALLOTS AND CONSULTATION)
  David Tayloraccordingly presented a Bill to amend the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 in order to remove the powers to hold grammar school ballots and to require the Secretary of State for Education and Skills before the end of the next Parliament to consult all maintained primary and secondary schools in each local education authority in England on the future arrangements for secondary school admissions within that authority; and for connected purpose: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 182].

SEXUAL OFFENCES BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME) (NO. 2)
Mr. Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been trying to get the Speaker's selection list for the next Bill on the Order Paper. I had hoped to participate in the debate on the Sexual Offences Bill and that the selection
624
list would be available before it began, because it is difficult to prepare for the Criminal Justice Bill without it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that one reason why the Speaker is not in the Chair and that I, as Chairman of Ways Means, am occupying his place is that he is currently engaged on that matter. I expect the selection list to he published imminently.
Mr. Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for that, but surely the situation highlights the desirability of the Government not cramming and compressing business in such a way, because if they did not, the Speaker would not be in the difficulty in which he finds himself.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can only express sympathy to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but it is not an uncommon occurrence in the annals of parliamentary history.
Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps you and Mr. Speaker might consider a brief suspension of the sitting between consideration of one Bill and another. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) pointed out, it is unreasonable to expect hon. Members to participate in the proceedings on the next item without knowing what will be selected for the subsequent item. Would not a brief suspension be appropriate so that hon. Members could acquaint themselves with the selection and prepare for the following debate?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not believe that a suspension would be helpful. I am sure that once the Speaker's selection is known, hon. Members can ascertain the extent of the business that faces the House later.
Mr. Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When the Speaker has made the selection and it is in the Vote Office, could you make a statement to that effect so that those of us who are participating in the debate on the first Bill can go and get it?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall arrange for that to be done.
Motion made, and Question proposed, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002],
That the following provisions shall apply to the Sexual Offences Bill [Lords] for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 15th July 2003.
Consideration of Lords Message
Proceedings on consideration of the Lords Message shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement at this day's sitting.
Subsequent stages
Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question put.
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.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day
  Sexual Offences Bill [Lords]
  Lords message considered.
  Sexual Offences Bill [Lords]

    New Clause
    Lords amendment: No. 1A.
    1.11 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins): I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this we may discuss amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 1A and consequential amendment (c).
    Paul Goggins: As I said on Report, both Houses and all parties should take the credit for progress on a difficult Bill and for the consensus that was reached. As I also pointed out on Report, the consensus includes agreement on pre-charge anonymity. However, we continue to disagree about the route that we should take to secure our objective.
    The Government strongly maintain the view that we wish to follow the route of strengthened guidance and effective codes of conduct. As I said previously, we have held discussions with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the media to attain the objective. We also strongly believe that even if it were right to legislate on the issue, it would not be right to do that in the Bill.
    Amendment (a) would provide anonymity to persons suspected of an offence under the Bill up to the point of charge. It specifies the details of a suspect that should not be published. It also provides for circumstances in which reporting restrictions could be lifted upon the application by a police officer of the rank of chief inspector or above.
    Amendment (b) would provide anonymity for those being investigated for an offence under new schedule 8 so that their names could not be reported until and unless they had been charged or a decision had been made not to prefer charges.
    Although we appear to be considering a narrow policy, there are many discrepancies between amendments (a) and (b). Amendment (b) is limited to cases about which a police investigation is under way up to the point of charge or when an investigation results in a decision to take no action. Amendment (a) but not amendment (b) would cover cases in which speculation was rife but no complaint was made or police investigation instigated.
    The penalties in amendment (a), including imprisonment up to a maximum of two years, are inconsistent with penalties that have been set for other reporting restrictions, which the level 5 fine limit in amendment (b) reflects. Amendment (b) lists the sex offences to which the reporting restrictions should apply but amendment (a) limits its scope to offences in the Bill. That means that the reporting restrictions would cover neither other sexual offences in previous Acts nor
    626
    offences relating to child pornography under the Protection of Children Act 1978. There is no obvious reason for that.
    The effect of amendment (b) is that the proprietor of a newspaper would commit a criminal offence if a member of staff revealed a defendant's identity, even if the proprietor had no knowledge of that. The amendment provides a defence when a programme is broadcast live, but not in any other circumstances.
    Both amendments provide that anonymity can be lifted by the court only on application by police of the rank of inspector or chief inspector, depending on the amendment. I believe that that would place an undue burden and difficulty on the police who investigate the crime. It could slow down progress in identifying and locating a dangerous offender. It would also mean that a victim could not apply for lifting the defendant's anonymity.
    Given the nature and tone of the debate throughout the Bill's passage, it would be unfortunate for any amendment on anonymity to be placed in clause 2, which immediately follows a clause on rape. That would fail to show sensitivity to the victims of such a crime and give the issue undue prominence. That would be an unfortunate outcome.
    We have listened carefully to representations from those who are worried about the genuine harm that can be caused by reporting defendants' details. We also recognise that much anxiety arises from the damaging publicity that is often generated pre charge. However, we firmly 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 that comes into police possession should be treated as confidential. It should not be used for personal benefit or divulged to other parties except in the proper course of police duty. The code also demands that police officers have a specific responsibility to act fairly and impartially in all their dealings with the public and their colleagues, regardless of whether they are on duty. They should not behave in a way that is likely to bring discredit to the police service. Unauthorised disclosure of information about a suspect by a police officer is likely to be considered a breach of the code. 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 to 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.
    Mr. Humfrey Matins (Woking): Given the general acceptance of the principle of anonymity for a complainant in a rape case or similar, and that the Minister understands that many potential defendants

    627
    suffer great unfairness through publicity, will he give us hope that, if not today, at some stage in the future, important measures will be introduced to protect potential defendants who are never charged but often ruined?
    Paul Goggins: I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxieties and I considered them deeply. I do not perceive a direct parallel between the interests of a complainant and those of a defendant. There is no direct read-across; the position is different, and much evidence suggests that we should consider the issues separately. However, I share his view, which he has often expressed, that anonymity should be preserved pre charge in the vast majority of cases. The question that we are debating is the route whereby we attain the objective. As I said, agreement has been reached with ACPO, which has strengthened its guidelines. The stronger guidance has already been effected, bringing the importance of the issue to the attention of police officers.
    The Government have also held proactive discussions with the chairman of the Press Complaints Commission, and the press are consequently examining their code of conduct to ascertain how it can be strengthened to ensure that those suspected but not yet charged with offences are not named in the media.
    The Government maintain a clear, consistent position on this issue. We agree, as I have just said, that in most cases there should be anonymity pre charge, and that the effective use of police and media codes is the best way to achieve that objective. I have been able to report to the House previously, and I can report again today, that progress has been and continues to be made down that route. Clearly, we are not yet in a position to judge the effectiveness of the route; we need more time to make such a judgment.
    I do not believe that the case for legislation has been made. It is clear from amendments (a) and (b) that there is still disagreement on how such a provision would be achieved if it were to be put on the statute book. There are clear differences between the proposals, which will no doubt become more apparent as the discussion unfolds. We are also strongly of the view that if the case were ever made for legislation, it should not simply be in relation to sex offences, but should be more broadly defined. All this is underpinned by the commitment made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on Third Reading that if our efforts to move down the voluntary route do not work, further action will be needed.
    After all our deliberations in Committee and on the Floor of both Houses, we have arrived at the point at which a balanced judgment must be made about this issue in relation to the considerable benefits that will be achieved by the Bill as a whole. I hope that, as a result of our debates today, we shall be able to preserve the consensus that has emerged on the Bill. I urge Opposition Members not to press their amendments to a vote, but to support the Government's genuine efforts to build progress down the voluntary route. In the end,
    628
    this can deliver the objectives that we all seek, and I urge the House that we should commit ourselves to self-regulation rather than legislation.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), may I inform the House that Mr. Speaker's selection on the Criminal Justice Bill is now available in the Vote Office?
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: May I, as usual, thank the Minister for the way in which he has presented the Government's position on this matter? I am mindful that many of the points that he has made have a great deal of force. If we could achieve a voluntary regime that restrained some of the worst excesses of the media feeding frenzies that occur when individuals are being subject to investigation and before charge, I would be heartily glad of it. I confess, however, that I have an inbuilt pessimism that that could happen under a voluntary code. I also take the view, which is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House, that this is a serious matter that undermines the processes of justice. That said, I am aware that the amendment passed in another place, which is couched in quite vague terms and lacks detail in certain areas, is there to prompt the Government. It was with that in mind that we came up with amendment (b), to which I wish to speak briefly. I am also conscious that the Liberal Democrats have tabled an amendment that strives to achieve similar things, but in a slightly different way.
    I acknowledge that the press have a very important role to play in respect of the detection of crime and the exposure of wrongdoing. One matter that has concerned me greatly is that, if we were to have a statutory framework, it should be made clear that it would not provide a continuing prohibition on the press from reporting, with their usual fearlessness, examples of wrongdoing. For example, in an investigation in which a person was arrested but no charges were brought, if the press had material that would enable them to expose that person and face up to the laws of libel 12 months down the road, it would be quite wrong for us to introduce a fetter to prevent that from happening. Some of the early attempts to deal with this matter would have done precisely that.
    Bearing that in mind, my amendment is very tightly drawn. It seeks to deal with the specific period between the time at which an allegation is first made to the police and they decide to investigate it, and the point at which they either charge the person or announce that no criminal charges are to be brought. The provision would have to include a guidelines code that perhaps went a bit wider than that. It deals with the specific period during which, as we know from past examples, a media feeding frenzy can be at its very worst. It would not be impossible, in those circumstances, for the system to operate under a statutory code during that time.
    I accept the Government's argument that to have a disproportionate penalty in regard to these measures and those in the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 relating to revealing the name of a 15-year-old defendant would be quite wrong. It would also be right to reduce the penalty because this should be a form of disciplinary measure against the media, rather than one that leads to people being locked up. For that reason, I differ with the Minister on whether the defence should

    629
    be available to a proprietor or editor that they did not know what material was going into a broadcast that was not going out live. I believe that it is the absolute responsibility of proprietors and editors to run their operations in a way that ensures that that does not happen. Of course, I accept that other considerations apply to live broadcasts. Indeed, in a recent case, it was precisely the utterance of a private individual during a live broadcast that started a media feeding frenzy, although at the end of the day no one was charged with an offence. I understand that, in those circumstances, it would be wrong for an editor or proprietor to be held responsible. However, if they know that an investigation is taking place, they still have a duty to take reasonably practical steps to ensure that such material is not used in a live broadcast.
    If a broadcast is not live, however, and the usual vetting procedures have taken place, excuses are not acceptable, particularly when the penalty is a mere fine. In the case of most of the proprietors that we are thinking of here, that would not be a particularly onerous burden. In that sense, this is akin to health and safety at work legislation, which places responsibilities on people not to act negligently. If they do, I believe that a rap over the knuckles is perfectly proper.
    I am mindful that I might not be able to press this amendment to a vote, because another amendment might be pressed by the Liberal Democrats. I regret that, because for reasons that I have already explained to Liberal Democrat Members, I think that my amendment is better than theirs. I also think that it comes closer to meeting the justified anxieties of the Government in regard to the far more draconian sentencing regime.
    The Minister said that our amendment contained no provision for others to appeal to get an order lifted. I have considered that, and I fully accept that there might be a way of introducing such a mechanism if the Government wanted it. The difficulty would be that, in the short period that I hope the investigation would take—normally a few months—it would put a heavy burden on the magistrates courts if they became cluttered with numerous requests from the media to lift a ban on reporting the identity of the person concerned, especially as the police are undoubtedly best placed to decide whether such a ban should be lifted if the interests of justice so require. I would hope that such a mechanism would not be necessary. If, however, the Government felt that that was essential, and came up with proposals that included such a provision, I would certainly not stand in their way. I had difficulty shaping my proposal to fit the rather tight drafting that I was trying to achieve.
    1.30 pm
    I do not want to prevent others from participating, so I shall conclude shortly. If the Liberal Democrats press their amendment to the vote, and I believe that they might be better placed to do so than we are, we will support them, not because we wish in any way to obstruct the passage of the Bill—we do not; it commands widespread support—but because there is a message here that needs to be repeated. There is
    630
    widespread public disquiet on the issue and we want to ensure that that disquiet is fully registered. If that leads to a voluntary code, so be it. If it does not, I make this request of the Minister.
    Next year, there is to be a victims and witnesses Bill. There will be an opportunity there to add a defendants' provision, which could be extended far further than sex offences, if that proved necessary. That, of course, would meet the objection that the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) has frequently raised and which I understand: concentrating on sex offences sends out the wrong message. If we were to go down the road of a statutory prohibition on reporting in that brief period, I would be totally happy to see it extended to all those who are being investigated for crimes, not simply sexual offences.
    The Government have an opportunity here, and I hope that the Minister might consider that and respond positively, particularly if it becomes apparent that the voluntary framework is not working.
    Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: I rise to speak in favour of amendment (a), which in part agrees with the Government's disagreement with the House of Lords, but its intention is to achieve a measure better than that passed in the other place.
    Clearly, anonymity is a much debated issue, and there still seems to be a strong feeling in the other place that it should be extended to the point of conviction. However, I believe that the Minister has confirmed today that there is a consensus emerging that anonymity should be extended to the accused up to the point of charge. I do not want to go into the arguments—we have heard those before—but the outstanding issues are whether anonymity up to the point of charge covers all offences or just sexual offences, and whether that anonymity should he achieved by a voluntary agreement or by legislation.
    I believe that there should be anonymity up to the point of charge for all offences—I think I have made that clear throughout—and I agree with the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) that it would be good, in the event of the Government not agreeing to our amendment, to have an assurance to revisit what is an important issue among the general public.
    There is a case for addressing the issue in relation to sexual crimes. As many noble Lords argued, there is a particular social stigma attached to such crimes. We have had high-profile cases such as that of Matthew Kelly, but teachers, youth workers and many who work with young people feature at local level—their future employment prospects and their standing in the community are affected, even if there is never a charge. That is quite different from a case of theft. We have this opportunity to pass an amendment that will strengthen voluntary negotiations with the media regarding all crimes other than the sexual crimes that we have defined in the proposal.
    I appreciate the Government's ongoing talks with the police and I am pleased to hear that an agreement has been reached. It is clear that any police officer releasing

    631
    information to the media without legitimate authority to do so should be dealt with under police procedures. I am also pleased that the Government are in negotiations with the Press Complaints Commission. Like the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, I do not want to restrict freedom of the press unduly—there is always a balance to be struck—but my hon. Friends and I do not have the confidence that there will not remain a temptation to print and publish certain stories that will make for good sales.
    I want to underline a point that was made by my noble Friend Lord Thomas in the other place: if the Government want to try a voluntary arrangement, perhaps they could defer bringing the provision into operation while they make that attempt. In other words, they would have something in their back pocket. Amendments (a) and (b) have evolved from a proposal that was first tabled in Committee by my hon. Friends and me. At that stage, Conservative Members were taking a different approach, but we are pleased that there has been a process of evolution, with both opposition parties incorporating additional ideas as the consequence of discussion, which surely is a good way forward.
    Our amendment includes the waiving of the right to anonymity as well as the power to make an application to lift reporting restrictions. I contend that amendment (a) is slightly superior to amendment (b), although there is a criticism that having to go to court to lift reporting restrictions could hold up the process. However, owing to the requirement to apply to a single justice, it should be possible to deal with that quickly.
    Further, we have clearer definitions. We have been clear about the fact that there must be an intention to reveal the identity of someone against whom allegations are being made. We have made the sentences in line and consistent with other relevant legislation. The measure is approaching what could be good legislation. There are not great differences between amendments (a) and (b), because the principle that we wish to achieve is exactly the same, but I give notice that we would like to press amendment (a) to a vote.
    Vera Baird: No Tory in the House of Lords nor any Liberal Democrat there, nor even either of those parties' representatives here today in the Commons, has any interest at all in the welfare of women rape complainants—not a one. They press on with this
    proposal, knowing perfectly clearly that if they advance this argument in respect of sexual offences it will have a deleterious impact on women complainants.
    I hear worries about rape defendants, almost all of whom are male, having to be protected against allegations of wrongdoing against them being made public, in the way that allegations of wrongdoing, whoever they are made against, are made public across the board because the principle is that justice should he heard in public.
    Mr. Grieve: On that basis, presumably the hon. and learned Lady would not wish to have a voluntary code either, because that is an indication of some fetter that she considers inappropriate.
    Vera Baird: Probably the hon. Gentleman leapt to his feet as I was about to say the phrase that deals with what he is saying. The principle of justice is that justice is heard in public, and that must be maintained. If, however, there is to be some across-the-board provision, that will not have the sting that this provision—which is aimed at sexual offences, and therefore predominantly at women—inevitably will have.
    This provision says that such defendants—basically males, of course—are a special group who must not be exposed to the strain that such allegations expose them to because there is a likelier chance than in any other case that they will be acquitted. Does nobody care for a second about the number of women who are raped and sexually abused? They live lives of perpetual silent anguish, unable to come to court because, with a conviction rate of 5.7 per cent., they are quite unable to be satisfied that they are likely to get support from the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, the judiciary or anywhere else. That has been going on for years and years.
    As everyone knows, until 1992, there was no law that rape within a relationship was an offence. Of course, that carried forward to other relationships outside marriage, so women simply did not bring such allegations forward. It has taken many years for women to digest the truth that they do not have to put up with whatever is doled out to them just because they are in a relationship. Having started to take that appreciation forward, there is none the less repeated failure in the criminal justice system to achieve just convictions.
    Over the past couple of years, the Government have done their best to change things to help the women involved. That began in 1999, when they altered the rules on the admissibility of previous sexual history. The greatest deterrent to women who might otherwise have come forward was the fear that their sexual history would be tossed in their faces willy-nilly in an attempt to discredit them, but the Government have stopped that. The Bill has changed the definition of rape in a helpful way, applying sensible tests to the across-the-board statement "It does not matter what she was doing; I believed that she was consenting". The Government are making progress: they are trying to help women who have lived in silent anguish for a long time.
    Sandra Gidley: I may have intervened too early. While the explanation of the rape laws has been interesting, I fail to understand how anonymity will affect the conviction rate. Women who are frightened to come forward may be more willing to do so if they feel that they will be better protected if the identity of the accused is kept secret until he is charged. We have reversed the former situation, but I have yet to be persuaded that in this day and age, when the benefits of coming forward are emphasised so strongly, anonymity will have a detrimental effect.
    Vera Baird: I have not a clue what the hon. Lady means about securing extra protection for complainants by giving defendants anonymity, but she invites me to explain why granting them anonymity only in sexual offence cases would be deleterious to complainants, so I will do so.

    633
    There are still problems in securing convictions, and in encouraging women to come forward. Years of campaigning by women was finally ratified, as it were, by a joint report by inspectorates of the police and the Crown Prosecution Service in March 2002, which stated that cases of this kind were not pursued with sufficient vigour because of a belief among all institutions that bring them to court that they were likely to result in acquittals.
    Mr. Grieve: The hon. and learned Lady's remarks would make sense if we were dealing with anonymity throughout the trial process. In that context, I have always thought that her comments have real merit. Here, however, we are dealing with the very short period between the point at which the police are seized of the matter and start investigating the person concerned and the point at which they decide either to charge or not to charge. Given that our amendment might also apply to women accused of having sexual relations with underage boys, for instance, I am at a loss to see how it could target women in particular. I am also at a loss to see how it would prevent or hinder women victims from coming forward.
    Vera Baird: I am sorry the hon. Gentleman is at a loss. The number of women against whom there are allegations of sexual misconduct of the kind that he posits can probably be counted on the fingers of one hand in any given year, and, as he must know, almost all defendants are male. The impact of any measure levelled against defendants in such cases will fall on women defendants: that is 100 per cent. certain. It is therefore not sensible to suggest that there is any parity of concern.
    The inspectorates of the constabulary told the police that they were not investigating cases properly because they thought they would fail. The inspectorates of the CPS told the CPS that it was not trying hard enough to make the police investigate, and that it was not pursuing prosecutions vigorously enough because it too expected them to fail. There is even a substantial argument for the case that the judiciary does not put its back into trying to secure proper trials because it shares that expectation. It is all due to the old baggage that we must still carry with us.
    The Government have taken steps to improve the position. The police now have a clear policy and clear guidance to ensure that they investigate rapes properly, because the Home Office told them to obtain that guidance. As a direct result of the work of the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General, who is present, there will be specialist rape prosecutors whose guidance will require them to ensure that the police investigate properly. At long last, the judiciary will have to undertake serious sexual offence training courses to help them to understand the importance of dealing sensitively with rape cases, and of not being cavalier. All those moves convey the message that we take rape complaints seriously from day one until the final outcome. Women are being sent a good message—the message that they will be supported by the powers that be if they come forward, and that they will be given a fair hearing.
    634
    1.45 pm
    How will that message survive, though, if another message is sent by us today? What if the impression is gained that Parliament considers sexual offences so unlikely to lead to convictions that it is earmarking them for special treatment, granting anonymity only to this sector of defendants? This other message will tell people "We have gone through the motions of telling the police and the CPS to try a bit harder. We have asked the judiciary to put behind them prejudices that they have expressed all too often. But we truly, truly do not mean it, because even we think that sexual offences are highly unlikely to produce convictions."
    Of course there is concern about people who are accused before being charged, and about the publicity that follows. As almost everyone has conceded, however, that applies equally to offences across the board. The dangers of earmarking sexual offences are very clear. Women who have suffered perpetual anguish, unable to obtain justice, will be sent a message that the criminal justice system is happy in the belief that it is more important for a few defendants in a specific category not to be put through what would probably be a transient anguish. "Stay in perpetual anguish—we will not support you" is not a message that I want the House to send, and I dare say that the Government will not let it be sent.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: I broadly sympathise with the general approach adopted in amendments (a) and (b), but I want to make four points.
    First, if we are to grant anonymity it is probably right for it to apply to all offences, not just sexual offences. I agree with the conclusion of the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), although I am bound to say that I did not agree with her argument.
    My second point is fairly narrow, but it is worth bearing in mind, because the amendments may give rise to legislation. In any definition of the prohibited characteristics of the alleged offender such as appears in subsection (3) of amendment (a), it would be wise to include the relationship of that person with the alleged victim. Although that probably falls within the scope of subsection (2), once we set about identifying particulars, we had best include the relationship with the alleged victim. For example, referring to a close relative of the alleged victim would identify the person involved. That does not fall within the scope of subsection (3), but it probably does fall within that of subsection (2). In any event, I think it worth including as a specific identifying criterion.
    My third point is that it is absolutely right to provide a power to apply to the court to disapply the general prohibition. The police officer should be of a rank superior to the rank of chief inspector, which is not sufficiently high for such an important application. The Bill should prescribe the criteria that the officer has to satisfy. In the Bill, we are looking at the interests of justice, but that is a general phrase. However, in most cases, the application will be made to secure the arrest of someone who is seeking to evade arrest. It would be preferable for the criteria to be tightly defined in place of the general language in amendment (a).

    635
    My fourth point is a technical one, but it is worth making. In law, the publisher is often deemed to include the vendor. The retailer of newspapers can, for certain purposes, be described as the publisher in libel cases. Everyone who is responsible for making something public becomes the publisher. I would be surprised if anyone intends the vendor of a newspaper, as opposed to the editor or the proprietor, to be caught by the provision.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) has identified that possibility in his amendment, but amendment (a) does not cover the situation accurately. It is important to make it plain that the retailer of newspapers, who is entirely innocent in the matter, is not held liable in law, otherwise, we will interfere with free speech. Only people who are genuinely liable should be caught by the penal provision. I acknowledge that my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield has already covered that in his amendment.
    Mr. David Heath: Is there not a more general application of the point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just made about the definition of publisher? Do we not need a new construction of the law because the present construction is rather archaic and unhelpful in defining the difference between someone who publishes a piece of literature and someone who sells it?
    Mr. Hogg: That may be right, but one would want to look at the definition with regard to particular statutes. We do not want to revisit the general construction or interpretation of statutes measure that was passed at the end of the 19th century to make a general provisions test of the meaning of publisher. We should deal with that on a case-by-case basis.
    Paul Goggins: It was remiss of me not to offer my congratulations to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) on his recent appointment as shadow Attorney-General. I am sure the whole House will want to join me in congratulating him now.
    As always in our debates on this issue, the nature of the discussion, while we disagree fundamentally about certain aspects, has been constructive, and our progress on the voluntary route has been genuinely welcomed by Opposition Members, for which I am grateful. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield generously acknowledged that the Government's argument has a great deal of force. Indeed, on a previous occasion, he acknowledged that the voluntary route might work. He was sceptical, as he was again today, but he did not rule it out. I urge him even at this stage to reconsider his decision on any forthcoming votes and say that he is persuaded to give the voluntary route a chance to work instead of supporting the amendment. He argued strongly that he has done his best to draw his amendment as tightly as possible, for which I pay tribute to him. Even so, the amendment gives rise to two difficulties. First, it does not rule out speculation before a police investigation has begun.
    Mr. Grieve: I entirely accept that. In a free society, that is something that it is difficult—and in some circumstances wrong—to control. If, for instance, the
    636
    police refused to take action following serious allegations about a high-profile figure, the free press might have a role to play in risking the libel laws and publishing their material. I would not dream of wanting to interfere with that.
    Paul Goggins: The hon. Gentleman's point is well made, and he has given an example of such action. The expectation out there is that the amendment would catch such behaviour, but it clearly would not.
    Secondly, I urge the hon. Gentleman to accept that the point at which it is decided not to make a charge is not always a precise moment in time, so judging when it had been reached would be tricky. In our discussions of the amendments we have said much about the media, but not about the police. I emphasise that our attempt to move down the self-regulation routes applies equally to the police and the media. I am determined to ensure that any hint or evidence that the police are passing information on to the media is dealt with most severely.
    Mr. Heath: It is not at the moment, but it should be.
    Paul Goggins: We are working with the Association of Chief Police Officers to toughen the guidelines and make sure that if money changes hands, and if it can be proved to be a criminal offence, the required action is taken. That is possible under the voluntary arrangements sought by the Government, which are not a soft option.
    Mr. Chris Bryant: My hon. Friend will know that the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport has been exercised by the problem of the newspapers, particularly the tabloids, paying journalists—[Interruption.] I am sorry, I meant paying police officers for information—paying journalists is another matter. The way in which such behaviour is caught as an offence remains uncertain. There may be disciplinary action against individual police officers, but will my hon. Friend consider including a provision in the draft corruption Bill to deal with the problem more robustly?
    Paul Goggins: I well remember a question that my hon. Friend asked and which was given a great deal of publicity at the time. He has given an example of something which, like many other matters raised in our brief debate, needs further consideration.
    The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) invited us to accept the offer made by her noble Friend Lord Thomas in another place and introduce an amendment that we would not implement. That may be intended to ensure that the message goes out that we mean business, but I hope that the media and the police clearly understand that we do mean business. The fact that we want to go down the route of self-regulation does not mean that we have gone soft. The message is extremely clear. It is important that the House does not give the impression that we pass legislation with no intention of implementing it, as that is the wrong way to legislate and cannot be justified at this point.

    637
    My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) spoke with her usual eloquence and passion on these issues, and I can add little to what she said. She argued cogently for the need for openness, and reminded us of the wider context in which we are debating this narrow issue. She certainly made a powerful argument about the reasons why, even if we legislated, such provisions should not be included in the Bill.
    Mr. Grieve: A moment ago, the Minister said that it should be understood that we mean business, but what if the self-regulation route does not work? Is he in a position to give the House an assurance that in those circumstances we would legislate at an early opportunity and, in addition, legislate to cover all offences, which I have always stated would be a better option? I have to use the vehicles available to the Opposition, and we are currently dealing with a big Bill on sex offences.
    2 pm
    Paul Goggins: Earlier in the debate, the hon. Gentleman speculated about future legislation that may be before the House and about attaching provisions in this area to that legislation. I am not going to join in that speculation, although he will have noticed, as I have in the short time I have been a Minister at the Home Office, that there is legislation from the Home Office in most Sessions of Parliament. He can rest assured that, whether on this issue or others, there will doubtless be future legislation from the Home Office.
    I acknowledge, as the hon. Gentleman and others did, the widespread public concern on the matter. I make two points. First, I remind him of the comments of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on Third Reading. He made it abundantly clear to the media, the police and everyone else that, if the voluntary route down which we are going does not yield the kind of results that we all want, further action will be taken. My right hon. Friend could not have been clearer. I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider that.
    Secondly—this is an important point, which has not been made so far—we have established an inter-ministerial group to ensure that the Sexual Offences Bill is implemented across Government. Clearly, that committee, of which I will be a member, will monitor progress in this area to see whether the results and improvements that we hope and expect to see from the voluntary route have been achieved.
    I argue this case as I have argued it in Committee and on Report, and I make it absolutely clear that, if I am arguing it in the middle of tomorrow night, I will be arguing I hope just as powerfully and in precisely the same terms. I ask all hon. Members and Members of the other House to reflect on that comment and on my closing remarks.
    Lords amendment No. 1A disagreed to.
    Amendment proposed in lieu thereof: (a)—[Mrs. Brooke.]
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 173, Noes 338.

    Division No. 369]

    [2:02 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Harvey, Nick

    Allan, Richard

    Hawkins, Nick

    Amess, David

    Hayes, John (S Holland)

    Ancram, rh Michael

    Heald, Oliver

    Arbuthnot, rh James

    Heath, David

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

    Baker, Norman

    Hendry, Charles

    Barker, Gregory

    Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

    Barrett, John

    Hogg, rh Douglas

    Beith, rh A. J.

    Horam, John (Orpington)

    Bellingham, Henry

    Howard, rh Michael

    Blunt, Crispin

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Boswell, Tim

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Jack, rh Michael

    Brady, Graham

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

    Johnson, Boris (Henley)

    Brazier, Julian

    Keetch, Paul

    Breed, Colin

    Key, Robert (Salisbury)

    Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Kirkwood, Sir Archy

    Burnett, John

    Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

    Burstow, Paul

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Burt, Alistair

    Lansley, Andrew

    Butterfill, John

    Laws, David (Yeovil)

    Cable, Dr. Vincent

    Leigh, Edward

    Calton, Mrs Patsy

    Letwin, rh Oliver

    Cameron, David

    Liddell-Grainger, Ian

    Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

    Lidington, David

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Loughton, Tim

    Chidgey, David

    Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

    Chope, Christopher

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Clappison, James

    Mackay, rh Andrew

    Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Maclean, rh David

    Collins, Tim

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Cotter, Brian

    Malins, Humfrey

    Curry, rh David

    Maples, John

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

    Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

    Mates, Michael

    Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

    Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &Howden)

    Mercer, Patrick

    Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

    Djanogly, Jonathan

    Doughty, Sue

    Moore, Michael

    Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Evans, Nigel

    Murrison, Dr. Andrew

    Fabricant, Michael

    Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

    Fallon, Michael

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Field, Mark (Cities of London &Westminister)

    Öpik, Lembit

    Osborne, George (Tatton)

    Flight, Howard

    Page, Richard

    Flook, Adrian

    Paice, James

    Forth, rh Eric

    Paterson, Owen

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Pickles, Eric

    Fox, Dr. Liam

    Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

    Francois, Mark

    Pugh, Dr. John

    Garnier, Edward

    Randall, John

    Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

    Redwood, rh John

    Gidley, Sandra

    Rendel, David

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Robathan, Andrew

    Goodman, Paul

    Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &M-Kent)

    Gray, James (N Wilts)

    Grayling, Chris

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Green, Damian (Ashford)

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

    Rosindell, Andrew

    Greenway, John

    Ruffley, David

    Grieve, Dominic

    Sanders, Adrian

    Gummer, rh John

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Hague, rh William

    Selous, Andrew

    Hammond, Philip

    Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

    639

    Shepherd, Richard

    Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

    Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

    Tyrie, Andrew

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

    Waterson, Nigel

    Watkinson, Angela

    Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

    Whittingdale, John

    Soames, Nicholas

    Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Wiggin, Bill

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Wilkinson, John

    Stanley, rh Sir John

    Willetts, David

    Steen, Anthony

    Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

    Streeter, Gary

    Williams, Roger (Brecon)

    Stunell, Andrew

    Wilshire, David

    Syms, Robert

    Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Winterton, Sir Nicholas

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    (Macclesfield)

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

    Teather, Sarah

    Young, rh Sir George

    Thurso, John

    Younger-Ross, Richard

    Tonge, Dr. Jenny

    Tredinnick, David

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Trend, Michael

    Bob Russell and

    Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

    Mr. Alan Reid

    NOES

    Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

    Chapman, Ben (Wirra S)

    Ainger, Nick

    Chaytor, David

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Clapham, Michael

    Alexander, Douglas

    Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

    Allen, Graham

    Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

    Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

    Pentlands)

    Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

    Austin, John

    Chryston)

    Bailey, Adrian

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Baird, Vera

    Clelland, David

    Banks, Tony

    Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

    Barnes, Harry

    Coaker, Vernon

    Battle, John

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Bayley, Hugh

    Cohen, Harry

    Beard, Nigel

    Coleman, Iain

    Beckett, rh Margaret

    Colman, Tony

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Connarty, Michael

    Bell, Stuart

    Cooper, Yvette

    Benn, rh Hilary

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Bennett, Andrew

    Cousins, Jim

    Benton, Joe (Bootle)

    Crausby, David

    Berry, Roger

    Cruddas, Jon

    Best, Harold

    Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

    Betts, Clive

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Blackman, Liz

    Cummings, John

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

    Blizzard, Bob

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Blunkett, rh David

    Dalyell, Tam

    Boateng, rh Paul

    Darling, rh Alistair

    Borrow, David

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

    David, Wayne

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Davidson, Ian

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Brennan, Kevin

    Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Dawson, Hilton

    Browne, Desmond

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Bryant, Chris

    Denham, rh John

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Dismore, Andrew

    Burden, Richard

    Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

    Burgon, Colin

    Dobson, rh Frank

    Burnham, Andy

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Byers, rh Stephen

    Drew, David (Stroud)

    Cairns, David

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Edwards, Huw

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Efford, Clive

    Caplin, Ivor

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Casale, Roger

    Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

    Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

    Farrelly, Paul

    Challen, Colin

    Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

    640

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Kidney, David

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Flint, Caroline

    King, Andy (Rugby)

    Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

    Follett, Barbara

    Bow)

    Foster, rh Derek

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Kumar, Dr. Ashok

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

    Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

    & Rye)

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Francis, Dr. Hywel

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Gapes, Mike (IlfordS)

    Lepper, David

    Gardiner, Barry

    Leslie, Christopher

    George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

    Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Gilroy, Linda

    Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

    Godsiff, Roger

    Linton, Martin

    Goggins, Paul

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Love, Andrew

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

    Grogan, John

    Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

    Hain, rh Peter

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    McCabe, Stephen

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    MacDonald, Calum

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    McDonnell, John

    Hanson, David

    MacDougall, John

    Harman, rh Ms Harriet

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    McIsaac, Shona

    Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

    McKechin, Ann

    Rhymney)

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Healey, John

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    McNulty, Tony

    Hendrick, Mark

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Hepburn, Stephen

    McWilliam, John

    Heppell, John

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Hermon, Lady

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

    Mallaber, Judy

    Heyes, David

    Mandelson, rh Peter

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

    Hodge, Margaret

    Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Hoon, rh Geoffrey

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Hope, Phil (Corby)

    Marshall, David (Glasgow

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Shettleston)

    Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Sefton E)

    Martlew, Eric

    Howells, Dr. Kim

    Merron, Gillian

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Michael, rh Alun

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

    Miliband, David

    Urmston)

    Miller, Andrew

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Moffatt, Laura

    Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

    Mole, Chris

    Hutton, rh John

    Moran, Margaret

    Illsley, Eric

    Morgan, Julie

    Ingram, rh Adam

    Morley, Elliot

    Irranca-Davies, Huw

    Morris, rh Estelle

    Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead &

    Mountford, Kali

    Highgate)

    Mudie, George

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Mullin, Chris

    Jamieson, David

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Jenkins, Brian

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

    Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Olner, Bill

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Organ, Diana

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Jowell, rh Tessa

    Owen, Albert

    Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

    Palmer, Dr. Nick

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Pearson, Ian

    Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

    Perham, Linda

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Pike, Peter (Burnley)

    641

    Plaskitt, James

    Soley, Clive

    Pollard, Kerry

    Southworth, Helen

    Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

    Spellar, rh John

    Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

    Squire, Rachel

    Pound, Stephen

    Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Primarolo, rh Dawn

    Stevenson, George

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Stewart, David (Inverness E &

    Purchase, Ken

    Lochaber)

    Purnell, James

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Quin, rh Joyce

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Stoate, Dr. Howard

    Rammell, Bill

    Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

    Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

    Stringer, Graham

    Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

    Stuart Ms Gisela

    Bellshill)

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Robertson, John (Glasgow

    Tami, Mark (Alyn)

    Anniesland)

    Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

    Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

    NW)

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Rooney, Terry

    Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

    Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

    Ruane, Chris

    Timms, Stephen

    Ruddock, Joan

    Tipping, Paddy

    Russell, Ms Christine (City of

    Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

    Chester)

    Trickett, Jon

    Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

    Truswell, Paul

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Sawford, Phil

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

    Sheridan, Jim

    Vis, Dr. Rudi

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Ward, Claire

    Short, rh Clare

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

    Singh, Marsha

    Watts, David

    Skinner, Dennis

    White, Brian

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    642

    Whitehead, Dr. Alan

    Worthington, Tony

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Wray, James (Glasgow

    Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

    Baillieston)

    Williams, Betty (Conwy)

    Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

    Wills Michael

    Yarmouth)

    Winnick, David

    Wright David (Telford)

    Winnick, David

    Wright Tony (Cannock)

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

    C)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Wood, Mike (Batley)

    Mr. Fraser Kemp and

    Woodward, Shaun

    Ms Bridget Prentice

    Question accordingly negatived.
    It being more than one hour after the commencement of proceedings on Lords reasons and amendments, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].
    Resolved, That this House does not insist on its amendment No. 261 to which the Lords have disagreed.
    Government amendment (a) in lieu thereof agreed to.
    Resolved, That this House agrees with the Lords in their proposals relating to Commons amendments Nos. 105, 274 and 291.
    Committee appointed to draw up a Reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to the amendment proposed by the Lords in lieu of the words left out of the Bill by Commons amendment No. 1: Mrs. Annette Brooke, Paul Goggins, Mr. John Heppell, Mr. Humfrey Malins and Ms Dari Taylor; Paul Goggins to be the Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Heppell.]
    To withdraw immediately.
    Reasons for disagreeing to the Lords amendment reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

  Criminal Justice Bill (Programme)
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002],
  That the following proceedings shall apply to the Criminal Justice Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 4th December 2002 and 2nd April 2003:

  Criminal Justice Bill (Programme)

    Consideration of Lords Amendments
    Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall
    (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion six hours after their commencement at this day's sitting.
    Those proceedings shall be taken in the order shown in the
    first column of the following Table, and each part of those
    proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought
    to a conclusion at the time shown in the second column.

    TABLE

    Lords Amendments

    Time for conclusion of proceedings

    Amendments Nos. 32 to 40 and 1

    One hour and forty-five minutes after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments.

    Amendments Nos. 2, 4, 8, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 to 31, 41 to 99 and 308 to 318

    Two hours and forty-five minutes after the commencement of those proceedings.

    Amendments Nos. 100 to 113

    Three hours and fifteen minutes after the commencement of those proceedings.

    Amendments Nos. 114 to 137

    Four hours and thirty minutes after the commencement of those proceedings.

    Amendments Nos. 138, 139, 167, 173, 235, 140 to 166, 168 to 172 and 174 to 202

    Five hours and fifteen minutes after the commencement of those proceedings.

    Amendment No. 203, Remaining Amendments

    Six hours after the commencement of those proceedings.

    Subsequent stages
    3. Any further Message from the Lords may be considerec
    forthwith without any further Question put.
    4. 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.]
    The House divided: Ayes 343, Noes 181.

    Division No. 370]

    [2:19 pm

    AYES

    Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

    Best, Harold

    Ainger, Nick

    Berts, Clive

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Blackman, Liz

    Alexander, Douglas

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Allen, Graham

    Blizzard, Bob

    Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

    Blunkett, rh David

    Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

    Boateng, rh Paul

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Borrow, David

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

    Austin, John

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Bailey, Adrian

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Baird, Vera

    Brennan, Kevin

    Banks, Tony

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Barnes, Harry

    Browne, Desmond

    Battle, John

    Bryant, Chris

    Bayley, Hugh

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Beard, Nigel

    Burden, Richard

    Beckett, rh Margaret

    Burgon, Colin

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Burnham, Andy

    Bell, Stuart

    Byers, rh Stephen

    Benn, rh Hilary

    Cairns, David

    Bennett, Andrew

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Benton, Joe (Bootle)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Berry, Roger

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    644

    Caplin, Ivor

    Godsiff, Roger

    Casale, Roger

    Goggins, Paul

    Caton, Martin

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Challen, Colin

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Chapman, Ben (WirralS)

    Grogan, John

    Chaytor, David

    Hain, rh Peter

    Clapham, Michael

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    Pentlands)

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Hanson, David

    Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

    Harman, rh Ms Harriet

    Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    Chryston)

    Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Rhymney)

    Clelland, David

    Healey, John

    Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Coaker, Vernon

    Hendrick, Mark

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Cohen, Harry

    Heppell, John

    Coleman, Iain

    Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

    Colman, Tony

    Heyes, David

    Connarty, Michael

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

    Hodge, Margaret

    Cooper, Yvette

    Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hoon, rh Geoffrey

    Cousins, Jim

    Hope, Phil (Corby)

    Cranston, Ross

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Crausby, David

    Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

    Cruddas, Jon

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

    Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

    Sefton E)

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Howells, Dr. Kim

    Cummings, John

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Urmston)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Darling, rh Alistair

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

    David, Wayne

    Hutton, rh John

    Davidson, Ian

    Ingram, rh Adam

    Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

    Irranca-Davies, Huw

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead &

    Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

    Highgate)

    Dawson, Hilton

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Jamieson, David

    Denham, rh John

    Jenkins, Brian

    Dismore, Andrew

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

    Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

    Dobson, rh Frank

    Hatfield)

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Drew, David (Stroud)

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Jowell, rh Tessa

    Edwards, Huw

    Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

    Efford, Clive

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

    Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Farrelly, Paul

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

    Kidney, David

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    King, Andy (Rugby)

    Flint, Caroline

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

    Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

    Bow)

    Follett, Barbara

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Foster, rh Derek

    Kumar, Dr. Ashok

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings &

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Rye)

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Francis, Dr. Hywel

    Lepper, David

    Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

    Leslie, Christopher

    Gardiner, Barry

    Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

    George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

    Gilroy, Linda

    Linton, Martin

    645

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Robertson, John (Glasgow

    Love, Andrew

    Anniesland)

    Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

    Luke, lain (Dundee E)

    NW)

    Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Rooney, Terry

    McCabe, Stephen

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

    MacDonald, Calum

    Ruane, Chris

    McDonnell, John

    Ruddock, Joan

    MacDougall, John

    Russell, Ms Christine (City of

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Chester)

    McIsaac, Shona

    Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

    McKechin, Ann

    Salter, Martin

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Savidge, Malcolm

    McNulty, Tony

    Sawford, Phil

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Sedgemore, Brian

    McWilliam, John

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Sheerman, Barry

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Sheridan, Jim

    Mallaber, Judy

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Mandelson, rh Peter

    Short, rh Clare

    Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Singh, Marsha

    Marsden, Gordon (BlackpoolS)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Marshall, David (Glasgow

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Shettleston)

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Martlew, Eric

    Soley, Clive

    Merron, Gillian

    Southworth, Helen

    Michael, rh Alun

    Spellar, rh John

    Miliband, David

    Squire, Rachel

    Miller, Andrew

    Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Moffatt, Laura

    Stevenson, George

    Mole, Chris

    Stewart, David (Inverness E &

    Moran, Margaret

    Lochaber)

    Morgan, Julie

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Morley, Elliot

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Morris, rh Estelle

    Stoate, Dr. Howard

    Mountford, Kali

    Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

    Mudie, George

    Stringer, Graham

    Mullin, Chris

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Tami, Mark (Alyn)

    Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

    Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

    Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

    Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Olner, Bill

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

    Organ, Diana

    Timms, Stephen

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Tipping, Paddy

    Owen, Albert

    Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

    Palmer, Dr. Nick

    Trickett, Jon

    Pearson, Ian

    Truswell, Paul

    Perham, Linda

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Pike, Peter (Burnley)

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Plaskitt, James

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Pollard, Kerry

    Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

    Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

    Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

    Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

    Vis, Dr. Rudi

    Pound, Stephen

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Ward, Claire

    Primarolo, rh Dawn

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

    Purchase, Ken

    Watts, David

    Purnell, James

    White, Brian

    Quin, rh Joyce

    Whitehead, Dr. Alan

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Rammell, Bill

    Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

    Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

    Williams, Betty (Conwy)

    Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

    Wills, Michael

    Bellshill)

    Winnick, David

    646

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

    Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

    C)

    Yarmouth)

    Wood, Mike (Batley)

    Wright David (Telford)

    Woodward, Shaun

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Worthington, Tony

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Wray, James (Glasgow

    Mr. Fraser Kemp and

    Baillieston)

    Ms Bridget Prentice

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Gummer, rh John

    Allan, Richard

    Hague, rh William

    Amess, David

    Hammond, Philip

    Ancram, rh Michael

    Harvey, Nick

    Arbuthnot, rh James

    Hawkins, Nick

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Hayes, John (S Holland)

    Baker, Norman

    Heald, Oliver

    Barker, Gregory

    Heath, David

    Barrett, John

    Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

    Beith, rh A. J.

    Hendry, Charles

    Bellingham, Henry

    Hermon, Lady

    Blunt, Crispin

    Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

    Boswell, Tim

    Hogg, rh Douglas

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Holmes, Paul

    Brady, Graham

    Horam, John (Orpington)

    Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

    Howard, rh Michael

    Brazier, Julian

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Breed, Colin

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Brooke, Mrs Annette L

    Jack, rh Michael

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Burnett, John

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Burstow, Paul

    Johnson, Boris (Henley)

    Burt, Alistair

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Butterfill, John

    Keetch, Paul

    Cable, Dr. Vincent

    Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

    Calton, Mrs Patsy

    Inverness)

    Cameron, David

    Key, Robert (Salisbury)

    Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

    Kirkwood, Sir Archy

    Barnet)

    Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

    Chidgey, David

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Chope, Christopher

    Lansley, Andrew

    Clappison, James

    Laws, David (Yeovil)

    Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Leigh, Edward

    Collins, Tim

    Letwin, rh Oliver

    Cotter, Brian

    Liddell-Grainger, Ian

    Curry, rh David

    Lidington, David

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamfort)

    Loughton, Tim

    Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

    Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Howden)

    Mackay, rh Andrew

    Djanogly, Jonathan

    Maclean, rh David

    Doughty, Sue

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

    Malins, Humfrey

    Ewing, Annabelle

    Maples, John

    Fabricant, Michael

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury &

    Fallon, Michael

    Atcham)

    Flight, Howard

    Mates, Michael

    Flook, Adrian

    Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

    Forth, rh Eric

    Mercer, Patrick

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

    Fox, Dr. Liam

    Coldfield)

    Francois, Mark

    Moore, Michael

    Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Garnier, Edward

    Murrison, Dr. Andrew

    Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

    Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

    Gidley, Sandra

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Öpik, Lembit

    Goodman, Paul

    Osborne, George (Tatton)

    Gray, James (N Wilts)

    Ottaway, Richard

    Grayling, Chris

    Page, Richard

    Green, Damian (Ashford)

    Paice, James

    Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

    Paterson, Owen

    Greenway, John

    Pickles, Eric

    Grieve, Dominic

    Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

    647

    Pugh, Dr. John

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Randall, John

    Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

    Redwood, rh John

    Teather, Sarah

    Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

    Thurso, John

    Rendel, David

    Tonge, Dr. Jenny

    Robathan, Andrew

    Trend, Michael

    Robertson, Angus (Moray)

    Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Tyie, Andrew

    Rosindell, Andrew

    Walter, Robert

    Ruffley, David

    Waterson, Nigel

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Watkinson, Angela

    Sanders, Adrian

    Weir, Michael

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Whittingdale, John

    Selous, Andrew

    Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

    Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

    Wiggin, Bill

    Shephard, Richard

    Wilkinson, John

    Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

    Willetts, David

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

    Williams Hywel (Caernarfon)

    Kincardine)

    Williams, Roger (Brecon)

    Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

    Wilshire, David

    Soames, Nicholas

    Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Wishart, Pete

    Stanley, rh Sir John

    Young, rh Sir George

    Steen, Anthony

    Younger-Ross, Richard

    Streeter, Gary

    Stunell, Andrew

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Syms, Robert

    Mr. Mark Field and

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Hugh Robertson

    Question accordingly agreed to.

Criminal Justice Bill
Lords amendments considered.
Criminal Justice Bill
  Clause 41

    APPLICATION BY DEFENDANT FOR TRIAL TO BE CONDUCTED WITHOUT JURY
    Lords amendment: No. 32
    2.31 pm
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to take the following: Lords amendment No. 33 and the Government motion to disagree thereto, Government amendments (a) to (f) to words restored; Lords amendment No. 34 and the Government motion to disagree thereto, amendment (c) to words restored, Government amendments (a) and (b) to words restored; Lords amendment No. 35 and the Government motion to disagree thereto; Lords amendment No. 36 and the Government motion to disagree thereto, Government amendment (a) to words restored, amendment (c) to words restored and Government amendment (b) to words restored; Lords amendment No. 37 and the Government motion to disagree thereto, Government amendment (a) to words restored; Lords amendment No. 38 and the Government motion to disagree thereto, Government amendment (a) to words restored; Lords amendment No. 39 and the Government motion to disagree thereto; Lords amendment No. 40 and the Government motion to disagree thereto, Government amendments (a) and (b) to words restored
    Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. For the sake of clarification, may I confirm that you intend us to debate Lords amendment No. 32, not Government amendment No. 32? As the former entirely contradicts the Government's view, we should clarify the point. I hope that that is helpful.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I believe that the House understands what we are doing.
    Mr. Blunkett: Thank you for that clarification. I seek to reinstate part 7, with minor alterations that I shall mention later. On Second Reading, I said that we would respond to sensible debate and suggestions and that we would be prepared to listen to reasoned argument. It was therefore a surprise to discover that we faced neither sensible debate nor reasoned argument on part 7 of the Bill. The House of Lords chose simply to delete it, not to attempt to reflect on it, revise it or respond to my request.
    I wish, therefore, to make one or two matters clear at the beginning of this debate. First, the time for posturing is over. Our amendments respond to the debates in Committee and in the House of Lords. They respond to the sensible observations that were made despite the Lords' pyrrhic victory in deleting part 7 completely. The amendments therefore respond to the will of Back

    649
    Benchers in this House and to the reflections of the more sensible people in the upper House. I should make it clear, therefore, that we will make no further amendments to part 7. When the Bill goes back to the Lords, their lordships should consider whether they would like to see the Bill fall on the issues considered in part 7. I say that because it is time to make it clear that we are talking about some of the most organised and desperate criminals that this country has to deal with. We are not talking about people who have committed a minor crime or who have been accused of shoplifting. We are talking about organised criminality on a grand scale.
    We challenge the Opposition parties on whether they mean what they say. For example, in a Sunday paper this week, Lord Strathclyde anticipated the introduction of measures to tackle criminality in the Queen's Speech. It is blinding cheek—if I may use that term—for the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Lords to talk about the need for further legislation to tackle crime and criminals, when we are trying to tackle the most organised criminals in our community with this Bill.
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: The Home Secretary mentions organised and desperate criminals. I hope that as he develops his arguments he will explain how clause 41, which he seeks to reinstate and which would give a defendant the option to elect for trial without jury, has any relevance to the comments he has just made.
    Mr. Blunkett: I am happy to address clause 41. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I was addressing the issue of trial by jury, in relation to those who have intimidated or sought to abuse juries, and in serious fraud cases. We sought to offer a choice in clause 41. All those political parties and individual Members of Parliament who enjoin the Government to provide choice should be in favour of choice on this occasion, given that we have faith in judges and in juries. Indeed, various elements in the House have declared their undying commitment to both juries and judges. As we trust them both, providing choice is a sensible proposition.
    Mr. Edward Gamier: I am amused by the Home Secretary's remark that he has faith in judges. One of the most prominent characteristics of his time as Home Secretary has been his total lack of faith in the judiciary and his desire to make that clear. That aside, will he tell me—so that I may put this group of amendments into context—how many times a jury has been nobbled and a trial aborted as a result since the Government came to power in 1997?
    Mr. Blunkett: I will happily obtain that detail for the hon. and learned Gentleman during the course of the afternoon. However, we are not weighing numbers. As a barrister would know, the scales of justice are not about how many trials—and there have been enough—but about truth and justice. It has been erroneously suggested that we are reintroducing the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill, which fell in the previous Parliament. I read in The Independent this morning the voices of vested interests parading their support for the
    650
    House of Lords in eliminating part 7 of the Bill. I do not know which side those members of the legal profession think that they are on, but this House is on the side of the innocent—those who are innocent of unwarranted charges, and the innocent in our communities, who see the perpetrators of crime go free because they dislocate, interfere with and disrupt the legal and judicial systems.
    Simon Hughes: Does the Home Secretary realise that in relation to two of the three proposals he makes to restrict jury trial—that which would allow a defendant to choose to go before a judge alone and that which would allow complex or lengthy cases to be heard by a judge alone—the argument against is not only that we might end up with a two-tier justice system, but that trial by jury is not the cause of the public's current lack of confidence in the criminal justice system? Trial by jury is what gives many people confidence in the system, because 12 ordinary people decide guilt or innocence, not one extraordinary judge. Losing trial by jury risks losing the confidence of a great number of ordinary citizens in the present jury system.
    Mr. Blunkett: We already have instances where, for all sorts of good reasons, a citizen is able to choose whether to appear before a magistrates court or before a jury. Allowing people a choice seems perfectly reasonable, as they are the ones being tried. It is in their interests that we are having this argument about what is the best method of ensuring that we convict the guilty and not the innocent.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Are we not in the business of trying to say where the presumption should lie? For the sort of reasons expressed by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), should not the presumption be that a jury trial is the norm? Yet clause 41 makes it clear that, if a single defendant applies, the trial will be held by a judge, save in exceptional circumstances. In other words, the presumption is not in favour of jury trial.
    Mr. Blunkett: It is a trifle strange, then, that appeals—when the most detailed points of law are addressed—should be heard by judges, not juries. Those judges are presumed to be wise and capable enough to hear appeals. This is not a matter of interfering with our judicial system, but of providing checks and balances.
    Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Gamier: Will the Home Secretary give way?
    Mr. Blunkett: I will, but I am just checking whether someone behind me wants to get in. I always like to have my opponents in front of me, not behind me.
    Mr. Gamier: We are all in front of the Home Secretary.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews.
    Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Will not the amendments proposed by the Government mean that all serious and complex cases may be tried without a jury, and not just long and complex fraud cases?
    Mr. Blunkett: No, the proposals before the House are specifically intended to deal with long and complex fraud cases.
    Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Where is that made clear?
    Mr. Blunkett: I refer my hon. and learned Friend to the text of the amendments under consideration. His

    651
    point follows on from the point made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). In the light of previous debates, the Government are altering the Bill to exclude cases—apart from those that involve serious fraud—that are long and complex. We have responded to the view that it is difficult to judge what sort of cases, apart from fraud cases, would warrant such designation and treatment.
    Mr. Grieve: I am listening to the Home Secretary carefully. I hope that he will help the House in respect of that particular proposal. He will appreciate that I have not had much time to consider the matter, but my impression is that one consequence of the Government amendments would be that judicial discretion as to what constitutes a long and complex fraud case would be removed. It is envisaged that the prosecutor will serve a notice, but as far as I can see, that notice will not be open to challenge, and there will be no opportunity for a judge to exercise discretion in respect of it. It would be useful for the Home Secretary to deal with that important matter.
    Mr. Blunkett: It is an important point, but the debate on this clause is confined to long and complex fraud cases, for the reasons that I have enunciated. As has been spelled out before, the matter is open to challenge. The Serious Fraud Office would investigate such cases, and the presumption put forward by the Crown Prosecution Service would be open to challenge. No one has indicated anything to the contrary, but the proposals are designed to ensure that we can get to the truth.
    2.45 pm
    Simon Hughes: This is very important territory, and I concede that the Home Secretary has moved to limit the proposal to fraud cases. However, there are two strong arguments against his case. First, there is a much higher conviction rate in most long and complex fraud cases than elsewhere in the jury trial system, and the SFO has testified to that. Secondly, almost everyone who has participated in such trials understands that there is normally only one fundamental and simple issue—is the person honest or dishonest? That question can be understood by a cross-section of the population in a jury of 12 as well as it can be understood by a judge who, by definition, is a jury of one.
    Mr. Blunkett: We have been through all this on previous occasions. We are talking about the existing Highams cumulative test. The amendment restricting the proposals to serious fraud trials was designed to ensure that juries in those cases did not have to deal with a range of issues. We want to ensure that people found guilty on a simple test case cannot walk away, and that jury members in trials that last a long time do not end up being discharged because they cannot serve for that length of time.
    On Second Reading, I gave the example of the Maxwell trial, in which 750 people were discharged before it was possible to elect a jury. People need to hold down jobs and have a life, and cannot be tied up for a year, or even longer in some cases. It is very difficult to get a jury of 12 good men and women of true origins and citizenship who reflect the community. We have been
    652
    through all that before, and people either agree or disagree that we must get to grips with cases that otherwise are likely to end in acquittal. Such cases include the Levitt case and the Blue Arrow case when the courts themselves expressed concern about the threat to justice posed by the way that they were conducted.
    Mr. Grieve: Only a week or a fortnight ago, the Government indicated to Opposition parties that they were minded to introduce the Law Commission's proposals on multiple offending on Third Reading in the Lords. That would enable specimen counts to continue to be brought, but it very often happens in fraud cases that multiple identical matters need to be taken into consideration. In such cases, the Law Commission proposals mean that it would be possible for a judge alone to determine those matters at a Newton hearing following conviction on the specimen counts. We made it clear that we supported the Law Commission's initiative, but the Government chose not to introduce those proposals on Third Reading. Should not those proposals be closely linked to any reconsideration of whether juries should try fraud cases? Is not the uncoupling that the Government have performed regrettable?
    Mr. BlunkettLet us be clear about this: we are in favour of those proposals. From what the hon. Gentleman has said, I take it that the Conservative party also agrees with them. However, there is no timetabling of debate in the Lords—and the recent Division in this House shows that the Opposition would vote against the establishment of any such system in the other place. Extending Report stage to a fifth day would have extended the debate and disrupted consideration of other clauses. We would then have had to take the Bill even closer to the wire when it comes to the Queen's Speech. We do not want any posturing this afternoon about whether the Opposition would have negotiated a timetable for acceptance on Third Reading of the Law Commission proposals. I repeat that the Government are in favour of them, and we will introduce them at the earliest opportunity, but we cannot have games in respect of this matter. There is no procedure in the House of Lords for any sort of timetable or closure mechanism, nor any provision for the operation of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker system that is normal in the House of Commons. Until we have such a system in the Lords, we cannot take anyone's word that that House will be in favour of anything that we propose.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am not a lawyer, and I listen in some bemusement when those of my colleagues who are lawyers discuss the finer points of law. My involvement in this matter is very basic, therefore. I believe that any loss of trial by jury, regardless of what is said in the House, will lead almost inevitably to the removal of rights that have been enshrined in this country for many hundreds of years. I am sorry to say that it is not clear to me what my right hon. Friend is saying. Is it that we have to go ahead with this very basic change because the House of Lords does not proceed in a way that he finds acceptable? If so, that is extremely worrying.
    Mr. Blunkett: I shall try to clarify matters for my hon. Friend. In response to the intervention from the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), we are talking not about the amendments that I am moving this afternoon but about multiple cases where, at present, we have to take a specimen case when dealing with complex and serious fraud. The official Opposition pointed out that they were prepared to support the Law Commission's recommendations, which we support, that would allow those multiple provisions to be dealt with on the back of a specimen case. We are not dealing with that matter this afternoon and it is not material to the amendments under discussion, but it was material to the point that I was making to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. I would hate there to be any misunderstandings about that.
    Simon Hughes: Will the Home Secretary confirm that all the legislation that has come from his Department this parliamentary year has received a huge amount of co-operation from the House of Lords? The Government have accepted that owing to the lack of timetabling in the Lords, the upper House has been able to consider matters that the Commons has not been able to consider and has made great improvements, for example to the rape provisions in the Sexual Offences Bill. The Government have fixed the deadline—the backstop of the date of the Queen's Speech—and they are setting the limits to our debate. If the Lords do not agree tomorrow to what the Government propose on jury trial today, it will be the Government's insistence on such matters that will derail the Bill and not the insistence of the Opposition.
    Mr. Blunkett: I do not accept that at all. I paid tribute on Third Reading of the Sexual Offences Bill to the work that had been done in both Houses, to which the House of Lords contributed. The same is true of the Extradition Bill, the Crime (International Cooperation) Bill and, to a lesser extent, the Anti-social Behaviour Bill; it is not true of the Criminal Justice Bill. We are debating the reinstatement of part 7. How can the hon. Gentleman suggest that the Lords did a superb job of scrutiny and revision when they simply knocked that part out altogether? It does not bear thinking about.
    Furthermore, on the serious risk of jury tampering—I want to get to clause 43—trials that fail are a major worry throughout the country. People see those accused of the most serious crimes going free not because the system worked, but because it was tampered with so as to make a conviction impossible. One of our most senior judges wrote to my noble Friend Baroness Scotland, just before he was elevated to the Appeal Court, to describe his experiences. He was talking about an organised crime case that took more than three years. Each year, the jury was nobbled—it was discharged twice—although the case was finally concluded. He said that it was surely not a coincidence that the key players were acquitted after those three years and only the minor ones convicted.
    If we do not change the law, we will end up with such situations over and over again. We will end up with what is happening in Merseyside with Operation Dolphin, where serious and organised criminality is taken to court again and again but the juries are tampered with-
    654
    people are either threatened or bribed—and discharged. Would it really be sensible to say in such circumstances that the judge could not carry on with the trial, which is what the Opposition amendments suggest? Given that the original jury have been tampered with and the next jury would know that, it would be difficult to get another jury and they would be under constant threat too.
    I was asked how many trials had been discontinued because the jury had been threatened or intimidated. In London alone, we are spending more than £9 million on constant 24-hour surveillance for a large number of trials. Of course, 24-hour surveillance, support and protection will continue, but we will ensure that the
    course of justice can take shape—clause 43 deals with
    this—in such cases. It will not be whispering in the ear
    of the judge, as was mentioned, because we have tightened the criteria for the evidence of serious risk—the real and present danger—which echoes the common-law test for police protection in those cases to ensure that we get it right.
    Mr. Grieve: Those figures are important. The fact that £9 million has to be spent in that way is regrettable, but it is necessary and it is a drop in the ocean compared with the overall bureaucracy costs of the Home Office. However, the Home Secretary did not answer the question, which was how often juries had to be discharged because of nobbling, which is not the same as having to provide them with protection.
    Mr. Blunkett: That will be in the hands of the judge, who has to agree to the discharge of a jury because of what we will describe from here on in as jury nobbling. He has to determine whether the jury should be reformed and the case passed on or whether he should continue with it, and it is right that he should do so. We should not allow those who want to disrupt, dislocate and destroy the course of justice to succeed. When the end of a trial approaches and they fear conviction, they intervene. Let me be clear about this; let us get into the real world—the world not of inciting people to commit judicial murder, but of injecting a little common sense into the debate. People do not disrupt and intimidate juries, threaten their lives and those of their families, telephone them or email them if they believe that the accused is about to be acquitted; they do so for one reason only—because they think that those in front of the judge and jury will be convicted. They do so to ensure that the jury cannot continue and will not convict. We are dealing not with innocents abroad—we
    appear to be doing so in here, but not out there—but with the real world of people who are determined to threaten other people, and in some cases to take their lives and liberty.
    Mr. Hogg: May I take the Home Secretary back to clause 41, which enables a defendant to make an application to be tried by a judge and not a jury? Are we not simply giving a defendant the right to choose the tribunal that, in their opinion, is most favourable to their interests? That would simply make life easier for the sort of people that the Home Secretary is busily criticising.
    Mr. Blunkett: I would hardly do that if I thought that a judge sitting alone was an advantage to the organised criminal, would I? I do not believe that it is. As I spelled out, I believe that in cases where a jury has been intimidated for the sole purpose of getting an acquittal or disrupting a trial so that the jury has to be discharged, a single judge should take the case forward. I have confidence that the judge would not be intimidated and that that system would lead to a fair trial, with the innocent being acquitted and the guilty convicted. I can hardly be expected to contradict that belief by contradicting myself on clause 41. In other words, I think that judges are in a position to make those judgments sensibly.
    Vera Baird: I can see the merit and strength of my right hon. Friend's arguments about clause 43. May I ask him about two points? First, in Committee, we were given the assurance that the provisions would be used only as a last resort and that, for instance, attempts would be made to move the trial to a different location, or juries would be offered taxis to and from court so that knowledge about the place in which they lived would not be readily available. We were assured that all those steps would be taken and that the provisions would be engaged only as a last resort.
    Secondly, my right hon. Friend talked about not pouring nonsense into the judge's ear and said that he was trying to tighten up the measure to deal with that concern. I am grateful for that. However, the difficulty has been raised that the prosecution might want to say things to the judge, to persuade him to try the case alone, that could not be disclosed to the defendant. Has my right hon. Friend applied his mind to that problem?
    3 pm
    Mr. Blunkett: On the first point, yes, every measure should be taken to ensure that due protection is provided, including relocation where appropriate. In fact, we have gone further by setting out examples to show where we believe it would be necessary to invoke the new provisions, such as retrial, following tampering in previous proceedings involving the defendant, or where such disruption had taken place and where intimidation or attempted intimidation was shown to have occurred in the light of the strict requirements that I set out earlier. We have gone further by including such provisions in the Bill. I shall give way to my hon. and learned Friend again so that she can explain the latter part of her lengthy question.
    Vera Baird: I thank my right hon. Friend for his assurance that trial by judge alone would be used only as a last resort.
    My second point was that in order to persuade a judge that he should try a case on his own, it might be necessary for the prosecution to say to that judge, "We have intelligence of the following kind". It might not be in the public interest to disclose such material to the defendant, but how is the defendant to argue for his right to jury trial in that situation? When I raised a similar point on an earlier occasion, my right hon. Friend thought that there might be a possibility of appointing special counsel, such as those he is familiar with at the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, so that someone can represent the interests of the
    656
    defendant in challenging that ex parte evidence without the obligation to report back to the defendant what he has heard. I hope that I have made the position clear.
    Mr. Blunkett: I am familiar with my hon. and learned Friend's point about public interest immunity. She will be familiar with the case of Edwards and Lewis, where the judgment was unclear. We think that there is a need for clarity and, unusually, we have referred the matter to the Grand Chamber and we shall be prepared to look at and take the necessary steps to ensure that safeguards are set up. The point is serious, but there is not yet sufficient clarity for us to be able to deal with it this afternoon.
    Clause 45 includes further provisions to deal with discharge due to tampering. I am at something of a loss in relation to the Opposition proposition and its relationship to clause 43. Our proposition is twofold: to make it clear that jury tampering must be the prime cause of discharge; and to insert provisions to make it clear that the judge must be absolutely satisfied that jury tampering has taken place before continuance without a jury.
    We are mystified by the Opposition's proposal as it seems to confuse several issues in respect of the risk of tampering and where tampering has already taken place. They appear to be ratcheting up the conditions so that the threshold is higher. They appear unsure whether they want the excessive burden of 24-hour police protection to be a condition, and they do not appear to want the judge to carry on with a case when he or she has discharged the jury because tampering has occurred. I am at a loss to understand either how that relates to their amendments to clause 43 or how it would assist us to find a way forward. I presume that is why, in their wisdom, the Lords chose to throw the whole lot out rather than assisting us in finding a solution.
    Mr. Grieve: I am sorry that the Home Secretary cannot understand two perfectly simple concepts in respect of clauses 43 and 45. Where it is suggested that there should be no jury because of a risk of nobbling, but in fact no such jury tampering has taken place, we believe that an extremely high test should be applied before such a measure is implemented—if indeed it is implemented at all. We take the view that the question whether juries require police protection is not material at that point; the question is whether tampering would still take place. Where tampering has already taken place we think that there should be a different test because we accept the principle that it is extremely important that justice can continue to be done. Nevertheless, we think that the Government's proposals on clause 45 are far too loose and should be tightened up, which is what we have tried to do.
    Mr. Blunkett: I certainly concede that the Opposition want to tighten up the proposals—they want to tighten them so much that they would be difficult to operate. My point is that we have a common-law test—I referred to it earlier—and we also have the new presumptions that I am setting out in the Bill. In addition, the judges will have to apply a test in respect of the protections that are being offered, such as the requirement for 24-hour protection—is it possible to protect the 12 members of the jury on an ongoing basis, week by week, or has the

    657
    perceived and real threat of intimidation reached the point where it is impossible to secure a fair trial? In the cases that I have cited this afternoon, that was clearly not so.
    I am sure that everyone in the Chamber wants to ensure that serious criminals do not go free when they are guilty simply because they have been able to exercise intimidation. If we believe that, the argument between us is about the point at which we can be secure in our minds that the tests have been passed and that it is better to have a judge sitting alone rather than a mistrial when criminals walk free. That is what we are talking about.
    Our proposals do not threaten the basis of jury trial. The then Lord Chancellor, the Attorney-General and I discussed and agreed my suggestion that we should not proceed with the previous mode of trial Bills, and we are not doing so. As I said on Second Reading, the suggestion that we are doing that is an outrage—it distorts the situation beyond belief and misleads people of very good will into believing that we are doing something that we are not. We seek to protect justice, to get to the truth and to ensure that the amendments that we are putting back, and to which we are asking the House of Lords to agree, both reflect the debate over the Bill that has taken place over the past few months and secure the original intention—to ensure that we protect the public in those circumstances.
    In the end, justice is about securing protection for the innocent in the community as well as for the accused, but it is also about getting to the truth and protecting ourselves. It is no good the Opposition presenting themselves as reinvigorated with the desire to demonstrate their commitment against criminals and their belief in the protection of the public if they come here this afternoon, go to the Lords tomorrow or come to the Commons tomorrow evening to suggest that our measures are not proportionate to ensure that we achieve that goal. They are proportionate. People will be asking a serious question: whose interests would we be following if we gave greater protection to organised criminals before the court than to the communities that we represent? That is why I am moving the amendments.
    Mr. Grieve: I am sorry that the Home Secretary seems to have adopted a tone of irritation, rather than rationally discussing the matters that the House must consider. I am also sorry that, in doing so, he seems very keen to cast aspersions on the motives of others and to be quite unable properly to envisage why the other place took such exception to the proposals on jury trial. He does not help his case by being unable or, apparently, unwilling to distinguish between the extremely different issues that surround the Government's proposals to fetter jury trial.
    The debates on Second Reading and in Committee in the other place were extremely interesting, but from reading the report of the Second Reading debate I was most forcefully struck by the words of Lord Clinton-Davis—a stalwart member of the Labour party:
    "To remove juries in allegedly complex cases supposedly too complex for them is utterly wrong. I agree with those in another place that what the Government are prescribing could end with the abolition of jury trials altogether. That may not be their present intention—but it remains a real risk."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 June 2003; Vol. 649, c. 613.]
    658
    If the Home Secretary wants an explanation of why the Lords took such a hostile view, let me say that it was because of that very real and justified fear.
    Mr. Hogg: Does my hon. Friend agree with the rather unpalatable truth that the views expressed in the other place are a more genuine expression of the will of the participants in the debate than the views expressed in this House, because the whipping system in this House has the effect of undermining the legitimacy of the views expressed in a vote?
    Mr. Grieve: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend is right. Of course, there is a lot of experience, freedom and loyalty in the other place, and I am sure that Lord Clinton-Davis would not have lightly expressed a hostile opinion on the Home Secretary's proposals, given his affection for the party in which he has spent most of his career. Furthermore, I am sure that he would not have done so unless he was expressing deeply held beliefs.
    I ask the Home Secretary, rather than making general comments on the totality of the proposals, to consider each Government proposal in turn. He made great play of the fact that we are dealing with serious, organised and desperate criminals, but he must accept that clause 41, which he seeks to reintroduce and which gives a defendant the option of being tried in front of a judge alone, undermines the principle of jury trial, which I thought the Government supported, and has no relevance whatever to tackling serious and desperate criminals.
    The chances are that many of those who will choose that route are everyday, tuppeny-ha'penny criminals. Interestingly, the Government propose a distinction in clause 41: they appear to be worried that, in some cases, the general public might feel great anxiety about certain criminals having the option of being tried by judge alone, so they seek to fetter that discretion under subsection (6).
    I hope that the Home Secretary will repeat this afternoon that the Government believe, as we believe, that the principle of trial by jury is one of the hallmarks of our participatory democracy and that, therefore, if there are good and sound reasons for change—as in Northern Ireland, where the Diplock courts became necessary because of the security situation—that is one thing, but that it is quite another arbitrarily to undermine that principle for no good reason. That, however, is what clause 41 would achieve. I have never understood its logic, unless the Government are looking ahead to a time when jury trial starts to wither on the vine.
    I believe in jury trial, precisely because it is a process by which not the state but the public at large bring condemnation on individuals' conduct because they wish to be protected from those individuals. It is an absolutely central concept, and I am sorry that the Home Secretary seems to have completely lost that view of it.
    David Winnick: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, to a large extent, he has expressed a view that I, as one of the few non-lawyers in the Chamber, share? Although the Home Secretary has

    659
    stated that the purpose is not to undermine trial by jury in general, potentially, if not inevitably, there is always a fear, which is in my mind, that once the proposal has been enacted it could be applied to other cases and in future only a minority of cases will be heard by a jury. Although I am not sure whether I shall vote against the Government, I would find it very difficult to vote for what the Home Secretary is recommending.
    Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I take seriously the views that he expresses. Once one undermines the concept and principle of jury trial, as envisaged in clause 41, siren voices will soon be heard in the Treasury and elsewhere saying how much cheaper it is to have trial by judge alone. In those circumstances, why go to the bother of all those poor people being empanelled and being put upon to serve on juries? Why have all those funny processes by which funny points have to be argued in the absence of the jury? Of course, juries are less convenient, but I believe that, in a country such as the one in which I wish to live, they are an inconvenience worth paying for over and again.
    3.15 pm
    Mr. Gamier: Was not one of the most telling remarks that the Home Secretary made during his somewhat unput-together defence of this part of the Bill his reference to £9 million? When my hon. Friend and I have asked him about the number of juries that have been nobbled he has not been able to provide us with an answer, yet he has come up with the fact that a trial is costing £9 million to protect. Frankly, so what? [HON. MEMBERS: "It is an annual figurel It may be an annual figure, but it is tiny.
    Mr. Blunkett: It is not a tiny figure.
    Mr. Gamier: It is a tiny figure when one considers the fact that the cost of criminal justice is measured, I would guess, at about £1 billion a year. If one additionally bears in mind the police budget and judges' salaries, £9 million is a tiny figure compared with the overall figure that the state is required to pay for the justice system. Is it not interesting that the Home Secretary seems more terrified of the Treasury and the paltry figure of £9 million than he is of failing to defend the interests of justice for the public overall?
    Mr. Grieve: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend. The Home Secretary has given that figure and, yes, I very much wish that juries did not have to be protected, but that is a price that we have to pay in a difficult environment to ensure that justice is done in the way that we think is right. Adducing that argument is completely different from saying that it is impossible to protect juries, and it is the mixing of those two things that I find so worrying in the Home Secretary's approach, because there have been a series of propaganda utterances, rather than a rational discussion of the issues.
    I do not want to take up too much of the House's time—I am aware that other hon. Members wish to speak—so I shall turn to the next issue in which the Government wish to fetter the right to trial by jury: certain complex or lengthy trials. I was somewhat
    660
    charmed—I suppose that is how I should describe it—to
    hear that the Home Secretary felt that the original Government text had to be amended at this late stage, given the risk that the scope of those trials might go well beyond fraud to other types of case. I remember pointing out that risk very gently in Committee. I said that the only area in which I practise—health and safety at work—would fall squarely within those provisions, and the Minister told me that I was completely wrong. That does not exactly raise my confidence in the Government's competence.
    The other point that the House must consider very carefully is that, even by the Government's standards of drafting, clause 42, whatever flaws it may have contained, previously provided a measure of judicial discretion. As I understand it, however, under the new proposal, by having trial on the back of a notice under section 51 B of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998—which I had considerable difficulty finding until I realised that it is inserted by the Bill and exists only as a figment of the
    drafter's imagination—there will be no discretion. If I
    am wrong, I hope that the Home Secretary will correct me. The question of judicial discretion runs right through these proposals. The Home Secretary might recall that when this matter was debated on Second Reading, Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice, forcefully expressed the most grave concern about the totality of these proposals:
    "I recognise that many strong and sincere opposing views will undoubtedly be advanced to your Lordships. In those circumstances, instead of becoming involved in the matters which will be well ventilated before your Lordships, I propose merely to stress that if these powers remain part of the Bill, it should be made clear that they can be exercised only when it is in the interests of justice for this to happen. That should ensure that there is the minimum risk of the exercise of those powers resulting in injustice."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 June 2003; Vol. 649, c. 573.]
    If this measure fetters judicial discretion, it runs contrary to the tenor of that argument.
    Mr. Blunkett: I want to make it absolutely clear that I agree entirely with the Lord Chief Justice's comments. As far as I am aware, the new clause's provisions on discretion reflect the tenor of the hon. Gentleman's amendment—that, taking clauses 43 and 45 together, the discretion would be removed because there would be no power for a judge to decide to continue to sit in prolonged trials; there would have to be a fresh trial and a jury reconvened.
    Mr. Grieve: If the Home Secretary will allow me, I shall return to that point when I come to clauses 43 and 45, because I think that he is wrong on that issue, and I shall explain why.
    The Opposition do not believe that the proposals on complex or lengthy trials are necessary. In the current year, the Serious Fraud Office, which deals with the most complex cases, has achieved a conviction rate of 92 per cent. Since it was set up, it has achieved a conviction rate of 84 per cent. That simply does not support the Home Secretary's view that juries are unable to deal with long and complex trials.
    The Home Secretary knows of the Law Commission's recent proposals on multiple offending, which is closely

    661
    linked to fraud. In many instances, a trial for fraud will involve specimen counts, with many other offences being taken into consideration. I fully accept that the mischief at the moment is that, short of having a lengthy trial, it is difficult to deal with those offences if a defendant who has been convicted does not accept them. That is why I was delighted when the Government suggested that they intended to incorporate the proposals on multiple offending in this Bill. I believe that such a proposal would be given a fair wind were it ever to come before this House. It is precisely because such procedures may exist that the House should be so cautious about, in the same breath, getting rid of juries for lengthy and complex trials. I do not believe that is necessary. The need will certainly be reduced, and, as I asked the Home Secretary, where is the evidence that juries cannot deal with such cases? If the evidence is that they can do so, what possible good reason exists to fetter their right to hear those cases in exactly the same way as they deal with any other criminal who is alleged to have committed an indictable offence?
    Mr. Hogg: Does my hon. Friend also agree that a jury is much more likely to be able properly to consider a case if substantive offences are charged rather than the Crown coming forward with a charge of conspiracy?
    Mr. Grieve: Speaking from personal experience, my right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right on that point. Keeping matters simple is in the interests of justice and of achieving the conviction of the guilty, and my experience is that fraud trials tend to go wrong when the prosecutor overloads the indictment and fails to keep matters simple. Oddly enough, when matters become muddled for the jury, they also become muddled for the public, so the risk with trial by judge alone in long and complex fraud trials is that matters will appear so esoteric that, even if a conviction is recorded by the judge, the public will fail to understand the full extent of the criminality of the person concerned, which we should avoid.
    Mr. Blunkett: Is the hon. Gentleman's proposition that it is more important that the public should understand what went on, even if a guilty man is found innocent, than it is to get a conviction, even if the public were not absolutely clear about the exact nature of a trial that lasted for 18 months or more? Does not that fly in the face of the Roskill report of 1986, with which he will be familiar as a lawyer?
    Mr. Grieve: Justice must be done and be seen to be done. It is desirable that both those things should happen, and I believe that both those things can happen. In the light of the Serious Fraud Office's excellent work in simplifying fraud trials and bringing them to a conclusion, and of the Government's proposals on multiple offending, which could be of great benefit, I do not believe that the proposed measure is necessary. If necessity could be made out, I am sufficiently pragmatic to listen carefully to what the Home Secretary has to say. Where is the necessity for this measure?
    I want to deal finally with the issue of jury tampering, on which there are two distinct clauses. One provides a
    662
    mechanism by which a judge may try a case without a jury when he considers that there is a risk of jury tampering but none has occurred. The second deals with instances in which jury tampering has taken place, such that a jury must be discharged in the course of a trial. If I may say so to the Home Secretary, those are two very different concepts. There is, however, one thing on which he and I can entirely agree: it would be a disaster if a state of affairs were ever to exist in this country whereby trials could not take place at all because of jury tampering, and justice could not be done. That was what underpinned the decision to set up Diplock courts in Northern Ireland, and I fully understand the rationale, even if I regret that a state of affairs arose that made that necessary.
    Clause 45 deals with jury tampering. I say to the Home Secretary, as I said in Committee—and, heaven knows, as I said to the Prime Minister one day in Prime Minister's Question Time—that I understand what the Government are trying to achieve. If, as the Home Secretary says, the evidence is such that this is a deteriorating situation that is gravely inhibiting the processes of justice, we are prepared to co-operate with the Government to try to arrive at a formula that would allow for trial without a jury in those exceptional circumstances. The Home Secretary told me earlier that the amendment that I tabled to tempt the Government into dialogue was flawed because it did not envisage the judge continuing with the trial on his own. If he cannot understand why it would be impossible for a judge to continue with a trial on his own after the discharge of a jury, he does not understand some of the basic and elementary features of the criminal justice system. That situation might cause the utmost unfairness. It could not rationally be done, so there would have to be a retrial in front of a judge. if that was the exceptional course that had to be adopted.
    Mr. Hogg: May I reinforce my hon. Friend's point by putting an example to him? In the first trial, there could have been a whole class of evidence that is not used in the second trial. In such circumstances, the trial judge would inevitably have in mind material that was adduced in the first trial, but not in the second one.
    Mr. Grieve: My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. It would be impossible and undesirable for a judge to continue in such a situation. We would need a fresh trial with a fresh judge.
    Mr. Blunkett: I hope that this will be my final intervention on the hon. Gentleman's speech. Does he therefore agree, in the same vein, that where a jury had been intimidated it would be difficult for witnesses who had already given evidence to be called in the second trial? That situation is not impossible, but it would be difficult, as the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) pointed out. One must compare witnesses who put their necks on the block with judges making judgments or the need for a jury to hear evidence presented in a new way.
    3.30 pm
    Mr. Grieve: I accept that there might be difficulties. I have been involved in retrials, where witnesses have been put to the inconvenience of returning.
    Mr. Blunkett: Threat.
    Mr. Grieve: The Home Secretary says "threat", and there are occasions when witnesses are threatened. Equally, however, it is not possible to hold a fair trial if the procedure shifts from trial by jury to trial by judge alone halfway through a case. It is as simple as that—it is not procedurally possible.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Would the provision not be in breach of article 6 of the European convention on human rights, because there could not be a fair trial in such circumstances?
    Mr. Grieve: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The provision would be in breach of article 6. It is a nonstarter. Leaving aside everyone else's views about the Bill, all the lawyers who practise in the courts to whom I have spoken regard the measure as nonsense and completely unworkable.
    Mr. Gamier: May I give my hon. Friend a further example to help him to destroy the Home Secretary's non-argument? No one in their right mind would think it right to allow a retrial to take place in front of the original jury who had heard prejudicial evidence against the defendant. Simply transferring the tribunal of fact from the jury to the original judge would not cure the position. I would have thought that Ministers might have got their heads around that much.
    Mr. Grieve: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend, although part of the Government's idea is that the judge continues seamlessly, which is equally impossible.
    I hope that the Home Secretary will consider our amendment to clause 45. Of course, it is drafted using tighter language than his provision because I want the courts to make examinations in minute detail if applications are made for a retrial without a jury, because juries can often consider cases after jury nobbling has occurred. I hope that the way in which we have drafted the amendment—it includes the word "sure" and relates to a great risk—would help to achieve that.
    I turn to applications by the prosecution for a trial to be conducted without a jury if there is a danger of jury tampering. The Home Secretary expressed surprise that our amendments were differently worded, but that is because they address two completely different situations. [Interruption.] The amendments are not contradictory, and if the Home Secretary wishes to intervene, I shall give way. There is no contradiction because we say that before a jury is empanelled, there must be an overwhelming risk of jury tampering in order to show that a fair trial could not take place. A court should not consider how long a trial will last or issues of protecting juries at that time. It should decide on a simple question: if a jury were given protection in the usual way, would there be such an overwhelming risk
    664
    that jury tampering would take place that it would justify an exception to the rule that there should be a trial by jury? I hope that the Home Secretary will think about that further.
    Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Will the hon. Gentleman put his mind to one thing that relates to both his amendment and the Government text, because it appears to many Labour Members that they suffer from the same danger of causing an injustice? If one defendant, however minor, in a case with, say, five, six, seven, eight, nine or 10 defendants is, or may be, guilty of jury nobbling, all defendants would lose their right to jury trial. Furthermore, under the Government's proposed subsection (7) to clause 43, which gives examples, all defendants would lose their right to jury trial in any future trial, as would anyone they were tried with in that future trial. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's views on that because I agree with much of what he says.
    Mr. Grieve: I have no difficulty agreeing with the hon. and learned Gentleman. That said, in a spirit of constructive dialogue with the Home Secretary, I am prepared to work my mind around to the possibility that one could end up with a case, although I find such examples far-fetched, in which it was apparent from preceding events that the ability of a jury to try the case without being tampered with, intimidated or prevented from returning a true verdict was such that it would be proper to adopt a Diplock court approach. The hon. and learned Gentleman is right that that would raise a concern about future trials. A fresh look should be taken at future cases and they should not be tainted by what happened before. That is undoubtedly one problem with the Government's proposals.
    I do not want to take up more of the House's time. Others wish to speak. I simply say to the Home Secretary that I hope he understands how the Opposition see the problem. We want a constructive engagement on jury tampering, if that is possible. Beyond that, however, I had hoped that the Government would adopt a more flexible approach to the issues, which have caused great anxiety across parties, but I regret to say that they have not done so. Even at this late stage, I hope that the Home Secretary will revise his approach.
    Mr. John Denham: I want to make an observation on the amendments and to put them in the context of debates in and outside the House on the development of the criminal justice system. It is striking how often we are told that we face an unstoppable rise in crime, with criminal gangsters dominating the country and our communities and acting with impunity. Yet whenever there is an attempt in legislation to focus on the shortcomings of a part of the criminal justice system, we almost always end up in a debate like this one, which suggests that not much is wrong with it and little needs to be fixed.
    Buck-passing is common when it comes to the failings of the criminal justice system. by which I mean the failure to deliver a system in which the public have confidence that those who are guilty will be caught,

    665
    convicted and dealt with appropriately, and those who are innocent will go free. The police often blame the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts; the courts often blame the police and the CPS; and the CPS often feels like the meat in the sandwich between the two.
    Throughout the criminal justice system, there is an unwillingness to recognise that there are flaws in each part of the system that have to be dealt with proportionately and appropriately. The Government are not claiming that everything that is wrong in the criminal justice system lies within the courts, but that, as part of the overall reform of the system, appropriate adjustments need to be made to the way in which the courts operate.
    Mr. Gamier: There is a problem with the line that the right hon. Gentleman is taking. Nobody suggests that the entire criminal justice system is perfect; plenty of it could do with reform. However, if parts A, B and C need reform, the answer is to amend them, not to reform parts G, H and J. Yet the Government are lumping together in the jury system all their prejudices and anxieties about the failure to produce enough convictions when there may be other matters that require consideration.
    Mr. Denham: I am tempted to say, "I rest my case." The hon. and learned Gentleman has made precisely the sort of intervention about which I complain. People in all branches of the criminal justice system say, "It's not my bit that causes the problem." However, there are problems in all parts of the system. Police performance is not as good as it should be; the CPS does not always get it right; and parts of our court procedure are wrong. We need to tackle each part of the system. It is too easy for the police to say that the CPS and the courts are the problem, and that they are let down by them. We have all had that conversation with some part of the police service. It is also not right to claim that the courts are fine and that everything goes wrong in the process that leads up to court proceedings.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Does my right hon. Friend accept that those of us who are uneasy about the changes are motivated not by any worry about lawyers' views but by something more fundamental? If one changes in law a right that has existed for a long time for men and women in this country, one has to be certain that the change is not only justifiable but needed, and that it cannot be achieved in any other way. If I am worried about the amendments, I emphasise that it is precisely for those reasons.
    Mr. Denham: I accept that hon. Members might be worried about the changes for those reasons. However, in the past, I have had some opportunity to examine the criminal justice system and I am sufficiently convinced that there are enough problems, especially intimidation
    666
    of juries, to warrant changes in the limited cases that will, I hope, result from the Bill. Every hon. Member must make that judgment.
    Mr. John Burnett: rose—
    David Winnick: rose—
    Mr. Denham: I shall give way first to the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) and then to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Burnett: The right hon. Gentleman enjoys considerable respect in the House. Will he be specific about his criticisms relating to the three matters that are under discussion—lengthy trials, defendants' rights to opt for jury trial and jury tampering?
    Mr. Denham: I did not intend to speak about those three points at great length. Intimidating juries and jury nobbling or tampering causes me the greatest anxiety because of the impact on the public's confidence in the criminal justice system in communities where those who are involved in organised crime believe that they are invulnerable to the law and where that belief is shared by others who live there. We all know that such communities exist. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has set out concerns about jurors in complex fraud cases, and the case, which seems to me arguable, for allowing individuals to choose mode of trial. My greatest personal concern is the danger of intimidation.
    Mr. Llwyd: rose—
    Mr. Denham: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I promised to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick).
    David Winnick: I ask, in the friendliest possible way, what my right hon. Friend would say if we were the Opposition and a Conservative Government were making such proposals. I listened carefully to Opposition speeches, and I fear that a future Conservative Government, however distant that prospect may be, could build on these proposals, and that we, as the Opposition, would be all the more determined to oppose them. That is an irony of the proposals.
    Mr. Denham: I am pleased that my hon. Friend is a fellow member of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, partly because we share an interest in strengthening the House's ability to scrutinise legislation properly on the basis of the facts rather than having everything automatically polarised on party political lines. He may be right that some of us would in the past have reacted to the proposals purely on an oppositionalist, party political basis. I believe, however, that we should consider these matters on the strength of the arguments, and that the case should not be taken forward on the basis of the slippery slope argument, or of the argument that the other party might do something different. I shall take one more intervention, then I must finish; other hon. Members wish to speak.
    3.45 pm
    Mr. Liwyd: As an ex-Home Office Minister, the right hon. Gentleman will know that the Home Office collects statistics on everything. Why are there no reliable statistics on jury nobbling?
    Mr. Denham: Despite the hon. Gentleman's contention, such statistics are obviously not collected by the Home Office. However, I was convinced of the extent of problems in specific areas of the country involving jury nobbling and—a separate issue—tampering with witnesses.
    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: I would be very grateful if my right hon. Friend would give way.
    Mr. Denham: I will take one last intervention.
    Mr. Robinson: My right hon. Friend has rightly identified this as a crucial area, and one that is important to him. Surely, however, the system cannot be brought into disrepute because of a problem of intimidation. The problem that needs to be tackled is the intimidation. The system, which is so good, is threatened by that. Surely he must see that he is putting the cart before the horse, and that we should tackle the underlying cause of the problem. The threat to a jury cannot be accepted, and we have to deal with that.
    Mr. Denham: I agree that every effort must be made to protect a jury from intimidation, but my hon. Friend puts forward another example of the argument that says, "If only we did something else, we would not have to tackle this problem." I believe that changes are needed throughout the criminal justice system. Now, having taken more interventions than I ever did when I was a Minister, I shall sit down.
    Simon Hughes: This is a really important debate, and we are not going to have enough time for it today, so I shall try to describe briefly why the Liberal Democrats seek to uphold what the House of Lords did in relation to clauses 41, 42, 43 and 45, albeit for different reasons, but while following the same basic principle. I want to reinforce a point that has been raised on both sides of the House, including by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich ( Mrs. Dunwoody). I would say to the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) that we are talking about an element of the criminal justice system that commands great respect and has been seen to do a very good job for 800 years. We are talking about a mini-democracy, a mini-Parliament. The fact that the public come into the criminal justice system as lay magistrates and jurors from all walks of life means that their decisions about guilt and innocence are taken far more representatively than they would ever be by a single judge. That is the fundamental principle.
    As the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) intimated, a second principle is that, while we should of course look at the criminal justice process and at whether the courts do their job properly, there is no significant evidence that the element of the system that fails most—or even comes close to doing so—is trial
    668
    by jury. In fact, the parts of the system involving catching and deterring criminals, bringing them to court and ensuring that the trial starts all have flaws, as does the prison system, which does not rehabilitate properly. The part that stands up to the greatest test in terms of its success is the jury trial system. There is no suggestion that lots of guilty people are always getting off—that is not a criticism that is being made. There is also no suggestion in any part of the country that women, men, old people, young people, black people, Asian people or white people think that the system does not work for them; they all have confidence in it, more than in any other part of the criminal justice system. That is the strongest reason for not changing it unless there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that, for a particular reason, we should do so.
    Having made the general proposition, I appreciate that there are four different proposals before us that we have to consider separately. First, should we allow people the right to choose to do without juries? Secondly, should we do away with juries in long and complex fraud cases? Thirdly, should a person be deprived of the right to a jury trial halfway through a case in which there has been jury tampering, or, fourthly, in a prospective case, where there is a prospect of jury tampering? I am not naive about the fact that there are different cases, and we must examine each of them on its merits.
    Mr. Grieve: We know, do we not—the hon. Gentleman might agree—the statistic that upwards of 90 per cent. of all recorded crime is never prosecuted in any court of law? If he is looking for a solution to the problems of crime and criminality, that is the first aspect to which we need to address our attention.
    Simon Hughes: I agree absolutely. Most cases that go to the magistrates court result in a guilty plea, and a conviction is therefore secured.
    May I deal with a second set of paradoxes about the Government's position that I find confusing? I do not blame the Home Secretary for the first of them. In the first term of the Labour Government, there were proposals, as he has referred to them, to restrict people's right to choose jury trial. They were put forward twice and defeated twice. Now we are being presented with the tempting proposition that we should allow people to choose to do away with jury trial. Although that is superficially appealing, may I put one argument as to why it would be a dangerous road to go down?
    The argument was most effectively put by the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird)—I pay tribute to her—when she said, "Take a white defendant on a racial attack charge. Would he not find it a better prospect to appear before a white judge than a mixed jury? Take a male defendant on a sexual assault charge. Would he not perhaps choose to appear before a male judge rather than a mixed male and female jury?" Juries do not have reputations—they cannot, by definition—but judges do. If we go down this road, the choice of whether to elect for a judge will often be made by someone saying, "I'm going for the judge because they are thought to be soft and lenient." Those things cannot be predicted in a jury. Juries are much more uncertain.

    669
    They do not have a reputation, and they have none of the disadvantages of a single judge who comes to every case with a reputation.
    Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has given examples of individuals who might wish to be tried before a judge rather than by a jury, but classes of case are also relevant here. For example, one can imagine that when railway crashes are dealt with under health and safety legislation, the defendants—directors of a large company—might prefer to be tried by a judge alone, not by a jury. Is that in the public interest?
    Simon Hughes: That is one of the strongest arguments against giving serious fraud cases to the judge alone. It would look much more often as though the white-collar defendant was getting the white-collar judge—the single judge—whereas the blue-collar defendant, who represents the much more common non-fraud case defendant, would get the jury. These are really important matters.
    I get confused about another thing. In the Bill, the Home Secretary is saying, "Trust the judges," but I have
    heard him say—or I and a lot of other people think that
    we have heard him say in other cases—that we should
    not give such great trust to judges. If there is a choice, although I trust them both, I believe that juries receive more trust from the public than judges do. Juries are not paid by the state. Even though they are independent, they are not seen to be part of the establishment. They are real people doing a voluntary service as part of their civic duty, and they do it very honourably.
    Furthermore, the Government appear to be a bit confused because later in the Bill, in relation to previous bad character, they say, "Trust the jury. Put the evidence before them, and they can decide." We say in this context, "Put the evidence before the jury—they are well equipped to decide." I also wonder whether we are considering these proposals because juries are more unpredictable than judges and more out of the Government's control.
    Mr. Blunkett: The hon. Gentleman is moving on to pastures new, but is he seriously suggesting that any Government, not just this Government, or any Executive, not just this Cabinet, control judges and their decision making in court?
    Simon Hughes: Of course not, which is why I have never taken the view that the Home Secretary appears sometimes to have taken, which is that the judges should not be allowed to get on with their job and be properly independent. I have always taken the view that they should be allowed to do that. The great thing about juries is that they are far less predictable and manageable because they are far more independent. They are 12 people who have come together to form a collective view. That is bound to be more persuasive than any other method of deciding right and wrong, and guilt and innocence.
    Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Would it be fair to add to that list of advantages of the jury system the incorruptibility of the system? Talk of nobbling, threatening or
    670
    corrupting juries reveals one of the strengths of the system, not a weakness in it. It is almost impossible to subvert a jury of 12: in a lifetime of crime, I have never known it to happen. The placing of one judge in the firing line, who could be either bribed or nobbled, is surely much greater cause for concern.
    Simon Hughes: I agree—although I suspect that the hon. and learned Gentleman meant "in a lifetime of dealing with crime".
    If something works, we should not try to replace it unless there is an overwhelming argument for doing so. Secondly, the public are involved to an extent that we reduce at our peril. Thirdly, a jury contains people who do not arrive with a reputation and can therefore be entirely impartial. Fourthly, the jury system requires cases to be outlined in language that the public understand. There is no elite performance by lawyers for lawyers; this is publicly accessible justice, and we really ought to defend it.
    Mr. Llwyd: May I respectfully add to the hon. Gentleman's list the fact that it is always preferable to have 12 judges of fact, rather than one?
    Simon Hughes: That must be true, and any dogged and obstreperous individual can be dealt with now that majority verdicts are permitted, and frequently used.
    In the other place, my noble Friend Lord Dholakia pointed out that minority communities in particular—black and Asian communities—have great confidence in the jury system. They believe, as all the research and other evidence shows, that they will be given a much fairer trial by a mixed-race jury than by a single, normally white, judge. The Commission for Racial Equality has advanced strong arguments in favour of the jury system, on the grounds that it is race-proof and much more equitable.
    Many others argued points of principle in the House of Lords. Probably the strongest speech was made by a Government supporter, although she did not support the Government in this instance. On 15 July, Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws presented the central arguments in favour of jury trial.
    Let me deal with the four propositions in turn. The first I have already dealt with: although, superficially, the amendment constitutes an appeal for people to be allowed the right to opt out of jury trial, it is likely to give the impression of creating a two-tier system, and a system in which people tend to use their own judge. A case in which a terrible sex offender, for instance, ought to be tried by his or her—normally his—peers might turn out to be the case that cannot be considered by a jury.
    Secondly, there is the issue of serious fraud cases and very lengthy cases. I accept that the Home Secretary has made a concession in limiting his proposals to fraud cases, but my colleagues and I have not remained static. We have suggested an arrangement that would allow juries to be representative, but to be selected in a way that would make it practical to ensure that their members could remain on duty for a year, or for nine or six months. The Government rejected our suggestion.
    Our view is simple. We do not think there should be a two-tier justice system, in which what happens depends on the nature of the charge and the offence being

    671
    considered by the court. The fact that a case is long and complex in terms of paperwork need not mean that the issue is difficult for a jury to deal with. As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) reminded us, all the evidence suggests that there are much higher conviction rates in such cases than in the other cases with which courts must deal.
    Finally, there is the question of jury tampering. I understand the arguments, and the most appealing are those in favour of a system allowing the courts, if necessary, to take steps to deal with such tampering. The hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) said that we must not allow that part of the system to be put at risk. The hon. Member for Coventry, North-West referred to all the other measures that must be taken to show that we will not allow people to interfere with the criminal justice system, and that those who do so will experience the most extreme punishment.
    My colleagues and I prefer to take the road embarked on by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield and his hon. Friends. We are willing to work with the Government to ensure that we do not have half a trial with a jury and half a trial without, as that is a ludicrous proposition. We are also, in serious cases of jury tampering, in which the defendant could not have a fair trial in any circumstances, willing to look at alternatives, but only if there is a high threshold. However, we are not considering that this afternoon. If we have time in the following days and weeks, we may reach an agreement. We are willing in the next 48 hours to work to come to an agreement, but we are not willing to compromise on the principle, against a guillotine and a deadline in the House that are not of our making.
    4 pm
    Mr. Hogg: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said, but on jury tampering, if there is a retrial or further trial after the discharge of the jury, does he agree that the second judge—a judge of fact in a judge-only trial must be different from the judge in
    the first trial, because otherwise there is a danger that the judge in the second trial will have heard evidence not adduced in that trial.
    Simon Hughes: I agree.
    In a matter of hours, the President of the United States will make a state visit to this country. The constitutional settlement of the United States of America includes many good things. In the Declaration of Independence, one of the objections to the King concerned the fact that he was
    "depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury".
    That concern resulted in the right to trial by jury being protected in article 111.2 of the United States constitution. I am not aware of any circumstances in any of the jurisdictions in the United States in which defendants in serious cases can be denied the opportunity to trial by jury—[Interruption.] The Home Secretary has rightly mentioned Guantanamo Bay, and he knows that Members on both sides of the House believe strongly that it is a no-go area, which is entirely unacceptable. There is also the issue of military tribunals, but on the US mainland, the jurisdictions have upheld the right to jury trial.
    672
    The right to jury trial is precious, and it works well. Parliament will not give up without a fight the right for it to be used as the usual and regular course of action for most defendants. If we have to fight the Government, we will.
    Vera Baird: Many speeches have been made during the passage of the Bill about the importance of jury trial as a principle. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has always said that he values jury trial in principle. It is hugely important in a democracy that the fresh air of public scrutiny is applied to decisions about the guilt or innocence of our fellow citizens.
    My concern is primarily about clause 41, which may result in the end of jury trial as we know it. If my right hon. Friend does value that precious right, as he says, will he think further about that provision, which may undermine it? It could also be undermined by people who do not value it as he does or by sheer force of circumstance if clause 41 is brought into force. The new right for the defendant to opt for trial either by jury or by judge will inevitably be abused. For instance, in the north-east, it is well known that some judges are liberal and soft and that others are harsh. I have said so many times before, but if anybody asked me whether I would be tried by judge alone, I would say, "Which judge?" There will be forum shopping by defendants of the worst imaginable kind. Local witnesses waiting to go to court to give evidence will know that a defendant has opted at the last minute for judge X because he is soft, or has opted for a jury trial because judge Y, who is on the list of j udges, is hard. That will rightly scandalise the public, victims and witnesses.
    The Bill includes a provision specifying that there must be early exercise of the option, but it is unenforceable. Common sense dictates that if someone says that they want a jury trial, but the case comes to court and he decides that he is fine without a jury trial, nobody is going to compel him to go through the lengthier, more complicated and expensive process of empanelling a jury just because he asked for that at an earlier stage.
    Mr. Blunkett: I am very sympathetic to my hon. and learned Friend. I understand from the previous contribution that she rightly made in the House, how strongly she feels. However, is it her proposition now that that is not possible when people are faced with a magistrates court or being able to opt for jury trial—that at that point that option is fixed and is the one that prevails, whether they want to go back to a magistrates court or not?
    Vera Baird: It is very difficult to envisage a situation such as the one that I set out. The defendant may say, "All right, six months ago, I thought I needed a jury to try my case. I now realise that the judges here are all absolutely fine and fair and I do not need to put you through the extra expense, the extra complexity and a lengthier trial, so I do not want a jury trial." Is it seriously suggested that the judge should force him against his will to have a jury trial, when it will take a good deal longer and cost a good deal more? Of course not. The judge will say, "All right, if no one wants a jury trial here, no one need have one here."

    673
    In practice, therefore, the right will be capable of being exercised at the end. Of course, if it is going to be exercised that way at the end, it is going to be exercised the other way at the end, if it is wanted, as well. There will be no possibility of excluding forum shopping. It is an appalling prospect and will bring the criminal justice system into disrepute. The jury system will be a tool to be used by clever criminals. Very soon, not only the Home Secretary but I and many others will say, "This has to stop. The system cannot be abused like that."
    What will happen then? Will we go back to everyone having a compulsory jury trial? Of course not. By then, it will be clear that trial by judge alone can be quicker, slicker, more efficient and cheaper, so why wipe out the right to trial by judge alone? What will happen is that the right to decide whether a trial is by judge alone or by jury will be moved to the judge, and that will be a nail in the coffin of the right to jury trial. It will be at the judge's discretion.
    Of course, the point I have just made—that non-jury trial is bound to be cheaper, quicker and more efficient than jury trial—will in itself be a nail in the coffin of jury trial. A robbery trial in court one at the Old Bailey will be carried out in two weeks by a judge, whereas, a robbery trial involving a very similar case in court two at the Old Bailey will be carried out over six weeks by a jury. Perhaps the man who had the two-week jury trial will be acquitted. The argument will be obvious. Why on earth should we allow defendants to have six weeks' worth of legal aid for these dreadful lawyers when they could perfectly fairly be tried in two weeks by a judge? Again, that argument will start to militate against jury trial.
    Mr. Gamier: May I reinforce the hon. and learned Lady's point about judicial pressure in due course to encourage judge-alone criminal trials? In the civil field in which I work, defamation, there is still a right to jury trial, but the judge is given discretion to take it out of the hands of the jury and to try it himself, if he thinks—the wording almost reflects the wording in the Bill—that the case is going to be very complicated or take too long. However, increasingly, judges will begin proceedings by saying, "Do you not think that it would be better for all concerned if we just dispensed with the jury?" That is before we have even got into deciding whether it will be a complicated trial. The pressure will be on the parties to the trial to accede to the judicial request, because the judge will be under pressure from the management—that is to say, the Lord Chancellor's Department—to
    keep the through-put of trials going at a speedy rate. The Treasury pressure on the judge will be to keep the process going as quickly as possible. That is why the hon. and learned Lady is right to highlight that point.
    Vera Baird: I am grateful for that intervention. If somebody is acquitted in a couple of weeks, instead of being convicted after spending six weeks in front of a jury, people will start to say, "What's good enough for defendant X—being tried and acquitted by a judge—must be good enough for defendant Y. Why should we allow them that option?" As has just been said, judges are under pressure in terms of turnover and disposal
    674
    rates. They are almost certain to think that they can try cases just as well as a jury, so why should they not exercise their right to decide that they will do so?
    And what about the little cases—those that are just a
    few pounds' worth—that find their way to the Crown court, in which the defendant wants to opt for trial by
    jury? They will—[Interruption.] Does my right hon.
    Friend the Home Secretary want to intervene, or just get in the way? [Interruption.] He is muttering into his beard—he does so, I am sure, with great charm—about district judges already trying without juries, but there is a principle in this country that serious cases go before juries. Although I am talking about the less serious cases that a judge will consider as not meriting jury trial, it is obvious that they constitute the bottom end of the serious stuff that the Crown court deals with. There will be pressure for smaller cases at the bottom end of the Crown court's tariff to be tried by judge alone, and for the option of trial by jury not to exist.
    I foresee that, for those two reasons, we shall soon have the forum shopping and abuse that none of us wants, and the obvious cheapness, slickness and efficiency of trial by judge alone. The defendant's right to opt for trial by judge alone will go and will be passed into the hands of the judge, which will he the end of any kind of right to trial by jury. Here, I am expressing a very real fear. I do not intend that my comments should have a querulous sound; rather, they are expressing a serious concern. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary says that he, too, is concerned about safeguarding the principle of jury trial, but if he wants to do so, he cannot allow it to become optional. Once it becomes optional, the reasons why the option is exercised will bring the principle into disrepute. That is the slippery slope on which we are starting today with clause 41.
    Mr. David Kidney: It is fanciful for my hon. and learned Friend to suggest that if some accused can choose a judge-only trial, all of them will. So that we can see whose opinion is right, I should point out that Lord Justice Auld's report commented on the widespread use in other common-law jurisdictions of what he called the "jury waiver"—in other words, the giving up of the right to trial by jury. Is it not true that the jury trial is still strong in all those jurisdictions?
    Vera Baird: I do not seem to have made myself clear—at least to my hon. Friend. In no way did I say that if we give everybody the right to non-jury trial, all will opt for it. I said that the way in which that option is exercised will be subject to criticism, and people will say, "If they're going to exercise the right to jury trial in that way, we will take it away from them and let somebody sensible decide what mode of trial should follow." If my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is concerned about jury trial, I ask him to consider that that process will inevitably follow from what happens today. I seriously invite him to consider that that is not what he wants. Please reconsider clause 41.
    Mr. Hogg: I have just two minutes, so I shall be extraordinarily brief. I want to begin by telling the Home Secretary something that is not palatable to many Members of this House: that we should listen with respect to what is being said in the other place about part 7. The plain truth is that we in this House will be having

    675
    whipped votes on this issue, and that what we are hearing today is the Home Office's view. What we heard in the other place was a largely free and unconstrained debate, with views being expressed by people who have a great deal of knowledge on the subject—we should therefore listen with respect to what they say.>
    4.15 pm
    Like the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), I start from the presumption that jury trials are desirable: they have, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said, very wide public acceptability, and they tend to give a more just result—partly because jurors are better judges of fact than are judges, many of whom have spent too long in the criminal courts hearing too many lies.
    On clause 41, I absolutely agree with the hon. and learned Member for Redcar that we are creating a presumption against jury trials. That will be the thin end of the wedge, and ultimately they will be discontinued on that basis alone. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) said, many individuals will try to get a judge-only trial because they think that it suits them. Moreover, certain classes of trial will come before judges only, and that will displease the public at large.
    As regards long and complex trials—this relates to clause 42—the single issue is normally one of dishonesty—
    It being one hour and forty-five minutes after the commencement of proceedings on Lords amendments, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
    The House divided: Ayes 327, Noes 221.

    Division No. 371]

    [4:16 pm

    AYES

    Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Alexander, Douglas

    Brennan, Kevin

    Allen, Graham

    Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

    Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

    Wallsend)

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Darwen)

    Browne, Desmond

    Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

    Bryant, Chris

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Austin, John

    Burden, Richard

    Bailey, Adrian

    Burgon, Colin

    Banks, Tony

    Burnham, Andy

    Barron, rh Kevin

    Byers, rh Stephen

    Bayley, Hugh

    Cairns, David

    Beard, Nigel

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Beckett, rh Margaret

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Bell, Stuart

    Caplin, Ivor

    Benn, rh Hilary

    Casale, Roger

    Benton, Joe (Bootle)

    Caton, Martin

    Berry, Roger

    Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

    Best, Harold

    Challen, Colin

    Betts, Clive

    Chapman, Ben (WirralS)

    Blackman, Liz

    Chaytor, David

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Clapham, Michael

    Blizzard, Bob

    Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

    Blunkett, rh David

    Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

    Boateng, rh Paul

    Pentlands)

    Borrow, David

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

    Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

    676

    Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Chryston)

    Heppell, John

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Hermon, Lady

    Clelland, David

    Hesford, Stephen

    Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

    Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

    Coaker, Vernon

    Heyes, David

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Coleman, Iain

    Hodge, Margaret

    Colman, Tony

    Hoon, rh Geoffrey

    Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

    Hope, Phil (Corby)

    Cooper, Yvette

    Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

    Cranston, Ross

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

    Crausby, David

    Cruddas, Jon

    Howells, Dr. Kim

    Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

    Cummings, John

    Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

    Hutton, rh John

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Ingram, rh Adam

    Darling, rh Alistair

    Irranca-Davies, Huw

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    David, Wayne

    Jamieson, David

    Davidson, Ian

    Jenkins, Brian

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

    Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Denham, rh John

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Dismore, Andrew

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

    Jones, Martyn (ClwydS)

    Dobson, rh Frank

    Jowell, rh Tessa

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

    Doran, Frank

    Kaufman, rh Gerald

    Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Drew, David (Stroud)

    Keen, Alan (Feltham)

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Keen, Ann (Brentford)

    Eagle, Maria (L'poolGarston)

    Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

    Edwards, Huw

    Kemp, Fraser

    Efford, Clive

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

    Kidney, David

    Farrelly, Paul

    King, Andy (Rugby)

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Flint, Caroline

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

    Kumar, Dr. Ashok

    Follett, Barbara

    Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

    Foster, rh Derek

    Lammy, David

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

    Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Francis, Dr. Hywel

    Lepper, David

    Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

    Leslie, Christopher

    Gardiner, Barry

    Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

    George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Gilroy, Linda

    Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

    Godsiff, Roger

    Linton, Martin

    Goggins, Paul

    Love, Andrew

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Luke, lain (Dundee E)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

    Grogan, John

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Hain, rh Peter

    McCabe, Stephen

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    McCartney, rh Ian

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    MacDonald, Calum

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    MacDougall, John

    Hanson, David

    McFall, John

    Harman, rh Ms Harriet

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    McIsaac, Shona

    Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

    McKechin, Ann

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Healey, John

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    McNulty, Tony

    Hendrick, Mark

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    677

    McWilliam, John

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Sheerman, Barry

    Mallaber, Judy

    Sheridan, Jim

    Mandelson, rh Peter

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

    Singh, Marsha

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

    Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &Finsbury)

    Martlew, Eric

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Merron, Gillian

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Michael, rh Alun

    Soley, Clive

    Milburn, rh Alan

    Southworth, Helen

    Miliband, David

    Spellar, rh John

    Miller, Andrew

    Squire, Rachel

    Moffatt, Laura

    Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

    Mole, Chris

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Moran, Margaret

    Stevenson, George

    Morgan, Julie

    Stewart, David (Inverness E &

    Morley, Elliot

    Lochaber)

    Morris, rh Estelle

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Mountford, Kali

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Mudie, George

    Stoate, Dr. Howard

    Mullin, Chris

    Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Straw, rh Jack

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Stringer, Graham

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

    Tami, Mark (Alyn)

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

    Olner, Bill

    Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

    Organ, Diana

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Owen, Albert

    Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

    Palmer, Dr. Nick

    Timms, Stephen

    Pearson, Ian

    Tipping, Paddy

    Perham, Linda

    Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

    Pike, Peter (Burnley)

    Trickett, Jon

    Plaskitt, James

    Truswell, Paul

    Pollard, Kerry

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Pound, Stephen

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

    Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Primarolo, rh Dawn

    Ward, Claire

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

    Purchase, Ken

    Watts, David

    Purnell, James

    White, Brian

    Quin, rh Joyce

    Whitehead, Dr. Alan

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Rammell, Bill

    Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

    Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

    Williams, Betty (Conwy)

    Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

    Wills, Michael

    Bellshill)

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Robertson, John (Glasgow

    Anniesland)

    Woodward, Shaun

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Woolas, Phil

    Rooney, Terry

    Worthington, Tony

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

    Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

    Ruane, Chris

    Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

    Ruddock, Joan

    Yarmouth)

    Russell, Ms Christine (City of

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Chester)

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

    Salter, Martin

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Mr. Nick Ainger and

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Charlotte Atkins

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Ancram, rh Michael

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Arbuthnot, rh James

    Allan, Richard

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Amess, David

    Bacon, Richard

    678

    Baker, Norman

    Greenway, John

    Barker, Gregory

    Grieve, Dominic

    Barnes, Harry

    Gummer, rh John

    Baron, John (Billericay)

    Hague, rh William

    Barrett, John

    Hammond, Philip

    Beggs, Roy (EAntrim)

    Harvey, Nick

    Beith, rh A. J.

    Hawkins, Nick

    Bellingham, Henry

    Hayes, John (S Holland)

    Bennett, Andrew

    Heald, Oliver

    Blunt, Crispin

    Heath, David

    Boswell, Tim

    Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Hendry, Charles

    Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW

    Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

    Surrey)

    Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

    Brady, Graham

    Hogg, rh Douglas

    Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

    Holmes, Paul

    Brazier, Julian

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Breed, Colin

    Horam, John (Orpington)

    Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

    Howard, rh Michael

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Burnett, John

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Burns, Simon

    Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

    Burt, Alistair

    Jack, rh Michael

    Butterfill, John

    Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

    Cable, Dr. Vincent

    Calton, Mrs Patsy

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Cameron, David

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

    Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Carmichael, Alistair

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Cash, William

    Keetch, Paul

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &Inverness)

    Chidgey, David

    Key, Robert (Salisbury)

    Chope, Christopher

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Clappison, James

    Kirkwood, Sir Archy

    Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

    Collins, Tim

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Connarty, Michael

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Lamb, Norman

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Lansley, Andrew

    Cotter, Brian

    Laws, David (Yeovil)

    Curry, rh David

    Letwin, rh Oliver

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Liddell-Grainger, Ian

    Davies, rh Denzil (LIanelli)

    Lidington, David

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

    Lilley, rh Peter

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

    Loughton, Tim

    Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

    Dawson, Hilton

    McDonnell, John

    Djanogly, Jonathan

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Doughty, Sue

    Mackay, rh Andrew

    Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

    Maclean, rh David

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Evans, Nigel

    Malins, Humfrey

    Fabricant, Michael

    Maples, John

    Fallon, Michael

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury &

    Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminister)

    Atcham)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Fisher, Mark

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Flight, Howard

    Mates, Michael

    Flook, Adrian

    Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

    Forth, rh Eric

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

    Fox, Dr. Liam

    Francois, Mark

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

    Moore, Michael

    Garnier, Edward

    Moss, Malcolm

    Gerrard, Neil

    Murrison, Dr. Andrew

    Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

    Norman, Archie

    Gidley, Sandra

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    ⃖pik, Lembit

    Goodman, Paul

    Osborne, George (Tatton)

    Gray, James (N Wilts)

    Ottaway, Richard

    Grayling, Chris

    Page, Richard

    Green, Damian (Ashford)

    Paice, James

    Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

    Paterson, Owen

    Cooper, Yvette

    Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

    Cranston, Ross

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

    Crausby, David

    Sefton E)

    Cruddas, Jon

    Howells, Dr. Kim

    Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

    Cummings, John

    Urmston)

    Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    (Copeland)

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

    Hutton, rh John

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Ingram, rh Adam

    Darling, rh Alistair

    Irranca-Davies, Huw

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    David, Wayne

    Jamieson, David

    Davidson, Ian

    Jenkins, Brian

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

    Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Hatfield)

    Denham, rh John

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Dismore, Andrew

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

    Jones, Martyn (ClwydS)

    Dobson, rh Frank

    Jowell, rh Tessa

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

    Doran, Frank

    Kaufman, rh Gerald

    Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Drew, David (Stroud)

    Keen, Alan (Feltham)

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Keen, Ann (Brentford)

    Eagle, Maria (L'poolGarston)

    Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

    Edwards, Huw

    Kemp, Fraser

    Efford, Clive

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

    Kidney, David

    Farrelly, Paul

    King, Andy (Rugby)

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Bow)

    Flint, Caroline

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

    Kumar, Dr. Ashok

    Follett, Barbara

    Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

    Foster, rh Derek

    Lammy, David

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

    Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

    & Rye)

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Francis, Dr. Hywel

    Lepper, David

    Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

    Leslie, Christopher

    Gardiner, Barry

    Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

    George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Gilroy, Linda

    Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

    Godsiff, Roger

    Linton, Martin

    Goggins, Paul

    Love, Andrew

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Luke, lain (Dundee E)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

    Grogan, John

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Hain, rh Peter

    McCabe, Stephen

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    McCartney, rh Ian

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    MacDonald, Calum

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    MacDougall, John

    Hanson, David

    McFall, John

    Harman, rh Ms Harriet

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    McIsaac, Shona

    Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

    McKechin, Ann

    Rhymney)

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Healey, John

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    McNulty, Tony

    Hendrick, Mark

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    679

    Pickles, Eric

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Dinefwr)

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

    Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

    Pugh, Dr. John

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Randall, John

    Teather, Sarah

    Redwood, rh John

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Rendel, David

    Thurso, John

    Robathan, Andrew

    Tonge, Dr. Jenny

    Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

    Tredinnick, David

    M-Kent)

    Trend, Michael

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

    Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

    NW)

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Viggers, Peter

    Rosindell, Andrew

    Walter, Robert

    Ruffley, David

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Sanders, Adrian

    Webb, Steve (Northavon)

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Whittingdale, John

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

    Selous, Andrew

    Wiggin, Bill

    Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

    Wilkinson, John

    Shepherd, Richard

    Willetts, David

    Simmonds, Mark

    Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Williams, Roger (Brecon)

    Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

    Willis, Phil

    Skinner, Dennis

    Wilshire, David

    Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns & Kincardine)

    Winnick, David

    Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

    Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

    Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Soames, Nicholas

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Wood, Mike (Batley)

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

    Spring, Richard

    Young, rh Sir George

    Stanley, rh Sir John

    Younger-Ross, Richard

    Steen, Anthony

    Streeter, Gary

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Stunell, Andrew

    Angela Watkinson and

    Syms, Robert

    Mr. Alan Ried

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Lords amendment disagreed to.

  Clause 42

    APPLICATIONS BY PROSECUTION FOR CERTAIN COMPLEX OR LENGTHY TRIALS TO BE CONDUCTED WITHOUT JURY
    Lords amendment: No. 33
    Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Heppell.]
    The House divided: Ayes 329, Noes 224.

    Division No. 372]

    [4:32 pm

    AYES

    Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

    Barron, rh Kevin

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Battle, John

    Alexander, Douglas

    Bayley, Hugh

    Allen, Graham

    Beard, Nigel

    Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

    Beckett, rh Margaret

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Darwen)

    Bell, Stuart

    Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

    Benn, rh Hilary

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Benton, Joe (Bootle)

    Austin, John

    Berry, Roger

    Bailey, Adrian

    Betts, Clive

    Banks, Tony

    Blackman, Liz

    680

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Blizzard, Bob

    Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

    Blunkett, rh David

    Farrelly, Paul

    Boateng, rh Paul

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Borrow, David

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

    Flint, Caroline

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Follett, Barbara

    Brennan, Kevin

    Foster, rh Derek

    Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Wallsend)

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings &

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Rye)

    Browne, Desmond

    Francis, Dr. Hywel

    Bryant, Chris

    Gapes, Mike (IlfordS)

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Gardiner, Barry

    Burden, Richard

    George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

    Burgon, Colin

    Gilroy, Linda

    Burnham, Andy

    Godsiff, Roger

    Byers, rh Stephen

    Goggins, Paul

    Cairns, David

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Grogan, John

    Caplin, Ivor

    Hain, rh Peter

    Casale, Roger

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Caton, Martin

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    Challen, Colin

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Chapman, Ben (Wirra/S)

    Hanson, David

    Chaytor, David

    Harman, rh Ms Harriet

    Clapham, Michael

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

    Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

    Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

    Rhymney)

    Pentlands)

    Healey, John

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

    Hendrick, Mark

    Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Chryston)

    Heppell, John

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Hermon, Lady

    Clelland, David

    Hesford, Stephen

    Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

    Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

    Coaker, Vernon

    Heyes, David

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Coleman, Iain

    Hodge, Margaret

    Colman, Tony

    Hoon, rh Geoffrey

    Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

    Hope, Phil (Corby)

    Cooper, Yvette

    Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

    Cranston, Ross

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

    Crausby, David

    Sefton E)

    Cruddas, Jon

    Howells, Dr. Kim

    Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

    Cummings, John

    Urmston)

    Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    (Copeland)

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

    Ingram, rh Adam

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Irranca-Davies, Huw

    Darling, rh Alistair

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Jamieson, David

    David, Wayne

    Jenkins, Brian

    Davidson, Ian

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

    Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

    Hatfield)

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Denham, rh John

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Dismore, Andrew

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

    Jowell, rh Tessa

    Dobson, rh Frank

    Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Kaufman, rh Gerald

    Doran, Frank

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

    Keen, Alan (Feltham)

    Drew, David (Stroud)

    Keen, Ann (Brentford)

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Kemp, Fraser

    Edwards, Huw

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Efford, Clive

    Khabra, Piara S.

    681

    Kidney, David

    Pollard, Kerry

    King, Andy (Rugby)

    Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

    Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

    Bow)

    Pound, Stephen

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

    Kumar, Dr. Ashok

    E)

    Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Lammy, David

    Primarolo, rh Dawn

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

    Purchase, Ken

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Purnell, James

    Lepper, David

    Quin, rh Joyce

    Leslie, Christopher

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

    Rammell, Bill

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

    Lidded, rh Mrs Helen

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

    Linton, Martin

    Love, Andrew

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

    Luke, lain (Dundee E)

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

    Rooney, Terry

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    McCabe, Stephen

    Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

    McCartney, rh Ian

    Ruane, Chris

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Ruddock, Joan

    MacDonald, Calum

    Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

    MacDougall, John

    McFall, John

    Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Salter, Martin

    McIsaac, Shona

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    McKechin, Ann

    Savidge, Malcolm

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Sawford, Phil

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Shaw, Jonathan

    McNulty, Tony

    Sheerman, Barry

    MacShane, Denis

    Sheridan, Jim

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    McWilliam, John

    Singh, Marsha

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Mallaber, Judy

    Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

    Mandelson, rh Peter

    Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Marsden, Gordon (BlackpoolS)

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

    Soley, Clive

    South worth, Helen

    Martlew, Eric

    Spellar, rh John

    Meacher, rh Michael

    Squire, Rachel

    Merron, Gillian

    Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

    Michael, rh Alun

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Milburn, rh Alan

    Stevenson, George

    Miliband, David

    Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

    Miller, Andrew

    Moffatt, Laura

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Mole, Chris

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Moran, Margaret

    Stoate, Dr. Howard

    Morgan, Julie

    Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

    Morley, Elliot

    Straw, rh Jack

    Morris, rh Estelle

    Stringer, Graham

    Mountford, Kali

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Mudie, George

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Mullin, Chris

    Tami, Mark (Alyn)

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Taylor, David (NWLeics)

    Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

    Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Timms, Stephen

    Olner, Bill

    Tipping, Paddy

    Organ, Diana

    Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

    Owen, Albert

    Trickett, Jon

    Palmer, Dr. Nick

    Truswell, Paul

    Pearson, Ian

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Perham, Linda

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Pike, Peter (Burnley)

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Plaskitt, James

    Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

    682

    Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

    Woodward, Shaun

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Woolas, Phil

    Ward, Claire

    Worthington, Tony

    Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

    Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

    Watts, David

    White, Brian

    Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

    Whitehead, Dr. Alan

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Williams, Betty (Conwy)

    Wills, Michael

    Tellers for the Ayes: Mr. Nick Ainger and Charlotte Atkins

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    NOES

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Duncan Smith, rh Iain

    Allan, Richard

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Amess, David

    Evans, Nigel

    Ancram, rh Michael

    Fabricant, Michael

    Arbuthnot, rh James

    Fallon, Michael

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

    Bacon, Richard

    Baker, Norman

    Fisher, Mark

    Barker, Gregory

    Flight, Howard

    Barnes, Harry

    Flook, Adrian

    Baron, John (Billericay)

    Forth, rh Eric

    Barrett, John

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

    Fox, Dr. Liam

    Berth, rh A. J.

    Francois, Mark

    Bellingham, Henry

    Gale, Roger (TV Thanet)

    Bennett, Andrew

    Garnier, Edward

    Blunt, Crispin

    Gerrard, Neil

    Boswell, Tim

    Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Gidley, Sandra

    Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Goodman, Paul

    Brady, Graham

    Gray, James (N Wilts)

    Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

    Grayling, Chris

    Brazier, Julian

    Green, Damian (Ashford)

    Breed, Colin

    Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

    Brooke, Mrs Annette L

    Greenway, John

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Grieve, Dominic

    Burnett, John

    Gummer, rh John

    Burns, Simon

    Hague, rh William

    Burstow, Paul

    Hammond, Philip

    Burt, Alistair

    Harvey, Nick

    Butterfill, John

    Hawkins, Nick

    Cable, Dr. Vincent

    Hayes, John (S Holland)

    Calton, Mrs Patsy

    Heald, Oliver

    Cameron, David

    Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

    Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

    Hendry, Charles

    Carmichael, Alistair

    Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

    Cash, William

    Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Hogg, rh Douglas

    Holmes, Paul

    Chidgey, David

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Chope, Christopher

    Horam, John (Orpington)

    Clappison, James

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Collins, Tim

    Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

    Connarty, Michael

    Jack, rh Michael

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Cotter, Brian

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Cousins, Jim

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Curry, rh David

    Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

    Keetch, Paul

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

    Key, Robert (Salisbury)

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

    Kirkwood, Sir Archy

    Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

    Dawson, Hilton

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Djanogly, Jonathan

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Doughty, Sue

    Lamb, Norman

    683

    Lansley, Andrew

    Sanders, Adrian

    Laws, David (Yeovil)

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Letwin, rh Oliver

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Liddell-Grainger, Ian

    Selous, Andrew

    Lidington, David

    Shepherd, Richard

    Lilley, rh Peter

    Simmonds, Mark

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Loughton, Tim

    Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

    Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

    Skinner, Dennis

    McDonnell, John

    Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns & Kincardine)

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Mackay, rh Andrew

    Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

    Maclean, rh David

    Soames, Nicholas

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Malins, Humfrey

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Maples, John

    Spring, Richard

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

    Stanley, rh Sir John

    Steen, Anthony

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Streeter, Gary

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Stunell, Andrew

    Mates, Michael

    Syms-Robert

    Maude, rh Francis

    Tapsell, sir Peter

    Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F>

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Moore, Michael

    leather, Sarah

    Moss, Malcolm

    Thurso, John

    Murrison, Dr. Andrew

    Tonge, Dr. Jenny

    Norman, Archie

    Tredinnick, David

    Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

    Trend, Michael

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

    O' Neill, Martin

    Tyrle, Paul (N Cornwall)

    Öpik, Lembit

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Osborne, George (Tatton)

    Viggers, Peter

    Ottaway, Richard

    Walter Robert

    Page, Richard

    Wareing Robert N.

    Paice, James

    Waterson, Nigel

    Paterson, Owen

    Webb Steve (Northavon)

    Pickles, Eric

    Whittingdale, John

    Pickles, Eric

    Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

    Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

    Wigqin Bill

    Wilkinson, John

    Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

    Willetts, David

    Pugh, Dr. John

    Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

    Randall, John

    Williams, Roger (Brecon)

    Redwood, rh John

    Willis, Phil

    Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

    Wilshire, David

    Rendel, David

    Winnick, David

    Robathan, Andrew

    Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

    Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

    Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Wood, Mike (Batley)

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

    Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

    Young, rh Sir George

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Rosindell, Andrew

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Ruffley, David

    Angela Watkinson and

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Richard Younger-Ross

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Lords amendment disagreed to.
    Government amendments (a) to (f) to words restored agreed to.

    Clause 43

      APPLICATION BY PROSECUTION FOR TRIAL TO BE CONDUCTED WITHOUT JURY WHERE DANGER OF JURY TAMPERING
      Lords amendment: No. 34.
      Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Heppell]
      The House divided: Ayes 334, Noes 221.

      Division No. 373]

      [4:45 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Coleman, Iain

      Alexander, Douglas

      Colman, Tony

      Allen, Graham

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Cousins, Jim

      Cranston, Ross

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Crausby, David

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Cruddas, Jon

      Austin, John

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Bailey, Adrian

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Baird, Vera

      Cummings, John

      Banks, Tony

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Darling, rh Alistair

      Battle, John

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Bayley, Hugh

      David, Wayne

      Beard, Nigel

      Davidson, Ian

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Bell, Stuart

      Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Benn, rh Hilary

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Denham, rh John

      Berry, Roger

      Dismore, Andrew

      Best, Harold

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Betts, Clive

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Blackman, Liz

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Doran, Frank

      Blizzard, Bob

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Blunkett, rh David

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Boateng, rh Paul

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Borrow, David

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Edwards, Huw

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Efford, Clive

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Brennan, Kevin

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Farrelly, Paul

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Browne, Desmond

      Flint, Caroline

      Bryant, Chris

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Follett, Barbara

      Burden, Richard

      Foster, rh Derek

      Burgon, Colin

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Burnham, Andy

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Cairns, David

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Gilroy, Linda

      Casale, Roger

      Godsiff, Roger

      Caton, Martin

      Goggins, Paul

      Cawsey, lan (Brigg)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Challen, Colin

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Chapman, Ben (WirralS)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Chaytor, David

      Grogan, John

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Hain, rh Peter

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Pentlands)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Hanson, David

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Clelland, David

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Healey, John

      685

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      MacShane, Denis

      Hendrick, Mark

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Hepburn, Stephen

      McWilliam, John

      Heppell, John

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Hermon, Lady

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hesford, Stephen

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Heyes, David

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hodge, Margaret

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Hoon, rh Geoffrey

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Martlew, Eric

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Merron, Gillian

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Michael, rh Alun

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Miliband, David

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Miller, Andrew

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Mole, Chris

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Moran, Margaret

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Morgan, Julie

      Hutton, rh John

      Morley, Elliot

      Ingram, rh Adam

      Morris, rh Estelle

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Mountford, Kali

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Mudie, George

      Jamieson, David

      Mullin, Chris

      Jenkins, Brian

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Jones, Martyn (ClwydS)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      Olner, Bill

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Organ, Diana

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Owen, Albert

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Pearson, Ian

      Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

      Perham, Linda

      Kemp, Fraser

      Picking, Anne

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Kidney, David

      Plaskitt, James

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Pollard, Kerry

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Pound, Stephen

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Lammy, David

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Purchase, Ken

      Lepper, David

      Purnell, James

      Leslie, Christopher

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Rammell, Bill

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Linton, Martin

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Love, Andrew

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

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Luke, lain (Dundee E)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      McCabe, Stephen

      Rooney, Terry

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      MacDonald, Calum

      Ruane, Chris

      MacDougall, John

      Ruddock, Joan

      McFall, John

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      McIsaac, Shona

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      McKechin, Ann

      Salter, Martin

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McNulty, Tony

      Sawford, Phil

      686

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Trickett, Jon

      Sheridan, Jim

      Truswell, Paul

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Singh, Marsha

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Soley, Clive

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Southworth, Helen

      Ward, Claire

      Spellar, rh John

      Watson, Tom (WBromwich E)

      Squire, Rachel

      Watts, David

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      White, Brian

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Stevenson, George

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Wills, Michael

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      Straw, rh Jack

      Woodward, Shaun

      Stringer, Graham

      Woolas, Phil

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Worthington, Tony

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Timms, Stephen

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Tipping, Paddy

      Mr. Nick Ainger and

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Charlotte Atkins

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Cash, William

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Allan, Richard

      Amess, David

      Chidgey, David

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Chope, Christopher

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Clappison, James

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Bacon, Richard

      Collins, Tim

      Baker, Norman

      Connarty, Michael

      Barker, Gregory

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Barnes, Harry

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Cotter, Brian

      Barrett, John

      Curry, rh David

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Bercow, John

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Boswell, Tim

      Dawson, Hilton

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

      Doughty, Sue

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      Brady, Graham

      Duncan Smith, rh Iain

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Brazier, Julian

      Evans, Nigel

      Breed, Colin

      Fabricant, Michael

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Fallon, Michael

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Burnett, John

      Burns, Simon

      Fisher, Mark

      Burstow, Paul

      Flight, Howard

      Burt, Alistair

      Flook, Adrian

      Butterfill, John

      Forth, rh Eric

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Cameron, David

      Francois, Mark

      Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Garnier, Edward

      687

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Gidley, Sandra

      Norman, Archie

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Goodman, Paul

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Grayling, Chris

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Page, Richard

      Greenway, John

      Paice, James

      Grieve, Dominic

      Paterson, Owen

      Gummer, rh John

      Pickles, Eric

      Hague, rh William

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Hammond, Philip

      Harvey, Nick

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Randall, John

      Heald, Oliver

      Redwood, rh John

      Heath, David

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Rendel, David

      Hendry, Charles

      Robathan, Andrew

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Holmes, Paul

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Howard, rh Michael

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Ruffley, David

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Jack, rh Michael

      Sanders, Adrian

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Selous, Andrew

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Shepherd, Richard

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Simmonds, Mark

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Keetch, Paul

      Skinner, Dennis

      Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

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

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Soames, Nicholas

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Spring, Richard

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Lamb, Norman

      Steen, Anthony

      Lansley, Andrew

      Streeter, Gary

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Leigh, Edward

      Syms, Robert

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Lidington, David

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Loughton, Tim

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Teather, Sarah

      McDonnell, John

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Thurso, John

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Maclean, rh David

      Tredinnick, David

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Trend, Michael

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Trimble, rh David

      Malins, Humfrey

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Maples, John

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Viggers, Peter

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Walter, Robert

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Mates, Michael

      Waterson, Nigel

      Maude, rh Francis

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Whittingdale, John

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Wiggin, Bill

      Wilkinson, John

      Moore, Michael

      Willetts, David

      Moss, Malcolm

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      688

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Willis, Phil

      Young, rh Sir George

      Wilshire, David

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Angela Watkinson and

      Richard Younger-Ross

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 34 disagreed to.
      Government amendments (a) and (b) to words restored agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 35 disagreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 36 disagreed to.
      Government amendments (a) and (b) to words restored agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 37 disagreed to.
      Government amendment (a) to words restored agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 38 disagreed to.
      Government amendment (a) to words restored agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 39 disagreed to. Lords amendment No. 40 disagreed to.
      Government amendments (a) and (b) to words restored agreed to.
      It being more than one and three quarter hours after the commencement of proceedings, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].
      Lords amendment No. I agreed to.

    Clause 4

      USE OF TELEPHONES FOR REVIEW OF POLICE DETENTION
      Lords amendment: No. 2.
      5 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Caroline Flint): I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 4 and the Government motion to disagree thereto, and Lords amendment No. 8 and the Government motion to disagree thereto.
      Caroline Flint: Deleting clause 4 places an unnecessary restriction on a practical and efficient way of overcoming some of the resource and logistical problems of arranging reviews while people are held in detention. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 allows a range of safeguards and protections for a person in custody, including access to legal and medical advice, health care, recognised meal and refreshment breaks and, when appropriate, access to a suitable adult.
      A key factor in ensuring that the suspect's rights are protected lies in the further safeguard of the detention review process and the role of the review officer. Reviews of detention must be carried out frequently by an officer of at least the rank of inspector. The clause will maintain

      689
      the application of those important safeguards but will broaden the capacity so that telephone reviews can be conducted when they are considered the most practical and efficient approach.
      The provision will provide the review officer with straightforward alternatives of reviewing in person or by telephone. The choices continue to exist. When reviewing, the officer must consider each case individually and determine the most appropriate way in which to conduct the review, taking full account of the needs of the person in custody. The review officer will provide the opportunity for telephone representations by the detained person, the detainee's solicitor if available at the time and, if relevant, an appropriate adult, if available.
      We have made it clear in guidance that specific consideration must be given in the case of vulnerable suspects, including juveniles. We have developed that guidance with the valued support of key stakeholders, including the coalition of children's charities, which comprises the Children's Society, Barnardo's, ChildLine, National Children's Bureau, National Children's Home, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the National Council of Voluntary Child Care Organisations and the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders. The clause follows the recommendation of the joint Home Office and Cabinet Office review of PACE that allowing the use of telephone reviews in a wider set of circumstances would better serve the needs of the police and ensure the rights of suspects. It will help the police overcome the resource and logistical problems of arranging reviews, especially at night, and will save a great deal of valuable inspectors' time, particularly in terms of travelling to conduct reviews in remote rural areas.
      On Lords amendment No. 4, at present the law allows the police the discretion to retain fingerprints and non-intimate samples taken by them during the investigation of an offence from persons suspected of having committed a recordable offence. I am sure that my hon. Friends are aware that under PACE 1984, as amended, the police have the discretion to retain that information in respect of persons who have been charged with an offence, irrespective of whether that person is subsequently convicted of the offence. That important provision—I shall outline shortly just how important that power has proved to be—was introduced by an amendment to PACE in the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 in May of that year. Those amendments were subjected to close parliamentary scrutiny and Parliament concluded that the changes were compatible with human rights legislation.
      Lords amendment No. 4 would not only require the police to destroy the fingerprints and samples taken from persons arrested for a recordable offence and not subsequently charged, but would put the law back to the position it was in before the changes made in 2001.
      Simon Hughes: Will the Minister deal with an argument that the Government have never yet adequately answered? Why are people who are arrested and then released, without any charge or conviction, automatically put in a different category from people
      690
      who are never arrested by the authorities? Why should somebody have their DNA or fingerprints kept by the state when they are just as innocent and free from convictions as anybody else?
      Caroline Flint: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will expand on that point during my contribution. The danger is that not accepting the present situation would have an impact on what we want to achieve, which, as he rightly says, is the ability to retain fingerprints and DNA data from those who are arrested. It would also put the law back to the position it was in before the changes made in 2001. There was extensive discussion about whether it is right to retain information when someone has been charged but not convicted.
      I remind hon. Members that the changes were made as a result of two cases, one involving a murder and the other a rape, in which information held on the national DNA database linked the offenders to those offences. The Court of Appeal held that that information could not be used because, as the law then stood, it should have been destroyed when the offenders had been acquitted of the earlier offences for which the samples had originally been taken. The Court of Appeal therefore held that the evidence linking the offenders to the rape and the murder was inadmissible. Although the decision of the Court of Appeal was later overturned on appeal, Parliament decided, as the House of Lords had urged, to make the law clear and allow the police the discretion to retain all fingerprints and samples lawfully taken in the course of an investigation. As I said earlier, that change to the law has proved extremely important.
      Simon Hughes: Will the Minister give way?
      Caroline Flint: I would like to expand on this point. If the hon. Gentleman is going to repeat the same question, I would like a chance to answer it first.
      The change to the law has proved extremely important, and will be important in relation to the retention of data following arrest. The custodian of the national DNA database tells us that there are approximately 103,000 DNA profiles on the database that would previously have been removed under PACE. Of those, approximately 4,600 profiles of individuals have been linked with crime scene stains involving 4,760 offences. Those offences include 26 murders, 15 attempted murders, 27 rapes, 13 sexual offences, 14 aggravated burglaries and six offences related to the supply of controlled drugs. All those offences were committed after the person had been acquitted of an earlier charge. We do not want to change the law in that respect, which is what the Lords amendment, as it stands, would do.
      The Lords amendment would seriously inhibit the investigation, detection and prevention of crime. It might also delay the elimination of an individual from suspicion of having committed an offence, because DNA and fingerprints can equally be used to help the police to determine who did not commit the offence under investigation.
      Lynne Jones: Is not my hon. Friend arguing that DNA samples from every individual ought to be taken? Otherwise, she is saying

      691
      that people who have been arrested and had their fingerprints or DNA samples retained are more likely to be guilty of a crime than people who have not been arrested and had their samples taken. What evidence is there for that? Surely the Government ought to be legislating to compile a national database for everybody's DNA.
      Caroline Flint: No, we are not moving to a national database. Fortunately, in the UK it is still a minority of people who commit offences and therefore a minority who are arrested.
      We understand the concerns about the retention of samples and fingerprints taken from individuals who have been arrested and not charged, or charged and not convicted, but we believe that retaining that information is proportionate to the benefits of society and the prevention and detection of crime. Law-abiding citizens have no reason to be concerned about their fingerprints and samples being retained on the database. The law is already quite clear that their use is restricted to the prevention and detection of crime, the investigation of an offence or the conduct of a prosecution. In fact, arresting somebody is open to guidelines and procedures on the grounds for arrest.
      To those who say that we are creating a third class of person, neither innocent nor convicted but merely "under suspicion", I say that that is not the case. Where taking and retaining fingerprints or DNA samples is the norm, there is no stigma attached to the individual concerned and we would say no discrimination. These proposals are about having the means by which we can retain data not only to consider somebody if they have taken part in an offence, but to rule them out of offences that have been carried out.
      In relation to amendment No. 8, as originally drafted, clause 12 provided for the Secretary of State to alter by order made by statutory instrument the minimum age at which persons in police detention may be tested for specified class A drugs—crack, heroin and cocaine. The clause also provided for the order to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Such delegation and scrutiny were considered appropriate by the Regulatory Reform Committee, as reported in its 21st report. Noble Lords in the other place expressed particular concern that the clause did not provide a requirement for public consultation. I hope to assure the House that there will be sufficient safeguards before any change is made to the minimum age and that clause 12(3)(c) should be reinstated.
      Those provisions are to be introduced in limited areas on a pilot basis initially. We maintain that it is important that the Secretary of State should have the ability to change the minimum age, either up or down, should evidence emerge to suggest either that we would be justified in extending the clause to include persons under 14 or, for that matter, that testing those aged 14 and over should be increased.
      Reinsertion of clause 12(3)(c) would enable us to take action, as appropriate, in the light of any such evidence from the pilot evaluation findings or from other relevant research evidence. We believe that that flexibility is available in the case of pre-sentence drug testing, to which noble Lords in another place did not object. I can assure my hon. Friends that, as we indicated in the
      692
      memorandum submitted to the Regulatory Reform Committee, it is our intention that any decision to change the minimum age for drug testing will be made only after full consideration of all the available evidence and will take account of the views of relevant bodies. We also believe that it is sensible for the clause to be entirely consistent in this respect with that on pre-sentence drug testing.
      In all the areas that I have outlined, the proposals are about more effective policing to deal with situations that the police have to face in their day-to-day responsibilities. In some areas, that involves cutting bureaucracy; in others, it involves ensuring that we have information available.
      Mr. Graham Allen: Will my hon. Friend congratulate those in the police, not least in the Nottinghamshire force, on making the proposal in Committee that there should be testing at 14? Indeed, that will now be in the Bill. Will she also consider having an age limit that goes down to 10, which, although it sounds draconian, would stop some 10-year-olds who are class A drug users—crack cocaine users—and get to them before they develop a habit that could last the rest of their lives?
      Caroline Flint: I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. It is a reality that we have to face up to that there are young people who are using class A drugs. The evidence suggests that that is more prevalent among those aged 14 and above, which is why we want the testing, but having the opportunity to revise that figure up or down is important so that we can take action as soon as possible to get treatment to those young people and get them off the drugs. We disagree with the amendments.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Humfrey Malins: I think the House will agree that when the Opposition parties have less than a minute to discuss such important issues the situation is shambolic, and a real reflection on the way of parliamentary life nowadays.
      I have 20 seconds in which to discuss each group of amendments. We all agree that the issue of personal liberty is fundamental, and that an attempt should always be made to review detention, in person if possible. We understand that a balance must be struck between review of detention in person and the freeing of officers for operational duties, but I hope to goodness that reviews by telephone will be not the norm but a rarity, and that every effort will be made to ensure that the reviews are conducted by a very senior officer in person—or, second best, by means of a video link. I am glad that that is being introduced; it is working very well in the courts in which I operate. The need to protect younger and vulnerable defendants is very important.
      It being two hours and forty-five minutes after the commencement of proceedings, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].
      Lords amendment No.2 disagreed to.
      Motion made and Question put, That the House disagrees with the Lords in amendment No. 4.
      The House divided: Ayes 331, Noes 56.
      Division No. 374] [5:16 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Ainger, Nick

      Cousins, Jim

      Alexander, Douglas

      Cranston, Ross

      Allen, Graham

      Crausby, David

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Cummings, John

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Austin, John

      Darling, rh Alistair

      Bailey, Adrian

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Baird, Vera

      David, Wayne

      Banks, Tony

      Davidson, Ian

      Barnes, Harry

      Davies, rh Denzil (L lanelli)

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Battle, John

      Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Beard, Nigel

      Denham, rh John

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Dismore, Andrew

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Bell, Stuart

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Benn, rh Hilary

      Doran, Frank

      Bennett, Andrew

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Berry, Roger

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Best, Harold

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Betts, Clive

      Edwards, Huw

      Blackman, Liz

      Efford, Clive

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Blizzard, Bob

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Blunkett, rh David

      Farrelly, Paul

      Boateng, rh Paul

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Borrow, David

      Fisher, Mark

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Brennan, Kevin

      Flint, Caroline

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Follett, Barbara

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Foster, rh Derek

      Browne, Desmond

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Bryant, Chris

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Burden, Richard

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Burgon, Colin

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Gardiner, Barry

      Cairns, David

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Gilroy, Linda

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Casale, Roger

      Goggins, Paul

      Caton, Martin

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Challen, Colin

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
      Chapman, Ben (Wirra/S)

      Grogan, John

      Chaytor, David

      Hain, rh Peter

      Clapham, Michael

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Clelland, David

      Healey, John

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hendrick, Mark

      Cohen, Harry

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Coleman, Iain

      Heppell, John

      Colman, Tony

      Hermon, Lady

      694

      Hesford, Stephen

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Heyes, David

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Hodge, Margaret

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      Martlew, Eric

      Hoon, rh Geoffrey

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Michael, rh Alun

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Miliband, David

      Miller, Andrew

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Mole, Chris

      Moran, Margaret

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Morgan, Julie

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Morris, rh Estelle

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Mountford, Kali

      Hutton, rh John

      Mudie, George

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Mullin, Chris

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

      Jamieson, David

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Jenkins, Brian

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Olner, Bill

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Organ, Diana

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      Owen, Albert

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Pearson, Ian

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Perham, Linda

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Picking, Anne

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Plaskitt, James

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Pollard, Kerry

      Kidney, David

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Pound, Stephen

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Purchase, Ken

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Purnell, James

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Lepper, David

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Leslie, Christopher

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

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Linton, Martin

      Love, Andrew

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Lucas, lan (Wrexham)

      Luke, lain (Dundee E)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Rooney, Terry

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      McCabe, Stephen

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Ruane, Chris

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Ruddock, Joan

      MacDonald, Calum

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      McDonnell, John

      MacDougall, John

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      McFall, John

      Salter, Martin

      McIsaac, Shona

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      McKechin, Ann

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Sawford, Phil

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Shaw, Jonathan

      MacShane, Denis

      Sheerman, Barry

      McWilliam, John

      Sheridan, Jim

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Singh, Marsha

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      695

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Soley, Clive

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Southworth, Helen

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Squire, Rachel

      Ward, Claire

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Steinberg Gerry

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Stevenson, George

      Watts, David

      Stewart, David (Inverness E &

      white, Brian

      Lochaber)

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      wicks, Malcolm

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      WMams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Strang,rh Dr. Gavin

      Wills, Michael

      Stringer, Graham

      Winnick, David

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      C)

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Wood, Mite (Batley)

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Woolas Phil

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Worthington, Tony

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Wrav James (Gasgow

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Baillieston)

      Timms, Stephen

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

      Tipping, Paddy

      Yarmouth)

      Trickett, Jon

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Truswell, Paul

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Gillian Merron and

      Charlotte Atkins

      NOES

      Allan, Richard

      Lamb, Norman

      Baker, Norman

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Barrett, John

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury &

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Atcham)

      Breed, Colin

      Moore, Michael

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Öpik, Lembit

      Burnett, John

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

      Burstow, Paul

      Dinefwr)

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Rendel, David

      Campbell, rh Menzies (NEFife)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Shepherd, Richard

      Chidgey, David

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

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Kincardine)

      Cotter, Brian

      Stunell, Andrew

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Doughty, Sue

      Teather, Sarah

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Gidley, Sandra

      Thurso, John

      Harvey, Nick

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Heath, David

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Holmes, Paul

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Willis, Phil

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Keetch, Paul

      Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye amp;

      Inverness)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Bob Russell and

      Mr. Alan Reid

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment disagreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 8 disagreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 3, 5 to 7, 9 to 31, 41, to 99 and 308 to 318 agreed to.

    Clause 78

      AUTHORISATION OF INVESTIGATIONS
      Lords amendment: No. 100.
      Paul Goggins: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 101 and Government motion to disagree thereto.
      5.30 pm
      Paul Goggins: One of the important safeguards that the Bill provides in respect of retrials for serious offences is that the personal consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions will be needed to authorise the taking of certain steps by the police to reinvestigate a person previously acquitted of a qualifying offence. The Bill as originally drafted provides that the DPP will not be able to give his consent to reopen an investigation unless he considers that there is, or would be, new evidence as a result of a reinvestigation, and that a reinvestigation would be in the public interest.
      To that requirement the Lords wish to add a further requirement that the DPP should seek the leave of a Crown court judge before consenting to a reinvestigation. I consider this amendment unnecessary. The DPP is sufficiently senior and experienced to take a decision on whether to allow the police, in reopening an investigation into an acquitted person, to take the steps set out in subsection (3).
      Mr. Hogg: But one question is, of course, whether it is in the public interest for the investigation to proceed. Surely the DPP is not an independent judge, in the same way as a judicial figure.
      Paul Goggins: But perhaps the most important point about independence is that the DPP is sufficiently independent of the police, in terms of his ability to review their request for a reinvestigation. Independence is required, but independence from the police is most important.
      The Government consider that the DPP's taking that decision provides the necessary safeguard to ensure that the acquitted person is not being harassed by the police—an issue that Members raised in previous debates. At the reinvestigation stage, it is quite proper for the decision to reinvestigate to be taken by the prosecuting authorities rather than by the courts. Involving a Crown court judge in proceedings at that stage would also make the process more cumbersome. Many layers of safeguards are already built into the exercising of the powers listed in subsection (3). I do not believe that requiring the DPP to secure the leave of a Crown court judge is necessary before a reinvestigation can proceed.
      The safeguards on reinvestigation need also to be seen in context. Before an application for a retrial can actually be made, the DPP's consent is required again. He must be satisfied at that stage that there is new and compelling evidence, and that it is in the public interest for the application to be made. The Court of Appeal

      697
      then determines that application, and it is at that stage that a judicial decision is properly required. As such, I invite the House to disagree to the amendment.
      Mr. Grieve: This brings us back to a discussion that we had in Committee a very long time ago, in which we told the Minister that in our view, having judicial scrutiny before allowing the process to take place would be an extra and worthwhile safeguard. Such scrutiny would have been an important safeguard in precisely ensuring, as has been suggested, that the public interest and above all fairness, which the judiciary has a special role in ensuring, be taken fully into account. Of course, this process could be unfair and very onerous. It is therefore interesting to note that when the Bill went to the other place, the Lords seemed also to have been exercised and anxious about this issue.
      The Minister will be reassured to learn that, because this is a small matter, I do not intend to divide the House on it. If the Government wish to remove the amendment, on their heads be it, but I remain mystified as to why they did not accept it a long time ago. My view has always been that it would provide an important safeguard that would reassure the public and those who will be put through this process—including those who may, of course, eventually be acquitted—that it will be gone through only for good reasons, and that there will be judicial scrutiny throughout; otherwise, the danger is that, even allowing for the independence of the DPP, the perception will be that an individual is being put through an administrative process that is deeply damaging to his liberties, and which involves no proper oversight.
      Mr. Hogg: I am not one to impugn the DPP or to criticise unnecessarily, but we must not overemphasise his independence—he is head of the prosecution service.
      Mr. Grieve: My right hon. and learned Friend is right. That is why we tried to put the safeguard into the Bill at a very early stage. It was reading the Bill late at night—not some lobby group—that led me to believe that the amendment would be valuable. I remained puzzled throughout our proceedings that the Government would not accept a proposal that struck me as being so modest and so sensible. The ways of government are sometimes mysterious. I certainly do not wish to deny the Government their Bill on this one issue, so I shall, with some reluctance, keep quiet about it hereafter. I do not know whether their lordships will do likewise—that is a matter for them. I do, however, regret the Government's unnecessary removal of a safeguard that would have been of value.
      Mr. David Heath: I share the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). I suspect that Liberal Democrat Members may be made of slightly sterner stuff on this issue. We believe that the safeguard is important, if small. I entirely agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) that whatever personal merits we see in the Director of Public Prosecutions, and although he is a senior figure who is well capable of taking such
      698
      decisions, we must recognise that he has one impediment that cannot be avoided—he is part of the prosecution system. As we are dealing with the rights of the individual not to be harassed or otherwise put to inconvenience unnecessarily by an over-mighty prosecution system, the intervention of the judiciary at that point is entirely appropriate.
      In previous debates, the Government advanced the argument that judicial review at a later stage is capable of remedying any improper decision on the part of the DPP. That is even more cumbersome than the suggestion in the amendment, and has the considerable disbenefit of being too late to do the job properly. Given that this is an important departure from our previous practice, we want to ensure that the greatest possible safeguards are built into the system. It would be a very small step for the DPP to go to a judge to seek agreement by an ex parte application for an investigation or reinvestigation to proceed.
      The noble Lady who speaks for Conservative Members in another place was absolutely right in her arguments, and I have heard nothing from the Minister this evening that persuades me otherwise. Until we hear a cogent argument to the contrary, we should support our noble Friends and others in another place who insisted on the amendment, and await the conclusion later this week.
      Mr. Allen: My hon. Friend the Minister will note that Opposition Front Benchers gave no welcome in principle to this improvement to our law. If it is brought in, I hope that he will not be backward in coming forward in reminding them of that in a year or so, when serious cases such as those that we discussed in Committee—for example, involving child killers who later confess to cellmates—have been brought before the law for retrial.
      Mr. Grieve: I find that comment rather ungracious, especially in view of the Opposition's participation in the progress of the Bill. We have accepted throughout that there are grounds for allowing retrial for certain grave offences. We have worked with the Government to achieve a satisfactory outcome, and that has largely been achieved. I am grateful to the Government for that and I hope that this measure makes some small improvement to the criminal justice system. However, given the shortness of time available, I thought that I would concentrate on the issue before the House.
      Mr. Allen: I am grateful that my intervention has prompted the Opposition to put the record straight.
      Mr. Hogg: In my opinion, the Lords got this matter about right. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) reminded the House that retrials are a major departure from established principle and practice. We have accepted that they are justified in a limited number of cases, but we must face the fact that the process of a retrial can be extremely oppressive for defendants. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) rightly pointed out that some of those offenders will be acquitted, but the process of retrial could involve much expense, trouble, concern and anxiety for people who were acquitted at the first trial. Therefore, we should be chary of embarking on a process that could give rise to those consequences.

      699
      I do not wish to be unduly critical of the post of Director of Public Prosecution. Indeed, I have no justification for being so, but that does not alter the fact that he is head of the Crown Prosecution Service. As such, the DPP has a vested interest in pressing forward with prosecutions, because that is his function. I am concerned that a director may give his or her consent to a retrial in circumstances that do not wholly warrant it, in part because of the internal pressures in the CPS to secure convictions. The Lords have put in a filter, whereby the application by the DPP has to be considered by an independent judicial figure. That is a filter, but it also drives the DPP to consider carefully the nature of the application that he is about to make and whether or not the evidence on which the application will rest is sufficient to satisfy the criteria. Not only is the provision a filter in itself, but it will also drive the DPP to make applications only in appropriate cases.
      I hope that the Lords stick by this measure. If the matter is put to a Division, I shall vote to support the Lords. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield will not press it to a Division, but others may, and they will have my support.
      Paul Goggins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) for reminding the House of the wider context of our somewhat narrow discussion, which is that in future in those small number of cases that he mentioned justice will be delivered rather than denied, as it would have been in the past. I apologise to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) for my lack of cogency, but I see the issue as straightforward. The Bill includes safeguards in relation to this matter. Reinvestigation will require the personal approval of the DPP, who is a senior and experienced individual. He or she is independent from the police, and the Court of Appeal must give its approval if there is to be a retrial.
      Mr. Allen: Any trial is an onerous experience for a defendant, but does my hon. Friend agree that we should not forget how onerous it can be for a victim's family when new and compelling evidence comes forward and they are not allowed to bring the offender to book, however likely it is that that person is guilty?
      Paul Goggins: As my hon. Friend knows—he was on the Committee and is assiduous in following up such issues—the Bill is about redressing the imbalance in our system in favour of victims. That is a theme that the Home Office is pursuing on several fronts, not least through this Bill.
      Mr. Heath: The hon. Member for Nottingham, North made a potent point, but it is irrelevant to the matter that we are considering, which is simply whether judicial approval should be given for the reopening of an investigation. That does not affect the conduct of the reinvestigation—whatever the hon. Gentleman may blather from a sedentary position.
      Paul Goggins: The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North is important, but I agree with the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome that this is a straightforward matter. I ask the House to disagree with the Lords in their amendment No. 100.
      Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 357, Noes 58.

      Division No. 375]

      [5:45 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Ainger, Nick

      Clelland, David

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Coaker, Vernon

      Allen, Graham

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Cohen, Harry

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

      Coleman, Iain

      Darwen)

      Colman, Tony

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Cooper, Yvette

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Cousins, Jim

      Austin, John

      Cranston, Ross

      Bailey, Adrian

      Crausby, David

      Baird, Vera

      Cruddas, Jon

      Banks, Tony

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Barnes, Harry

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Cummings, John

      Battle, John

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

      Bayley, Hugh

      (Copeland)

      Beard, Nigel

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Darling, rh Alistair

      Bell, Stuart

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Benn, rh Hilary

      David, Wayne

      Bennett, Andrew

      Davidson, Ian

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Berry, Roger

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Best, Harold

      Davis, rh Terry (B' ham Hodge H)

      Betts, Clive

      Dawson, Hilton

      Blackman, Liz

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Denham, rh John

      Blizzard, Bob

      Dismore, Andrew

      Blunkett, rh David

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Boateng, rh Paul

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Borrow, David

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Doran, Frank

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Brennan, Kevin

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Wallsend)

      Edwards, Huw

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Efford, Clive

      Browne, Desmond

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Bryant, Chris

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Farrelly, Paul

      Burden, Richard

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Burgon, Colin

      Fisher, Mark

      Burnham, Andy

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Cairns, David

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Follett, Barbara

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Foster, rh Derek

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

      Casale, Roger

      & Rye)

      Caton, Martin

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Challen, Colin

      Gardiner, Barry

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      Chaytor, David

      Gerrard, Neil

      Clapham, Michael

      Gilroy, Linda

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

      Goggins, Paul

      Pentlands)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

      Grogan, John

      Chryston)

      Hain, rh Peter

      701

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Love, Andrew

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Luke, lain (Dundee E)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Hanson, David

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      McCabe, Stephen

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Rhymney)

      MacDonald, Calum

      Healey, John

      MacDougall, John

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      McFall, John

      Hendrick, Mark

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Hepburn, Stephen

      McIsaac, Shona

      Heppell, John

      McKechin, Ann

      Hermon, Lady

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Hesford, Stephen

      McNulty, Tony

      Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

      MacShane, Denis

      Heyes, David

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      McWilliam, John

      Hodge, Margaret

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hoon, rh Geoffrey

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Sefton E)

      Marshall, David (Glasgow

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Shettleston)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

      Martlew, Eric

      Urmston)

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Michael, rh Alun

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Miliband, David

      Hutton, rh John

      Miller, Andrew

      Ingram, rh Adam

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Moffatt, Laura

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead &

      Mole, Chris

      Highgate)

      Morgan, Julie

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Morley, Elliot

      Jamieson, David

      Morris, rh Estelle

      Jenkins, Brian

      Mountford, Kali

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Mudie, George

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

      Mullin, Chris

      Hatfield)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Olner, Bill

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Organ, Diana

      Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Owen, Albert

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Pearson, Ian

      Kidney, David

      Perham, Linda

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Picking, Anne

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Pickthall, Colin

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Bow)

      Plaskitt, James

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Lammy, David

      Pound, Stephen

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      E)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Lepper, David

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Leslie, Christopher

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Purchase, Ken

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Purnell, James

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Linton, Martin

      Quinn, Lawrie

      702

      Rammell, Bill

      Stringer, Graham

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      ,

      Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Bellshill)

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbuiy)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Anniesland)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      NW)

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Timms, Stephen

      Rooney, Terry

      Tipping, Paddy

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Trickett, Jon

      Ruane, Chris

      Truswell, Paul

      Ruddock, Joan

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Chester)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Salter, Martin

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Sawford, Phil

      Ward, Claire

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Sheerman, Barry

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Sheridan, Jim

      Watts, David

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      White, Brian

      Short, rh Clare

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Singh, Marsha

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Wills, Michael

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

      Winnick, David

      Finsbury)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      C)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      Soley, Clive

      Woodward, Shaun

      Southworth, Helen

      Woolas, Phil

      Spellar, rh John

      Worthington, Tony

      Squire, Rachel

      Wray, James (Glasgow

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Baillieston)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

      Stevenson, George

      Yarmouth)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E &

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Lochaber)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Margaret Moran and

      Gillian Merron

      NOES

      Allan, Richard

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Baker, Norman

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Barrett, John

      Keetch, Paul

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

      Brake, Tom (Carsha/ton)

      Inverness)

      Breed, Colin

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Lamb, Norman

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Burnett, John

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Burstow, Paul

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury &

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Atcham)

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Moore, Michael

      Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Carmichael, Alistair

      ⃶pik, Lembit

      Chidgey, David

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

      Cotter, Brian

      Dinefwr)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Doughty, Sue

      Rendel, David

      Gidley, Sandra

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W &

      Shepherd, Richard

      Abingdon)

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

      Harvey, Nick

      Kincardine)

      Heath, David

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Stunell, Andrew

      Holmes, Paul

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      703

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Teather, Sarah

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Willis, Phil

      Thurso, John

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Mr. Alan Reid and

      Mr. Don Foster

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment disagreed to.
      It being more than three and a quarter hours after the commencement of proceedings, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].
      Lords amendment No. 101 disagreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 102 to 113 agreed to.

    New Clause
    Lords amendment: No. 114.
    Paul Goggins: 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 discuss the following: Lords amendment No. 115 and the Government motion to disagree thereto, Government amendment (a) to words restored; Lords amendment No. 116 and the Government motion to disagree thereto; Lords amendment No. 117 and the Government motion to disagree thereto; Lords amendment No. 118 and the Government motion to disagree thereto; Lords amendment No. 119 and the Government motion to disagree thereto; Lords amendment No. 120 and the Government motion to disagree thereto; Lords amendment No. 121 and the Government motion to disagree thereto; Lords amendment No. 122 and the Government motion to disagree thereto; Lords amendment No. 123 and the Government motion to disagree thereto; Lords amendment No. 124 and the Government motion to disagree thereto, Government amendment (a) to words restored; Lords amendment No. 125 and the Government motion to disagree thereto; Lords amendment No. 126 and the Government motion to disagree thereto, Government amendment (a) to words restored; Lords amendment No. 127 and the Government motion to disagree thereto; Lords amendment No. 128 and the Government motion to disagree thereto; Lords amendment No. 129 and the Government motion to disagree thereto, Government amendments (a) to (e) to words restored; Lords amendment No. 130 and the Government motion to disagree thereto, Government amendments (a) to (d) to words restored; Lords amendment No. 131and the Government motion to disagree thereto; Lords amendment No. 132 and the Government motion to disagree thereto, Government amendment (a) to words restored; Lords amendments Nos. 133 to 136.
    Paul Goggins: We now come to the part of the Bill that deals with the admissibility of evidence, specifically evidence of bad character and hearsay evidence. These are highly important provisions.
    Trials should be a search for the truth and the rules of evidence should help to ensure that that is the case. The present law in both of those areas has, however, been
    704
    roundly criticized—from the royal commission on criminal justice in 1993 to the Law Commission's reports in 1997 and 2001 and Lord Justice Auld's review of the criminal courts. There is a wide consensus in favour of reform.
    6 pm
    Mr. Kidney: My hon. Friend mentions the Law Commission. The Lords amendment on bad character would import wholesale the Law Commission's draft legislation on bad character, which seeks to clarify and modernise the law. It is authoritative because it is based on the Law Commission's investigation, report and draft Bill. Why does my hon. Friend not just take what he has got and accept the Lords amendment?
    Paul Goggins: I shall explain why we are not doing that. We give credit to the Law Commission for the work that it has done, but argue that we want to go further than it has recommended. I hope that during the next few minutes I shall be able to apprise my hon. Friend of why we want to go further than the Law Commission's initial recommendations.
    This part of the Bill is intended to provide a new statutory framework for the admission of those two types of evidence. Amendments adopted in the other place would, however, reduce the efficacy of the reform that the Government propose. I shall deal first with the evidence of bad character. Amendments adopted by the other place would replace the Government's proposals with almost exactly the scheme drafted by the Law Commission, as my hon. Friend pointed out. We agree with much in that scheme. As my noble Friend the Minister of State made clear in the other place, the Government's proposals are based on the Law Commission's work and adopt many of its recommendations. However, we do not believe that those go far enough in rebalancing the system to ensure that the rules promote the admission of relevant evidence, subject, of course, to considerations of fairness. Without such rebalancing, courts and juries will continue to have withheld from them important evidence that could give them the full picture of a particular case.
    In our view, a different approach is required—one of inclusion, which makes it clear that relevant evidence is admissible. It will of course be for the prosecution to demonstrate in the course of proceedings how the evidence relates to the particular case.
    Mr. Grieve: Let us take just one example: previous convictions. It is accepted—I think that the Government would accept this—that if someone has a previous conviction, that in itself cannot show that they are guilty of anything, unless there is a link between the previous conviction and the crime for which they are currently being tried. That is the classic example that shows why such evidence should be excluded unless there is a reason to include—it not the other way around. That is what the Law Commission wanted to do, but for some reason the Government do not want to do that.
    Paul Goggins: It is because we are persuaded of the need for an inclusive approach. We are making the

    705
    presumption that that kind of information is admissible as evidence. Of course, the defence has the opportunity to argue that such evidence is not relevant, and it could argue that it was more prejudicial than probative in a particular case, so there are safeguards in place—but the information referred to by the hon. Gentleman in his example may be relevant in a particular case.
    We have always said that we will listen to constructive suggestions for change to ensure that our proposals are cast in the best possible form. We are aware that a number of concerns have been expressed over the way in which the Bill's scheme will work in practice and we are prepared to make improvements to reflect those. I am therefore moving several amendments to make three changes. The first concerns the definition of evidence of bad character. The definition that the Government originally proposed was that recommended by the Law Commission, but concern was expressed that that was too vague and would enable the admission of evidence that was too remote. We recognise that it is important to be as clear and precise as possible, so we have redrafted the definition to tighten the wording while maintaining a fairly wide ambit.
    The second change is to ensure that the defendant has clear notice of the prosecution's intention to rely on evidence of his bad character. That reflects a concern that a more inclusionary approach would lead to the admission of evidence where it was not appropriate or safe for it to be heard. That is not our intention. We believe that the system needs to be rebalanced to ensure that relevant evidence is admitted unless good reason is shown for excluding it, but we recognise that there must be a clear opportunity for a defendant to apply to exclude the evidence and for that issue to be decided by the court. That will be facilitated by having a formal requirement of notice.
    The third change relates to the admissibility of juvenile convictions in adult proceedings. At present, no mention may be made of those convictions. That is too restrictive an approach and our proposals will lift that absolute prohibition, making such evidence admissible subject to the general scheme of the Bill. Concern has been expressed that that goes too far, that a person's record at that age will not have the relevance of later offending, and that particular considerations apply in the context of juvenile offending. We have some sympathy with the idea that such admission should take place on a more restricted basis, so we propose that those convictions should be admissible only where the interests of justice specifically require it. We intend that test to exclude a sporadic record for minor offences while ensuring that continual or persistent offending or convictions for very serious offences are capable of admission.
    Hon. Members will notice that there are a number of other amendments in the name of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
    Mr. Hogg: To what extent has the Minister addressed the following issue? He will understand that under existing law, a defendant will often refrain from attacking the character of a Crown witness for fear of his own character being disclosed. Under the Government's proposals, the presumption, broadly speaking, seems to
    706
    be that the bad character of the defendant can be disclosed in any event. That being so, the restraint that operates at present on defendants not to attack the character of Crown witnesses will disappear.
    Paul Goggins: I am becoming more familiar with some of those issues by the hour. I understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman refers to "the shield". We believe that the shield should not be available with impunity to the defendant, and that he should not be allowed to make assertions without some accountability and responsibility for them.
    Mr. Denham: On the question of bad character, does my hon. Friend agree that of all the provisions in the Bill that have caused concern—I share many of those concerns—this is where the risk of something going wrong is probably greatest, in terms of the import of particular evidence being misunderstood by the jury in the course of the trial? The case for moving in this direction is good, but how do the Government propose to examine how the law will work in operation to see whether any of the concerns that have been expressed are justified or whether it is working well?
    Paul Goggins: It is good practice for the Government to examine the impact of their legislation in any sphere. Earlier today we discussed the Sexual Offences Bill, whose implementation we shall need to monitor carefully. The same will be true of this Bill. I accept what my right hon. Friend says about some of the dangers. We acknowledge that there would be dangers if the provisions were unrestrained, but I have already referred to the requirement for notice to be given and made the point that the defence has the opportunity, without the jury in the courtroom, to argue that a particular piece of evidence that the prosecution wants to bring forward is not relevant or is more prejudicial than probative. I think that we have put in place safeguards that will reassure my right hon. Friend, but I certainly note his concerns.
    On hearsay evidence, the relevant amendment that we are discussing would remove clause 107. That clause is a key part of the new statutory scheme. It provides an overarching statement of the circumstances in which hearsay evidence is admissible, setting the context for the rest of that part of Bill. Those who opposed the clause in the other place did so for two very different reasons.
    First, objections were raised in general to the scheme proposed in the Bill, to which clause 107 provides the gateway. We believe that those objections are misplaced. The Bill provides a clear scheme based on recognised and established categories of admissibility, but consolidates the current rules and restates them comprehensively and coherently. As the House will know, the Lord Chief Justice has suggested that something simpler is needed, akin to the civil rules of evidence. We have given that careful consideration, but do not believe that a complete relaxation of the hearsay rule, as in civil proceedings, would be appropriate for criminal cases where different concerns, such as the fairness of the proceedings, take precedence. In our view, it is important to provide a clear structure for the admission of hearsay evidence, and we consider that the best framework is based on clear and accepted

    707
    categories of admissibility, with residual discretion to operate in the interests of justice.
    That brings me to the second concern that has been expressedߞthe extent to which the courts should have discretion to admit evidence that does not fall within one of the recognised categories. That is dealt with in clause 107(1)(d). The Government remain firmly of the view that that is an important aspect of the scheme. Certainly, it was considered necessary by the Law Commission, which recommended a provision along those lines. It might be helpful if I give an example of why that sort of discretion is needed.
    Let us take a case where a man is accused of murdering his ex-wife. His defence is that he was 200 miles away at the time of her death. He has only one alibi—a neighbour's seven-year-old child saw him when he popped out to walk his dog. The child gives a statement to the police the next day confirming the man's presence at home. She remembers the incident so well because he stopped to let her pet the dog. But by the time of the trial, she cannot remember anything about it at all. The jury cannot be told about her statement because it would be hearsay. Juries in other countries, such as Canada, are trusted to hear that type of evidence, so why can they not be trusted to do so in this country?
    That example is not far-fetched—the Court of Appeal dealt with a similar problem in the case of Thomas, when it upheld the judge's ruling that the statement was inadmissible hearsay, but it allowed the appeal as a conviction obtained in such circumstances could not be regarded as safe. That illustrates the need for some form of discretion to admit evidence outside of the categories provided in the Bill.
    We have listened carefully to the concerns that have been expressed about whether the discretion in subsection (1)(d) is insufficiently focused. Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 132 will tighten that provision to ensure that evidence can be admitted only where doing so is in the interests of justice. That will allow other out-of-court statements to be used where they are cogent and reliable.
    There is a wide consensus in favour of reforming those two areas of the law. This is not about securing convictions at the expense of defendants' rights. Clear safeguards have been built into the scheme to ensure that the burden of proof continues to rest on the prosecution and that trials are conducted fairly. However, this is about ensuring that the rules are clear and facilitate the admission of evidence of previous offending or other misconduct where doing so is appropriate and safe. Our proposals have drawn substantially on the excellent work undertaken by the Law Commission. We consider it important that the original proposals in the Bill, amended as I have outlined, are restored.
    Mr. Grieve: Perhaps I can start in a conciliatory tone by dealing with hearsay evidence first, because the Government have gone a considerable distance towards meeting the anxieties about hearsay evidence that have been expressed in the House and in another place. There is general agreement that revisiting the hearsay rules is desirable and that there are good reasons why certain forms of hearsay should be admissible in front of a jury,
    708
    who should be trusted with such information, with the judge providing guidance and explanation about the fact that it is not first-hand evidence and on how to approach it with caution.
    As the Minister has rightly explained, the anxiety was that the safeguards were insufficient, particularly in relation to multiple hearsay. Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 132, which relates to clause 107(1)(d), is very small, but it is of considerable significance. It goes a long way to meeting those objections, particularly as the anxiety in respect of subsection (1)(d) was that it clearly implied in its original form. as the Minister will appreciate, that such evidence would be withheld only in the most exceptional circumstances. It is clear that the interests of justice require a judge to weigh that on each occasion without pressure being put on him by the words:
    "despite the difficulties there may be in challenging the statement".
    It is precisely the difficulties in challenging the statement that make hearsay such a dangerous tool if it is not handled with a great deal of care.
    The Government have dealt with that issue, and although I obviously cannot be sure what will happen when the Bill returns, I am satisfied that they have handled this matter correctly. I am grateful to the Minister, even at the eleventh hour and 59 minutes—or perhaps even beyond the twelfth hour—for the fact that we have succeeded in getting that right. The Government have come up with a number of amendments in respect of bad character that appear to be worthy and certainly represent an improvement.
    6.15 pm
    Mr. Garnier: Perhaps this intervention comes about through slowness in my intellect. I have listened to what the Minister and my hon. Friend have said, but I am still not persuaded by their happy acceptance that Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 132 will do what they think it is intended to do. I wonder whether my hon. Friend will be patient enough to explain to me in a little more detail why he thinks that that Government amendment will do what he hopes it will do.
    Mr. Grieve: The Government intend that the amendment will provide far greater discretion to exclude such evidence where the judge considers that the interests of justice require that it should not be admitted, so the amendment will beef up judicial discretion. To that extent—I accept to that extent only—it represents a significant improvement, which may go some way to reassure those in the other place who were worried about the issue that the Government have taken their concerns on board.
    There are other ways to approach that matter, and my hon. and learned Friend is right to suggest that substantial anxiety was expressed about hearsay evidence in Committee and in the other place. I am certainly not saying that the Government's proposal

    709
    represents the panacea for all ills, but it is a significant improvement in the light of the previous criticisms. I do not think that I can go beyond that.
    Mr. Gamier: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for saying that, but I want to try to project myself forward. How would I sum up to a jury—
    Mr. Allen: Oh no.
    Mr. Garnier: I know that the hon. Gentleman is not terribly interested in the practical consequences of such Bills, but we—[Interruption.] I do not think that he can intervene on an intervention. We have to be sure that the laws that we pass in the House are not only attractive to us as legislators but can be put into practical effect in the law courts. I am sorry for the hon. Gentleman, but the courts are where the law is applied when people are on trial for their liberty. I am not suggesting that my hon. Friend is getting this wrong, but perhaps I am being very dim about it. I just want him to be able to convince me that when we push the provision through into law and he and I have to apply it as either advocates or judges, it will do what we think it will do. I am yet to be convinced that it will do so.
    Mr. Grieve: My hon. and learned Friend makes a perfectly good point. One of the anxieties consistently expressed about the Bill was that it would make judges' lives more difficult in summing up cases to juries. Some of the issues that will be presented become more complex. Perhaps, in fairness to the Government, I should say that the mischief might not lie entirely with them, because the argument that more hearsay evidence should be admitted is a pressure that has come from a number of areas outside Government as well. Indeed, I think that the Minister alluded to the fact that the Lord Chief Justice has expressed views about the desirability of admitting more hearsay evidence—the Minister may confirm that or correct what I say—and a belief that
    more hearsay evidence should be available to juries, but balanced, of course, by judicial explanation.
    I have no doubt, however, that my hon. and learned Friend is right to suggest that judicial explanation puts more difficulty and pressure on judges and, of course, there is a greater of possibility of getting it wrong. If they get it wrong, there will be appeals. If there are appeals, verdicts may be overturned because judges failed to direct juries properly on the weight to be attached to certain evidence. My hon. and learned Friend is in no sense wrong in asking whether I have got it right. I have to accept that a bit of a wing and a prayer is involved.
    Nevertheless, the point made by the Minister about the denial of hearsay evidence sometimes being greatly to the prejudice of a defendant is absolutely correct. It seems to me that that is a correct analysis of the current state of the law. In relation to saying that hearsay should be left squarely as it is, it has in fact been eroded in a number of directions, as my hon. and learned Friend knows, and practising in the criminal courts one notices how it creeps in almost by agreement between the prosecution and the defence with increasing regularity, when it is felt that, in the interests of justice, that should happen.
    710
    In response to my hon. and learned Friend, if this had been my Bill—or the Opposition in government's Bill—we would not have started from here. Having started from here, however, and having had some serious discussions with the Minister—we have never had disputes, and we have had remarkably good relations—I accept that the current drafting goes some way towards meeting the objections that have been raised previously. That is the best way that I can leave the matter.
    To turn to the nub of the issue, bad character—I want to allow others to speak on the matter—their lordships read the clauses drafted by the Government, which are of some complexity, and concluded that they were seriously flawed. To see that, one needs only to read the debate in the House of Lords, in which the Minister acknowledged that the participation and level of the discussion had been of a very high quality. They were so exercised that they took the original proposals of the Law Commission and—to remind the Minister of what happened-the then Home Secretary, who is now the Leader of the Opposition, being concerned about the issues surrounding bad character, referred the matter to the Law Commission, which spent about four years taking evidence, discussing the issue and trying to come up with a satisfactory outcome that could codify the rules on admissibility of previous convictions and bad character. Having done that, it could try to ensure that a marked reluctance by judges, which is widely accepted,
    to admit such evidence—because of the absence of guidelines and the fear that it would be overturned on appeal if they did—might be alleviated to an extent and that more of this evidence could come in when it was relevant and helpful to achieving justice. That is why the Law Commission came up with its report. Having done so, it even came up with a model Bill that could be presented to the House and turned into law.
    Those in the other place were concerned because the Government had departed radically from the Law Commission proposals. Above all, as the Minister has admitted, that was because the Law Commission always envisaged that the basic rule would normally be that such evidence is excluded unless there is a good reason to include it. The Government's view, for reasons that I have never found satisfactory, is that it should be included unless its exclusion can be justified. That is a very important difference, which, as I tried to take up with the Minister earlier, is nonsense. One has only to consider that that category of evidence is irrelevant unless it has a connection to recognise that saying that it should normally be included turns the whole argument on its head.
    Mr. Hogg: Under clause 93(3), the evidence will be admitted unless the defendant can show that
    "the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness".
    Once statute provides for the admission of this evidence, however, it is difficult to see how it can ever be struck out under that subsection.
    Mr. Grieve: My right hon. and learned Friend is right that it is put in a statutory form, although there is a caveat that enables a judge to exclude it in the interests of fairness. To return to my point, why should it be put down in statutory form that some forms of evidence should be admitted when the basic rule, and the obvious

    711
    common-sense approach, is that it will be largely irrelevant to the matter at issue? It is on that matter that the Government and those in another place have drifted apart. That is why the Bill was amended to include the Law Commission's proposals and nothing but the Law Commission's proposals. If the Minister wants my opinion as to which is the better approach, I will say now, and over and over again, that the Law Commission proposals are infinitely superior to what the Government have done. I also think that they will achieve the Government's desired objective, which is to ensure that, where relevant, evidence is included.
    The Law Commission's report is excellent, and the Government's approach is worrying because it seems to me that they have pushed much further than the Law Commission ever envisaged in setting out a principle that a person's past character and previous convictions should automatically go before a court. The distortion to the system of justice that that threatens to introduce, and the risks of miscarriage that are attendant on it, are very serious.
    Mr. Gamier: It is much more serious than we might initially think. I am delighted that the Government are no longer suggesting that they should hold on to clause 90(1)(b), which refers to behaviour that
    "might be viewed with disapproval by a reasonable person",
    which, for goodness' sake, could mean anything. They now think that they will improve matters with what is on page 3083 of the amendment paper:
    "leave out from beginning to 'evidence' in line 2 … and insert: 'References in this Chapter to evidence of a person's bad character' are to evidence of, or of a disposition towards, misconduct on his part, other than'".
    "Misconduct" could be well short of criminal conduct, yet the Government think that that is an improvement on what the other place has removed. I find that extremely worrying, and I wish that the Government would come clean and admit that they want to drive a coach and horses through this aspect of the criminal law and produce very strange results.
    Mr. Grieve: The Minister will have to answer as to what the Government's intentions are. Certainly, however, the practical consequences of the Government's intentions are an unhappy state of affairs.
    To move on, we have always indicated to the Government that we accepted the principle of the Law Commission's recommendations and we were therefore willing to engage in a dialogue with the Government to try to resolve this matter. We have been trying to do that at frequent intervals. We have been helped by some Labour Back Benchers who have highlighted some areas that remain of great concern. I shall touch on two of them. First, at clause 93(1)(d), the dreadful entry remains:
    "In criminal proceedings evidence of the defendant's bad character is admissible if, but only if … it is evidence of the defendant's conviction for an offence of the same description, or of the same category, as the one with which he is charged".
    That is a terrible clause. To say that bad character should be adduced from that in relation to the current trial has been a constant source of anxiety, unless it is
    712
    important explanatory evidence, but in that instance it is kept totally separate from important explanatory evidence.
    Mr. Hogg: It is worse than that, because there is no requirement that the previous offence should be in any way relevant or probative of the offence with which the defendant is charged at the relevant trial.
    Mr. Grieve: Yes, indeed—perhaps I expressed myself badly. That is why I returned to the point about it not even having to be important explanatory evidence—important evidence of similar fact, which already happens, or something exceptional that provided a proper link between the previous convictions and the current matter. That is a serious issue.
    Mr. Gamier: My hon. Friend is being very tolerant. Was it suggested in Committee or during other deliberations on the clause that no one should be convicted only on evidence of a previous conviction?
    6.30 pm
    Mr. Grieve: Yes, indeed; the Government told us that that would not happen, but it remains an area of anxiety.
    I return to clause 96—"'Matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecution'". Subsection (1) says:
    "For the purposes of section 93(1)(e)"—
    that is the bit that I read to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier)—
    "the matters in issue between the defendant and the prosecution include … the question whether the defendant has a propensity to commit offences of the kind with which he is charged, except where his having such a propensity makes it no more likely that he is guilty of the offence".
    That is a completely circular argument. How can a matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecution, when considering whether a person would burgle a house, be whether the person has a propensity to commit offences of that kind—unless, and this is where my colleagues are right, we are reaching a point at which the Government will tell us that people may be convicted in the future on the basis of propensity alone?
    We have been trying to sort out these problems. I noted that when the matter came up in the other place on 4 November, Baroness Scotland of Asthal said:
    "We recognise that concerns have been expressed both here and in another place about how the clause operates. We are therefore prepared to look further at the issue to see whether we might achieve our aims in another more acceptable way."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 November 2003; Vol. 654, c. 739.]
    I was waiting for the Government amendments to come through last night and I expected a radical approach and a response to what the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) had said about the dreadful clause 93(1)(d). There was silence on that. I accept that the Government have addressed a few issues, with what I accept are more than minor changes, but the real nub of the concerns of one hon. Member after another since the earliest stage of the Bill has not been touched on.
    I urge the Government to accept the Law Commission's proposals and find out how they work. If they do not work as the Government intend, because there is a continuing problem that evidence that should

    713
    be admitted is not admitted, they can say, "Look, we need to do some more here." We are all sensible people who have a pragmatic approach, so I am sure that they would get a sensible response. Failing that, will the Minister and the Government please take on board representations that have been made on these important matters, if they really intend to restore the clauses in such a way? The situation remains unsatisfactory, so I tell the Minister with some regret, because I had hoped that we could resolve the problem sensibly, that we shall vote against the Government's motion to disagree to Lords amendment No. 114.
    Mr. Kidney: I shall speak briefly about bad character. Evidence of bad character has been admissible under Acts of Parliament for more than 100 years. As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said, the Law Commission became involved because the application of previous statute law was unsatisfactory from case to case. There is certainly a good argument for reform. We are faced with a choice between the Government's reform and that of the Law Commission, which the hon. Gentleman strongly advocated, as I have done before and shall do today.
    My hon. Friend the Minister announced three welcome alterations to the system. First, he announced greater caution when dealing with convictions of juveniles, which is very welcome. Secondly, he gave us the definition of bad character. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield said that the definition was unsatisfactory, but in fairness, the Law Commission had equally great difficulty finding an acceptable definition. I do not think that everyone would dance in the streets about its definition either, but people are prepared to support it. The third announcement was that the Government will require a prosecution intending to admit evidence of bad character to give notice so that a defendant may object and ask the judge to rule that such evidence should not be admitted. I have not seen the text of the amendment that will implement that, but I accept what he said.
    Eight categories of evidence were admissible as evidence of bad character in the original clause 93, which the Government wish to restore to the Bill. However, the judge has the power to exclude the evidence on the defendant's objection for only three categories, so no such power applies to five categories. Two of those five categories would be admissible only with the defendant's agreement—if all parties agreed to the evidence being admissible, or if the defendant adduced the evidence. Therefore, there is no power for a defendant to stop evidence being admitted, no matter how unjust his or her legal representatives think that is, under three categories.
    That brings us to the great divide on whether the basic rule should be either that evidence is admissible unless there is a reason to object to it, or that it is admissible only if the judge first gives leave for it. The Law Commission is mostly in the second camp, although, to correct the hon. Member for Beaconsfield slightly, it says that there are core issues for which evidence should be admissible without leave.
    Mr. Hogg: I support what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Will he make the point, as did my hon. Friend
    714
    the Member for Beaconsfield, that a draft Bill was attached to the Law Commission's report? The draft Bill was a form of pre-statutory consultation, and its provisions, which form the basis of the Lords amendment, received a wide welcome in the profession.
    Mr. Kidney: I am happy to agree that there was wide consultation on the draft Bill and that many positive responses were made to it. That is one reason why I think that it would be acceptable legislation.
    I prefer the Law Commission's formulation, because a judge should give leave for the admission of such evidence in circumstances outside the core situations to ensure that there is a fair trial and a link between bad character and the probative value of the case. The Bill provides for more pre-trial management of a case, such as the defence's requirement to provide more disclosure at an earlier stage, so a judge will intervene at early stages to ensure that evidence is in order. It is simple and convenient to sort out such issues before a trial to allow it to proceed smoothly, so the Law Commission's formulation is the more acceptable of the two.
    Mr. Heath: The subject of the group of amendments is extremely important and has been one of the principal areas of contention during consideration of the Bill. However, that should not have happened, because if the Government had been more conciliatory and had approached the subject more constructively from the start, we could have secured agreement among all parties that there is a need for codification and reform of the present arrangements on bad character because they do not work well—that is common ground among us. We could have reached a satisfactory conclusion for all at an early stage. It is sad that the issue has been a major barrier between the Government and not only the Opposition in the House and the other place but other voices outside the House, because it was entirely unnecessary.
    I do not want to repeat what the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) has said about hearsay evidence. We all treat hearsay evidence and its admissibility with much caution because of the inherent dangers of a witness giving a report of what someone else said to them as evidence in a court of law. The problems with that are manifest. There is no way of determining satisfactorily in court that a person said what a witness reported had been said or whether what was reported to have been said was based on truth. Although hearsay evidence can be valuable in some cases, it must be treated with caution.
    I agree with the hon. Member for Beaconsfield that the Government's proposals are better than those that we have considered before, but I still have worries, which were amply expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier). I remain to be convinced that the Government have proposed a watertight solution, but it is clear that movement has been made in the direction of the arguments that we put in Committee and on Report and that my noble Friend Lord Thomas of Gresford made in another place. I am content to leave things at that and to see how the measure works in practice. I am clear in my mind, however, that we must monitor it carefully and may have to return to it if the safeguards prove insufficient.

    715
    On the more serious issue of bad character evidence, Ministers need to do a better job of persuading us that their judgment is to be preferred to that of the Law Commission, which spent four years looking carefully at the issue, took a great deal of evidence and reasoned its conclusions in a way that satisfied most people who have a professional interest. Many of us think that its proposals were satisfactory for dealing with the current state of the law. For the Minister simply to assert that his approach is better is unlikely to win many friends in this House who are not already persuaded.
    It is clear throughout the Law Commission's report that it took great care to consider the result of its proposals. It said:
    "If we had taken the approach of recommending that previous convictions should, as a rule, be presented to the fact-finders, however marginally relevant they might be and regardless of how prejudicial they might be, or, conversely, of recommending that they should never be adduced save where it would be an affront to common sense to exclude them, then we might have been able to answer such a question"—
    whether it would increase the number of convictions—
    "with confidence."
    It went on:
    "In our view we would simply have been mistaken to take either of these approaches. Their apparent attractive simplicity ignores the complexity and variety of factual situations to which they would have to apply."
    That is evidence of the balanced view that the Law Commission took in making its proposals.
    Our argument is not complex. The basic premise in British law is of a presumption of innocence. A person on trial for a specific crime should be judged on the basis of the evidence that pertains to that crime, not to previous circumstances, which are irrelevant. That is why we were cautious at an early stage about the definition of bad character. It is clear that the earlier definition was unacceptable. We could all think of people whom many reasonable people might view with disapproval but who do not have a higher propensity to commit criminal offences. The new definition of misconduct is also lax, which worries me.
    The big issue relates to the exclusionary approach, favoured by the Law Commission, or the inclusionary approach, favoured by the Government. We differ on how to achieve a result that we share as a common objective. That is a foolish position to be in at this late stage of a protracted and complicated Bill. If we share the same objective, the Law Commission has provided us with an objective way of achieving it. In that case, why on earth are Ministers holding out for their own interpretation of the best way forward? They can adduce no particular evidence of superiority for that approach, which poses clear dangers as identified by the Law Commission in its evidence.
    The Law Commission states in paragraph 6.65 of its report:
    "Not all evidence of bad character is relevant to the issue of guilt. The admission of irrelevant bad character evidence might not matter if it were not prejudicial; but often it is. It can lead to a person being convicted on inadequate evidence, or where the fact-finders are not in fact sure that the charge has been made out. Therefore, bad character evidence which is not relevant should in our view be excluded as a matter of course, not merely as a matter of discretion."
    716
    We agree with that approach, as do many people outside the House. The Minister has amendments from another place that are directly in line with the draft legislation. As I said, we are in the interesting position of having draft legislation prepared by the Law Commission. He wants to remove its recommendations and replace them with a much less satisfactory and less supported idea of the appropriate solution. It is not acceptable.
    6.45 pm
    Mr. Hogg: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if we were to rely on the Law Commission's language contained in the passage that he just read out, it would enable a defendant who faces evidence of previous convictions to contend that his trial cannot be fair? That brings into play article 6 considerations of human rights legislation.
    Mr. Heath: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is much more expert in such matters than I am. I accept his contention that the sentiment behind the language could form the basis of a submission under human rights legislation. I have no way of knowing whether the words of the Law Commission's report would be held to be relevant, but the sentiment expressed is pertinent to the debate. I suspect it will not be long before such a matter is challenged in the courts. We would all prefer to avoid that, which we can do if we have the bedrock of a group of proposals from the Law Commission on which we can depend. That is why the Liberal Democrats support the opinion of the other place and will continue to reject the Minister's view unless he provides better arguments for what he proposes.
    Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Given the Government's ridiculous and vicious timetabling of this part of our considerations, do you share my concern that we will almost certainly not reach proper consideration of Lords amendment No. 137, which I characterise as the Bishop of Chester provision, dealing as it does with controversial and sensitive matters? A large number of Christian folk are worried about the measure's implications. Can anything be done at this stage under your good offices, Mr. Speaker, to give us a chance at least to hear what the Minister has to say about the provision so that we can find out what is in the Government's mind and what they intend to do? The issue is sensitive and contemporary. I just hope that something can be done even at this late stage to allow us to deal with it properly.
    Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman knows that I serve the House. It has decided on a programme motion and I am bound by its terms.
    Vera Baird: In the unhappy tussle between the Law Commission's proposals and the current proposals in the Bill, there is excellent room for compromise. Is it really critical whether the presumption of bad character is all admissible or all inadmissible so long as it is all within the ambit of clause 93(3), which allows the judge to exercise a decision on whether evidence is admitted or not? In particular, now that the Minister has said that there will be notice of every application to admit previous bad character, everyone has ample

    717
    opportunity to prepare a case to argue that even if the bad character falls under the categories set out in 93(1)(a) to (h), none the less it should be excluded or included according to subsection (3). It does not matter which way around it is. All it is necessary to do—the
    Government give nothing away by doing it—is to allow the judge to exercise a decision over paragraphs (c) and (g).
    Mr. Hogg: There may be merit in that approach, but surely it is the business of Parliament to set out the criteria that will enable the judge to determine the question of fairness.
    Vera Baird: I appreciate the point but I believe that the judge would simply make up his mind about any application under clause 93(3). There would be no burden of proof either way; the judge would decide either that the evidence should be admitted or that it was unfair and should be excluded. That has everything to commend it as a compromise course that gives nothing away. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State are at pains to exhort us to trust the judges, not least to try issues of fact instead of juries. Why cannot they simply trust the judges in the case we are considering and allow them to make the decision about every application?
    Mr. Gamier: The hon. and learned Lady knows that the relevant section of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—it may be section 74—gives the judge discretion to exclude evidence. Has she applied her mind to the way in which the Bill will sit with that power? We appear to have two conflicting measures that deal with inclusion or exclusion of evidence, and the Government may not have tackled the matter. Can she help me?
    Vera Baird: I believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman is thinking of section 78 of PACE, which is couched in similar terms to clause 93(3). If its criteria add anything to the test in section 78, it would be on top of the test. Section 78 applies across the board to all sorts of evidence and cannot be excluded by another provision.
    Let me deal briefly with paragraph (d) of clause 93(1), because it is the nub of the issue. It allows evidence of previous convictions to be admitted simply because they are there. What is the provision for? If the convictions are probative—if they prove or tend to prove Something—they would be admitted under paragraph (f). If they are even slightly relevant to the case, they would be admitted under paragraph (e). What, therefore, is the purpose of paragraph (d)? It can only be to include them even though they are irrelevant and do not prove anything. That is unfair. I do not understand why the Government want to be in a position to do that.
    How will the discretion be exercised? Opposition Members asked that question. Evidence that can currently be included under paragraph (d) is subject to the discretion. Clause 93(1) provides that evidence is admissible, and under paragraph (d) it is admissible simply because it exists. The court has to decide whether to exercise its discretion to exclude it if it is unfair, but it is always unfair to admit irrelevant and non-probative
    718
    previous convictions. How will the judge exercise his discretion? He will have to say to himself, "Parliament says that it is admissible but it's obviously unfair so I must exclude what Parliament has said in statute must be included." That does not hold together. The paragraph is unnecessary. It is also bad, dangerous and pointless, and I urge Ministers to reconsider it.
    Mr. Hogg: I agree with the analysis of the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird). Her points are correct. The clause already provides for admitting probative and relevant evidence. Paragraph (d) will have a simple effect: in cases where there are previous convictions, they will be admitted. Like her, I cannot understand how the trial judge can exclude something that Parliament has expressly authorised.
    The effect will be twofold. First, many miscarriages of justice will occur because of the previous convictions. The second point is slightly different but the consequence is much the same: the police will arrest and charge many people simply because they know of similar previous offences. That will lead to considerable injustice. I suspect that the courts will eventually decide that the paragraph offends against article 6 of the European convention on human rights because it prevents an individual defendant from receiving a fair trial on the basis of the evidence for the single offence with which he is charged.
    We have a choice between the Law Commission's proposals, which are incorporated substantially in the Lords amendments, and the Government's. The House should clearly prefer the Law Commission's proposals. They were the subject of considerable consultation and of a draft Bill, which was published and examined at great length. Many noble Lords, who know much about the subject, voted authoritatively for the proposals. I commend them to hon. Members. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier) is anxious to speak and I shall therefore sit down to enable him to do so.
    Mr. Gamier: I have a suspicion that anything I say may undo what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) said. I could not agree more with their comments and I hope that the Government take them on board. Their points are self-evidently good and should have been accepted earlier.
    There are two simple points about bad character evidence. It is said, first, that it suggests that the person is likely to have committed the crime with which he is currently charged, and secondly, that it tends to undermine his credit. I have never been convinced by either of the arguments, although I have ritualistically had to recite them when summing up evidence to juries. However, I am more dismayed by the Government's approach to bad character in the Bill. Nobody of sound mind could believe that the original drafting of clause 91, which dealt with behaviour that would be viewed with disapproval by a reasonable person, was sensible. Despite having the advantage of the advice of the other place and the Law Commission report, the Government devised an amendment that refers to "misconduct" on the part of the person who is alleged to have a bad character.

    719
    Misconduct means nothing in criminal legislation. Until the Government define it more seriously, the relevant part of the Bill, if not others, will be treated with great scepticism and, on my part, much contempt. I urge them to apply their mind to the matter with greater seriousness.
    Paul Goggins:I am grateful for the welcome that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) gave to some of the movement that has happened through scrutiny in both Houses. During his remarks, there was an interesting discussion about the flexibility that interests of justice discretion provided. I was interested in his comments. Of course, safeguards are provided, but it is ultimately for the court to decide whether evidence is admissible. I believe that it is better to know about evidence that may be admissible and decide to exclude it than not to know about the existence of possibly relevant evidence.
    We have debated at length the difference between the inclusive and exclusive approach to the matter. For most people outside the justice system, the difference between evidence that "is admissible if" and evidence that is "not admissible unless" is perhaps a rather fine point. However, it certainly does not mean that evidence is automatically included. Indeed, as I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) there are safeguards in place, and the defence can argue that certain evidence is irrelevant and could be more prejudicial than probative. It is for the court to decide.
    7 pm
    I do not agree with the view of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield that the inclusive approach tends to distort. It is important that we should send out a message from the House in our debates on the Bill that we want to encourage the admission of evidence that could be admitted even now, but sadly, all too often is not. There has been a great deal of debate on clause 93(1)(d), and that has continued here this evening. I return again to the safeguards that are in place, which I have mentioned on previous occasions. I would say to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield that there would be no conviction solely on the basis of bad character. It would be open for the defence to argue that evidence was more prejudicial than probative.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) asked which amendments I was referring to earlier. It was amendments (a) to (e) to Lords amendment No. 29—
    It being four and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings, MR. SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
    The House divided: Ayes 345, Noes 201.
    Division No. 376] [7:01 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Cooper, Yvette

    Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

    Cousins, Jim

    Ainger, Nick

    Cranston, Ross

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Crausby, David

    Alexander, Douglas

    Cruddas, Jon

    Allen, Graham

    Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

    Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

    Cummings, John

    Darwen)

    Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

    Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

    (Copeland)

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Austin, John

    Darling, rh Alistair

    Bailey, Adrian

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Banks, Tony

    David, Wayne

    Barnes, Harry

    Davidson, Ian

    Barron, rh Kevin

    Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

    Battle, John

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

    Beard, Nigel

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Beckett, rh Margaret

    Denham, rh John

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Dismore, Andrew

    Bell, Stuart

    Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

    Benn, rh Hilary

    Dobson, rh Frank

    Bennett, Andrew

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Benton, Joe (Bootle)

    Doran, Frank

    Berry, Roger

    Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

    Best, Harold

    Drew, David (Stroud)

    Betts, Clive

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Blackman, Liz

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Edwards, Huw

    Blizzard, Bob

    Efford, Clive

    Blunkett, rh David

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Boateng, rh Paul

    Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

    , David

    Farrelly, Paul

    Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

    Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Fisher, Mark

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Wallsend)

    Flint, Caroline

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

    Browne, Desmond

    Follett, Barbara

    Bryant, Chris

    Foster, rh Derek

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Burden, Richard

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

    Burgon, Colin

    & Rye)

    Byers, rh Stephen

    Francis, Dr. Hywel

    Cairns, David

    Gapes, Mike (IlfordS)

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Gardiner, Barry
    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    George, rh Bruce (WalsallS)

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Caplin, Ivor

    Gilroy, Linda

    Casale, Roger

    Godsiff, Roger

    Caton, Martin

    Goggins, Paul

    Challen, Colin

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Chapman, Ben (WirralS)

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Chaytor, David

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Clapham, Michael

    Grogan, John

    Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

    Hain, rh Peter

    Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Pentlands)

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

    Hanson, David

    Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    Chryston)

    Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Rhymney)

    Clelland, David

    Healey, John

    Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Hendrick, Mark

    Cohen, Harry

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Coleman, Iain

    Heppell, John

    Colman, Tony

    Hesford, Stephen

    Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

    Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

    721

    Heyes, David

    Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Hodge, Margaret

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

    Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

    Hoon, rh Geoffrey

    Hope, Phil (Corby)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Martlew, Eric

    Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

    Merron, Gillian

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

    Michael, rh Alun

    Milburn, rh Alan

    Howells, Dr. Kim

    Miliband, David

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Miller, Andrew

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Moffatt, Laura

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Mole, Chris

    Hutton, rh John

    Morgan, Julie

    Ingram, rh Adam

    Morley, Elliot

    Irranca-Davies, Huw

    Morris, rh Estelle

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Mountford, Kali

    Jamieson, David

    Mudie, George

    Jenkins, Brian

    Mullin, Chris

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Naysmith, Dr. Doug

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

    Jowell, rh Tessa

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

    Olner, Bill

    Keen, Alan (Feltham)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Keen, Ann (Brentford)

    Organ, Diana

    Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Kemp, Fraser

    Owen, Albert

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Palmer, Dr. Nick

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Pearson, Ian

    Kidney, David

    Perham, Linda

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Picking, Anne

    King, Andy (Rugby)

    Pickthall, Colin

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

    Pike, Peter (Burnley)

    Plaskitt, James

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Pollard, Kerry

    Kumar, Dr. Ashok

    Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

    Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

    Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

    Lammy, David

    Pound, Stephen

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Lepper, David

    Primarolo, rh Dawn

    Leslie, Christopher

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

    Purchase, Ken

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Purnell, James

    Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

    Quin, rh Joyce

    Linton, Martin

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Love, Andrew

    Rammell, Bill

    Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

    Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

    Luke, lain (Dundee E)

    Raynsford, rh Nick

    Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    McCabe, Stephen

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

    McCartney, rh Ian

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    MacDonald, Calum

    Rooney, Terry

    MacDougall, John

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    McFall, John

    Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Ruane, Chris

    McIsaac, Shona

    Ruddock, Joan

    McKechin, Ann

    Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    McNulty, Tony

    Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

    MacShane, Denis

    Salter, Martin

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    McWilliam, John

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Sawford, Phil

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Mallaber, Judy

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Mandelson, rh Peter

    Sheerman, Barry

    722

    Sheridan, Jim

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Short, rh Clare

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Singh, Marsha

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

    Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

    Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Vis, Dr. Rudi

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Ward, Claire

    Soley, Clive

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Southworth, Helen

    Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

    Spellar, rh John

    Watts, David

    Squire, Rachel

    White, Brian

    Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

    Whitehead, Dr. Alan

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Stevenson, George

    Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

    Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

    Williams, Betty (Conwy)

    Wills, Michael

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Winnick, David

    Stoate, Dr. Howard

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

    Stringer, Graham

    Wood, Mike (Batley)

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Woodward, Shaun

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Woolas, Phil

    Tami, Mark (Alyn)

    Worthington, Tony

    Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

    Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

    Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Timms, Stephen

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Tipping, Paddy

    Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Trickett, Jon

    Vernon Coaker and

    Truswell, Paul

    Margaret Moran

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Chidgey, David

    Allan, Richard

    Chope, Christopher

    Amess, David

    Clappison, James

    Ancram, rh Michael

    Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Arbuthnot, rh James

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Collins, Tim

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Bacon, Richard

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Baker, Norman

    Cotter, Brian

    Barker, Gregory

    Curry, rh David

    Baron, John (Billericay)

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Barrett, John

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

    Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

    Beith, rh A. J.

    Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

    Bellingham, Henry

    Bercow, John

    Djanogly, Jonathan

    Blunt, Crispin

    Doughty, Sue

    Boswell, Tim

    Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Evans, Nigel

    Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

    Fabricant, Michael

    Fallon, Michael

    Brady, Graham

    Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

    Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

    Brazier, Julian

    Flight, Howard

    Breed, Colin

    Flook, Adrian

    Brooke, Mrs Annette L

    Forth, rh Eric

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Burnett, John

    Fox, Dr. Liam

    Burns, Simon

    Francois, Mark

    Burstow, Paul

    Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

    Burt, Alistair

    Garnier, Edward

    Butterfill, John

    Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

    Cable, Dr. Vincent

    Gidley, Sandra

    Calton, Mrs Patsy

    Goodman, Paul

    Cameron, David

    Gray, James (N Wilts)

    Carmichael, Alistair

    Grayling, Chris

    Cash, William

    Green, Damian (Ashford)

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

    Greenway, John

    723

    Grieve, Dominic

    Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

    Gummer, rh John

    Hammond, Philip

    Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

    Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

    Pugh, Dr. John

    Randall, John

    Harvey, Nick

    Redwood, rh John

    Hawkins, Nick

    Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

    Hayes, John (S Holland)

    Rendel, David

    Heald, Oliver

    Robathan, Andrew

    Heath, David

    Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

    Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

    Hendry, Charles

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Hermon, Lady

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

    Rosindell, Andrew

    Hogg, rh Douglas

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Holmes, Paul

    Sanders, Adrian

    Horam, John (Orpington)

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Howard, rh Michael

    Selous, Andrew

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Shepherd, Richard

    Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

    Simmonds, Mark

    Jack, rh Michael

    Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

    Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

    Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

    Soames, Nicholas

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Spring, Richard

    Keetch, Paul

    Stanley, rh Sir John

    Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

    Steen, Anthony

    Streeter, Gary

    Key, Robert (Salisbury)

    Stunell, Andrew

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Syms, Robert

    Kirkwood, Sir Archy

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Lamb, Norman

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Lansley, Andrew

    Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

    Laws, David (Yeovil)

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Letwin, rh Oliver

    Teather, Sarah

    Liddell-Grainger, Ian

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Lidington, David

    Thurso, John

    Lilley, rh Peter

    Tonge, Dr. Jenny

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Tredinnick, David

    Loughton, Tim

    Trend, Michael

    Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

    Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

    Mackay, rh Andrew

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Maclean, rh David

    Viggers, Peter

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Walter, Robert

    Malins, Humfrey

    Waterson, Nigel

    Maples, John

    Webb, Steve (Northavon)

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

    Whittingdale, John

    Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

    Maude, rh Francis

    Wiggin, Bill

    Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

    Wilkinson, John

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Willetts, David

    Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

    Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

    Williams, Roger (Brecon)

    Moore, Michael

    Willis, Phil

    Moss, Malcolm

    Wilshire, David

    Murrison, Dr. Andrew

    Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

    Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

    Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Öpik, Lembit

    Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

    Osborne, George (Tatton)

    Young, rh Sir George

    Ottaway, Richard

    Younger-Ross, Richard

    Page, Richard

    Paice, James

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Paterson, Owen

    Angela Watkinson and

    Pickles, Eric

    Sir Robert Smith

    Question accordingly aereed to.
    MR. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].
    Lords amendment No. 115 disagreed to.
    Government amendment (a) to words restored agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 116 to 124 disagreed to.
    Government amendment (a) to words restored by Lords amendment No. 124 agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 125 and 126 disagreed to.
    Government amendment (a) to words restored by Lords amendment No. 126 agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 127 to 129 disagreed to.
    Government amendments (a) to (e) to words restored by Lords amendment No. 129 agreed to.
    Lords amendment No. 130 disagreed to.
    Government amendments (a) to (d) to words restored by Lords amendment No. 130 agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 131 and 132 disagreed to.
    Government amendment (a) to words restored agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 133 to 137 agreed to.

    Clause 146

      GENERAL LIMIT ON MAGISTRATES' COURT'S POWER TO IMPOSE IMPRISONMENT
      Lords amendment: No. 138.
      Paul Goggins: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: Lords amendment No. 139 and the Government motion to disagree thereto; Lords amendment No. 167 and the Government motion to disagree thereto; Lords amendment No. 173 and the Government motion to disagree thereto; and Lords amendment No. 235 and the Government motion to disagree thereto.
      Paul Goggins: When it left this House the Bill did not impose any restrictions on the timing of the increase in magistrates' sentencing powers, which allowed a flexible approach to implementation. The Lords have taken away that flexibility. Lords amendments Nos. 138 and 139 would prevent the increase of magistrates' sentencing powers from coming into effect before the custody-plus provisions, thus blocking the transfer of business from the Crown court to the magistrates courts.
      Because custody-plus will replace current sentences of up to 12 months, it will enable magistrates to deal with a substantial number of cases in which they would currently refuse jurisdiction. It is generally agreed that that would be a positive move. Dealing with such cases in the magistrates court rather than the Crown court would constitute a more efficient use of resources, and would reduce delays, as well as benefiting victims and witnesses.
      The Government are committed to implementing custody-plus as soon as possible, but before we do so we will have to be sure that the National Probation Service has the capacity to fulfil the supervisory function that forms an important part of this disposal so that the new sentence can have the anticipated effect on prisoners' rehabilitation and resettlement. That means that the

      725
      new sentences should not be implemented immediately. We do not, however, see why the greater sentencing powers should be curtailed, given the immediate benefits to the administration of justice.
      Members of the other House argued that increasing magistrates' sentencing powers in advance of custody-plus would sharply increase the severity of custodial sentences passed in magistrates courts. Let me reassure the House that there is no conclusive evidence to support that theory. Any increase in powers would be accompanied by a thorough training programme to ensure that magistrates used their new powers appropriately. On the basis of that evidence, I urge the House to reject the amendment.
      Let me now deal with Lords amendment No. 167. As originally drafted, the Bill provided for an indeterminate sentence to be passed if the offender was convicted of a trigger offence carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years or more, and if the court believed that
      "there was a significant risk to members of the public of serious harm occasioned by the commission by him of further specified offences".
      As we have said in both Houses, the purpose of the test is to establish whether an offender is dangerous. In making that judgment, the court must focus primarily on the degree of risk of harm that any future offending may pose. It was decided in the other place, however, that our definition of dangerousness set too low a threshold, and suggested that the court should believe there was a "substantial" rather than a significant risk. While the definitions may appear similar, I want to persuade the House that in the interests of public safety the original definition is preferable.
      There are two difficulties with the alternative test proposed in the other place. First, it requires the court to find that there is a substantial risk of reoffending, and also that such further offending involves a significant risk of harm to the public. The original test is more flexible, in that the risk of reoffending must be present, but consideration of that risk is part of the overall "dangerousness" assessment that the court will carry out. The second difficulty is that the alternative test requires both a substantial risk of reoffending and a significant risk of harm. We think that that confusion could over-complicate the assessment by unhelpfully using terms that may be difficult for the court to distinguish, when in reality the assessment is a single exercise.
      We fear that the combined effect of these changes will be that certain offenders who pose a significant risk of serious harm to the public may not come within the remit of the definition, because they are not found to pose a substantial risk of reoffending. As a result they will not be eligible for the new sentences for dangerous offenders, and will serve a determinate sentence, release from which is automatic, regardless of the risks that they pose to the public. I urge the House to reject the amendment.
      I now turn to Lords amendment No. 173. As originally drafted, the Bill provided for the automatic release of non-dangerous offenders serving sentences of 12 months or more at the halfway point of their
      726
      sentences. The Lords, however, decided that when the sentence was of four years or more, automatic release could not occur before the offender had served two thirds of his sentence in prison.
      Under the current sentencing provisions, those serving short custodial sentences and those serving longer sentences of four years or more are subject to different release provisions. That is justifiable on grounds of public protection, ensuring that potentially dangerous offenders serving sentences of four years or more can only be released between the halfway and the two-thirds point, subject to thorough risk assessments.
      Of course public protection remains a priority for the Government, and we would not wish to release any dangerous offender automatically when he had served only half a custodial sentence. For that reason offenders who are assessed as dangerous will not be eligible for the new custodial sentence of 12 months or more, but will be subject to one of the new sentences for dangerous offenders or to a discretionary life sentence.
      The introduction of a single simple structure for all custodial sentences of 12 months or more for non-dangerous offenders, with automatic release at the halfway point, will have many benefits. It will make the sentencing framework more transparent and easier for the public to understand, providing more certainty in regard to release dates. It will enable the correctional services to plan the post-release packages much more effectively, and to establish a coherent package of interventions for the entire second half of the sentence. It will also give offenders a longer period under supervision in the community, during which they can address their rehabilitation needs and reduce their propensity to reoffend. I hope that, given those assurances, Members will be persuaded to reject the amendment.
      The Lords have added a new clause to give chief officers of each probation area a duty to establish consultation arrangements with local magistrates court committees and local communities. The Government agree with the sentiment of the amendment and acknowledge the importance of encouraging joint working, but I hope to reassure the House that such a statutory duty is not necessary in the light of existing arrangements.
      Current guidance promotes communication, understanding and mutual confidence between the courts and the probation service, and emphasises that joint working imposes a number of obligations on sentencers and probation staff to achieve those ends. The new local criminal justice boards bring together the criminal justice agencies to work towards meeting the public service agreement targets for narrowing the justice gap and increasing confidence in the criminal justice system. Furthermore, the national probation directorate has agreed with the Magistrates Association to establish a new national consultative group, which will help to give magistrates and other sentencers a clear, strong voice in the development of policy and practice.
      The probation service has also developed closer links with local communities, and the new local probation boards have a more diverse membership and are more responsive to local needs than ever before. The involvement of the probation service in crime and disorder reduction partnerships allows it to tap into the concerns of the local community.

      727
      On the basis of that evidence showing the amount of work already under way to promote joint working, I encourage Members to reject Lords amendment No. 235.
      Mr. Malins: I want to say something about the last two matters raised by the Minister, relating to probation officers' duty to establish a consultation process with courts.
      The Minister, like me, will know from practical experience that probation officers generally have a close relationship with courts. They do in my county of Surrey, anyway. The main problem for the probation service in carrying out its work is funding, and many head probation officers would be ambivalent about whether the measure should be introduced, as it would not affect their daily lives. However, the issue of funding is important, and I shall return to it in a moment.
      7.30 pm
      Let me turn to release halfway or two thirds of the way through a sentence. Our system is rather complicated, and magistrates and judges have to use a particular formula when they sentence someone, saying that the defendant will be released after a certain period on licence, and if they reoffend during licence they will be recalled. However, as the Minister will know, that depends on the length of sentence. In our short debate, I should like to make a simple point. The Minister will agree that the critical issue is not whether someone is released halfway or two thirds of the way through their sentence but whether they are released only when they are fit to be released. Much more importantly, huge emphasis should be placed on the follow-up, which is absolutely essential. Far too many offenders are released from prison without that follow-up, which is critical to reoffending rates, not whether offenders come out after two years or two thirds of a four-year sentence.
      Turning to Lords amendments Nos. 138 and 139, as we know, a new sentencing power for magistrates is introduced in clause 146, and custody-plus is introduced elsewhere in the Bill. The Minister will recall that, in Committee, custody-plus was generally thought to be a sensible development, but their Lordships have hit on the important issue of the order in which the sentencing power and custody-plus are introduced. The Minister will know that I serve as a part-time deputy district judge in stipendiary magistrates courts around London. The average defendant has 10 or 15 previous convictions, often low-level offences, perhaps including eight thefts in the past couple of years. How are they to be sentenced? I am sure that he will accept that clause 146, which provides the power to impose imprisonment for up to 12 months, will result in practice in much longer sentences being passed in magistrates courts. Very often, a district judge or magistrate sentencing somebody who they believe should get seven to 10 months in prison on a guilty plea or conviction will pass a sentence of four months. If, for example, there is a guilty plea, one has to give a discount, so a sentence of four or five months will be the maximum.
      Under the clause, perhaps rightly—although this is not the point of our debate—a magistrate may say that the defendant has a rotten record and give them nine or 10 months, which I am sure will lead to a dramatic
      728
      increase in the prison population. Most custodial sentences are passed in magistrates courts, day after day. At Camberwell Green, for example, sentences totalling 40 or 50 years can be passed in one morning in five different custody courts. Once the extra powers are used, there will be 30 per cent. on top of that total, so there will be a problem, to which the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) alluded in Committee.
      If that proves to be the case, the Minister needs to deal with the worrying issue of prison numbers. Does he think that the provision, once implemented, will have an impact on prison numbers? I believe that it will, and our prisons are currently dangerously overcrowded. Later in the Bill, there is a clause on custody-plus. There is something to be said for custody-plus, which is a relatively short custodial sentence followed by an intense supervision period. Again, a lot of money is involved. Too often, intense supervision is missing, and people come out of prison without follow-up, which is essential if they are to have genuine discipline and find a home and job. Instead, they are simply left alone.
      It is odd to introduce a provision under which magistrates can pass a sentence of up to 12 months before the national roll-out—I do not like the phrase, but the Minister knows what I mean—of custody-plus, which is a big change. I am happy to be corrected, but it is likely that defendants on their fifth, sixth or seventh charge of shoplifting will get a sentence of eight to 10 months. However, in a county where the custody-plus pilot is being rolled out, they would receive a much lower sentence. Their Lordships were right to want to introduce the custody-plus provision first. We should get it working across the country, then introduce the other provision. That view is shared by Opposition parties—we are worried about high prison numbers, and I think that the Government are right.
      In conclusion, Lords amendment No. 167 would change the wording of clause 216. Their Lordships have again got it right. In Committee, we had a debate in February about the correct wording of the provision. Currently, clause 216(1)(b) states that the provision applies where
      "the court is of the opinion that there is a significant risk to members of the public of serious harm occasioned by the commission by him of further specified offences."
      The Minister told me that under the Government proposal a significant risk has to be present. However, if one reads their wording carefully, the provision plainly means that the court will think that any further specified offences committed by the offender will cause a significant risk to members of the public of course. The significant risk to the public of a certain course of action is not set out clearly in the Bill, as the present wording implies that if further offences are committed, there would be a significant risk of serious harm to the public as a result.
      I hope that the Minister and hon. Members understand the fine distinction that I am making. The significant risk of further offending does not have to be present under the provision as drafted, and their Lordships have the wording right. In February, I outlined that argument in Committee, and it has been repeated by their Lordships, who have introduced a much tidier wording.

      729
      To conclude, we shall not force a Division. In some ways, their Lordships have it right. We are concerned about the timing of custody-plus and maximum sentences. The Minister is a good man, so I know that he will focus on my two main pleas. First, the probation service needs to be properly funded to carry out all its work and, secondly, the Government and the rest of us must concentrate on what happens to prisoners when they come out of prison rather than the length of the sentence that they serve.
      Simon Hughes: We have six minutes left, which again shows how frustrating the guillotine is.
      My hon. Friends and I will seek to divide the House on Lords amendments Nos. 138 and 167. If time permitted, we would seek to support Lords amendments Nos. 173 and 235 too, but we have to select, otherwise there would not be any debate on the next set of proposals.
      On the first substantive point, the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) set out the view of the Lords. The Bill has some very good proposals, as the Minister knows, in terms of custody-plus and custody-minus. Put simply, the custody-plus proposal is meant to deal with the fact that, at the moment, if people get sent to prison for less than a year, the Prison Service is not able to do anything useful with them; that is the general view of prison governors and the Prison Service.
      The measure says that the sentence will be in two parts: first, custody, and then rehabilitation and punishment in the community. That is a good proposal but, when my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) asked when the Minister expected to implement custody-plus, the Home Secretary said
      "Final decisions … have not been made".—[Official Report, 10 November 2003; Vol. 413, c. 98W.]
      The reality is, as he knows, I know and everyone knows, that the money is not available. Therefore, we are about to allow magistrates courts to have increased maximum sentencing powers, doubling their current sentencing powers. At the same time, we will not be able to implement the proposal on custody-plus.
      Had custody-plus been in operation, the maximum 12-month sentence would have meant three months inside and nine months outside, and that would have been acceptable. Our belief that the magistrates will use those powers—Ministers say they do not believe it—is borne out by all sorts of facts. First, the figures show that magistrates are now twice as likely to send an offender to prison than they were 10 years ago: 13 per cent. of all cases now go to prison from a magistrates court compared with 6 per cent. in 1992, and twice as many people are imprisoned each year for short sentences as were imprisoned 10 years ago. Given that we have the highest prison population ever; given that prisons are hugely overcrowded; given that there are more than 70,000 people in prison; and given that we have more people in prison than any other comparable country in western Europe, we should not be giving that opportunity.
      730
      The second reason, based on the evidence, why the proposal is a bad idea is that there is no argument to show that, as the Minister asserted in the Lords, people are not sentenced more severely as compared with the Crown court. Professor Lee Bridges, whom the Minister respects and who is a widely respected authority, has made it clear that the majority of cases sent by the magistrates courts to the Crown court on the basis that the magistrates think that they do not have sufficient powers to sentence result in the sentence being one that it was within the magistrates' power to give. The magistrates courts often think that they do not have the power to give the appropriate sentence, and that suggests that they will give a higher sentence. Professor Lee Bridges makes the strongest case—I refer colleagues to it. He says that the increase in magistrates' sentencing powers will
      "send entirely the wrong message from the Government to magistrates."
      We fear, as the hon. Member for Woking does, that the proposal will increase the population in prison and increase the average sentence.
      Another proposal is a significant proposal about life sentence prisoners. Basically, the Government have not followed the clear view of the Lord Chief Justice. The Lords sought to limit the circumstances in which people could be given much higher tariffs—the starting points. The Lord Chief Justice—I put it on the record—wrote in a memorandum that he put in the Libraries of both Houses on 16 June that he had given advice on the matter to the Home Secretary, which became a practice note in May 2002, in which he made it clear that the average sentence was of the order of between 12 and 16 years—12 years for the normal case, in practice, for someone who is given a life sentence, and 16 years for the most serious case. What these proposals will do, effectively, is significantly increase the time for which the people on the most serious charges are sent to prison. Again, as colleagues in the House of Lords made clear, this country puts far more of its sentenced prisoners in prison for life than any other comparable country. There were 5,352 prisoners serving life sentences in February 2003, a higher proportion than the whole of western Europe combined.
      7.45 pm
      We are walking into a new sentencing regime that is not justified on the basis of what all the judges have done and what the Home Secretary accepted only a year and a half ago. We should be particularly careful to ensure that we do not go down this road, and that young people—although the Government have made a small concession—do not have such a high minimum sentence.
      The Liberal Democrats believe that it should not be for Parliament to set minimum sentences. That is why we set up the Sentencing Guidelines Council. We believe that advice should be given and respected. We are going down the wrong road if we set minimum sentences here.
      It being five and a quarter hours after the commencement of proceedings, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
      The House divided: Ayes 336, Noes 50.

      Division No. 377]

      [7:46 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Ainger, Nick

      Cousins, Jim

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Cranston, Ross

      Alexander, Douglas

      Cruddas, Jon

      Allen, Graham

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Cummings, John

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Austin, John

      Darling, rh Alistair

      Bailey, Adrian

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Baird, Vera

      David, Wayne

      Banks, Tony

      Davidson, lan

      Barnes, Harry

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Battle, John

      Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Dawson, Hilton

      Beard, Nigel

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Denham, rh John

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Bell, Stuart

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Benn, rh Hilary

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Bennett, Andrew

      Doran, Frank

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Berry, Roger

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Best, Harold

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Betts, Clive

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Blackman, Liz

      Edwards, Huw

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Efford, Clive

      Blizzard, Bob

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Blunkett, rh David

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Boateng, rh Paul

      Farrelly, Paul

      Borrow, David

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Fisher, Mark

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Flint, Caroline

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Follett, Barbara

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Foster, rh Derek

      Browne, Desmond

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Bryant, Chris

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Burden, Richard

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Burgon, Colin

      Gapes, Mike (llford S)

      Burnham, Andy

      Gardiner, Barry

      Byers, rh Stephen

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      Cairns, David

      Gerrard, Neil

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Gilroy, Linda

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Caplin, Ivor

      Goggins, Paul

      Casale, Roger

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Caton, Martin

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Challen, Colin

      Grogan, John

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Hain, rh Peter

      Chaytor, David

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Clapham, Michael

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Hanson, David

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Healey, John

      Clelland, David

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Hendrick, Mark

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Heppell, John

      Cohen, Harry

      Hermon, Lady

      Colman, Tony

      Hesford, Stephen

      732

      Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Heyes, David

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Hodge, Margaret

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hoon, rh Geoffrey

      Martlew, Eric

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Merron, Gillian

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Michael, rh Alun

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Miliband, David

      Miller, Andrew

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Mole, Chris

      Moran, Margaret

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Morgan, Julie

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Morley, Elliot

      Hutton, rh John

      Morris, rh Estelle

      Ingram, rh Adam

      Mountford, Kali

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Mudie, George

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Mullin, Chris

      Jamieson, David

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      Organ, Diana

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Owen, Albert

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

      Pearson, lan

      Kemp, Fraser

      Perham, Linda

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Picking, Anne

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Pickthall, Colin

      Kidney, David

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Plaskitt, James

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Pound, Stephen

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Lammy, David

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Lepper, David

      Purchase, Ken

      Leslie, Christopher

      Purnell, James

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Rammell, Bill

      Linton, Martin

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Love, Andrew

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Lucas, lan (Wrexham)

      Luke, lain (Dundee E)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      McCabe, Stephen

      Rooney, Terry

      McCartney, rh lan

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      MacDougall, John

      Ruane, Chris

      McFall, John

      Ruddock, Joan

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      McIsaac, Shona

      McKechin, Ann

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Salter, Martin

      McNulty, Tony

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      MacShane, Denis

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Sawford, Phil

      McWilliam, John

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Sheerman, Barry

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Sheridan, Jim

      Mallaber, Judy

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Short, rh Clare

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Singh, Marsha

      733

      Skinner, Dennis

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Soley, Clive

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Southworth, Helen

      Ward, Claire

      Spellar, rh John

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Squire, Rachel

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Watts, David

      Steinberg, Gerry

      White, Brian

      Stevenson, George

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Stewart, lan (Eccles)

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Wills, Michael

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Winnick, David

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Stringer, Graham

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Woodward, Shaun

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Woolas, Phil

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Worthington, Tony

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Timms, Stephen

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Trickett, Jon

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Truswell, Paul

      Jum Fitzpatrick and

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Derek Twigg

      NOES

      Allan, Richard

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Baker, Norman

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Barrett, John

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Moore, Michael

      Breed, Colin

      Öpik, Lembit

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Burnett, John

      Burstow, Paul

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Rendel, David

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Sanders, Adrian

      Carmichael, Alistair

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

      Chidgey, David

      Cotter, Brian

      Stunell, Andrew

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Doughty, Sue

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Teather, Sarah

      Gidley, Sandra

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Thurso, John

      Harvey, Nick

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Heath, David

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Holmes, Paul

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Keetch, Paul

      Willis, Phil

      Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Richard Younger-Ross and

      Lamb, Norman

      Bob Russell

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment disagreed to.
      MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].
      Lords amendment No. 139 disagreed to.

    Clause 216

      LIFE SENTENCE OR IMPRISONMENT FOR PUBLIC PROTECTION FOR SERIOUS OFFENCES
      Lords amendment: No. 167.
      Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Heppell.]
      The House divided: Ayes 332, Noes 51.

      Division No. 378]

      [8:01 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Ainger, Nick

      Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Allen, Graham

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Clelland, David

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Cohen, Harry

      Atkins, Charlotte,

      Colman, Tony

      Austin, John

      Cooper, Yvette

      Bailey, Adrian

      Cousins, Jim

      Baird, Vera

      Cranston, Ross

      Banks, Tony

      Cruddas, Jon

      Barnes, Harry

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Battle, John

      Cummings, John

      Bayley, Hugh

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

      Beard, Nigel

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Bell, Stuart

      Darling, rh Alistair

      Benn, rh Hilary

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Bennett, Andrew

      David, Wayne

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Davidson, lan

      Berry, Roger

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Best, Harold

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Betts, Clive

      Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Blackman, Liz

      Dawson, Hilton

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Blizzard, Bob

      Denham, rh John

      Blunkett, rh David

      Dismore, Andrew

      Boateng, rh Paul

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Borrow, David

      Doran, Frank

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Edwards, Huw

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Efford, Clive

      Browne, Desmond

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Bryant, Chris

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Farrelly, Paul

      Burden, Richard

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Burgon, Colin

      Fisher, Mark

      Burnham, Andy

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Flint, Caroline

      Cairns, David

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Follett, Barbara

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Foster, rh Derek

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Casale, Roger

      Caton, Martin

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Challen, Colin

      Gapes, Mike (llford S)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Chaytor, David

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      Clapham, Michael

      Gerrard, Neil

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Gilroy, Linda

      Godsiff, Roger

      735

      Goggins, Paul

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      McCabe, Stephen

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McCartney, rh lan

      Grogan, John

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Hain, rh Peter

      MacDougall, John

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      McFall, John

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Hanson, David

      McKechin, Ann

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      McNulty, Tony

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      MacShane, Denis

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Healey, John

      McWilliam, John

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Hendrick, Mark

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Mallaber, Judy

      Heppell, John

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Hermon, Lady

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Heyes, David

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hodge, Margaret

      Martlew, Eric

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Merron, Gillian

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Michael, rh Alun

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Miliband, David

      Miller, Andrew

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Mole, Chris

      Moran, Margaret

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Morgan, Julie

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Morley, Elliot

      Hutton, rh John

      Morris, rh Estelle

      Ingram, rh Adam

      Mountford, Kali

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Mudie, George

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Mullin, Chris

      Jamieson, David

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      Organ, Diana

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Owen, Albert

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

      Pearson, lan

      Kemp, Fraser

      Perham, Linda

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Picking, Anne

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Pickthall, Colin

      Kidney, David

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Plaskitt, James

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Pound, Stephen

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Lammy, David

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Lepper, David

      Purchase, Ken

      Leslie, Christopher

      Purnell, James

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Rammell, Bill

      Linton, Martin

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Love, Andrew

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Luke, lain (Dundee E)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      736

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Timms, Stephen

      Ruane, Chris

      Tipping, Paddy

      Ruddock, Joan

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      Trickett, Jon

      Truswell, Paul

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Salter, Martin

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Sawford, Phil

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Sheerman, Barry

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Sheridan, Jim

      Ward, Claire

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Singh, Marsha

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Watts, David

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      White, Brian

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Soley, Clive

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Southworth, Helen

      Wills, Michael

      Spellar, rh John

      Winnick, David

      Squire, Rachel

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      Stevenson, George

      Woodward, Shaun

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Woolas, Phil

      Worthington, Tony

      Stewart, lan (Eccles)

      Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Stringer, Graham

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Jim Fitzpatrick and

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Derek Twigg

      NOES

      Allan, Richard

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Baker, Norman

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Barrett, John

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Moore, Michael

      Breed, Colin

      Öpik, Lembit

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      price Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Burnett, John

      Reid Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Burstow, Paul

      Rendel, David

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Sanders Adrian

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Smith Sir Robert (W Aberdeens & Kincardine)

      Chidgey, David

      Cotter, Brian

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Doughty Sue

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Teather, Sarah

      Gidley, Sandra

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Tnursa John

      Harvey, Nick

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Heath, David

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Holmes, Paul

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Keetch, Paul

      Willis, Phil

      Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Richard Younger-Ross and

      Lamb, Norman

      Mr. Andrew Stunell

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment disagreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 173 and 235 disagreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 140 to 166, 168 to 172 and 174 to 202 agreed to.

    Clause 254

      DETERMINATION OF MINIMUM TERM IN RELATION TO MANDATORY LIFE SENTENCE
      Lords amendment: No. 203
      Paul Goggins: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to take the following: Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu thereof; Lords amendment No. 431 and the Government motion to disagree thereto.
      Paul Goggins: As we have said before, we believe that it is necessary to include juveniles in the murder sentencing framework laid down in schedule 19. We have considered the issue carefully, as we undertook to do in debate in the House earlier this year. Our conclusion is that the principles as they stand incorporate sufficient flexibility in respect of juveniles for appropriate tariffs to be reached in individual cases. As hon. Members will know, in the other place concern was expressed about the application of these provisions to juveniles, and juveniles were removed from the framework last week.
      We do not accept that juveniles should be dealt with outside the sentencing framework. Their inclusion is desirable, both in providing the clear, simple and transparent sentencing structure necessary to maintain public confidence in the justice system and in ensuring consistency and fairness in setting minimum terms for murder.
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Hilton Dawson: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is serious concern in this House as well about the minimum sentencing framework for juveniles convicted of grave crimes? There is only a very short time available for this debate, and further legislation on juvenile sentencing may be introduced in the next Session. Surely this would be a good opportunity to follow the other place and leave this issue until the next Session of Parliament.
      Paul Goggins: I acknowledge that similar concerns have been expressed in this House, and my response to them is the same as to those expressed in another place. However, I shall conclude my remarks fairly quickly, and so give my hon. Friend and others an opportunity to contribute to this short debate.
      We understand the concerns expressed about juvenile tariffs. To allay them, we propose to reintroduce juveniles into the sentencing system, but we will specifically set in the statute a lower starting point for juveniles, to recognise the special needs of that age group. The juvenile starting point will be 12 years, which
      738
      reflects recent guidance from the Lord Chief Justice. We think that there is nothing in the proposal to detract from the court's ability to set appropriate tariffs in each case, given that there will remain flexibility to aggravate and mitigate upwards and downwards.
      Mr. Grieve: The Minister describes 12 years as a starting point. Will he confirm that 12 years is not the minimum starting point but a median starting point that can be reduced as well as raised?
      Paul Goggins: I am happy to confirm that to the House. Throughout the Bill, the starting points are just that—starting points, not minimum tariffs. They can be raised or lowered depending on the circumstances of a case. That is true for the 12-year starting point for juveniles. The actual tariff for a juvenile may be lower or higher than 12 years.
      Mr. Dawson: Does not the Bill also introduce a new provision, whereby children under 16 could end up with a 12-year sentence? In the past, that has not been possible.
      Paul Goggins: The Bill gives the court the power to deal appropriately with what may be a very serious offence, whether or not it is committed by a juvenile. It makes it very clear that there should be a starting point for juveniles, as there is for adult offenders, but at the lower level of 12 years.
      Although hon. Members may wish to comment on that proposal, and even disagree with it, I hope that my brief remarks have made the Government's position clear—that we wish to reintroduce juveniles into the framework, with a starting point of 12 years.
      Mr. Grieve: I am well aware, from our previous debates and especially from the debate on Report, in which the Home Secretary participated, that divergent views about the correct way to approach children under 18 who commit very serious offences are perhaps inevitable. Clearly, there is always public anxiety about the matter. As I said to the Home Secretary on Report, we may have to accept that a person at the upper limit of the age group who commits a very serious offence, with attendant cruelty and signs of a psychopathic tendency, will have to serve many years in prison. That person may have to serve as long as an adult for the offence, and may never be released. In such circumstances, I suppose that a 12-year starting point may have some relevance.
      The Minister will recall that I spoke about children at the bottom of the age range, who have only just reached the age of criminal responsibility. However grave and serious their crimes may be, there is always the possibility that their personalities will change as they mature, aided by the active input of those looking after them. That will often mean that a 12-year sentence will be completely inappropriate.
      I shall not criticise the Government for adopting this course of action. I am grateful that they have reconsidered the starting point. However, my slight concern about the provision is that I suspect that, in reality, the children who commit serious offences—for that is what they are, children—will serve nothing like as

      739
      much as 12 years. The public may then express concern about why they are so far below the starting point.
      I recall the Lord Chancellor saying, when he was a Home Office Minister in the other place, that he thought that no sensible judge would have difficulty discounting the starting point sufficiently to arrive at a fair outcome. However, that seemed to me to be a slight sleight of hand, as if we would be asking the judiciary to bend the rules to adapt to particular circumstances.
      It is a personal view, but I remain somewhat troubled. Although I think that the Government are right to revisit the starting point, I worry that we may be creating a system that the judiciary will observe more in the breach, instead of following it. If that is so, this exercise will have been rather pointless. Worse still, people—who get very anxious about such matters—will criticise the provision and believe that the starting point is not being observed.
      I hope that I am wrong about that. I do not wish to leave the matter on a bad note, as I accept that the Home Secretary has taken on board many of the anxieties that were expressed.
      Mr. Dawson: I am afraid that I cannot accept this provision, and hope that the House will follow the sensible lead given by the other place. We are talking about children who have committed very grave crimes, but they are children in extraordinary circumstances. Invariably, children in that sort of predicament will have been victims themselves, often of the most gross and appalling abuse. They often have major issues to resolve in their lives, and face huge problems.
      The House will recall the case of Mary Bell. When given the appropriate level of support she was able to change her life, and some of her very serious problems were addressed. We should acknowledge that children and young people are very resilient and can make huge changes. Often, when these children are given the intensive support that they invariably need, they can change fairly quickly.
      It is wrong to present a tariff of 12 years as normal. It is inappropriate to take that decision away from judges, who will need every ounce of their wisdom, discretion, learning and sensitivity to these cases to decide on the appropriate sentence. There may well be cases where a judge decides that a much shorter sentence than 12 years is required. There may well be cases where the reform of and change in the young person under an intensive regime—no doubt, within a secure setting—will lead all those charged with their care to believe that they should be released from custody and helped back into the community much more quickly than any tariff set down in the wake of what was no doubt a heinous and appalling crime.
      The Government are wrong on this matter. The other place is right, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reflect on that.
      Simon Hughes: This is a difficult and sad subject on which to end our debates on the Bill. It is extremely difficult for all those concerned. I share the view of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) that the House of Lords was right in its decision. I also share the concerns expressed by those on the Conservative Front Bench in previous debates.
      740
      Clause 254 in chapter 7 provides for a determination of minimum term in relation to a mandatory life sentence. Lords amendment No. 203 states that that should
      "not apply if the offender was under 18 when he committed the offence."
      The Lords decided that on the basis of extremely good advice and practice.
      I shall reinforce what the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre said by again quoting—I have quoted this in a previous debate—what the Lord Chief Justice said in the memorandum that he submitted on mandatory life sentences for murder on 16 June in connection with the House of Lords debate on the Bill. In paragraph 33 of that memorandum he says:
      "I have, however, to assist the Home Secretary by making recommendations as to the minimum periods juveniles, who were in a transitional position, have to serve … The progress made in many of the approximately 140 cases I have examined is often very significant. The offenders were usually from a deprived background and when they received the attention that was provided in custody their attitudes to their offending and their behaviour were frequently transformed."
      Later in the same memorandum, he says:
      "For Parliament to set the guidelines and interfere with sentencing in this unprecedented manner at this time is particularly inappropriate since it is also setting up a new expert independent body which in turn has to act on the expert advice of the Sentencing Advisory Panel.
      Sentencing, particularly in relation to murder, should be removed from the political arena. The present proposal will have the effect of increasing political involvement."
      The Lord Chief Justice went on to describe what he had advised on juveniles in his practice direction of last year. He said:
      "In relation to juveniles, that is young offenders, while it was appropriate to start with the normal starting point for an adult of 12 years, there was to be a reduction for the age of a child with the result that 'for a child of 10, a judge should be considering a starting point in the region of 5 years'."
      He ended by looking at the proposals on young people and said in paragraph 62:
      "I would now refer to the position of children. What is the justification for putting up their normal starting point by an equivalent of 6 years?"—
      I accept that the Government have tabled an amendment that would make that three years, because they have brought down the starting point from their original proposal of 15 years to 12, but the principle still applies—
      "I particularly emphasise this because if the Government's approach is right, juveniles will not again be considered until their minimum period has been served. Can it ever be right not to allow the Parole Board to consider his case at least when he becomes 18 and ceases to be a juvenile and so eligible for the adult prison system?"
      For me, that has always been the issue. If one commits an offence, however terrible, as a juvenile, the moment one becomes an adult in the eyes of the law one's future and past should be reviewed. What one did as a 10, 11 or 12-year-old should not be regarded as an indication of how one is likely to behave as an 18-year-old. That is

      741
      why there should be no minimum. There should be no inflexibility. The court should be able to make a decision based on the individual young person before it, which should be reviewed when he or she becomes 18.
      The rest of paragraph 62 of the Lord Chief Justice's memorandum states:
      "If you have had to read the files of the successive reports relating to juvenile murderers in the numbers that I have, you could not be but appalled by such a suggestion. Many of those involved, if not all, come from a disadvantaged background. Those who have responsibility for their upbringing after they are sentenced usually do a most remarkable job of bringing up those youngsters and they can be transformed in consequence. It is not either just to them or the public to ignore the scale of the change that can take place. Nobody suggests that in their case they should be detained for life. If they are not to be detained for life, it is important in their interests and the public's interest that they are released before what has been achieved for them while in custody as a juvenile is destroyed by their exposure to the adult prison system."
      We all know of the public revulsion at murders committed by juveniles, and I completely understand that. However, they are juveniles and they must be given the benefit of a new start. On the Liberal Democrat Benches, we are clear that the principle should be left to the judge, advised by the sentencing council, in individual cases, and not determined by Parliament. We here cannot do that job fairly either for young people or for society, and we should not try.
      8.30 pm
      Paul Goggins: I do not think that there is any contradiction between the belief, which I am sure we all share, that when a child becomes an adult they can reform and rebuild their life after committing a heinous crime, and the belief that there should be a starting point that judges will consider—
      It being six hours after the commencement of proceedings, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
      The House divided: Ayes 322, Noes 54.

      Division No. 379]

      [8:31 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Benn, rh Hilary

      Ainger, Nick

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Berry, Roger

      Alexander, Douglas

      Best, Harold

      Allen, Graham

      Betts, Clive

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Blackman, Liz

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Boateng, rh Paul

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Borrow, David

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Austin, John

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Bailey, Adrian

      Baird, Vera

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Banks, Tony

      Browne, Desmond

      Barnes, Harry

      Bryant, Chris

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Battle, John

      Burden, Richard

      Bayley, Hugh

      Burgon, Colin

      Beard, Nigel

      Burnham, Andy

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Cairns, David

      742

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Hain, rh Peter

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Casale, Roger

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Caton, Martin

      Hanson, David

      Challen, Colin

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Chaytor, David

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Clapham, Michael

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Healey, John

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hendrick, Mark

      Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Heppell, John

      Hermon, Lady

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Clelland, David

      Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Heyes, David

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hodge, Margaret

      Cohen, Harry

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      Colman, Tony

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cousins, Jim

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Cranston, Ross

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Cummings, John

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Ingram, rh Adam

      Darling, rh Alistair

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      David, Wayne

      Jamieson, David

      Davidson, lan

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Denham, rh John

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Doran, Frank

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Edwards, Huw

      Kidney, David

      Efford, Clive

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Farrelly, Paul

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Lammy, David

      Flint, Caroline

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Follett, Barbara

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Foster, rh Derek

      Lepper, David

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Gapes, Mike (llford S)

      Linton, Martin

      Gardiner, Barry

      Love, Andrew

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      Lucas, lan (Wrexham)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Luke, lain (Dundee E)

      Gilroy, Linda

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Godsiff, Roger

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Goggins, Paul

      McCabe, Stephen

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      McCartney, rh lan

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Grogan, John

      MacDougall, John

      743

      McFall, John

      Ruane, Chris

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Ruddock, Joan

      McIsaac, Shona

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      McKechin, Ann

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      McNulty, Tony

      Salter, Martin

      MacShane, Denis

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Sawford, Phil

      McWilliam, John

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Sheerman, Barry

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Sheridan, Jim

      Mallaber, Judy

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Singh, Marsha

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Martlew, Eric

      Soley, Clive

      Merron, Gillian

      Southworth, Helen

      Michael, rh Alun

      Spellar, rh John

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Squire, Rachel

      Miliband, David

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Miller, Andrew

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Stevenson, George

      Moffatt, Laura

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Mole, Chris

      Moran, Margaret

      Stewart, lan (Eccles)

      Morgan, Julie

      Stoate Dr. Howard

      Morley, Elliot

      Strang rh Dr. Gavin

      Morris, rh Estelle

      Stringer Graham

      Mountford, Kali

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Mullin, Chris

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Taylor Dari (Stockton S)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Taylor David (NW Leics)

      Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

      Thomas Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Thomas Qareth (Harrow w)

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Timms, Stephen

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Tipping, Paddy

      O'Neill, Martin

      Touhig Don (Islwyn)

      Organ, Diana

      Trickett, Jon

      Osborne Sandra (Ayr)

      Truswell, Paul

      Owen, Albert

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Pearson, Ian

      Perham, Linda

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Picking, Anne

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Plaskitt, James

      Ward, Claire

      Pollard, Kerry

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Watson, Tom (w Bromwich E)

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Watts, David

      Pound, Stephen

      white, Brian

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Winnick, David

      Purchase, Ken

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Purnell, James

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Woodward, Shaun

      Rammell, Bill

      Woolas, Phil

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Worthington, Tony

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

      Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Rooney, Terry

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Derek Twigg and

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Jim Fitzpatrick

      744

      NOES

      Allan, Richard

      Lamb, Norman

      Barrett, John

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

      Breed, Colin

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Moore, Michael

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Öpik, Lembit

      Burnett, John

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Burstow, Paul

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Rendel, David

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Sanders, Adrian

      Chidgey, David

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

      Cotter, Brian

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Dawson, Hilton

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Doughty, Sue

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Teather, Sarah

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Gidley, Sandra

      Thurso, John

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Harvey, Nick

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Heath, David

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Holmes, Paul

      Willis, Phil

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Keetch, Paul

      Mr. Alsn Reid and

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Bob Rusell

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment disagreed to.
      Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 203 agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 431 disagreed to.
      Remaining Lords amendments agreed to.
      Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments Nos. 32, 35, 39, 2, 4, 8, 100, 101, 114, 116 to 123, 125, 127, 128, 131, 138, 139, 167, 173, 235 and 431: Paul Goggins, Mr. Dominic Grieve, Mr. John Heppell, Simon Hughes and Ms Dari Taylor; Paul Goggins to be the Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Heppell.]
      To withdraw immediately.
      Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),
    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

      QUALITY AND SAFETY OF HUMAN TISSUES AND CELLS
      That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 10122/03, amended draft Directive on setting standards of quality and safety for the donation, procurement, testing, processing, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells; notes the additional set-up costs and annual running costs arising in the United Kingdom are now expected to be greater than originally anticipated, and in particular may require investment by fertility clinics to upgrade their facilities and practices, but recognises that these costs will be offset by significant benefits to patients, and

      745
      therefore supports the Government's position that the proposed Directive, as presently drafted, is broadly acceptable.—[Mr. Ainger.]
      Question agreed to.

    PETITIONS

      Oxclose Community Nursery School
      8.47 pm
      Joyce Quin: I present to the House a petition on behalf of the staff, parents and friends of Oxclose community nursery school in support of their efforts to keep the school open. The petition is signed by some 2,000 people from the communities of Washington in my constituency that would be most affected by the proposed closure. The petitioners believe that the school has produced excellent results with its experienced staff and that it is an asset that gives real benefits to the surrounding area and community.
      The conclusion of the petition states:
      We, the Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons support our Declaration, and urge the Government to take steps to ensure that Oxclose Community Nursery School remains open.
      And the Petitioners remain, etc.
      To lie upon the Table.

    Planning Application(Cotswold)
    8.48 pm
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to present a petition signed by 1,500 of my Cotswold constituents urging the Deputy Prime Minister to use his powers to call for a planning application to be considered by an independent planning inspector. The application is principally concerned with the dumping of a large quantity of construction waste from outside the area into the heart of the Cotswold area of outstanding natural beauty, thus increasing heavy goods traffic on narrow and unsuitable roads. The petitioners believe that the application is environmentally unsustainable.
    The petition is signed by my constituent Mrs. Charlotte Heber Percy of Eyford house, Upper Slaughter, Nr. Cheltenham, Gloucestershire.
    The petition states:
    To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament Assembled
    The Humble Petition of the Residents of the Cotswolds showeth
    That Planning Application ref: CD/0165/1/S by Huntsmans Quarries Ltd. for Aggregates Recycling: Plant Area Rationalisation: Agricultural Restoration: Infilling, was passed on the 11 th November 2003 by the Gloucestershire County Council on the casting vote of the Chairman.
    Wherefore your petitioners pray that your Honourable House should urge the Deputy Prime Minister to use his statutory powers to call in this application and appoint an independent inspector to consider this application.
    And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

    NHS (Wales)
    Motion made,and Question proposed,That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Aingeri]
    8.50 pm
    Gareth Thomas: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a crucial subject: the national health service and, in particular, the NHS in Wales. I am also grateful to be accompanied by a male voice choir from various Labour constituencies in Wales.
    I strongly believe that it is appropriate for a Welsh Member to raise the subject, even though the Executive powers for running the NHS have been devolved to the National Assembly, because the power to raise the taxes that pay for the NHS across the UK resides here, the legislative framework within which the NHS operates is laid down here, and a number of measures dealing with NHS reform were debated and enacted here. So while the arrangements persist, Welsh Members of Parliament will be inextricably linked to the process of investment and reform within the NHS in Wales. If there were doubts about our right to raise the subject, we know from contact with our constituents that it remains the single most important domestic issue, so Welsh MPs are perfectly entitled to express a view on it.
    The state of the NHS in Wales can be encapsulated in the old Welsh phrase, often found in school reports, of "nid da lle gellir gwell", loosely and charitably translated as "could do better". Although there have been significant improvements in the performance of the NHS in Wales thanks to the Government's record investment in public services, waiting lists are still unacceptably high and there is a danger that if the Assembly does not pursue reform as vigorously as it is pursued in England, the NHS in Wales will fall even further behind.
    What is the current position? On 31 March 2003, no fewer than 74,600 people in Wales were waiting for inpatient treatment—14 per cent. more than were waiting on 31 March 1999. It is interesting to observe that over the same period, the resident-based in-patient waiting lists in England fell by 9 per cent.
    Of those Welsh residents waiting for in-patient treatment on that date, 16 per cent. had been waiting for more than 12 months, compared with 0 per cent. in England, and 5,200 Welsh residents—7 per cent. of the total—had been waiting for more than 18 months for treatment. That is a bad position. In addition, several trusts are operating with deficits. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will accept that there are unacceptable variations in performance between NHS trusts in Wales.
    Of course, waiting lists and times are not the only measure of performance, but I believe that they are a crucial indicator of the extent to which extra investment is being used effectively. They are more than that, because behind the statistics are many personal histories of pain, discomfort, worry and uncertainty. I am sure that many hon. Members have shared the frustration

    747
    and sometimes the despair of constituents who have been left on the waiting list for far too long. That is far from Aneurin Bevan's vision.
    Mr. Wayne David: Does my hon. Friend accept that in Gwent, some people on orthopaedic waiting lists have to wait four and a half years for the operation that they need?
    Gareth Thomas: That is not a case of "could do better". It is a bad position that requires serious improvement, and I sympathise with my hon. Friend's constituents. It is worth emphasising that the deterioration in waiting times occurred in a period of unprecedented increased investment in the NHS in Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) has eloquently made that point.
    Mark Tami: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a danger that Opposition Members—not one is here—believe that the NHS can be reformed without putting in any extra investment, and that the Assembly believes that it is a case of money without reform? Reform is essential if we are to improve the NHS in Wales.
    Gareth Thomas: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Of course, reform must accompany investment. We should not take lectures from Conservative Members even if any were present. I assume that my hon. Friend referred to the official Opposition. If they had their way, the tax cuts that they envisage would create mayhem in the NHS in Wales. In fairness to the Assembly Government, they recognise that the extra investment must be accompanied by reform. The Wanless report was commissioned because of such recognition.
    The conclusions of Derek Wanless were blunt and to the point, and he made several recommendations. He said:
    "The position in Wales is worse than in the UK as a whole … Wales does not get as much out of its spending as it should."
    It is alarming that his overall conclusion is that the current position is unsustainable. Hon. Members will be familiar with some of his major recommendations. They include: the need to reshape services, deal with inappropriate referrals, integrate health and social care and emphasise prevention. That is all well and good and we congratulate the Assembly on its work on that.
    However, the Wanless report also recommended the need to stop funding deficits and to reward success and good performance with greater freedom and autonomy. If one speaks to those who have experience of managing a complicated organisation such as the health service, which has so many vested and competitive interests, they say that the political message from the top has to be clear and consistent. One expert commentator to whom I spoke said that the NHS needed to be "pushed". He did not mean that that should be done in an aggressive way that would undermine the important public service ethos, that underlies the health service. He meant that there needed to be consistent signals from the top. I strongly believe that we need to give a stronger steer to NHS management on the need to reduce waiting times. We need to insist on detailed scrutiny of where all this
    748
    extra money is going, and to learn—yes,learn—from
    what is being done in England, particularly through the Modernisation Agency.
    Lembit Öpik: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he agrees with the Opposition parties in the Assembly, which today voted down Labour's proposals for a so-called action plan on the ground that they did not think that it was anything of the sort, with regard to the Wanless report? Would he acknowledge that, for all his criticisms, many of which I agree with, it is Labour Administrations in Cardiff and in London who are presiding over the circumstances in which many of our constituents—including mine, near the border—can get no serious medical attention from the hospitals across the border because the bills cannot be paid?
    Gareth Thomas: There are real difficulties in border areas. The hon. Gentleman has made a fair point. We must accept, however, that the Assembly is making some progress. It has inherited a difficult situation.
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: My hon. Friend should not allow that intervention by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) to pass without remarking that during the major period of difficulty in implementing change, the Labour party in the Welsh Assembly was in partnership with the Liberal Democrats—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. This Adjournment debate is obviously quite delicate in the way that it deals with a balance between this House and other establishments. I do not think that we should get too involved in the internal politics of the Welsh Assembly.
    Gareth Thomas: The burden of my debate is that the pace of change and reform must accelerate if we are going to turn round the NHS in Wales. I am particularly concerned about the need to ensure that there is more capital investment in the NHS. There is an urgent need to invest in buildings, equipment, new technology and new services, and I should also like to see the Assembly take on the idea of diagnostic and treatment centres and large-scale methods of dealing with cataract operations, knee joint operations, and so on.
    There has been cumulative underinvestment, and let us make no bones about the fact that the Conservatives were responsible for that. In commissioning its national estates strategic framework, the National Assembly for Wales demonstrated that it recognised that there was a huge challenge involved in addressing what are called backlog maintenance costs. These are the costs necessary to bring the NHS trusts' estates up to a reasonable standard. A recent report by the Auditor General for Wales showed that 32 per cent. of the NHS trusts' estates surveyed were unfit for their purpose. A conservative estimate of the cost of meeting those backlog maintenance costs is no less than £431 million. That does not include the investment in new services such as diagnostic and treatment centres that I believe should take place, to allow us to catch up with the pace of technological reform in the NHS.

    749
    The Assembly appears to recognise that there is a role for the private finance initiative, and we are told that there is no ideological objection to its take-up. It is worrying, however, that while PFI projects are being taken up at a very fast rate over the border in England, and many new facilities and hospitals are being built in places close to my constituency such as Liverpool and Manchester, the take-up in Wales is disappointingly low. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that there is an ideological objection to it.
    Albert Owen: My hon. Friend mentioned hospitals in Manchester and Liverpool. The NHS trust in my area of north-west Wales is meeting its targets, and one of the reasons for that is that many patients go to those hospitals in England. Does he agree that the NHS needs to maintain such cross-border co-operation and partnership so that waiting lists in Wales can be substantially reduced?
    Gareth Thomas: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Of course, that traffic of people and patients across the border is a feature of the NHS in Wales.
    I am afraid that there is a lukewarm approach to the PFI, but I believe that it is essential to take it up.
    Adam Price: If I may say so, the hon. Gentleman has given us an expert diagnosis of the problem, particularly in relation to the lack of capital investment. What I am not so convinced about is the prognosis. For example, would it not be more cost-efficient for the UK Government to allow the Welsh Assembly Government to borrow on the bond market rather than use the PFI, which is a rather expensive way to generate capital investment?
    Gareth Thomas: I do not accept that point, but there is a real need to ensure that we work in partnership with the private sector to release extra funds over and above the generous allocations made available by this Government through their prudent handling of the economy. That is my point. If we are to create a modern health service, we need more take-up.
    If we are to safeguard the future of the NHS, it must become not only a comprehensive service, free at the point of need, but a truly modern service that is genuinely responsive to patients' needs. The Prime Minister is quite right to emphasise the fact that reform must accompany investment. As a strong supporter of devolution who campaigned strongly for a Welsh Assembly, and one who is proud of that achievement, which the Labour Government managed to implement, I say that it is essential that the Assembly demonstrates to the people of Wales that it can discharge this responsibility to the people of Wales and create a national health service fit for the 21st century.
    9.7 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Gareth Thomas) on securing this useful debate, which gives us the opportunity to discuss the considerable investment in the NHS in Wales.
    750
    Labour Members are committed to securing improvements in the NHS in Wales—a commitment that we share with the Labour-led National Assembly. Like my hon. Friend, I believe that the twin engines that will drive forward the essential improvement in the NHS are investment and reform—investment supporting a reform agenda tailored to Welsh health needs.
    The Government and the Assembly, working in partnership, are providing record investment. Planning and delivering reforms is an essential part of that. Investment in the health service in Wales has never been greater. The Assembly's recently published draft budget for next year will see an 8.9 per cent. increase in health and social care spending and a total health budget of £4.28 billion. The trend of decades of underinvestment has been reversed. Perhaps that is why the Opposition decided not to show up this evening.
    Investment means building for the future so that the NHS in Wales—one of our proudest achievements of the 20th century—goes from strength to strength in the 21st. We are laying foundations for the NHS in Wales that will deliver a world-class health service. Some of what we are doing is, literally, building, and the people of Wales see the results around them—for example, the Royal Glamorgan hospital in Llantrisant, St. David's hospital in Cardiff, Chepstow community hospital and the new Neath and Port Talbot hospital.
    Since 1999, the Labour-led National Assembly has built those four hospitals as part of delivering the pledge of 10 new hospitals within the next 10 years. That is in addition to the all-Wales capital programme projects.
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will my hon. Friend comment on the fact that three of the four hospitals that he has referred to were built under the PFI and commissioned before the Welsh Assembly came into being?
    Mr. Touhig: That is an example of the partnership between Government and the Assembly to which I referred. I will comment on the PFI in due course.
    The all-Wales capital programme includes refurbishing many community hospitals in Powys, major health and safety work at Prince Charles and Glan Clwyd hospitals and the re-provision of mental health services in Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire.
    Some of my hon. Friend's comments have naturally focused on PFI projects. Nye Bevan used to say that policies needed to be reviewed because they became blunted with use. The PFI is one new tool that we can use. It was not available to the founders of the NHS, but it is available to us. It can be used for capital investment in the health service. I support the PFI, and commend its use whenever that is considered appropriate.
    Of course, our greatest asset in the NHS is not any one building or facility, but the staff who work in it. The Assembly has been investing heavily in the men and women of the NHS in Wales. The number of front-line staff has risen as a result of increased investment, and of the successes of the recruitment and retention strategies applied by the Assembly. There are 30 per cent. more

    751
    whole-time equivalent hospital consultants working in Wales than there were in 1997. There are nearly 16 per cent. more qualified nurses than in 1997, a 5 per cent. increase on last year, and there are 6 per cent. more GPs than there were a decade ago. But the recruitment of extra health professionals is not enough on its own. Our colleagues in the Assembly have policies for retaining the expertise that we already have in Wales.
    The last Government—not represented here tonight—cut the number of doctors and nurses being trained. Over the last three years the number of medical students has increased from 966 to more than 1,100, and it will increase to 1,385 by 2004. The Assembly plans to have 700 more consultants and GPs, 6,000 more nurses and 2,000 more other health professionals by 2010.
    All that effort is aimed at improving the way in which we treat people who are already ill, but we have another fundamental task: to tackle the long-term health problems that affect our communities. As well as investing in the fabric and staff of the NHS, the Assembly has invested, and continues to invest, in that effort. It is vital for most help to be targeted where it is most needed. The draft budget to which I referred has targeted funds on tackling health inequalities in Wales.
    For me, the most important person in the NHS is the patient. Investment and reform in the NHS should have one simple objective—to meet the needs of the patient. The patient must come first. That is why we are not satisfied with our present record of investment. We must reform the health service in Wales so that it does an even better job in meeting the needs of Welsh patients.
    Structural reform of the NHS in Wales has focused on the creation of strengthened health services, and seeks local solutions to local needs. Standards are set at an all-Wales level, but are delivered locally. Both the Government and the Assembly believe in empowering local communities to decide how best to tackle local health problems. Local health boards and local authorities now have structures to allow closer working between the NHS and social services that can deliver better care for patients. That partnership approach is integral to delivering better care for patients. Our shared aim is a seamless provision of services, delivered through groupings of heath and social care providers.
    The patient is rightly at the centre of the NHS. In 2001–02, 200,000 more patients were seen in Wales than in 1996–97. The health service in Wales treated 643,000 in-patients, and dealt with 2.8 million out-patient appointments last year alone. That is an impressive record, but we have another important commitment—to tackle the issue of waiting times, mentioned by my hon. Friend and others.
    Waiting times remain a challenge, but the Assembly is tackling such challenges. Heart disease is one of Wales's biggest health problems, and one of its biggest killers. That is why the Assembly targeted cardiac surgery. When the cardiac initiative began in July 2001, 100 patients were waiting for longer than 12 months for surgery; now no one is waiting that long. I know from my own constituency how important orthopaedic surgery can be to people's quality of life in Wales. We inherited a huge problem with waiting times, and I am
    752
    pleased that the Assembly has targeted orthopaedic surgery for additional investment. When the orthopaedic initiative began in July 2001, more than 2,000 people were waiting more than 18 months for treatment; now there are 45, which is a considerable improvement. By the end of the year, no one will be waiting more than 18 months. Twelve months ago, 10,000 more people were waiting more than six months for their first out-patient appointment than are waiting today—again, a considerable improvement.
    Mark Tami: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a problem, particularly in border areas, where people know that the drop in waiting times for English patients is greater than it is for Welsh patients. It is not acceptable in the long term for Welsh patients to be told that they have to wait for 18 months, while some English patients may be asked to wait for six months for the same operation.
    Mr. Touhig: I entirely accept my hon. Friend's point. We all have experience of our constituents telling us about that problem. It is important to acknowledge the considerable advances that the Assembly has made in various initiatives. I hope that people will look at what is happening in England and say, "If they can do it, so can we." I am convinced that, by working in partnership with the Assembly, we are on the right track and will move towards improving waiting times.
    Mr. David: Does my hon. Friend accept that the time between a patient seeing their GP and seeing a consultant can be as long as three years, never mind 18 months?
    Mr. Touhig: I entirely accept that. In our part of south-east Wales, it is quite common for people to have to wait 180 weeks for their first appointment with an orthopaedic consultant. My colleague Jane Hutt, the Minister for Health and Social Services in the Assembly is tackling that problem: she announced today a further waiting times initiative to build on what has already been achieved. From 1 April 2004, every patient in Wales will be guaranteed a second offer of treatment to ensure that they wait no longer than 18 months. In some cases, that will include the option to receive treatment at a different location. We should welcome that, because it is line with the reforms and improvements that we want.
    No one is denying that challenges face the NHS in Wales. The Wanless review of health and social care in Wales, which was undertaken at the request of the Assembly, showed the scale of the challenge referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West. We are rightly proud of the successes of the NHS in Wales and the things that it delivers, but we recognise the need for tough action in areas where more has to be done to deliver the services that patients expect. I am pleased that my colleagues in the Assembly made it clear today that they are prepared to act against trusts that are not delivering their targets. My hon. Friend mentioned the Wanless recommendation that the Assembly should stop underwriting deficits. I agree with that recommendation. Indeed, my colleague Jane Hutt said today:
    "Deficits will only be covered by repayable loans."

    753
    She went on to say:
    "I expect all health organisations to sign up to deliverable finance plans and restore financial balance within the timetable laid down … the warning I have given about financial discipline means that the money provided will be reclaimed."
    If that is not a message to underperforming trusts, I do not know what is. It is important that we all back Jane Hutt in that initiative, and make it clear to underperforming trusts that we are not prepared to accept failures in future.
    The NHS in Wales is one of the finest achievements of a civilised society, and was delivered by a Labour Government. In a nation where many people suffer from the illnesses that are the legacy of heavy industry and social disadvantage, the health service is literally a lifeline for our people and our communities. I fully endorse the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West at the beginning of our debate that it is important that hon. Members can articulate their
    754
    constituents' concerns. We are the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and the Government are delighted to work in partnership with our colleagues in the Assembly in overcoming difficulties.
    After a tale of underinvestment and neglect for many years, the story of the Welsh health service has reached a new chapter. The drivers of improvement, investment and reform are being put to work by the Government and the Assembly, working in partnership for the people of Wales. We are matching our commitment to reform with our commitment to invest, and the results are already beginning to show, although I accept that we are impatient for more reforms and investment. Investment and reform in the NHS are fundamental Government pledges, and we are working in partnership with the Assembly, the NHS and the people of Wales to deliver the health service that Wales deserves now and in the future.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes past Nine 'clock.

Preamble
[SIR NICHOLAS WINNTERTON in the Chair]

Zimbabwe
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Derek Twigg.]
9.30 am
Mr. Deputy Speaker: This is a very topical debate. If Members show self-discipline, I am sure that everybody who wishes to speak will be able to do so. It is my intention to call the first wind-up speaker at 10.30 am.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall show some self-discipline, although I have much to say. I welcome the opportunity, especially this week, to debate Zimbabwe, having discussed it in two forums in the House of Commons last week when we heard from many people, including representatives of the Movement for Democratic Change and the editor of The Daily News.
I particularly welcome the Minister. Although I suspect that he and I disagree profoundly about a great many issues, I pay tribute to the fact that he has built a career on the pursuit of justice, and I believe that this debate is about justice. More than two years ago, the Prime Minister said in his conference speech that there would be
"no tolerance of bad governance"
in Africa, including the activities of
"Mr. Mugabe's henchmen in Zimbabwe",
yet the situation goes from bad to worse and people in Zimbabwe are dying of starvation.
When Mugabe was elected nearly a quarter of a century ago, people were both surprised and delighted that he did not pursue the Marxism that ZANU-PF had previously espoused. We did not appreciate how fearful Zimbabweans were of a return to violence, which ZANU-PF had threatened if it did not win that election—perhaps that is why it won. In the early 1980s, we in Europe heard little of the activities in Matabeleland of the notorious Fifth Brigade, which emulated the North Koreans who trained it. It is estimated that about 20,000 Matabele were massacred.
Instead, in Britain and the west, we were pleased that Zimbabwe remained a country in which we could do business, where we could go as a tourist and in which we could hold a Commonwealth conference, as we did in 1991. It was a rich country, exporting food around southern Africa. However, by 1999 the economy was in crisis, and it was obvious to all that the Government of Mugabe was acting like a dictatorship: people were being murdered and farmland was being seized. By 2000, many of us were calling for an end to all aid to the regime. The Prime Minister's speech that I quoted was made in 2001, and the Commonwealth suspended Zimbabwe after disputed elections in March 2002.
Today, Zimbabwe has 70 per cent. unemployment and 460 per cent. inflation—difficult to judge, I would guess—fuel prices have risen six-fold in a year and the
192WH
majority of the population depends on food aid. There have been 267 politically motivated murders reported this year and nearly 4,000 people reported tortured, but nobody knows the extent of the repression. Rich and fertile farm land lies idle while the security forces run amok and the only source of independent news, The Daily News, has been closed down.
Mr. Peter Pike: When asked about the land that lies sterile and is not being used, President Mugabe refers to the Lancaster house agreement, and says that he is not getting the money. Is it not a fact that the first tranche of land that he took has still not been redistributed, other than to his cronies, and most of it is not being used at all?
Mr. Robathan: I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, Mugabe's cronies sit on their stolen farms and get ever richer while other people starve. That is partly because the Zimbabwean army is looting diamonds and other minerals in the Congo. Yesterday, Welshman Ncube, the secretary-general of the Movement for Democratic Change, spoke of the militarisation of Zimbabwe. He mentioned particularly the machinery of repression that controls the country.
We are told by Africans that the western world and Europe should keep their noses out of Zimbabwe's affairs. On a recent visit to the House, the Nigerian high commissioner said that the issue is an African problem that needs an African solution. He said that it is a task for South Africa, Nigeria or the African Union, and that quiet diplomacy is needed. President Mbeki has said that the situation needs to be understood in the context of Zimbabwe's hard won liberation from white minority rule, while South Africa's Foreign Minister, Dr. Zuma, has said that she will never condemn Zimbabwe. Sadly, the African National Congress in South Africa believes that it owes ZANU-PF support in exchange for its backing against the apartheid regime.
The Inter-Parliamentary Union was due to meet in March next year in Westminster. Kofi Annan and Nelson Mandela had been invited, and the Queen would have opened the session. However, because the Government, to their credit, would not give some members of the Zimbabwean regime visas to attend, the assembly has been moved to, I understand, Thailand—perhaps a more attractive venue in March. The meeting was moved only because African countries demanded that there be no hindrance to members of the Zimbabwean regime. Indeed, it was only because John Howard of Australia was so forthright in condemning the Zimbabwean elections last year that the other two members of the Commonwealth troika, Nigeria and South Africa, were prevailed upon similarly to condemn the elections. Does anyone really believe that the African Union, founded by Colonel Gaddafi, is likely to press for the restoration of the rule of law and human rights in Zimbabwe?
The Minister has recently returned from South Africa, and a high level South African delegation has just been in London. Will he say what results have been obtained by quiet diplomacy? Will the Minister assure us that the Government will have no part in any deal struck to allow Mugabe to perpetuate the repressive ZANU-PF regime—for instance by retiring, yet nominating his successor without free and fair elections?

193WH
How do we see Zimbabwe in Britain? It is not a far away land of which we know little—we were the colonial government that ceded power to Mugabe in 1980. There are more than 30,000 Zimbabweans in this country, mostly black, and there are 23,000 British subjects in Zimbabwe, which is exactly half the number of a year ago—partial evidence of the increasingly hostile and deteriorating situation. We have not only an historical but a moral obligation to the people of Zimbabwe. Innumerable individuals and the opposition want Britain to stand up for the crushed Zimbabwean people.
Peter Bottomley: I hope that the whole country will listen to what my hon. Friend is saying. Will he take it from me that members of the opposition parties in Zimbabwe are not the only ones who want that? Those who 25 years ago were doing much for ZANU-PF, and who were still with it in the first 10 years after full independence, also oppose what is being done in their name. Those who want to work for the people of Zimbabwe should understand that they are fighting for the people, rather than against the regime per se, although that regime must go to allow the people and parties in Zimbabwe to work.
Mr. Robathan: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Whatever opinion we may have taken at the time, many who fought for liberation now feel betrayed by the activities of ZANU-PF.
Sadly, too many in the west believe Mugabe's rhetoric. Last week at one of the forums that I mentioned, a representative from a non-governmental organisation talked about the need to dismantle the infrastructure of colonialism. Similarly, the Government seem to fear the accusation that they are acting in a neo-colonialist manner or as an imperialist power. I urge the Government to listen to the people of Zimbabwe, who want Britain and the west to speak up for them. Over the past week I have heard many Zimbabweans who are desperate for support from Britain. To those on the left who suffer from post-colonial guilt, I quote the mayor of Harare, who said in March:
"The world must know this is not a black and white issue. It is an issue of the blacks in Zimbabwe suffering".
The Government have been slow to react to Mugabe's crimes and loth to accept the reality that is Zimbabwe. In a reply to a question from me, the Secretary of State for Defence said that
"the Zimbabwean armed forces … have continued to make a stable and mature contribution to Zimbabwean society, which may well have something to do with the training that they have received from British forces. There is therefore good news from Zimbabwe, and it is important to put that in the right context."—[Official Report, 4 May 2000; Vol. 349, c. 306.]
Is that an example of the soft bigotry of low expectations? Those very armed forces were then already looting in the Congo and spreading the AIDS pandemic around the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Government have too often failed to condemn what they would consider intolerable from a European Government.
194WH
The use of food aid as a political tool by ZANU-PF is another important issue. That food aid is delivered via the World Food Programme, but paid for in part by the British taxpayer—by our constituents. This year, the Department for International Development expects to spend £29 million on aid to Zimbabwe—double last year's contribution. According to the WFP emergency report of 24 January, there have been
"several reports of theft of WFP … commodities in the region".
Besides stealing the aid, ZANU-PF claims credit for the aid programme and pretends that there would be no food aid without ZANU-PF.
At the same time, the WFP and NGOs rely for the distribution of food on information provided by local authorities. That all too often results in the unwitting politicisation of aid, as party officials determine who is deserving and who is not. In effect, no one without a ZANU-PF party card can register for food aid. Vast numbers are excluded from aid distribution because party officials deny their need, and the existing monitoring systems of the WFP and others are failing because they do not show up those who have been excluded from the lists.
Kate Hoey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that another problem that has emerged recently, which was made known to us by members of the Movement for Democratic Change who were here this week, is that some of the aid that South Africa is meant to be giving to NGOs and the World Food Programme is being sold direct to the Zimbabwean Government, who then control it under their food programme? That food definitely goes only to ZANU-PF members.
Mr. Robathan: Indeed, the hon. Lady has come up with a good point. The grain marketing board is used as an arm of ZANU-PF—certainly not as an impartial distributor of aid.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree with Peter Takirambudde, executive director of the Africa division of Human Rights Watch? He says:
"Select groups of people are being denied access to food".
He further comments:
"This is a human rights violation as serious as arbitrary imprisonment or torture."
Mr. Robathan: I do agree, and I will quote a report commissioned by Oxfam on the practical implementation of food aid. It is dated 8 April and states:
"Recent field research indicates that practices"—
that is, of impartial delivery of relief—
"are not upheld with consistency in the field … food aid furnished by USAID and through the WFP is being manipulated by the Mugabe regime and its supporters, unbeknownst to headquarters in Washington and Rome."
Rome is where the WFP has its headquarters. The report continues:
"World Vision's distribution system plays directly into the hands of the ZANU-PF leadership. Based on WV's own explanation of their distribution process it would appear that local officials have complete control over who receives food aid at local level."

195WH
It refers to
"extensive accounts of the inability of members or supporters of opposition parties to access food aid".
I urge the Government to scrutinise and question the system by which British taxpayers—our constituents—are helping the people of Zimbabwe. They need help, but it appears that at the moment we may be, to quote again from the report,
"unwitting partners in preserving political power for the Mugabe regime".
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Chris Mullin ): Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that food aid to Zimbabwe should be cut off?
Mr. Robathan: As the Minister will know, I did not say that. The people of Zimbabwe need food aid. However, it must be delivered so that it goes to those who need it, not via the Government, who use it as a political tool.
President Mugabe has more willing partners than those unwitting ones of whom I have spoken: that is, the businessmen who prop up his regime. The EU has a list of 79 individuals whose assets have been frozen and who are banned from travel. By contrast, New Zealand lists 133 individuals on its sanctions list. It is interesting and salutary to note the differences. For instance, Leo Mugabe does not feature on the EU list. Neither do the wife of the Defence Minister or many members of the families of senior ZANU-PF politicians.
Of greater importance are the names of business people that are omitted from the EU sanctions list. Welshman Ncube, secretary general of the MDC, said that the international community will not be shown to be serious about standing up to Mugabe until it freezes the assets of the businessmen who prop up the regime.
I shall give an example from Wiltshire. According to a report from The Observer on 24 November last year—the Minister probably reads The Observer more widely than I do—British citizen Andrew Smith was named in a UN report for organising bombing raids in the Democratic Republic of the Congo on behalf of President Kabila. He side-stepped EU sanctions by operating through his Zimbabwean registered company, Avient.
John Bredenkamp, one of three Bredenkamps on the New Zealand list, is of greater significance. He has been mentioned in the House on many occasions. As well as many other allegations, it was reported in May 2000 that he provided half the initial capital for a diamonds-for-arms deal that involved the Zimbabwean defence force in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
The UN panel of experts on the illegal exploitation of natural resources in the Congo uncovered a memorandum of understanding signed by Emmerson Mnangagwa, the Speaker of Zimbabwe, guaranteeing a $1.5 million loan to Oryx Natural Resources from Python Services Ltd., one of Bredenkamp's companies. Bredenkamp is registered in the UK as a director of 11 companies. It is highly likely that Mugabe's personal wealth, and that of other ZANU-PF officials, is held offshore through companies owned in part by Bredenkamp.
196WH
Bredenkamp represents Tremalt, a company owned by trusts registered in the British Virgin Islands and the Isle of Wight. Tremalt is believed to procure military equipment and provide cash payments to Zimbabwean and Congolese defence forces. Bredenkamp acts as Tremalt's representative at monthly meetings with Vitalis Zvinavashe, head of the Zimbabwean armed forces. That shows his close personal relationship with ZANU-PF.
Furthermore, according to a report by the same UN panel on 16 October last year, Bredenkamp's Raceview Enterprises supplied the Zimbabwean defence force with $3.5 million-worth of military supplies. Our great ally, the USA, whose President is coming here today, has banned Bredenkamp from entry. However, he is not banned from the UK. Why not?
Does the Minister share my disappointment that, in the latest UN panel report on corruption in the Congo, Bredenkamp somehow succeeded in having his name removed from the list of people recommended for a travel ban and financial restrictions? Apparently, Bredenkamp has also recently met the British high commissioner in Harare. Could the Minister tell us why, without hiding behind some nonsense about the code of practice on access to Government information, as happened with a recent parliamentary question?
The Minister and the Government have it within their power to undermine the backers of the dictatorial regime in Zimbabwe. Many of the same men backed Ian Smith. Why has the Minister not taken action against people who so clearly profit from the evil of Mugabe's regime? Kofi Annan—an African, let us remember—said to the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva on 7 April 1999:
"No government has the right to hide behind national sovereignty in order to violate the human rights or fundamental freedoms of its peoples."
It is time that the UN paid attention to that and considered the situation in Zimbabwe. However, the Minister yesterday wrote to me in reply to a parliamentary question to say that
"we would only go to the United Nations Security Council for a resolution when we believed that we would win one. Tabling a resolution on UN sanctions would be certain to fail and would only hand Mugabe a gratuitous victory."
Perhaps the Minister would like to explain how Mugabe would consider it a victory to be condemned by many in the UN? His opponents in Zimbabwe would like to see such public condemnation by the international community, even if it does not lead to a resolution.
Mugabe's knighthood is within our power. In 1994, the previous Government gave Mugabe an honorary knighthood. I do not remember the Labour Opposition protesting. In the Government response to the Eighth Report of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the last Session, they said that they would keep the knighthood under review. They said:
"We may revisit this question in the future."
In reply to my question on 4 November, the Minister said that that was not an immediate priority. Does he accept that that would be a clear signal to all in Zimbabwe that Mugabe no longer merits the respect that ought to be due to a President?

197WH
The time for prevarication has passed. Quiet diplomacy has failed. I suspect that there is very little disagreement in the Chamber about what I have said. Action should follow words. It discredits this Government that there has still been no Government debate on the crisis in Zimbabwe. On 17 September 2002—almost 11 months ago—my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) said exactly the same in this Chamber.
I have asked many questions this morning, which I hope the Minister will answer directly. I hope especially that he will reassure hon. Members that no taxpayers' money will be spent on food aid that can be used as a political tool by this repressive regime, and that sanctions will be extended to families of members of the regime and to businessmen implicated in its corrupt dealings and shady operations in the Democratic Republic of Congo and elsewhere.
I also hope that he will reassure us that the issue will be raised at the United Nations and kept at the top of the international agenda, and that, contrary to BBC reports yesterday, Zimbabwe will continue to be excluded from next month's Commonwealth summit. Will he also reassure us that Mugabe will be stripped of his knighthood, and that the UK supports free and fair elections? Above all, the international community must ensure that there is no fudge that allows Mugabe to retire and the oppressive regime to continue, led by one of his cronies such as Mnangagwa or Zvinavashe, both of whom are alleged to have been involved in the Matabele massacres.
As I said at the beginning, this is a debate about justice for Zimbabwe. The people of Zimbabwe are crying out for our support, which they deserve. Let us live up to our responsibilities and our moral obligations and ensure that they receive that support and the justice that all people deserve.
9.51 am
Kate Hoey: I shall be brief, as I know that some of my colleagues want to speak and I had my 20 minutes or so a couple of weeks ago. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on securing the debate so soon, but it is time that we had a debate in the main Chamber. I mean no disrespect to Westminster Hall, but we should debate this issue during Government time.
Everything that I believe about Zimbabwe was chronicled at length in the last debate, but I have four or five straightforward questions to ask. I support the statement that the Government should go to the United Nations. The fact that we might lose is no reason not to do so. I want an explanation as to why we cannot go the Security Council. If we cannot secure what we want the first time, we might do so the second time, and countries that are prepared to defend Zimbabwe's human rights record would be shamed.
I also support extending sanctions to the families of Ministers and others. We could extend them to many people who can still travel and who use the opportunity to do things such as get money out of the country. I do not see why we cannot do that just because the EU does not want to do it. We are not yet in a European Union
198WH
in which everything that this country does is controlled by what is said in Brussels, and I hope that we never will be. We have a greater responsibility than any other country.
Yesterday, I asked Welshman Ncube a straight question about Morgan Tsvangirai's comment that we should keep a low profile, which the Minister mentioned in response to my question in the last debate. Welshman Ncube made it quite clear that there was a time when Britain might have needed to keep a low profile, but that people were now very keen to use every opportunity and to do everything possible to move the issue up the international agenda. Whatever the British Government say, Mugabe will not change. It is therefore absolutely right to take the lead and to push for extra sanctions. Some of our European partners, who were represented at yesterday's meetings, seemed to take a much stronger position. Perhaps they are waiting for the United Kingdom to take the lead. I must ask the Minister why we cannot press for sanctions to be tightened.
Food aid should be monitored independently. In a moment, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) will speak about feeding programmes, which she saw in action last week. From what I saw, I can agree with everything that Oxfam said about World Vision. I have no doubt that, in many areas, aid is not getting through to the people who most need it. Holding a ZANU-PF card is still the best way of getting fed. We need an international, independent monitoring group, because no matter how good the World Food Programme is, it does not always monitor how well food gets through on the ground in the case of every agency, and that is crucial.
Finally, will the Minister request an urgent meeting with the England and Wales Cricket Board in order to get it to make a statement that the England cricket team definitely will not go to Zimbabwe next year if Mugabe is still in power?
Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend makes an important point, but does she also believe that we should ask people to consider the freedom of the press in Zimbabwe and the erosion of justice? Such things—freedom of thought, the press and justice—are important in a democracy.
Kate Hoey: I absolutely agree. I recently secured an Adjournment debate on the closure of The Daily News in Zimbabwe. Some people from The Daily News were here for that. It is crucial that it is put back on the street, but that will not be done through the law. It will take a long time, as every time a court case is won, it is simply appealed against. So far, there is still no The Daily News, but I very much hope that there will be in time for the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Nigeria. There is a good chance that a special issue will be produced for that. I hope that that will help to influence some of our colleagues in the Commonwealth.
Will the Minister meet the ECB? It is clear from what the people from the Movement for Democratic Change said yesterday, and from my contacts in Zimbabwe, that it would be a great morale boost if the ECB said that the England team would not go next year unless there is a change. That would help to ease the pressure a little. It would not instantly change anything, but it would help. It would also clarify our position, so that we did not get

199WH
into the same situation as last time. I urge the Minister to answer my questions. I hope that he will have a definite reply about sanctions.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chamber thanks the hon. Lady for her brevity.
9.57 am
Mr. Nigel Evans: I hope to be brief, too, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on raising this issue, which is of deep concern to not only Members of Parliament here, but the whole nation.
Whenever I read newspaper stories about Zimbabwe, it makes my blood boil to read about what is happening to a once proud, healthy and vibrant country. It was the food basket for southern Africa, but now has to rely on aid to ensure that its people get food; 14 million people suffer from food insecurity, of whom 7 million desperately need food aid. I endorse everything that has been said about more effective targeting of food aid to ensure that the Government do not continue to use it as a political tool to prop themselves up.
Robert Mugabe talked about economic justice for tire black majority, which is his excuse to grab white farmers' lands. Considering what has happened since then, I ask whether there is economic justice for the black majority in Zimbabwe. The answer has to be no. Despite the reasons given for the Government-sponsored land-grab, land that used to be productive now is not. Some of the people on that land are receiving some of the food aid that is being doled out. The livestock have been eaten and the crops simply were not harvested. There is also the AIDS pandemic, which has been mentioned.
Mr. Robathan:Does my hon. Friend accept that it is not just white commercial farmers, many of whom were Zimbabwean, who were driven off their land? Black farmers and their work forces were also driven off their land.
Mr. Evans: Indeed; I agree with my hon. Friend. More than anybody, the black majority in Zimbabwe have suffered by losing their jobs and livelihoods and having no future for themselves and their families. They have been made desperate by that ill thought-through policy, which simply has not worked. On the AIDS front, it was predicted that 130,000 people would die last year. Zimbabwe's future work force is dying year by year, but that is not being properly tackled.
Mr. Richard Spring: Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the reason for the AIDS pandemic is malnutrition and the inability of people to resist infection? That partly explains why AIDS is such a massive problem.
Mr. Evans: Absolutely. What my hon. Friend mentions, coupled with the fact that the Government are not focused on the problem at all, means that hundreds of thousands of Zimbabweans will be condemned to the fate suffered by others last year. Urgent action is needed.
200WH
As a result of the awful and desperate situation in Zimbabwe, the tourist trade that used to flourish there is drying up. People will not go to Zimbabwe, because they fear for their own safety as they read about how white farmers are killed on their own farmland.
Kate Hoey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the issue is not only the farms left desolate, but the number of wild animals that have been killed? In the end, there will be no animals to go and look at—none of the wildlife. Some of the terrible things that have happened are almost too difficult even to talk about.
Mr. Evans: I agree with the hon. Lady—I shall call her my hon. Friend—because we have seen a whole industry ravaged and people so desperate that they have resorted to desperate actions. This is a question of whether they live or die, so they have been forced to take desperate actions, which have a ripple effect. There has been a brain drain from Zimbabwe to neighbouring countries and other parts of the world. Of course, there has been a large migration to neighbouring countries such as South Africa and Botswana, which gives them further problems.
Many questions have been asked, but I shall add a few more for the Minister's winding-up speech. The creation of the Zimbabwe Freedom Movement is hitting the headlines. That group of people wishes to remove Robert Mugabe by force. Will the Minister accept that the lack of progress is leading many desperate people to take desperate action themselves? Will he comment on the Zimbabwe Freedom Movement?
There are rumours that Mugabe will attend CHOGM in Abuja in December, which fills me with dread. Even the rumour that that is being discussed must be put to rest. Will the Minister give an assurance that President Mugabe or, indeed, Zimbabwe will not be represented at CHOGM in December? Such an assurance is vital.
I am a big supporter of the Chevening scholarships that we run in Zimbabwe. I hope that the British Council will continue to administer them and to ensure that the future leaders of Zimbabwe have an opportunity and some hope when they come here. I hope that there are no political machinations in Zimbabwe to get some of the key ZANU-PF people on to those scholarships. I want them to be opened up to the people, not to be available only to a small select group.
I was disgusted when I saw that President Mugabe's family were going shopping in Paris. We talk about a common European foreign policy, but we cannot get even this matter right. Does the Minister really believe that smart sanctions are working? Surely they should be much wider and enforced more effectively than they currently are. It looks as if such people are cocking a snook at the whole world every time they—or, indeed, members of their families—break the sanctions or businesses are created to sidestep them. Does the Minister really believe that the quiet diplomacy that we talk about is making any progress whatever? Is not the lack of progress leading to huge frustration in Zimbabwe?
Mr. Pike: The hon. Gentleman talks of economic sanctions. Will he accept that South Africa, which could

201WH
play an important political role, could also play an important economic role, particularly on energy? It is some time since the energy supplied by South Africa has been paid for.
Mr. Evans: South Africa is key, as it is not just what we can do in the European Union, United Kingdom or United States that matters. I hope that it will play a more effective role in the situation. Will the Minister tell us about his discussions with South Africa on ensuring that it plays a more vital role within the community of African countries? It could bring pressure to bear on Zimbabwe in several ways to ensure that its regime is changed. When Nelson Mandela visited London a couple of years ago, he gave a tremendous speech in South Africa house. He said that political leaders should know when to go, and we all know what that was code for.
At the Earth summit in Johannesburg last year, I was in a lift with a representative from Zimbabwe. I saw his pass and asked him what future there was for the people in Zimbabwe. He asked what I meant, and I said, "Well, what with all the starvation and the awful atrocities that are taking place in Zimbabwe." He looked at me and said, "Don't believe everything you read in the newspapers." As he walked away, he turned round and smiled at me. I want to see the smile taken off his face and those of a number of other people in Zimbabwe.
The Zimbabwean delegation had arranged for two busloads of people to travel down from Zimbabwe so that they could protest outside our hotel in favour of Robert Mugabe. They were brought down by coach, fed and then taken back by coach. Such artificial demonstrations mean nothing to me or, I am sure, the South African population. We must do something through the United Nations, and we must be far more effective. Our fear that we may not secure a resolution should not block our attempts; it is the right thing to do. I hope that the Government will listen to what we say today.
10.6 am
Ms Sally Keeble: I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on securing this debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) on organising yesterday's conference and on her other work. I remind the hon. Member for Blaby that history in Zimbabwe did not start in 1997, and that the saga of UK involvement in Zimbabwe has been problematic for some time.
Mr. Robathan: I did not say that it did.
Ms Keeble: We will return to that later.
I spent last week in Zimbabwe looking into the circumstances of people who are living with HIV/AIDS and drought under their Government's spectacular economic and political mismanagement. In particular, I considered the impact on children. It was part of a wider visit through Lesotho and South Africa as well, but for the avoidance of any doubt, I travelled independently to Zimbabwe. I was self-funded to ensure that I could be impartial in reaching my judgments.
202WH
The previous week, there had been a lot of publicity about my hon. Friend the Minister's speech in Cape Town, with headlines of "no political change, no aid". I must say that having seen what is happening inside Zimbabwe, my conclusion is that our approach is wrong. Zimbabwe is collapsing under the combined weight of the crumbling economy, the staggering HIV/AIDS infection rates and hunger. That is destroying the present adult population, but, perhaps worse, it is also creating a time bomb for the next. There are an estimated 1 million orphans, many of whom are HIV positive, and children are homeless, weakened from hunger and sometimes abused.
Of course, to provide assistance or succour to the Zimbabwean Government would be a disaster. However, there is a strong network of nongovernmental organisations, both international and local, which is involved in food distribution and building up public services. Those organisations provide care in the community for people living with HIV/AIDS and counselling and support services for orphans and vulnerable children.
I met many people during my visit, and I thank them for their generosity in showing me their work and explaining their experiences. I do not intend to name them, but I met many people with ideas, networks and huge ability. What they lacked, strikingly, were the resources and support to be able to provide services to their communities.
I strongly believe that those networks must be used to increase food aid—especially targeted food services—and to build up services to people with HIV/AIDS, including orphans. At the same time, we must greatly increase pressure on ZANU-PF for a political settlement.
My hon. Friend the Minister will cite the work being done on food and HIV/AIDS, but the food aid being provided is completely inadequate. Many criticisms have been made of the distribution of food provided by the international community, some of which have been repeated this morning. I have gone through the methodology, visited a food distribution centre, and spoken to people at different levels in Zimbabwe, and the basic distribution system has integrity. However, there are problems. Organisations have to compromise with the Government in order to operate. The large organisations carry out the distribution. Mistakes have been made, and I have spoken with the organisations mentioned by the hon. Member for Blaby. Smaller organisations are excluded, but as they can get to some of the most hard-to-reach communities they have an important role.
It is a tribute to the logistical skills of the people involved that food is distributed across the country in difficult circumstances, feeding up to half the population. It is a huge and complex job. The biggest problem is the need for more food. Under the scheme that I saw in operation, the World Food Programme had agreed about six categories of people who qualified for food aid. The categories included those who had no land or no other source of food or income, one-parent households, child-headed households, and the chronically sick—basically, that is those with HIV/ AIDS. Previously, 5 per cent. of those qualifying for food aid did not get it, largely due to shortages, whereas now the figure is about 22 per cent. due to the increase

203WH
in need and shortages in supply. One in five people judged by the agreed criteria of the World Food Programme will not get food aid. I have been through the figures in detail with the WFP, and they are accurate.
Even people who get food aid do not get enough to live on; they get 70 per cent. of their requirements. One woman told me that they have food aid for three weeks and they borrow for one. Now that no one has any food, they cannot borrow. The level of hunger is appalling, as is the lack of food. One afternoon, I visited a primary school and saw rows of children sitting with their heads on the desks; they had had no lunch and most of them had had no breakfast. In Binga, where there have been problems with food distribution, there have been outbreaks of cholera. I also visited a shelter for street orphans where the children were fed on a bowl of pro-nutro and two biscuits twice a day for a month. They were supposed to get food from the Government supply, not from the international community supply, but had not got it because the food had been sold off elsewhere.
Mr. Bill Tynan: Is my hon. Friend saying that there is no control of a great deal of the food being distributed in Zimbabwe?
Ms Keeble: No, I am saying something different. There are different methods of food distribution. The Government control some of the food, and they use it politically. I am talking about the food provided by the international community through the World Food Programme. Some of the organisations recognise the problems, but the biggest problem that I saw is the lack of food. A fifth of the hungry people in the categories recognised by the WFP as needing food will not get anything. Those who do will get only 70 per cent. of their nutritional requirements—in calories not vitamins, which is what chronically ill people need.
Whatever my hon. Friend the Minister may say about all the money that we put into HIV/AIDS, professionals in Zimbabwe confirm that the infection rate is 33 per cent., not the 24 per cent. sometimes claimed, and in some areas it is much higher. I was told by a nurse at one hospital that 80 per cent. of patients admitted were judged to be affected by HIV/AIDS.
Mr. Pike: Are the majority of the people with HIV/AIDS among those who, in normal circumstances, would generate the economic wealth of that country?
Ms Keeble: That is right. It is a catastrophe that I saw also in South Africa and Lesotho. That situation is probably worse in Zimbabwe. There are only 22 testing centres in the whole of that country, with only two serving the second biggest city, Bulawayo. Perversely, there is no incentive for people to get tested, as there is nothing that can be done for those who are found to be HIV positive. They will get no treatment and no extra food. The World Food Programme already gives some supplements to all families, because virtually every family is affected by HIV/AIDS. They will get no medicine unless they can afford to buy it. I saw one shockingly ill victim who could not even afford to buy aspirin as a painkiller.
Mr. Evans: While the hon. Lady was in Zimbabwe did she see anything of the education programme informing people about HIV/AIDS and how to ensure that they do not contract it?
Ms Keeble: There were posters but the Government are in denial. All the incentives are against disclosure. It is extraordinary. In Lesotho one could talk to people fairly openly about what is going on, but there was a complete denial of the problem in Zimbabwe. Indeed, at one of the country's biggest hospitals, when people are found to be HIV positive, "home care only" is written on their medical notes and they are sent home and never admitted to hospital for treatment again, so no one at that hospital dies of AIDS. They are not recorded as being AIDS deaths.
I went around with some home carers to see the work that they do and to talk to some of the people they cared for. They do not have medical kits or supplies as they do in Lesotho, for example. They are really just a home visiting team, but no more. They are looking after thousands and thousands of people. They can give them nothing other than comfort; that is obviously important, but it will not deal with the problem.
There are up to 1 million HIV/AIDS orphans: single orphans, who have lost one parent, double orphans who have lost both and serial orphans who have gone from one carer to the next as AIDS has killed one after the other. Some of them are HIV positive and they are all desperately disadvantaged. Quite apart from their need for food, shelter, someone to care for them and money to pay for school fees and medicines if they are ill, they also need counselling services. We sometimes concentrate so much on the material and physical needs, we forget their social and psychological needs.
One organisation had got these children to do memory books. One little girl came out to show me her memory book, which had a photograph of her with both her parents in a house in Harare with a nice garden. Now she is living in a shack with many other children in a high-density suburb. Her father is dead; her mother is still alive, but a shadow of the plump, beautiful woman in the photograph. The memory book said, "If I die before I am 20, please can someone make sure that this is read to any of my children." These books are heartbreaking.
Those needs are not going to be met by the ZANU-PF Government, because they deny that anything is happening. Yet if the needs are not met the disaster already engulfing Zimbabwe will also take in the next generation. We in the donor communities should support the local NGO community groups and networks to meet the needs of HIV/AIDS patients and orphans, including provision of antiretrovirals on a planned and systematic basis—the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). What is needed is a working-age population that can function and support the work for children.
Any assumption that reconstructing Zimbabwe can wait until there is political change is mistaken. We need to support the people of Zimbabwe, and use every possible opportunity and every bit of leverage that we have to put pressure for change on the Zimbabwean Government.

205WH
The course on which the ZANU-PF Government have set Zimbabwe has turned it from a middle-income into a low-income country, driving the economy into the sand while looking in the rear view mirror. It is not often that we can see an economy collapse visibly in front of us, but that is what I saw in Zimbabwe last week. There were empty factories that looked very nice from the outside but had nothing inside, and empty shops. One of the more heavily fortified shops that I saw in one town was a bread shop, but it had no bread. Doctors are on strike and there is no food. It is a two dollar economy: one based on the US dollar for people who have access to hard currency and can live like kings—some of them clearly speculate on commodities and currency and make a vast amount of money—and one based on the Zimbabwean dollar, which is spiralling out of control, leaving tragedies behind. Despite all that, there is no guarantee that the Zimbabwean Government will compromise or change. Some say—it has been repeated this morning and I saw evidence of it—that the Government are becoming increasingly militarised, given how they organise the country and some of the recent Government appointments. They have already stolen one election, so we could not expect them to give democracy back if they lost another election, as they almost certainly would.
The UK, with our historical ties with Zimbabwe, must take a lead in pressing for change in that country, and ensure that the international community takes every possible step to isolate and pressurise the regime. Many suggestions about how to do that have been made in the debate.
I was in Zimbabwe in 1981: I used to live in South Africa. The last time I went there from the UK there was a massacre in Matabeleland, a major drought and pressure on local newspapers. The outside world walked by at that time, buoyed up as we all were by Zimbabwe's liberation, and conscious of the horrors of the apartheid regime to the south. Our failure then to insist on proper observation of human rights and respect for minorities has cost the people of Zimbabwe dear over the years, and has made possible the reign of terror in Matabeleland, which Mugabe has pursued.
We know, too, the impact that bad governance can have on a country. Uganda is still recovering from Amin—its economy is still not back to the state that it was before he came to power—and Kenya is struggling to recover from Moye. We cannot allow what should have been one of the great levers for progress and change in sub-Saharan Africa to be destroyed by bad governance in the same way as other countries in Africa have been.
We need to increase aid, diversify the channels of delivery and increase pressure, which includes using the United Nations. I am sure that there will be a settlement in Zimbabwe and a change of Government, but we need to ensure as we move forward that there are no compromises on the need for the proper rule of law and respect for human rights in that country.
10.23 am
Mr. Michael Moore: Like other hon. Members, I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on securing
206WH
the debate and setting out clearly the problems in Zimbabwe. He made some key points to which I hope the Minister will have a direct answer at the end of the debate. As the hon. Gentleman remarked—without prejudging the Minister's response and with that exception—there is probably a great deal of consensus among hon. Members present in the Chamber. I pay tribute to the other speakers in the debate, particularly the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), who set out clearly and movingly many of the difficulties that Zimbabwe faces. She and the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) both drew on their own experience.
We return again and again to the question of Zimbabwe. I am in danger of losing count of the number of times, but I would guess that, in recent years, we have debated this subject in Westminster Hall on about 15 occasions. Issues such as United Nations reform have been promoted from discussion in this Chamber to debates in the main Chamber of the House, so we must hope that the Government, despite their difficulties and perhaps even embarrassment about Zimbabwe, will find the time for that to be discussed in the main Chamber.
The content of this debate has been mostly one-way, as was that of its predecessors, but that does not mean that it has been stale. There remains a great deal of anger about what is going on in Zimbabwe. I point to just a few of the statistics about Zimbabwe that grab our attention: 500 per cent. inflation, 80 per cent. unemployment and no foreign reserves. During our discussions, we may offer slightly different figures, but as Welshman Ncube said to us yesterday, the relevance of the economic statistics from Zimbabwe tends to be rather short-lived, although we can always be sure that the figures are getting worse.
We now read that the parlous state of Zimbabwe is such that the Government are raiding tourist locations in a desperate search for foreign currency, while announcing that they are now providing protection for tourists who visit the country. It seems that Zimbabwean officials have no sense of irony.
Some 11 million hectares of land in Zimbabwe are under occupation and are unproductive. In the few remaining areas that are productive, beatings of farm workers continue. That crime is not committed on the basis of colour: white and black alike are subjected to serious violence and abuse.
Moreover, as we have heard eloquently expressed this morning, there is significant political manipulation of the food aid on which the bulk of the population depends. As the hon. Member for Northampton, North said, we have reached the point at which independent monitoring of food provision is needed, and we need to gain a clearer understanding and greater knowledge of its link with the AIDS pandemic, which is a scar on Zimbabwe.
We have often documented how President Mugabe stole the election; the legal challenges to that continue. At the same time he seeks to have his opponent, Morgan Tsvangirai, convicted of treason on two different counts. He is not confident that he has a case—none of us believe that he has even the beginnings of a case—so he continues to undermine the courts and the judiciary. In case they do something that he does not like, despite all his efforts, freedom of speech has almost completely disappeared.

207WH
We must hope that The Daily News, which has been a beacon of independent thinking and reporting in Zimbabwe, will be able to overcome its current problems. We should admire the courage and determination of the journalists and all those who support that institution. They take great personal risks to try to get independent comment and reporting more widely disseminated in Zimbabwe.
Militias continue to grow. The paramilitary nature of rule in Zimbabwe continues. State-sponsored violence and intimidation is the way of life. Despite that, we are occasionally invited to believe that there are talks about transition—as you understand better than many, Mr. Deputy Speaker—from an unelected or stolen presidency to a proper functioning democracy, or perhaps from one corrupt ruler to another. We should not confuse discussions with solutions. We are still a long way from resolving the situation in Zimbabwe.
The international response to what has happened in Zimbabwe continues to be an embarrassment to us all. It is hard for those of us who are so far away to understand the position taken by South Africa, and its willingness to tolerate the situation despite the evidence. As the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) remarked, South Africa holds important economic cards in the region and Zimbabwe is hugely dependent on it.
Mr. Pike: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one of the problems in South Africa and Nigeria is that they still do not understand that there is almost unanimous condemnation in the United Kingdom for what is happening in Zimbabwe? They do not realise that they have a key role to play in solving the problem.
Mr. Moore: The futility of repeating these comments in Westminster Hall does not stop us doing so. The message to South Africa and its neighbours must be that there is unanimity of purpose, not only in the United Kingdom, but across many parts of Europe and, we hope, in the United States. I do not wish to be cynical, but one of the reasons for the silence of those countries may be the increasing cannibalisation of the Zimbabwean economy, which was forcefully brought to our attention at yesterday's conference organised by the hon. Member for Vauxhall. The fact that so many South African individuals and companies have bought stakes in the Zimbabwean economy at rock bottom prices cannot justify their Government's silence about their terrible neighbour.
As many hon. Members have already remarked, this first test for the rest of Africa and the New Partnership for Africa's Development has been poorly dealt with. How can we take NEPAD seriously and be asked to continue to support it politically, economically and in other ways, when it is failing so spectacularly in the first test of Africa's ability to examine its own governance? It does not have to listen to politicians in the former colonial country; it can ignore us, as those countries have for a long time. However, it must listen to the people of Zimbabwe because they are crying out for change. They are losing their lives, being beaten up, starving and suffering from terrible diseases.
If a similar situation occurred elsewhere in the world, we would expect more from the European Union and the United States of America. Their reluctance to
208WH
engage in this area is depressing. I hope that, although other foreign policy matters are understandably top of the agenda, the Government will raise the issue of Zimbabwe with the President of the United States while he is in the country. However, other diplomatic efforts are imminent, and it is perhaps more pressing to address the future Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Abuja. It has been suggested that there may be attempts to end Zimbabwe's suspension. On what possible grounds could that be allowed? The troika is divided, but those members from Nigeria and South Africa who think that the current policy has failed are surely not serious. Yesterday, President Obasanjo met Mugabe in Harare, and he left the country with mixed signals. I refer to an agency report on the ZWNEWS.com website this morning, which quotes President Obasanjo as saying that he will consult whether Mugabe or Zimbabwean officials should be allowed to attend the meeting. That cannot be allowed to happen, but, if the same source is right, Mugabe is already preparing to pack his bags, saying that
"we look forward to attending"
the Abuja meeting.
Mr. Robathan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the situation is so serious that if there is a move to allow Mugabe to attend CHOGM next month, it might lead to the break-up of the Commonwealth?
Mr. Moore: I hope that the hon. Gentleman's analysis is not right, but the issue, which has dragged on for several years, has the potential to wreck the Commonwealth as a meaningful organisation for the future. It would be helpful for the Minister to explain what the attitude of our Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary will be if Mugabe turns up.
We must stop our lowest common denominator foreign policy. As Welshman Ncube urged us yesterday, we must take a lead and set out new measures to tighten the grip on the Zimbabwe regime. Britain should take its rightful place in this proper debate.
10.35 am
Mr. Richard Spring: I take this opportunity to pay tribute to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Not only have you drawn attention to the situation in Zimbabwe recently, but when there have been abuses in the past, yours has been one of the few voices in the House of Commons to bring Members' attention to them. I applaud you for that.
I also warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on his outstanding speech. He summed up the state of affairs and set out clearly both the problems and some possible ways of addressing the tragic situation.
I start by setting out a few facts about the position on the ground, from an economic and humanitarian point of view, and its impact. I pay tribute to the moving speech of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), who only last week saw for herself what the tragic situation means in practical terms for the people of Zimbabwe. For example, Botswana has had to build a security fence to keep out refugees because of the heavy flow from Zimbabwe. Some 2 million refugees

209WH
have so far fled Zimbabwe, and one of the consequences is a huge and damaging brain drain. The food situation is dire, with more than 5 million people starving.
It is to that terrifying spectre of starvation that I want to turn first. Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) hosted a forum for international and humanitarian agencies on the deteriorating situation in Zimbabwe. Those who have knowledge of the country's plight recognise that the World Food Programme is doing a good job. However, serious concerns were expressed about controlling the distribution of food aid once it goes to the regions. There remains a lack of transparency about where the food goes once it leaves the hands of the aid agencies. In some areas, ZANU-PF has a grip on local distribution, and has even used that life-giving power to manipulate election results directly.
Some agencies are fighting back. They have taken the painful decision to withhold food aid where there is blatant politicisation. That cannot be an easy decision when the situation is so grim and overall supplies are so inadequate. However, it is clear is that unless there is a more co-ordinated approach, with more systematic checks, food will continue to be used by Mugabe as a political weapon to prolong his hold over the country—a telling point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans).
Does the Minister agree that there is a strong case for a full independent audit of the process of food distribution? That point was also made by the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore). Does the Minister believe that that should include monitoring the list of recipients? It is truly horrific that such a tragic situation now obtains in what was once the bread-basket of Africa. Have the Government made an assessment of who is best placed to perform such monitoring, and considered whether that might be the United Nations? The Government have given us numerous reasons why the UN Security Council cannot get involved, but none of them stand up to scrutiny—a point made by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey).
The impact that conditions in Zimbabwe are having on its neighbours and the region makes a mockery of the claims that the Security Council cannot get involved because the situation in Zimbabwe is an internal matter. There are clear indications that several European countries are feeling increasingly negative about Africa overall because of the inability or unwillingness of African politicians to either publicly criticise Mugabe or, more specifically, take more clear action themselves. That is certainly regrettable.
Yet the Foreign Secretary has apparently ruled out the possibility of a resolution because we might lose it. There is widespread agreement that there are now sufficient grounds to pass a resolution on Zimbabwe in the UN Security Council, even if it only deals with the deploying of UN observers to see that food is properly distributed. Such a move would be welcomed by the Zimbabwean people, so many of whom face either malnutrition or outright starvation. To put it simply, the Government must do more and, if necessary, use a third-party Government to initiate a resolution at the United Nations. Bringing the issue of Zimbabwe before
210WH
the Security Council would surely send a message to Mugabe that the international community collectively takes the matter most seriously. It would be a most welcome development.
International pressure can also be brought to bear through the Commonwealth. Yesterday President Obasanjo met Mugabe in Harare. One of Mugabe's greatest lies is that his people are somehow the victims of either Commonwealth suspension or EU sanctions. They are not. They are the victims of Mugabe's tyranny. The Government should match the strong message sent by the Australian Prime Minister to South Africa and Nigeria that President Mugabe will not be welcome at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Abuja in December. We welcome the fact that President Obasanjo has clearly stated that Mugabe will not be welcome. That is a clear illustration that this is not a colonial issue, as Mugabe might attempt to colour it—we must reject that taunt for the grotesque nonsense it is—but a matter of human rights and democracy.
Will the Government consider championing a group of eminent persons within the Commonwealth to take this matter forward once again? Zimbabwe should be an international pariah state. There can be no trimming or shabby deals here. There is a message that the Government must take to our European partners. It is simply not good enough to shelter behind a common EU position while Zimbabwe continues to suffer. We must not shy from unilateral actions by individual EU member states if that is necessary, and again that point was made by the hon. Member for Vauxhall. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby cited New Zealand as an example.
Sanctions should be extended and strengthened to include those business men who bankroll Mugabe's regime, and they must be rigorously enforced. With that in mind, it is clear that December will be a particularly critical time for Zimbabwe. The world's eyes will be focused on not only CHOGM but, perhaps as importantly, the ZANU-PF party congress. It is worth reminding ourselves that President Mbeki received the backing of President Bush for his policy of quiet diplomacy, which we were led to believe would result in substantial movement by the time of this congress, but it is only a matter of weeks away.
I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike): historically, South Africa has played an extremely important role in the affairs of Zimbabwe. A previous South African Government dealt very decisively with the regime of Ian Smith because they considered that to be in its national interests. In the last few years, members of the Conservative party have on numerous occasions urged the South African Government to take much more assertive action. They have told us that they cannot because that would undermine Zimbabwe's economic base and stability. We continually told them, "That's happening anyway. It's going to get worse."
Our South African friends—and they are great friends of this country, and are admirable in so many ways—have made an historic misjudgment. There are many success stories in Africa, but they are being drowned out by the terrible tragedy of Zimbabwe, and the unwillingness of African leaders to act. The fundamental problems of the Southern African Development Community and the New Partnership for

211WH
Africa's Development cry out for action. I am a true friend of Africa—I was born there. Many industrialised countries recognise the need to open up their markets and be more generous with African primary producers. However, I believe that good will will be dissipated unless the principles of good governance and peer group review are adhered to and enforced.
Given the apparent failure of President Mbeki's quiet diplomacy and the failure of the talks between the MDC and ZANU-PF, we must set out a road map on how to resolve the matter. We must point out firmly, but in a spirit of friendship, to the neighbouring countries of southern Africa that they must take the lead. We should offer to assist them, in any way that we can, to develop such a road map, including a plan for a post-Mugabe reconstruction of the country; that will be a massive undertaking. We can only hope and pray that the post-Mugabe era ends in a matter of weeks, rather than months. The people of Zimbabwe do not deserve the tragic fate that has befallen them in the past three years.
10.46 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Chris Mullin): We have had an extremely good debate, and hon. Members from all parties—particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble)—have set out graphically the tragic state of affairs in Zimbabwe. I do not need to go over the figures, as they are well known. It is a feature of such debates that hon. Members ask long lists of questions of the Minister, who then has very little time to reply to them, but I shall do my best in the short time available to respond to the points raised. Inevitably, I fear that I shall not be able to address them all, and where I have not been able to, I shall write to the hon. Members concerned.
Hon. Members have raised four main issues: stronger sanctions, which they want; why the Government have chosen not to table a resolution at the UN Security Council; the politicisation of food aid; and why we have not pressed South Africa to do more. I shall address each in turn.
There is no serious disagreement between anyone in this Chamber. We all agree where we want to get to; we have some differences in tactics, but no more than that. The Government's policy is clear and consistent. It aims to isolate the ZANU-PF leadership by maintaining broad international pressure on it. At the same time, we are providing humanitarian assistance to the Zimbabwean people and helping to tackle the HIV/AIDS pandemic. We continue to encourage democracy and civil society in Zimbabwe and speak out against human rights and other abuses. I reiterate our readiness to contribute to Zimbabwe's redevelopment when there is a democratically accountable Government in place, pursuing sustainable development and sensible economic policies.
We believe that the resumption of inter-party dialogue between Zimbabwe's ruling ZANU-PF and the Opposition Movement for Democratic Change is a crucial first step towards meeting such objectives. Unfortunately, the political situation in Zimbabwe is hardly one in which such a dialogue can flourish. Morgan Tsvangirai has two treason charges outstanding against him, and the MDC's legal challenge
212WH
to the results of the 2002 Presidential election started this month. There have been further attacks by the Zimbabwean Government on civil society and trade unionists and, perhaps most alarmingly, yet another clampdown on the independent media. The Daily News, Zimbabwe's only independent daily newspaper, whose courageous editor-in-chief I had the pleasure of meeting recently, was closed in September. Since then, its offices have been raided, its computers confiscated, and its journalists and directors arrested. I am aware of the constant violence and intimidation they face as they go about their business, and I place on record my admiration for their courage in the face of such harassment.
I shall say a word about our response to the desperate situation in Zimbabwe in respect of sanctions. With our EU partners, we imposed targeted sanctions on the ZANU-PF leadership in February 2002 consisting of a travel ban, assets freeze and arms embargo that are to be continued for another year, following a unanimous decision by the EU last February, and they are having an impact.
I am aware of the argument for extending the sanctions to include the children of those on the banned list. We have decided against it as we believe that children should not be made to pay for the sins of their parents, but we would be prepared to consider extending sanctions to those found to be propping up the regime, provided that such sanctions hit the guilty and not the innocent. That always has to be borne in mind when imposing economic sanctions.
Economic or trade sanctions are not the way forward, because they would have a negative impact on the ordinary people of Zimbabwe. As hon. Members have described, they already suffer enough hardship and poverty thanks to the ruinous policies of the ruling party.
As to the possibility of action through the United Nations, several hon. Members called on the Government to table a resolution at the United Nations Security Council. The Foreign Secretary made our position clear in the House on June 10 when he said that we would go to the United Nations Security Council for a resolution only if it had a good chance of being passed. Tabling a resolution now when it would be certain to fail would only hand Mugabe a gratuitous victory.
The EU put forward resolutions this year and last year at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, in which we played a leading part. Regrettably, on both occasions the resolutions fell to no-action motions supported by a large number of African countries.
Mr. Robathan: There is not much difference in the spirit with which we view the matter, but it is not good enough for the Foreign Secretary to say that a motion would certainly fail. We should flush out those in the United Nations who speak in support of Zimbabwe. We should hear what they have to say, and very strongly put the argument against Zimbabwe firmly into the international arena.
Mr. Mullin: As I said, we did that at the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, and it did flush out those who were opposed to it, but the resolutions fell to no-

213WH
action motions. It is extremely difficult when the countries immediately surrounding Zimbabwe do not believe it is a matter for the United Nations Security Council. Commonwealth action has proved possible. The Commonwealth responded to the crisis by suspending Zimbabwe from its councils in March 2002 following a presidential election that most international observers judged to be neither free nor fair.
The suspension remains in place and will be discussed at next month's meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of Government in Abuja. I shall be attending the conference with the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, and we hope to have further discussions with Commonwealth leaders about Zimbabwe.
Our position on the issue of Zimbabwe's suspension is the same as that of the Commonwealth Secretary General, who has listed five benchmarks where there would have to be progress before Zimbabwe could be readmitted. The Government of Zimbabwe must first, achieve national reconciliation and dialogue; secondly, repeal legislation that prejudices the freedom of speech, of the press and of peaceful assembly; thirdly, end harassment of opposition parties and civil society groups: fourthly, address the recommendations of two Commonwealth election observer reports; and fifthly, engage the Commonwealth secretariat and the UN Development Programme on a proper land reform programme.
I am sorry to say that there has been little progress towards meeting any of those benchmarks or the Commonwealth's Harare principles for good governance. There has been no formal dialogue between the ruling party and the opposition for more than a year now, and attacks on the opposition, independent media and civil society continue. On that basis we see no justification for readmitting Zimbabwe to the Commonwealth councils, and we shall make that clear in Abuja. I made the same point when I visited South Africa earlier this month.
Mr. Evans: Will the Minister give an assurance that, while Zimbabwe remains suspended from the Commonwealth, it will not go to CHOGM in December in Nigeria?
Mr. Mullin: The Government will oppose Zimbabwe's attendance at CHOGM, and I have no reason to suppose that Mugabe will be there. Indeed, President Obasanjo, who is the host, has made it clear that he will not be invited.
The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) and others said that we should do more to encourage South Africa to speak up. We keep in close touch with the South African Government on the issue, and they want a solution as badly as we do—more so, indeed. They are in the front line, and might have to cope with 2 million Zimbabwean refugees. We listen with respect to what the South Africans have to say. They have the same objectives as we have, and are working hard behind the scenes to achieve a solution. We see no advantage in involving ourselves in a public spat with the South Africans, not least because we are working to the same ends.
214WH
The point has been made this morning that there is no use in African Governments signing up to good governance under NEPAD if they bury their heads in the sand the first time a hard case comes along. That is precisely the point that I made publicly when I was in South Africa—it needed to be made there and it was widely reported.
Mr. Spring: Of course we want to enjoy a close relationship with South Africa. Its role is important and we do not want any rancour between our two countries. However, the idea of encouraging informal links between ZANU-PF and the MDC needs to be made more formal if it is to work. South Africa surely has a role to play in that, as does the Southern African Development Community, because unless the process is open and transparent, no movement on that level will be made, if any is to be made at all.
Mr. Mullin: That is perfectly true, and my understanding is that South Africa has been extremely active behind the scenes. The difficulty is that it is unclear whether the Government of Zimbabwe has sent an appropriate response. However, there is no advantage in dividing the Commonwealth along black and white lines, and to do so would only play into Mugabe's hands.
We have responded to the humanitarian crisis by continuing to honour our commitments to provide the Zimbabwean people with assistance. The latest estimate is that 2.5 million Zimbabweans, from a population of around 11 million, are dependent on international food aid, and that figure is expected to rise to around 5.5 million in the coming months. We are the largest European bilateral aid donor to Zimbabwe and second overall, after the United States. On 23 October, our high commissioner in Harare announced a contribution of a further £5 million to the World Food Programme's emergency appeal for food aid, which brings the UK's contribution to humanitarian programmes to £62 million since September 2001. We are doing all we can to ensure that ZANU-PF does not use international food aid for political advantage, as is the WFP. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North observed that the food distribution system in Zimbabwe had integrity, difficult though the climate is, and I take note of that.
The Zimbabwean economy is in a desperate state. The statistics speak for themselves: it is now not only the worst performing in Africa, but the fastest shrinking in the world. The decline of Zimbabwe's economy is not due to bad weather, as Mr. Mugabe would have us believe, but largely to his Government's disastrous economic policies, which have undermined macroeconomic stability and destroyed business confidence.
I regret that it is not possible to find much positive to say about the current state of Zimbabwe, but I stress that we stand ready to work with any new Administration that is democratically elected in a transparent, free and fair process. My hope is that when political change comes it will be followed by renewed donor support and re-engagement by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. We stand ready to play our part when the time comes.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We thank the Minister for his reply. I remind hon. Members that he has said that he will write to anyone whose question he has not been able to answer.

Royal Palaces
11 am
Dr. Vincent Cable: I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce an Adjournment debate on an issue that has caused a great deal of stir in my constituency and in my part of London. I shall focus on access and access charges to the ornamental gardens at Hampton Court palace. Anyone listening for the first time to my comments might think that the issue is very narrow and specific, but it is not. It concerns important issues of principle and public policy, with potential for precedent. I know that Ministers have been actively involved in the issue, and that the Minister for Media and Heritage, Lord McIntosh, has been to Hampton Court to discuss the proposals. I am sure that the Minister for the Arts, who is present, is well aware of the substance of the matter.
Although Hampton Court is in my constituency, the issue is not one that is of concern only to people in the Twickenham area. Hampton Court is effectively at the intersection of three parliamentary constituencies. Across the river, over Hampton Court bridge, is the constituency of the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor), who has been active in this campaign. Also across the river is the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), who has also been actively involved and has been to see the Minister for Media and Heritage about the problem.
We have worked together, across the parties, to represent a common view among our constituents. All three of us are conscious that the matter has stirred up the amenity societies and residents' groups, which in many ways provide much of the social fabric in our communities. In my area, the Hampton Court Association, the Hampton Wick Association, the Hampton Society, the Teddington Society and the Hampton Hill Association have been voluble in their comments on the proposal. I single out Mrs. Spence of the Hampton Court Road environment committee, who has in many ways led and orchestrated residents' representations.
Now that a decision—frankly, a rather regrettable one, which I want to talk about—has been made, I acknowledge that there were some positive features to the process by which it was reached. I acknowledge the role that the Hampton Court authorities, probably prompted by Ministers, played in making things a little easier. I praise the extent and thoroughness of the process of public consultation. Many residents were consulted and a professional MORI poll was conducted of local opinion. I regret that the conclusions of the surveys do not appear to have been listened to in reaching a decision, but none the less the consultation was wide and thorough.
I acknowledge too—again, in a positive spirit—that there have been compromises and concessions to local opinion. First, some elements of the gardens, such as the wilderness and the tiltyard, for example, which will be familiar to people who visit regularly, have been excluded from the charging proposals. There is a proposal for a new access route so that residents can gain access to Home park, the large deer park that
216WH
accounts for 640 acres of the 700 acre estate. They will not be barred from access and will not have to pay. There will be no charge in winter. I recognise that those moves go a little way to assuage residents' annoyance—or probably anger, in some cases—about what is happening.
There are three headings to my comments on the proposals. One is the principle of access, the second is legality and the third is the economics of the proposal. On the broad principle, I am conscious that I represent an area with a strong sense of history, ranging from Hampton Court at one end to Marble Hill house and park at the other. The constituency is rich in history and people are conscious of their history and the various associated traditions. I grew up in the city of York surrounded by mediaeval and Roman remains, so I know how heritage is valued and how people identify with it if they live in such areas.
A long-standing tradition is that residents have uninhibited free access to the grounds of Hampton Court. In 1834, Queen Victoria decreed that the palace grounds and parklands should be open to the public. Local historians have found that there was access to the gardens long before that—going back two centuries or more.
Some highly symbolic and important battles have been fought in the area on free access to royal estates. One of the large royal deer parks in the Twickenham constituency is Bushy park, which is a few hundred yards from Hampton Court. The park has long been a royal establishment, but is managed by local wardens called rangers. There was a major issue 250 years ago, when the then monarch delegated powers to a ranger, who tried to close off access by the local public. A legal action was raised by a local cobbler, who won the case in court and forced the monarchy, through the rangers, to open the park to local residents so that they could walk across it. That is quite an important principle of local liberty.
A similar thing happened to Richmond park, which is in an adjacent constituency. It was established by Charles I, who tried to enclose it as a royal preserve, but protests were so severe that he was forced to concede the principle of pedestrian access by local residents and, indeed, established walls and little access points so that residents could walk through it.
Under subsequent monarchs, there was an attempt to row back from that commitment. In 1761, there was another legal case when the park manager tried to restrict access by residents. That case was fought in the courts and the public won. We are talking about historic rights that go back hundreds of years and which are remembered and valued, but they are now being set aside.
What concerns many residents and should perhaps concern us all is that, once we concede the principle that the owners or managers of heritage sites can charge for access to gardens, that potentially opens an enormous Pandora's box. I imagine that directors of parks in many local authority areas who currently extensively maintain beautiful ornamental gardens may well lick their lips when they hear of the decision, because many of their financial problems would no doubt be overcome if they could establish a gate and charge local residents for admission to the local park. Clearly, there is

217WH
institutionally a difference between royal palaces and the local parks of local councils, but the principle is the same and I can see a worrying precedent being set.
Secondly, I shall focus on the decision's legality. I am not a lawyer and do not propose to debate and contest the legal opinion that has been given. However, I have been sent copies of a letter in which a summary is given of the Attorney-General's view on the matter, and I will read that because it is important for the record. The Attorney-General concluded that it was permissible to make a charge for admission to the formal gardens, with the proviso that the cost was reasonable, related to the cost of upkeep, and not at a level that in effect restricted public access. That is the Attorney-General's legal opinion, which we must accept.
However, the opinion is being strongly contested by local residents, who have sought an independent legal opinion. It would be desirable if some of the legal reasoning could be published, and I think that the Minister for the Arts has given an assurance on that. I know that the Attorney-General's opinions are never published and I am not asking for that, but there will be a legal commentary explaining why the view sought by local residents is invalid. I believe that an assurance has been given that that will be published. Can the Minister for the Arts confirm that?
I am more concerned about the common-sense aspects of the matter. What is meant by a reasonable charge? The proposed charge for access to the gardens is £4 for an adult and £12 for a family. A season ticket, which would apply to local residents who visited regularly, would be £20 for a single person and £50 for a family. The question arises whether, in a commonsense use of the term, that could be described as "reasonable". Evidence from the various surveys that have been carried out suggests that many local residents would not regard it as reasonable. The report of the royal palaces comments on the surveys. It freely acknowledges that most people are opposed to the change, and that although one third of residents accepted the principle of a charge as being useful and necessary for maintaining the upkeep of the gardens, the average figure that they thought reasonable for a season ticket was £10—half the proposed price.
The season ticket, which is intended to be a concession to local residents, becomes viable only if people visit the gardens more than five times a year. The evidence from the survey suggests that 62 per cent. of visitors visit the gardens more than once, but do not go there more than five times. For them, that concession will therefore be of no value.
The other key point in the legal ruling is that the charges should not be set at a level that has the effect of restricting public access. However, because of the way in which the charges will be imposed, public access will be restricted. Some 20 per cent. of the people in the palace's service said that they will no longer go to the gardens; their access is being removed for reasons of affordability or issues of principle.
A further point concerns the opening hours of the gardens, and I hope that the Minister may be able to give practical help on that matter. It is proposed that opening hours for the gardens will be restricted to the
218WH
opening hours of the palace. Those who live in the area will know that one of the great pleasures of Hampton Court is the ability to walk in the gardens in the evening. As I understand the proposal, the gardens will now be closed on summer evenings—the point at which they are most enjoyed by local residents. The day visitors, who come as tourists, presumably will not object to these charges, but the residents who enjoy walking in the gardens in the evening will be faced with the galling sight of the gardens being locked, because they will close at the closing time of the palace. It seems reasonable to ask why the palace authorities cannot open the gates when the palace shuts and let residents walk in the gardens in the evening. There will be no loss of revenue because they will not be charging if the gardens are closed. That small but important gesture would be greatly valued.
My final point about the principle of restricting access is that there is a problem for pensioners. The people who have time and perhaps care most for the ornamental gardens are the elderly. They are being given a concession, but it is not very generous: the standard rate will be £4 per adult, and the concessionary rate will be £3. For a state pensioner who lives locally and is used to visiting the gardens once a week or more, £3 to walk around the gardens will seem rather steep. I am not sure that the palace authorities appreciate the hurt that that will cause. I hope that the question of the concessionary charge for pensioners can be re-examined.
In conclusion, I shall discuss the other legal issue—the question of residents' preference—which has not been properly dealt with in the commentaries that have been made. In June, when I first met Mr. Giddons to discuss the proposals, he said that the palace authorities had no alternative but to charge local residents for visiting the park because of a European Court ruling that it was no longer permissible to discriminate against non residents. I can understand that it is illegitimate for palaces or other authorities to discriminate against non-British citizens who live in the European Union—the courts have to uphold the single market—and it would be wrong, given that we are part of the European Union, for British citizens to enjoy lower charges than do citizens of other member states.
That is not the issue, however. The question is whether it would be right for the palaces to charge a preferential rate for people who live in the three adjoining boroughs, constituencies, or narrowly-defined postcode areas; we are not talking about Britons as opposed to other members of the European Union. I have never received a clear answer as to whether the Government and Historical Royal Palaces believe that even that kind of preference is now illegal because of the European ruling. That would be a mind-boggling and, for one who broadly supports the European cause, uncomfortable conclusion. If it is illegal, there are enormous implications, as many heritage institutions in Britain offer special discounts to local residents. I would be grateful to have clarification from the Government as to where we stand in that respect.
My final point relates to the economics of the exercise. It would be useful to see a copy of the business case that HRP has put forward for the proposal. Even if it makes sense in its own terms, I am sceptical: the gardens are extensive, and there would be a considerable cost involved in establishing charging points. Economists talk about that boring problem, elasticity of demand:

219WH
when the price of something that is not a necessity goes up, people stop using it. The Government know painfully from the experience of museums that once charges are imposed, visitors are lost. I suspect that that will happen in this case. Not having seen the figures, I do not know whether the business case for the charges stacks up. There is a telling sentence in the letter from the Minister to the chairman of HRP:
"I know that in arriving at your decision you will wish to balance the relatively limited financial benefits to HRP against the views of the local people."
I share the view that the benefits are relatively limited. If it is too late to change the decision, I would ask the Minister to consider opening the gardens in the evening when the palaces are closed; publishing some of the background documents, particularly those related to the legal opinion on access; and giving a clear statement about the issue of national versus local residential preference in the light of the European ruling.
11.19 am
The Minister for the Arts (Estelle Morris): First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on having secured an Adjournment debate on what must be a burning issue both in his constituency and in neighbouring ones. I do not know the area well, but I can understand that the gardens are an important element of the community's facilities and amenities, and I suspect that many generations will have grown up with a degree of access to them that might not apply this time next year.
While I can understand the hon. Gentleman's case, and imagine the force with which his constituents have made it to him, I also acknowledge the position of Historical Royal Palaces. It became a non-departmental public body in 1998, receiving no grant in aid, yet it was willing to take on the responsibility of raising sufficient funds to run the royal palaces. That is creditable—it is the way it should be—but consequences flow from it. It did not imagine at that time that one of those consequences would be that it would have to charge for areas of ground that are not currently charged for, but much has happened in those four or five years.
I suspect that if visitor numbers had not fallen, we would not be having this debate. The numbers have fallen from 3.5 million in 1998–99, to 2.8 million last year, and a predicted 2.5 million this year. That creates a problem for running the palaces. Fewer people pay to visit the parts of the palaces that require payment, so the income is less but the expenditure has not fallen commensurate with that. The expenditure needed to maintain the gardens is £2 million, and 38 full-time members of staff are employed.
Historical Royal Palaces realises that areas of the gardens have never been charged for but it wants to keep the gardens in good order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that it carries out those responsibilities to the highest standard, and none of us wants that to diminish. However, the books do not balance in the face of decreasing visitor numbers. The proposed measures would do no more than balance the books and secure the revenue needed to run the gardens.
There are two opposing aspects of the argument. The first is the historic tradition, which the hon. Gentleman forcibly covered. Local residents feel strongly that the gardens are a valuable part of their community and
220WH
amenity and do not understand why they should be charged. In the face of that, HRP needs to secure money to maintain the standards, and that is the dilemma that it faces. The hon. Gentleman rightly said that the Government's position is that, having been made a non-departmental public body in 1998, HRP must make the decisions, and I do not want to interfere with its right to run the gardens and palaces as it sees fit. However, changes must be thorough, consulted on and reasonable. They must allow reasonable access and not be set at a disproportionate level that would make it difficult for local people to pay.
The consultation has been thorough, and the results may be that people would say that if they had to pay, they would not visit. That is an exact snapshot of the feelings of people in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and neighbouring constituencies and boroughs. Only time will tell whether those feelings change, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that the amenity is such that some people who say that they would not pay, in an attempt to influence a decision not to charge, would pay at the end of the day.
I support HRP. I do not think that it is by nature good to charge, but I support it in doing its job. It has to decide whether the money secured might cause fewer people to visit, and is therefore not worth the financial effort. HRP must put its costings and plans into the public domain. I hope that someone from HRP will read this debate, make a decision, and write to the hon. Gentleman. Anyone running an institution must make such a judgment. I am pleased that it has decided to consider the issue for a year, review it and ascertain whether the arrangements needed for charging, and the possible break of relations with the community, are worth the funds that it will secure from it. It has made clear that it will charge from next year, but I am pleased that it will also undertake a review.
I want to clarify that Home park, Barge walk, Hampton Court green, the west front, the rose garden, the tiltyard and the wilderness will remain free of charge. Of the 60 acres of the gardens, we estimate that more than half—36.5 acres—will remain free of charge. I know that that is less than was previously free of charge—only 5.5 acres had to be paid for before the changes. There is no doubt that less of the land is free of charge.
The hon. Gentleman did not mention that the charge will apply for six months of the year during the summer season. During the winter period, which I presume runs from October through Christmas to Easter, in April or thereabouts, it will be free of charge to local residents and anyone who wants to visit. He said that £20 for a season ticket and £10 for a concessionary rate—the Government were very keen that there should be a concessionary rate for people on lower incomes—was not reasonable. We could debate at length the legal basis for what is and is not reasonable, but HRP believes that there comes a point at which the level is so low that it is not worth setting up the mechanisms for charging. It believes that £20 for a season ticket, £10 for a concessionary rate, free access for half the year, and £4 for access to all gardens that charge for entrance—I understand that it £3 at the moment—is reasonable.
I do not want to enter into a debate about charges, but I want to express my satisfaction at there being a concessionary rate. We must leave it to local residents to

221WH
decide whether £20 is reasonable. The Government have no power to intervene, but as the hon. Gentleman said in the meeting that he and his colleagues had with my colleague, and as the letter said that is now in the public domain, we certainly want HRP to take local people's views into account. Following the consultation, it has now done that. As I said, when the year is over, I have no doubt that HRP will consider the extra income that it secured and decide whether it was worth it.
It was the drop in the number of visitors, not from Europe but from further afield, that brought about the changes. In the years to come, I hope that there will be an increase in the visitor numbers from America—the largest drop and the greatest problem for HRP—and from the middle east and far east. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman and his constituents will be alert to any increase in visitor numbers and that they will bring them to the attention of HRP for its response.
I am happy to clarify the European position, which I was not aware of until I prepared to answer the hon. Gentleman's question during Department for Culture, Media and Sport questions last week. The judgment was made in January in, I believe, response to an Italian case. His reading is absolutely right: it is illegal not only to differentiate between visitors from the United Kingdom and from other European countries, but for his constituency and neighbouring constituencies and boroughs to discriminate by charging different amounts.
The charging structure relates to state-owned institutions, not to private institutions, which can still charge less for any group of people who live in a neighbouring borough. As the hon. Gentleman said, it appears that institutions in his area and other state-owned institutions have illegally been charging less for local residents for some time. As he might imagine, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will need to draw their attention to the fact that they are acting outside European regulations.
I will write to the hon. Gentleman if I am wrong, but I understand that the regulation is not new and that we have been acting outside it ever since it was introduced. That fact was brought to our attention as the result of a court case this January and in response to representations made by Italian institutions or Italian residents. His reading of it is absolutely right. There should be no need for Government, or anyone else, not be absolutely clear about the position. If I have not made it clear and put it on the record, I would be pleased if he could write to me and I will happily do so. We have no doubt about the interpretation of the regulation, and want to put it in the public domain as soon as possible.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing the matter to the attention of the House. This sort of local issue is very important to constituents and to Members of Parliament. It is crucial that such issues are aired in this Chamber and in both Houses of Parliament. I will do all that I can to let HRP know the strength of opinion held by the hon. Gentleman and his constituents, although I say again that I have no powers to intervene in its decision. My hon. Friend and I will watch what happens and see what the response of HRP will be to the charges that it has introduced.
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Aviation
2 pm
Mr. Tony Colman: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for agreeing to my request for a full-length debate on sustainable aviation policy. That subject is close to the hearts of my constituents. For that reason I have returned, with the Speaker's help, to the subject of aviation and its impact on Putney on several occasions, notably in Adjournment debates in October 1997, March 1999 and January 2001. Hon. Members who were present at the 2001 debate will recall that it took place immediately after the meeting of the International Civil Aviation Organisation, the UN agency dealing with the sustainability of aviation. That body will meet again in February 2004.
Again and again, Ministers have told me that the UK Government cannot go it alone on regulating for sustainable aviation and that if they did, it might be not only unenforceable, but disastrous for the UK. I hope that, among other things, we will be able to use this debate to set the UK agenda for the ICAO meeting in 2004 and ensure that the EU agenda is brought alongside. Perhaps it is not beyond our capability to ensure that the Commonwealth is brought on board, and perhaps the world's single superpower—the United
States—could also be prevailed upon to embrace the principles of sustainability in aviation, which it failed to embrace at the world summit for sustainable development in Johannesburg in 2002.
I am indebted to many sources in preparing my speech, including HACAN ClearSkies, the Socialist Environment and Resources Association, the aviation environment federation, Wandsworth council and its leader, Edward Lister, who went through a conversion to sustainable aviation in May 1997—I am, however, no less appreciative of his changed views.
I remind hon. Members that there is a meeting today at 6 pm in Committee Room 18, the subject of which is London against the third runway at Heathrow. It is sponsored by HACAN ClearSkies, co-ordinated by the London borough of Hillingdon and hosted by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall)—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Nicholas Winterton): Order. I have to draw the attention of hon. Members who are concentrating on the debate to the fact that there is a Division in the main Chamber. I look to the co operation of the House. I should like to resume in precisely 10 minutes if that is agreeable.
2.3 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
2.12 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Colman: As I was saying, the meeting this evening will be hosted by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington and by the hon. Members for Uxbridge and for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), all of whom are present in the Chamber and may wish to

223WH
contribute to the debate. I also draw attention to the new all-party group on sustainable aviation, chaired by Lord Faulkner of Worcester and made up of the hon. Members for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) and for Uxbridge, my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor), the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) and the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk).
Clearly, there is overlap with other all-party groups, such as the group for Global Legislators Organisation for a Balanced Environment, which does excellent work on parliamentary environmental concerns. However, the new APPG for sustainable aviation has a narrower focus. Its mission statement is
"to inform the UK Government about the range and scale of the local, national and global environment impacts that the air transport industry causes and to participate in the debate on how best to control and reduce them, creating an environmentally sustainable future for those who work in, use, and are affected by the industry's everyday operations."
The Government's definition of sustainable aviation in the consultative paper on air transport policy of December 2000 is wider. The new air transport White Paper should establish a framework that will ensure that the long-term development of aviation in the UK is sustainable. The consultative paper states that aviation has implications at four levels and there are four aspects of sustainable development, the first of which is the maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment. The UK has a strong aviation industry, including airlines, airports, aerospace manufacturers and supporting industries. They make a significant contribution to the national GDP, as well as to facilitating growth in other industries. The aviation industry also provides many jobs, both directly and indirectly.
The second element of sustainable aviation is that there should be social progress that recognises the needs of everyone. Aviation brings benefits for employment, cultural exchange and opportunities to travel. Foreign travel and holidays are now within the reach of a broad cross section of the population for education, leisure and visiting friends and family.
The third element is the protection of the environment. Aviation affects climate change, local air quality, noise levels, biodiversity, energy use, waste and water. The environmental effects associated with travel to airports and any associated health effects also need to be considered.
The final element is the prudent use of natural resources. Aviation consumes many natural resources, in particular fossil fuels and the raw material necessary for producing aircraft. Airport development can involve significant land use and urbanisation of the surrounding areas.
I regret to say that the response of the Airport Operators Association added two other concepts to the definition of sustainable aviation. One was that we should deliver airport capacity, and that aviation policy should ensure at all time the effective provision and use of airport and airspace capacity in all regions of the UK. It said that that should include a decision on where and when additional runway capacity is provided in the south-east of England.
David Taylor: Is my hon. Friend disappointed by that addition? Many people
224WH
who live in airport communities believe that the White Paper is merely an exercise in meeting the ever-exploding demand of the aviation industry while making a token effort to mitigate its environmental impact.
Mr. Colman: I agree strongly with my hon. Friend. I hope that this debate—held in good time before the White Paper is published in some four weeks—allows the Minister to take on board the mood of the House on these issues.
The second aspect that the Airport Operators Association added is that it wants to see a reform of the planning process. It said that aviation policy must be supported by a modern, more effective and swifter system for determining major airport development in the national interest, and must promote an approach characterised by consensus rather than confrontation. I am concerned that those two aspects could drive decisions that would not be sustainable.
Following the AOA's comments, we have had the joint HM Treasury and Department for Transport consultation paper, "Aviation and the Environment", and subsequent commentaries from the UK Sustainable Development Commission, the Transport Committee, the Environmental Audit Committee and the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. We await the White Paper on air transport before Christmas, and the decisions on new runways. I hope that we have joined-up government, that the economists are talking to the environmentalists and that both are looking at the impact on the poor and the most marginalised in our communities.
My speech today will be from a west London, Putney viewpoint. I recently received literature by the Manchester airports group entitled, "Supporting Aviation in the Regions". However, the need for sustainable aviation must be the same throughout the United Kingdom. Unless the problem is solved at source, the problems of unsustainability that afflict the south-east will soon hit elsewhere.
I shall now explore the key issues that I would like to underpin the pre-Christmas decision and the United Kingdom's agenda at the meeting of the International Civil Aviation Organisation in February 2004.
I am not a hypocrite. I fly, as do many of my constituents, at least the better-off. We choose to live in Putney in part because of its closeness to Heathrow and other airports. We want to continue flying for our work and holidays. The essence of sustainable aviation is not no aviation or very little aviation, but that which is needed for international competitiveness and that which can be afforded within sustainability.
Airlines and airport facilities employ thousands of local people. That is what makes the impassioned campaigns by hon. Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), who is not able to be here this afternoon but who is very supportive, so important. Our constituents feel that the balance has shifted too far in the wrong direction. We want the jobs and the convenience, but we also want the politicians in charge—Conservatives before 1997, and now Labour Members—to regulate airlines and

225WH
airports, stop night flights, which my earlier debates have shown are not needed for the UK economy's competitiveness, and stop excessive noise and pollution.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is an appropriate time to announce that there is another Division in the main Chamber. I ask hon. Members to be back to recommence proceedings at 2.29 pm. I am grateful for their co-operation.
2.19 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
2.30 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Colman: Large numbers of people are already employed at Heathrow and at other airports. I do not believe that the concept of sustainable aviation would lead to their losing their jobs. The question is, would the expansion of unsustainable aviation lead to a gain in jobs?
The Department for Transport still refuses to look at the evidence, in the round, on job creation. It places undue reliance on the Oxford Economic Forecasting report, which was largely paid for by the aviation industry. It has downplayed the roads consultation called "Transport and the Economy", produced in 1999 for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. That authoritative research found that in a developed economy such as that of the UK, transport infrastructure is only important in regional regeneration and job creation if other factors—such as the availability of a suitably trained work force—are in place. It found that those other factors are usually more critical. Professor John Whitelegg published a report for the Campaign to Protect Rural England earlier this year on the effect of expanding Manchester and Liverpool airports on the economy of the north-west. It found that if the money were invested in improved rail links to London and improved surface level transport in the region, that would be more beneficial to the economy. I look forward to hearing hon. Members from that area contribute to the debate.
David Taylor: One of the nonsenses about the balance of transport in the United Kingdom is that such a high proportion of journeys of up to 1,000 km are still made by air rather than by an improved rail network. If those journeys were taken by rail, there would be much less environmental impact and they would take less time.
Mr. Colman: I agree with my hon. Friend and will develop that point later.
A seminar held by sustainable development charity Forum for the Future in June, on the economic benefits of aviation, raised question marks over the methods and assumptions used to calculate those benefits. First, it asked whether the resources and labour used in expanding airport capacity are additional, as the Treasury would define them, or whether that labour and
226WH
those resources would be bid away from other sectors and provide little or no net economic benefit to the UK economy. Secondly, the seminar asked whether foreign passengers, a significant proportion, would be excluded from any assessment of the benefits of expanding airport capacity to the UK economy and its citizens, as recommended by the Treasury guidance set out in the Green Book. Thirdly, the seminar asked whether the offsetting transfer to UK airlines' profits from the higher passenger fares resulting from constraining capacity would be factored into the calculation of the economic benefits of aviation. Fourthly, it asked whether extra aviation capacity would boost productivity growth elsewhere in the UK economy and, particularly, how important that extra capacity would be for attracting investment, generating knowledge spillovers and allowing the economic specialisation that produces wider economic benefits. Fifthly, the seminar asked whether higher fares resulting from capacity restriction would make any significant difference to the competitiveness of the export and financial sectors. As far as I know, none of those questions has yet been answered.
In the briefing that it sent me for this debate, the London chamber of commerce and industry states that London needs a third runway at Heathrow, at least one more runway at Stansted and further options at Gatwick, London City and Luton airports. There is not a single word in that briefing about sustainability or about the environmental impact that such huge expansion would cause. This time I do not agree with the London chamber of commerce and industry. I hope that the Minister will answer those questions either during the debate or subsequently.
However, the underlying question is whether, if we did not expand capacity, other European airports would and we would lose our role as an international hub for transfers—largely for business men and women. We need to co-operate across the European Union on such policies. The Minister's predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), pursued such a Europe-wide regulatory framework in discussions. Does the Minister appointed in September see a key role for co-ordinating sustainable aviation across the European Union, rather than the "predict and provide no matter what the consequences" that has so bedevilled previous aviation policy? May I also make the case for the development of Eurostar routes, which would make inter-European travel more economic and far less intrusive? So far, the Department for Transport has been dismissive of the potential role of rail as an alternative to many short-haul flights.
There are indications that the Government and the aviation industry are defensive as they are aware that they are vulnerable on this issue. The White Paper examines the role of aviation over 30 years, so it should consider rail alternatives over the same time scale. Some 45 per cent. of the flights made in European-controlled countries are 500 km or less. Germany and France are actively developing high-speed rail as an alternative to internal flights, and I refer the Chamber to early-day motion 1860 on the aviation White Paper and rail travel and to early-day motion 1903 on aviation and rail travel, which reinforce my points.
That brings me to the second issue in the debate on sustainability: social justice. Much has been made of the need to cater for aviation expansion to provide cheap

227WH
flights, thus enabling poorer people to fly. Of course, the young and adventurous already use InterRail and cheap, swift buses to move around Europe and, in the past 20 years, the travel industry has opened up the Mediterranean and the world to package holidays. Ryanair and easyJet are, however, in a different league altogether—one that is almost free because of the subsidies from receiving airports, hotels and car hire. However, the facts seem to disprove the idea that current policy supports social justice. It is important to reflect that those on high incomes have benefited most from cheap flights, as they are the ones who fly there most. In a typical year, less than 50 per cent. of the population flies, only 11 per cent. of whom come from social classes D and E. The poorest 10 per cent. hardly ever fly.
Even on budget airlines, people from the top three social classes take more than 75 per cent. of all flights. Only around 45 per cent. of the population of the UK falls into those social classes. People in those top three social classes take four times as many flights a year than those in the bottom three social classes.
Mr. John Wilkinson: At the beginning of his speech, the hon. Gentleman rightly referred to aviation and the social progress that ensued. He cited greater mobility for holidays and so on. Does he therefore advocate no further additional taxation on aviation, such as an increase in passenger duty or any application of fuel duties, to ensure that those from the lowest social classes have a greater opportunity to fly?
Mr. Colman: I shall come to that point later. The external costs of aviation should be internalised, as they are in rail and road travel. Aviation should not be made separate.
On current growth rates, an extra 1 million people are likely to have bought a second home overseas by 2012 and could take 12 million flights a year to visit those second homes—the same number of flights that Stansted handled in 2000. Those people are clearly not the poorest in our community.
Between 1984 and 1999, bus fares, which are more important for those on lower incomes, rose by 42 per cent, and rail fares rose by 35 per cent. In the past 10 years, however, air fares fell by 42 per cent. BAA's annual report boasts that 85 per cent. of passengers are high-spending ABC1s, compared with 50 per cent. throughout the UK.
The comments reported in The Daily Telegraph today lead one to doubt the importance to the UK economy of expanding airport capacity. Mr. O'Leary, chief executive of Ryanair, is reported as saying:
"We are so crazy, we'll pay people to fly with us."
However, a city spokesman says:
"They still make money on commissions if people book cars or hotels"
where they land.
How does that benefit the UK economy as opposed to Charleroi hoteliers? It is even more extraordinary that Ryanair, an Ireland-based airline, is asking the Secretary of State for Transport to continue to support Ryanair in various European countries, although the
228WH
same state subsidies enable easyJet, MyTravelLite and Flybe to undermine unsubsidised airlines such as British Airways.
If there are no economic or social justice arguments for unsustainable expansion, what has the industry done to ensure that the environmental impact is contained? In 2000, Hotham school in Putney put on a celebratory play in their playground to honour the millennium. Despite microphones and loudspeakers, which were turned up to the maximum volume, no one in the playground could hear a thing as a plane roared over every 20 seconds, flying so close that one could see the passengers. Why has the industry not developed planes that produce no noise? I raised that issue in 2000. Why was the Airbus A380's design cost of £500 million underwritten by the Government with no requirement for decreased noise or pollution, or for fuel improvement? We learn from Dominic O'Connell in The Sunday Times on 16 November that in the production of the Airbus A380:
"There have been hiccups along the way, the biggest of which came in 2000, when the wing had to be completely redesigned. Singapore Airlines, which was lined up as launch customer, decided it would not buy the A380 unless it was quiet enough to use Heathrow airport at any time. Heathrow operates strict night-noise levels, and any aircraft breaking the noise limits faces heavy fines."
I wish there were more fines. The problems meant that an emergency reworking of the A380 took place, particularly
"at the front of the wing, where traditional slats were replaced by a 'droop nose' device that would meet the Heathrow targets. But the solution brought more problems in the shape of extra weight, which meant more exhaustive scrutiny of the rest of the design. Williams"—
that is Tom Williams, Airbus UK's managing director—
"now says that Airbus UK is happy with the weight of the wing. 'Weight is always a challenge, but we are now very pleased with where it is.'"
That is an important example of a situation where what could have been done was not going to be, until the purchaser required it. The Government should have insisted that the A380 produced less noise.
On 12 November, I read in the Financial Times:
"An ambitious project to design a silent passenger aircraft has been launched by … Cambridge university and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. If successful, the researchers could solve one of the biggest problems facing policymakers the world over as they struggle to plan for the growth in air travel … Ann Dowling, professor of mechanical engineering at Cambridge and one of the silent aircraft project's leaders said that the aim was for 'a radical change in noise levels so that beyond the perimeter of the airport, the noise of aircraft flying would be imperceptible to the public.'"
Incidentally, the world dominance of Boeing and Airbus means that those two companies could choose simply to provide aeroplanes designed to operate in a sustainable manner. Why did the Government not insist that the work was done years ago? I have asked similar questions in my previous debates, but have still received few answers. I believe that the development of a new generation of aero-engines based on renewable sources, at least when the plane is at cruising altitude, is possible. Is dual fuel a concept for only earthbound vehicles?
Lembit Öpik: On a technical point, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that most noise comes from the engines rather than the airframe. It is traditional for aircraft manufacturers to allow choice of engines, so we shall have to appeal to engine manufacturers, above airframe manufacturers, to deliver noise savings.
Mr. Colman: I fully accept that. However, work has been done on aero-engine design at Cranwell, which I quoted in my previous Adjournment debate, that will deal with the hon. Gentleman's point.
May I now raise some points concerning the Kyoto protocol? I hope that Russia finally signs up to the protocol.
Miss Anne McIntosh: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the topic of pollution, does he feel that the Government have taken on board the fact that most of the pollution that affects air quality in Heathrow constituencies emanates not from aeroplanes, but from cars accessing and passing Heathrow on the M4?
Mr. Colman: I will address part of the hon. Lady's question as I proceed, but the simple answer is no. I believe that the Mayor of London, who has so far refused to be drawn into the issue of sustainable aviation and the future of Heathrow, should clearly be involved. That is particularly important when it comes to congestion charging, which will be inevitable around Heathrow given its success in dealing with traffic levels in central London and the drop in pollution levels as a result.
Mr. Wilkinson: Is the hon. Gentleman advocating that his Government—or rather the Labour mayoralty—institute congestion charging for access to Heathrow? Could he clarify? That is of great concern, not only to the Londoners who work at the airport, but to the many people who travel there and to visitors, such as tourists, from other countries.
Mr. Colman: Mr. Deputy Speaker, you must tell me whether I stray beyond the point of the debate, which is on sustainable aviation. However, the sustainability of the life chances of the people who live around the airport is clearly impinged on by the high level of people who travel there using private vehicles. They should be encouraged to use public transport more. A lot of people working at the airport are bussed in from outside areas by BAA to restrict the number of vehicles approaching the airport. I should also say that the Mayor of London is currently an independent candidate for that position. He is not the Labour Mayor of London, but that may change.
I now return to the Kyoto protocol. I hope that Russia will finally sign it in the next few days, thereby triggering its coming into force. Aircraft emissions from international flights are outside the protocol, which requires the UK and other developing countries to cut their CO2 emissions. The UK has voluntarily included those emissions within its target on CO2 emissions. However, I must make a point about the Kyoto protocol. It is often prayed in aid of arguments over food miles and the sustainability of flying vegetables or
230WH
flowers to the UK from countries such as Kenya. Kenya is a developing country and does not have the same CO2 restraints. We should fly in its produce in the name of sustainable development. It is also worth noting that the amount of CO2 used in Europe to heat greenhouses or polytunnels to provide such vegetables or flowers is higher than that emitted by flying the produce in from Kenya. Sustainability is attained when using aeroplanes for short-shelf-life produce.
As I said, the UK includes its airspace emissions in relation to the Kyoto protocol, but very few countries do. Such a world move would lead engine manufacturers to move, as with Singapore Airlines and the A380 wing. Financial instruments can make aviation sustainable. However, emissions from domestic aviation are included. The Government should act now.
The dumping, combustion and venting of fuel, which gives rise to pollutants and other obnoxious substances, is not simply a Kyoto protocol issue. It directly affects my constituents' health. Nitrogen oxide levels around airports are a problem, with local people in danger of being exposed to levels that are above the European Union legal limits, even before expansion. That led to the BBC story last week about the third runway for Heathrow being abandoned. I read in The Sunday Times that Rod Eddington of British Airways, Richard Branson of Virgin and Michael Bishop of BMI are appealing directly to the Prime Minister, over the Minister's head. I do not expect the Minister to comment on that.
I note from an article in the Financial Times on 8 November that BAA is running a shadow pricing scheme at Heathrow airport to test ways of encouraging airlines to operate less-polluting aircraft. The article states that BAA operates a scheme of landing charges at Heathrow that penalises airlines for flying noisier aircraft and that it hopes that a similar scheme could help to reduce emissions. A crucial factor in the Government's consideration of where to site new runways in the overcrowded south-east of England is whether Heathrow can meet tougher European Union air quality standards by the end of the decade. The chief executive of BAA, Mike Clasper, said that there were technically feasible runway options at Heathrow, Stansted and Gatwick. He added that air quality is important at Heathrow but that there are ways of solving the problem. I hope that that does not mean moving people out of the area. I would not wish a further runway on Heathrow, Stansted or Gatwick.
In autumn 2002, the Department for Transport was asked to rerun its sketch-planning analysis spreadsheet model—known as SPASM—a demand model of the need for airport expansion in the south-east with externalised costs internalised and tax exemptions removed. The CPRE, the Aviation Environment Federation and Friends of the Earth requested that the model should be rerun using the following assumptions: that aviation fuel should be taxed at the same rate as motor fuel; that air travel should be subject to VAT at 17.5 per cent.; and that duty-free on all flights should be abolished. It was also assumed that air passenger duty would be abolished and that those changes would be phased in gradually between 2005 and 2025. The total value of those tax measures was £9.2 billion at 2002 levels. The Department agreed to rerun the model using

231WH
those assumptions and the results were produced in February 2003. The results show that the total number of passengers using United Kingdom airports would increase at a much slower rate, from 200 million in 2000 to 315 million in 2030, compared with the official forecast of 501 million. Crucially, there would be no need for any new runway in the UK in the period to 2030.
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the largest non-governmental organisation in the United Kingdom, supports the view that the rerun demonstrates that demand management could be made to work without causing a massive hike in ticket costs. Thus there could be no new runways, no effect on the economy and no impact on poorer members of the community. I look forward to the same conclusions being reached in the White Paper next month.
I return to where I started: the Deputy Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) led the world in setting sustainable development policies and negotiating the Kyoto protocol in 1997. I ask the Secretary of State for Transport and the Minister who is here today to take a similar world-leadership role and set the agenda both for the International Civil Aviation Organisation environmental meeting in February 2004 and for the regional debate that will no doubt take place in Europe, so that a way forward can be agreed beforehand.
I hope that there will be full consultation of parliamentarians, and that parliamentarians will be included as members of any UK delegation, as happened at the world summit on sustainable development and at the recent World Trade Organisation ministerial conference in Cancun, Mexico.
Sustainable aviation is not an oxymoron. It can be achieved. It just needs politicians and aerospace engineers to decide to work to ensure a sustainable world. In the case of global warming, we have set out our stall and persuaded the rest of the world to follow. Could the Minister therefore set out the following items in the Government's agenda for ICAO in February 2004: first, no night flights between 11.30 pm and 6 am; secondly, silent aircraft—airframes and engines—by 2025 and, on the way, progressive 20 per cent. and 50 per cent. cuts in noise below 2003 levels for all planes using UK airports; thirdly, major expansion of research into the use of non-fossil fuel for aircraft propulsion; and fourthly, total internalising of all external costs into plane fares, including fuel tax and climate change levy?
I believe that that agenda could be agreed across Europe, and could be the basis of a UK agreement at ICAO. I look forward to the Minister's response today and in Montreal at ICAO in February.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I want to help the Chamber. Very many Back Benchers want to be called. If they are self-disciplined and speak for no more than three minutes they will all have a turn. I am sorry, but it is three minutes. This is perhaps going to be a pattern not only in this Chamber but on the Floor of the House if more Back Benchers want to contribute to a debate with a single point that may sometimes be more relevant than a speech covering wide ground.
2.52 pm
Mr. John Randall: I shall try to stick to your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should not like any hon. Members to be bumped off this debate.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) on bringing up the matter, providing us with a chance to debate it. My starting point in considering this question is to wonder what we mean by sustainable. Not being terribly bright—I think that earlier today I may have been described as a lesser person—but searching after learning, I went to Transport questions and asked the Secretary of State what he meant by sustainable development. I was told to wait, because the answer would be in the aviation White Paper. Perhaps the Secretary of State does not think that I can cope with that amount of knowledge at this stage; I am waiting to see what will be revealed.
As I like to learn about matters of this kind, I wondered where I could go for intelligent discussion about it. I found that a former Aviation Minister is now serving in the Government. He is the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). Some of his comments on this issue are fascinating and I would recommend anyone to read an article of 14 January 2003 in the London Standard.
A couple of little points give us a valuable insight into Government. The previous Minister said:
"There is a long history of undertakings being given in return for controversial airport expansions which are either quietly forgotten or cynically abandoned once they become inconvenient."
I think that my constituents and those of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) would agree with that. The previous Minister also said that during his 18 undistinguished months—he was being very modest—as a Minister whose responsibilities included aviation, he learned two things: first, that the demands of the aviation industry are insatiable and secondly, that successive Governments have usually given way to them. Although nowadays the industry pays lip service to the notion of sustainability, its demands are essentially unchanged. It wants more of everything—airports, runways and terminals.
The hon. Member for Putney has already flagged up the fact that we are to have an excellent meeting later today in Committee Room 18 to discuss why everyone is against a third runway at Heathrow. I shall not rehearse the arguments here, but I can recommend the meeting; we shall have a full house. Echoing the hon. Gentleman's comments, if we do not want a third runway at Heathrow, I can understand why no one wants it at Gatwick, Stansted or elsewhere. If that is the case, why should the people in particular areas have to put up with airport expansion? The country has to take a radical look at aviation issues. If that means not allowing continual expansion to satisfy the demands of an industry that, although it has given a lot to the country, cannot be seen to be the only force in the equation, we must mean what we say by sustainable and put the environment and the quality of life of all our constituents before the ability of some people to have cheap flights.
2.55 pm
Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) on securing a debate on this matter. He made reference to the true cost of aviation, which is the nub of the debate on how to find a way in which the aviation industry can pay the true costs of its impact on the wider community and on the environment.
An imaginative and comprehensive approach must be taken to the problem, because the aviation industry enjoys tax concessions amounting to about £10 billion a year. Setting against that the £900 million raised from air passenger duty brings it down to just over £9 billion—comprising such things as VAT exemptions on tickets and aircraft fuel, exemption from excise duty on fuel, and other tax concessions. That is relevant to the debate about airport capacity, because if one links a low-tax framework to the increased capacity that the White Paper foreshadows, air travel prices will continue to reduce in real terms, leading to increased demand, so demand for more capacity will also continue to increase. The right tax policies are essential if the right sustainable aviation strategy is to be advanced. If the tax concessions to which I have referred were to be removed gradually, over 25 to 30 years, air travel would not increase in real terms but it would keep pace with inflation. The way in which those tax concessions should be addressed cannot be restricted to this country. The issue has both European and international dimensions.
We should not expect too much from some of the international aviation bodies that are dominated by airline industry interests, but we can look to the European Union to take a major role in addressing the issue. The idea of an emissions trading scheme for air travel is gaining support in many quarters. That could certainly be introduced on a European Union basis, and it would have an impact on some of the scenarios outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney. It has been suggested that an emissions charge introduced on an European Union basis would reduce aviation's carbon dioxide contribution to global warming by up to 13 per cent. That would clearly have a significant effect on the overall picture. Such an emissions trading scheme might also allow us to move away from air passenger duty, which is a blunt instrument and takes little account of a journey's environmental consequences, which depend on its length, and the type and size of aircraft. Emissions trading would allow a much more comprehensive approach.
Finally, alongside a taxation policy to ensure that aviation bears its true costs, there should be investment in high-speed rail capacity, as my hon. Friend said. Such investment would allow many journeys in the UK to be transferred from air to rail, and would benefit areas such as mine very much. Auctions for slots at airports, for example, might allow funds to be raised to develop rail lines over the next 10 years, and not only contribute to solving the problem, but improve transport links to areas with the greatest need for urgent improvement.
3.1 pm
John Barrett: I too would like to congratulate the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) on securing this debate. As we await the publication of
234WH
the Government's White Paper, the importance of the issue will only increase. In debates on aviation, the focus is often on developments at Heathrow, Stansted and Cliffe, but we are having a vibrant debate north of the border, too. I shall not mention air rail substitution in my shortened speech this afternoon, however, because although it is important, it has already been addressed.
Since 1993, the annual number of passengers at Edinburgh airport, in my constituency, has risen from 2.5 million to almost 7 million and, with additional flights and new international flights, the figure is certain to rise further. There are global, national and local aspects to sustainable aviation. We should consider how to expand and develop our airports in a sustainable manner that minimises pollution.
Not all environmental improvements are obvious. The extension to the taxiway at Edinburgh. for example, is due for completion next year, and will reduce the taxiing time of aircrafts, thereby cutting emissions of carbon monoxide, while un-burnt hydrocarbons and PM10 particulates should also be reduced. The extension to the existing runway is crucial from an economic perspective, as it will allow different aircraft to use the airport for international flights. Similarly, it will have an environmental benefit. The short length of the runway forces aircraft to land at a steeper descent than would otherwise be necessary, and they have to take off with greater thrust. The combined result is more nitrous oxide and volatile organic compounds than would be produced if there were a longer runway.
A crucial issue that relates to air traffic and airport expansion, but which is often overlooked, is the environmental impact of traffic travelling to and from airports. If we are to have a truly sustainable aviation policy, we must think about the sustainability of the infrastructure that supports our airport. The road traffic on the western side of Edinburgh is grinding to a halt, partly owing to increased numbers of air passengers at Edinburgh airport. That is because buses and taxis are the only means of public transport that serve the airport. A recent survey showed that only 16 per cent. of those travelling to and from Edinburgh airport do so by public transport. That is why Margaret Smith, the MSP for Edinburgh West, and I warmly welcome the Scottish Executive's recent commitment to introduce a rail link to Edinburgh airport. It is critical that the project is made a reality as soon as possible.
Finally, I want to say a few words about noise. If the airports are to be developed in a sustainable way, plans need to involve local communities and allay any concerns, which are often about noise. I accept that it is not easy to do that. However, minimising the noise, which can cause misery to communities living around the airports, can play a big part. Indeed, my constituents in Kirkliston, Ratho, Newbridge, East Craigs and Cramond would want me to highlight that fact. Although official evidence on the impact of airport noise is inconclusive, the letters and e-mails that I receive from constituents who are disturbed and woken by late-night flights are far from inconclusive. The evidence is certainly conclusive that pupils studying at schools close to airports, including the five nursery and primary schools near Edinburgh airport, are adversely affected by the noise of arriving and departing aircraft.

235WH
We have seen advances in fuel efficiency, and in the dampening of aircraft noise by some 20 dB. However, further improvements, particularly to the noise of landing and taking off, are required so that local communities can benefit further. Meanwhile, we should seriously consider legislative proposals restricting nighttime flights and requiring authorities to provide sound-dampening insulation at schools and other community buildings.
The provision of a sustainable aviation policy should concern us all. Some Members may have a specific constituency interest, and others a purely environmental interest; but whatever his reason, the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) has done us a service by allowing us to debate the issue. I look forward to the White Paper with eagerness and trepidation. However, one thing is clear: a basic predict-and-provide approach will not work. We must develop an aviation policy that is not only respectful of the global environment but considerate of local communities.
I hope that the Minister will reassure all those who travel, who live close to airports, who get caught up in the traffic around them, or who just breathe the air polluted by the many forms of transport, that a sustainable aviation policy can and must be delivered.
3.6 pm
Mr. Paul Truswell: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) on securing this debate.
The consultation document on the future development of air transport in the north of England has a number of important implications for the local development of air transport. However, because it contained only outline information and generalised options, it raised far more questions than it answered. Without clear details of the time scale and the implication of developments, it has been impossible to engage in meaningful debate. I therefore hope that the Government's consultation document and questionnaire were just a start. We need a continuing localised debate between local people and the airport authorities, and I hope that the White Paper will allow debate on future proposals.
For those reasons, I strongly urge the Government to require local airports to draw up some form of development plan. The plan should involve public involvement and participation—and I hope that it will be done democratically. Local airport development plans should deal with a number of key issues on planning and sustainability. They should be underpinned by an independent environmental impact assessment, which would include the prevention and minimisation of air and noise pollution. It should deal also with climate change and other associated issues such as operating hours. As my hon. Friend said, it is crucial that those issues are addressed in the context of effective national and EU standards.
The key in an area such as mine, which is covered by Leeds Bradford airport, is how to manage growth in a sustainable and sensitive way. Even though several options in the consultation document envisaged a quadrupling of air passengers, no attempt was made to quantify the wider implications. It may be outside the broad, national strategic consultation, but identification
236WH
of such matters is crucial to local communities. A coherent attempt must be made to say in advance what the effects of growth will be, and at what point the effects of such growth—in terms of pollution, congestion, road safety and the physical environment—will place too great a burden on local communities. In other words, we ought to determine here and now what is sustainable for local communities. I hope that the Government will address those key issues in the White Paper.
3.9 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson: I thank the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) not only for introducing the debate but for revealing so clearly socialist thinking on the future of air transport. [HON. MEMBERS: "Socialism!"] If an industry is a successful industry, and if it brings huge prosperity to the country and a large inflow of foreign exchange, the instinct of some Labour Members is to tax it, and then tax it more heavily. One wonders whether they are applying the right cost-benefit analysis. For example, extending the Channel high-speed rail link has cost hundreds of millions of pounds, and it has also had severe adverse environmental impacts along the route. It is simplistic to suggest that it is air transport alone that has a negative environmental impact.
It must be recognised that not all aviation fuel is without duty. Aviation gasoline is, paradoxically enough, subject to duty. Turbine fuel—kerosene—is not. The idea of imposing a value added tax and a higher level of passenger departure tax could be gravely prejudicial to the prosperity of marginal carriers and certainly would nullify the beneficial social impact of air transport on lower income groups to which the hon. Member for Putney referred. Notwithstanding that, one must also take into account the benefits for regional development of air transport.
Andy King: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Wilkinson: No, I will not.
Air transport is an economic lifeline for such remote and far-flung parts of this kingdom as the highlands and islands. To suggest that there is a viable alternative is just fanciful. The Government's decision to relinquish the UK's sole power to introduce bilateral air service agreements and to hand over that area of national sovereignty to the European Union could clearly endanger the future prosperity of air transport in this country. The United Kingdom is the premier gateway for transatlantic services and it is far from certain that the EU will be so keen for the United Kingdom to have such a preferential position.
One must not fail to take into account the environmental impact. That is why my two colleagues from the Hillingdon borough and I are sponsoring the meeting tonight and why we are so resolutely opposed to the third east-west runway at Heathrow. Civil air transport need not be inimical to the environment. There are certain sites that are clearly impossible from an environmental point of view, such as Cliffe and Maplin sands, but the incremental development of existing single runway airports in the south-east and the better use of regional airports offer a sensible way forward and that is the one that the Government should adopt.
3.12 pm
Mr. Alan Hurst: I will endeavour, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to follow what I might call the Macclesfield directive and keep my speech strictly to three minutes.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) not only on the learned way in which he has presented the debate but on his evenhanded approach. He has not argued that the extra runway should be put somewhere else but that it may not be needed at this stage. I was also impressed by the remarks that the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) made about sustainability. I am never quite sure what that means. I can understand what "sustainable" means when we are talking about fishing or timber, because fish stocks might run out and trees will go if we do not replace them. Clearly in economic terms the aircraft industry is sustainable within itself. It will go on growing, because there is no inherent check, but the price has to be paid by the communities around those airports, which suffer the consequences.
I shall plead localism because it may be my last chance before this report. My constituency is close to Stansted. I was particularly grateful that no one here urged that the second runway should go there. Stansted is one of the most beautiful parts of the eastern counties: it is full of historic and listed buildings, and is an area of small villages and rolling hills. One can well imagine the consequences of a second, third or fourth runway being planted there. I pray in aid—indeed, I can do no better—the 1985 inquiry, which looked ahead and almost contemplated the present situation. The inspector damned in the most poetic terms any prospect of having a second runway at Stansted. It would be superfluous for me to mention the pollution consequences, because they will affect any site that will be so named. The traffic to Stansted would multiply many times, as it would anywhere else.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying about Stansted, but he must beware what inspectors say after public inquiries, because no notice has been taken of them whatsoever.
Mr. Hurst: In concluding, I shall say that the comments of the 1985 inquiry were so comprehensively against what is now being contemplated that we do not need to go any further to conclude that the Stansted option should not be followed. I am sure that the same arguments will apply elsewhere.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope to call two further speakers before the winding-up speeches. I shall first call the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) and then the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). I ask them to be brief.
3.15 pm
Lembit Öpik: I speak in favour of small airports and of a sustainable airports strategy. I fly aircraft and even contemplated setting up an airline until I realised that in order to end up with a small fortune in aviation, one has to start with a large one.
The British Airports Authority is an effective organisation, and Mike Clasper has a strategic focus on what is required of it. The same is true for easyJet and
238WH
Ryanair, and we cannot blame them for running the best businesses they can. However, the Government are responsible for ensuring a strategy that does not overly focus on a few super-large airports such as Heathrow, Gatwick and, as threatened, Stansted, but instead eases the infrastructure pressure by making use of the many runways that are underused throughout the United Kingdom.
On environmental improvements, it is in the interests of aircraft manufacturers to make aircraft as environmentally friendly as possible, as noise and pollution both cost money. As such, there is a natural pressure in the system to improve in those areas.
The Government could improve the usage of existing runways by considering a hub and spokes strategy, in which airfields as small as Welshpool in my constituency are used to feed into the larger airports. It does not matter where international flights go from if passengers can get to the airport easily. It would be simpler for people to fly from Welshpool to Cardiff and on to New York rather than having to go to Heathrow to start the journey. I urge the Minister to build into his strategies positive support for scores of small airports like the one in my constituency. The Government could significantly ease the flow into the large airports by using regional and potential international airports as alternative feeders into international routes.
Air travel does not inherently have to be environmentally unfriendly or annoy local residents. A coherent use of what we already have will allow us to shift from building more runways at a few large airports to using more of the runways at the airports that already exist.
3.18 pm
John McDonnell: As you suggested, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall stick to one point.
In all the speeches so far, the central point is one that my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) has made in every speech over the past four years in dogged pursuit of the issue. It is that although in almost every other policy area we have a rational policy debate and decisions are reached with which we may not agree but for which we can understand the reasons, in airport policy reason goes out the window. We have years of planning inquiries that produce recommendations with which, again, we might not agree but which we appreciate are based on detailed analysis and made after everyone has had their say. However, successive Governments have overturned those recommendations or, at worst, accepted them for a limited period—two or three years or, for terminal 5, only 12 months—before overturning their own decision and the strictures put on their policy making.
We want rational policy making, and we hope that it will come from the White Paper, but I doubt it. Academics who study policy making no longer talk about presidential government or ministerial decisions, but about policy networks around Ministers that advise on decision making. In this policy network there are no countervailing forces to the main force, which is the industry itself. BAA and British Airways know that they have overwhelming influence in the circle around the Minister and the Prime Minister. We need balanced policy making in this field, as my hon. Friend set out.

239WH
We cannot even get to first base on independent information. Various competitors put their information forward at planning inquiries, but much Government decision making is based on information provided to them by the industry alone. I recommend that we establish an aviation policy commission, in which we bring together all the partners in the industry, including suppliers, environmentalists, local authorities and those who have a specialist interest. At least that would provide us with independent, if not consensual, information on which we can judge decisions.
I hope that future Governments adhere to the decisions made by planning inquiries. I do not want to go through another terminal 4 inquiry, where I am told that there will be no further developments, only to find that terminal 5 comes along, followed by another inquiry at which I am told there will be no further developments. Then there was the third runway—and now I am told that there will be a sixth terminal there. We need rational, consistent policy making.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I make a plea to the spokesmen for the Liberals and her Majesty's Opposition to allow the Minister adequate time to reply.
3.21 pm
Mr. Paul Marsden: I will try to keep my remarks short. This has been an excellent debate, which demonstrates that there is widespread concern at this crossroads in aviation policy. I congratulate the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) on securing the debate. He has a distinguished record in leading the debate on such matters and has demonstrated from the beginning that there must be international solutions as part of the complex proposals that the Government advance in the White Paper.
I appreciate the difficulty that the Minister is in. There is nothing easy about this subject. Any Government would struggle to accommodate the conflicting arguments. However, we do not want to see lip service paid to the policy of sustainable aviation—that is the danger. There has, in recent years, been a massive expansion in air travel, which is to be welcomed in terms of expanding free and fair markets, but there is a danger that it could become unfettered in this marketplace, which is in need of urgent reform and more regulation.
Runways may be required as a last resort, but we are a long way from that position at the moment. I believe that there would have to be another runway in 2017, at the earliest. Before then, however, there are so many options available in trying to curtail the demand. The problem is that the Government have simply pursued the old failed Tory policy of predict-and-provide. It is no use trying to work out the number of passengers and the amount of goods to be shifted and building more and more capacity. We have to make a stand at this moment. If the Government were correct in saying that we are heading for 500 million passengers by 2030, with prices being cut by a third, and that more runways would have to spring up all over the south-east, that would be an absolute disaster for the environment.
By 2030—if we continue as we are—aviation could be contributing 20 per cent. of the UK's carbon dioxide emissions and 15 per cent. of the
greenhouse emissions. That would totally undermine many of the
240WH
Government's targets. Similarly, there is currently a fundamental problem with noise, which we are not addressing in accordance with the World Health Organisation's recommended levels. The existing noise levels are supposed to be sustainable and acceptable to the general public, but they are not. It is a blight on people's lives that they have to put up with the levels of noise generated not just by the traffic moving in and out of airports, but by the planes. As the hon. Member for Putney said, the technology is there for a quieter aeroplane and a quieter engine. We need a Government with some backbone to start to impose quieter solutions for the sake of the public.
As the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds said:
"At the start of the 21st Century, we believe the case for further growth in aviation to be questionable; the marginal economic and social benefit of additional growth in aviation is outweighed by its environmental and social costs".
Likewise, many other organisations, including the Socialist Environment and Resources Association, have said that, without a demand management approach to aviation policy, the Government run the real risk of surrendering their quality of life and environmental ambitions for the many, for a few cheap flights.
Part of the solution must lie with more investment in the railways. Depending on which figures we look at, the conservative figures for railways demonstrate that they use only a third or less of the carbon dioxide that air travel uses. One example is the Paris to Marseille highspeed rail connection. It is hugely successful and has helped to switch about 4 per cent. of passengers who previously travelled on short-haul flights back to the railways. We need to update the Kyoto protocol and I hope that the Minister will consider how it will include international aviation.
We must introduce a fuel duty. A zero duty is placed on aviation kerosene compared with 50p a litre for motorists. We must consider airport landing charges. At present, the busier the airport the more rental income from terminal buildings, which is allowed to be subsidised against landing charges. We must also compare passenger departure duty with aircraft departure duty. Surely it is far better to give an incentive to fill empty places on existing planes than to tax those passengers who are currently using what is already there.
In conclusion, will the Minister please fight for an amendment on international aviation to be made to the Kyoto protocol? Will he introduce at European Union level fuel duties for airlines? Will he decouple the rental income from subsidised landing charges? We look forward to the White Paper, but we do not want to pay lip service. We want action.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his co-operation.
3.27 pm
Miss Anne McIntosh: I congratulate the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) on inspiring an excellent and timely debate this afternoon. I wish to declare an interest in such matters. Until January this year, my husband had worked for 34 years in the airline industry in various capacities. I have a modest interest in British Airways, BAA plc and BAE Systems, Railtrack,

241WH
Eurotunnel and the Royal Automobile Club. I also represented Essex North East, Essex North and Suffolk South at the European Parliament for 10 years.
I wish to help my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) and others who wanted a definition of sustainable development. I attribute the following definition to Brundtland in 1987. It states:
"Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs".
It prompts the question whether the Government have their policy right. The debate is about whether to give priority to the sustainability part of the balance and have strict controls on future atmospheric pollution from aviation, either by forcing cleaner technology on the industry or by reducing the number of flights—or should the focus of the debate be on development in order to let aviation grow and let more people fly, with all the inherent economic and social benefits?
We recognise the huge importance of aviation and airlines to national, local and regional economic development in the United Kingdom. They allow business and leisure travellers to access their chosen destination and contribute development and jobs to the economy. What assessments has the Minister made? Does he believe that no-frills carriers will continue to grow, expand and develop routes at the recent rate? All the evidence points to the contrary. Has the hon. Gentleman read about the new structure that Ryanair, for example, is considering? It might deprive people in this country from accessing their second homes in, say, France to the same extent that they have over the past two or three years.
What assessment has the Minister made of the ability to which several hon. Members have referred this afternoon? I refer to the ability of alternative modes of transport, especially high-speed trains on domestic and short-haul European routes, to compete with planes on distance, cost and reliability. One example is the not-so-fast train from Strasbourg to Brussels. That train takes four and a half hours, which is exactly the same as the journey time from Edinburgh to London, yet it costs less than half the first class price.
What assessment has the Minister made of the scope for development at regional airports in the north of England and Scotland to find direct routes to Europe, and to allow international traffic through European hubs, including Amsterdam, Paris and Frankfurt? What assessment has he made of the environmental costs of the present rate of aviation development? As many hon. Members have said, EU pollution rules are already being breached. Noise and noxious pollution from planes taking off and landing, and pollution from cars travelling to and from airports and those using major routes such as the A4 near Heathrow, all contribute. What comparative assessment has the Minister made of less harmful damage to the environment caused by developing alternative airports such as London Luton rather than other London airports?
Does the Minister accept that international aviation has been in decline since the 1990s, as shown by the evidence taken by the Transport Committee for its aviation report? There has been a downturn in the US
242WH
and other economies. The industry has also been affected by the impact of 11 September and the SARS virus, and in this country by floods, rail disasters, the foot and mouth crisis and other factors.
The Government must put all modes of transport on a level playing field. The Minister has tough questions to answer. Is the aviation industry paying its external costs? How are those external costs identified? Has the Minister considered the response from the Board of Airline Representatives in the UK to the Government's consultation paper on economic instruments? Does he agree that the Government should be able to make an informed proposal on the basis of those instruments to take account of the environmental impact and to have regard for the principles of the International Civil Aviation Organisation? BAR UK wants the proposals to be environmentally beneficial, economically reasonable and technically feasible. Does the Minister support that view or does he believe that it is wrong?
Is aviation passenger duty an environmental charge or a stealth tax? It raises between £800 million and £1 billion a year, but none of that goes to defraying the environmental costs of the aviation industry. The aviation industry is prepared to enter emissions trading negotiations, but while making a financial contribution, how will it reduce pollution, or be seen to create a sustainable aviation transport sector? The Government must answer a simple question. Given the collapse of the no-frills carrier networks, and the fact that aviation carries more of its share of transport through environmental charges such as the aviation passenger tax, do the Government believe that the present growth rate of aviation is sustainable?
Is the Minister prepared to support the call of the hon. Member for Putney for the Government to take a lead role in the EU on trading emissions, and to press ICAO and other European unions? Will the Government take the lead and commit themselves today to introducing proposals within the next two years? Are the Government in favour of the introduction of emissions charges at EU level as an interim measure, pending inclusion of aviation in those international trading schemes?
Does the Minister agree with the conclusions given in the Environmental Audit Committee report entitled "Budget 2003 and Aviation", produced under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth)? In paragraph 10 of the conclusions and recommendations, it is stated:
"The net present value associated with the increase in the cost of aviation emissions amounts to minus £18 billion."
Does the Minister agree with the Committee's conclusion that
"including this amount would entirely wipe out the economic case for an expansion in runways"?
If not, what is the true cost of aviation emissions?
Before the publication of the White Paper is announced, the Minister has one final tough question to answer. Does he believe that the environmental pollution caused by the aviation industry is clear for all to see, and underestimated, and that therefore any case for expanding or proposing to expand runway capacity in the south of England or elsewhere is outweighed by

243WH
the economic case for such expansion? If that is the Government's position, when will they make the economic case for such expansion?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call the Minister to reply to this interesting debate.
3.35 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): I join others in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) on the timeliness and the substance of this debate. I fear that it will be the first of many debates on this area, both before and certainly after the publication of the White Paper.
I also congratulate the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) on her new role, which, if I have understood the machinations of the Conservative reshuffle correctly, is in the same group but speaking with a different voice from a different part of what is now a joint group rather than a single group.
I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I concentrate on the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney, many of which were mentioned subsequently. I believe that that will be the easiest way to progress.
However, I shall first make a few opening remarks. I was struck by the fact that, until the tail end of the debate, much of the discussion was focused on London and the south-east, although I understand why that was so. The White Paper is meant to be, and will be, concerned with national aviation and airports policy. As some hon. Members said, whatever happens in London and the south-east, there is still a massive role for regional airports. Regardless of the situation in London and the south-east, we have said that we shall, and we will, address the important question of accessibility from the regions to the London and south-east hub, I am sure that those issues will be followed up in subsequent debates.
I shall now pick out some of the points from my hon. Friend's speech to address. If I miss any of the comments that he made, or those made by anyone else, in the slightly expanded but none the less Macclesfieldish declaration speech that I have to make, I apologise to them. If they write to me about those points, I will follow them up. Early in his speech, my hon. Friend said that broadly, and repeatedly, Ministers have told him that the UK Government cannot go it alone nor regulate in isolation for sustainable aviation. That is an absolute truth but is not, as he said subsequently, a recipe for doing absolutely nothing. I shall return to that point, because there is much that we can do on a national, European and international level. However, if we were to devise a marvellously purist package all on our own, focusing only on the UK without recognising either our economic and environmental place on the European and world stage, or aviation's role and interdependency in the European and world dimension, that would not do anyone a favour, on whatever side of the argument they found themselves.
Secondly, I offer, not necessarily in flippant terms, my apologies for not being able to make the meeting at 6 pm in Committee Room 18 on opposing the third runway at
244WH
Heathrow. It might not be in order for me to attend such a meeting before the publication of the White Paper. However, I hope that I have a reasonable excuse, which is that I shall be ensconced at the time with the Aviation Environment Federation, examining its concerns in relation to the White Paper. Please do not push me as to whether, had I not had that engagement, I would be at the meeting about the third runway. I suspect that I would not.
My hon. Friend said clearly that the new air transport White Paper should establish a framework that would ensure the long-term development of aviation in the UK and that it should be sustainable. That is what drives us; if the White Paper is about nothing else, it must give some definition to the notion of sustainable aviation and proving that that is not an oxy-moron or oxymoron, however one wants to say it, but it is—it must be—the way forward for aviation in future.
I am pleased that the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) has gone—not in a nasty way, but if we struggle with sustainable aviation, God knows what a debate on socialist aviation would be like! I am glad that we are not pursuing that line. As my hon. Friend the Member for Putney said, aviation has global, national, regional and local implications for the economic, social and environmental aspects of sustainable development, as well as for the prudent use of natural resources. Nothing that will be brought forward in the White Paper will be in isolation. It sits, and will sit, within the wider context of Government policy.
Whenever the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill is enacted—I brought the Bill to the House last February, ostensibly on a fast track, and it has been stuck in the Commons ever since—the far stronger sustainability argument and ethos, both at regional and spatial strategy level and local development framework level, will root far more readily in our planning framework than ever before. It was developed in the context of the energy White Paper, not in isolation. I would not be as sniffy as my hon. Friend the Member for Putney about reform of the planning process. We do not want to repeat T5 inquiries but we do not want to tear down the entire edifice of democratic participation in the process. We think, for major infrastructure projects, that it is entirely appropriate to have concurrent inquiries, led by an inspector under a lead inspector. However, it is not essential for every single item of evidence before an inquiry of such magnitude to be heard by the one inspector, which was part of the delay to T5. We want to keep the crucial dimension of democracy in play.
I want to return, towards the end, to explain what will and what will not be in the White Paper in terms of process; I am not talking about substance but about progress. As I said, the regional dimension is important, as is the question of where passengers will go if there is no expansion in capacity. It is far more complex—with respect to hon. Members who have intervened—than people first think. If it were as simple as shifting much of the demand northwards, we could all pack up and go home. Many of the passenger movements in the London and south-east hub will not—with the best will in the world—go to the midlands or the north, if they cannot

245WH
get to London and the south-east. As various hon. Members said, they will go to Schipol, Frankfurt or Paris, not to other parts of our own aviation network—
Lembit Öpik: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. McNulty: I shall not, actually.
It is not entirely like for like in that respect. At the other end of the scale, we must fully understand not only the environmental dimensions but how, for many regions, small airports are key economic drivers. We do not want to upset that balance. I know that I had a summer holiday, as did everyone else, but my hon. Friend the Member for Putney will want to know that I was appointed in June, not September. Perhaps it is a portent for the response and the lynch mob that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State alluded to at Question Time, but I was appointed on Friday 13th and was told that my brief included aviation.
I take the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney and other hon. Members about rail substitution, but I fear that all the evidence suggests limitations to that. I had the great delight this morning, after tootling down to Waterloo for 9.30 am, to meet a greatly surprised and bemused woman who was taking her husband to Paris for the day for his 65th birthday treat. She happened to be the millionth passenger on Eurostar since the new part of the channel tunnel rail link opened two months ago. There have been a million passengers in two months. I cannot remember her name, but I am sure that they had a great time in Paris, after they were bumped up to first class and were given another first-class return and a week in a hotel courtesy of Eurostar. The huge success of the engineering feat of the channel tunnel rail link—let alone the public and private sector partnership and investment—will make an enormous difference to that sort of short haul. I take what people say about getting most of our high-speed links, not least the west coast main line, up to scratch, so that there can be some alternation and substitution in that regard, but it is not always as simple as "provide the alternative and people will use it," not least because of pricing mechanisms and other things.
I take note of my hon. Friend's comments about the Airbus A380, but we do a disservice to the aerospace industry if we say that it has done little or nothing to ameliorate the situation or to make engines quieter, as there have been huge advances. Since 13 June I have had to plough my way around 10 or a dozen airports to look at some of these matters in detail, and people are embarrassed when they say, "Oh yes, we still have a couple of 200s flying here every now and then but we are trying to get rid of them." When the 200s were introduced, they were state-of-the-art; it was the quietest and stealthiest of all aeroplanes, a brand new dawn in terms of aviation. Now, the 200s are the ones that embarrass everyone because of the advances that have been made since they were introduced.
I note the research being done in Cambridge. Last week, I had the pleasure of going to Duxford and speaking to people about it, not least those from Marshall. We will welcome the advances should they
246WH
come to fruition. We are very aware that there is more we can do at European level. To be fair to BAA, it held a seminar on the trading of emissions. The Commissioner was present, and the Commissioner and the EU generally were very positive that there could be some advance in that area.
I look forward with some trepidation to the next ICAO meeting because ICAO—not IKEA: that was part of my previous portfolio—needs a kick up the proverbial backside to push things on far more than it has done. I think I agree with what my hon. Friend says about advancing more in terms of the European dimension. We can act as an exemplar to ICAO to pull its finger out and get things done more readily.
Some comments seem to suggest that the White Paper was simply rooted in a process of listening to what the industry said would be the untrammelled, unconstrained demand for the next 30 years, asking how we could meet that demand and deciding to meet it—in which case the industry would get everything that it wanted. But that will not be what prevails; what will prevail within the context of sustainability is that there will be a demand for unconstrained growth and whatever the details of the numbers, everyone agrees that the quantum projection is upwards. What can be achieved in terms of the sustainable framework? Crucially, how can we fully optimise existing capacity more readily than we have done? That must be part of the process. Given all that, how can we develop a provision for new capacity within the sustainability framework? What is the necessary package for that new capacity in terms of noise mitigation, mitigation in terms of the environment, service access elements and so on that go into the process? We are not simply having a raffle, picking an airport that wants expansion and saying, "Ah, there we are. You can have it. Off you go." It is about building up sustainable packages.
It may also be necessary to put things in context and say, "Yes, but over this time frame not that time frame." We are keenly aware that past White Papers have been a waste of time in terms of policy, and I agree in part with my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) that until now the policy network has been flawed and immature. Those days are over. For the first time, this is a proper, detailed White Paper that seeks to achieve sustainable aviation over the next 30 years and will give everyone what they are screaming out for—some clarity and understanding of where they fit into the equation, whether they are part of the industry or the local communities or are simply travellers and passengers, and what the future is for aviation in this country over the next 30 years. The debate has aided that process, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Putney on securing it. I repeat that if there are any issues that I did not cover in the little time that I had, I shall be more than happy to write to hon. Members about them once they have written to me to pursue them.
I fear, happily—if one can fear things happily—that the publication of the White Paper is the next phase of an ongoing debate, rather than the end of the debate. For that, everyone in the country should be grateful, whatever side of the argument they come from.

Liverpool (European Capital of Culture)
3.50 pm
Mrs. Louise Eliman: This debate takes place as Liverpool, "the world in one city" and European capital of culture designate for 2008, is poised to become the United Kingdom's cultural ambassador to Europe, and Europe's ambassador to the world. I shall draw attention to the significance of that achievement—Liverpool's equivalent of holding the Commonwealth games—and consider the potential that that offers for regeneration.
I am pleased to be a member of the board that secured the bid under the leadership of Sir Bob Scott. Winning was certainly a team effort; dedicated staff worked with Liverpool city council, and were backed by local authorities throughout the region, Liverpool Vision, business, Members of Parliament, the voluntary sector, the Northwest Development Agency, Arts Northwest, the regional assembly and, above all, the diverse people of multicultural Liverpool.
Liverpool has great achievements across the cultural spectrum—in sports, heritage, the creative arts and tourism—but today I want to stress Liverpool's excellence in the arts, including the visual arts. That includes the Liverpool biennial festival, which launched its preparations for 2004 in the House of Commons two weeks ago. I was delighted to see my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts at those presentations, and contributing to them.
The Centre for Film, Art and Creative Technology, FACT, is a great success. It is the only United Kingdom exhibition and performance space specialising in film, video and digital art. It stands proudly in the regenerated Ropewalks area of Liverpool city centre. The city has renowned galleries and museums, including the Walker, Tate and Bluecoat galleries, and the maritime museum. Fine architecture is a major characteristic. The magnificent waterfront has been nominated as a UNESCO world heritage site. Liverpool has the greatest concentration of listed buildings outside London.
St. George's hall is currently being refurbished. Liverpool's Georgian terraces are outstanding. Liverpool is increasingly becoming a major centre for filming. Mersey TV, the largest independent regional production company in the United Kingdom, entertains and informs the nation from Liverpool. In 2000, feature films made in Liverpool had a £35 million budget, with a benefit of at least £12 million to the local economy. Feature films made recently in Liverpool include "Liam", "The Parole Officer", "The 51st State", and Alex Cox's "A Revengers' Tragedy".
Liverpool Film Studios is encouraging new filmmakers. The Toxteth film centre and the £40 million film development fund gives opportunities to local filmmakers. I am particularly pleased that the Toxteth film centre is giving opportunities to young talented people who wish to become involved in the production of filming, and young people who may not otherwise have the opportunity to develop their great talents. On Wednesday, North West Vision, based in Liverpool, will hold a reception in the House of Commons to show Parliament the calibre of media production in the north-
248WH
west. Last Saturday, Liverpool was a fitting venue for the Royal Television Society's regional awards, which took place in the regenerated city centre building.
In the area of live music, the Royal Philharmonic Society, with its magnificent orchestra, is working with the community to encourage the city's talented young musicians, and new bands are being given opportunities by venues such as the Picket. I am sad to note that the future of the Picket is at risk because of a change in the ownership of the building in which it is located. Liverpool has a record of excellence in performing arts, with its theatres and Sir Paul McCartney's exciting Liverpool Institute for Performing Arts, which is breaking new ground in training talented young people to be the performers of tomorrow. Liverpool's festivals, such as Matthew street, Africa Oye and Brouhaha attract international audiences.
I am pleased that Liverpool humour plays such a pivotal role. Sir Jeremy Isaacs, chairman of the capital of culture judges, explained that Liverpool's community involvement, as well as its high standards in the arts and in culture generally, was critical to Liverpool's securing the title capital of culture. He also revealed another winning factor: he visited the Rawhide comedy club at the Albert dock, and listened to the successful stand-up comic Nige, otherwise known as Keith Carter, philosophise on life, trapped in a world of looking after his mum and gran and their terrorist cat. Sir Jeremy was reported as having said:
"I only understood one in every three words he was saying, so I enjoyed him. He helped Liverpool win".
What happens now? Winning the title capital of culture is not an end in itself; it is a new beginning. Liverpool is buzzing with renewed confidence. The multi-million pound Grosvenor Henderson city centre shopping development is ready to start. Preparations are under way for the return of cruise liners. The capital of culture team is being refashioned to meet the challenges of working with the community to deliver the exciting world-in-one-city programme, with a different theme every year. The theme for 2007, when Liverpool celebrates its 800th birthday, will be celebrating heritage. Other themes include learning, faith and community, arts, sports and—in 2008—the world in one city.
Liverpool will increasingly become the showcase for international visitors. It is essential that the events that take place are of the highest possible standard, and of sufficient variety and interest to attract a wide variety of people from near and far. Culture is intrinsically bound up with community. That is why the capital of culture team is working with education, health and regeneration agencies. Capital of culture opens new opportunities for regeneration, attracting new investment. It has been estimated that it will bring 14,000 new jobs in heritage, tourism, sport and the creative industries, £2 billion of investment, 1.7 million extra visitors spending £50 million per year and the possibility of 3,000 more jobs across the north-west. The proportion of overseas visitors could increase to 40 per cent.
All of that means more economic activity and more opportunities for performers, writers and designers. It also means more work in catering, transport and retail, and more jobs for electricians, engineers and construction workers. The benefits should stretch

249WH
beyond the boundaries of Liverpool and Merseyside and into the wider north-west. The challenge is to ensure that the benefits are long term and reach local communities. People in Granby, Dingle, Vauxhall and Everton should be beneficiaries. Rising property prices must not put local people at a disadvantage.
Support is required to enable these opportunities to be maximised. Good transport links are essential. About 50 years since the last trams were seen in Liverpool, Merseytravel is set to deliver line 1 of the new tram system. Underground stations will be refurbished. Travel around Merseyside will be much improved thanks to Merseytravel and the support that the Government have given it. However, there is no such certainty for west coast main line modernisation, which must be delivered north of Crewe and for Liverpool in the time promised in the Strategic Rail Authority plan.
Lime Street station, a grade II listed railway interchange that Network Rail now operates, must be refurbished as the gateway to a great city. What is good enough for Manchester Piccadilly is good enough for Liverpool. Liverpool requires a direct air link to London and the retention of Royal Mail freight facilities at Liverpool John Lennon airport. Liverpool airport, the fastest growing airport in the country, has direct flights to European cities such as Barcelona, Geneva, Amsterdam, Nice, Berlin and Paris. There is, however, no flight to London, our capital. That must change to enable Merseyside to attract maximum visitors and investors. The Department for Transport is currently assessing a proposal for a second river crossing, which Merseyside needs for economic development. I look forward to a positive response.
Local people need the skills that will ensure that they can benefit from the opportunities offered, and the Learning and Skills Council must rise to the challenge, which it is working to achieve. Local companies must have the opportunity to bid for work to build up capacity in the local economy, and new businesses must have access to investment. I hope that the Northwest Development Agency and the Merseyside special investment fund will expand their excellent work to attract European and private sector funds to encourage investment. Most creative industry businesses are very small and need access to capital to meet their distinctive needs. The creative sector incorporates many social enterprises, and I hope that funding will be available to help that important sector to develop.
I am grateful for the support that my right hon. Friend, when she was Secretary of State for Education and Skills, and her Department, have already given Liverpool. She was surrounded by cheering crowds when she visited Liverpool on the day when the city won the capital of culture nomination, which was followed by close involvement by her Department. I invite her to visit Liverpool again in her current capacity to see for herself what Liverpool has to offer. I assure her of a warm welcome. I note that the Government have made £30 million available to back London's Olympic bid and that national funds helped the Commonwealth games to be a tremendous success. I hope that national financial support can be found to assist the capital of culture team to maximise the substantial regeneration opportunities that will open up for Liverpool and the region.
250WH
Liverpool has displayed initiative and entrepreneurship in reaching this point. Despite its growing success and the record support that the Government have given it for its public services and regeneration, Liverpool remains one of the most deprived cities in the UK. It has achieved much through its own resourcefulness. I ask for Government backing to maximise the success of capital of culture as a showpiece and regeneration opportunity for the region. I hope that financial support can be given to assist the initiative to bring HMS Whimbrel—the last surviving warship from the battle of the Atlantic and part of Captain Walker's escort group—back to Liverpool from its current location in Egypt. I thank John Livingstone and his team for their magnificent efforts in that regard. What a fitting tribute the title of capital of culture would be to the people of Liverpool for their past contribution and what benefit it could bring as a tourist and educational asset for the future.
Capital of culture status presents Liverpool and Merseyside, as well as the rest of the north-west, with unique opportunities for long-term regeneration, but these opportunities must be grasped. Liverpool has determination, entrepreneurial spirit and civic pride. As the Liverpool-born novelist Linda Grant writes:
"Now Liverpool has a shot at re-invention. It is accused of trading on its past but its past is modernity. Its heritage is people dreaming of escape and of the future. If the city can be reborn, this is the moment".
I ask my right hon. Friend to give Liverpool her support to make that a reality.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the Minister to reply, it is my understanding that there could be a Division almost at any time. I suggest to the Chamber that if there is one Division, we break for 10 minutes, and if there are two Divisions following one another immediately, we break for a total of 18 minutes.
4.6 pm
The Minister for the Arts (Estelle Morris): Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is nice to see you again. My only option is to speak very quickly, although I do not want to speak more quickly than I usually do.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) on securing this Adjournment debate. It was no surprise, however, as she has been an active supporter of Liverpool's bid and plays a key role on the management board—indeed, she hosted the biennial reception last week, which I was privileged to attend. I would welcome an ongoing dialogue from her and her colleagues not only in Liverpool and Merseyside, but throughout the northwest, between now and 2008.
Given that my constituency is in Birmingham, I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that in congratulating her I am also glad that I was not in this ministerial post before the decision was made on which city should be awarded capital of culture. That has, at the very least, excused me from receiving harsh words in my constituency.
I hope that my hon. Friend realises that, in one way or another, I have had rather a lot to do with Liverpool in recent years. When Liverpool was going through several problems relating to education, I visited the area

251WH
in my former ministerial capacity. Before it was awarded capital of culture status, I said that it had been a joy to see a city being reborn. It has grown in confidence and self-esteem, and it is not losing its past but reinventing itself for the future with the strengths of its people and the vision and excitement that it has always had—I liked the quote from my hon. Friend. The capital of culture year in 2008 will come at an important point during that process of rebirth, and it will push the city to even greater strengths.
I would love to visit Liverpool in the new year, and I think that I have plans to do so in any case. I formally accept my hon. Friend's invitation. I have already accepted an invitation to visit the museums and galleries, representatives of which I met when they came down to visit me in my office last week. I would be delighted to see what progress has been made.
In connecting my two ministerial roles and my involvement with Liverpool, I have one thing to add to the long list of strengths that my hon. Friend attributed to the city: schools and young people are also joining in with the capital of culture year. My visit to Liverpool the week after it was designated was in order to open a school as a performing arts college. I very much hope that the adults' bit of the arts and the children's bit of the arts grow in strength, and that this is not a one-off. I hope also that culture and arts are rooted in the Liverpool community where they have always been.
For the north-west, Liverpool's achievement will be of regional significance. I was in Manchester a couple of weeks ago, and I would not be telling the truth if I said that the people there were as excited as Liverpool is about capital of culture. However, they certainly saw it as an opportunity to build on the fine work that has been done at the end of east Lancs road in the north-west. This is another excellent opportunity for north-west regeneration.
Lest anyone reading Hansard thinks that Liverpool is already going to be the capital of culture, I remind hon. Members, as I ought to, that the designation process has not yet run its course. In July, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister submitted the formal nomination to the European Union. We are about to send a package of information in support of the nomination to the European Commission, at which point a panel will be appointed that will consider Liverpool's plans and proposals, and issue a report next year. In the light of that report and any comments from the Commission and the European Parliament, the Council of Ministers will be invited to designate Liverpool formally as European capital of culture 2008.
We certainly hope that that process can be concluded quickly—indeed, the Commission has promised to move it along as quickly as possible. Once those formalities are out of the way, however, Liverpool's preparations for 2008 can shift to a higher gear. It is important to say that, because it was not until I had prepared for the biennial reception that I understood that the formal part of the designation process had not taken place. However, that part is a formality—another staging post and an opportunity to celebrate what has been achieved.
Before I discuss my hon. Friend's point about money, I pay tribute to the other 11 cities that bid. The process of producing a bid was good for all the cities—those
252WH
short-listed and those that were knocked out at the first round. Those cities are now left with plans of their own that can contribute to greater arts and cultural regeneration throughout the country. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are keen not to lose that. Our aim is for the network of 12 towns and cities, with Liverpool at the head, to build on the plans that they have made, so that there is more than just one place shouting for arts and culture.
My hon. Friend rightly commented on the costs. I agree with everything that she said about both the variety of activities that will take place and the work that has already been done in the city to prepare. I also recognise that some of the things she said about infrastructure—an airport and the modernisation of the west coast railway line for example—are important. If we are to learn one lesson from previous big projects, it is that the infrastructure is of prime importance and must be right in time, so I acknowledge her plea that recognition should be given to transport and infrastructure, and other things as well.
I should warn hon. Members that Liverpool cannot be entirely rebuilt and be successful with every bid just because of capital of culture, although I do not blame them if there is a natural inclination to put a "capital of culture" badge on everything. This is the hard part of my speech: putting the "capital of culture" badge on Liverpool does not mean that the Government will find the resources. That cannot happen, it would not be right and I do not think that my hon. Friend would expect it. However, we should work with Liverpool to ensure that as much of the infrastructure as possible is in place in preparation for capital of culture.
When the bid went out to cities to put together plans to be capital of culture, it was made clear that there would be no pot of money coming along with it. Everybody made bids knowing exactly that that was the position. It might be interesting to debate whether the Olympic games is different in a national sense from 12 cities competing to be capital of culture. I take the point, however, and I heard what my hon. Friend said. I also note what was achieved by another great north-western city, Manchester, which secured the opportunity to host the Commonwealth games. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members will bring that to our attention. Nevertheless, the starting point is that it was clear, initially, when the panel studied the bids, that no extra money would be forthcoming. That remains so.
The Government do not intend to say, "You are on your own. We do not want to speak to you about this matter, and we do not want to favour Liverpool at all, or to do anything." That would not be fair or in the spirit of partnership. The Government want to work closely with Liverpool and to provide as much support as they can in the making of an application and the bringing together of partnerships with a view to obtaining new finance.
As to ways in which that might be possible, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will no doubt wish, in due course, to reflect on whether the Department can perhaps offer capital moneys to assist in the capital of culture project. We have spoken to Liverpool representatives about that when they have come to see us. I hope that some existing funding streams will be used to finance some of the bids. I will want to speak to the people in charge of the funding streams in the

253WH
months and years to come, to make sure that they will give more than reasonable attention to Liverpool's extra needs, and to the national flag that Liverpool will carry when it is capital of culture.
We very much want—and I know that my hon. Friend would agree about this—to bring in private sector money. We want to work in partnership. There is a celebration in each of the years up to 2008, and the 800th birthday is in 2007; it will be a very happy one and a cause for huge celebration. However, the plan as I see it is not for a sudden Government announcement that £x million has been made available to Liverpool so that it can finance all it wants to do. Rather, the plan is for solid partnerships providing access to specific funding streams; for the Department to do what it can, especially with capital from its own budgets; and for work to be done in partnership to see what funding can be secured from the private sector.
We want this undertaking to be a success. We have no intention of leaving Liverpool to go it alone, or of failing to listen carefully to its needs and requests. We shall do whatever we can. However, I want to balance our intention against the proposal that central Government should provide total funding.
Mr. Deputy Speaker rose—
Estelle Morris: I have about one minute. I do not know whether that is helpful.
I again congratulate Liverpool on the plans that it has made since designation. I look forward to a continuing working relationship with the city, the north-west and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have used my discretion to allow the debate to continue because the Minister of State indicated that she would finish within a minute. I hope that that was acceptable to the House. It has been an excellent debate and I was delighted to be in the Chair. I now suspend Westminster Hall for 10 minutes, if there is one Division, and 18 minutes if there are two. We shall be back here 18 minutes from now for the debate initiated by the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir).
4.17 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
4.58 pm
On resuming—
[MR. DAVID AMESS in the Chair]

Unmanned Level Crossings
Mr. Michael Weir: It will come as no surprise to the Minister that I originally proposed the debate in response to the actions of Network Rail, which unilaterally decided to close the vast majority of unmanned level crossings in Scotland. Strangely enough, since the debate was publicised I have received a considerable amount of correspondence, including e-mails, from all over the country describing various other problems with unmanned level crossings. However, I intend to confine myself to the original subject for debate.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Dr. Kim Howells): I wish to say only that privately owned level crossings are being closed. They are not all unmanned level crossings.
Mr. Weir: I thank the Minister. The definition of what the railways own and what others own might form part of the argument that follows. It is certainly a problem in some areas.
The result of the action by Network Rail was severely to restrict access to many parts of the Scottish countryside. That has already had some crazy results, and is a problem apparent throughout Scotland. Examples spring to mind in Angus, Perthshire, Loch Awe, Helensburgh, Kincardine and the Highlands, to name a few. As some are very small, they inconvenience only a small number of people. However, some create severe difficulties.
In my own constituency of Angus, the level crossing at East Haven by Carnoustie was closed, with the result that the seaward side of the village was almost cut off. As the Minister knows, the only other access to the village is a low underpass that can take a motor car but little else. That level crossing was closed despite the fact that it had been in place since the construction of the railway in 1836. In effect, a crossing that had been in continuous use for 167 years was closed unilaterally.
In all, Network Rail has announced the closure of about 600 such level crossings in Scotland. As Alison Mitchell of the Ramblers Association in Scotland noted at the time:
"We are appalled at the dictatorial way in which Network Rail in Scotland is behaving. They have embarked on a major new policy initiative without any consultation of how this will affect other public interests. They have closed crossings without consultation with the emergency services, with local communities, local authorities or the organisations that represent walkers, cyclists or horse riders. When challenged they have made it clear that they have no intention of consulting and will reimpose their locks when local councils cut them off."
In my constituency, Network Rail gradually began discussing the situation only after much adverse publicity. It claimed that it had consulted the local ambulance service, but when the service was contacted it said that that was the first it knew about the closure of the crossing. In a letter to me, Network Rail stated:
"Whilst Network Rail is willing to consider special arrangements for access, this would be dependent upon the agreement of the landowner to allow access over his land to reach the level crossing."

255WH
As has been pointed out, some of the crossings are on privately owned land, although there is a dispute about rights of access under other legislation. Network Rail went on to say:
"In order that Network Rail may give due consideration to special arrangements for essential access over the crossing we need details of essential services and frequency of access required to be provided by each resident in order that the proposed use can he risk assessed. An administration charge would be required to cover the costs associated with facilitating any future restricted access."
In other words, Network Rail first tried to throw the matter back on the local farmer.
It is interesting to note that the local farmer in that case said that he had no objection to the residents using the level crossing. However, one has to ask why a company that is effectively owned by the Government can offer the landowner an effective veto. In that case, however, the problem appears to lie not with the landowner but with the Network Rail's attitude. Network Rail said that it would charge residents for the privilege of using the crossing, despite the fact that it had been in use for 167 years. Not even the much maligned Railtrack attempted that.
The problem arises partly because of the chronic underfunding of the railways over so many years, allied to the bizarre way in which the last Conservative Government chose to privatise the railways. Many of the level crossings cause little or no difficulty, but Network Rail seems to have taken the nuclear option of closing the lot. In many cases, the level crossings need investment; they need to be upgraded to bring them into the modern age, but that will cost money—in some cases, probably a great deal of money.
Lembit Öpik: The hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that I have been trying for seven years to get a bridge built to replace three level crossings on the farm of Mal Phillips, a constituent of mine, but even after all the fine words, not a single brick has been put in place to honour that promise.
Mr. Weir: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I shall be making a similar point shortly.
I have to ask whether Network Rail is simply taking the easy way out: shutting the crossings means that it will not have to spend money on them. Given the Strategic Rail Authority's projected level of maintenance on many lines over the next few years, that is certainly a great suspicion.
When the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers) was the Secretary of State for Transport, I recall that his hon. Friends cheered when he announced the demise of Railtrack and that he was going to bring the rail infrastructure back into public ownership. He was not quite so popular later, when he sheepishly announced the compensation. I am sure the Minister will point out that Network Rail is an arm's-length company, but the Government are the only shareholder in that company, so it is effectively under their control. Why then, I ask the Minister, does his Department seem unable to exercise any control over its actions?
If money is not the reason for Network Rail's policy, what is the reason? Network Rail told me—again, I return to the Minister's intervention—that under the
256WH
Arbroath and Forfar Railway Act 1836, which governed the original construction of the railway, the only authorised user was a local farmer. I pointed out to Network Rail that it was blindingly obvious that the main part of East Haven village was built after 1836, and that the only buildings of that age were a couple of fishermen's cottages. Most of the other houses are of Victorian design, with a few more modern ones. That raises the important point, which Network Rail has chosen to ignore, that access over the crossing must have been used with the knowledge or concurrence of its previous owners, particularly British Rail and Railtrack. In the 1980s, there was an agreement involving the rail company whereby new gates and a cattle grid were installed, so the rail company must have known 20 years ago that the level crossing was regularly being used. Anyone who has visited East Haven can see that it has been used for a very long time indeed. Why then did Network Rail decide that it could not be used?
I also took the matter up with the Minister's Department, but the response basically reiterated Network Rail's position. When challenged, Network Rail stated that there cannot be a right of access over the railway. The Minister may know that under Scots law, if an access is used for more than 20 years, a prescriptive right of access arises, irrespective of whether there is a legal right in any document. I do not know if the law is the same in England.
I did some research with the assistance of the House of Commons Library. Again, it appears that Network Rail's assertion does not hold water. I am told that section 57 of the British Transport Commission Act 1949 states that no prescriptive right can be acquired over a footpath on railway land that forms an access to a station or other specific railway premises mentioned in the section. Level crossings are not mentioned in that section. As the crossing is in farmland in the countryside, it seems that there is nothing to prevent a right of prescription arising over that part of the railway and the adjoining land. As the crossing at East Haven has been used by generations of villagers since 1836, they could have established such a right by prescription. The difficulty of establishing that right, as with all such rights, is that they would have to resort to an expensive and lengthy court action.
I ask the Minister why Network Rail, which is publicly funded, should be able to ride roughshod over the local community, who would have great difficulty in matching the deep pockets—our taxpayers' pockets—that would fund Network Rail in such a court action. It may well be that the unfortunate matter will result in court action because of Network Rail's attitude. Having said that, I must say that talks have been attempted over the months, to no avail as yet, to try to reach an accommodation.
I was interested to read in Scottish newspaper reports at the end of August that the Secretary of State for Transport—a Scottish MP—was to become involved, but that does not seem to have pushed matters forward to any extent. Network Rail had asked residents of the village of East Haven to fill in forms. Many of them did so, showing the access that they required. Network Rail's response was:
"It would appear from an initial review that the proposed levels of use are such that we could not accommodate special arrangements for access."

257WH
In one case, a resident requested permission to continue to use the crossing to take his caravan across the railway. That was refused by Network Rail, although that crossing had been made for many years, and we should take note of the Network Rail letter, which suggested that residents with caravans consider alternative arrangements, including the possibility of siting elsewhere. It was not clear whether that meant their caravans or homes, but either way Network Rail was unwilling to accede to a reasonable demand, even though there had been no incident involving the caravan during all the years that the crossing had been made.
We still do not have an answer to the question, "Why now?" The obvious answer, which I am sure the Minister will give, is one of safety, and Network Rail has stated that it is acting on safety grounds. No one wants to take a cavalier attitude to safety, but Network Rail has been cagey about the exact safety implications. I contacted the Health and Safety Executive to ask about any incidents on the level crossing, as Network Rail was being less than specific. The HSE's response reiterated much of what Network Rail had already stated, but then said that none of the alleged incidents were required to be notified to it. In effect, the only information it had was presented by Network Rail. It seemed that we were going round in circles.
Eventually, in a letter to the East Haven residents association in September—many months after the matter arose—the HSE listed incidents going back five years, all of them of a minor nature and some hotly disputed by the residents. In fact, the only recent incident on the stretch of line going through my constituency and into Dundee was at Broughty Ferry, where there was an alleged near miss on an automatic level crossing—not what we are discussing today.
Network Rail said to me in a letter:
"We have a statutory requirement to implement reasonable measures to prevent unauthorized use of level crossings. We have a corporate responsibility to fulfil this statutory requirement. Failing to do so would leave Network Rail potentially open to enforcement procedures and in the event of any incident potential prosecution."
In other words, Network Rail is protecting its back in case there is an incident in the future. It is interesting that neither British Rail nor Railtrack considered it necessary to take such action.
The crux of the matter is that Network Rail is concerned that it could be found liable if there was an accident on the crossing. That brings me back to my earlier point about investment and costs and the point made by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), who is no longer present. As I said, everyone wants a safe railway, but if safety is the only reason for pushing ahead, why is Network Rail not doing the same in England? Do the same safety rules not apply, or are the land access laws different?
As I said at the outset, I have tended to concentrate on the situation at East Haven because I am most familiar with it. My constituents are angry and upset at the actions of Network Rail. The advice that I received from the Minister that the local authority might have
258WH
some funding that could be used to provide an alternative way over the railway is a non-starter, as anyone who is aware of the constraints on local authority finance would know.
That brings me back to the question of the original privatisation. Network Rail, as far as anyone is responsible for it, is a reserved matter, so the Scottish Parliament and Executive have no control over it or any of its actions. Yet when it acts in such a cavalier manner over the level crossings, they or Scottish local authorities are expected to come up with the funds to clear up the mess and consider alternatives to existing level crossings, sometimes at great expense. That is unacceptable. We are talking about traditional crossings that have existed for many years; if there is a genuine safety issue, it is one for Network Rail to deal with by upgrading and improving the crossings, not by taking away access rights.
As I said, the problem is appearing all over Scotland. I am sure that the Minister will tell me that Network Rail is an arm's-length company and that we are debating operational matters solely for it, but all over Scotland rights are being threatened by a company that is seen as under Government control. Action is required. Compromise may be possible for many of the crossings, and for others funding for alternatives is required and should come from central Government.
5.14 pm
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Dr. Kim Howells): I congratulate the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) on securing the debate. He raises an issue that is of considerable concern to some of his constituents and that has attracted debate throughout Scotland. I hope that I will be able to respond to some of his points, if not all of them.
Before I deal with that issue, I want to make some general points about Network Rail and its objectives, responsibilities and priorities, as it has a fundamental part to play in this discussion. I am only sorry that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) disappeared after making a statement about a bridge for which he says he has waited seven years. We were blessed by another of his cameo appearances. He comes and goes like a bit-part actor in an amateur production in which, as usual, the theme is how the Government should spend more money and how the Liberals cannot possibly say how that money will be raised in the first place.
The hon. Member for Angus spoke about the Government's reluctance to spend money on the railways. We are, however, spending record amounts—billions of pounds—on railways, which I am sure he knows. Probably the largest single tranche of money ever spent on the railways in this country is being spent on upgrading the west coast main line, which will greatly benefit Scotland when it is finished. I was interested in why so many unmanned level crossings lacked adequate technology to guarantee safety and security. The costs involved are huge. I discovered that it costs £80,000 to install a phone at a level crossing, and upwards of £1 million to install flashing lights. These are huge sums.
5.17 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
5.24 pm
On resuming
Dr. Howells: As I am sure the hon. Member for Angus is aware, Network Rail took over responsibility for the operation, maintenance and renewal of Britain's rail infrastructure in October last year, in the wake of Railtrack's entry into administration. Network Rail is a private, not-for-dividend company and is responsible to its membership: more than 100 organisations and individuals, representing railway industry stakeholders and the wider public. Level crossings are a serious concern for the company. In 2002–03, there were 27 train incidents at crossings, and 13 members of the public were killed: two of them were vehicle occupants and 11 were pedestrians.
I understand—and the hon. Gentleman, if my memory serves me, confirmed—that there are around 600 private level crossings in Scotland. Generally, they were established by 19th-century legislation authorising railway construction. Access to the crossings is normally restricted to authorised users, often farmers and landowners, and not granted to the general public. In carrying out a review of the use of the crossings, Network Rail has become aware that in a minority of cases there has been unauthorised use by members of the public. As a result, it has taken steps to restrict access: for example, securing crossings with lockable gates and ensuring that keys are issued only to authorised users.
The company has a legal duty to prevent unauthorised access to the operational railway under the Railway Safety (Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 1997. I would not wish to criticise the company for carrying out that duty, although the hon. Gentleman has given instances where, it seems, it could have consulted more rigorously. Nevertheless, safety on level crossings is an important issue. The Health and Safety Executive firmly supports the line that Network Rail is taking, particularly on unauthorised access to vehicles. Level crossings are potentially one of the most dangerous features of railway operation, as the incident near Evesham earlier this year illustrated all too clearly.
Network Rail has informed me that it has consulted Historic Scotland, VisitScotland, the National Farmers Union and the British Transport police on the measures that it is taking. Its policy of restricting the use of private level crossings in Scotland has attracted public criticism from ramblers groups and local residents who have been using the crossings for many years. In recent months, my Department has received representations calling for the Government to intervene, among them a letter from the hon. Gentleman. Representations have been made to the effect that in some circumstances, where access is available only on foot and where trains run relatively slowly and infrequently, the safety risks are relatively low and that restricting the use of the crossing is disproportionate.
I accept that Network Rail's actions may cause inconvenience to local residents and ramblers who may have become accustomed to using particular crossings, albeit that those were never intended for public use. I also accept that Network Rail's predecessors may have been less than diligent, as the hon. Gentleman reminded us, about enforcing those restrictions on the use of the crossings. However, I would be very reluctant to
260WH
intervene on operational decisions made by Network Rail that are driven by safety considerations. At the end of the day, if there is no public right of way across a crossing, unauthorised users are trespassing, knowingly or unknowingly.
I would like to put the matter into context. According to Network Rail, its actions have proved contentious in only a relatively small number of cases. Network Rail could not close a private crossing without the agreement of the authorised crossing user. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is aware of that, but it is a fact.
Mr. Weir: I appreciate what the Minister is saying, but at East Haven, irrespective of the original intended use of the level crossing, the crossing is a main access into the village. Given that the issue has developed over more than 150 years, does he consider that Network Rail has a duty in such circumstances to make an alternative access if it considers that a genuine safety issue is involved?
Dr. Howells: I can understand the hon. Gentleman's dilemma. I have his "Weir@Westminster" leaflet, which he distributes throughout his constituency. It contains a very fetching picture of him stretching his arm up to full length underneath a very low bridge. The notice on the bridge states:
"Low bridge headroom 2.2 metres".
The answer would be for Angus council to build a more suitable access for the people who live in the village. If it considers that it cannot do that, the hon. Gentleman has pursued the right option. He has asked whether there might be a way to reach a better solution, perhaps using the existing private level crossing.
The problem to which the hon. Gentleman did not refer is that the crossing is one that crosses the main Dundee to Aberdeen line. More than 80 trains pass over it each day at speeds of between 60 and 100 mph. I have been informed that there have been two recorded near misses on the crossing and 11 recorded incidents of misuse. I have tried to dig into the matter to find out what the incidents consisted of, and I understand that one involved a minibus.
Mr. Weir: That is a disputed incident.
Dr. Howells: The hon. Gentleman said that the incident was disputed. However, if the minibus driver had not used the telephone to alert the signalman to the fact that he was about to cross the railway line, it would have become a serious problem. Trains travelling at 60 to 100 mph take a long time to stop. At speeds of 100 mph, it takes three quarters of a mile for a train to stop.
Let us consider the situation in which a person thinks that he can see well into the distance and decides that it is safe to cross the line. Well, that has happened on too many occasions. The number of casualties on level crossings remains high because people disobey and abuse the rules. I am not saying that that has happened on the level crossing under discussion, but the primary duty of the hon. Gentleman to his constituents on whose behalf he introduced the debate must be to ensure that they stay alive. The safety of people on level crossings is extremely important.
Mr. Weir: With respect to the Minister, I am not disputing that fact. However, whatever he says about

261WH
the safety of the level crossing, I reiterate that it is an essential access into the village. The cost of a new road being built under the railway would be astronomical. It would involve heavy engineering works and disrupt the railway even more. Such costs could not be borne by any local authority. We are not talking here about a few ramblers going over a crossing—there are differences with all these crossings, and I accept that. We are talking about a main access into the village. That is the important difference.
Dr. Howells: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is worried about the access to the village. I am simply reiterating that the present access across the railway line is not safe. It might have been used for many years. It
262WH
might be that Network Rail could have consulted local people better about what it intended to do. Nevertheless, Network Rail has a duty to ensure that people stay alive on its property. Trains are very dangerous vehicles when they travel at these kinds of speed. They cannot stop very quickly. I should have thought the hon. Gentleman would be very concerned about that. He argued that it would cost Angus council a lot to deepen the tunnel access under the railway or to construct a new road, yet he was keen to tell the Government that we should spend lots more money on the railways as if that money fell from heaven. Well, it does not.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes to Six o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Cement Kilns
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what controls exist over the(a) level and (b) toxicity of emissions from cement kilns used for co-incineration; what chemical analysis of the (i) product and (ii) dust generated is carried out; and how these controls compare in respect of maximum emission levels with standard incinerators. [138575]

  Mr. Morley
  Cement kilns are regulated by the Environment Agency under the Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000 (the PPC Regulations). The PPC Regulations control industrial pollution through a system of permits, and require that operators use the best available techniques ("BAT") to control pollution from their activities. In determining applications for PPC permits, the Environment Agency considers the level and toxicity of emissions and sets permit conditions to ensure a high level of protection to the environment (inclusive of human health) as a whole.

  The analysis of the final cement product is outside the remit of the Environment Agency. Dust generated from the process is collected in abatement equipment and then discarded from the process. Such material is classified as a waste and its generation and subsequent management are regulated under PPC at the installation, and the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994 once the dust is discarded from the installation. Under certain circumstances the alkalinity levels in this type of waste may be sufficient for it to be given the technical designation of "hazardous" waste. The analysis required would depend on whether the material is consigned for recovery, landfill or any other treatment for disposal.

  The maximum emission levels specified for installations manufacturing cement or incinerating waste are based on what the Environment Agency considers to be BAT for each individual installation, but also take into consideration local factors and other relevant statutory requirements. As the technologies for cement manufacture and waste incineration are different, the maximum emission limits for the principal emissions (oxides of nitrogen, sulphur dioxide, particulates etc.) are not directly comparable.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what controls exist over the nature of fuels used in cement kilns where co-incineration takes place. [138576]

  Mr. Morley
  Cement kilns that co-incinerate waste are regulated by the Environment Agency under the Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales)716W
  Regulations 2000 ("the PPC Regulations"). The operator is required to comply with the 1989 Municipal Waste Incineration Directives (89/429/EEC and 89/369/ EEC), the 1994 Hazardous Waste Incineration Directive (94/67/EC) and from 28 December 2005 the Waste incineration Directive (2000/76/EC).

  The Environment Agency is the regulator for such cement kilns. Permits issued under the PPC Regulations contain permit conditions which control the type and nature of the fuel to be used, and establish the operating conditions under which that fuel could be used.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the types of(a) fuels and (b) raw materials used since 1 January in the production of cement at Rugby Cement Works, Rugby. [138579]

  Mr. Morley
  Since 1 January 2003 to date the cement works in Rugby has used as fuel: coal, fuel oil (for site vehicles) and gas oil (as start up fuel); and as raw materials: chalk, clay, grinding aids and air entrainers, gypsum, iron oxide source, limestone filler, lubricating oils and other maintenance fluids and pulverised fuel ash.

  Flooding (Medmenham and Marlow)
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 17 September 2003,Official Report, columns 776–77W, on flooding, what progress has been made with regard to pre-feasibility studies to identify options for the alleviation of flooding in Medmenham and Marlow. [138467]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 13 November 2003]I understand that the Environment Agency's study of options for reducing flood risk in Medmenham and related areas will be concluded by the end of November. The agency is planning to present the findings to local flood action groups and councils in December and January. I also understand that a report on the agency's study of options for Firview Close, Marlow is expected by the end of November. In both cases the conclusion of studies is a month later than expected previously because the agency's consultants have been looking at further possible options.

  I understand that the agency's consultants have completed a pre-feasibility investigation into options for the Pound Lane area, Marlow, and that the indications are that a scheme to construct a bund at the rear of Pound Lane to reduce the impact of overland flooding may be justifiable. Further investigations into groundwater problems would be required at feasibility stage.

  GM Crops
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what recent meetings she has had with her EU counterparts at which plans to change the procedure for approval of GM(a) foods and (b) seeds within the EU were discussed; [138218]
  717W
  (2) what recent meetings she has had with her EU counterparts to discuss regulation of GM crops; and if she will make a statement. [138219]

  Mr. Morley
  Ministers from the Department have regular discussions with their EU counterparts on issues relating to genetically modified crops, seeds and foods. The issue has, in particular, featured on the agenda for several recent meetings of Councils of Agriculture and Environment Ministers.

  For instance, at the Environment Council in July 2003 EU Ministers agreed to two new EC Regulations. One Regulation elaborates and extends existing rules on traceability and labelling of any GM product. The other Regulation sets up a more centralised and specific regime for the authorisation and labelling of GM food and animal feed, focused on the new European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). It introduces, for the first time, specific rules on GM animal feed and requires the safety aspects of any GMO intended for use in both foods and feed to be considered together.

  At a meeting of the Agriculture Council in September 2003 there was a discussion on the European Commission's guidelines on the co-existence of GM and non-GM crops. Final EU decisions on pending applications for consent to grow GM crops are not expected until next year.

  EU discussions on the setting of thresholds for adventitious presence of approved GMOs in non-GM seeds are currently being conducted at official level.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the effects she estimates the adoption of genetically modified crops in the UK would have on(a) the cost of farming and (b) profits for farmers. [138807]

  Mr. Morley
  As part of the GM dialogue process the Government have sponsored the Strategy Unit to carry out a study of the costs and benefits of GM crops, They published their report on 11 July. Comments were invited on the report and a summary of these will be published later this year.

  The main conclusions of the report were that existing GM crops could offer some cost and convenience advantages to UK farmers. However, any economic benefit to the UK is likely to be limited in the short term as only a narrow range of existing crops are currently suited to UK conditions and weak consumer demand is likely to limit take-up. Looking to the longer term, future developments in GM crops have the potential to offer more wide ranging benefits to farmers and consumers.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent evidence there is on the impact of the effect of herbicide use on GM maize, with particular reference to levels of herbicide use; and what assessment has been made of that evidence. [139019]

  Mr. Morley
  The recently published results of the farm-scale evaluations represent the largest study ever made of the impact of herbicide use on GM maize. A copy of the results have been placed in the Library.
  718W
  The results of the farm-scale evaluations, and the results of other published work, are currently being considered by the Government's statutory advisers on GM crop releases—The Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE). Their advice is expected in December or January.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has held with the Royal Society in respect of herbicide regimes used within the farm-scale evaluations. [139020]

  Mr. Morley
  Ministers from the Department have held no discussions with the Royal Society regarding herbicide regimes in the farm-scale evaluations.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether decisions will be made by her Department in respect of applications to grow GM crops in the UK before the final results of the farm scale trials are published. [139154]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 17 November 2003]The final results for three of the four GM crops tested in the farm scale evaluations (beet, forage maize and spring-sown oilseed rape) were published in October 2003. The results for the other GM crop (autumn-sown oilseed rape) will be published next year. Our statutory expert advisers on GMO releases—the Advisory Committee on Release into the Environment (ACRE)—are considering the results for the first three crops and we expect their advice in December or January.

  Decisions on whether or not any particular GM crop should be authorised for commercial use in the EU are subject to collective agreement by all EU member states. It is not possible to say precisely when these EU decisions will be taken, but we do not expect any decisions on current applications to cultivate GM crops until well into next year.

  There are currently 21 applications for proposed commercial GM products being processed across the EU, 12 of which include cultivation of GM crops (no such application has been made in the UK). Of the 12 applications for cultivation, 10 have not yet completed their initial assessment by the member states in which the applications were made; the other two have received favourable initial assessments, and have been forwarded for scrutiny and comment to the European Commission and all other member states. Neither is a GM crop involved in the farm scale evaluations and in both cases the UK has objected to the applications on the grounds that the applicants have not yet supplied sufficient information for us to make an adequate risk assessment of the likely effects of the GM crops in question on the environment.

  The GM forage maize in the farm scale evaluation trials (Bayer T25) already has a consent under EU GM safety legislation for commercial cultivation throughout Europe. This was granted in 1998. Based on the FSE results, the UK will reach a view on whether this consent should be maintained, altered or revoked. Other member states will also need to consider this.

  Landfill
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps are being taken to ensure that UK companies are informed of measures required to comply with the European Landfill Directive. [137541]

  Mr. Morley
  Since the Landfill Directive was agreed by the Council of Ministers in April 1999, the Government have carried out four separate consultation exercises to ensure that all the issues were fully aired. Also, a number of stakeholders groups that include representatives of UK industry, such as the Hazardous Waste Forum and the Landfill Directive Implementation Group, have discussed different aspects of the Directive. For example, the Hazardous Waste Forum is developing an action plan that includes a commitment to a communication strategy to raise awareness of industry to forthcoming legislative changes on hazardous waste.

  Currently, two further consultation exercises are being carried out; one dealing with the Directive targets to reduce the amount of biodegradable municipal waste going to landfill and the other covering the implementation of the waste acceptance criteria requirements that were added to the Directive by Council Decision 2003/33 of 13 December 2002.

  Marine Consents and Environment Unit
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) which criteria have been established by the Marine Consents and Environment Unit for time periods for the issue of licences; and what percentage of closures have been achieved within the time period in each of the last five years; [138554]

  (2) how many licences have been issued by the Marine Consents and Environment Unit in each of the last five years; how many were refused; and what the average time taken was for (a) consultation and (b) approval of the licences. [138556]

  Mr. Morley
  The Marine Consents and Environment Unit (MCEU) is a joint-departmental unit that was set up in April 2001 by my Department and the Department for Transport. Its role is to administer the marine works consents for which each Department has responsibility under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 (FEPA), the Coast Protection Act 1949, the Telecommunications Act 1984 and certain other local legislation. The unit also processes licence applications under FEPA in waters for which the National Assembly for Wales is the licensing authority.

  The unit's published guidance notes and website (http://www.mceu.gov.uk) make clear that a period of at least 10 weeks is normally required to process a straightforward application but that larger schemes (such as offshore windfarms and large port developments) and those in sensitive marine areas may take substantially longer. Much of this time is taken up by the consultation process with a range of outside bodies, which are normally given six weeks to respond.

  The numbers of FEPA licences issued by the MCEU in each 12 month period since the unit was established is as follows.
  720W

  Year (1 April-31 March)

  Number of FEPA licences issued(including renewals and variations)

  2001–02 (with effect from 1 April)

  523

  2002–03

  522

  2003–04 (to 13 November)

  360 (a further 101 applications being processed)

  Since the MCEU was established 10 FEPA licences have been refused. However, in a number of cases, licences have only been issued where changes or restrictions to the original application have been agreed so as to mitigate adverse environmental impact or interference to other users of the sea.

  The average time taken by MCEU to determine a FEPA licence (excluding licence variations) has been 12.5 weeks; 56 per cent. of applications have been processed within 10 weeks rising to 75 per cent. within 14 weeks. Where assessment of an application has taken longer, a licence will often have been processed so as to meet the requested start date for the consent.

  Full equivalent data in respect of Coast Protection and Telecommunications Act consents are not readily available. However, 162 such consents have been issued by MCEU since July 2002 with an estimated further 150 consents granted by the unit up to end June 2002.

  The unit has recently introduced the facility to make applications on-line and further improvements to streamline the processing of applications–such as electronic consultation–is under consideration.

  Parrett Catchment Project
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what fee is paid to the Chairman of the Parrett Catchment project. [138950]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave on 13 February 2003,Official Report, column 884W and 3 July 2003, Official Report, column 117W, in which I explained that the Parrett Catchment Project is an independent stakeholder forum. The Parrett Catchment Project is not required to make any declaration to this Department regarding the appointment or remuneration of its officers. The Parrett Catchment Project is not funded by Defra, and we have no knowledge of any fees paid to the current chairman.

  Performance Monitoring
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the performance targets that(a) her Department and (b) its agencies and non-departmental public bodies are required to meet; and if she will specify for each target (i) who sets it and (ii) who monitors achievement against it. [137959]

  Alun Michael
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) Key performance targets for Defra 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). 2.3 Defra's SR2002 Public Service Agreement targets were decided upon following a process of consultation and negotiation

  721W
  involving Ministers, Defra's management board, and all business areas. Final decisions on the selection and number of targets were agreed with HM Treasury. The process observed the need to maintain a degree of continuity between previous Public Service Agreements and departmental priorities.

  The Department monitors progress towards achieving all its outstanding Public Service Agreement targets along with HM Treasury and the Prime Minister's Delivery Unit and progress is reported regularly. We provide a full outturn against all of the Department's Public Service Agreement targets in our departmental Report. The most recent was published in May 2003 (Cm 5919). We also provide an outturn of progress in our Autumn Performance Report. The next Report is due to be published in November 2003.

  (b) A full list of the Department's NDPBs and Executive Agencies can be found in our departmental Report (Cm 5919).

  Where targets have been set for these, details can be found in each Executive Agency's or NDPB's business plan and/or annual report. Details of how to access the websites of the organisations concerned can be found in Annex C of the departmental Report. The Department monitors achievement against appropriate targets, through, amongst other things, meetings between the Secretary of State, the relevant Minister, Permanent Secretary and/or the Chief Executive.

  Primates
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many primates were imported for research into each member state of the European Union in 2002. [138878]

  Mr. Morley
  Our records show that 2,068 primates were imported into the UK from outside the EU for medical/research purposes in 2002.

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

  Printer Cartridges
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has undertaken of the environmental impact of refilling and reusing printer cartridges. [139146]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government have not undertaken an assessment on the environmental impact of refilling and reusing printer cartridges. However, industry figures suggest that the UK imports 10 million toner and 30 million inkjet cartridges each year, which produce about 20,000 tonnes of waste at the end of their life, industry estimates that, at present, some 30–40 per cent., equivalent to 6–8,000 tonnes of printer cartridges are diverted from landfill for reuse and recycling.

  Waste Incineration
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what reports she has received on the release of dioxins caused by the incineration of waste. [138821]
  722W
  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency collates information on releases of dioxins from waste incinerators and places it in its "Pollution Inventory" which is available through the environment pages of its web site, www.environment-agency.gov.uk.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of the original energy output is typically produced by the incineration of waste. [138822]

  Mr. Morley
  According to a draft version of "Energy From Waste—A Good Practice Guide" to be published by the Chartered Institute of Wastes Management later this month, a typical energy from waste plant generates electricity from waste with an efficiency of around 22–25 per cent. However if district heating/combined heat and power systems are incorporated into the design of plant energy generation, efficiencies of up to 85 per cent. are possible.

  Home Composting
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research she has commissioned on the impact on human health of home composting. [139457]

  Mr. Morley
  No research has been commissioned by the Department on the impact on human health of home composting. However, Defra is developing a new three-year waste research strategy, in direct response to the Strategy Unit Report `Waste not, Want not', in which new initiatives examining environmental and health-related impacts of wastes will be considered in consultation with the Environment Agency.

  Recent research on behalf of the Environment Agency has suggested that emissions from different forms of home composting systems are, as might be expected, low and difficult to monitor.

  Waste (Definition)
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the definition of waste, pursuant to recent judgments by the European Court of Justice. [139459]

  Mr. Morley
  The definition of waste in force in the United Kingdom is the definition in Article 1(a) of the Waste Framework Directive (as amended). It provides that waste means,
  & any substance or object which the holder discards or intends or is required to discard."
  Whether or not a substance is discarded as waste is a matter which must be determined on the facts of the case and the interpretation of the law is a matter for the Courts. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has issued several judgments on the interpretation of the definition of waste and the meaning of "discard". ECJ judgments are binding on member states and their "competent authorities".

  The Government proposes, in consultation with the Environment Agency, to review in the light of the ECJ's judgments the guidance on the interpretation of the definition of waste originally provided in DOE Circular 11/94. But it is not feasible for any revised guidance which the Government issues to determine

  723W
  whether any particular substance is in any particular circumstances discarded as waste. It will be feasible only for any revised guidance to advise on the factors which the ECJ has determined should be taken into account in reaching a decision.

TREASURY

  Wood Panel Industry
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people he estimates are employed in the wood panel industry. [137095]

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

  Letter from Colin Mowl to Gregory Barker dated 18 November 2003

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about people employed in the wood panel industry. I am replying in his absence. [137095]

  According to the latest available figures from the Annual Business Inquiry, in December 2001 there were 6700 employees in industries whose primary economic activity is "The manufacture of veneer sheets; manufacture of plywood, laminboard, particle board, fibre board and other panels and boards".

  Consumer Debt
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the evidence produced by research he has commissioned on the impact of a rise in interest rates on consumer debt. [139428]

  Ruth Kelly
  HM Treasury published evidence on the link between interest rates and consumer behaviour in June 2003 as part of the EMU Five Tests Assessment, in the supporting studies on 'EMU and the Monetary Transmission Mechanism' and 'Housing, Consumption and EMU'.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will reply to the letter of 1 August from the hon. Member for Aylesbury, on behalf of Mr. M.G. Moore of Great Missenden, about professional indemnity assurance for independent financial advisers. [139302]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have done so.

  Deep Vein Thrombosis
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people died from deep vein thrombosis in the last 12 months; and in how many of these cases long haul air travel was found to be a contributory factor. [138980]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.
  724W
  Letter from Len Cook to Mrs. Iris Robinson, dated 18 November 2003

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking how many people died from deep vein thrombosis in the last 12 months; and in how many of these cases long haul air travel was found to be a contributory factor.

  Virtually all deaths from deep vein thrombosis occur as a result of a pulmonary embolism, and most pulmonary embolisms arise from deep vein thrombosis in the leg. However, the precise description of this sequence of events leading to death (as provided on the death certificate) affects whether the death is coded as pulmonary embolism or thrombosis. Therefore, a figure combining the two causes is presented in the table below to give a complete and consistent picture over time.

  It is not possible to state if long haul air travel was a contributory factor in deaths from deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism as this information is not routinely entered on the death certificate. The latest available data are for the calendar year 2002. The total number of deaths certified as due to deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism in England and Wales in 2002 are therefore given in the table. I am supplying data for the last five years for
  comparison purposes.

  Number of deaths from pulmonary embolism and deep vein
  thrombosis,1 persons, England and Wales, 1998–2002 2

  Calendar year

  Number of deaths

  1998

  6,992

  1999

  6,877

  2000

  7,233

  2001

  7,207

  2002

  7,009

  1 The cause of death was defined using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes 415.1, 451.1, 451.2, 451.9 and 453.9 for the years 1997 to 2000, and, for the year 2001, the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revisions (ICD-10) codes 126, 180.1, 180.2, 180.3, 180.9 and 182.9.

  2 Figures are for deaths occurring in each calendar year.

  Defence Dental Agency
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reasons the Defence Dental Agency's Account Direction for financial year 1997–98 was withdrawn. [139685]

  Ruth Kelly
  An accounts direction for the Defence Dental Agency (DDA) for 1997–98 was issued in March 1996 on the understanding that satisfactory accounting systems would be in place for that financial year. It was withdrawn in January 1999 when it became apparent that, because of difficulties with the stock recording systems on which DDA and a number of agencies within MOD relied, DDA would be unable to prepare accounts for 1997–98 which would have received an unqualified audit opinion from the Comptroller and Auditor General. At that time, the policy was not to issue accounts directions if there was a probability that the auditors would be unable to give an unqualified opinion–this policy is no longer applied.

  Import Tariffs (Israel)
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list United Kingdom companies which have(a) made representations to and (b) signalled their intention to take action against the (i) British Government and (ii) European Union for imposing tariffs on goods entering the United Kingdom, marked as made in Israel, which originated in the Occupied Territories. [138937]
  725W
  John Healey
  Two UK companies have requested a formal review under the Customs and Excise Appeals procedure of the duty demanded. The identity of the companies cannot be disclosed for reasons of commercial confidentiality: Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information applies in this instance.

  Customs and Excise are not aware of any UK companies making representations to the European Union.

  Industrial and Provident Societies
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to bring about the level playing field in regulations affecting companies and industrial and provident societies, to which he referred in his letter of 31 July to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill. [139392]

  Ruth Kelly
  As was stated in my letter of 31 July on this issue, the Government is keen to see, where appropriate, a level playing field between industrial and provident societies and companies and we are currently examining our options for taking forward this agenda.

  Insurance Brokers
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures are in place to stop the practice of grossing up by insurance brokers in Northern Ireland; and what plans he has to change the appropriate legislation to protect consumers from the grossing up of insurance premium commissions. [138900]

  Ruth Kelly
  Grossing up is a serious abuse of the market. The Government is giving the Financial Services Authority (FSA) responsibility for regulating general insurance as from 14 January 2004. The FSA is currently consulting on its rules in CP187. The FSA considers there is more opportunity for such market abuse in the commercial rather than the retail market, and therefore does not propose to introduce commission disclosure for retail customers. But, for commercial customers, it will be requiring intermediaries to disclose commission earned by them and any affiliated intermediaries if requested to do so by a commercial customer.

  International Finance Facility
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he estimates agreement will be reached on the International Finance Facility; and when he estimates it will have funds in it. [138906]

  John Healey
  Only by pooling the additional resources pledged as part of the Monterrey Consensus, and leveraging these through an International Finance Facility designed to deliver the additional US $on a year needed to meet the Millennium Development Goals, can the international community meet the challenge of halving poverty by 2015. That is why the Government continues to make the case for the Facility with all our international partners. Once agreement by donor countries has been reached the facility could start to deliver the additional aid very quickly.
  726W
  The Facility received wide support from other countries at the Annual Meetings of the World Bank and IMF in September. The Bank and Fund have been mandated to do further work on financing for development options, including the International Finance Facility, reporting back at the Spring and Annual Meetings in 2004.

  The Meetings also agreed that developing and emerging market countries should be consulted. This process will culminate in a Ministerial conference on Financing for Development in Spring 2004, chaired by the French Government.

  The UK government also continues to build the support in civil society necessary to make the initiative a reality. In February the Treasury will be hosting a conference bringing together church leaders, senior political figures, NGOs and the President of the World Bank to discuss aid and trade.

  Large Scale Voluntary Transfer
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost to public funds was of large scale voluntary transfer for each of the last 10 years. [139429]

  Keith Hill
  Where a large scale voluntary transfer has a positive value there is no additional cost to public funds. Where there is a negative value a dowry may be required. Between 1996 and 2000 the Office provided dowry funding for negative value estate based transfers through the Estates Renewal Challenge Fund. The annual provision was 1996–97. £7.8 million; 1997–98, £132.9 million; 1998–99, £146.3 million, and 1999–2000, ℃201.2 million. It is possible that other Government programmes have provided financial contributions to large scale voluntary transfers however a central record is not maintained. However, the information is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Leases
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) lock-up garages, (b) car parking spaces, (c) advertising hoardings and (d) charity shops were leased in the last year for which figures are available. [135605]

  Ruth Kelly
  I regret that this information is not available.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the UK visits made by ministers in his Department in each of the last five years, broken down by constituency. [136909]

  Ruth Kelly
  The detailed information requested in respect of UK travel by Treasury Ministers is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  All travel is undertaken fully in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code and Travel by Ministers, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Network Rail
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his forecast is of losses on Network Rail for 2003–04. [133664]

  Dr. Howells
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Strategic Rail Authority receives regular financial information from Network Rail as part of the agreement for SRA providing Network Rail with standby credit facilities. The financial information is commercially sensitive. Network Rail's Annual Report and Accounts for 2002–03, the most recently available, showed a loss before tax of £290 million.

  Opinion Polling and Market Research
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much(a) HM Treasury, (b) Customs and Excise and (c) the Inland Revenue spent on (i) opinion polling and (ii) market research in the last financial year; and if he will make a statement. [134230]

  Ruth Kelly
  Expenditure in 2002–03 on external survey research by Customs and Excise was £255,774. Inland Revenue spent £1.6 million on market research (this figure includes: quantitative surveys; qualitative research; media and advertising research; and business-to-business industrial research; public opinion surveys; and desk research). In respect of HM Treasury I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 28 April 2003,Official Report, column 168W.

  Presidential Visit
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the estimated economic cost is of the effect on businesses in London of the forthcoming visit of President Bush. [139409]

  Ruth Kelly
  Policing operations will aim to minimise any such costs.

  Productivity Growth
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the rate of productivity growth in the public sector was on the last year for which figures are available. [133660]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. John Redwood, dated 18 November 2003

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question on productivity growth in the public sector. (133660)

  I refer you to the article "Measuring Government Output and Productivity" which was published in Economic Trends, July 2003. The purpose of this article was to report work in progress at the Office for National Statistics. To illustrate the methods used, it included experimental results that provide an indicative estimate of productivity change for government. The latest year for which these figures were shown was 2001 when productivity change (over the previous year) was shown as – 2 per cent. This estimate should be used in conjunction with the guidance provided in the article.
  728W
  The article is available on the National Statistics website at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/article.asp?id =400

  No estimates have been published covering the whole of the public sector.

  Taxation and Transfer Pricing
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list taxation and transfer pricing cases involving United Kingdom companies which have been(a) decided and (b) entered for decision by the European Court of Justice in each of the last five years; and if he will estimate the net revenue effect in each case. [139466]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No tax cases concerning transfer pricing involving UK companies have been decided or entered for decision by the European Court of Justice in any of the last five years.

  Thalidomide Trust
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the annual cost to the Treasury of allowing income payments from the Thalidomide Trust to thalidomide victims to be tax exempt; and if he will make a statement. [139695]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information requested is not available.

  Treasury Statistics
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether the HM Treasury official involved in the early release of statistics on 24 October had authorised access to those statistics; and if he will make a statement; [138799]

  (2) what the arrangements are for the preparation of briefing materials on statistics to which HM Treasury has pre-release access; and if he will make a statement; [138800]

  (3) if he will list all the people outside the Office for National Statistics who had pre-release access to the retail sales estimates and other market moving statistics; and if he will make a statement; [138801]

  (4) when the provisions for pre-release access to National Statistics releases by HM Treasury (a) Ministers and (b) officials were last changed; and if he will make a statement; [138803]

  (5) if he will list the HM Treasury provisions for prerelease access to National Statistics releases by HM Treasury (a) Ministers and (b) officials. [138804]

  Ruth Kelly
  In line with long-standing practice under this and previous Administrations, Ministers with policy responsibility for the relevant subject matter, and a small number of their officials, are granted limited early access to statistical releases to enable them to respond completely when questions arise at the time of the release of the data. The list of Treasury Ministers and officials who have authorised pre-release access to National Statistics First Releases is available on the Office for National Statistics (ONS) website.
  729W
  In addition the Macroeconomic Statistics Service Level Agreement, drawn up between ONS and HM Treasury in 1998, lists a further small number of individuals at HM Treasury who receive copies of HM Treasury's internal briefing on these statistical releases before the publication of the data. Since 1998, this list has been updated to reflect changes to personnel and staff structures with the overall number of individuals reduced from eight to seven.

  As confirmed by the Treasury at the time, the official from whom the September retail sales data was improperly ascertained had authorised early access to those data.

  As noted in the Treasury's statement of 5 November, the Treasury views this incident extremely seriously and is rigorously examining all its procedures to ensure that any repetition is avoided.

  Website
  John Barrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent assessment he has made of the(a) content and (b) design of his Department's website. [139504]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury has an ongoing programme of user testing for its website. The views of external and internal users are regularly sampled, with the findings feeding into improvements to layout indexing and contents. This development programme also takes account of the accessibility and usability guidelines set out by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) and the Office of the e-Envoy.

TRANSPORT

  A34
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive a progress report from the Highways Agency on its review of the A34; and if he will make a statement. [138865]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Highways Agency's Route Management Strategy of the A34 will report in Summer 2004 and will cover limited measures on the A34 itself. Also, the Government Office for the South East has initiated a scoping study into wider problems and issues along the corridor from Southampton to Bicester. Results of which will be known in the New Year and will inform future decisions.

  Biofuels
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking towards the introduction of(a) bioethanol and (b) biodiesel fuels for road users. [138867]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government introduced a 20pence per litre fuel duty incentive for biodiesel in July 2002, which has already resulted in a big increase in biodiesel sales. A similar duty incentive for bioethanol is due to come into effect in January 2005.

  London Underground
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on safety on the London Underground. [138868]

  Mr. McNulty
  London Underground is one of the safest transport systems in the world. Its safety is the responsibility of London Underground Ltd, which transferred from the Government to the London Mayor on 15 July this year.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the service levels stipulated in the agreement registered by the Government with private sector companies to run the London Underground. [138852]

  Mr. McNulty
  London Underground is run by London Underground Ltd. (LUL), which is owned by Transport for London. LUL's contracts with the private sector infrastructure companies require the latter to meet performance specifications designed to deliver faster, more reliable and more pleasant journeys for passengers.

  Rail Services
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans his Department has for improvements in rail transport in the West Midlands. [138870]

  Mr. McNulty
  A number of improvements have recently taken place. For the future, the Strategic Rail Authority has announced a new approach for planning of the railway network through "Regional Planning Assessments". These will establish key objectives for each region within a long-term context. The West Midlands Regional Planning Assessment is due for publication in Autumn 2004.

  Cycling
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his Department's strategy for(a) increasing cycling journey numbers and (b) reducing cycling injuries and deaths. [138871]

  Mr. McNulty
  Our strategy for encouraging cycling involves improving both cycling infrastructure and promotion. We have assessed provision for cyclists in all English local authorities. We have initiated the Cycling Projects Fund and given over £4 million to local cycling initiatives. The Department is also a major contributor to the cross-departmental Activity Co-ordination Team, which is seeking to raise levels of physical activity across the board. On the safety front, and in addition to encouraging better facilities for cyclists, we are promoting measures which cyclists can take to protect themselves, such as taking cycle training and making themselves conspicuous. We are also improving training and testing for motorists.

  A40
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assessment he has made of(a) traffic flows and (b) congestion on the A40 in Cheltenham since the opening of the new GCHQ building; [138915]
  731W
  (2) what assessment he has made of the effect on traffic flows of recent changes to the A40 Sixways Junction in Charlton Kings, Cheltenham. [138916]

  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. Nigel Jones, dated 18 November 2003

  I have been asked by David Jamieson to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about what assessments have been made on traffic flows and congestion at specific locations on the A40 in Cheltenham.

  The Highways Agency conducted a queue survey at the A40 Sixways Junction in Charlton Kings on Tuesday 4 November 2003. In the morning peak there appears to be little change in the length of queues; the main change is in the way the traffic moves. Since the installation of the new signals, traffic moves through the junction in a more orderly manner.

  No formal assessment of traffic flows has been carried out since the assessment that was made as part of the planning process for the GCHQ building. Not all relocations to the new building are complete therefore it is too soon for a meaningful assessment of the impact of the development to be conducted. GCHQ, Gloucestershire County Council, Cheltenham Borough Council and the Highways Agency are working together to find ways to mitigate the impact of the new GCHQ building.

  A414
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he will take to improve road safety on the A414 from Chelmsford towards the M25. [138857]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The section of the A414 between Chelmsford and the M11/Harlow junction is the responsibility of Essex County Council. Essex County Council have identified the route as having a poor accident record and it is now the subject of a priority route study to determine the main causes and patterns of accidents. Initial analysis has been undertaken and accident remedial measures are being determined for implementation in the next financial year, subject to the availability of funding.

  Altmark Case
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the implications of the Altmark case on(a) ferry services sailing from ports in Scotland, (b) the application of the EU Ports Directive in Scotland and (c) competition between modes of transport by sea, air and rail. [136497]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Financial assistance for ferry services within Scotland is a devolved matter for the Scottish Executive. The Altmark case is very complex and the Scottish Executive and my Department are assessing the potential impact of the judgment on domestic and international maritime services and inter-modal competition.

  The Access to Port Services Directive has not yet been adopted. While its potential application in the UK, including Scotland, has been considered during the negotiating process, it has not been possible, as yet, to make a detailed assessment of the potential impact of the Altmark case on implementation.
  732W

  Road Safety
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the materials used to demarcate the hard shoulder on motorways in alerting drowsy drivers when they cross the hard shoulder; [138939]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the safety systems for demarcating hard shoulders on motorways. [138940]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Raised rib edge markings used to demarcate the hard shoulder have been found to be highly effective in alerting drivers of cars and light vehicles when they stray across the line onto the hard shoulder. They may be less effective in alerting the drivers of larger vehicles.

  Heathrow Airport
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many and what proportion of night flights into Heathrow operated on(a) a westerly and (b) an easterly flightpath (i) in 2001, (ii) in 2002 and (iii) between January and August 2003. [138701]

  Dr. Howells
  The number and proportion of aircraft landing at night between 11:00 p.m. and 7:00a.m. on westerly and easterly flightpaths in each period was:

  Movements westerly

  Proportion westerly (percentage)

  Movements easterly

  Proportion easterly (percentage)

  2001

  16,612

  72

  6,460

  28

  2002

  18,095

  69

  8,129

  31

  January–

  August 2003

  9,373

  64

  5,282

  36

  Nuclear Waste
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what amounts of(a) low level, (b) intermediate-level and (c) high-level nuclear waste have been transported by train in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement. [135172]

  Mr. McNulty
  [holding answer on 29 October 2003]The regulations that ensure the safe transport of radioactive materials do not distinguish on safety grounds between waste and any other radioactive materials. This is because there are no special safety issues pertaining specifically to the transport of waste. There is no regulatory requirement for this department to be notified of waste shipments.

  The National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) carried out studies in 1984 and 1991 examining road and rail transport of radioactive material in the UK for the Department. The latest report identified that around 5000 containers of low-level waste and some 765 irradiated fuel flasks (this material may not have been classified as waste) were transported in 1989. Copies are available in the Libraries of the House.

  A further study has been commissioned from NRPB, which is due for completion at the end of 2004. This will contain a similar analysis of national trends. The report will be lodged in the house library when complete.
  733W
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what reports his Department has received about plans to increase the transport by train of nuclear waste through London; and if he will make a statement. [135173]

  Mr. McNulty
  [holding answer 29 October 2003]In October 2001 the Greater London Authority (GLA) investigated the transport of irradiated fuel through London. This concluded that there would be no increase in the frequency of transport of spent nuclear fuel through London during the imminent decommissioning of some nuclear reactors in the south east. The Department is not convinced that the conclusions of this report present a full and accurate picture of future trends.

  A study has been commissioned from NRPB, which is due for completion at the end of 2004. This will contain an analysis of national trends in the shipment of radioactive material. In particular it will look at trends expected as a result of decommissioning. The report will be lodged in the house Library when complete.

  The Department has offered to collaborate with the GLA by including a specific study of London within the national study. This would provide the information requested.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many trains went through London with(a) low-level, (b) intermediate-level and (c) high-level nuclear waste in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [135174]

  Mr. McNulty
  [holding answer 29 October 2003]The organisation that operates trains transporting irradiated fuel (Direct Rail Services) has stated that shipments through London have averaged three per week on a reasonably constant basis over the past five years.

  A study examining road and rail transport of radioactive material nationally has been commissioned from the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB), which is due for completion at the end of 2004. This will contain an analysis of national trends of numbers and types of shipments. The report will be lodged in the Library of the House when complete.

  In October 2001 the Greater London Authority (GLA) investigated the transport of irradiated fuel through London. In response to this the Department has offered to collaborate with the GLA by including a specific study of London within the national study.

  Pensions (Network Rail)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the decision by Network Rail to close its final salary pension scheme. [139159]

  Mr. McNulty
  Network Rail's decision about its final salary pension arrangements is a matter for Network rail itself and the independent corporate trustee of the Railways Pension Scheme.

  It is our understanding that there is no intention to breach the arrangements put in place to protect staff pensions on privatisation of the industry. The relevant
  734W
  final salary arrangement will still be open to protected rail industry staff who transfer voluntarily to Network Rail.

  Regulatory Proportionality
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how the principle of regulatory proportionality will be incorporated in the proposed amendments to Regulation 32 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulation relating to lightly tinted windows. [138734]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Regulation 32 is not being amended. The regulations are being clarified to verify that the prescribed minimum light transmittance values apply irrespective of whether or not windows have tinted film stuck on them.

  Road Congestion
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what the rates of congestion were on the M54 between Shrewsbury and Telford in each year since 1997; [138355]

  (2) what the rates of congestion were on the A5 road between Shrewsbury and Wrexham in each year since 1997. [138371]

  Mr. McNulty
  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. Paul Marsden, dated 18 November 2003:

  I have been asked by Tony McNulty to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about rates of congestion on the A5 road between Shrewsbury and Telford and Shrewsbury and Wrexham in each year since 1997.

  Established modelling techniques are used by the Department for Transport and the Highways Agency in England to assess existing road congestion and forecast future congestion for specific purposes such as the preparation of road improvements. A consequence of this is a 'stress map' indicating those parts of the motorway and trunk road network that are experiencing peak and off-peak congestion. The latest available version of the map was published in the Ten Year Plan for Transport, a copy of which is available in the House Library, The length of A5 between the Welsh border and Wrexham is the responsibility of the Welsh Assembly.

  Regular measurement of journey times at the level of detail required (by most congestion indicators) has not been carried out in the past, mainly on economic grounds.

  The opening of the Highways Agency's Traffic Control Centre next year will greatly improve our knowledge of traffic conditions and will lead to comprehensive information on journey times and speeds being made generally available to the travelling public.

  School Transport
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with the Department for Education and Skills regarding funding for school transport. [138869]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Secretary of State has had a number of discussions with the Secretary of State for Education in the course of developing our new joint initiative on school travel, which was launched on 17 September.
  735W

  Strategic Rail Authority
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the decision by the Strategic Rail Authority to take over the south-east franchise. [139158]

  Mr. McNulty
  On 26 June 2003, the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) formally notified Connex that its franchise would be terminated by 31 December 2003. This followed Connex's failure to introduce agreed changes to their financial monitoring and reporting arrangements designed to ensure that the substantial public subsidy they had received was being properly used. With Connex's agreement, the franchise was in fact terminated on 9 November 2003 and the service is now being run by the SRA through a subsidiary company, South Eastern Trains. This will continue only until a private sector operator is appointed to run the proposed Integrated Kent Franchise, which is expected to begin in 2005.

  Train Performance
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many meetings he has had with train operating companies to discuss train performance in the last six months. [138866]

  Dr. Howells
  Departmental Ministers meet regularly with train operating companies to discuss performance. Since July 2003, I have visited South West Trains, Midland Mainline and South Central, Virgin, Silverlink, Centro, Central and Wales and Borders.

  Transport Security
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps have been taken since 11 September 2001 to improve security at(a) ports and (b) rail freight terminals. [138356]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department's approach is to manage the risk to the industry arising from the threat of a terrorist attack. The security measures imposed seek to minimise the industries' vulnerabilities while recognising operational realities.

  Following the events of 11 September 2001 the security programmes for all modes of transport were reviewed and some adjustments made. The programmes are kept under review. While it is not our practice to detail the required security measures for obvious reasons, we believe that the core policies and baseline measures and the levels of security required are appropriate.

  In respect of the security at ports, our national regime (which has been in place since 1990) will be augmented next year with the implementation of the recently agreed International Maritime Organisation's (IMO) global maritime security regime.

  For rail freight terminals my Department issued a National Railway Security Programme in July 2001. The review of the programme (which covers the whole of the Great Britain rail network) confirmed that the measures required for domestic rail freight depots are appropriate and proportionate to the threat.
  736W
  International rail freight terminals using the channel tunnel have been subject to more stringent requirements since the opening of the channel tunnel in 1994. International rail freight terminals have protective security measures in place and all rail freight is liable to be searched. Since 11 September 2001 the level of search required has been increased.

  US Naval Ships (Disposal)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the arrangements approved by his Department for the refuelling of tug boats towing vessels from the United States for decommissioning at Hartlepool. [137187]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The passage plan approved by my Department did not specify places or arrangements for refuelling of the relevant tug boats. Such arrangements fell within the responsibility of the towage company. However the plan identified places, including the Azores, where refuelling could be carried out if required.

  Vehicles (Tinted Windows)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his estimate is of how many vehicles which have(a) lightly tinted and (b) heavily tinted windows do not comply with the proposed amendments to Regulation 32 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations. [138736]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A vehicle with windows which has light transmittance values less than the prescribed minima in Regulation 32 is unlawful irrespective of whether it might subjectively be described as having either 'light' or 'heavy' tints. Information on the number of vehicles which do not comply with the regulation is not held.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

  Departmental Expenditure (Official Residences)
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Advocate-General 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. [134681]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my hon. Friend, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.

CABINET OFFICE

  Better Regulation Task Force
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when the Government will respond to the Better Regulation Task Force's report, "Imaginative Thinking for Better Regulation"; and if he will make a statement. [139432]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Government expect to respond to the report before Christmas this year.

  Public Administration
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what action the Cabinet Office is taking to reduce the burden of administration in the public sector. [138847]

  Mr. Alexander
  My Department is working closely with colleagues in other Departments to take forward a programme of measures in relation to this matter.

  This joint work has delivered a significant number of actions that directly benefit front line staff, for example:
  simplifying the Manual of Guidance for police and CPS on the completion of prosecution paperwork;reducing the information schools have to supply when they make applications (e.g. for specialist school status); and scrapping the requirement for GPs to sign passport applications.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what steps have been taken towards improving transparency in the public appointments process. [138848]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Cabinet Office fully supports the Commissioner for Public Appointments Code of Practice, which provides Departments with a clear guide to ensure a fair, open and transparent appointments process.

  Civil Service
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what progress the Civil Service is making in appointing women to senior positions. [138849]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Government are strongly committed to equality of opportunity. My Department has put in place a range of programmes to increase the representation of women in the Senior Civil Service.

  Internally, we are coaching and mentoring women in grades just below the Senior Civil Service. Externally, we are working to raise women's awareness of recruitment and secondment opportunities.

  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what steps are being taken to increase the proportion of ethnic minority staff in the Senior Civil Service. [138851]

  Mr. Alexander
  We are making good progress against our target to have 3.2 per cent. ethnic minority staff in the Senior Civil Service by 2004–05. The current level is 2.8 per cent., compared with 1.6 per cent. in 1998.

  To help achieve this, my Department is responsible for a number of development schemes as well as undertaking outreach work in order to attract talented ethnic minorities to the Civil Service.

  Departmental Floor Space
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what floor space in square metres his Department had use of on(a) 1 May 1997 and (b) 1 November 2003. [138850]
  738W
  Mr. Alexander
  On 1 May 1997, the Cabinet Office had use of 104,077 square metres of floor space, and by 1 November 2003, this figure had reduced to 77,734 square metres.

  Bechtel
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list the contracts for consultancy and other work carried out by Bechtel for agencies responsible to the Office in each year since 1997, stating in each case(a) the nature of the work, (b) the value of the contract and (c) the duration of the contract; and if he will make a statement. [137884]

  Mr. Alexander
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 3 November 2003,Official Report, column 417W. Financial information for former Cabinet Office Agencies prior to 2001 is not available.

  Microsoft (Licensing Fees)
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how much was paid to Microsoft in licensing fees by the Cabinet Office and its agencies in each of the last three years; and how much has been budgeted for(a) 2003–04 and (b) 2004–05. [130670]

  Mr. Alexander
  My Department's accounting systems do not capture comprehensive information on expenditure on specific types of software licences. Expenditure1 on Microsoft licensing fees that can be identified is as follows:

  £

  2000–01

  3,456,829

  2001–02

  392,719

  2002–03

  459,464

  In 2000–01, £3.3 million of expenditure related to the purchase of microsoft licences in connection with the Government Gateway project. The Government Gateway is an IT infrastructure which was developed as part of the strategy for delivering electronic Government. It enables electronic transactions between Government, citizens and businesses in a secure, customer-focused and joined-up way.

  Detailed information on budgets for the purchase of Microsoft software in 2003–04 and 2004–05 is not available.

  1 Figures exclude licences purchased on behalf of the Cabinet Office by IT service providers.

SCOTLAND

  Market Research
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list each item of market and opinion research commissioned since May 1997 by(a) his Department and (b) agencies and non-departmental public bodies for which his Department is responsible; what the purpose of each item was; and whether the results were published. [137006]
  739W
  Mrs. McGuire
  The Scotland Office was established on 1 July 1999. The Department has not incurred any expenditure on market and opinion research.

  Official Properties
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. [134697]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Scotland Office was established on 1 July 1999. The Department does not own any residential properties.

  Work-related Stress
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of work-related stress have been reported in his Department in each of the last three years; how much compensation has been paid to employees; how many work days have been lost due to work-related stress, and at what cost; what procedures have been put in place to reduce work-related stress, and at what cost; and if he will make a statement. [136849]

  Mrs. McGuire
  In 2002, a small number of staff experienced absence through work-related stress. Further details of cases are covered by Exemption 12 (Privacy of an Individual) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent(a) representations and (b) discussions she has had on extending age discrimination legislation to unpaid voluntary workers; and if she will make a statement. [139427]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government have consulted widely on age issues and proposals for legislation in two consultation exercises, most recently in Age Matters this summer.

  Unpaid voluntary work does not fall within the scope of the European Employment Directive. Existing legislation on race, gender and disability already has a common definition of employment and this will be used for age. We have committed to consistency in approach and definition across existing, as well as new areas of equality legislation, wherever practicable.

  Air Travel (Financial Protection)
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will respond to the consultation by the Civil Airports Authority on financial protection for travellers and package holidaymakers. [138454]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  We have asked the Civil Aviation Authority to provide us with copies of the responses they have received to their consultation on Financial Protection for Air Travellers. We will consider these 740W
  responses carefully along with any recommendations that the CAA make to Government as a result of this Consultation.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the kind of experiments animals are used in; what controls are in place to reduce to reduce the unnecessary waste of animals; and what measures are in place to ensure that companies cannot purchase animals for excessively cruel procedures. [136144]

  Caroline Flint
  I have been asked to reply.

  The use of animals in scientific procedures is regulated by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, which is widely viewed as the most rigorous piece of legislation of its type in the world. It offers a high level of protection to animals whilst recognising the need to use animals in medical research, the development of new medicines and scientific testing. It also has sufficient flexibility to allow the latest ideas and technology to be taken into account when deciding whether the use of animals is justified.

  Under Section 5 (3) of the 1986 Act, project licences are only granted for programmes of work that satisfy one or more of the following purposes: the prevention (whether by the testing of any product or otherwise) or the diagnosis or treatment of disease, ill-health or abnormality, or their effects, in man, animals or plants; the assessment, detection, regulation or modification of physiological conditions in man, animals or plants; the protection of the natural environment in the interests of the health or welfare of man or animals; the advancement of knowledge in biological or behavioural sciences; education or training otherwise than in primary or secondary schools; forensic enquiries; the breeding of animals for experimental or other scientific use.

  In determining whether and on what terms to grant a project licence, Section 5(4) of the 1986 Act requires that the likely adverse effects on the animals concerned must be weighed against the benefit likely to accrue as a result of the programmespecified on the application. For the purposes of this cost/benefit assessment, the cost to the animal is considered as the adverse effects of pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm. The benefits must be for humans, animals or the environment and relate to the scientific and/or medical progress likely to result from the programme outlined in the application.

  Under section 5 (5) of the 1986 Act, a project licence shall only be granted if the purpose of the programme to be specified in the licence cannot be achieved satisfactorily by any other reasonably practicable method not entailing the use of animals; and that the regulated procedures to be used are those which use the minimum number of animals, involve animals with the lowest degree of neurophysiological sensitivity, cause the least pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm, and are most likely to produce satisfactory results.

  Under section 10(2A) and Schedule 2A to the 1986 Act, the Secretary of State will not licence any procedures likely to cause severe pain or distress that cannot be alleviated.

  Consumer Credit
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if her Department will initiate discussions with Leeds University Business School about research it has recently conducted on debt collectors. [138594]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  We are currently considering the research prepared by the Credit Management Research Centre at Leeds University Business School on debt collectors.

  We will discuss the findings with the industry at large.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to standardise the cooling off period for consumer credit contracts and agreements. [138595]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Government have no plans at present to standardise existing cooling off periods for consumer credit contracts and agreements.

  Consumer Rights (Energy)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions she has had with Energywatch on measures to help elderly consumers develop a greater understanding of their rights in relation to energy companies. [138674]

  Mr. Timms
  I have discussed with Energywatch some of its proposals to assist vulnerable consumers, including the elderly. Energywatch is committed to making its information and advice services fully accessible to all consumers, particularly vulnerable consumers. It provides information, advice and guidance direct to those consumers in their own communities, helping them be more assertive and confident in dealing with energy companies. Energywatch also works with other agencies to reach elderly and other vulnerable consumers. Its activities in areas such as fuel poverty, debt prevention and management, energy efficiency and promoting access to the competitive market directly benefit elderly consumers, as do its campaigns on mis-selling, erroneous transfers and billing and metering.

  Debt Management Companies
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has for the statutory regulation of debt management companies. [139092]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Companies providing debt management services are required to be licensed under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Under the Act the Chairman of the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) has a statutory duty to ensure applicants for a licence are fit to engage in the activities for which they are licensed.

  In December 2001 the OFT issued guidelines to debt management companies to ensure they deal fairly and openly with consumers—the Debt Management Guidance (December 2001) OFT366. A copy of the guidance can be found in the Libraries of the House.

  The guidance requires that companies offering debt management services should comply with the best practice identified in it. Where the OFT has evidence of practices breaching the guidelines they can take action to refuse or revoke the consumer credit licence, or
  742W
  take such other action as appropriate under other legislation (e.g. Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations etc).

  The Consumer Credit White Paper will set out Government measures for reform of the current licensing system in order to ensure it remains relevant in today's marketplace, enables consumers to make informed decisions through increasing transparency, and provides suitable enforcement measures to allow the OFT to deal with those companies who act in a manner inconsistent with the best practice laid out in the Act and Guidance.

  Home Accident Surveillance System
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to the answer of 11 September,Official Report, column 392W, to the hon. Members for Cunninghame, South and for Gateshead East and Washington, West, on the Home Accident Surveillance System, if she will place copies of the representations in the Library; and if she will publish the information from the Home Accident Surveillance System for 2000 to 2002. [138659]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  I will not place copies of the representations in the Libraries of the House. I have received these on a confidential basis and I do not have permission from any of the individuals or organisations who sent them to make them public.

  I plan to publish the back data from 2000 to 2002 in December.

  India
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the UK trade and investment relationship with India. [138201]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The bilateral trade and investment relationship between the UK and India is increasingly strong. In 2002, bilateral trade in goods and services was worth some £5 billion. In the first eight months of 2003, UK exports of goods to India rose by over 29 per cent. against the same period in 2002.

  The UK is the fourth largest investor in India (after Mauritius, USA and Japan). India is an increasingly important investor in the UK. The UK receives approximately 60 per cent. of all Indian investment into Europe. There are over 450 Indian companies with a base in the UK; approximately 75 per cent. of these are in the ICT/software sector.

  I look forward to visiting India in the new year to see for myself how our bilateral trade and investment relationship is progressing.

  Milk Processing Industry
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions she has had with representatives of the milk processing industry on(a) prices and (b) profitability in that industry. [139600]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has had no recent discussions with representatives of the milk processing industry on prices and profitability.
  743W
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to investigate the implementing of further merger activity in the milk processing industry. [139601]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has no such plans. With the coming into force of the Enterprise Act on 20 June 2003, decisions on new merger situations are taken by the independent competition authorities, not Ministers.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will press mobile phone companies to standardise practice in notifying customers of unusually high mobile phone usage patterns. [138604]

  Mr. Timms
  This is a contractual matter between the mobile network operating companies and their customers. The Department is aware that certain operators follow this procedure but it has no current plans to press all to introduce a standardised practice.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what research her Department has conducted on the number of mobile phone customers who receive bills for mobile phone charges incurred by thieves before the customers knew that their phone had been stolen. [138605]

  Mr. Timms
  None.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received from consumer bodies about mobile phone fraud arising when SIM cards are stolen after consumers have ceased using a SIM card but not cancelled the contract for that SIM. [138608]

  Mr. Timms
  None.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will require mobile phone operators to present charging structures in a standardised format, similar to the credit card industry's Honesty Box scheme. [138615]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department encourages clarity and transparency in billing arrangements, but has no plans at present to impose further requirements. I welcome steps taken by the mobile network operators to simplify their pricing structures for customers.

  National Minimum Wage (Midlothian)
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people in Midlothian have benefited from the national minimum wage since its introduction. [137129]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Office for National Statistics' Low Pay data for spring 2003 only allows estimates to be made of the number of beneficiaries down to country and regional level within the UK. Using this data, the DTI estimates that between 100,000 and 120,000 people in Scotland should benefit from the increase in minimum wage rates in October 2003, the DTI estimates that between 1 and 1.2 million people should benefit in the UK as a whole.
  744W

  Phishing
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what powers there are to impose penalties on people perpetrating phishing frauds in internet banking; and what the penalties are. [138596]

  Caroline Flint
  I have been asked to reply.

  The term "phishing" has recently been coined to refer to the practice of sending e-mails which falsely claim to originate from banks, asking customers to re-register or "re-activate" their accounts at a replica bank website, with the aim of using the information provided to transfer money out of these accounts.

  This is an offence (or attempted offence) of fraud and can be prosecuted under the Theft Acts 1968 and 1978 or under the common law of conspiracy to defraud. The maximum penalty for the main fraud offences (including attempts to commit them) is 10 years' imprisonment.

  Post Office and Bank of Ireland
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what regulatory approvals are necessary for the Post Office partnership with the Bank of Ireland to provide financial services to proceed. [139465]

  Mr. Timms
  This is a matter between the two parties concerned. The joint venture will, of course, be subject to all appropriate company and other regulations including those governing the provision of financial services.

  Post Office Closures
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what reasons elements of management within the Post Office are given a financial incentive to close post offices; and what percentage of post offices within their individual remits they need to close to qualify. [139210]

  Mr. Timms
  I understand from Post Office Ltd that their Network Development Managers working on the urban reinvention programme are paid in the same way as all other managers in Post Office Ltd. Their pay arrangements include provision for a bonus based on a combination of overall business, financial and quality results and achievement of personal objectives. Their personal objectives are structures around identifying and preparing robust network reinvention proposals for presentation to Postwatch to achieve sustainable restructuring of services in local areas, and are linked to the success in migrating customers from any branch which closes as a result to other branches in the network. There is no incentive linked to actual branch closure.

  Post Office Robberies
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many post office robberies occurred in each of the last three years. [139248]

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

  Postal Services
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on promoting the use of post offices; and if she will make a statement. [139552]

  Mr. Timms
  The promotion of post offices is a matter for Post Office Ltd. The business plan of Post Office Ltd. reflects the commitment to attract new customers for banking at the Post Office, and to develop new business in financial services. I understand that Post Office Ltd. is providing information to customers and guidance to sub-postmasters on the range of services available at post offices. The Department for Work and Pensions is also supplying information about the payment options available to their benefit and pension customers, including those options which provide post office access.

  Quality Mark Scheme
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment her Department has made of the survey on raising standards commissioned by the Quality Mark Scheme in July; and if she will use the survey to inform her review of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. [138593]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Quality Mark Scheme, announced 26 March 2002, was initially rolled out as a pilot 26 June 2002. It is expected the scheme will be tested over a three to four year period and as such no survey was conducted in July.

  The Government have no plans at present to introduce an independent Quality Mark Scheme for the consumer credit market.

  Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 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. [136122]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department has wide investigatory powers, principally under the following legislation:

  Part 14 of the Companies Act 1985 (used to investigate the affairs of companies and related matters);

  Part 11 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (used to investigate financial services matters such as insider dealing);

  the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 (used to enforce against the criminal offences of unlicensed use of radio, deliberate interference, hoax calls and the sale, advertising or possession of certain restricted radio apparatus);

  the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (used in criminal investigations conducted by the Department to gain access to special procedure' material under a court order).

  However, these powers will henceforth be subject to the approved RIPA regime.

  The Department is a relevant public authority for the purposes of Part 2 (surveillance and covert human intelligence sources) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) and is intended also to become a designated public authority for the purposes of Chapter 2 of Part 1 (acquisition and disclosure of
  746W
  communications data). RIPA does not amend or replace any of the Department's statutory investigatory powers. However, the Department's existing powers to compel production of information will not be used to compel disclosure of communications data by service providers when (subject to Parliament's approval) Chapter 2 of Part 1 of RIPA is fully in force.

  The Department's Radiocommunications Agency ['RA'], has investigatory powers under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 and related legislation. However, responsibility for management of civil radio spectrum use will pass to OFCOM on 29th December 2003 under the Communications Act 2003. The position with regard to the exercise of RA's powers is currently the same as the Department's.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of the additional £98 million funding for renewable energy capital grant programme to 2006 is being allocated to(a) offshore wind, (b) solar PV and (c) biomass. [139492]

  Mr. Timms
  A little under 50 per cent. of this funding has been committed to Round 1 offshore wind projects, reflecting the importance of offshore wind to meeting the Government's 2010 renewable energy target. It is intended that decisions on the allocation of the remaining funding will be taken in the first half of 2004.

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much capital grant funding she will make available for large scale solar PV projects in(a) 2003–04 and (b) 2004–05. [139493]

  Mr. Timms
  The notional budget for Stream 2 (medium and large-scale projects) is £12 million over the first phase of the Major PV Demonstration Programme. So far, around £9 million has been allocated over five rounds, and we plan to run three further rounds in 2003–04. This will require some over-committing of funds in the expectation that a certain proportion of projects will not go ahead. Any extra funding allocation for 2004–05 will have to await the outcome of the Renewables Innovation Review around the turn of the year.

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much private sector investment there has been in UK based solar PV manufacturing since the start of her Department's major demonstration programme phase one. [139494]

  Mr. Timms
  We do not have precise figures for this, but the recent announcements by Romag, Marley, BP Solar and Sharp lead us to believe that a significant UK manufacturing base is beginning to develop in response to the first phase of the Major Photovoltaic Demonstration Programme.

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many new installers were registered under her Department's solar PV major demonstration programme in(a) 2002 and (b) 2003. [139495]

  Mr. Timms
  Before the start of the Major Photovoltaics Demonstration Programme in April 2002, it is estimated that there were less than a dozen companies in the UK capable of doing PV installations.
  747W
  In 2002–03 the programme had 16 fully accredited and 13 provisionally accredited installers. In the first half of 2003–04 there was one further fully accredited and four more provisionally accredited installers, taking the total to 35 different installers.

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many jobs have been created in the UK solar PV industry since the start of the major demonstration programme phase one. [139496]

  Mr. Timms
  We do not have precise figures for this, but the number of new installers and increases in staffing in existing design/installation companies, as well as the recent announcements by Romag and Sharp, lead us to believe that several hundred new jobs will have been created by March 2004.

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what criteria her Department will use to assess the success of the solar PV major demonstration programme phase one. [139497]

  Mr. Timms
  A range of criteria will be used to assess the success of the First Phase of the Major PV Demonstration Programme, including:

  Raising awareness of PV in the UK

  Achieving the target number of installations and installed capacity

  Reduction in the cost of PV systems

  Development of an installer base

  Development of a UK PV industry

  Overall value for money of the programme

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the totally installed capacity is of Solar PV in the United Kingdom. [139529]

  Mr. Timms
  At the end of 2002 the estimated total installed capacity in the UK was 4.14MWp. By the end of 2003 we expect this to have risen by at least 50 per cent.

  Vanco v. BT
  Jon Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the implications of the case of Vanco v BT; and if she will make a statement. [139548]

  Mr. Timms
  This is a matter for the Director General of Telecommunications, whose decision was published on 10 February 2003. I welcome the rapid and decisive action taken following the Director General's investigation.

DEFENCE

  Afghanistan/Iraq
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) the number and (b) the value of Urgent Operational Requirements for Operation Fingal and for Operation Telic 1, showing (i) in which financial year the costs of UORs fall, (ii) how much has been funded from reserves, and (iii) how much has been or will eventually be funded from within the Ministry of Defence's existing budgets instead of from a permanent transfer from the contingency reserve. [137723]
  748W
  Mr. Ingram
  Information on Urgent Operational Requirements (UORs) for Operation Fingal is not held separately from those for overall operations in Afghanistan under Operation Veritas. A total of 113 UORs were agreed for these operations at an approved cost of £155 million, split between financial years 2001–02 and 2002–03. UORs for these operations were funded from the Reserve, under a special arrangement agreed with the Treasury.

  Over 190 UOR measures were agreed for Operation Telic 1, at an approved cost of some £510 million falling in financial years 2002–03 and 2003–04. All these UORs are again funded from the Reserve, as agreed with the Treasury, as part of the overall additional costs of Operation Telic. A number of Operation Telic UORs have brought forward planned expenditure already contained within the forward equipment programme. Where that provision is no longer needed, we expect to reimburse the Treasury for an appropriate amount. A precise figure has yet to be established, but the key point is that the defence budget is neither penalised nor gains windfall benefits as a result of pulling forward expenditure in this way.

  Where equipment bought through the UOR process is retained after an operation has completed, appropriate provision needs to be made for downstream support costs. Such decisions on whether or not to keep UORs in service are considered in the normal Departmental planning round alongside other potential equipment enhancements.

  Army (Non-UK Citizens)
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by country of origin, the numbers of non-UK citizens who have joined the Army in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [137486]

  Mr. Caplin
  For the last five financial years the intake of Regular Army personnel with a nationality recorded as being other than United Kingdom was as follows:

  Nationality

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  American

  —

  0

  0

  —

  0

  Antiguan

  0

  0

  —

  —

  0

  Australian

  20

  10

  20

  10

  15

  Austrian

  0

  —

  0

  0

  0

  Bangalee

  —

  0

  0

  —

  —

  Barbadian

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Belizean

  0

  —

  —

  0

  —

  Bermudian

  —

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Botswana

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  British

  Commonwealth

  Foreign

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cameroon

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  Canadian

  20

  15

  10

  10

  5

  Cameroon

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  Dominican

  0

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Falkland Islander

  0

  —

  0

  0

  0

  Fijian

  20

  320

  265

  490

  470

  Foreign/Foreign

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  Gambian

  —

  —

  —

  10

  20

  German-West

  0

  0

  —

  0

  0

  Ghanaian

  —

  0

  15

  80

  150

  Gibraltarian

  0

  —

  —

  0

  0

  Grenadian

  0

  —

  5

  10

  15

  Guyanese

  0

  —

  —

  0

  5

  Indian

  —

  —

  —

  5

  10

  Italian

  —

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Jamaican

  10

  10

  45

  180

  420

  Kenyan

  —

  —

  10

  10

  15

  749W

  Nationality

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Malawi

  0

  —

  0

  —

  20

  Malaysian

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Maltese

  5

  —

  —

  0

  —

  Mauritanian

  0

  —

  0

  0

  0

  Mauritian

  0

  0

  —

  —

  5

  Monserrat Islander

  0

  —

  —

  0

  0

  Namibian (FMLY SW African)

  0

  —

  0

  0

  —

  Nepalese

  0

  0

  0

  —

  0

  New Zealander

  10

  5

  15

  10

  15

  Nigerian

  0

  0

  5

  10

  20

  Pakistani

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Republic of Ireland

  30

  25

  30

  10

  20

  Rhodesian

  0

  0

  0

  —

  0

  Seychellois

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  Sierra Leone

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  Singaporean

  0

  0

  0

  —

  0

  South African

  30

  45

  65

  120

  155

  Spanish

  —

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sri Lankan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  St. Helenian

  10

  10

  10

  0

  10

  St. Lucia

  0

  —

  —

  15

  205

  St. Vincent

  0

  0

  185

  5

  120

  Sudanese

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  Swazi

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  Swiss

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  Tanzanian

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  Tongan

  —

  0

  0

  —

  —

  Trinidadian

  —

  —

  10

  15

  25

  Ugandan

  0

  0

  —

  —

  10

  Zambian

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Zimbabwean

  20

  20

  35

  125

  235

  Not known/stateless

  10

  5

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  205

  505

  770

  1,140

  2,010

  Notes:

  1. Totals are trained and untrained officer and other ranks joining the UK Regular Army in financial years 1998–2003 with a nationality (now) on intake of non-UK nationals.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest five to prevent disclosure of sensitive personal data

  3,'—'denotes fewer than five.

  Colombia
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will suspend military aid to Colombia until the Colombian Government takes action to comply with UN recommendations on human rights. [138945]

  Mr. Ingram
  British military assistance to Colombia includes bomb disposal training and provision of British military education. It complements Colombian efforts to reduce the number of deaths, both civilian and military, from explosive devices, and introduces Colombian military personnel to British defence concepts in key areas such as Rules of Engagement and democratic and accountable control of the armed forces. In view of the clear humanitarian benefits this British military assistance offers to the Colombian people, we do not intend to suspend it.

  D-Day
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what plans the Government have to celebrate the 60th anniversary of D-Day; and if he will make a statement; [135516]

  (2) what funding has been allocated by the Government for the commemoration of the 60th anniversary of D-Day; [135519]
  750W
  (3) what representations he has received from the (a) Normandy Veterans Association, (b) British Legion and (c) other bodies concerning the commemoration on the 60th anniversary of D-Day; [135520]

  (4) how the Government will be represented at celebrations to mark the 60th anniversary of D-Day in France. [135521]

  Mr. Caplin
  Details of the Government's position on the 60th anniversary of D-Day were outlined in my letter to all Members of the House of 7 July 2003 and updated in my reply to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on 11 November,Official Report, columns 27–31WH. Further resources to those referred to as part of routine deployments may also be in attendance but it is too early to provide details at this stage. I announced on 17 September that arrangements had been made with P&O Ferries to offer subsidised tickets to veterans travelling to France in 2004. My hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Home Office (Beverley Hughes) announced on 4 June that one year free passports would be made available to eligible veterans travelling to France in 2004.

  Since the beginning of 2002 MOD officials have had two meetings with representatives of the Normandy Veterans Association (NVA). The Department has received ten letters from hon. Members and five direct from members of the public relating to the NVA. The Department also received 36 letters from hon. Members as a result of a letter sent by The Royal British Legion (TRBL) in June of this year to all hon. Members. There have also been one written and two oral parliamentary questions in the House of Lords, eight written parliamentary questions in the House of Commons, 39 letters from hon. Members and 39 letters direct from members of the public which did not specifically represent the NVA or TRBL.

  The Government intend to be properly represented at both ministerial and senior armed forces level at all major events next June and officials in the royal household will respond when the invitations have been received from the French Government.

  Defence Estates (Pilning Range)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the land owned by Defence Estates South West at Pilning Range will be subject to an open market bidding process when it is sold; and if he will make a statement. [138967]

  Mr. Caplin
  Under the terms of the Joint Declaration of Intent between Ministry of Defence and English Nature the MOD will give advance warning to English Nature of any intended disposal of land wholly or partially notified as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). English Nature may then advise MOD on ways to secure wildlife opportunities and to nominate a suitable purchaser. This procedure has operated in the case of Pilning Range, and English Nature have nominated the Avon Wildlife Trust as a suitable purchaser. The balance of the site not purchased by the Wildlife Trust will be offered by open and public competition.

  Defence Export Services
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations have been made to him from(a) other governments and (b) foreign nongovernmental organisations on the Defence Services export international arms fair held in London. [1385671]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence has received letters and comments of thanks from many of the official overseas defence delegations that attended the Defence Systems and Equipment International exhibition.

  I am unaware of any representations from foreign non-governmental organisations.

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research he has(a) initiated and (b) evaluated on the effects of depleted uranium on British (i) service personnel and (ii) civilians; and if he will make a statement. [138794]

  Mr. Caplin
  We are currently initiating research to provide an understanding of the extent of any depleted uranium intake by United Kingdom ground forces during Operation TELIC.

  In accordance with the Biological Monitoring Policy for DU on Operations all regular and reservist service personnel and attached civilians who deployed on Operation TELIC are entitled to a urine test on their return if they wish. To provide a baseline for comparison we have asked the Institute of Occupation Medicine in Edinburgh to carry out a study to establish normative values for uranium and its isotopes in urine of a military population which did not deploy.

  The Ministry of Defence is currently placing contracts for the collection and analysis of urine samples for the voluntary screening programme for DU for veterans of the 1990–91 Gulf Conflict and service in the Balkans. In the event that DU is detected, any links between DU exposure and ill health will be investigated by means of an epidemiological study. A study to establish normative values for uranium and its isotopes in urine in a United Kingdom civilian population is also being commissioned.

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent evidence he has collated relating to Gulf War Syndrome; what studies have been commissioned by him in the UK; and if he will make a statement. [132694]

  Mr. Caplin
  [holding answer 20 October 2003]The Government's position remains as set out in my answers of 23 June 2003,Official Report, columns 687–89W. The fact that the Government does not recognise "Gulf War Syndrome" as a medical condition does not mean that veterans cannot claim war pensions: war pensions are paid on the basis of disability, not diagnosis.

  Full details of all the research studies related to Gulf veterans' illnesses which are being funded by the Government are available on the Internet at: www.mod. uk.issues/gulfwar/research.htm.
  752W
  A considerable amount of research into Gulf veterans' illnesses has been undertaken in the United States and its Department of Defense have also funded research in the United Kingdom. There is scientific evidence that some veterans of the 1990–91 Gulf conflict report a number of recognised medical conditions. However, the overwhelming consensus of the scientific and medical community is that there is insufficient evidence to enable this ill-health to be characterised as a unique illness, condition or 'syndrome'.

  Inquiries
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list outstanding inquiries relating to operations in(a) Afghanistan and (b) Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [131994]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 16 October 2003]There are no outstanding boards of inquiry or Special Investigation Branch investigations relating to operations in Afghanistan.

  As at 31 October there were 35 boards of inquiry outstanding from operations in Iraq. Boards of inquiry often require a year or more to complete to ensure that the incident in question can be properly considered and the correct conclusions drawn. There are 44 outstanding Special Investigation Branch investigations relating to operations in Iraq, some of which are being conducted in support of the 35 boards of inquiry.

  Further details of the inquiries and investigations are being withheld under exemptions 1 and 12 of the Code of Practice on access to government information.

  Iraq
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British wounded have been brought back from Iraq since United Kingdom military action began in March. [132206]

  Mr. Ingram
  Since the beginning of the decisive combat operations in Iraq on 19 March 2003 and as at 14 November 2003, 145 United Kingdom military personnel have been wounded in action, of whom 74 needed to be brought back to the UK for medical treatment.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the success of measures taken to avoid using cluster munitions near civilian areas in Iraq. [135854]

  Mr. Ingram
  We made every effort to minimise the impact on the Iraqi population of the coalition's military action. Cluster munitions were employed against Iraqi armoured formations in the open and on the periphery of built up areas.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reports he has received of former regime arms dumps within the British area of responsibility in Iraq; and what measures are being put in place to guard former regime arms dumps within the British area of responsibility. [134457]

  Mr. Ingram
  Since the end of major combat operations United Kingdom forces have discovered an average of about 45 new sites containing arms and/or
  753W
  munitions each week. The large amount of arms present in Iraq means that where arms are discovered we cannot always tell whether they were left by the former regime or by other organisations or individuals. All sites containing arms or munitions are marked and then cleared once resources permit. Sites containing large numbers of arms are guarded by UK forces until they can be cleared.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the level of priority given to(a) avoiding civilian casualties and (b) ensuring the security of British troops in respect of unexploded ordnance clearance in Iraq. [135855]

  Mr. Ingram
  The provision of a safe, secure and risk free environment for the Iraqi people is a key aspect of reconstruction activity for all members of the International Coalition in Iraq. The United Kingdom takes seriously its obligations as a member of that coalition to deal with unexploded ordnance.

  We afford a high priority to avoiding any injury or casualty from unexploded ordnance. Clearance operations are performed by specialists to minimise the chances of accidents occurring.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) gun and (b) bomb attacks there were on British troops in the provinces of (i) Basra City and (c) Maysan, broken down by type of incident and weapons used since 1 May, indicating in each case how many (A) British troops and (B) Iraqi civilians were (1) killed and (2) injured in each incident; and if he will make a statement. [136604]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 10 November 2003]: Many of the following figures have been compiled under operational conditions and may therefore be subject to future refinement and revision. Figures were not collected before 1 June.

  Between 1 June and 17 October 2003 (the date of the last update) there were 108 deliberate attacks on coalition forces in the United Kingdom led Multi-National Division South East MND(SE) area of operations.

  In the same period there were 101 contact incidents (in which coalition forces have been caught up in tribal feuding or attempted crimes but were not the object of the attack) in Basrah Province and 23 contact incidents in Maysan Province. 88 of these contact incidents involved British Forces.

  Five incidents (including one outside the MND(SE) area) resulted in the deaths of British personnel as follows:

  Date

  Casualties

  Nature of incident

  Firears or Bomb

  24 June

  6 Killed

  Ambush of Royal Military Police patrol in Al Majir Al Kabir.

  Firearms

  14 August

  1 Killed

  Roadside improvised explosive, device detonated as military ambulance drove by. Basrah.

  Bomb

  23 August

  3 Killed

  Ambush of RMP in Basrah.

  Firearms

  27 August

  1 Killed

  Ambush in Basrah.

  Firearms

  31 October

  1 Killed

  Ambush in Baghdad.

  Firearms

  754W
  23 British soldiers have been injured in these attacks, 10 with gunshot wounds and 13 with other types of injury.

  We have no reliable figures on Iraqi casualties as collection is virtually impossible: enemy forces frequently remove their casualties from the scene or seek to blame the coalition for casualties they could not possibly have caused. Of those incidents notified to British forces there are currently 22 Special Investigation Branch Investigations involving 17 deaths of and a number of injuries to Iraqis allegedly caused by British personnel.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Iraqis are being interned by the British forces because they are perceived to be a threat to coalition forces; how long each such person has been held; what plans the British authorities in Basra have for such people; and if he will make a statement. [136606]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 10 November 2003]: As at 13 November, there were 125 Iraqis being interned by the British Forces because they were considered to be a threat to Coalition Forces. The maximum length of time that any person has been held is just under six months; the least one week. Every 28 days, a review is conducted to determine whether continued internment is necessary. Procedures are in place to allow internees to appeal against their continued internment. Individuals will continue to be held until such time as they are no longer considered a threat to Coalition Forces.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence by what means UK forces in Iraq have sought to confirm whether civilian fatalities have occurred during incidents involving the use of firearms and other lethal force by UK military personnel since the end of the conflict. [136923]

  Mr. Ingram
  UK forces in Iraq seek to confirm whether civilian fatalities have occurred during incidents involving the use of firearms and other lethal force by UN military personnel since the end of the conflict by the use of appropriate policing techniques as the operational situation allows.

  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the security situation in Iraq. [139376]

  Mr. Ingram
  Iraq continues to make progress and is broadly stable. The majority of incidents occur around Baghdad. Throughout the country increasing numbers of Iraqi police are on patrol, reconstruction of essential services and infrastructure continues and most of the population go about their daily lives without hindrance.

  Attacks such as that on the Italian headquarters in Nasiriyah are the work of a violent few. Innocent Iraqi civilians have died in these attacks: they are as much victims of the terrorists as coalition forces.

  Coalition forces and the Iraqi police are working hard to provide a safe and secure environment. They will not be deflected from that mission.

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures are being taken to fit British military vehicles in Iraq with vehicle protection kits. [139615]
  755W
  Mr. Ingram
  Following public disorder events in Iraq during August, a requirement was identified to fit Vehicle Protection Kits (VPK) to a range of Combat Support Vehicles. Delivery to theatre began in mid August and should be completed by the end of February 2004.

  In addition, the requirement to equip battlefield engineering and plant vehicles deployed to Iraq with VPKs is currently being assessed.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the average cost is per day, per person, of the food provided to British security personnel in Iraq. [129997]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence identifies the costs of Operations in terms of the net additional costs it has incurred. The costs, which the MOD would have incurred had the operation not been undertaken—expenditure on wages and salaries or on conducting training exercises for example—are deducted from the total costs of the operation.

  The cost of food is not identified separately, but is contained within stock consumption, along with ammunition, clothing and vehicle and equipment spares for example. Costs are not incurred on a regular daily basis and force levels have fluctuated considerably. As a result, to attempt to provide monthly average costs would be misleading.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what rotation schedule is expected for troops in Iraq. [130279]

  Mr. Ingram
  The majority of United Kingdom military units deployed to Iraq undertake tours of either four or six months depending on the role they perform. This can be varied according to operational requirements. There is also some variation in cases of individual personnel who may be required to deploy for longer or short periods.

  ITAR Waiver
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has held with his counterpart in the US Administration about the stance taken by(a) the Senate and (b) the House of Representatives to the US Administration's proposals for an ITAR waiver for the UK. [138603]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have had discussions with and written to the US Defense Secretary about the progress through Congress of legislation to allow for a waiver for the United Kingdom from the US International Traffic in Arms Regulations, and emphasised the importance the UK attaches to the successful implementation of a waiver.

  King's Own Scottish Borderers
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the King's Own Scottish Borderers are due to finish their deployment in Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [133651]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Kings Own Scottish Borderers began returning to the United Kingdom in mid-October and all had returned by the end of the month.

  Operation Telic
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 1 September 2003,Official Report, column 915W, and the answer to the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr. Hancock) of 15 September 2003, Official Report, column 509W, on Operation Telic, when he expects investigations into the fratricide incidents involving United Kingdom forces during Operation Telic to be complete; whether the families of the United Kingdom personnel involved are being advised of developments; and when the outcome of these inquiries will be made public. [134471]

  Mr. Ingram
  Investigations into incidents of fratricide involving UK forces will take as long as necessary to uncover and accurately assess and interpret all the possible evidence.

  The families of those involved will be kept informed as matters develop. All will have access to a specialist staff officer from the relevant service.

  As I informed the House on 15 September 2003, Official Report, column 509W, we will make a summary of the reports' conclusions available, but only after all related proceedings are entirely complete. To do otherwise would be to risk prejudicing those other proceedings.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 20 October 2003,Official Report, column 375W, on parliamentary questions, how many questions tabled to his Department by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South have not been answered within the target times set by the Department. [134734]

  Mr. Caplin
  Up to 22 October, 196 written questions had been received during this session. 67 (34 per cent.) were not answered within the target of five sitting days.

  Saudi Arabia
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many claims for payment by the Saudi Government have been endorsed by staff of his Department's Director General of the Saudi Armed Forces Project since the Al Yamamah programme began; what the total value of these claims is; and what each of the claims endorsed since 1997 have been in respect of. [137235]

  Mr. Ingram
  Details of the number of claims are not normally recorded and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. The total number will run into tens of thousands. Details of individual claims since 1997 could only be provided at disproportionate cost. All claims cover goods and services supplied by the Prime Contractor to Saudi Arabia.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff of his Department's Director General of the Saudi Armed Forces Project are based in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Saudi Arabia; and what proportion of their salaries is met by (i) his Department and (ii) BAE Systems. [137236]
  757W
  Mr. Ingram
  Under the Department's Director General of the Saudi Armed Forces Project there are currently 111 staff directly employed in the United Kingdom and 65 staff in Saudi Arabia. The UK MOD receives a management fee from the Saudi Arabian Government for its management of the programme. All costs of the team, including salaries, are met from this fee.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what conditions relating to(a) security sector reform and (b) human rights are included in the contracts governing the Al Yamamah programme; and if he will make a statement. [137764]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are none. The Saudi authorities are well aware of the importance we attach to the full respect of human rights.

  Technology Transfer Contracts
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) technology transfer contracts from his Department to Scottish companies and (b) technology transfer contracts per Scottish company, including the values, there were in each year since 1999; and if he will make a statement. [138572]

  Mr. Caplin
  I assume the hon. Member refers to my reply to him of 4 November 2003,Official Report, column 613W concerning Defence Diversification Agency (DDA) operations in Scotland. Contracts are only one measure of technology transfer. The DDA, which acts as a broker, assists companies in various ways including putting them in touch with defence scientists and programme managers. Contracts between the two parties may result and the DDA is currently aware of 16 technology transfer contracts with organisations based in Scotland since 1999. Individual details and financial value of these contracts are subject to confidentiality agreements and are withheld under Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to help recruit doctors into the Territorial Army. [138951]

  Mr. Caplin
  The recruitment of doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals is currently the Territorial Army's (TA) highest recruitment priority and additional funding is being made available in support of this goal.

  Steps being taken to aid recruitment include twice yearly visits by recruitment teams to selected NHS Trusts; attendance by the TA Medical Services at some 25 professional conferences/exhibitions; media advertising with a focused television campaign planned for transmission in early 2004. Work is also in place to ensure greater synergy between recruitment campaigns for the TA and Regular Army.

  The recruitment of health care professionals into the TA Medical Services is supported by the Department of Health as part of the Improving Working Lives Initiative.

  Terrorist Attacks
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps United Kingdom forces are taking to protect British citizens from terrorist attacks in(a) Afghanistan and (b) Iraq. [132122]

  Mr. Ingram
  United Kingdom Forces constantly review security arrangements for those British citizens under their care. For reasons of operational security it would be inappropriate to provide details of the measures in place and I am withholding that information under Exemption 1 (Defence, Security and International Relations) of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Unexploded Ordnance
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many children in Iraq have taken part in the Theatre Mine Risk education programme. [131238]

  Mr. Ingram
  Educating children in Iraq about the dangers of unexploded ordnance is currently the responsibility of four de-mining Non-Governmental Organisations operating in Iraq whose work is co-ordinated by the UN Mine Action Co-ordination Team. We do not hold data on how many children have taken part in their programmes.

  Work-related Stress
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many cases of work-related stress have been reported in his Department in each of the last three years; how much compensation has been paid to employees; how many work days have been lost due to work-related stress, and at what cost; what procedures have been put in place to reduce work-related stress, and at what cost; and if he will make a statement. [136847]

  Mr. Caplin
  I refer the hon. Member to my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy's (Dr. Moonie) letter of 27 March 2002 (reference: D/US of S/LM PQ 2584M) a copy of which is in the Library of the House. The position has not changed since that reply. I am able however to update the hon. Member concerning compensation cases and costs. The most recent figures are as follows:

  Sector

  Number of claims received in year

  Settlements— compensation/legal fees paid in year (£)

  Service

  2000–01

  2

  0

  2001–02

  3

  0

  2002–03

  0

  21,200

  Civilian

  2000–01

  17

  87,315

  2001–02

  25

  6,015

  2002–03

  10

  61,248

  Compensation/legal fees paid in year do not necessarily relate to the number of claims received in the same year.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Indonesia
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance his Department has offered the Government of Indonesia for the reconstruction of Sumatra Island. [138753]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The UK has not been approached specifically to assist reconstruction in Sumatra. DFID is however working continuously with the international community and local and international NGOs to alleviate poverty in Indonesia and improve the lives of poor people. Such assistance is targeted where it is most needed. Should the need for further international assistance for Sumatra be demonstrated, we will work through our partners to ensure this is provided.

  Palestine
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what financial aid the Occupied Palestinian Territories received from his Department in each of the last five years; and what provision his Department has made for aid to the Occupied Palestinan Territories in each of the next four years. [138375]

  Hilary Benn
  Bilateral financial aid to the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including support to UNRWA, over the last five years was as follows:

  £ million

  1998–99

  8.5

  1999–2000

  21

  2000–01

  28

  2001–02

  39.5

  2002–03

  34

  This financial year we plan to spend about £40.2 million.

  In addition DFID provided, from 1998 to 2002, a total of approximately £132 million through the European Commission, and since 1994 to June this year approximately £12 million through the World Bank.

  The department has made the following provisions for aid to the Occupied Palestinian Territories and UNRWA: 2004–05, £26.5 million and 2005–06, £26.5 million. We do not currently have planning figures beyond 2005–06. Our support through the EC and the World Bank will continue during this period.

  Sub-Saharan Africa
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what the proportion of people living in poverty in sub-Saharan Africa was in each year since 1992; [139531]

  (2) what proportion of people lived in poverty in (a) East Asia and (b) the Pacific in each of the last 10 years; [139536]

  (3) what proportion of people lived in poverty in South Asia in each of the last 10 years. [139537]
  760W
  Hilary Benn
  The most recent estimates of the proportion of people living on less than $1 a day in 1990 and 2000 for East Asia and the Pacific, Sub Saharan Africa and South Asia are contained in the World Bank's 'Global Economic Prospects 2004'. Details are as follows:

  Percentage

  1999

  2000

  East Asia and Pacific

  29.4

  14.5

  Sub Saharan Africa

  47.4

  49.0

  South Asia

  41.5

  31.9

  Information for intervening years is not available on a comparable basis.

  Weapons Stocks
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what financial assistance the United Kingdom provides to governments in developing countries to reduce their weapons stocks; and what financial support is given to prevent the sale of military surpluses. [138607]

  Hilary Benn
  The UK Government fully supports the United Nations Programme of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW) which commits governments including those of developing countries to dispose of small arms stocks, preferably by destruction, that are surplus to national requirements.

  The UK Government is helping developing countries manage and reduce weapons stockpiles through its Global Conflict Prevention Pool SALW strategy. The UK is providing £7.5 million over three years to the Small Arms Destruction Unit (SADU) of UNDP's Bureau for Conflict Prevention and Recovery for weapons collection, management and destruction work in forty-five developing countries. Since the start of the programme in 2001 SADU have destroyed over 360,000 weapons and in excess of 24 million items of ammunition.

  The UK Government is also providing £1.9 million for the development of 5-year National Action Plans in Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda, Mozambique and Namibia. These Plans will provide a comprehensive approach to weapons controls in these countries, and will include disarmament, destruction and weapons management elements. Two NGOs, Saferworld and SaferAfrica, are undertaking this work with the governments of these countries.

  The UK seeks to address the problem comprehensively, rather than by earmarking funds to prevent any potential sales of military surpluses.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many staff were employed by the Crown Prosecution Service as(a) Grades 1–6, (b) legal assistance, (c) executive officers and (d) administrative officers; and how many in each category were (i) black and (ii) Asian. [138763]
  761W
  The Solicitor-General
  The number of staff employed by the Crown Prosecution Service in each category who have identified their ethnicity as being (i) black and (ii) Asian is summarised in the table:

  Percentage

  Asian

  Black

  2001

  2002

  2003

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Administrative Officers

  5.9

  5.6

  6.4

  5.6

  5.3

  5.5

  Executive Officers

  3.6

  3.9

  4.8

  4.1

  4.3

  5.5

  Legal Assistance

  3.6

  5.0

  5.1

  2.6

  3.5

  3.8

  Grades 1–6

  2.1

  2.3

  3.0

  1.6

  0.0

  1.2

  Grand Total

  4.4

  4.8

  5.4

  4.1

  4.3

  4.9

  The percentages are based on the number of staff who replied to the question asking them to state their ethnicity.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will make it the policy of the Crown Prosecution Service to pay fees to their legal advisers within 30 days. [138935]

  The Solicitor-General
  I can confirm that it is the Crown Prosecution Service's policy to pay invoices from all suppliers and service providers, including independent barristers, within 30 days of receipt of a valid claim or invoice.

  Published data from the CPS Annual Report shows that in 2002–03, 81 per cent. of undisputed invoices were paid within 30 days of receipt.

  Solicitors/Barristers
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many(a) solicitors and (b) barristers there are in England and Wales: and how many are (i) black and (ii) Asian. [138769]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Solicitor-General does not have ministerial responsibility for the Law Society or The General Council of the Bar, who are the professional bodies regulating solicitors and barristers, respectively.

  Statistics in relation to the profession may be obtained directly from the professional bodies.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Alcohol Licences
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment her Department has made of the impact proposed increases in the cost of alcohol licences will have on(a) community clubs and (b) sports associations. [138602]

  Estelle Morris
  The proposed levels of fees for club premises certificates and premises licences under the Licensing Act 2003 will lead to an increase in licensing fees for some community clubs and sports associations operating either as qualifying clubs under club premises certificates or under premises licences though many will also see a reduction in fees.
  762W
  Any increases will arise because fees have been estimated on the basis of the actual costs to the licensing authority. Current fees are not set on a full cost recovery basis by the magistrates' courts. This change has been made because we do not consider it appropriate for the taxpayer to subsidise the consumption of alcohol in sports clubs or any other premises.

  Any increase in fees should not, however, have a significant impact on any of these clubs or associations. Small clubs are likely to pay around £100 in the first year of the new licensing regime and £50 in subsequent years. This means that, for example, for a club with 25 members, the minimum needed to qualify as a qualifying club, a club premises certificate would cost about £4 per member in the first year and £2 per member in subsequent years.

  Aviation White Paper
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations her Department has made to the Department for Transport on the Aviation White Paper. [138727]

  Estelle Morris
  This Department has made a number of representations to the Department of Transport on a range of issues, including heritage and tourism, throughout the development of the Aviation White Paper.

  Childhood Obesity
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what research she has commissioned into the effect of food advertising on levels of childhood obesity. [138741]

  Estelle Morris
  None. However, the Food Standards Agency has recently published a research review which it commissioned on this subject and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is taking part in their consultations as well as other cross-Government initiatives to tackle obesity, notably the work of the Activity Co-ordination Team, aimed at increasing levels of physical activity.

  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations she has received about(a) childhood obesity and (b) lack of access to sports facilities. [138742]

  Estelle Morris
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State regularly receives representations from hon. Members, and members of the public, on these subjects. This reflects the extent of public concern about growing rates of obesity among children, and of interest in community sport and activity facilities.

  The Government fully shares both that concern, and that interest. The UK is now the most obese nation in Europe. Sedentary lifestyles—especially among young people—have greatly contributed to that. The Government are already investing substantial amounts in schools and community sports facilities. In schools, the New Opportunities Fund is investing £581 million in school sports facilities in England, and Space for Sport and the Arts is putting £130 million into primary school facilities. In communities, NOF is investing £256 million in healthy living centre projects, and £108.5 million in

  763W
  new community sports facilities. The Government are also investing £459 million in the PE, School Sport and Club Links Project, which aims to increase the proportion of schoolchildren receiving at least two hours a week of high quality PE and school sport to 75 per cent. by 2006.

  The cross-Departmental Activity Co-ordination Team will produce a national strategy for physical activity next year.

  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions she has had with other departments about implementing a strategy to tackle childhood obesity. [138743]

  Estelle Morris
  Nine Government Departments are represented on the Activity Co-ordination Team (ACT) which was set up and is led jointly by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and the Department of Health (DH) to tackle the increase in obesity rates and physical inactivity.

  The group has met twice since 8 July 2003 and is due to meet again on 27 November 2003 under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and Tourism and my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health.

  Community Fund (Cheltenham)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many grants have been made from the Community Fund to projects in the Cheltenham constituency since its inception. [138910]

  Estelle Morris
  Since its inception, the Community Fund has made 62 grants, to a value of £2.68 million, to projects in the constituency of Cheltenham.

  This information is derived from the Department's Awards Database and is based on information supplied by the distributing bodies.

  National Lottery
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much Lottery funding per capita has been awarded to(a) organisations in each of the regions in England and Wales and (b) organisations in the Vale of York in each of the past three years. [138783]

  Estelle Morris
  The following table shows how much Lottery funding per capita has been awarded to organisations in the Vale of York and each of the regions of England and Wales in each of the past three years.

  Period covered/Region

  £person

  January 2003 to 13 November 2003

  East Midlands

  10.38

  Eastern

  7.05

  London

  16.40

  North East

  14.18

  North West

  14.86

  South East

  7.95

  South West

  10.00

  West Midlands

  11.90

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  13.94

  Wales

  14.33

  Vale of York

  7.51

  764W

  Period covered/Region

  £ person

  2002

  East Midlands

  16.60

  Eastern

  12.78

  London

  21.76

  North East

  23.66

  North West

  17.37

  South East

  10.96

  South West

  15.30

  West Midlands

  13.54

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  25.24

  Wales

  29.11

  Vale of York

  12.41

  2001

  East Midlands

  20.52

  Eastern

  13.80

  London

  24.35

  North East

  23.48

  North West

  17.12

  South East

  13.10

  South West

  16.51

  West Midlands

  14.37

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  23.95

  Wales

  26.15

  Vale of York

  19.00

  2000

  East Midlands

  13.62

  Eastern

  9.97

  London

  18.45

  North East

  18.23

  North West

  32.62

  South East

  13.62

  South West

  14.44

  West Midlands

  13.38

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  11.50

  Wales

  20.64

  Vale of York

  7.47

  This table is derived from the Department's Awards Database and is based on information supplied by the distributing bodies.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many National Lottery ticket sales there were in the(a) GL50, (b) GL51, (c) GL52 and (d) GL53 postcode areas in each of the last 10 years; and how much was raised in each case. [138908]

  Estelle Morris
  The available information about National Lottery sales by postcode area is set out in the table placed in the Library, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Challen) on 22 October 2002,Official Report, columns 182–83W. I will provide an update of the table to the hon. Member as soon as it is available, and place a copy in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Market Research
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list each item of market and opinion research commissioned since May 1997 by(a) her Department and (b) agencies and non-departmental public bodies for which her Department is responsible; what the purpose of each item was; and whether the results were published. [137012]
  765W
  Estelle Morris
  The information requested is as follows:

  Name

  Year

  Purpose

  Published

  Culture Online (Omnibus of Market and Opinion Research)

  2000–01

  To establish the current usage of Arts and Culture websites and what new services would be values by different groups of users

  Yes. Culture Online Website

  Olympic Games Poll(Opinion)

  2002

  To explore public attitudes in London and across the country towards bidding for the Olympics to come to London in 2012 with a view to obtaining a picture of the public's settled view on a London 2012 Games

  Yes. Government response to "A London Olympic Bid for 2012" also on DCMS website

  Digital Television 2002 (Opinion)

  2002

  Obtain the opinion of consumer attitudes towards digital television and impact of digital television for people with disabilities

  Yes. DCMS website

  Sports Coaching in the UK (Market)

  2003

  To provide a detailed and accurate picture of sports coaching in the UK

  No. Work is ongoing

  (b) This information is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Secondments
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people from science and technology backgrounds have been seconded into the Civil Service in her Department in each of the last five years for which data are available. [138625]

  Estelle Morris
  This Department does not maintain a central record of the background of secondees: secondees remain employees of their seconding organisation, which holds records on their previous employment or educational background. This information could therefore only be provided at a disproportionate cost.

  Television Advertising
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what estimate she has made of the revenue received by each of the commercial television channels from selling advertising airtime slots for food and drink products in each of the last five years; [138677]

  (2) what estimate she has made of the percentage of revenue gained from selling advertising airtime during children's television scheduling which was used to (a) buy in and (b) make children's television programmes by each of the commercial television channels in each of the last five years; [138678]

  (3) what information her Department collates on the revenue spent by commercial television companies to (a) buy in and (b) commission children's television programmes. [138679]

  Estelle Morris
  The Department has not collated or made estimates of such data. However, we understand from figures made available by ITV to the Independent Television Commission that the total programme budget for Children's ITV in 2002 was £37.5 million and the total value of the breaks for food and drink brands in Children's ITV aimed at children was £17.3 million.

  Website
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent assessment she has made of the content and design of her Department's website. [139369]
  766W
  (a) The following table lists those items of market and opinion research undertaken by the Department.

  Estelle Morris
  The Department's website was redesigned earlier this year, at which time a thorough assessment of both content and design was undertaken. Content is regularly reviewed and where appropriate, updated daily. The design has not been reviewed in the last 11 months, but will be revisited early in 2004.

  The website is currently being audited by the RNIB as part of a work programme to ensure information is accessible to people with visual impairment.

  First World War Battlefields
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions(a) he and (b) other Departments have had with the Government of Belgium to (i) preserve First World War battlefields which lie on the route of the A11 motorway and (ii) secure the appropriate treatment of British Servicemen's remains. [139030]

  Mr. Caplin
  Neither the Ministry of Defence, nor the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, has had any discussions on this subject with the Belgian Government. However, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission continues to monitor the effects of the A19 extension scheme. We fully expect the Belgian Government to adhere to existing procedures for dealing with the remains of British Servicemen discovered during the course of the extension of the A 19 motorway. This would entail the eventual interment of remains in a Commonwealth War Graves Commission cemetery in Belgium.

  Colombia
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Ayr (Sandra Osborne) of 30 June 2003,Official Report, column 64W, what reports he has received of what was said by President Uribe of Colombia in his meeting with NGOs on 11 June; and what his assessment is of the significance of the President's comments. [136310]

  Mr. Rammell
  We saw various press reports and received the views of the NGO community at the time of President Uribe's comments of 11 June. We do not believe it productive to enter into a public debate on these comments. It is more important to continue to underline the need for the Colombian Government to
  767W
  implement their commitments as set out in the London Declaration concerning respect for the rule of law, human rights and international humanitarian law when tackling the problems it faces. I made this point when 1 met the Colombian Foreign Minister in New York on 23 September 2003.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what practical help has been provided to the Colombian Government in accordance with commitments given at the London conference in July 2003. [136987]

  Mr. Rammell
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my noble Friend the Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean gave to the noble Lord, the Lord Avebury in another place on 6 November 2003,Official Report, column WA137.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will reply to the letter of 20 August 2003 from the Member for Banff and Buchan to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire concerning animal welfare and trade liberalisation. [136759]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I apologise for the delay in reply, which was due to an administrative error. The letter has now been transferred to my hon. Friend the Minister for Nature, Conservation and Fisheries (Mr. Bradshaw) on 5 November 2003, who will reply shortly. This should have happened before.

  Democratic Republic of the Congo
  Ann McKechin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans his Department has made to investigate British companies named in the final report of the UN Panel of Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. [136359]

  Mr. Timms
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government take allegations against UK companies in any UN Panel's report seriously. If we are provided with sufficient evidence that a company has broken UK law, we will take action.

  Separately, the DTI, acting as National Contact Point (NCP) for the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Guidelines, is aware of the Panel's report and potential cases arising from it. The role of the NCP is to facilitate a dialogue between the two parties with a view to resolving the issues raised. In this situation, however, the NCP cannot mediate between the parties as the Expert Panel has disbanded on the expiry of its mandate (31 October). The evidence that has been supplied to the NCP by the UN Panel, after several requests by HMG, is general in content and relates only to some of the named companies. DTI will therefore have difficulty progressing these cases, under the Guidelines, on the basis of what has been provided so far.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what independent mechanisms exist for the United Nations Panel on the Democratic Republic of the Congo to 768W
  pursue its investigations into the exploitation of the Congo's natural resources; and what the policy of the Government is in relation to the establishment of such independent capability. [137619]

  Mr. Straw
  The Expert Panel on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources in the DRC disbanded on the expiry of its mandate (31 October 2003). I am not aware of any other independent mechanisms that exist for the Panel to pursue its investigations.

  We have taken the allegations against UK companies in all of the UN Panel's reports very seriously. The report's proposals for preventing the re-occurrence of illegal exploitation are helpful. If we are provided with evidence that a company has broken UK law, we will take legal action. But this latest report fails to substantiate allegations made against UK companies in earlier reports. The evidence that has been supplied to the DTI, the National Contact Point for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Guidelines, is circumstantial and general in content. DTI is seeking clarification.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department has received from British-based individuals and companies relating to the release of information about such companies and individuals by the UN Panel on the Democratic Republic of the Congo in its recent report; and if he will make a statement. [137620]

  Mr. Straw
  The Department of Trade and Industry, acting as the National Contact Point (NCP) for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) guidelines on Multi National Enterprises (MNEs), has been approached by three companies named in the final UN Panel report. Details of these exchanges will remain confidential under the provisions of the Guidelines. We are still waiting for evidence to be supplied by the Panel on a number of UK companies named in the report. We will publish a statement on the report once all the evidence has been received by the NCP (DTI) and the necessary next steps have been taken.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the United Kingdom made to the UN in relation to United Kingdom-based individuals and companies mentioned in the report on the Democratic Republic of the Congo; and if he will make a statement. [137621]

  Mr. Straw
  The Department for Trade and Industry, acting as the National Contact Point (NCP) for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) guidelines on Multi National Enterprises (MNEs), contacted the UN Expert Panel on the illegal exploitation of natural resources in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) on three separate occasions, (between April and September 2003), to request information to substantiate allegations made against UK companies and individuals in its earlier reports. The UK Deputy Permanent representative to the UN in New York asked Ambassador Kassem, the chair of the Expert Panel, personally for further
  769W
  information on the named UK companies and individuals on 11 March 2003. An official from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office also wrote to Ambassador Kassem on 29 May with the same request. On 6 October 2003, an official from our High Commission in Nairobi contacted the political officer of the Panel to request the information. We continue to take every opportunity to seek to clarify the allegations made against UK companies and individuals.

  Guantanamo Bay
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the Government are making on behalf of the welfare and human rights of the non-British detainees at Guantanamo Bay. [137001]

  Mr. MacShane
  The focus of the Government's representations to the US authorities has been on how to resolve the position of the UK detainees held in Guantanamo Bay.

  Our hope, however, is that the issues raised will be reflected in the treatment of other countries' detainees.

  Middle East
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer of 22 October 2003,Official Report, column 617W, on the Middle East, whether Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention is one of the pieces of international law with which he believes the actions of the Israeli Government to be inconsistent. [136739]

  Mr. Rammell
  [holding answer 10 November 2003]The Government believe that the deportation by the state of Israel of persons against whom no charges have been laid may be inconsistent with the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention, including Article 147.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of whether the US Administration's plans for new low yield nuclear weapons will comply with that country's obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. [137590]

  Mr. MacShane
  The United States declared a continuing and firm commitment to its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) at the Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) meeting earlier this year. In a fact sheet circulated at the PrepCom, the United States further declared that it was not developing, testing or producing any nuclear warheads, that there was no current requirement for a new nuclear warhead, and that it maintained its moratorium on nuclear testing.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals the UK will put forward to strengthen the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty at the preparatory conference, Twenty-First session, to be held from 10 to 14 November 2003. [137940]
  770W
  Mr. MacShane
  The Twenty-First Session of the Preparatory Commission (Prepcom) of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), which took place in Vienna from 10 to 14 November 2003, dealt primarily with the 2004 Budget for the Provisional Technical Secretariat. The CTBT has yet to enter into force and the Prepcom has no powers to strengthen the Treaty itself. The UK has always been at the forefront of efforts to maintain the build-up of the Treaty's International Monitoring System. We consider it a priority to ensure that the Treaty's verification requirements can be met at entry into force and will continue to provide appropriate assistance to promote this end.

  Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth 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 he has for removing these legacy powers. [136121]

  Mr. Straw
  My Department has no such investigatory powers.

  President Bush (State Visit)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what basis it was decided to make the forthcoming visit of President Bush an official state visit. [139412]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  President and Mrs. Bush have been invited to visit Britain as guests of Her Majesty The Queen. This is an opportunity to celebrate the many dimensions of the UK's long-standing relationship with the United States, which includes strong cultural and economic ties and goes much wider than the political relationship. Each state visit is considered on an individual basis, underlining the relationship between the UK and the nation of the visiting Head of State. On this basis, it is appropriate for the visit to be a state visit.

PRIME MINISTER

  House of Lords
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister how many applicants for a people's peerage since April 2002 were acquainted with a Commissioner of the House of Lords Appointments Commission. [138661]

  The Prime Minister
  Between 1 April 2002 and 31 August 2003, House of Lords Appointments Commission members were acquainted with 13 out of the 94 people from whom the Commission received nominations.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of those peers created since 1997, with particular reference to people's peers. [139431]

  The Prime Minister
  None. It is not for the Prime Minister to make an assessment of the effectiveness of members of the House of Lords.
  771W
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish the timetable for creating further people's peers. [139433]

  The Prime Minister
  I have invited the House of Lords Appointments Commission to recommend a small number of non-party-political peers. I understand that the Commission is currently considering nominations and will make an announcement in due course.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister how many of those aspiring people's peers who were invited to interview but who were unsuccessful have indicated that they no longer wish their application to be reconsidered. [139746]

  The Prime Minister
  One.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister how many aspiring people's peers who were invited to interview but were not subsequently recommended for elevation to the peerage requested feedback from the Commission as to why they were unsuccessful. [139747]

  The Prime Minister
  None. The House of Lords Appointments Commission made clear in its information pack at the start of the process that it would not provide feedback on unsuccessful nominations.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister how many applications for a people's peerage have been received since April 2001 from hereditary peers who no longer have the right to sit in the House of Lords. [139748]

  The Prime Minister
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost and in breach of the House of Lords Appointments Commission's undertakings to treat all personal information in individual applications in strict confidence.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answers of 13 November 2003,Official Report, columns 429–30W, on the House of Lords, what initiatives the House of Lords Appointments Commission is planning to increase the number of applications from aspiring people's peers. [139794]

  The Prime Minister
  The House of Lords Appointments Commission keeps its plans for attracting new nominations under review.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answers of 13 November 2003,Official Report, columns 429–30W, on the House of Lords, whether any of the applications received since April 2001 were from (a) knights or dames, (b) professors and (c) persons holding the OBE or CBE; and if he will list the employment categories of applicants in work. [139795]

  The Prime Minister
  Yes. The Commission does not record figures because it is not pertinent to the Commission's consideration of nominations. The Commission does not ask applicants for information about their occupation or employment status as it does not wish to discourage people with outstanding achievements in areas unconnected with how they might earn their living.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answers of 13 November 2003,Official Report, columns 429–30W, on the House of Lords, if he
  772W
  will ask the House of Lords Appointments Commission to hold a meeting in Pendle to encourage people there to think about putting themselves forward as a people's peer. [139796]

  The Prime Minister
  No. The House of Lords Appointments Commission is independent and it is for them to decide on their programme of meetings.

  Microsoft (Licensing Fees)
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Prime Minister how much was paid to Microsoft in licensing fees by the Prime Minister's Office in each of the last three years; and how much has been budgeted for(a) 2003–04 and (b) 2004–05. [130675]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer the Minister for the Cabinet Office (Mr. Alexander) gave to him today.

  President Bush (State Visit)
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise the issue of Israel's construction of the Security Wall with President Bush during his visit; and if he will report to the House the outcome of those discussions. [138943]

  The Prime Minister
  I expect to cover a range of issues of common interest with President Bush. I have regular discussions with him on a wide range of international issues including the Middle East Peace Process.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he intends to discuss with President Bush the subject of the United States ratifying the Kyoto Treaty during the President's forthcoming visit. [139395]

  The Prime Minister
  I expect to cover a range of issues of common interest with President Bush. My regular discussions with him include energy policy and climate change. The government welcomes the US's recognition that climate change is a serious problem and the fact that it is taking domestic action.

  The UK is fully committed to the Kyoto Protocol, with its binding targets and timetables, which is designed to deliver absolute global emissions reductions.

  The UK will work with other governments to develop the technologies needed to reduce global emissions further in the longer term.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what the estimated total cost to public funds is of the forthcoming state visit of President Bush. [139413]

  The Prime Minister
  The estimates have not yet been completed as the final details of the programme are still being agreed. We expect the costs falling to Grant-in-Aid to be in line with previous state visits. The policing costs are met by the Metropolitan Police.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Lettings (SE1)
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, how many dwellings in Mitre Road, Ufford Street and
  773W
  Webber Street, London SE1 have been let at open market rents since the Church Commissioners changed their lettings policy for this estate. [139238]

  Mr. Bell
  Since the change in the letting policy, the Commissioners have let 7 of these properties on the open market. A further 2 properties are at various stages of the letting process.

  Over the same period, there have also been 17 lettings on non-market tenancies on the same part of the estate either because of transfers or change of tenancy on succession.

  VAT Group
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Brussels with the Church of England VAT Group to meet(a) UK Permanent Representation officials and (b) Commissioner Bolkestein. [138837]

  Mr. Bell
  The Church VAT Group was grateful for the chance to reiterate the case for a reduced rate of VAT for repairs and maintenance to listed places of worship during the recent visit to Brussels. The UK permanent representative office was very clear about the support of the UK Government for our case and their commitment to argue for it at every level up to the Council of Ministers.

  Commissioner Bolkestein received our presentation with much interest. Clearly, with negotiations still ongoing, involving discussion of the many different EU Member States' aspirations, he was not prepared to anticipate what the final outcome would be during his meeting with us.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  All Ireland Sports Development Conference
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much the Irish Sports Council is contributing to the costs of the All Ireland Sports Development Conference on 20 and 21 November; and what the total cost to the Sports Council of Northern Ireland of the Conference is. [138463]

  Angela Smith
  The hosting of All Island Sports Development Conference is rotated every two years between the Sports Council for Northern Ireland and the Irish Sports Council. This year the Sports Council for Northern Ireland is hosting the event. The host council meets the direct costs of the event and the Sports Council for Northern Ireland will meet the direct running costs for the 2003 All-Island Sports Development Conference. These costs have been budgeted at £116,000.

  Attacks on Medical Staff
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to provide greater funding to increase the personal security of medical staff. [138973]
  774W
  Angela Smith
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 12 November 2003,Official Report, column 375W.

  The Department is concerned about violent attacks against all staff working in the Health and Personal Social Services (HPSS) and regards such incidents as totally unacceptable. The Department has encouraged employers to review their risk assessments with a view to identifying and reducing the potential for violence against HPSS staff.

  In addition, the Department intends to mount a publicity campaign in the near future to make it abundantly clear that aggressive and violent behaviour against any HPSS personnel will not be tolerated. It is intended that this campaign will cover both staff who are employed directly by HSS Boards and Trusts and General Medical and Dental Practitioners, who are independent contractors working within the Health and Personal Social Services.

  Average Pay
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the average weekly gross pay in Northern Ireland for individuals was at the latest date for which figures are available. [137809]

  Mr. Pearson
  Average gross weekly earnings of all full-time adult employees in Northern Ireland was £404.50 at April 2003.

  Monitoring Commission
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the International Monitoring Commission has the authority to investigate the allegations of activities by the Provisional IRA and members of Sinn Fein in(a) Colombia and (b) Florida; and what sanctions it has power to recommend. [132895]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Independent Monitoring Commission will decide what matters are relevant to the exercise of its functions, which are set out in the draft International Agreement published on 4 September. However, the Agreement makes clear that the focus of the Commission will be on continuing activity by paramilitary groups.

  In line with Article 7 of the draft International Agreement, the Commission's reports shall recommend any remedial action considered necessary. The Commission may also recommend what measures, if any, it considers might appropriately be taken by the Northern Ireland Assembly. Such measures are limited to those which the Northern Ireland Assembly has power to take under relevant United Kingdom legislation.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many applications to the Planning Service are awaiting consideration; and what the average waiting time for the consideration of these applications has been. [138941]
  775W
  Angela Smith
  There are currently 13,832 applications awaiting consideration in the system. The average waiting time for consideration of these applications is 28 weeks.

  Skills Shortages
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps are being taken to address skills shortages in Northern Ireland, with particular reference to the elementary occupations; and if he will make a statement. [132793]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Northern Ireland Skills Task Force was established in 1999 to advise Government on skills issues. The Task Force has published skills monitoring reports, the most recent in September 2003, and has conducted research on future skills needs in priority skills areas including engineering, construction and tourism.

  The Department seeks to address the identified skill needs through its various programmes including the Jobskills Training programme and Further and Higher Education provision. Jobskills, including Modern Apprenticeships, together with a wider range of vocational education and training which addresses local and NI-wide skills needs, is provided through a network of further education colleges and private sector training providers.

  The Department has highlighted six priority skill areas for the further education sector and provides additional funding for these areas (computing, construction and the built environment, electronic engineering, manufacturing engineering, hospitality and catering, and software engineering). The development of Centres of Excellence in colleges in the six priority skill areas ensures that the provision is of industry standard. There are currently 13 Centres of Excellence in eight colleges. The Department also works closely with 13 Sector Training Councils in NI covering the major industrial sectors. In addition, the Department plays a full role in the new Skills for Business Network, a UK-wide system including Sector Skills Councils (SSCs). These SSCs aim to address all of the skill needs of their sectors and to involve employers more fully in these issues.

  With regard to elementary occupations, the Department seeks to fill such vacancies through its network of jobs and benefits offices and through use of the New Deal Programme where appropriate.

  The Department has also launched the Essential Skills for Living Strategy and Action Plan, which aims to support 25,000 adults to improve their literacy and numeracy skills by the year 2005. This will enable them to improve their overall quality of life, their personal development and employment opportunities. In the first year of the strategy, 6,500 learners have participated in a range of courses offered by the colleges, employers and community and voluntary providers.
  776W

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Adult Learning
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps the Government are taking to encourage people over 60 to take part in adult learning. [138163]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The White Paper '21st Century Skills: Realising Our Potential', published in July this year, reiterates the Government's commitment to ensuring that adults of all ages have the opportunities to develop the skills they need for employment and personal fulfilment. The White Paper highlights the benefits of learning for older people and sets out our intention to safeguard a wide range of learning opportunities for pensioners, including leisure-based learning which is accessed by many older people.

  Older people will also benefit from the new entitlement, announced in the White Paper, to free learning for all those studying for their first full Level 2 qualification [5 GCSEs or a similar vocational qualification] as a skills foundation for employability.

  Brampton Abbotts School
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the funding of Brampton Abbotts Church of England primary school in Herefordshire. [139055]

  Mr. Miliband
  Funding of individual maintained schools is the responsibility of the local education authority, which in the case of Brampton Abbotts CE Primary School is Herefordshire council.

  Bullying
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what services are available to(a) students and (b) teachers to deal with bullying in schools. [137538]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Students receive support from their school's pastoral support system. In addition ChildLine's CHIPS programme, which is part-funded by my Department, enables students at participating schools to talk to a trained peer supporter, buddy or mediator. Students at other schools can ring ChildLine's confidential helpline (0800 1111).

  Teachers can get support from senior managers in their schools, LEA advisory services (including the specialist Key Stage 3 Behaviour and Attendance advisers), the DfES anti-bullying pack "Bullying: don't Suffer in Silence" and the anti-bullying sections of our Key Stage 3 package of behaviour audit and training materials.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what the Government's estimate is of the proportion of children that were bullied in schools in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) the North West region and (c) Merseyside in each of the last three years; [137977]
  777W
  (2) what plans he has to reduce the number of children that are bullied in schools in England; and what additional resources the Government have made available in this financial year to schools to tackle bullying. [138010]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Data on bullying is not collected centrally and there is no reliable basis for an estimate of prevalence. However, any level of bullying is too high so we are determined to help schools tackle it.

  Our guidance pack for schools 'Bullying: Don't Suffer in Silence' and anti-bullying website (www.dfes.gov.uk/ bullying) offer advice and examples of good practice in preventing bullying.

  I recently launched a new public information film aimed at children and young people. "Tell Someone" encourages pupils experiencing bullying to tell someone who can help rather than suffer in silence.

  Later this month I will be launching an anti-bullying Charter which I hope as many schools as possible will sign and use. The Charter is being drawn up in consultation with the professional associations and voluntary sector partners. It will be accompanied by a summary of effective practice to help schools review and enhance their anti-bullying policies.

  The Charter will be launched at the first of a series of regional conferences. These conferences will involve schools, local education authorities and voluntary organisations. As well as raising awareness, they will celebrate and share good practice in tackling bullying.

  We are investing nearly £470 million over the next three years in measures to tackle the full range of behaviour and attendance problems faced by schools and pupils. This programme promotes whole-school approaches and reflects local as well as national priorities so spending on bullying cannot be disaggregated. However, in 2003–04 we have separately provided ChildLine in Partnership with Schools (CHIPS) with £240,000 for anti-bullying work involving peer support and just over £190,000 to Parentline Plus for their helpline for parents which takes enquiries about bullying.

  Childhood Obesity
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent discussions he has had with(a) the Department of Health, (b) the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and (c) educational representatives on the role of education in tackling obesity among children; and if he will make a statement. [139448]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department works closely with the Department of Health (DH). the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and others on a range of initiatives which educate children about the benefits of healthy eating, healthy food choices, and physical activity. One example is the National Healthy Schools programme that promotes healthy eating and healthy lifestyles, which is jointly sponsored by DfES and DH. A second example is the national PE, School Sport and Club Links strategy designed to ensure that 75 per cent. of five to 16-year-olds in England spend at least two hours each week on high quality PE and school sport, which is supported by DfES and DCMS.
  778W
  Last week the Secretary of State for Education and Skills announced that he will be working with the Secretary of State for Health and others to develop a joint "Healthy Schools: Healthy Living Action Plan", which will make healthy living an integral part of school life.

  Education (13 to 19)
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people aged 13 to 19 were in(a) school, (b) further education college and (c) neither school nor further education college in (i) 2001–02, (ii) 2002–03 and (iii) 2003–04. [138544]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Data for the academic year 2003/04 is not available at the present.

  The numbers of 13 to 18-year-olds by type of institution attended for end 2001 to end 2002, the latest available year, are shown in the table.

  Participation by 13 to 18-year-olds

  2001/02

  2002/03

  13 to 15-year-olds

  Schools

  1,892,259

  1,920,952

  Not in schools1

  15,390

  15,635

  16 to 18-year-olds

  Schools

  405,300

  418,700

  Further Education Institutions (FEIs)

  494,100

  N/A

  Higher Education Institutions (HEIs)

  131,400

  N/A

  Not in schools, FEIs or HEIs2

  825,500

  N/A

  1This figure is for 11 to 15-year-olds. This will include, for example, pupils being educated at home, or non-statemented pupils in hospital.

  2 These 16 to 18-year-olds not in schools, FE or HE institutions may be in government supported training (GST), employer funded training (EFT), other education training (GET) or employment.

  Data for 16 to 18-year-olds in the year 2002/03 (shown as N/A in the table), and updated 2001/02 figures, are due to be published on 20 November 2003 in the SFR "Participation in Education, Training and Employment By 16–18 year olds in England".

  Education Provision (East Riding)
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the pay rates are for(a) primary school teachers, (b) secondary school teachers and (c) teaching assistants in the East Riding of Yorkshire in 2003–04. [136471]

  Mr. Miliband
  Classroom teachers in the East Riding of Yorkshire are paid on the national pay scales for teachers in England and Wales. Apart from the London area, these national rates do not distinguish between geographic locations or between primary and secondary schools. The national pay rates for classroom teachers in England and Wales for 2003/04 are as follows:

  £ pa

  M1

  18,105

  M2

  19,536

  M3

  21,108

  M4

  22,734

  M5

  24,525

  M6

  26,460

  U1

  28,668

  779W

  £ pa

  U2

  29,730

  U3

  30,831

  U4

  31,968

  U5

  33,150

  Newly qualified teachers normally start at point M1 and move up a point a year, subject to satisfactory service, until they reach point M6. They can then apply to be assessed against national standards and, if successful, move to point U1 with the possibility of further moves based on performance.

  Schools have discretion to give classroom teachers extra allowances worth up to £10,572 pa for taking on management responsibilities, up to £3,312 pa for teaching special educational needs pupils, and up to £5,415 pa for recruitment and retention purposes.

  The Government considers that pay and contractual arrangements for teaching assistants are best determined at local level and detailed information on these matters is not held centrally. Many local authorities are now reviewing support staff pay in the light of the agreement—commonly known as the Single Status Agreement—made in 1997 by the National Joint Council for Local Government Services (NJC). A guidance document on the employment and grading of school support staff was published by the NJC in October. Links between potential roles and the pay of support staff will remain a matter for local determination, but the National Agreement on Raising Standards and Tackling Workload, signed on 15 January 2003 by the government, local authority employers and school workforce unions, makes clear that we expect support staff remuneration to reflect their level of training, skills and responsibilities.

  Employer Training Pilots
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the Employer Training Pilots project. [139077]

  Alan Johnson
  We are in the process of considering the evaluation from the first year of operation of the pilots and it is our intention to publish an interim report in due course. In November 2002 a decision was made to extend the pilots to August 2004 to give us a wider base of evidence on which to base future policy decisions. We will be undertaking a full evaluation of the second year of operation and hope to publish a full report by Spring 2005.

  GCSEs
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what proportion of 15-year-olds in(a) Wiltshire, (b) Dorset and (c) Devon achieved (i) five or more A* to CGCSE grades and (ii) five or more GCSE passes in each year since 1997; [138961]

  (2) what proportion of 15 and 16-year-olds in (a) Wiltshire, (b) Dorset and (c) Devon were entered for GCSE examinations in each year since 1997. [138964]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 17 November 2003]The statistical information requested is detailed in the following table.
  780W

  Percentage

  Academic year

  Dorset

  Wiltshire

  Devon2

  Percentage of 15-year-old pupils1 achieving 5 or more grades A*-C

  1997

  49.8

  50.5

  44.0

  1998

  50.0

  51.9

  47.0

  1999

  53.5

  52.3

  48.4

  2000

  54.6

  55.5

  49.1

  2001

  56.4

  55.5

  51.3

  2002

  59.0

  57.0

  50.4

  20033

  59.6

  57.3

  52.5

  Percentage of 15-year-old pupils1 achieving 5 or more grades A*-G

  1997

  91.9

  90.7

  89.8

  1998

  92.7

  91.0

  91.1

  1999

  93.7

  90.7

  91.0

  2000

  93.0

  91.9

  91.2

  2001

  92.1

  91.7

  90.5

  2002

  91.9

  90.7

  89.9

  20033

  92.8

  91.5

  90.5

  Percentage of 15- year- old- pupils1 attempting at least one GCSE/GNVQ

  1997

  95.9

  95.8

  96.6

  1998

  96.7

  95.8

  97.3

  1999

  96.9

  95.8

  96.8

  2000

  96.2

  96.4

  96.8

  2001

  96.7

  96.2

  96.5

  2002

  96.9

  96.1

  96.7

  20033

  97.1

  96.3

  96.7

  1Pupils are aged 15 at the start of the academic year i.e. 31 August.

  2For 1997, Devon LEA included schools in Torbay and Plymouth. Following the Local Government reorganisation in 1998, Torbay and Plymouth schools are excluded from the Devon figures.

  3Provisional

  Higher Education White Paper
  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether the graduate contribution scheme described in the White Paper on Higher Education is(a) debt, (b) an income contingent loan or (c) an individualised graduate tax. [139625]

  Alan Johnson
  Under the Graduate Contribution Scheme described in the Higher Education White Paper, students may take out a loan to cover the cost of their tuition fees, repayable on an income-contingent basis through the tax system.

  Maths Teachers
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps his Department is taking to encourage mathematics graduates to become teachers. [138723]

  Mr. Miliband
  Since September 2000, £6,000 training bursaries have been available to postgraduate trainee teachers and £4,000 golden hellos for those who go on to teach priority subjects, including mathematics, in a maintained school. Since September 2002, these incentives have been reinforced by the Repayment of Teachers' Loans pilot scheme for new teachers of priority subjects. Recruitment to postgraduate courses of initial teacher training in mathematics has accordingly risen by 68 per cent. between 1999/2000 and 2003/04. Partly as a result of this increase, the number of unfilled vacancies for mathematics teachers in maintained secondary schools has fallen by 22 per cent. in only two years.
  781W
  The Government will build on these achievements over the coming years. The Teacher Training Agency is currently developing a number of new initiatives to bring more mathematics specialists into the classroom. These include enhancement courses designed to allow prospective teachers of mathematics to bring their subject-knowledge up to the required level for entry onto a postgraduate teacher training course.

  Medical Students
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to the answer of 10 November,Official Report, column 90W, if he will give a breakdown by individual institution of the 81 students on courses leading to registration with the General Medical Council and subsequent practice as a doctor who are under 21 and have less than the equivalent of three grade Cs at A level. [139121]

  Alan Johnson
  No. The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) does not, as a matter of policy, publish sensitive student data at course level for individual institutions.

  Minister for Children
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether the Minister for Children sought advice from departmental officials before writing to the Chairman of the BBC about child abuse in Islington; and if he will make a statement. [139027]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Minister for Children sought no advice from any departmental official, but did discuss in general terms with the Department's Special Advisers the possibility of writing to the BBC.

  Modern Apprenticeships
  Rob Marris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether(a) his Department and (b) its agencies carry out exit surveys with those who (i) complete and (ii) do not complete modern apprenticeships. [136975]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 17 November 2003]DfES place the responsibility for planning and managing Modern Apprenticeships (MAs) on the Learning and Skills Council (LSC). Both the Department and LSC place great importance on the role of learner surveys in quality strategies and improvement. The LSC have been running a learner satisfaction survey since early 2002 and the first report was published in November 2002. The main purpose of the survey is to interview those who are still in learning; however, it does cover some learners who have recently completed their course and also a small number who left early.

  Both the Department and the LSC are also aware of the importance of labour market destination data. Some feasibility work has recently been concluded and DfES and LSC along with ALI and Ofsted will shortly be publishing proposals as to how best to implement the recommendations.

  Rob Marris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of successfully completed modern apprenticeships in(a) 2001–02
  782W
  and (b) 2002–03 were provided by (i) further education colleges, (ii) private training providers and (iii) employers. [136976]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 17 November 2003]The information requested is not available. The Learning and Skills Council (LSC) published framework completion rates for modern apprenticeship programmes as a whole in July 2003. Current apprenticeships training is delivered in a variety of different ways, including collaboration between various providers and so is not always an exclusive relationship between one provider and one apprentice–hence it is not possible to estimate the proportion of modern apprenticeships successfully completed through different providers.

  Rob Marris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of young people undertaking a modern apprenticeship in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03 had all or part of their training provided by a further education college. [136979]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 17 November 2003]The Learning and Skills Council (LSC) publish figures on modern apprenticeships learner volumes within figures for work-based learning as a whole. They estimate that around 20 per cent. of modern apprenticeships were delivered directly through further education colleges in 2002/03. This figure excludes cases where other training providers for work-based learning have sub-contracted their delivery through further education colleges.

  Non-EU Students
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many non-European Union students registered for courses in(a) further education colleges and (b) universities in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [131723]

  Alan Johnson
  The latest available figures are in the table.

  Number of non-European Union overseas students, studying in English FE colleges and HE institutions

  Thousand

  FEcolleges1

  Academic year

  Council funded

  Non-Council funded

  HE institutions2

  1997/98

  5.1

  n/a

  92.7

  1998/99

  5.7

  n/a

  94.8

  1999/2000

  7.2

  n/a

  99.9

  2000/01

  8.4

  18.5

  109.7

  2001/02

  7.2

  20.0

  120.8

  1FE data cover non-EU overseas students studying HE and FE in English FECs, based on a census count as at 1 November.

  2HE figures cover non-EU overseas students studying HE and FE in English HEIs including the OU, based on a census count as at 1 December.

  Source:

  Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) and Learning Skills Council (LSC).
  783W

  National Vocational Qualifications
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action he will take to raise the percentage of the London workforce with NVQ Level 2 qualifications. [137490]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Skills Strategy, published in July, set out our intention to introduce a new entitlement for any adult in the labour force to have access to free learning for their first full Level 2 qualification. This entitlement will enable individuals to reach a level of attainment that gives a platform of skills for employability, improve their position in the labour market, and increase their chances of undertaking further learning. We are working with the Learning and Skills Council nationwide on the phasing in of the Level 2 entitlement, with phase one in 2004–05 and full rollout beginning the following year.

  The Secretary of State has asked the London Development Agency and its partners to produce proposals showing how they will work together to address the key themes of the Skills Strategy, including raising the percentage of the workforce with Level 2 qualifications. The five local London LSCs are working together as a regional pioneer to ensure a consistent approach to improving the quality and responsiveness of post-16 skills provision through the Success for All strategy.

  Employer Training Pilots (ETPs) are testing new financial support measures to improve access to training and enable employees to attain basic and Level 2 skills. The East London pilot was launched in September this year and has already signed up 35 employers, 559 NVQ Level 2 learners and 26 basic skills learners.

  In addition, London West LSC is one of the 10 areas piloting the new Adult Learning Grant. The grant offers up to £30 per week to adults on low incomes studying full time for a first full Level 2 qualification, and young adults on low incomes studying full time for a first full Level 3 qualification.

  Poorer Students
  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what incentives he plans to introduce to encourage universities to offer places to poorer students under a mandatory bursary scheme; [139167]

  (2) what form of bursary system he plans to adopt to help poorer students at universities that charge higher tuition fees; [139168]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the potential effects of a bursary system on the offer of places at university for poorer students; [139169]

  (4) what amount from higher top-up fees he will require universities to set aside for bursaries from poorer students; and by what mechanism. [139170]

  Alan Johnson
  We are considering and discussing the content of access agreements and the duties of the Office for Fair Access, and will make a statement in due course.

  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what representations he has received from(a) Imperial College and (b) Sir Richard
  784W
  Sykes in respect of proposals to ask universities to provide bursaries for poorer students out of variable tuition fees; [139171]

  (2) what representations he has received from universities in England regarding proposals to provide bursaries for poorer students out of variable top-up fees; [139172]

  (3) what discussions he has had with universities in England regarding their preferred methods of contributing to bursaries for poorer students from higher tuition fees.[139173]

  Alan Johnson
  In our discussions over the content of access agreements and the duties of the Office for Fair Access, we have had representations from a range of interested parties including higher education institutions.

  Post-16 Education
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures are in place to encourage schoolchildren to stay in school after the age of 16. [139609]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  "14—19: opportunity and excellence", issued in January 2003, sets out our plans to reform education and training for young people, offering a broader and more flexible range of options, including more vocational learning opportunities, to encourage greater participation and higher attainment throughout the 14—19 phase. Young people may choose to study at school, in a college or workplace, or a combination of these, depending on their individual needs and preferences.

  From September 2004, education maintenance allowance will be available across the country, offering means-tested payments to help support young people in post-compulsory education.

  The Connexions card is available to all young people aged 16—19 and offers a wide range of discounts on goods and services which help reduce the cost of learning. In addition young people attending a place of learning which adopts the card can earn points for attendance. These points can be exchanged for a wide variety of incentives and "money can't buy" opportunities which are exclusive to those who stay in learning.

  School Funding
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether his pledge of increased school funding is aimed at assisting schools in meeting the cost of(a) incremental drift and (b) teachers crossing the pay threshold. [137477]

  Mr. Miliband
  Increased school funding designed to help school maintain the improvement in standards since 1997. The cost of incremental drift has been taken into account in calculating average cost pressures, and although schools' costs will vary from the average, the 5 per cent. floor increase for LEAs should enable them to target resources at particular schools which have unavoidable higher than average staff costs. Threshold payments will continue to be fully funded through grant in 2004–05.
  785W

  Tuition Fees
  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his estimate is of the average debt medical students will face when they qualify as doctors if they are charged the maximum tuition fee per year. [137216]

  Alan Johnson
  Average additional debt for medical students as a result of being charged the maximum variable fee of £3,000 per year from 2006/07 will depend on whether they receive a higher education grant or a bursary from university; and whether they use these sums to offset fees. Currently students who are not eligible for means-tested grants for fees pay £1,125 contributions to fees. Over the four years when this Department is responsible for medical students' support, the maximum increase in support would be £1,875 per year, totalling an additional £7,500, to meet the difference. Poorer medical students will in addition be eligible for HE grants of up to £1,000 per year and university bursaries which will reduce their costs and hence their extra debt.

  The level of loan taken out by medical students will depend upon their individual circumstances and choices, including the extent to which they work while in higher education. In years five and six they currently pay no contribution to fees and are eligible for means tested NHS bursaries, which helps to keep down the level of debt. Medical students on graduation should have better prospects of secure employment and of higher salaries than the typical graduate and will therefore pay off their loans faster.

  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions he has had with Ministerial colleagues from other Departments in respect of increasing proposed tuition fee remission levels for students from poorer backgrounds. [139165]

  Alan Johnson
  The Secretary of State has had a number of discussions with colleagues across Government on all aspects of his proposals for financing higher education.

  University Enrolments
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the work of the task force on university enrolments chaired by Professor Thomas. [129989]

  Alan Johnson
  I apologise for the delay in replying. I believe the reference is to the Higher Education Endowment Task Force chaired by Professor Eric Thomas, Vice Chancellor of Bristol University. The Task Force is focusing on: exploring tax incentives and models of matched funding schemes to encourage giving and institutions' capacity to raise funds; building a culture where universities ask for donations and donors are more willing to give; and elements necessary for a professional development office and effective fundraising. The Task Force is due to report in March 2004.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what evidence he has collated on higher education student participation by socio-786W
  economic class in (a) subgraduate qualifications, (b) first degree courses and (c) postgraduate qualifications. [135783]

  Alan Johnson
  The available information on undergraduate participation is the Age Participation Index (API). The API measures the proportion of UK domiciled initial entrants to full-time undergraduate HE by the age of 20 and is expressed as a percentage of the average of the 18 and 19-year-old populations. The most recent information, for 2001/02, is in the table.

  Participation rates for postgraduate study are not held centrally.

  Age Participation Index (API) by social class1 and level of course, 2001/02

  Social class

  First degree

  Sub degree2

  I Professional

  77

  3

  II Intermediate

  47

  3

  IIIn skilled non-manual

  31

  3

  IIIm skilled manual

  19

  2

  V Partly skilled

  16

  2

  V Unskilled

  13

  2

  I-IIIn

  47

  3

  Illm-V

  18

  2

  Total

  30

  6

  1Figures rounded to nearest whole percentage.

  1Around a third of home domiciled sub-degree entrants to GB institutions, aged under 21 years, were part time in 2001/02 and so would not be included in the API.

  Working Tax Credit
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the cost of raising the maximum child care element of the working tax credit from 70 per cent. of the costs of eligible child care to(a) 80 per cent., (b) 90 per cent. and (c) 100 per cent. [136777]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply.

  Such increases are likely to prompt substantial changes in the amount spent on eligible child care. No reliable estimates are available of the sizes of these changes, and therefore of the total costs.

WALES

  Coal Mining Communities
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has made to the Department of Trade and Industry regarding the amount paid to Welsh communities by the Coalfields Regeneration Trust in comparison with other former coal mining communities. [115145]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right hon. Friend and I have regular discussions with Ministers at the Department for Trade and Industry covering matters of interest to people living in former coal mining areas of Wales.

  There have been no recent discussions on the Coalfields regeneration Trust.
  787W

  Website
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent assessment he has made of the content and design of his Department's website. [139365]

  Mr. Touhig
  A recent review will lead to a bilingual homepage to more easily link to the parallel English and Welsh versions. A further review of the overall content and design of the site is due to begin shortly.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will place in the Library an updated progress report on the implementation of the new child support scheme. [137926]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I have today placed in the Library a second report on progress in implementation of the new child support scheme.

  Mr. Alan Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when Child Support Agency cases which have been assessed under the old scheme and which are linked to cases which have been assessed under the new scheme will be re-assessed under the new scheme. [139525]

  Mr. Pond
  Linked cases will transfer to the new scheme from the date on which the fresh case takes effect. (Cases are treated as linked where a person who already has an old scheme assessment is involved in a new scheme application. In addition there are special rules for households on certain prescribed benefits.)

  Council Tax Benefit
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the number of people eligible for but not claiming Council Tax Benefit in(a) the City of Edinburgh local authority area, (b) Scotland and (c) the UK in 2002–03. [138684]

  Mr. Pond
  The information is not available.

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

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he is taking to improve the take-up of Council Tax Benefit among pensioners. [138688]

  Mr. Pond
  Council Tax Benefit is administered by over 400 local authorities, each of which is required by legislation to take appropriate steps to ensure that people with a potential entitlement to Council Tax Benefit are made aware of the help available. Information is also contained in leaflet GL17 "Help with your Council Tax Benefit" as well as various other information leaflets and posters produced by the Department.

  Applicants for Pension Credit are asked if they want to claim Council Tax Benefit and they are either sent or given a claim form to return to their local authority. A similar approach is being taken when a customer
  788W
  changes address. The claim packs for Income Support and Jobseekers Allowance also include a claim form for Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.

  Disability Rights Task Force
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent representations he has received from the Disability Rights Task Force. [137908]

  Maria Eagle
  The Disability Rights Task Force was set up in 1997 to advise the Government on how best to meet our Manifesto commitment on comprehensive and enforceable civil rights for disabled people. Following its recommendations to Government, it was disbanded in December 1999.

  We have already legislated to meet many of the Task Force's recommendations, including:

  the Disability Rights Commission Act 1999;

  the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001;

  the Disability Discrimination (Blind and Partially Sighted Persons) Regulations 2003; and

  the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (Amendment) Regulations 2003.

  We have also announced that we will take forward other Task Force legislative recommendations in a draft Disability Bill. The draft Bill will be published later this year with the intention that it undergo pre-legislative scrutiny. Following this process, the Bill will be introduced into Parliament.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many disabled(a) children under 16 and (b) people aged between 16 and 59 receive (i) Disability Living Allowance, (ii) Higher Rate Care Component only, (iii) Middle Rate Care Component only, (iv) Higher Rate Mobility Component only, (v) Higher Rate Care with Higher Rate Mobility Components, (vi) Higher Rate Care with Lower Rate Mobility Components, (vii) Middle Rate Care with Higher Rate Mobility Components, (viii) Middle Rate Care with Lower Rate Mobility Components and (ix) Lower Rate Care with Higher Rate Mobility Components; and how many recipients in each case are part of a household in which another adult under 60 or child also gets Disability Living Allowance at one of the above rates. [139114]

  Maria Eagle
  The information on the numbers of disabled people receiving the various combinations of Disability Living Allowance is given in the following table.

  Disability Living Allowance by age bands and components as at 31 May 2003

  DLA combination

  Under 16

  16–59

  Higher Rate Care Only

  28.6

  7.0

  Middle Rate Care Only

  51.3

  38.4

  Higher Rate Mobility Only

  2.8

  186.5

  Higher Rate Care and Higher Mobility

  40.8

  183.9

  Higher Rate Care Lower Rate Mobility

  33.8

  65.9

  Middle Rate Care and Higher Rate Mobility

  15.2

  172.4

  Middle Rate Care and Lower Rate Mobility

  63.7

  193.0

  Lower Rate Care and Higher Rate Mobility

  0.9

  183.4

  Note

  Figures are in thousands and rounded to the nearest hundred.

  Source

  IAD Information Centre, 5 per cent. sample.
  789W
  5 per cent. of households with a person under 60 claiming Disability Living Allowance (DLA) have another person under 60 also claiming DLA. It is not possible to break this figure down by the individual components as requested.

  Notes

  1. The information on numbers within households is based on data from the Family Resource Survey (FRS) for 2001–02.

  2. The information on benefit receipt taken from the FRS is based on self-assessment and therefore may be subject to misreporting.

  3. The estimates are based on sample counts that have been adjusted for non-response. These estimates are subject to sampling error and response bias.

  Full-time Carers
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what additional support has been offered to private individuals who are full-time carers for friends and family since 1997.[136441]

  Maria Eagle
  "Caring about Carers—A National Strategy for Carers" published in 1999 underlined the Government's commitment to support carers. Carers are entitled to an assessment by their local council to determine their needs as carers and their eligibility for support. Depending on their individual circumstances, carers have access to the full range of social security benefits including Carer's Allowance (CA) (previously Invalid Care Allowance), the Carer Premium in income-related benefits and additional amounts in Pension Credit.

  The improvements we have made to the support and benefits for carers on top of the annual upratings of benefits include:
  the introduction of the Carers' Grant in 1999 to support local councils in providing short breaks for carers to enable them to continue to care while maintaining their own health and wellbeing. In response to requests from carers and others, the 2003–04 Carers Grant includes new flexibilities. Local councils can now use as much of the money as they wish in pooled budgets and they can fund more services directly for carers. This offers them the opportunity to support carers in more responsive and innovative ways, and not only through breaks;

  strengthening, in 2000, of the right of carers to an assessment of their own needs. Local councils were given a mandatory duty to support carers by providing them with services directly and with breaks from caring. In addition, Direct Payments from local councils were made available to carers to enable them to purchase carers services themselves. Resources for personal social services increased by 20 per cent. in real terms between 1996–97 and 2002–03, an average real terms increase of 3 per cent. a year, and will be increased by an annual average of 6 per cent. in real terms from 2003–04 to 2005–06. In 2001–02, local councils provided help to over 140,000 carers through the adults service and to some 52,000 people (including young carers) through the children's service;

  increasing the carer premium by £1O a week above normal uprating;

  increasing the CA earnings limit from £50 to £72 a week in 2001. Since then, the earnings limit has been increased each year in line with the rise in the national insurance lower earnings limit and is currently £77 after allowable expenses;

  abolishing the upper age limit on claims to CA in 2002, so that carers aged 65 and over can claim the allowance. People in receipt of basic state pension who are entitled to, but do not
  790W
  receive CA because of the overlapping benefit rules may be entitled to extra money with their income-related benefits or Pension Credit;

  extending entitlement to CA by up to eight weeks after death of disabled person being cared for; and

  from April 2003, requiring local councils to make direct payments to carers who have an assessed need and are able to manage the payments (alone or with assistance), and giving local councils discretionary powers to support flexibility in provision of short breaks for carers through the short term breaks voucher scheme.

  Carers can find out about the support and benefits available to them through various routes: on-line services such as UK Online, or the Government DWP and carers websites; by telephone via benefits helplines, NHS Direct, carers centres, Carers UK helpline; and booklets/leaflets published by the Government or voluntary sector.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people aged over 65 years have claimed Invalid Care Allowance and subsequently Carer's Allowance since 28 October 2002 in(a) Glasgow, Anniesland and (b) the United Kingdom. [136942]

  Maria Eagle
  Information for Great Britain is as follows.

  Number of claims received for Invalid Care Allowance and subsequently Careres Allowance since 28 October 2002

  Claims received from people aged 65 and over

  Anniesland Glasgow

  95

  Great Britain

  31,450

  Note

  Figures are rounded to the nearest five.

  Source

  IAD Information Centre, 100 per cent sample

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Alan Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in Argyll and Bute constituency are in receipt of Pension Credit; and what his estimate is of the number of pensioners in the constituency who are entitled to receive Pension Credit. [139526]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available in the format requested.

  As at 17 October 2003 the number of people receiving Pension Credit in Argyll and Bute constituency was 2,735.

  Around 400,000 pensioner households are entitled to Pension Credit in Scotland.

  Notes

  1. Figures have been rounded to the nearest five.

  2. Figures are based on 100 per cent. Generalised Matching Service (GMS) data.

  3. Parliamentary constituencies are assigned by matching postcodes against the relevant ONS postcode directory.

  Source

  IAD Information Centre, 100 per cent. sample.
  791W

  Profiling
  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what research he has commissioned on the use of profiling; and if he will make a statement on the use of profiling within the benefit system. [134931]

  Mr. Pond
  We have commissioned research to explore the potential in using statistical profiling to allocate work-focused help within the Department's client groups: sick and disabled people, lone parents and unemployed people. This research, which has been carried out by the Policy Studies Institute, is due to be published on 20 November 2003 and a copy of the report will be placed in the Library.

  We also commissioned a large-scale literature review to help inform the development of the screening process used in the Incapacity Benefit reform pilots introduced in October 2003. This screening is used to distinguish between those incapacity benefit clients who are likely to make an early return to work and those who are not. This enables us to provide more intensive support to return to the labour market to people in this second group. The report of the review "Screening to identify people at risk of long-term incapacity for work" by Professors Gordon Waddell, Kim Burton, and Chris Main was published in May 2003.

  In addition we have commissioned a literature review from the Institute for Employment Research, Warwick university to provide evidence to establish whether customer profiling could be useful to Jobcentre Plus, by using international comparisons from other public employment agencies.

  Scottish Local Authorities
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions which Scottish local authorities have returned unspent discretionary housing payment funds to the Department of Work and Pensions in each year for which figures are available; and how much was returned in each case. [139010]

  Mr. Pond
  The information is in the table.

  Refunds by Scottish local authorities of unspent discretionary housing payment funds

  Amount refunded(£)

  Local authority

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Aberdeen

  43,840

  12,905

  Aberdeenshire

  21,388

  0

  Angus

  0

  0

  Argyll-Bute

  4,440

  0

  Clackmannanshire

  7,187

  2—

  Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar

  0

  0

  Dumfries and Galloway

  23,463

  0

  Dundee

  64,867

  2—

  East Ayrshire

  22,005

  2—

  East Dunbartonshire

  0

  0

  East Lothian

  4,842

  2—

  East Renfrewshire

  25,933

  18,223

  Edinburgh

  53,754

  0

  Falkirk

  10,441

  2—

  Fife

  47,489

  3,106

  Glasgow

  0

  0

  Highland

  5,319

  2—

  Inverclyde

  17,985

  0

  Midlothian

  3,420

  7,723

  Moray

  2,966

  1,573

  792W

  Refunds by Scottish local authorities of unspent discretionary housing payment funds

  Amount refunded(£)

  Local authority

  2001–02

  2002–03

  North Ayrshire

  16,262

  2—

  North Lanarkshire

  24,135

  27,082

  Orkney

  383

  0

  Perth and Kinross

  13,362

  10,550

  Renfrewshire

  42,148

  2—

  Scottish borders

  10,252

  2—

  Scottish homes

  6,534

  1 n/a

  Shetland

  1,297

  2—

  South Ayrshire

  929

  2—

  South Lanarkshire

  14,799

  0

  Stirling

  11,484

  6,756

  West Dunbartonshire

  1,289

  0

  West Lothian

  19,315

  0

  1Scottish homes, the national housing agency for Scotland, ceased to administer benefits after 2001–02.

  2 Refers to authorities that have not yet returned an audited final claim

  Notes

  1. For 2001–02 most authorities was given their maximum grant and had to refund any under-spend.

  2. For 2002–03 each authority was given a partial grant adjusting payments and/or refunds are made where appropriate.

  Source

  Audited final claims from local authorities.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Asylum Seekers
  Andy King
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many qualified legal advisers have a Community Legal Service franchise to represent asylum seekers in England. [138692]

  Mr. Lammy
  As at 1 November 2003, there were 504 solicitors' offices in England and Wales1 with contracts to undertake publicly-funded immigration and asylum work. At the same date, there were 90 Not for Profit organisations in England and Wales with contracts to undertake publicly funded immigration and asylum work. It is not possible to provide figures for the number of advisers employed under these contracts.

  1The LSC provides publicly-funded legal services in England and Wales through contracts with solicitors' offices and Not for Profit organisations. It is possible for solicitors based in Wales to represent clients in England and visa versa.

  County Court Judgments
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many county court judgments have been made against individuals in(a) London and (b) England and Wales in each of the last six years. [139258]

  Mr. Leslie
  [holding answer 17 November 2003]Information identifying whether or not the claimant or defendant is either an individual or company is not held centrally. Consequently, figures relating specifically to individuals could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  For information, figures showing the overall number of judgments entered in the county courts in (a) London and (b) England and Wales are provided in the table.
  793W

  London

  England and Wales

  1997

  67,080

  1,185,367

  1998

  51,589

  1,123,568

  1999

  43,825

  1,077,499

  2000

  39,317

  1,013,044

  2001

  37,219

  887,049

  2002

  34,692

  814,824

  Dispute Resolution
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what action his Department is taking to promote the use of alternative dispute resolution in legal cases in which Government Departments are involved. [138931]

  Mr. Lammy
  In March 2001, the Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg) announced the Government's pledge to consider and use alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in their own disputes where suitable and wherever the other party accepts it. Since then, Departments, individually and collectively, have been taking forward work on embedding ADR in the way they handle their disputes.

  This Department collates information on the Government's use of ADR under the pledge. The latest report, published in July 2003, demonstrated increasing use of ADR. The report also highlighted the programme of awareness training that has been introduced across Departments. In addition, this Department's legal adviser chairs the ADR sub-group of the Government Legal Service Liaison Group, a cross-government body that was established as a result of the pledge, to promote awareness and use of ADR.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what cost savings have been achieved by Government Departments through the use of alternative dispute resolution in place of legal proceedings since 2001. [138932]

  Mr. Lammy
  From information provided by Departments, savings have been estimated at over £17 million in the period April 2001 to June 2002, attributable to their use of ADR. That said, it has not been possible to quantify potential savings in every instance.

  Marriage Support
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what action his Department(a) has taken and (b) proposes to take to implement the proposed strategy for marriage and relationship support contained in "Moving Forward Together".[138687]

  Mr. Lammy
  The "Moving Forward Together" report was developed by the Advisory Group for Marriage and Relationship Support (AGMARS) and was published in March 2002. The Advisory Group consisted of officials from across Government and senior representatives of Marriage and Relationship Support (MARS) organisations. The strategy set out in the report was intended to inform the work of both the Government and organisations delivering marriage and 794W
  relationship support services. The report was welcomed by the Government and in publishing it, my right hon. and learned Friend Lord Irvine the then Lord Chancellor, accepted the Group's recommendations.

  Significant progress has been made in taking forward the areas recommended for future development. The aims, objectives, and priorities of the annual Marriage and Relationship Support (MARS) Grant Programme reflect the AGMARS report's recommendations.

  As a result of the machinery of government changes in June 2003, responsibility for marriage and relationship support policy has transferred to DfES. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Children and Families intends to continue to take the forward the range of developmental activities as an integral and important element of the wider range of family support services for which she is now responsible.

  Mediation
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what action the Lord Chancellor is taking to promote the use of mediation and other forms of alternative dispute resolution in(a) civil and (b) criminal cases. [138770]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Government have long held the view that litigation should be the dispute resolution method of last resort. The Civil Procedure Rules encourage the use of alternative dispute resolution, as do the pre-action protocols, which seek to encourage the settlement of disputes before court proceedings are issued. One of this Department's Public Service Agreement targets is to reduce the proportion of disputes that are resolved by resort to the courts. As part of the programme of work designed to achieve this, a number of court based pilot mediation schemes are being developed that will actively encourage the use of mediation. These will complement the local schemes that are already in operation, or under consideration, in a several of courts in England and Wales. The Government are also keen to expand the use of restorative justice in the adult criminal justice system, as well as continuing to build on its success in the youth justice system. Activity in this area is led by the Home Office, which published a strategy, in the form of a consultation document, in July 2003. The strategy covers both restorative justice, which involves mediated contact between offender and victim, and reparation to the community. The Home Office will publish a summary of the consultation responses on its website in the New Year.

  Postcodes
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what use the Department for Constitutional Affairs and its agencies make of postcode areas for(a) the collection and publication of data, (b) devising formulae for the distribution of grants and awards and (c) the delivery of services; and when such usages were last reviewed. [87771]

  Mr. Lammy
  I apologise for the delay in responding to my hon. Friend's question; this was due to an administrative error.
  795W
  My Department, the Northern Ireland Court Service and the Land Registry do not currently make use of postcode areas.

  The Public Guardianship Office (PGO) has used postcode areas to help in the delivery of its services. During the financial year 2000–01, the PGO used the postcode information held in its case record system to help with the allocation of geographical areas to client visitors. The allocation of postcodes to each visitor was made so that an even number of clients was given to each of the visitors employed. This was intended to ensure fair and even coverage for the client base, as well as even workload for the visitors themselves. The use of postcodes has not been reviewed since this time.

  The National Archives has used postcode areas for the publication and dissemination of data on a very limited basis within the Marketing Department and the Education and Interpretation and Department. It does not use postcodes for the collection of data, distribute grants and awards or distribute external services on a postcode basis.

  The Legal Services Commission does not publish data at postcode level. However, the Commission collects postcode information for individual clients and suppliers holding contracts with the Commission for the Delivery of Legal Services. This information is held in the Commission's corporate information system and can be used by Community Legal Service Partnerships to identify geographical gaps in the supply of legal services.

  The Legal Services Research Centre (LSRC) has recently begun work on a new project, funded by the Office for National Statistics and Neighbourhood Renewal Unit, to identify, and if possible, collate data relating to legal services. Data collated may be by postcode area, though any published data will be aggregated to electoral ward level. The data will be publicly accessible on the Neighbourhood Statistics website: www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk

  Probate Procedures
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what progress his Department has made in implementing the recommendations of the review of probate procedures. [138686]

  Mr. Lammy
  Following the Probate Service Review in 2001, a consultation paper was published in November 2002 seeking responses on the Review's recommendations. The responses are being analysed by the Court Service. The outcome of the analysis will be put to Ministers early in the New Year. A public announcement is expected by Easter 2004.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Advertisement Regulations
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will take steps to empower local authorities to remove placards and posters displayed in contravention of advertisement regulations without the requirement to give two days' notice to the advertiser. [139696]
  796W
  Keith Hill
  No. The statutory two days minimum period must elapse before a local planning authority may remove or obliterate a placard or poster where it has served notice, on the person responsible for the poster, of its intention to do so. This provides that person with the opportunity to challenge the local planning authority's notice or to comply with it. Less than 48 hours is an unreasonably short period of time in which to expect the notice to reach the advertiser and for him to take action.

  Assisted Property Purchases
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many times local authorities have assisted people in buying properties in each of the last 10 years, broken down by(a) local authority and (b) amount spent. [139349]

  Keith Hill
  The information requested covers a number of low cost home ownership schemes including the Cash Incentive Scheme, Homebuy, Do It Yourself Shared Ownership and Right to Buy. As this comprises a considerable amount of data I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of the reply in the Library of the House.

  Care Homes
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the average funding offered by each county council and unitary authority to people who have been admitted to care homes was in 2002–03. [138161]

  Dr. Ladyman
  I have been asked to reply.

  The 2002–03 average gross weekly expenditure per person, in shire counties and unitary authorities, on supporting adults in residential and nursing care homes is shown in the table.

  £

  Shire counties

  Unitary authorities

  Older People

  351

  352

  Adults with Learning Disabilities

  610

  677

  Adults with Mental Illness

  429

  412

  Adults with Physical Disabilities

  526

  552

  Community Land Trusts
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the role of community land trusts as a vehicle for providing affordable housing, with particular reference to key worker housing. [139435]

  Keith Hill
  The Government have not yet fully assessed community land trusts and therefore have no immediate plans to pursue this model but agree in principle about the need to bring together site preparation, the provision of a mixture of social and private sector housing and development contributions where necessary. Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future signals a further move in this direction, for example through closer working between English Partnerships (EP) and the Housing Corporation. The Housing Corporation and English Partnerships have established a joint unit to bring together EP's land holdings expertise with the Corporation's affordable housing programme. And we
  797W
  are proposing to extend the Corporation's power to fund bodies other than housing associations, with a view to widening the opportunities for encouraging new housing development.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Totnes to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, dated 27 August 2003, concerning Dr. C. Taylor of Totnes and the Local Communities Sustainability Bill, which was transferred to his Department. [139764]

  Keith Hill
  I replied to the hon. Member on 17 November 2003.

  Council Housing
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 3 November 2003,Official Report, columns 497–98W, on council housing, what the 10 per cent. additional subsidy represents in cash terms to a local authority. [139140]

  Keith Hill
  The additional subsidy to support borrowing for expenditure by Arm's Length Management Organisations (ALMOs) for local authorities with ALMOs that qualified for funding in 20027–03 and those that have so far qualified in 2003–04 is as follows:

  £

  Local authority

  Subsidy2002—03

  Subsidy 2003—04

  ALMO qualified in 2002—03

  Ashfield

  1,012,603

  2,400,000

  Derby

  1,312,164

  3,110,000

  Hounslow

  1,179,452

  3,500,000

  Kirklees

  1,917,808

  6,250,000

  Rochdale

  835,397

  2,420,000

  Stockton-on-Tees

  1,353,288

  4,450,000

  Westminster

  745,260

  2,030,000

  Wigan

  1,788,932

  5,830,000

  ALMO qualified in 2003—04

  Barnsley

  —

  2,773,770

  Blyth Valley

  —

  1,329,235

  Bolton

  —

  3,427,131

  Brent

  —

  2,342,213

  Kensington and chelsea

  —

  1,580,334

  Leeds (north east and west)

  —

  1,225,282

  Oldham

  —

  3,033,211

  TOTAL

  10,144,904

  45,701,176

  Overall subsidy entitlements for later years, including those for ALMOs that have yet to qualify for funding, have yet to be determined.

  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what requirement there will be on regional housing boards to ring-fence additional subsidy provided for arm's length management organisations. [139575]

  Keith Hill
  Regional Housing Boards advise Ministers on the allocation of housing capital resources. They do not make recommendations on the allocation of funding specifically for arm's length management organisations (ALMOs).
  798W
  The additional funding awarded for ALMOs takes the form of Housing Revenue Account Subsidy to support borrowing. Housing Revenue Account Subsidy may be used only for Housing Revenue Account purposes.

  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 3 November 2003,Official Report, column 498W, on council housing, what plans he has to continue additional funding for arm's length management organisations beyond Rounds 1 and 2 of the current programme. [139576]

  Keith Hill
  I announced on 28 July 2003 (in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's Press Notice 147) that 13 local authorities have been awarded places in Round three of the Arms Length Management Organisation (ALMO) programme. Conditional funding for these ALMOs totals £360 million for 2004–05 and 2005–06. This is in addition to the 20 authorities with confirmed or conditional 2-year allocations of ALMO funding totalling £700 million in Rounds one and two. Bids for places in Round four have been invited by 31 December 2003. Funding for ALMOs beyond 2005–06, including possible further Rounds, is subject to the outcome of the 2004 Spending Review.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps he is taking to ensure that equal funding is being made available for tenants who wish to remain within council ownership and control rather than stock transfer as an arm's length management organisation. [138894]

  Keith Hill
  The Sustainable Communities Plan made it clear that local authorities seeking additional investment in their housing stock are able to choose from three options: stock transfer, PFI and ALMOs.

  The Plan also made it clear that authorities that do not pursue these options cannot expect increased investment above that provided for through mainstream housing funding.

  The funding available for social housing, although greatly increased under this Government, is inevitably limited; and we wish to use it in ways that will most improve the lives of tenants.

  To make best use of those resources the Government will only provide additional funding to councils that separate their landlord and strategic functions. This provides a strong incentive to better performance; ensures a sharper focus on the two distinct housing functions; and guarantees that tenants have a greater role in the future management of their homes.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what procedures he has put in place to ensure that full and effective consultation takes place with council tenants during the appraisal of the option of stock disposal; and if he will make a statement. [138895]

  Keith Hill
  The Government are committed to bringing all social homes up to set standards of decency by 2010. The PSA Plus Review of the decent homes target emphasised that tenants must be at the heart of plans to deliver decent homes.

  Arrangements for involving tenants should be set out in locally agreed Tenant Participation Compacts. These should be based on standards set out in the National

  799W
  Framework for Tenant Participation Compacts. Tenants must have access to independent advice and support and to capacity building and training throughout, from the investment appraisal stage to after transfer. An Independent Tenant Adviser (ITA) should be appointed at an early stage in the process and retained until after the ballot.

  With ALMOs, local authorities should consult with tenants on the functions to be transferred and the continuing role of the local authority, and the rights of tenants and leaseholders. They should consult on the composition and status of the arms length body and its Board, including the selection and role of the tenant Board members.

  In the case of a Transfer, tenants should be central to all stages of the investment appraisal and development of a proposal, including the selection of a prospective new landlord. Tenant consultation and participation should feature strongly in transfer proposals, and transfer landlords are expected to provide opportunities for tenants to have a real say in the management of their homes.

  In order to inform tenants about the Decent Homes agenda the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is organising a series of regional roadshows that will help to develop their skills and knowledge so that they can participate effectively in the Options Appraisal process. We are also making arrangements to produce a video for tenants explaining the various stock options.

  Jon Trickett
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many council houses have been the subject of stock transfer since June 2001; and what the average capital receipt per property accruing to the local authority was. [139550]

  Keith Hill
  205,483 dwellings have transferred from local authorities to registered social landlords since June 2001. The average tenanted market value per dwelling was £4,990. The tenanted market value reflects the requirement to maintain the property for social renting and to a decent homes standard in perpetuity.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent discussions he has had with the Audit Commission on the effects of large scale voluntary transfers. [139436]

  Keith Hill
  Officials work closely with the Audit Commission and were members of the study advisory group for the Commission's report on Housing after transfer: The local authority role which was published on 5 December 2002.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many(a) special advisers, (b) press officers, (c) civil servants, (d) advisers to civil servants and (e) permanent staff were working for his Department in each year since 1996. [126479]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was established on 29 May 2002.

  Staffing information is available in Table C of the annual publication 'Civil Service Statistics', which covers Permanent Staff numbers in each department
  800W
  and agency from 1995 to 2002. Copies of the publication are laid in the Libraries of both Houses. The latest edition, based on April 2002 data, was published on 24 July 2003. These figures include press officers.

  Alternatively, this information is available at the following address on the Cabinet Office Statistics website http://www.civil-service.gov.uk/statistics/css.htm

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister currently employs three special advisers: two full-time and one part-time. The term "advisers to civil servants" is not a recognised job title.

  Elected Regional Assemblies
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what mechanisms he has put in place to ensure that public money spent on information campaigns in the three English regions due to hold referendums on elected regional assemblies is not used to promote a particular view. [139122]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government's Information Campaign is in accordance with the requirements of the Civil Service Code and Guidance on the Work of the Government Information Service. Its purpose is to inform people of the key issues and to stimulate debate, not to influence the referendum outcome. Guidance on what civil servants can and cannot do in the run up to the referendum will be issued nearer the time.

  English Partnerships
  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what criteria English Partnerships uses in reaching decisions on funding priorities; and what account English Partnerships takes of the North West Regional Housing Strategy in its decision-making process. [138719]

  Keith Hill
  English Partnerships' priorities for new projects focus on:

  The 20 per cent. most deprived wards in the country;

  The Coalfields programme;

  Urban Regeneration Company areas;

  Housing Market Renewal Fund pathfinder areas;

  Target areas for major housing growth in the South East of England;

  Strategic brownfield sites in or close to any of the above priority areas or in areas of housing pressure or housing abandonment;

  Other discretionary projects where funding constraints allow and which would promote wider regeneration benefits, particularly where EP can add significant value.

  English Partnerships is represented on the North West Regional Housing Board and takes the strategy into account when making decisions on specific projects in the region.

  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Deputy (1) Prime Minister for what period Lancaster City Council has requested funding from English Partnerships for the West End housing regeneration project in Morecambe; and for what sums for that project over that period the Council has applied; [138720]
  801W
  (2) what discussions English Partnerships has held with Lancaster City Council regarding funding for (a) West End Housing Regeneration Project, Morecambe and (b) Luneside Development, Lancaster; and what decisions were reached; [138721]

  (3) what funding English Partnerships is providing to Lancaster City Council to fund (a) a masterplan for the West End Housing Generation Project in Morecambe and (b) annual costs of a project team for the project. [138722]

  Keith Hill
  The Chief Executive of English Partnerships (EP) met members and officers of Lancaster City Council in October to discuss EP's role in both the West End of Morecambe and the Luneside redevelopment. English Partnerships is working with Lancaster City Council to find appropriate regeneration solutions for both areas.

  (a) West End of Morecambe: EP has already committed £100,000 for a masterplanning study to determine the precise scope, cost and timetable for the regeneration of this area. As a result of last month's visit, EP has also agreed to fund the £200,000 cost of a project team for the next 12 months. The Council has made no additional requests for funding from English Partnerships.

  EP is working actively with the Council to facilitate the appointment of the masterplanning organisation as soon as possible, hopefully in December.

  (b) Luneside: the Council is currently finalising its proposals for the regeneration of this site and a submission is expected to go forward to English Partnerships shortly.

  Environmental Health Officers
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many people in each year since 1997(a) were in professional training to become environmental health officers and (b) entered the profession as environmental health officers. [139178]

  Phil Hope
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not hold this information centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The Employers Organisation for local government has provided some limited information taken from the Environmental Health Workforce Survey 2002. This survey shows that during 2002–03 129 student environmental health officers were due to qualify in England. During 2003–04 this figure is expected to increase to 159

  During the 12 months up until 1 January 2002, 118 Environmental Health Officers entered English local authorities as first appointments.

  Data for other years since 1997 is not available.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps he is taking to increase the number of environmental health officers. [139179]

  Phil Hope
  The Local Government Association set up the Regulatory Services Partnership in July this year, in order to find ways of addressing the need to recruit and retain environmental health officers. The partnership includes the Local Government Association, the Welsh Local Government Association, the Local Authority 802W
  Coordinators of Regulatory Services, the Improvement and Development Agency, the Employers' Organisation, the Trading Standards Institute and the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health.

  The Partnership's programme of actions is aimed at raising the profile of local authority public protection regulatory services with the community and within local and central government. The actions also aim to improve these services generally and address the recruitment and retention issues concerning Environmental Health Officers and Trading Standards Officers.

  The need to improve local government recruitment, including that of environmental health officers, has been recognised in the Pay and Workforce Strategy for Local Government. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is working with the Local Government Association and Employers Organisation to take forward the implementation of the strategy.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many environmental health officers were employed in each year since 1997(a) in England and (b) broken down by local authority area. [139198]

  Phil Hope
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not hold this information centrally. The Employers Organisation for local government has provided some limited information taken from the "Environmental Health Workforce Survey 2002". This survey shows that in January 2002 there were 4,565 environmental health officers employed in English local authorities. Data for other years since 1997 is not available.

  The survey provides a breakdown by type of authority and shows that 678 were employed in London boroughs, 880 employed in metropolitan districts, 2,299 employed in Shire districts and 708 employed in English unitaries.

  Essex Fire and Rescue Service
  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the total number of vacancies for retained firefighters in the Essex fire and rescue service was on 1 September. [139616]

  Mr. Raynsford
  There are currently 49.25 full-time equivalent (FTE) vacancies for retained firefighters in Essex fire and rescue Service.

  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many retained firefighters were employed by the Essex Fire and Rescue Service on 1 September 2003. [139662]

  Mr. Raynsford
  On 31 March 2003 (the latest available figures), there were 379 retained firefighters in post (expressed in 24-hour units). The actual head count figure was 472.

  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many control room staff were employed by the Essex Fire and Rescue Service on 1 September 2003. [139664]

  Mr. Raynsford
  On 31 March 2003 (the latest figures available), there were 39 control room staff in post in full-time equivalents (FTE). The actual head count figure was 43.
  803W
  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many fire engines were retained by the Essex fire and rescue service on 1 September. [139666]

  Mr. Raynsford
  As at 31 March 2003 (the latest figures available) there were 72 front-line pumping appliances (fire engines), with 15 reserve pumping appliances.

  Exchange Flags (Liverpool)
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what evidence was shown to English Partnerships to substantiate the claim by the Walton Group that they had paid their wholly owned subsidiary Todd and Benn Contractors £23,705,511 in relation to Exchange Flags in Liverpool; [138920]

  (2) when the Walton Group presented the certificate to English Partnerships certifying that they had refurbished Exchange Flags in Liverpool; what work was specified in that certificate; and what the (a) names and (b) qualifications were of the persons who signed the certificate. [138921]

  Keith Hill
  Under the terms of the City Grant Agreement dated 31 July 1992 between the Walton Group and the Secretary of State, each quarterly grant claim submitted by Walton Group was accompanied by a letter from an external auditor and were based on a valuation certificate given by an external Chartered Quantity Surveyor.

  The auditor's letters certified that the Walton Group had maintained adequate records and received no other public sector support for the project, and that the claims were in accordance with the City Grant Agreement and Walton Group had defrayed expenditure to cover the qualifying costs incurred.

  The last such claim submitted covered the quarter ending 31 May 1994. The accompanying auditor's letter certified that the Walton Group had defrayed expenditure to cover qualifying costs amounting to £23,705,511. It also listed various works that had been undertaken.

  I will write to my hon. Friend with further details of this.

  Food Expenditure
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much was spent on food by his Department and by each of the agencies for which it is responsible in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03; what proportion of that food by value was produced in the United Kingdom; what guidance he has issued to encourage the procurement of home-produced food; and if he will make a statement. [129367]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was formed on 29 May 2002 and it is thus not possible to provide data for the Office prior to then.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's expenditure on food is generally limited to official hospitality provided by the Office and meals and refreshments provided to delegates to the Fire Service College. Expenditure 2002–03 was –225,274 on official hospitality and £341,374 on meals and refreshments at the Fire Service College.
  804W
  The current catering contracts for the headquarters of the Office neither prescribe the source of produce supplied nor require contractors to provide this information. It is anticipated this will change when new contracts are put in place next year. 72 per cent. of the food supplied to the Fire Service College was produced in the UK.

  Officials of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister are working closely with the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) to integrate and promote the principles of sustainable development into the public procurement of food and catering services.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 17 September 2003,Official Report, column 739W, on formula funding share, on what basis he will determine the 2005–06 formula funding share. [138600]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my answer to the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) of 6 November 2003,Official Report, column 794W.

  Government Office for the South West
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many staff are employed by the Government Office for the South West; and how many were employed in 1997. [137385]

  Yvette Cooper
  In 1997 the Government Office for the South West (GOSW) carried out work on behalf of four Departments and employed 173 full time equivalent staff. Since then GOSW has taken on additional work for a further six Departments and the administration of the £300 million Cornwall Objective One programme, and now employs 313 full time equivalent staff and 18 inward secondees or attachments.

  Hazardous Waste
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many planning applications are being considered for hazardous waste landfill; and how many sites for hazardous waste landfill received planning approval in the last year for which figures are available. [139697]

  Keith Hill
  Information collected by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on planning applications relates to decisions taken and does not distinguish the waste stream going to landfill. In 2002–03, 335 planning applications relating to landfill were considered by waste planning authorities, of which 302 were approved. A breakdown of those decisions relating to landfill by type of application is in the table.

  Nature of application

  Number

  Grunted

  Refused

  New site

  73

  57

  16

  Extension to area

  12

  11

  1

  Extension to life

  47

  45

  2

  Deepening or other within site

  25

  25

  0

  Increasing void for landfill

  11

  10

  1

  Ancillary operations

  40

  38

  2

  Variation of conditions

  69

  64

  5

  Sum of above1

  227

  250

  27

  Total

  335

  302

  33

  805W
  1Totals do not correspond to number of waste planning decisions because some were categorized as being of a dual nature and some were not specified as to nature of application.

  Source

  Data provided to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister by waste planning authorities on CPS1/2 Returns.

  Housing
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 12 December 2002,Official Report, column 488W, on housing, when he expects to publish the updated Survey of English Housing, based on the population figures from the 2001 Census. [139270]

  Keith Hill
  The report on the Survey of English Housing 2001–02 is due to be published in December 2003. Some of the key findings of the 2001–02 survey were published on 20 August 2002 in "Housing Statistics Summary No. 13", and a large batch of 2001–02 tables was published on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website last December. Further batches have been published since, and currently there are 346 tables on the website. In addition, some of the findings of the 2002–03 survey have been published in "Housing Statistics Summary No. 17" and "Housing Statistics Summary No. 18". It is intended to publish a large batch of 2002–03 tables on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website in December 2003.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many properties in Shrewsbury and Atcham are awaiting adaptations for disabled people; and what the estimated value is of such adaptations. [138886]

  Keith Hill
  There are currently 353 residential properties in the social and private sector that are awaiting adaptations for disabled people in Shrewsbury and Atcham. The estimated value of the adaptations is £2.3 million.

  Landfill Sites
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what guidance he issues to local authorities on the siting of landfill sites in the green belt. [139205]

  Keith Hill
  National planning policy on waste management is set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 10 "Planning and Waste Management". This states that"sites which are protected by national and regional policies on the restraint of development will not generally prove acceptable for waste management facilities".

  Local planning authorities should also have regard to Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 "Green Belts" (PPG2). This advises that the carrying out of operations and the making of material changes of use which do not maintain the openness of the Green Belt and conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt would not be appropriate development. In such cases applicants would have to demonstrate that there were
  806W
  very special circumstances that clearly outweighed the harm that the development would cause to the Green Belt. PPG2 also states that when large-scale development or redevelopment of land occurs in the Green Belt (which may include the tipping of waste) it should, so far as possible, contribute to the achievement of the objectives for the use of land in Green Belts.

  Morecambe
  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much funding was granted by the North West Regional Development Agency in each year since 1997 for regeneration of Morecambe's sea front; and what sums have been allocated by the Agency for future years. [138724]

  Keith Hill
  A £4.3 million programme for the regeneration of Morecambe was approved in 1994 under the Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) Round 1 scheme "Turning the Tide". Prior to the creation of North West Development Agency (NWDA) in April 1999, this was administered by Government Office for the North West (GO-NW).

  The programme was delegated to Lancaster City Council, as Accountable Body, and a Partnership Board which then appraised and approved a number of projects within that delegation limit. Some of those projects provided for the regeneration of the seafront, although the exact amount of funding for that particular activity is not known. The SRB scheme completed in 2002 and was fully spent.

  Since it took over responsibility for SRB in 1999, NWDA has allocated over £ I million to Morecambe, including a contribution of £44,000 towards a Morecambe Resort Action Plan study.

  Tabled are the breakdowns in the investment since 1997, which includes an additional £482,000 from English Partnerships in 1998–99.

  Investment £Thousand

  1997–98

  1,340

  1998–99

  955

  1999–2000

  448

  2000–01

  350

  2001–02

  205

  2002–03

  72

  NWDA is currently working with Urban Splash and Lancaster City Council on proposals to repair, refurbish and re-develop the Midland Hotel and its environs. This could lead to substantial new NWDA investment in future years.

  Overcrowded Housing
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the 2001 Census estimate of the percentage of children who live in overcrowded housing; and if he will make a statement. [139268]
  807W
  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is aware of the Census results relating to occupancy, including the relatively high percentage of children who live in "overcrowded" housing. These results, alongside those from the Survey of English Housing, are being taken into account of in our on-going work on this topic.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what obligations a local housing authority has to a household deemed to be statutorily overcrowded. [139269]

  Keith Hill
  Under section 167 of the Housing Act 1996, a local housing authority is required to have an allocation scheme for determining priorities in the allocation of housing accommodation. That scheme must ensure that reasonable preference is given to:"people occupying insanitary or overcrowded housing or otherwise living in unsatisfactory housing conditions".

  Where a person applies to a local housing authority as homeless, the authority must decide whether or not he is homeless under section 175 of the Housing Act 1996. In reaching their decision, the local housing authority must not treat the applicant as having accommodation (if he does) unless it is accommodation which it would be reasonable for him to continue to occupy. Where statutory overcrowding exists, it will be a relevant consideration in reaching this decision, but under section 177(2) the local housing authority may also have regard to the general circumstances prevailing in relation to housing in the district.

  Parks and Green Spaces
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what action his Department is taking to encourage local authorities to protect and develop parks and green spaces, with particular reference to(a) Sunderland and (b) Redcar and Cleveland. [139423]

  Keith Hill
  Sunderland and Redcar and Cleveland will benefit from our support for local authorities to protect and develop parks and green spaces, which are essential to sustainable communities.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister expects local authorities to undertake a robust assessment of needs and opportunities and develop a strategic approach to protect and provide their parks and green spaces.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister supports authorities with free advice, delivered through Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) Space, to develop a strategic approach to parks and green spaces where they do not already have one.

  We will continue to develop and promote better practice in civic spaces.
  808W

  Regional Co-ordination Unit
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many full-time equivalent employees were employed in the Regional Co-ordination Unit(a) when it was first established and (b) in July. [138132]

  Yvette Cooper
  47 full time equivalent staff were employed by the Regional Co-ordination Unit (RCU) when it was first set up in summer 2000 to implement the conclusions of the Performance and Innovation Unit's "Reaching Out" report. Since then the unit has expanded, taking on new roles including business coordination and knowledge management, while the network of sponsors has increased from three to 10. In July 2003 there were 65 full-time equivalent employees.

  Regulatory Reform Act
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what arrangements he has put in place to assess the effect of orders under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 on local authorities' activities in(a) the issuing of grants and loans for home repair, improvement and adaptation, (b) aiding people to buy new properties, (c) issuing of disabled facilities grants and (d) the creation of renewal areas; [139347]

  (2) how many times local authorities have given financial assistance for home repair, improvement and adaptation (a) in each of the last 10 years and (b) since 18 July 2002, broken down by local authority; and how much was spent in each case; [139348]

  (3) how many times local authorities assisted people in buying new properties since 18 July 2002, where the authority judged moving to be more appropriate than adapting an existing home; [139350]

  (4) how many times local authorities assisted people in buying new properties where existing homes were subject to compulsory or voluntary purchase for renewal or clearance in each of the last 10 years. [139351]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is working in collaboration with the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Welsh Assembly Government by jointly commissioning research to monitor the development and implementation of new strategies by local authorities and to identify good practice for broader dissemination. This follows the coming into force on 18 July 2002 of the Regulatory Reform (Housing Assistance) (England and Wales) Order 2002 (RRO 2002), which gave local authorities wider powers to provide assistance to private homeowners for repair and renovation. This research work is on-going until October 2004. An initial progress report was published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister at the beginning of November showing that, by March 2003, four-fifths of authorities were in the process of planning and developing loan/grant packages, the majority of which include outside expertise and support. Progress in implementing these strategies will be assessed through the research and from statistical information provided by local authorities.
  809W
  A table showing the number of grants and amount spent on private sector housing renewal and on disabled facilities by each local authority in England over the last six years has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Separately, data are being collected for 2002–03 and subsequent years on local authority expenditure in England using the new RRO 2002 power. This will show the amount spent on grants and loans by each authority split by type of recipient (elderly on benefit, non-elderly on benefit, disabled) and by geographical area including the amount spent in renewal areas. These data are still being analysed and will not be published until early 2004.

  Council tax requirement (£000)

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Tyne and Wear1

  Gateshead

  48,874

  51,368

  55,313

  61,748

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  66,196

  69,413

  74,497

  82,248

  North Tyneside

  51,101

  54,176

  58,548

  63,683

  South Tyneside

  36,408

  37,962

  41,001

  44,056

  Sunderland

  59,281

  63,208

  68,444

  73,604

  Tyne and Wear Fire and Civil Defence Authority

  14,311

  15,657

  16,928

  18,449

  Durham

  Durham County Council

  99,035

  103,761

  120,146

  131,755

  Chester-le-Street

  2,041

  2,175

  2,368

  2,623

  Derwentside

  4,793

  5,144

  5,899

  6,103

  Durham City

  3,567

  3,804

  4,304

  4,449

  Easington

  6,279

  6,583

  7,037

  7,220

  Sedgefleld

  6,623

  6,991

  7,647

  7,924

  Teesdale

  1,224

  1,300

  1,453

  1,549

  Wear Valley

  2,925

  3,056

  3,366

  3,292

  Durham Police authority2

  9,129

  9,855

  11,374

  14,140

  Darlington Unitary authority2

  20,863

  23,767

  27,278

  29,436

  Northumberland1

  Northumberland County Council

  76,380

  81,896

  88,322

  100,664

  Alnwick

  1,587

  1,703

  1,818

  1,925

  Berwick-upon-Tweed

  1,215

  1,275

  1,341

  1,481

  Blyth Vallcy

  2,897

  3,100

  3,427

  3,446

  Castle Morpeth

  2,767

  2,952

  3,360

  3,745

  Tynedale

  3,013

  3,178

  3,450

  3,781

  Wansbeck

  2,398

  2,609

  2,715

  2,745

  Northumbria Police Authority1

  21,218

  22,872

  24,062

  26,561

  1Northumbria Police Authority covers both Tyne and wear and Northumberland county Council areas.

  2Durham Police Authority covers Darlington UA and Durham county Council.

  Revenue support grant (RSG) figures cannot be considered in isolation in this context, because the amounts payable depend upon the amounts of redistributed national non-domestic rates (NNDR) that

  £000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  RSG

  NNDR

  Total

  RSG

  NNDR

  Total

  Tyne and Wear1

  Gateshead

  92,657

  55,370

  148.027

  97,851

  53,836

  151,687

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  132,208

  76,848

  209,056

  139,539

  74,215

  213,754

  North Tyneside

  77,075

  54,012

  131,087

  83,013

  52,519

  135,532

  South Tyneside

  76,875

  43,028

  119,903

  81,201

  41,716

  122,917

  Sunderland

  137,515

  81,373

  218,888

  145,032

  79,005

  224,037

  Tyne and Wear Fire and Civil Defence Authority

  21,415

  10,728

  32,143

  22,994

  10,488

  33,482

  810W
  Information is not collected separately on local authority expenditure designed to assist people to move to another dwelling, either for adaptation or because the existing home is subject to compulsory or voluntary purchase for renewal or clearance.

  Revenue Support Grant
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much was(a) raised in council tax and (b) contributed in revenue support grant in (i) each authority within and (ii) the county areas of (A) Tyne and Wear, (B) Durham and (C) Northumberland in each year since 2000–01; and what estimate he has made in respect of 2003–04. [139095]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information requested is in the following table.

  an authority receives. Both RSG and NNDR are therfore included in the following table. Grant figures are not consistent between years because of changes in function.
  811W

  £000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  RSG

  NNDR

  Total

  RSG

  NNDR

  Total

  Durham

  Durham

  163,867

  126,543

  290,410

  173,761

  123,386

  297,147

  Chester-le-Street

  1,395

  2,177

  3,572

  1,609

  2,163

  3,772

  Derwentside

  2,913

  3,360

  6,273

  3,141

  3,277

  6,418

  Durham City

  2,736

  3,438

  6,174

  3,031

  3,430

  6,461

  Easington

  4,979

  3,559

  8,538

  5,359

  3,484

  8,843

  Sedgefleld

  3,447

  3,400

  6,847

  3,795

  3,359

  7,154

  Teesdale

  800

  952

  1,752

  876

  949

  1,825

  Wear Valley

  2,870

  2,398

  5,268

  3,183

  2,344

  5,527

  Durham Police Authority2

  18,383

  14,069

  32,452

  19,871

  13,937

  33,808

  Darlington Unitary Authority2

  34,230

  29,209

  63,439

  36,742

  28,268

  65,010

  Nothumberland1

  Northumberland

  98,217

  77,383

  175,600

  105,934

  75,597

  181,531

  Alnwick

  1,181

  1,194

  2,375

  1,334

  1,201

  2,535

  Berwick-upon-Tweed

  1,177

  1,010

  2,187

  1,290

  994

  2,284

  Blyth Valley

  2,955

  3,073

  6,028

  3,238

  3,010

  6,248

  Castle Morpeth

  890

  1,912

  2,802

  1,050

  1,904

  2,954

  Tynedale

  1,451

  2,238

  3,689

  1,577

  2,211

  3,788

  Wansbeck

  2,883

  2,365

  5,248

  3,143

  2,325

  5,468

  Northumbria Police Authority1

  54,115

  32,999

  87,114

  58,067

  32,586

  90,653

  2002–03

  2003–04

  RSG

  NNDR

  Total

  RSG

  NNDR

  Total

  Tyne and Wear1

  Gateshead

  93,325

  58,472

  151,797

  106,154

  55,971

  162,125

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  132,377

  80,340

  212,717

  155,069

  75,993

  231,062

  North Tyneside

  78,904

  57,643

  136,547

  92,071

  56,212

  148,284

  South Tyneside

  80,687

  45,358

  126,045

  92,330

  44,731

  137,060

  Sunderland

  142,289

  85,984

  228,273

  165,563

  82,211

  247,774

  Tyne and Wear Fire and Civil Defence Authority

  22,627

  11,707

  34,334

  25,134

  10,925

  36,059

  Durham

  Durham

  165,556

  134,413

  299,969

  200,732

  132,318

  333,050

  Chester-le-Street

  1,433

  2,427

  3,860

  2,363

  1,873

  4,235

  Derwentside

  2902

  3,665

  6,567

  4,196

  2,972

  7,168

  Durham City

  2,785

  3,869

  6,654

  3,913

  3,064

  6,976

  Easington

  5,184

  3,870

  9,054

  6,635

  3,279

  9,913

  Sedgefleld

  3,566

  3,754

  7,320

  4,693

  3,043

  7,736

  Teesdale

  831

  1,081

  1,912

  1,245

  853

  2,099

  Wear Valley

  3,049

  2,607

  5,656

  3,875

  2,141

  6,016

  Durham Police Authority2

  18,679

  15,111

  33,790

  26,327

  8,444

  34,770

  Darlington Unitary Authority2

  35,678

  30,950

  66,628

  44,640

  29,650

  74,290

  Nothumberland1

  Northumberland

  93,484

  82,433

  175,917

  109,565

  82,387

  191,953

  Alnwick

  1,263

  1,333

  2,596

  1,544

  1,085

  2,628

  Berwick-upon-Tweed

  1,333

  1,105

  2,437

  1,549

  906

  2,455

  Blyth Valley

  3,024

  3,393

  6,416

  4,177

  2,838

  7,015

  Castle Morpeth

  881

  2,141

  3,023

  1,360

  1,710

  3,069

  Tynedale

  1,461

  2,484

  3,942

  2,263

  2,054

  4,317

  Wansbeck

  3,002

  2,593

  5,596

  3,954

  2,133

  6,086

  Northumbria Police Authority1

  55,804

  35,218

  91,022

  71,038

  19,751

  90,789

  1 Northumbria Police Authority covers the areas of both Tyne and Wear and Northumberland County Council.

  2Durham Police Authority Covers the areas of both Darlington Unitary Authority and Durham Country Council.

  Revenue Support Grant (Worcester)
  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what the total revenue grant from all sources allocated to Worcester city council was in each year since 1992; [138901]
  812W
  (2) what the percentage cash charge in revenue support grants allocated to Worcester city council was in each year since 1992. [138902]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information requested is in the table. Figures are not consistent between years because of changes in function.
  813W

  Total ring-fenced grants inside AEF1(£000)

  %change

  Revenue support grant (£000)

  % change

  Redistributed national non-domestic rates(£000)

  % change

  Total (£000)

  % change

  1992–93

  179

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1993–94

  192

  7.3

  2,576

  2—

  2,942

  2—

  5,710

  2—

  1994–95

  221

  15.1

  3,292

  27.8

  2,772

  -5.8

  6,285

  10.1

  1995–96

  235

  6.3

  3,105

  -5.7

  2,931

  5.7

  6,271

  -0.2

  1996–97

  232

  -1.3

  2,933

  -5.5

  3,164

  7.9

  6,329

  0.9

  1997–98

  206

  -11.2

  3,089

  5.3

  2,891

  -8.6

  6,186

  2.3

  1998–99

  208

  1.0

  3,427

  10.9

  2,960

  2.4

  6,595

  6.6

  1999–2000

  209

  0.5

  3,265

  -4.7

  3,212

  8.5

  6,686

  1.4

  2000–01

  197

  -5.7

  3,094

  -5.2

  3,629

  13.0

  6,920

  3.5

  2001–02

  205

  4.1

  3,345

  8.1

  3,580

  -1.3

  7,130

  3.0

  2002–03

  207

  1.0

  3,056

  -8.6

  4,032

  12.6

  7,295

  2.3

  2003–04

  438

  111.6

  3,889

  27.3

  3,258

  -19.2

  7,585

  4.0

  1Aggregate External Finance.

  2Not available

  Note:

  In 1992–93,revenue support grant and redistributed national non-domestic rates paid to district councils included a share of the amounts that were payable to the county council for the area, and separate amounts attributable to each district council were not separately identified. Figures for Worcester city council are not therefore available for 1992–93.

  Right to Buy
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he expects to publish the review of the system for valuing properties for Right to Buy purposes undertaken by the College of Estate Management. [139250]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister expects to publish the report of this review in January 2004.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his response to the report of the Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on the draft Housing Bill, what assessment he has made of extending the Right to Buy discount repayment period to more than five years. [139251]

  Keith Hill
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the answer given on 30 June 2003,Official Report, column 116–17W. The Government are committed to the principle of the Right to Buy scheme, and do not wish to penalise tenants disproportionately.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the reports his Department and its predecessors have commissioned since 1979 on valuations for properties bought under the Right to Buy. [139252]

  Keith Hill
  In March 2002, the former Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions commissioned the College of Estate Management to review the system for valuing properties for Right to Buy purposes. It is expected that the review report will be published in January 2004. No other reports have been commissioned on this topic since 1979.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many right to buy applications there were each month since June 1997, broken down by(a) local authority area and (b) region. [138128]

  Keith Hill
  The number of right to buy applications in each region are tabled as follows. These are only available on a quarterly basis. Information by local 814W
  authority is not readily available. Tables providing right to buy sales figures as reported by local authorities are available in the Library of the House.

  North east

  North west

  Yorkshire and Humber

  East Midlands

  1997

  Q2

  2,141

  2,901

  3,025

  2,411

  Q3

  1,424

  2,596

  2,198

  1,553

  Q4

  1,075

  1,560

  1,481

  1,277

  1998

  Q1

  1,617

  2,137

  2,111

  1,929

  Q2

  1,506

  2,096

  2,255

  1,694

  Q3

  1,429

  2,305

  2,003

  1,837

  Q4

  1,276

  2,161

  2,563

  1,550

  1999

  Q1

  3,121

  3,691

  4,108

  3,175

  Q2

  2,056

  2,627

  2,729

  2,008

  Q3

  1,974

  2,804

  2,693

  2,327

  Q4

  1,551

  1,949

  1,714

  1,712

  2000

  Q1

  2,333

  2,928

  3,023

  2,330

  Q2

  2,114

  2,922

  3,122

  2,158

  Q3

  1,811

  2,733

  3,208

  2,213

  Q4

  1,478

  2,089

  2,072

  1,625

  2001

  Q1

  2,373

  3,250

  3,837

  2,628

  Q2

  1,784

  3,056

  3,996

  2,493

  Q3

  1,592

  3,435

  3,876

  2,603

  Q4

  1,584

  2,542

  3,189

  2,011

  2002

  Q1

  2,852

  3,895

  4,726

  3,043

  Q2

  2,994

  4,520

  5,479

  3,556

  Q3

  3,631

  5,089

  6,492

  3,695

  Q4

  3,031

  4,789

  5,601

  3,457

  2003

  Q1

  4,189

  6,278

  9,251

  4,686

  West Midlands

  East

  London

  South east

  South West

  1997

  Q2

  3,511

  3,208

  5,057

  2,837

  2,408

  Q3

  2,602

  1,971

  4,160

  2,096

  1,655

  Q4

  2,082

  1,440

  3,520

  1,361

  1,137

  1998

  Q1

  2,637

  2,131

  4,082

  1,955

  1,643

  Q2

  2,695

  2,019

  4,180

  2,032

  1,575

  Q3

  2,800

  2,189

  4,501

  2,142

  1,410

  Q4

  2,404

  1,978

  5,562

  1,933

  1,575

  1999

  Q1

  5,206

  4,932

  11,737

  4,074

  3,016

  Q2

  3,016

  2,556

  5,007

  2,483

  1,671

  Q3

  3,138

  2,813

  5,515

  2,495

  1,686

  Q4

  2,509

  1,858

  4,447

  2,122

  1,214

  2000

  Q1

  3,478

  3,218

  5,803

  2,509

  1,786

  Q2

  3,238

  2,535

  6,434

  2,055

  1,714

  Q3

  2,964

  2,345

  5,290

  1,986

  1,484

  Q4

  2,496

  1,727

  4,460

  1,371

  967

  815W

  West Midlands

  East

  London

  South east

  South west

  2001

  Q1

  3,420

  2,772

  5,983

  2,204

  1,583

  Q2

  3,285

  3,049

  6,329

  2,246

  1,584

  Q3

  3,124

  2,761

  6,120

  2,115

  1,372

  Q4

  3,494

  2,019

  4,809

  1,487

  1,207

  2002

  Q1

  5,127

  3,066

  7,875

  2,522

  1,693

  Q2

  4,516

  3,083

  7,565

  2,532

  1,785

  Q3

  5,086

  3,715

  11,422

  3,184

  2,170

  Q4

  4,786

  2,711

  9,090

  2,742

  1,558

  2003

  Q1

  6,633

  4,404

  29,559

  3,774

  2,178

  Sheltered Accommodation
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many sheltered accommodation centres(a) have and (b) do not have resident wardens; and if he will make a statement on the trends regarding resident wardens over the last 10 years. [138911]

  Keith Hill
  Figures are not available showing how many sheltered accommodation centres have and do not have resident wardens, and on the trends regarding resident wardens over the last 10 years. As part of their on-going assessment of local needs and review of housing-related support services as part of the Supporting People programme, local authorities are examining the amount of sheltered accommodation and housing-related support provided in that accommodation and, for the first time, will be able to gradually build up an indication of longer term trends.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make an assessment of the(a) advantages and (b) disadvantages, including financial considerations, of requiring resident wardens in all sheltered accommodation centres. [138912]

  Keith Hill
  The Government are committed to ensuring that all vulnerable members of the community receive the housing-related support they need including, where appropriate, warden services in sheltered accommodation, to help them live as independently as possible. To help bring this about, the Supporting People programme provides an integrated framework for planning and funding housing-related support services. Under Supporting People, local authorities will review all housing-related support services, examining their quality, performance and cost-effectiveness. In the case of sheltered housing, we would expect these reviews to consider the advantages and disadvantages of the way in which warden services are provided.

  Somali Community (Housing)
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what research he has collated on the treatment of the Somali community in relation to housing. [139249]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has not carried out any research on this subject. A report on "Somali housing experiences in England" by researchers at Sheffield Hallam university carried out with the support of the Housing Corporation was published earlier this year.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 11 July 2003,Official Report, columns 1062–63W, on housing (black minority ethnic
  816W
  communities), if he will commission research into the housing needs of the Somali community; and whether a decision has been made on taking forward the recommendation on commissioning research on the housing and neighbourhood experiences of black and minority ethnic children. [139259]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has no plans in place to commission research into the housing needs of the Somali community or to collect further data on the housing and neighbourhood experiences of black and minority ethnic children.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister on what research policy decisions on the housing needs of the Somali community are based. [139260]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is not responsible for making policy decisions about the housing needs of specific groups. Local authorities are responsible for formulating Housing Strategy Statements for their areas. These should be based on the best local evidence available. They are required to take into account the needs of particular sections of the community including Black and Minority ethnic populations. Guidance was published in 2000, "Local Housing Needs Assessment: A Guide to Good Practice" and "Black and Minority Ethnic Housing Strategies: A Good Practice Guide".

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the housing needs of the Somali community. [139261]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is not responsible for assessing the housing needs of specific groups. Local authorities are responsible for formulating Housing Strategy Statements for their areas. These should be based on the best local evidence available. They are required to take into account the needs of particular sections of the community including Black and Minority ethnic populations. Guidance was published in 2000, "Local Housing Needs Assessment: A Guide to Good Practice" and "Black and Minority Ethnic Housing Strategies: A Good Practice Guide".

  Sound Insulation
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will include in the decent homes standard the provision of sound insulation in domestic properties(a) constructed and (b) converted into flats and apartments. [139091]

  Keith Hill
  The issue of noise insulation is already dealt with in the decent home standard. For a property to be considered decent it must meet four criteria one of which is the provision of reasonably modern facilities and services. A property fails to meet this criterion if it lacks three or more of a list of six facilities, one of which is 'adequate noise insulation'.

  The guidance on implementing the standard concentrates on insulation from external airborne noise, such as traffic or factory noise. It has this focus because it can be difficult to assess the extent to which domestic noise nuisance is caused by problems with the building itself (either because of its construction or inadequate

  817W
  internal insulation) or by unreasonable activity or behaviour of neighbours or by acute noise sensitivity by the occupant of the home affected.

  The Decent Homes Standard applies to all social housing, including purpose built and converted apartments.

  Voluntary Bodies (Wolverhampton)
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the voluntary bodies in Wolverhampton in receipt of direct government grant, broken down by(a) capital and (b) revenue. [139139]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My hon. Friend will be aware that there are in excess of 700 voluntary and community sector organisations in Wolverhampton. They will be attracting funding from a very wide range of government and European funding programmes including SRB, Neighbourhood Renewal Fund, Community Empowerment Fund, ERDF and ESF programmes, New Deal for Communities, Learning and Skills Council and Lotteries funding regimes to name some. There is no single database of organisations and their funding sources, so it is impossible to provide the level of detail required by the question.

  A list of organisations funded through the Community Empowerment Network can be obtained from Wolverhampton Network Consortium and the City Council's Voluntary Sector Unit can provide details of the voluntary and community organisations they support via a co-ordinated small grants programme which has sought to simplify the funding process for eight specific small grants initiatives for the voluntary and community sector.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Acceptable Behaviour Contracts
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he collates on the use of acceptable behaviour contracts; in what form; how many local authorities do not use acceptable behaviour contracts; and if he will make a statement. [139224]

  Ms Blears
  Research conducted in April 2002 showed that there were 173 Acceptable Behaviour Contract (ABC) schemes running in England and Wales, with 1,868 contracts signed. A Home Office Research Development and Statistics publication on the evaluation of an ABC scheme in the London borough of Islington is forthcoming.

  The Home Office does not routinely collect statistics on the use or otherwise of ABCs. ABC schemes are voluntary and developed by a range of agencies whose role it is to prevent such behaviour.

  Airwave
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what dates he estimates that the Airwave communications system will be fully operational in each police force area.[1385271]
  818W
  Ms Blears
  In England and Wales Airwave is already fully operational in the following forces: Cambridgeshire, Humberside, Lancashire, Leicestershire, Greater Manchester, Northumbria, North Yorkshire, Suffolk and West Mercia.

  Estimated dates for the other forces in England and Wales to become fully operational are given in the table.

  Rollout of Airwave in Scotland will follow after England and Wales.

  Airwave operational date

  Force

  Q4

  2003

  Bedford

  Derbyshire

  Q1

  2004

  Hertfordshire

  Lincolnshire

  Q2

  2004

  Avon & Somerset

  Dorset

  Durham

  Essex

  Gloucestershire

  South Wales

  Wiltshire

  Q3

  2004

  Cheshire

  City of London

  Cleveland

  Gwent

  Nottinghamshire

  South Yorkshire

  Surrey

  Sussex

  Thames Valley

  Q4

  2004

  Merseyside

  Northamptonshire

  Warwickshire

  West Midlands

  Q I

  2005

  Norfolk

  Q2

  2005

  West Yorkshire

  Q3

  2005

  Cumbria

  Staffordshire

  Q4

  2005

  Kent

  Metropolitan

  Devon and Cornwall

  Not yet available

  Dyfed Powys

  Hampshire

  North Wales

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much has been spent to date on the Airwave communications system, broken down by police force area. [138528]

  Ms Blears
  It is estimated that the Airwave service contract for the provision of the police service's new digital radio communication service will cost £2.3 billion (at 1999 prices) over the 22-year lifetime of the project. In addition, forces have to procure radio terminals and to modernise control rooms. Funding is provided centrally by the Home Office and locally by police authorities.

  To date, the Home Office has provided a total of £336.4 million to police forces in England and Wales for Airwave. The break-down by police force area is given in the table.
  819W

  Home Office spend on airwave to date broken down by police force area

  Force

  £ million

  Avon & Somerset

  8.9

  Bedfordshire

  3.2

  Cambridgeshire

  4,4

  Cheshire

  4.2

  City of London

  2.2

  Cleveland

  3.9

  Cumbria

  2.3

  Derbyshire

  5.7

  Devon & Cornwal

  6.7

  Dorset

  3.2

  Durham

  3.9

  Dyfed-Powys

  1.4

  Essex Police

  6.9

  Gloucestershire

  3.1

  Greater Manchester

  31.6

  Gwent

  3.0

  Hampshire

  7.6

  Hertfordshire

  4.9

  Humberside

  6.3

  Kent

  7.2

  Lancashire

  14.5

  Leicestershire

  8.1

  Lincolnshire

  3.3

  Merseyside

  11.2

  Nottinghamshire

  6.8

  Norfolk

  3.2

  Northamptonshire

  2.5

  North Yorkshire

  3.5

  North Wales

  2.9

  Northumbria

  11.8

  South Wales

  7.8

  South Yorkshire

  8.3

  Staffordshire

  4.4

  Suffolk

  5.4

  Surrey

  4.7

  Sussex

  6.4

  Thames Valley

  10.8

  Warwickshire

  2.0

  West Mercia

  8.6

  West Midlands

  14.7

  West Yorkshire

  11.1

  Wiltshire

  2.9

  Metropolitan Police

  60.9

  TOTAL

  336.4

  Alcohol-related Offences
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the proportion of offences related to the misuse of alcohol, broken down by offence category, in each of the last five years. [1392271]

  Ms Blears
  Questions in the British Crime Survey (BCS) ask victims of assault whether they think the perpetrator of the offence was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the incident or not.

  Data are available from the 1996, 1998, 2000 and 2001–02 sweeps of the BCS. These are as follows:

  Proportion of violent incidents that were alcohol related

  1996

  1998

  2000

  2001–02

  Domestic

  32

  33

  44

  45

  Acquaintance

  45

  44

  36

  51

  Stranger

  55

  57

  53

  58

  Mugging

  17

  15

  17

  19

  All violence

  41

  41

  40

  47

  820W
  The question of whether the perpetrator was under the influence of alcohol or not was not asked of other offences, as this question can only be asked when there is contact with the perpetrator.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the cost of alcohol-related crime in each of the last five years. [139228]

  Ms Blears
  As part of their work on developing an Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy for England, the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit published an Interim Analytical Report on 19 September 2003. This report indicated that the annual estimated costs of alcohol-related crime and public disorder were up to £7.3 billion. These estimates were prepared using specially commissioned research by the Strategy Unit. No previous estimates of the costs of alcohol-related crime have been made.

  Animal Testing
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many laboratory animals were used in the United Kingdom for the potency testing of batches of botulinum toxin for cosmetic purposes in each year since 2000; and if he will make a statement on Government policy on animal tests for cosmetic products. [136516]

  Caroline Flint
  Botulinum toxin is not a cosmetic for the purposes of the EU Cosmetics Directive, and no animals have been used to test this material for marketing as a cosmetic in the United Kingdom. It is, however, produced, tested on animals and marketed for clinical use as a prescription only medicine.

  The Government, the cosmetic manufacturers and the contract research organisations agreed a voluntary ban on the animal testing of all cosmetics (based upon the EU definition) in November 1997. This voluntary ban applied both to cosmetic ingredients and finished products.

  We are committed to putting an end to testing cosmetics on animals across Europe and have led the way and worked hard for many years to try to achieve that. The Government have strongly supported the 7th Amendment on the Cosmetics Directive which was approved by the European Parliament in Plenary on 15 January and by the Council on 27 January 2003. The adopted text extends what has been almost solely a UK ban on testing cosmetic products and ingredients to cover animals throughout the EU.

  An animal testing ban on finished products will be introduced immediately after the Directive enters force in 2005, followed by an animal testing ban on ingredients in 2006. The Government welcomes the introduction of an EU wide testing ban as an important and positive step to achieving real improvements in animal welfare standards across the European Community.

  The 7th Amendment will also, in due course, introduce a marketing ban. This will mean that cosmetics cannot be marketed in the EU if animal tests have been carried out on either the finished product, or an ingredient or

  821W
  combination of ingredients, once an alternative to that test has been accepted and published by the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM), and not at all after 2009. This ban will apply regardless of whether or not the animal testing took place in the EU. There will be very limited exceptions to the 2009 deadline. The Department of Trade and Industry leads on policy in this area.

  Through our contributions to the European Union, we support the work of ECVAM, whose role is to co-ordinate the independent evaluation of the relevance and reliability of tests and validation studies, so that cosmetics products, as well as medicines, vaccines, other biologicals, medical devices, household products and agricultural products, can be manufactured, transported and used more economically and more safety whilst the current reliance on animal test procedures is progressively reduced.

  We also support the Test Guidelines Programme of the Organisation of Economic Development and Co-operation (OECD) which should enable alternative methods to be accepted internationally and with minimum delay.

  Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to facilitate the trial in normal criminal courts of those detained under section 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. [139222]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The Secretary of State will only certify and detain an individual under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act, (ATCS) part 4 powers, once he is satisfied that criminal charges cannot be brought. This does not preclude the bringing of criminal charges at a later stage, should further evidence come to light. It is not always possible to bring criminal prosecutions. Some types of evidence cannot safely be disclosed in criminal proceedings without putting others at risk and other types of evidence (e.g. intercept evidence) are not permissible in UK criminal courts. This point was extensively debated before Parliament passed the ATCS Act 2001.

  Antisocial Behaviour Orders
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offenders in Gloucestershire have(a) received and (b) breached anti-social behaviour orders since their inception; and if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of ASBOs. [138917]

  Ms Blears
  The number of notifications received by the Home Office of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) issued in Gloucestershire from 1 April 1999 (commencement) up to 30 June 2003 (latest available) is seven.

  The available information relating to breaches of ASBOs, covers the period 1 June 2000 to 31 December 2001 and shows that of the four ASBOs made, one was breached in Gloucestershire during this time.
  822W

  Arson
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his Department's strategy is on arson and catching arsonists. [125691]

  Ms Blears
  We are fully committed to tackling arson through the achievement of our Public Service Agreement target to reduce crime and the fear of crime and through our continued engagement in the work of the Arson Control Forum. We have also recognised the important contribution of the fire service to multi-agency working. From 1 April 2003, all fire authorities are statutory partners in local crime and disorder reduction partnerships, which will help ensure that the fire services play a full role in community safety and raise local ability to tackle arson and the associated areas of crime.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase resources to police forces in order to tackle arson. [137993]

  Ms Blears
  Provision for policing supported by the Government has increased by 25 per cent. since 2000–01. Allocation of resources locally between various activities is a matter for each police authority and its chief officer of police. Decisions will take account of local pressures and concerns.

  Asylum Application
  Mike Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when a decision will be taken on the asylum application lodged on 8 June 1998 by Mr. Mohamed Aweis Yusuf, Home Office reference M685182; when the hon. Member for Ilford, South will receive responses to the letters sent to the Minister of State on(a) 16 October 2002 and (b) 1 May 2001; and if he will make a statement. [137514]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 11 November 2003]I wrote to my hon. Friend on 17 November.

  Asylum Seekers
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he plans to take to amend his Department's policies in relation to(a) the detention of children in removal centres and (b) the education of those children in local schools. [131765]

  Beverley Hughes
  We have no plans to amend our policy in relation to the detention of families with children in removal centres. Children will continue to be detained as members of family groups as it would clearly not be in the interests of children to separate them from their parents. The vast majority of families with children are detained for a short time, most for only a few days immediately prior to removal. Removal centres that may hold families with children for anything more than a few days are required to have arrangements in place to provide educational classes to the children concerned. At present, this relates only to Dungavel Immigration Removal Centre and Oakington Reception Centre. The education provision at Dungavel is well established. The position at Oakington is different in that the need for educational provision has arisen only comparatively recently and is in the process of being put in place. We
  823W
  have no plans to change the overall arrangements for the provision of educational classes or to place the children concerned in local schools.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to ensure that asylum seekers are integrated into the community. [138322]

  Beverley Hughes
  The full integration into British society of asylum seekers awaiting decisions on their claims is neither achievable nor desirable. Asylum seekers are for example, generally not permitted to take up employment. We are working to speed up the decision-making process so that their status is resolved more quickly. Nonetheless the Government is fully committed to ensuring that asylum seekers who make their claims in accordance with the law are enabled to live in decent conditions and gain access to essential services, including education for their children, and that they may live in this country without fear of harassment. We also seek to encourage asylum seekers to contribute through volunteering to the communities in which they live.

  In order to promote these ends, the regional management of the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) maintains regular contact with all the relevant statutory and voluntary services in the areas to which asylum seekers are dispersed. NASS holds regular meetings to ensure that issues relating to the local integration of asylum seekers are raised and, where possible, resolved locally. Regional management will be representing NASS and asylum issues in all matters relating to community cohesion. We are also gradually developing our police liaison and intelligence capabilities to help provide safe and secure communities where asylum seekers are dispersed.

  Childhood Obesity
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with other departments about implementing a strategy to tackle childhood obesity. [138789]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The Home Office participates in the Activity Co-ordination Team led jointly by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department of Health which takes forward work on increasing participation in sport and physical activity, primarily in recognition of the significant health benefits.

  This is of direct relevance to the prevention and management of childhood obesity.

  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research his Department has commissioned on the effect on children's criminal behaviour of(a) poor nutrition and (b) childhood obesity. [138788]

  Ms Blears
  The Home Office is not currently conducting any specific research into the effects that poor nutrition and obesity have on children's criminal behaviour.

  There is extensive research on the risk factors which can have an influence on children and young people becoming criminally active. These factors include
  824W
  deprivation and poverty which can of course lead to poor nutrition, and poor diet and lack of opportunity for physical exercise which can contribute to obesity.

  The Government's programme to tackle youth crime includes a specific focus on addressing risk factors through the work with families, in neighbourhoods to tackle deprivation, and with education services to improve standards and behaviour and reduce truancy and exclusions.

  Class A Drugs
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what percentage of those brought into a police station tested positively for Class A drugs in 2002; and what the level of voluntary take-up of treatment was; [128627]

  (2) what percentage of those brought into a police station tested positive for Class A drugs in the last six months for which figures are available; and what the level of voluntary take-up for treatment was for those people. [127671]

  Caroline Flint
  It is not possible to provide a national figure for the percentage of individuals testing positive for Class A drugs, nor do we have recent data available for positive tests at arrest. However, the percentage of individuals testing positive at charge for cocaine and/or opiates at each of nine pilot sites is shown in the table.

  The data have been taken from Home Office Findings 180 "Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system in nine pilot areas". This is available on the RDS website http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/r180.pdf and in the House Library.

  Police on charge drug test results for cocaine and/or opiates: cumulative to 31 October 2002

  Pilot site

  Start date of pilot

  Testing positive for Cocaine and/or opiates (Percentage)

  Stafford and Cannock

  July 2001

  45

  Hackney

  September 2001

  66

  Nottingham

  September 2001

  58

  Bedford

  Agust 2002

  54

  Blackpool

  June 2002

  44

  Doncaster

  June 2002

  63

  Torquay

  July 2002

  36

  Wirral

  July 2002

  58

  Wrexham and Mold

  August 2002

  56

  Source:

  Home Office Findings 180 "Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system in nine pilot areas"

  The Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 gave the police power to drug test arrestees once they are charged with a "trigger offence" (these include property crime, robbery and specified Class A drug offences).

  Data on the level of voluntary uptake for treatment by detainees testing positive for Class A drugs has yet to become available from this study. As the evaluation continues information will be collected as detainees/offenders move from one part of the criminal justice system to another, and into treatment.

  Communications Masts
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 21 October,
  825W
  Official Report, column 543W, on communication masts, what plans he has to commission further research recommended in the National Radiological Protection Board report into mechanisms that might transform TETRA energy bursts occurring 17.6 times a second into a current which interferes with biological functions. [139217]

  Ms Blears
  There is no known mechanism by which the biological functions of the human body could react to radio signals, and the National Radiological Protection Board's independent Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation recommended further research on this topic. A study on possible non-linear mechanisms is under consideration as part of the adjunct Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research TETRA programme funded by the Home Office.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 21 October,Official Report, column. 543W, on communications masts, what the conclusions were of the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory study regarding (a) calcium efflux, (b) brain slice electrophysiology and (c) epileptiform activity. [139234]

  Ms Blears
  The Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) work on calcium efflux is complete and shows that TETRA has no effect on calcium exchanges in cells. The work on brain slice electrophysiology and epileptiform activity is still underway. The electrophysiology results are not yet fully analysed. Initial results show no effects of TETRA on epileptiform behaviour.

  Community Punishment Orders
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many hours per week the average offender sentenced to a community punishment order spends engaged in purposeful activity, broken down by probation area. [109594]

  Paul Goggins
  The information requested is not currently collected.

  Community Support Officers
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been detained by a community support officer; and in how many cases a police officer took charge of the detainee within half an hour of detention. [139221]

  Ms Blears
  At present, six police forces are piloting the power of detention, which was given to community support officers by the Police Reform Act 2002. The forces are the Metropolitan Police Service, West Yorkshire Police, Gwent Police, Lancashire Constabulary, Northamptonshire Police, and Devon and Cornwall Constabulary.
  826W
  As part of ongoing evaluation, when they use their detention powers community support officers in the relevant forces complete questionnaires which are then forwarded to the Home Office for monitoring purposes. The information currently available indicates that:
  To date the Home Office has received 161 questionnaires. This does not necessarily represent 161 separate detentions, as it is possible that two community support officers may have been involved in the same incident.
  Subsequent evaluation indicates that police officers have arrived within 30 minutes in 98.8 per cent. of cases and that there have been only two incidents where the time limit has not been met.
  These questionnaires are still being completed in each force and evaluation of the results is an on-going process. This work is being undertaken jointly by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and with the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate.

  Computer Games Companies
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the contracts his Department has awarded to computer games companies, broken down by(a) company to which the contract was awarded, (b) the date and cost of the contract and (c) the purpose of the contract; what has been delivered to date from each contract; what remains to be delivered; what each game seeks to achieve; and what assessment he has made of their effectiveness in meeting these aims. [139223]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  No contracts have been awarded to computer games companies.

  Note The answer includes the Home Department's executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies.

  Consultants
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many projects his Department has contracted out to external consultancies in each year since 1997; and at what cost. [138501]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  Information by project is not held centrally for the Home Department and is not available in the format requested. To provide a complete answer in the time available will incur disproportionate costs.

  A similar question was asked earlier this year about spend on consultancy. I therefore refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 29 January, Official Report, column 913W.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will meet the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton to discuss the letter to him dated 9 September, with regard to Mrs. S. Ahmed. [138456]
  827W
  Mr. Blunkett
  I responded to my right hon. Friend in a letter on 13 November 2003. A meeting would serve no useful purpose as there is nothing more I can add to that letter.

  Publicity Campaigns
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total cost to his Department was of(a) the Good to be Secure website, (b) the Don't let them bag your booty publicity campaign, (c) the Danny Timpson's Kebabathon computer game and (d) the Bargain Boost computer games; and whether Mr. David Dickinson received a fee for his involvement in the initiative. [138478]

  Ms Blears
  The Home Office is committed to reducing crime and we implement several campaigns to reduce the risk for the public.

  Burglary is a high volume crime. It is a crime that causes fear and concern. Campaigns which help reduce risk and fear is therefore a priority for us. There are several groups who are particularly at risk—the elderly, students, home movers, and holidaymakers.

  The campaigns we run are designed to reassure people and reduce their risk by offering them simple, practical advice on burglary prevention.

  The students' campaign is one of those key campaigns.

  The costs involved in the specific activities (including development costs) the hon. Gentleman mentioned were:

  Maintenance

  Renovation

  Council tax

  Running costs/ utilities

  Capital charge/depreciation/ cost of capital

  1997–98

  2,581

  0

  304

  3,189

  77,995

  1998–99

  14,849

  0

  325

  3,875

  84,863

  1999–2000

  2,055

  0

  350

  3,993

  104,615

  2000–01

  6,457

  0

  375

  2,268

  120,702

  2001–02

  1,386

  172,340

  410

  2,110

  112,345

  2002–03

  237,338

  27,440

  445

  5,306

  122,199

  1 Works carried out in 2001–02 were paid in 2002–03 when invoice was submitted

  2Includes roof works of £12,342

  Not included above is rent at £7,100 per annum and costs of security measures. Capital Charge and depreciation are related to the book value of the lease which was revalued in 2001.

  2. Officials

  Only in exceptional circumstances does my Department provide accommodation for officials other than seconded police officers. At present these are limited to three seconded junior staff carrying out duties which requires them to be located in Central London. The Prison Service also provides its staff including Governor grades with a limited number of married quarters

  Excel Exhibition Centre Protesters
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his Answer to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) of
  828W

  £

  The 'good to be secure' web site

  19,470

  The 'Don't let them bag your booty' publicity campaign including the 'Bargain bost' computer games

  80,000

  The 'Danny Timpson's Kebabathon' computer game

  12,000

  David Dickinson did receive a fee for his involvement in this initiative

  10,000

  Total

  121,470

  Departmental Expenditure (Official Residences)
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [134693]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The Home Office leases one property, acquired for security reasons, as the London residence of the Home Secretary of the day. A major programme of cyclical refurbishment—the first for some years—was completed in late spring 2002. This was needed to maintain the repair and value of the property and to deal with the impact of substantial flood and storm damage.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on 1 July 2002, Official Report, column 176W.

  1. Home Secretary's residence The figures are as follows:

  16 September 2003, Official Report, column 662W, whether he has received the Metropolitan Police report; whether he intends to publish it; and if he will make a statement on the use of anti-terrorism legislation against the protesters at the Excel Exhibition Centre in London on 9 September. [139254]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  I received an interim report from the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 18 September and a final report on 15 October. The report shows that what happened during the policing of the Defence Systems and Equipment International (DSEi) arms fair has not been routinely replicated across the force area from the time that the Terrorism Act 2000 came into force.

  I welcome the steps that have been already been taken to deal with concerns at force level about the use of this power and the enhanced guidance and training that will

  829W
  be given to officers from this point on. I have also agreed with the MPS that we continue to be vigilant and ensure that these powers are deployed correctly.

  Drug Offences
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were arrested for drug offences in(a) Tyne and Wear, (b) the North East and (c) the UK in each year since 1997. [138433]

  Caroline Flint
  Information on the number of persons arrested for notifiable offences is collected at police force area level only. Available data on the number of persons arrested for drugs offences within Northumbria police force area and the North East region are given in the table for the years 1999–2000 to 2001–02. Information for earlier years is not available on a consistent basis. Statistics for 2002–03 will be available later this year.

  Figures for Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly respectively.

  Number of persons arrested for drug offences in Northumbria police force area, the North East region and England and Wales

  Northumbria police force area

  North East region1

  England and Wales

  1999–2000

  4,719

  28,300

  221,200

  2000–01

  4,831

  28,000

  2111,300

  2001–02

  5,473

  29,300

  2116,600

  1North East region comprises of Northumbria, Durham and Cleveland police force areas.

  2 Estimated. Durham data not supplied.

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the costs involved in introducing a mandatory national identity card scheme in the UK. [132424]

  Beverley Hughes
  My right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary announced on 11 November that the Government has decided to begin the process of introducing a national identity cards scheme following the consultation paper published in July 2002.

  The Government are determined to ensure that the development of a national identity cards scheme is managed to the highest standards, and that the major business change and IT challenges which we face are dealt with effectively. A Programme Board is being established chaired by the Home Office to co-ordinate and drive forward the different elements of the Government strategy. Progress at every stage will be monitored and reviewed as further decisions are taken during the implementation. Before decisions are taken on implementation, there will be an intensive phase of feasibility assessment and prototyping so that decision making is soundly based and risks in the programme are kept to a minimum.

  Once the Office of Government Commerce (OGC) has confirmed that the programme is ready to proceed, by means of an OGC Gateway Zero review, we will publish draft legislation to enable the scheme to be introduced.
  830W
  Set up costs for the first three years have been estimated at £36, £60 and £90 million. Costs thereafter will be covered by charges. Under the proposed scheme, we estimate that a 10 year plain identity card would cost most people approximately £35. The enhanced fee for a combined passport—identity card would be £77and a combined driving licence— identity card would be £73.

  The proposed charging schedule would fund free cards for all 16 year olds and a reduced charge of £10 for those on low incomes. We are looking at how those who have been in retirement for some time could obtain a lifelong card, requiring no further payment and are also looking at whether plain identity cards could be paid for by instalments.

  For very frail and elderly citizens it would be possible to issue a non-biometric card (for instance those with severe learning disabilities who are in residential care or those over 80).

  People who held both a passport and a driving licence would only pay the additional charge for one document. This is because the charge covers the cost of establishing a more secure identity including recording the biometric information which only needs to happen once.

  We will continue to work with potential suppliers and partners to ensure estimates are accurate, realistic and deliverable.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his oral statement on identity cards of 11 November 2003,Official Report, column 176, what was the basis for his estimate of savings to be made in benefit and related systems from introducing an ID card was. [139089]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Department for Work and Pensions estimates that the level of identity fraud in the benefit system is between £20 million and £50 million per annum. A national identity cards scheme would reduce this once cards were widely held. It could also help to streamline the process of allocating National Insurance numbers, though there are no plans in the first stage of the scheme to require the possession of a card in order to obtain a National Insurance number.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from(a) police authorities and (b) other interested parties on the introduction of identity cards, with particular reference to the effect on under-age drinking; and if he will make a statement. [139440]

  Beverley Hughes
  "Identity Cards—A Summary of Findings from the Consultation Exercise on Entitlement Cards and Identity Fraud" (CM 6019) was published on 11 November 2003 and gives a summary of the comments received from organisations and from the public on identity cards.

  It records (at page 111) that police organisations considered that an identity card scheme would assist licensees to control the sale of age related products and (at page 39) that 6 per cent. of members of the public who were surveyed and were in favour of identity cards gave "to stop under-age drinking" as a reason.
  831W

  Immigration Appeals
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the use in special immigration appeals committees of evidence obtained through torture in a foreign country. [139063]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 17 November 2003]The Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) has adopted the common law approach to evidence which may have been obtained elsewhere through the use of torture—save for evidence that is obtained from a party (usually the defendant in a criminal trial), all evidence is admissible, however unlawfully obtained. However, where that evidence may have been obtained by torture, this will bear on the proper weight to be given to the information. The means by which information is obtained therefore goes to its reliability and weight and not to its admissibility.

  While we do not condone torture, we do have an obligation to protect national security and public safety and we would be deficient in this duty if we did not properly assess all information involved in association with the war on terror.

  IT Equipment
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was spent on purchasing and upgrading IT equipment in each of his Department's executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies in(a) 2002 and (b) 2003. [138526]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The information requested, which was provided to the hon. Gentleman on 30 October 2003 in response to UIN 135895, is as follows:

  Core Home Office:

  Notes:

  1. The figures are expenditure incurred by the Home Department

  2. The figures exclude expenditure from the Department's Outsourced Managed Service Contracts for the provision of IT infrastructure services, where the assets have not transferred to the public sector.

  Financial Year (FY)

  Time Period

  Totals (£)

  Part FY

  01 January 2002–31 March 2002

  36,464,010

  Full FY

  01 April 2002–31 March 2003

  13,017,585

  Part FY

  01 April 2003–30 September 2003

  9,127,403

  58,608,998

  National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS)

  Time Period

  Totals (£)

  Part FY

  01 January 2002–31 March 2002

  476,629

  Full FY

  01 April 2002–31 March 2003

  1,408,661

  Part FY

  01 April 2003–30 September 2003

  356,039

  2,241,329

  NCIS Note:

  1. The period January 2002 to March 2002 includes the start of a major project to upgrade infrastructure and desktops to Windows 2000 (excludes laptops).

  2. April 2002 to March 2003 includes the completion of the rollout of Windows 2000 and the acquisition of an electronic email archive.

  3. April 2003 to September 2003 includes equipment to meet Business Continuity requirements.
  832W

  Criminal Records Bureau

  Time Period

  Totals (£)

  Part FY

  01 January 2002–31 March 2002

  4,000

  Full FY

  01 April 2002–31 March 2003

  251,000

  Part FY

  01 April 2003–30 September 2003

  176,000

  431,000

  United Kingdom Passport Service:

  Time Period

  Totals (£)

  Part FY

  01 January 2002–31 March 2002

  32,117

  Full FY

  01 April 2002–31 March 2003

  671,639

  Part FY

  01 April 2003–30 September 2003

  103,164

  806,920

  Police Information Technology Organisation:

  Time Period

  Totals (£)

  Part FY

  01 January 2002–31 March 2002

  136,611

  Full FY

  01 April 2002–31 March 2003

  650,314

  Part FY

  01 April 2003–30 September 2003

  60,980

  847,905

  Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC):

  Time Period

  Totals (£)

  Part FY

  01 January 2002–31 March 2002

  N/A

  Full FY

  01 April 2002–31 March 2003

  N/A

  Part FY

  01 April 2003–30 September 2003

  1,540,171

  1,540,171

  IPCC Note:

  IPCC is a new Agency and as such has no IT expenditure prior to this financial year. All costs for 2003 are connected with the start up operation of the IPCC.

  Asset Recovery Agency (ARA):

  The return for the Asset Recovery Agency is NIL as until very recently, IT was encompassed within a Managed Service Contract for the ARA premises and as such the IT spend element was not transparent.

  Criminal Cases Review Commission:

  After six years of operation the Criminal Cases Review Commission is now undertaking a programme of upgrades to software and hardware in line with its Information Systems strategy. This means that expenditure in the periods of the question is higher than would be the case for simply routine operations.

  Time Period

  Totals (£)

  Part FY

  01 January 2002–31 March 2002

  6,508

  Full FY

  01 April 2002–31 March 2003

  223,480

  Part FY

  01 April 2003–30 September 2003

  58,630

  288,618

  Forensic Science Service:

  Time Period

  Totals (£)

  Part FY

  01 January 2002–31 March 2002

  585,000

  Full FY

  01 April 2002–31 March 2003

  3,063,000

  Part FY

  01 April 2003–30 September 2003

  1,942,000

  5,590,000

  833W

  Security Industry Authority (SIA)

  Time Period

  Totals (£)

  Part FY

  01 January 2002–31 March 2002

  Included in Home Office return

  Full FY

  01 April 2002–31 March 2003

  Included in Home Office return

  Part FY

  01 April 2003–30 September 2003

  16,000

  16,000

  Note: Security Industry Authority

  The SIA was established 1 April 2003. Prior to this date any IT spend associated with the set up would have been covered within the core Home Office expenditure.

  National Asylum Support Service
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date Mr. Digby Griffith was appointed to the team which undertook the independent review of the National Asylum Support Service; on what date he was offered his current position at NASS; and on what date he took up that post. [133965]

  Beverley Hughes
  The independent team established to review the operation of the National Asylum Support Service submitted its report on 30 May 2003.

  Mr. Digby Griffith was appointed as Secretary to the independent NASS Review Team during the first week in March 2003 and took up post on 10 March. Following a national open competition he was offered the post of Head of Accommodation in NASS on 24 April. He took up post on 30 June.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offences recorded by the police resulted in no further action being taken in each year since 1997. [138499]

  Ms Blears
  The percentage rates of offences detected and described as 'No further action', are available from 1997 to 2002–03, and are given in the table.

  Detection rates as a percentage of recorded offences, for England and Wales

  Percentage of all offences detected with 'No further action' taking place:

  Year

  Percentage of offences detected (All methods)

  Interview of convicted prisoner: (Percentage)

  Other (Percentage)

  19971

  28

  4

  4

  1997–982

  28

  4

  4

  1998–993

  29

  2

  5

  1999–20005

  25

  5—

  44

  2000–01

  24

  5—

  44

  2001–026

  23

  5—

  4

  2002–036

  24

  5—

  4

  1 Crime-related statistics were published on a calendar year basis until 1997, and on a financial year basis thereafter.

  2 Excluding offences of 'other criminal damage' of value £20 and under prior to March 1998.

  3 Percentage detected using the figures derived from the expanded coverage and revised counting rules for recorded crime which came into effect on 1 April 1998, and hence may not be comparable with previous years.

  4 Estimates based on returns from 42 (of the 43) police forces.

  5 Revised detections guidance was implemented on 1 April 1999, and hence detection rates are not comparable with previous years. The new instructions provide more precise and rigorous criteria for recording a detection, with the underlying emphasis on the

  834W
  successful result of a police investigation. Therefore detections obtained by the interview of a convicted prisoner were no longer collected.

  6 The National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) was implemented by some police forces in advance of it's national implementation on 1 April 2002, and as a result of this, figures are not directly comparable with previous years

  MI5
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the undertaking of activities by MI5 which require authorisation by warrant but which have been carried out without such authorisation in place. [138584]

  Mr. Blunkett
  It is the longstanding policy of successive governments neither to confirm nor deny allegations concerning the activities of the Security Service. We have maintained this policy irrespective of the accuracy or inaccuracy of the allegations made. The intelligence and security agencies each operate under a strict statutory framework. The agencies are overseen by Ministers and by independent Commissioners who hold, or have held, high judicial office. There is no question of the agencies, or anyone else, being above the law.

  Passports
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many passports have been lost by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate in Liverpool in 2003. [133481]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information is as follows:

  (1) 78 passports have been recorded as lost by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate in Liverpool during 2003.

  (2) The incidence of lost passports amounts to 0.04 per cent. set against the number of applications handled. Current processes do not allow the movement of passports to be tracked through each stage of case consideration.

  (3) I have instituted new arrangements to ensure the security and return of passports by IND.

  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what basis he reached his decision to set fees for(a) applications for variation of leave and (b) endorsing passports' at the current level. [136959]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 6 November 2003]The fees are calculated under Treasury Rules to recover the full administrative cost entailed in considering applications and no more. This is calculated by taking the overall costs of processing the applications divided by the number of decisions we expect to make.

  The fee is £155 for a postal application and £250 for personal callers who wish to apply at one of the four Public Enquiry Offices. The charges will ensure we are able to meet the cost of providing for the service and will ensure that we are able to meet the higher standards of service we have set for the Immigration and Nationality Directorate.

  Fees were introduced at a time when we were confident that we had in place the service improvements, which were the necessary precursors to charging.
  835W
  The principle behind charging is to ensure that those who use the service pay for it rather than the general taxpayer.

  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints he has received in relation to the introduction of fees for(a) applications for variation of leave and (b) endorsing passports. [136961]

  Beverley Hughes
  I have received a number of letters; particularly those representing the education sector such as UKCOSA, Universities UK and various universities to which I have already responded.

  A number of letters, phone calls and emails have also been received from members of the public, including students with regard to both the introduction of charging and the level of the fee. My Officials at Croydon continue to deal with these.

  The charges will ensure we are able to meet the cost of providing for the high service standards-service and will ensure that we are able to meet the tighter performance targets we have set for IND. Postal applications should be dealt within 13 weeks from when they are received in IND. We aim to complete 70 per cent. of postal applications within three weeks of receipt in IND. The premium service will enable callers to have their case considered on the same day as long as the application is complete and further enquiries are not required. We have recently invested heavily to ensure that the improved service standards we publish are achievable and sustainable.

  The principle behind charging is to ensure that those who use the service pay for it rather than the general taxpayer.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many and what proportion of the adult population of the United Kingdom does not have a passport. [138694]

  Beverley Hughes
  Out of the adult population of 45.5 million residents, approximately 10 million, or 22 per cent. do not have a passport.

  People Trafficking
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what penalties are in place to punish those convicted of people trafficking; and what measures are in place to deter people traffickers. [139658]

  Beverley Hughes
  In the White Paper "Secure Border Safe Haven" the Government promised to introduce legislation on trafficking for both labour and sexual exploitation.

  The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act introduced a new offence of trafficking for the purpose of controlling in prostitution with a maximum penalty of 14 years. This offence came into force 10 February 2003.

  More wide-ranging offences covering trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation were included in the Sexual Offences Bill. The offence of trafficking for sexual exploitation carries a tough maximum penalty of 14 years. In addition to this, the Sexual Offences Bill also introduces a new offence of Commercial Sexual
  836W
  Exploitation of a child, which will protect children up to 18. It covers a range of offences, including buying the sexual services of a child, (for which the penalty ranges from seven years to life depending on the age of the child); and causing, facilitating or controlling the commercial sexual exploitation of a child in prostitution or pornography, for which the maximum penalty will be 14 years imprisonment.

  An offence of trafficking for labour exploitation is under development and will be introduced when parliamentary time permits. This will carry the same 14 year penalty, which is the maximum determinate penalty available to the courts.

  In addition to these penalties, the Government are taking action against immigration crime bosses to ensure that they do not profit from their crimes. To dismantle these criminal networks, the Government are trebling funding for Reflex with £20 million in this financial year and a further £20 million each year for the following two years.

  Reflex is focused on tackling organised immigration crime at source, in transit and in the United Kingdom through intelligence led enforcement action and overseas co-operation. Since April 2003, 20 organised criminal gangs have been disrupted and 16 facilitators have been convicted. Under Reflex successful partnerships have or are being established in a variety of countries such as Romania, Serbia, Bosnia, Montenegro and Bulgaria.

  Performance Monitoring
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [137956]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  Performance targets for the Home Office were agreed as part of the Spending Review 2002. The monitoring and measurement of Public Service Agreement (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 the specific costs out. 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 the Home Department 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. [137971]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  Key performance targets for the Home Office were agreed as part of the Spending Review 2002 and the latest set were published in Spending Review 2002: Public Service Agreements 2003–2006 (CM 5571). They have also been published in various
  837W
  Home Office publications, including "Targets Delivery Report" (CM5754), and on the Department's website. The Department monitors progress towards the targets along with Her Majesty's Treasury and the Prime Minister's Delivery Unit and progress is reported regularly.

  Targets relating specifically to Home Office agencies and executive non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) are set by the Secretary of State for the Home Office and are monitored by the Department, including through meetings between each organisation and Ministers or officials. A list of Home Office-sponsored agencies and executive NDPBs is as follows:

  Home Office agencies

  Criminal Records Bureau

  Forensic Science Service

  Prison Service Agency

  UK Passport Agency

  Home Office executive NDPBs

  Central Police Training & Development Authority (Centrex)

  Community Development Foundation

  Commission for Racial Equality

  Criminal Cases Review Commission

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority

  Independent Police Complaints Commission

  National Crime Squad

  National Criminal Intelligence Service

  Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner

  Parole Board

  Police Complaints Authority

  Police Information Technology Organisation

  Security Industry Authority

  Youth Justice Board

  Information on targets, and performance against them, is set out in each organisation's Annual Reports and Accounts, which are laid before Parliament. Information on each organisation, along with links to their individual websites, is also available in the main Home Office website at www.homeoffice.gov.uk.

  Police
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) police officers and (b) civilian police staff were employed in (i) Avon and Somerset, (ii) Bedforshire, (iii) Leicestershire and (iv) South Yorkshire on (A) 31 March 1997, (B) 31 March 2003 and (C) 31 August 2003. [138844]

  Ms Blears
  The available information is given in the tables:

  Number of police officers1

  31 March 1997

  31 March 2003

  31 August 2003

  Avon and Somerset

  2,989

  3,160

  3,304

  Bedfordshire

  1,094

  1,119

  1,132

  Leicestershire

  1,949

  2,147

  2,159

  South Yorkshire

  3,159

  3,194

  3,210

  1Full time equivalents

  838W

  Number of civilian police staff1,2

  31 March 1997

  31 March 2003

  31 August 2003

  Avon and Somerset

  1,330

  1,785

  3—

  Bedfordshire

  484

  595

  3—

  Leicestershire

  755

  934

  3—

  South Yorkshire

  1,291

  1,510

  3—

  1Full time equivalents

  2Excludes traffic wardens

  3Not available

  Police (Firearms)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to release the 2002–03 authorised firearms officer figures for all forces in England and Wales; what the cause of the delay in releasing the figures is; and if he will make a statement. [139068]

  Ms Blears
  The police use of firearms statistics for 2002–03 are currently being validated and I hope to release them by way of a ministerial statement early in the new year.

  Police Funding
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the projected funding per head of population for each police authority in England and Wales is in 2003–04. [138231]

  Ms Blears
  The information is set out in the table.

  £

  Force

  Funding1 per head of population2 2002–03

  Funding1 per head of population2 2003–04

  Avon and Somerset

  110.15

  117.18

  Bedfordshire

  115.55

  118.92

  Cambridgeshire

  100.54

  111.62

  Cheshire

  108.84

  120.16

  Cleveland

  157.87

  167.00

  Cumbria

  125.24

  130.76

  Derbyshire

  105.09

  112.58

  Devon and Cornwall

  109.35

  113.03

  Dorset

  93.58

  98.28

  Durham

  138.76

  149.74

  Dyfed-Powys

  111.64

  115.43

  Essex

  102.63

  107.04

  Gloucestershire

  107.24

  113.45

  Greater Manchester

  151.72

  168.58

  Gwent

  129.39

  137.75

  Hampshire

  107.94

  118.03

  Hertfordshire

  101.99

  107.18

  Humberside

  128.61

  139.32

  Kent

  116.74

  128.40

  Lancashire

  127.54

  135.86

  Leicestershire

  108.92

  116.95

  Lincolnshire

  103.72

  102.31

  Merseyside

  180.40

  194.66

  Metropolitan

  260.66

  286.02

  Norfolk

  106.24

  115.26

  Northamptonshire

  102.84

  112.98

  Northumbria

  153.22

  166.89

  North Wales

  119.43

  124.00

  North Yorkshire

  98.67

  103.85

  Nottinghamshire

  127.25

  133.70

  South Wales

  135.83

  145.63

  South Yorkshire

  136.86

  151.49

  Staffordshire

  104.48

  114.45

  Suffolk

  100.07

  107.25

  Surrey

  86.55

  93.50

  Sussex

  107.94

  114.11

  839W

  £

  Force

  Funding1 per head of population2 2002–03

  Funding1 per head of population2 2003–04

  Thames Valley

  104.96

  110.48

  Warwickshire

  100.95

  110.32

  West Mercia

  97.92

  101.55

  West Midlands

  147.44

  171.37

  West Yorkshire

  142.66

  152.24

  Wiltshire

  102.79

  106.38

  1 Government funding includes Home Office police grant, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and Welsh Assembly Government Revenue Support Grant and National Non-Domestic Rates, Crime Fighting Fund, Rural Policing Grant, Airwave, DNA Expansion Programme, Community Support Officers, London and South East Allowances, Free Travel for City of London and MPS, Basic Command Unit funding, Street Crime Initiative, Special Priority Payments from the PNB agreement, Counter Terrorism (PMS only), Capital grant and the premises Improvement Fund.

  2 Source for resident population figures:
  Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The figures are as used for calculation of grant under the Police Funding Formula.

  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the projected funding for 2004 is for each police authority in England and Wales under the Rural Sparsity Grant. [138233]

  Ms Blears
  I shall announce details of the Rural Policing Fund allocations for 2004–05 with the provisional police funding settlement for 2004–05.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what police funding was allocated to the North West in each year since 1992. [134898]

  Ms Blears
  The information is set out in the tables.

  North West Region*

  Government Revenue Grant1 (£million)

  1992–932

  n/a

  1993–942

  n/a

  1994–952

  n/a

  1995–96

  752.65

  1996–97

  789.41

  1997–98

  805.79

  1998–99

  834.17

  1999–2000

  852.13

  2000–01

  884.26

  2001–023

  939.82

  2002–03

  962.04

  2003–04

  1,022.16

  1 Government Grant includes Home Office police grant, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) Revenue Support Grant and non national domestic rates, Crime Fighting Fund, Rural Policing Grant, Basic Command Unit funding, Community Support Officer funding, DNA Expansion Programme, Street Crime Initiative and Special Priority payments.

  2 Before 1995–96, when most Police Authorities became independent local authorities, revenue support grant and non-national domestic rates were paid as part of respective county council grant funding.

  3 The grant figures for 2001–02 and 2002–03 are not directly comparable, owing to changes from 2002–03 in the method of funding the National Crime Squad and the National Criminal Intelligence Service. Based on the new arrangements, comparable grant figure for 2001–02 would have been £917,614,378.

  * The North West region is policed by Cheshire, Cumbria, Greater Manchester, Lancashire and Merseyside forces.
  840W
  In addition, the North West forces received the following funding in capital grant, including Airwave and the Premises Improvement Fund.

  North West Region, Capital Grants (£ million)

  1995–96

  22.54

  1996–97

  17.73

  1997–98

  19.05

  1998–99

  12.92

  1999–2000

  13.46

  2000–01

  17.59

  2001–02

  45.46

  2002–03

  36.56

  2003–04

  34.96

  Police Vehicles
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police vehicles there were in the last year for which figures are available, broken down by(a) police authority area and (b) manufacturer. [139054]

  Ms Blears
  This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Policing Costs
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance is issued to police forces in relation to negotiating contributions from the organisers of(a) football matches and (b) other public events towards the costs of policing those events. [138498]

  Ms Blears
  Section 25 of the Police Act 1996 enables Chief Officers of Police to provide special police services upon request and in return for payment at a rate set by the police authority.

  Home Office guidance is that where the police charge for special services arrangements should be made for full recovery of costs. Home Office circular 34/2000 deals specifically with charging for policing football matches and offers guidance on the calculation of full costs.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to make football clubs responsible for a greater proportion of the costs of policing football matches. [138548]

  Ms Blears
  Section 25 of the Police Act 1996 enables chief officers of police to provide special police services upon request and in return for payment at a rate set by the police authority.

  We appreciate that policing football raises particular issues about resources and deployment which is why a working group, involving the police, police authorities, football authorities and others was set up to consider these matters.

  The group has met on a number of occasions but has not concluded its deliberations. It would be premature to speculate on the outcome but a final or interim report will be sought early next year.
  841W

  Pupil Visa Charges
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will initiate a review of the introduction of visa charges on pupils from overseas attending United Kingdom boarding schools which provides an opportunity for consultation with schools affected. [133072]

  Beverley Hughes
  The level of charges are set under Treasury rules to recover the full costs associated with delivering the service. Under these rules, there is a requirement for an annual fee review with which the Home Office will comply. My officials are looking at a number of issues for the future including fee structures, the possibility of differential charging and how to further improve the service.

  I cannot, of course, guarantee the outcome of the fee review. However, the hon. Gentleman has my assurance that Home Office officials will engage with the DIES, British Council, UKCOSA and others to ensure that the education sector's representations are taken into account.

  The principle behind charging is to ensure that those who use the service pay rather than the general taxpayer.

  Racism
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many racist incidents were reported to the police in England and Wales in each of the last 10 years. [138400]

  Ms Blears
  Section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 requires the Secretary of State to publish such information as he considers expedient in order to enable those involved in the criminal justice system to become aware of the financial implications of their decisions, or to avoid discrimination on grounds of race, sex or any other improper grounds.

  The number of racist incidents both 'reported' to and 'recorded' by the police in England and Wales since 1991 and published under section 95, can be seen in the following table.

  Total

  1991

  7,882

  1992

  7,734

  1993–94

  11,006

  1994–95

  11,878

  1995–96

  12,222

  1996–97

  13,151

  1997–98

  23,049

  1998–99

  23,049

  1999–2000

  47,814

  2000–01

  53,092

  2001–02

  54,351

  We believe that the sharp rise in incidents recorded by the police reflects better recording and greater confidence of communities in reporting incidents.

  Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department are 842W
  taking to ensure consistency in using the Regulations of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 across all Government Departments. [136132]

  Caroline Flint
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has issued statutory Codes of Practice relating to the exercise and performance of powers and duties under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. Subject to the approval of Parliament, new and revised codes will be issued. These codes, together with provision of advice from independent Commissioners and the delivery of training and seminars, support consistency in the use of powers under the Act.

  Independent Commissioners, who are appointed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, are under a statutory duty to keep under review the exercise and performance of the powers and duties conferred or imposed on public authorities by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. The Commissioners' role includes, where necessary or appropriate, ensuring consistency in the application of the Act's provisions or the interpretation of the statutory Codes of Practice.

  The Government are committed to ensuring that the relevant Commissioners have the necessary resources to carry out effective oversight of public authorities' use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

  Road Traffic Regulations (Police Confiscation Powers)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions the police have used their new power to confiscate vehicles that persistently infringe road traffic regulations or are used off-road causing public annoyance in(a) Crosby and (b) England. [137824]

  Caroline Flint
  The new powers given to the police by the Police Reform Act 2002 relate to offences under sections three and 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Those offences cover driving on-road without due care and attention and driving off-road without authority. As from January 2003, where a vehicle committing one of these offences is being driven in such a way that it is causing or is likely to cause alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public, a constable in uniform is empowered to stop and seize it. Unless a warning has been given previously, the police are required where practical to warn the person before seizing the vehicle, so that its anti-social use can be stopped.

  The new power came into effect at the start of the year and its effective use is being developed. Figures for the number of vehicles that have so far been seized under this legislation are not collected centrally. I understand, however, from the Merseyside Police that as at 10 November, 14 warnings had been issued and one vehicle had been seized in Crosby.

  Road Traffic Speeds
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what help he will give chief constables to reduce illegal speeding. [139039]

  Caroline Flint
  The National Safety Camera Scheme the Government have introduced enables local partnerships to net off money from fixed penalties for
  843W
  speeding offences detected by camera to fund camera enforcement. The Scheme has been shown to be effective in reducing speed related death and injury and in the National Policing Plan we have encouraged all forces to support it. All forces will be fully participating in the scheme by the middle of next year.

  Secondment
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people from science and technology backgrounds have been seconded into the Civil Service in his Department in each of the last five years for which data are available. [138628]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  Secondments are part of the Interchange initiative, which promotes the exchange of people and good practice between the Civil Service and other organisations—public, private and voluntary. Interchange provides opportunities for civil servants to learn new skills, widen their experience and develop ideas, it also brings in skills and experiences from other sectors. 198 staff were seconded into the Home Office during the period 1 April 1998 to 31 March 2003. The Home Office records data on inward secondees according to their originating sector, but it does not specifically collate data on secondees with a science and technology background.

  The annual number of inward secondments to the Home Office from outside the Civil Service was:

  Year

  1998–99

  25

  1999–2000

  30

  2000–2001

  21

  2001–2002

  44

  2002–2003

  78

  Terrorism Act
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 4 November 2003,Official Report, column 575W, on the Terrorism Act, if he will break down the number of stop and searches under section 44 (1) and section 44 (2) of the Terrorism Act 2000 by (a) ethnicity and (b) gender in each year. [139267]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 17 November 2003]The data collected on stops and searches made under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 is not automatically cross-referenced with data on the ethnicity and gender of those stopped. This information could be collated and verified only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for authorisations under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 have been received from(a) Avon and Somerset, (b) Merseyside, (c) West Midlands, (d) South Wales and (e) Northumbria police forces. [138507]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The applications received from the listed forces for the authorisation of section 44 powers are as follows.
  844W

  Listed forces

  Applications

  Avon and Somerset Police

  3

  Merseyside Police

  7

  West Midlands

  19

  South Wales Police

  17

  Northumbria Police

  2

  UK/US Extradition Treaty
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason the Extradition Treaty he signed on 31 March gives the US the right to request extradition from the UK without the need to provide prima facie evidence but does not provide an equivalent right for the UK in respect of individuals in the US. [139131]

  Caroline Flint
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Baillieston,(Mr. Wray) on 8 July 2003,Official Report, column 722W.

  Website
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent assessment he has made of the content and design of his Department's website. [139372]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  We are in the process of redeveloping the Home Office website so that it is seen as a key communication with the general public.

  As well as the Home Office site, we have specific issue sites that deal with high priority issues such as policing and crime reduction.

  www.policecouldyou.co.uk has processed nearly 5,000 police applications.

  www.good2bsecure.co.uk provides crime prevention advice particularly to students who are one of the country's most vulnerable groups.

  Working Immigrants
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how significant he estimates working immigrants will be in remedying problems of an ageing population in the UK. [138272]

  Beverley Hughes
  The latest (interim 2001-based) projections from the Government Actuary indicate that the proportion of the population aged over 65 is projected to increase from 16 per cent. in 2001 to 21 per cent. in 2026 and the number of dependants of pensionable age per 1,000 persons of working age is estimated to grow from 299 in 2001 to 341 in 2026.

  Working immigrants help fill labour shortages in a variety of sectors and contribute to productivity and economic growth. However working immigrants are just one factor that can help mitigate the effects of an ageing population. They complement a variety other measures such as increasing labour market participation, improving productivity as well as savings policies and the provision of public services.
  845W

HEALTH

  Painkillers
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many over-the-counter painkillers contain codeine phosphate; and if he will make a statement. [134993]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 28 October 2003]According to the records held by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, there are currently 96 granted marketing authorisations for medicinal products containing the active ingredient codeine phosphate. These are licensed as pharmacy medicines and are available without prescription from a pharmacy under the supervision of a pharmacist. No products containing codeine phosphate are licensed for general sale.

  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many opiate-based painkillers are available on prescription. [134994]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 28 October 2003]According to the records held by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, there are currently 440 granted marketing authorisations for products containing opiate or opioid-based substances which are prescription only medicines and licensed for pain relief.

  "Making Amends"
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether the reforms set out in his Department's document, "Making Amends", will require primary legislation; [139563]

  (2) if he will publish the responses his Department has received to the Chief Medical Officer's consultation paper, "Making Amends". [139564]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The type and scope of legislation needed to implement changes to the way the national health service handles incidents that may involve clinical negligence will depend on the Government's response to the Chief Medical Officer's (CMO's) recommendations on this issue. The CMO's recommendations were set out in his consultation report, "Making Amends", which was published on 30 June. Formal consultation ended on 17 October and responses are now being analysed. It is expected this will take several weeks, given the complexity of the issues.

  All those who responded to the consultation exercise on the CMO's report were asked whether they were willing for their responses to be published. More than 170 responses were received and the majority have given consent for their comments to be published. We intend to publish these responses as soon as possible, on the Department of Health's website.

  Alzheimer's Disease
  Mr. Patrick Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average annual personal care costs were for someone with Alzheimer's disease living in their own home in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [138927]
  846W
  Dr. Ladyman
  Data are not collected centrally on the average annual personal care costs for someone with Alzheimer's disease living in their own home.

  Ambulances
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what length of time on average ambulance crews spent on each emergency call out in each of the London boroughs in the last year for which figures are available. [137320]

  Mr. Hutton
  This information is not held centrally.

  Ambulatory Oxygen Systems
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will amend the contractual procedures with equipment suppliers so as to bring forward the date when ambulatory oxygen administration systems can be made available to patients in the NHS; [1385641]

  (2) when he expects that all patients in England and Wales who have a medical need for ambulatory oxygen administration systems will have them supplied under the NHS; [138565]

  (3) by what date ambulatory oxygen administration systems will be made available to NHS patients; [138566]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the number of patients in England and Wales in need of ambulatory oxygen administration systems. [138585]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  In June, we announced plans to introduce a modernised, integrated, oxygen service. The new contract for oxygen services, currently being drawn up, will set out clear standards for the delivery of services to meet individual patient needs. Specialist hospital consultants will take on the responsibility for assessing and prescribing oxygen, including ambulatory oxygen, with service contractors required to provide the type of service needed.

  We are working towards an operational date of 1 April 2005 for the new oxygen services contract. This is the earliest practical date, taking into account the need to minimise inconvenience to patients and to ensure fair and open competition for the new contract.

  Details of the service specification for the new contract, currently being drawn up, will be available in early 2004.

  Information on the numbers of patients who need ambulatory oxygen is not held centrally.

  Audiologists
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many vacancies there are for audiologists at each NHS trust. [137855]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information is not collected separately on audiologists, they are included within the physiological measurement area of work. Information on the number of vacancies lasting three months or more for qualified physiological measurement staff has been placed in the Library.
  847W

  Chiropody
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will amend the restrictions placed on the provision of chiropody in the health service. [134095]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 4 November 2003]There are no centrally imposed restrictions on the provision of chiropody in the National Health Service. Primary care trusts have the responsibility for improving the health of the community. In commissioning services PCTs need to plan local services near to patients and ensure that they are identifying the health needs of patients and securing services for them.

  Commission for Patient and Public Involvement
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of whether the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement will have new structures in place and working by 1 December 2003. [135637]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health (CPPIH) is well on track to meeting its statutory obligations to ensure all its new structures are in place and working by the time of the abolition of the community health councils on 1 December 2003. The Independent Complaints Advocacy Service has been in place since 1 September 2003, supporting individuals who wish to pursue a complaint against the national health service. Recruitment to patients' forums is progressing well, with national and local advertising campaigns eliciting a large number of applications leading the CPPIH to have every confidence in being able to achieve full forum coverage by 1 December 2003.

  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the Public Bodies (Access to Meetings) Act 1960 applies to the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health. [134583]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Public Bodies (Access to Meetings) Act 1960 does not apply to the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health (CPPIH), which was also the case with the community health councils.

  The NHS Reform and Healthcare Professions Act 2002 requires the CPPIH to adopt the provisions of the Local Government Act 1972 (part v), in respect of access to public meetings. These requirements have been applied and appropriately modified under the CPPIH's Membership and Procedures Regulations 2002.

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to extend the life of community health councils in advance of the transition to the new structure. [135634]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Community health councils (CHCs) will be abolished on 1 December. We do not support any further delay in the abolition. We believe such a move would place remaining staff under great strain, give rise to widespread logistical problems and cause confusion among patients and the public.
  848W
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what procedures he has put in place(a) for the employment of community health council officers and staff in the new complaint and consultation structure and (b) to ensure that community health council (i) records, (ii) skills and (iii) experience are not lost to their local communities. [135635]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  A human resources framework for community health council (CHC) staff, agreed with the relevant trades unions, was issued in June 2003. The framework included arrangements for those CHC staff who wished to leave early to take up posts in organisations providing independent complaints advocacy services, local network providers to patients' forums, overview and scrutiny committees (OSCs) and other posts in the national health service dedicated to patient and public involvement. The framework also made provision for clearing houses, training opportunities and helplines to assist CHC staff find alternative employment in the NHS. Guidance on the retention and disposal arrangements for CHC records was also issued in June 2003. The Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health continues to work with CHCs to consider the best ways to transfer valuable local knowledge to patients' forums to help them build local capacity. CHCs have for some time been working with patient advice and liaison services and OSCs, including sharing experiences and local knowledge, so that those organisations are able to carry out their new responsibilities as effectively as possible.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy that new organisations handling complaints and patient issues in place of community health councils should establish(a) local offices and (b) drop-in advice services. [135636]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The independent complaints advocacy service, that supports people if they want to make a complaint against the national health service, provides a service across the whole of England from a mixture of regional and local offices. It is not a general drop-in advice service.

  Patient advice and liaison services, providing on-the-spot help and advice to patients, their families and carers, exist in almost all NHS trusts and primary care trusts (PCTs) and do provide a drop-in advice service.

  Patients' forums, providing new opportunities to get involved in health services, are being set up for every NHS trust and PCT and will operate locally. Providing a drop-in advice service is a function of PCT patients' forums.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines are in place to ensure that patients' interests are safeguarded during the period leading up to the abolition of community health councils. [136461]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The majority of community health councils (CHCs) will continue to operate to ensure that patients' interests are safeguarded up to the abolition date. Each CHC has an exit strategy based on national and local guidelines. The Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health continues to work with CHCs to consider the best ways to transfer valuable local knowledge to patients' forums to help
  849W
  them build local capacity. CHCs have also been liaising with organisations providing independent complaints advocacy services and have for some time been working with patient advice and liaison services and overview and scrutiny committees, sharing experiences and local knowledge to enable those organisations to pick up their new powers and responsibilities.

  Dementia
  Mr. Patrick Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of people in care homes have a form of dementia; what proportion of care homes are registered as being able to accept people with Alzheimer's disease; and what plans he has to ensure that care home staff receive dementia care training. [138926]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Data are not collected on the number of people with dementia, in the population generally or in care homes in particular. Research evidence shows that about five per cent, of the population over 65 has dementia. This represents about 600,000 people in the United Kingdom. Alzheimer's disease causes up to 60 per cent. of cases of dementia.

  All care homes which have the client group/service user category of DE (dementia under 65 years) or DE(E) (dementia over 65 years) are able to accept client/service users with Alzheimer's disease.

  Regulation 18 of the Care Homes Regulations 2001 requires care home providers to ensure that at all times there are suitably qualified, competent and experienced staff working in care homes in such numbers as are appropriate for the health and welfare of the residents. It also requires providers to ensure the staff they employ receive training appropriate to the work they are to perform. The National Care Standards Commission is responsible for ensuring care homes conform to the regulations and meet the assessed needs of residents.

  Dentistry
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact which moving responsibilities for dentistry from health authorities to primary care trusts has had on registration numbers. [135281]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Primary care trusts (PCTs) took over the responsibility for the administration of the general dental services (GDS) arrangements from 1 October 2002. National arrangements for determining remuneration of dentists working in the GDS were not affected by these changes. The level of patient registrations in the GDS has remained broadly stable since October 2002. Patients do not need registration in order to access national health service dentistry through the community or personal dental services. Arrangements are also in place for patients to access NHS dentistry on an occasional basis in the GDS.

  Subject to Parliament, the Health & Social Care (Community Health & Standards) Bill will give new duties to PCTs from April 2005 to secure dental services and will enable them to provide assistance and support to dental practices with which they contract. From the same date, the £1.2 billion held centrally for dentistry will be devolved to PCTs to support them in delivering their new duties on dentistry.
  850W
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists offered NHS treatment in(a) Taunton and (b) Somerset in each year since 1997. [136899]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information is available for the Somerset Health Authority area for the years 1997 to 2001 and is shown in the following table. For the years 2002 and 2003, information is given in the table for Taunton Dean Primary Care Trust (PCT) area and for four Somerset PCTs.

  General Dental Service: Number of Dentists in Somerset 1997 to 2003

  Primary Care Trust/ Health Authority

  Date

  Number of dentists

  Somerset PCTs1

  30 June 2003

  233

  Somerset PCTs1

  30 September 2002

  227

  Somerset HA

  30 September each year

  2001

  176

  2000

  181

  1999

  165

  1998

  163

  1997

  163

  1Taunton Deane PCT, Somerset Coast PCT, South Somerset PCT and Mendip PCT

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the safety of(a) mercury and (b) silver fillings in dentistry; [138971]

  (2) what research he has (a) commissioned and (b) received on risks associated with using (i) mercury and (ii) silver in tooth fillings; and if he will make a statement. [138985]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Dental amalgam is a combination of alloy particles, mainly silver, and mercury. Dental amalgam is the most frequently used material for restoring decayed teeth. Its main advantages include wide indications for use, ease of handling and excellent physical properties. It has been used in dentistry with good results for more than a century.

  The 1998 European Union expert report concluded that currently available data indicate that mercury from dental amalgam restorations will not cause an unacceptable health risk to the general population. There is little evidence that an unacceptable health risk is associated with occupational exposure of dental personnel providing due care is used in the preparation and handling of dental amalgam. The same report also concluded that there is no scientific evidence that the use of dental amalgam is related to adverse effects on pre-and post-natal health or fertility. There are therefore no plans to commission further research into amalgam safety. However, it remains the Department's advice that dentists should continue to avoid or delay any dental intervention or medication during pregnancy.

  Digital Hearing Aids
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the waiting time is for digital hearing aids in the NHS, broken down by primary care trust area. [138491]
  851W
  Dr. Ladyman
  This information is not collected centrally. We have invested £94 million over two years, which will be used to make digital hearing aids available across England by April 2005.

  Early Intervention Services
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been invested in the(a) planning and (b) establishment of Early Intervention Services; how much has been allocated to each primary care trust; how many Early Intervention Services have been establshed; and where they are. [138475]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The funds necessary to set up early intervention teams, as envisaged in the Priorities and Planning Framework 2003–06, have been made available to primary care trusts within their general allocations.

  The numbers of early intervention teams in operation, according to local implementation team catchment areas, are shown in the table.

  Local implementation team

  Number of services

  Birmingham

  3

  Croydon

  1

  Devon and Torbay

  1

  Dewsbury

  1

  East Yorkshire

  1

  Hartlepool

  1

  Lambeth

  2

  Lincolnshire

  1

  Luton

  1

  Northumberland

  1

  Plymouth

  1

  Salford

  1

  Sheffield

  1

  Suffolk

  1

  Sutton and Merton

  1

  Tameside and Glossop

  1

  Tower Hamlets

  1

  Trafford

  1

  Wandsworth

  1

  Wolverhampton

  1

  Worcestershire

  1

  Total

  24

  Epilepsy
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the provision of specialist epilepsy nurses for children with epilepsy. [139149]

  Dr. Ladyman
  We recognise the important role that epilepsy specialist nurses play in the treatment and management of children and adults with epilepsy. Around 100 epilepsy specialist nursing posts have already been developed in both hospital and community settings. Primary care trusts are best placed to determine the number of such posts required to support the development and delivery of local epilepsy services.
  852W
  We are currently developing the national service framework (NSF) for long term conditions, which will focus on improving the standard of neurology services across England for a range of conditions, including epilepsy. As part of the process of developing the NSF, work is in hand to consider relevant work force issues such as the need for increased numbers of staff but also for new ways of working, including skill mix, role extensions and multi-disciplinary working, based around patient needs. We expect that the group looking at these work force issues will make recommendations on the future supply of professionals and development of new ways of working to inform national work force planning processes. The needs of people with epilepsy will be considered in this work alongside other specialties and conditions.

  Foundation Hospital Trusts
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the likely range of costs of(a) building and (b) maintaining the membership base of an NHS foundation trust. [138559]

  Mr. Hutton
  The costs associated with a membership base for a National Health Service foundation trust will depend on a number of factors, including the size of membership. Experience of other membership organisations suggested that the cost of establishing and maintaining a membership base of 5,000 people is likely to be approximately £2.25 per member per annum, although these costs will be lower the larger the membership.

  Foundation Trusts
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he made of the effects of piloting the proposals for NHS foundation trusts before allowing their roll-out in England. [139117]

  Mr. Hutton
  Piloting was a consideration as the proposals for national health service foundation trusts were developed. However, it was concluded that piloting would not achieve the radical and comprehensive reform that is required to deliver the freedoms and local accountability central to the Government's policy on NHS foundation trusts. There will, however, be opportunities to learn from the experience of the first wave NHS foundation trust applications.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), of 8 January 2003,Official Report, columns 278–79W, on general practitioners, what the figures were for the year to April 2003. [137377]

  Mr. Hutton
  The number of whole-time equivalent general practitioners in each strategic health authority, Government office region and in England between October 1997 and March 2003 are shown in the table.
  853W

  General Medical Practitioners (excluding GP retainers) 1,2 in England, by Strategic Health Authority and Government Office Region; 1997 to March 2003

  Estimated whole-time equivalents

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  England

  27,660

  27,848

  28,033

  28,154

  28,439

  North East

  1,402

  1,418

  1,426

  1,434

  1,488

  Northumberland, Tyne and Wear

  782

  802

  807

  812

  836

  County Durham and Tees Valley

  620

  617

  619

  622

  652

  North West

  3,834

  3,822

  3,880

  3,874

  3,903

  Cumbria and Lancashire

  1,079

  1,083

  1,090

  1,079

  1,093

  Greater Manchester

  1,409

  1,404

  1,420

  1,424

  1,422

  Cheshire and Merseyside

  1,346

  1,335

  1,370

  1,371

  1,388

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  2,848

  2,843

  2,892

  2,911

  2,950

  North and East Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire

  944

  934

  951

  959

  968

  West Yorkshire

  1,188

  1,198

  1,221

  1,227

  1,248

  South Yorkshire

  716

  711

  720

  725

  734

  West Midlands

  2,877

  2,901

  2,920

  2,959

  2,962

  Shropshire and Staffordshire

  757

  776

  787

  792

  779

  Birmingham and the Black Country

  1,261

  1,272

  1,279

  1,299

  1,305

  Coventry, Warwickshire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire

  859

  853

  853

  869

  878

  East Midlands

  2,220

  2,233

  2,227

  2,225

  2,261

  Trent

  1,363

  1,382

  1,386

  1,408

  1,434

  Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland

  857

  851

  841

  817

  827

  East of England

  2,901

  2,955

  2,963

  2,979

  2,987

  Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire

  1,227

  1,243

  1,250

  1,268

  1,276

  Bedford and Herfordshire

  869

  892

  894

  897

  906

  Essex

  805

  819

  819

  814

  805

  London

  4,225

  4,212

  4,198

  4,217

  4,212

  North West London

  1,107

  1,097

  1,055

  1,044

  1,064

  North Central London

  738

  741

  727

  748

  746

  North East London

  835

  845

  844

  866

  841

  South East London

  814

  810

  840

  825

  833

  South West London

  731

  720

  732

  735

  727

  South East

  4,410

  4,482

  4,512

  4,507

  4,579

  Thames Valley

  1,145

  1,186

  1,198

  1,202

  1,218

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  996

  999

  1,014

  1,017

  1,037

  Kent and Medway

  860

  867

  868

  853

  860

  Surrey and Sussex

  1,410

  1,430

  1,432

  1,435

  1,464

  South West

  2,942

  2,981

  3,014

  3,048

  3,097

  Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire

  1,225

  1,257

  1,281

  1,289

  1,301

  South West Peninsula

  990

  981

  972

  1,000

  1,025

  Somerset and Dorset

  727

  744

  761

  759

  771

  Estimated whole-time equivalents

  Increase

  March 2002

  2002

  March 2003

  1997 to 2003

  1999 to 2003

  England

  28,540

  28,740

  29,180

  1,520

  1,146

  North East

  1,494

  1,523

  1,542

  140

  116

  Northumberland, Tyne and Wear

  852

  866

  855

  73

  48

  County Durham and Tees Valley

  642

  657

  688

  68

  68

  North West

  3,923

  3,943

  4,002

  168

  122

  Cumbria and Lancashire

  1,107

  1,103

  1,116

  37

  26

  Greater Manchester

  1,422

  1,409

  1,444

  35

  24

  Cheshire and Merseyside

  1,395

  1,430

  1,442

  96

  72

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  2,979

  2,988

  3,037

  189

  145

  North and East Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire

  985

  989

  998

  54

  47

  West Yorkshire

  1,266

  1,257

  1,298

  110

  77

  South Yorkshire

  728

  742

  741

  26

  21

  854W 855W

  Estimated whole-time equivalents

  Increase

  March 2002

  2002

  March 2003

  1997 to 2003

  1999 to 2003

  West Midlands

  3,001

  3,034

  3,051

  174

  132

  Shropshire and Staffordshire

  781

  806

  818

  61

  31

  Birmingham and the Black Country

  1,317

  1,330

  1,323

  62

  44

  Coventry, Warwickshire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire

  903

  898

  910

  51

  57

  East Midlands

  2,236

  2,275

  2,311

  91

  84

  Trent

  1,405

  1,439

  1,462

  99

  76

  Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland

  831

  836

  849

  -8

  8

  East of England

  2,997

  2,991

  3,040

  140

  77

  Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire

  1,276

  1,277

  1,297

  70

  47

  Bedford and Hertfordshire

  906

  914

  918

  49

  23

  Essex

  814

  800

  826

  21

  7

  London

  4,229

  4,288

  4,398

  173

  199

  North West London

  1,043

  1,056

  1,085

  -22

  30

  North Central London

  755

  759

  760

  22

  33

  North East London

  859

  888

  919

  84

  74

  South East London

  820

  830

  872

  58

  32

  South West London

  752

  755

  762

  31

  30

  South East

  4,602

  4,608

  4,670

  260

  158

  Thames Valley

  1,236

  1,268

  1,273

  129

  75

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  1,041

  1,022

  1,047

  51

  33

  Kent and Medway

  855

  854

  863

  3

  -5

  Surrey and Sussex

  1,469

  1,464

  1,487

  77

  55

  South West

  3,079

  3,091

  3,128

  185

  113

  Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire

  1,300

  1,302

  1,316

  90

  35

  South West Peninsula

  1,012

  1,006

  1,039

  48

  66

  Somerset and Dorset

  768

  783

  773

  46

  12

  1 All Practitioners (excluding GP retainers) include QMS Unrestricted Principals, PMS Contracted GPs, PMS Salaried GPs, Restricted Principals, Assistants, GP Registrars, Salaried Doctors (Para 52 SFA), PMS Other and Flexible Career Scheme GPs.

  2 GP retainers were first collected in 1999 and have been omitted for comparability purposes.

  Notes:

  1. WTE data has been estimated using the results from the 1992-93 GMP Workload Survey;

  Full time = 1.00wte;

  Three quarter time = 0.69 wte;

  Job share = 0.65 wte;

  Half time = 0.60 wte.

  2. Totals may not add up to sum of component parts due to rounding

  3. Data as at 1 October 1997-99, 30 September 2000–02, 31 March 2002–03

  Source:

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics.

  Health Care Assistants
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many health care assistants work in the NHS; and if he will list the titles they work under in(a) England, (b) each region and (c) each NHS trust. [138177]

  Mr. Hutton
  As at September 2002, there were 210,462 healthcare assistants employed in the national health service according to the non-medical workforce census. Healthcare assistants perform a similar role as other groups in the NHS, including nursing auxiliaries and assistants to qualified scientific, therapeutic and technical staff. These staff are included in the above figure and also the Performance and Planning Framework target for 27,000 more healthcare assistants by 2005 over a 2002 baseline.

  Job titles of staff within NHS organisations are determined at a local level and are not collated centrally.

  Details of the number of healthcare assistants by primary care trusts have been placed in the Library.
  856W

  Heath Care (Bath/North East Somerset)
  Dan Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting time for patients from Bath and North East Somerset was in(a) 1997 and (b) 2003 for (i) cancer treatment and (ii) heart operations. [136327]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information for 1997 is not available. Specific information on heart operations is collected from patients waiting over nine months at the end of the quarter. At quarter ending September 2003, there were no patients waiting over nine months within the Bath and North East Somerset primary care trust area. Trust level data on waiting times for cancer treatment for quarter ending September 2003 are published at: http://www.doh.gov.uk/waitingtimes

  Health Care (York)
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general dental practitioners offered NHS treatment in York in each year since 1979. [135953]
  857W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The available information is for the general dental service (GDS). The information in the table shows the number of GDS dentists in the York area at September each year from 1979 to 2002 and at 30 June 2003. The number of dentists includes principals, assistants and vocational dental practitioners. The information is presented for the health administration area covering the York area, which changed during the period.

  General Dental Service: number of dentists in the York area, 1979 to 2003

  Health area

  Number of dentists

  Selby And York Primary Care Trust

  30 June 2003

  117

  30 September each year

  126

  2002

  North Yorkshire Health Authority

  2001

  304

  2000

  292

  1999

  287

  1998

  277

  1997

  267

  1996

  264

  North Yorkshire Family Health Service

  1995

  244

  1994

  248

  1993

  247

  1992

  235

  1991

  243

  1990

  241

  North Yorkshire Family Practitioners Committee

  1989

  235

  1988

  231

  1987

  217

  1986

  218

  1985

  221

  1984

  219

  1983

  215

  1982

  205

  1981

  199

  1980

  193

  1979

  186

  Health Services (Essex)
  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many full-time midwives were employed by Essex Strategic Health Authority on 1st September. [139511]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Essex Strategic Health Authority (SHA) does not employ any full time midwives. However, I am informed that the number of midwives employed by the National Health Service in Essex SHA area as at 30 September 2002 was 292.

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census.

  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many full-time district nurses were employed by Essex Strategic Health Authority on 1 September. [139512]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Essex Strategic Health Authority (SHA) does not employ any full time district nurses. However, I am informed that the number of district 858W
  nurses employed by the National Health Service in Essex SHA area as at 30 September 2002 was 289, for which these are the latest figures available.

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census 2002.

  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many occupational therapists were employed by South Essex Partnership NHS Trust on 1 September. [139513]

  Dr. Ladyman
  As at 30 September 2002, there were 82 occupational therapists employed by the South Essex Partnership National Health Service Trust. This, the latest available data, is shown in the table.

  Whole-time equivalent

  Headcount at 30 September 2002

  73

  82

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical workforce Census 2002

  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many full-time administrative staff were employed in general practice surgeries by Essex Strategic Health Authority on 1September. [139514]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Essex Strategic Health Authority (SHA) does not directly employ staff in general practitioner practices they are recruited by each GP practice in line with their specific support requirements.

  However, I am advised that there are 1,486 administrative and clerical staff employed by in practices in the Essex SHA area as at 30 September 2002, which are the latest figures available.

  Source:

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics.

  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many full-time general practitioners were employed by Essex Strategic Health Authority on 1 September. [139515]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Essex Strategic Health Authority (SHA) does not directly employ any general practitioners, they are recruited through the primary care trusts in line with empowering the local care providing communities. However, I am advised that within the Essex SHA area in June 2003, the number of GPs were as shown in the table.

  Number of Gps

  Number of which were full time

  900

  750

  Source:

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics

  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the vacancy figure for NHS general practitioners in Essex was on 1 September. [139520]

  Dr. Ladyman
  It is not possible to give vacancy statistics on a particular date. However, I am informed that there are currently 157 vacancies for general practitioners in the Essex Strategic Health Authority area as at 31 March 2003, for which these are the latest figures available.
  859W
  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the vacancy figure for district nurses in Essex was on 1 September. [139521]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The total number of vacancies are not held centrally. However, I am advised that information for three month vacancies is collected and the data currently available is as at 31 March 2003.

  Vacancies for all district nurses in the Essex Strategic Health Authority area and three month vacancy rates, numbers and staff in post are shown in the table.

  Three Month vacancy rate— percentage

  Three month vacancy number

  Staff in post (whole-time equivalent)

  Staff in post (headcount)

  March 2003

  September 2002

  5.8

  20

  407

  512

  Sources:

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey, March 2003.

  Department of Health Non-Midical Workforce Census, September 2002.

  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the vacancy figure for ambulance paramedics in the Essex ambulance service was on 1 September. [139522]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The total number of vacancies is not held centrally. However, I am advised that information for three month vacancies is collected and the data currently available is as at 31 March 2003.

  Vacancies for all ambulance staff in the Essex Strategic Health Authority area and three month vacancy rates, numbers and staff in post are shown in the table.

  All Ambulance staff

  Three Month vacancy rate— percentage

  Three month vacancy number

  Staff in post (whole-time equivalent)

  Staff in post (headcount)

  March 2003

  September 2002

  0.0

  —

  566

  623

  Source:

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey, March 2003.

  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many full-time paramedics were employed by Essex Air Ambulance on 1 September. [139660]

  Dr. Ladyman
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many trainee paramedics were employed by the Essex Ambulance Service on 1st September. [139661]

  Dr. Ladyman
  As at 30 September 2002, there were 62 full-time trainee ambulance personnel employed by the Essex Ambulance Service National Health Service Trust, for which these are the latest figures available.

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census.

  Health Services Planning
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Government will reassess the priorities and 860W
  planning framework for health and social services; and how future priorities and planning frameworks will take account of the needs of people with disabilities. [138462]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Government has introduced a three year planning cycle to allow for greater stability in National Health Service and social care planning. We are aiming to announce the priorities and planning framework for the next three year period, 2005–06 to 2007–08, in autumn 2004. No decisions have yet been made about the contents of this priorities and planning framework.

  Kaiser Permanente System
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the findings of his visit to the Kaiser Permanente healthcare system in the US, with particular reference to the costs of the system. [138834]

  Dr. John Reid
  During my visit to Washington DC in October, I visited the West End Medical Centre to meet staff and patients and to see at first hand how Kaiser Permanente serves its members. At the medical centre, I learnt about the way in which Kaiser involves patients in their own care, and heard a presentation about the prevention and treatment of diabetes. I was given a tour of the medical centre and talked to staff and patients. The costs of the Kaiser system have been studied by independent researchers whose comparison of the national health service and Kaiser was published in the British Medical Journal last year. Departmental officials are working with Kaiser to explore how we might learn from their approach in the next stages of NHS reform.

  Long-term Care
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what response he has given to the statement published in October by nine members of the Royal Commission on Long-Term Care. [139298]

  Dr. Ladyman
  No statement has been made in response to the statement by nine of the members of the Royal Commission on Long-Term Care which reported in 1999. However, we do not believe that making personal care free for everyone is the best use of limited resources. Instead we have significantly increased investment in other aspects of older people's services. We believe that investing in this way will secure greater benefits for older people than could have been achieved by simply providing free personal care.

  The recent publication of performance indicators and star ratings for social services for 2002–03 demonstrates that the Government's policy is now having the desired effect with 81,500 people in England now receiving intensive home care to maintain their independence. The proportion of households over the age of 65 receiving intensive home care has risen from 7.9 per 1,000 in 1998–99 to 10.4 per 1,000 in 2002–03 and 57 per cent. of older people in England report that they were either very satisfied or extremely satisfied with the services they received in their own home.

  Long-term Conditions
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the Government will ensure that the National
  861W
  Service Framework for Long Term Conditions is given sufficient priority by primary care trusts; and what the reasons were for the decision not to set milestones and targets. [138461]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Our strategy to support delivery of the NHS Plan is to set a clear national framework of standards backed up by strong inspection regimes and increasingly to give more responsibility to front-line health and social services providers so that local organisations have more flexibility and freedom to plan, resource and deliver services. As a result we set fewer central targets. Progress in policy areas not directly linked to national targets can be monitored and driven forward in a number of ways, for example:Primary care trusts can set local targets and performance manage progress locally.

  The Commission for Health Improvement (to become, subject to legislation, the Commission for Healthcare, Audit and Inspection) and the Social Services Inspectorate (to become, again subject to legislation, the Commission for Social Care Inspection) will take account of nationally set standards including national service frameworks when inspecting hospitals and other providers, and may undertake themed inspections.

  Patients' forums will be able to identify where services are not meeting the standards.

  Patient feedback, both informal and formal (for example, patient surveys), will provide a local means of identifying shortfalls in services.

  Policies like the expert patients programme and the patients choice programme are also giving people an increasing say in local services and their own treatment.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make it his policy to exempt people with mental health problems from paying prescription charges; [136114]

  (2) if he will assess the long-term effects upon NHS finances of providing free prescriptions for people with long-term mental health problems; and if he will make a statement. [136133]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  We have no plans to make an assessment of the effects upon national health service finances of providing free prescriptions for people with mental health problems.

  Prescription charges are expected to raise some £446 million for the NHS in 2003–04 and are a valuable source of revenue for the NHS.

  Our policy is to help those who may have difficulty in paying prescription charges, rather than extending the exemption arrangements. There are extensive exemption, remission and prepayment arrangements which mean that around 85 per cent. of all prescribed items are supplied free of charge. Around 10 per cent. of items are paid for at the point of dispensing with another five per cent. going to holders of prepayment certificates.

  Patients who are liable to pay may seek help through the NHS low income scheme or by using a prescription prepayment certificate need to pay more than £32.90 for four months or £90.40 for 12 months, for all the NHS medication that they are prescribed.
  862W
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of whether the prevalence of physical illness amongst mental health service users is higher than amongst the general population. [138352]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Office for National Statistics survey, "Psychiatric Morbidity Among Adults Living in Private Households", 2000, found that there was a clear relationship between the number of neurotic disorders present and the reporting of a physical complaint.

  Just under 38 per cent, of adults with no neurotic disorder reported having a physical complaint while this figure rose to 57 per cent, of those with one neurotic disorder. Among those with two or more neurotic disorders, 67 per cent, reported at least one physical complaint.

  The same survey found that people assessed as probably having a psychotic disorder were more likely than those without to report a longstanding physical health problem. Overall, 62 per cent, of those with probable psychosis reported a physical complaint, compared with only 42 per cent, of those without this disorder.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many mental health care beds in the independent sector have been occupied by NHS patients on average in the last five years, broken down by(a) number of patients and (b) bed days. [138492]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  This information is not centrally available. However, individual primary care trusts would be able to provide details of the beds they have commissioned from the independent sector upon request.

  Arrangements are being made for National Health Service use of the independent sector to be included in centrally returned data via hospital episodes statistics. In time, this will capture all activity sub-contracted by NHS trusts or commissioned by the NHS. Early estimates have been made in respect of general and acute activity only.

  MRI Scans
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in(a) East Sussex and (b) England are waiting for MRI scans; and what the longest time is that a patient has had to wait for an MRI appointment. [137081]

  Mr. Hutton
  Specific data on waiting times for diagnostic tests are not collected centrally. The central returns capture consultant speciality level data on waits for a first out-patient appointment and for in-patient admissions.

  However, it is the Government's priority to ensure that all patients are seen quickly in the first instance so that if diagnostic tests are required they are requested sooner. Where this is not the case, we are determined to speed up the process. The national health service is committed to reducing the length of time that people wait before their treatment starts and the NHS Plan set targets for staged reductions in waiting times.
  863W
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his plans to provide additional MRI scanning capacity in East Sussex. [137082]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals National Health Service Trust and Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Trust have been identified as priorities for an additional magnetic resonance imaging scanner from central funding. Both scanners will be delivered by December 2004.

  National Institute for Clinical Excellence
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria are used in deciding which treatments are referred to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. [139145]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The work programme for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence is determined by Ministers having regard to national health service priorities and published selection criteria. These criteria are set out on the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk/nice/consultation2002/overviewdec02.pdf.

  National Miminum Standards
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the formal status is of the national minimum standards of the National Care Standards Commission. [139558]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Whereas regulations are mandatory and form a statement of the law, compliance with national minimum standards is not itself enforceable. However, in assessing whether a care establishment conforms with the relevant regulations the National Care Standards Commission must take the national minimum standards into account.

  National Service Framework
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he intends to publish the National Service Framework for long-term conditions; [139488]

  (2) if he will provide additional ring-fenced funding for the implementation of the National Service Framework for Long-Term Conditions. [139499]

  Dr. Ladyman
  We currently plan to publish the national service framework for long term conditions at the end of next year. Implementation will take place over 10 years from 2005 and will be in line with our overall strategy to support delivery of the NHS Plan, which is to set a clear national framework of standards backed up by independent inspection and, increasingly, to give more responsibility to front-line health and social services providers so that local organisations have more flexibility and freedom to plan, resource and deliver services. As a result we are increasing general funding allocations to local national health service and social care organisations.
  864W

  Needlestick Injury
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for the introduction of safer devices to reduce the risk of needlestick injury in the NHS. [135220]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department is currently carrying out work on the production of guidance on health, safety and welfare issues for national health service staff. The Medical Devices Agency has also issued guidelines for the safer use of needles and sharps.

  We are working closely with colleagues from the Unions, Royal Colleges, Safer Needles Network and manufacturers and expect to launch new web based guidance in the spring of 2004.

  Both the Health and Safety Executive and the Department are advising NHS Trusts to carry out risk assessments in areas of high risk and to introduce into these areas "safer" devices, which they can then evaluate in use.

  The Department is also working closely with colleagues in the Health and Safety Executive, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and the NHS Purchasing and Supplies Agency, to identify further action that can be taken on this issue.

  NHS Charges
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much accrued to the NHS from charges on non-UK citizens for treatment in the NHS in each of the last five years. [137491]

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

  The amounts collected from NHS charged patients are not separately identified in trust accounts and are not collected centrally.

  NHS Dentistry
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what statistics his Department has collected on the availability of NHS dentistry in each year since 1997; if he will make a statement on the level of availability of NHS dentistry; and what measures he is taking to increase the availability of NHS dentistry. [134710]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  For the general dental service (GDS), statistics are available each month as a byproduct of the dentists' payment system. Relevant statistics include: the number of dentists; patient registrations; and the number of courses of treatment. The personal dental service (PDS) commenced in October 1998 and summary activity statistics are available. For the community dental service (CDS), data is available annually on the number of dentists and on activity. Information is also available annually on
  865W
  the emergency dental service (EDS). Since November 2001, information is also available on dental telephone calls made to NHS Direct.

  There were 18,200 GDS dentists in June this year, compared to 16,300 in June 1997; a rise of 1,900.

  From September 1996, the registration period for adults was shortened from 24 months to 15 months. As a result adult registrations fell between 1997 and August 1998. Registrations lapse if a patient does not attend during the registration period. In the five years between September 1998 and September 2003, adult registrations fell by 100,000, or 0.7 per cent.

  Children's registrations have fallen by 1.5 per cent., but the children's population is also falling.

  The number of adult courses of treatment in the GDS increased by about one million between 1997–98 and 2002–03. In addition, 500,000 patients were seen in 2002–03 in the PDS, which started in October 1998.

  With regard to EDS, a total of 17,000 sessions were worked in 1997–98 and 133,000 patients were seen. The corresponding figures for 2002–03 were 38,000 sessions and 241,000 patients.

  The number of episodes of care in the CDS fell from 1.1 million in 1997–98 to 0.6 million in 2002–03. During this time some CDS services have moved into PDS arrangements.

  The number of calls to NHS Direct increased from 11,000 in November 2001 to 18,000 in July 2003.

  We recognise that in some areas people are not able to register with a national health service dentist. Patients who cannot or choose not to register with a dentist can access dental services by telephoning NHS Direct for information on NHS dental services. Arrangements are also in place for patients to be seen under the GDS on an occasional basis.

  The Government remain committed to NHS dentistry and are taking forward major reform to modernise it. Subject to Parliament, under the Health & Social Care (Community Health & Standards) Bill primary care trusts (PCTs) will assume responsibility for commissioning primary dental services from April 2005. With this new responsibility will go the £1.2 billion funding for dentistry which is held centrally.

  The Health & Social Care (Community Health & Standards) Bill will also enable PCTs to provide assistance and support to dental practices with which they contract. To enable PCTs to provide such assistance in advance of 2005, the General Dental Services Incentive Schemes Directions 2003 have been published, together with guidance to PCTs.

  We have also set up a NHS support team to work with those areas which are hardest pressed and have announced new funding of £44 million to support dental access, choice and quality.

  NHS Direct
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of NHS Direct staff has a clinical role. [134857]
  866W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information on each of the NHS Direct staffing groups is not collected centrally. The proportion of NHS Direct frontline staff who deal with the handling of clinical calls is 1,756. The figure of 1,756 comprises of 1,063 nurses, 543 call handlers and approximately 150 health information advisers.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases have been dealt with by NHS Direct; how many calls have been abandoned; how many call centres have closed; how many call centres are operational, and where they are; what the running costs in 2003–04 are of each call centre; and if he will make a statement. [136869]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  NHS Direct has handled over twenty million calls since the launch of the service in March 1998. Since December 1999, NHS Direct has collected national data centrally and a total of eight per cent. of the total calls to NHS Direct have been abandoned. NHS Direct has been operating from twenty-two NHS Direct sites since October 2000 and all of these sites are still fully operational.

  Running costs for the 22 sites in 2003–04 are shown in the table.

  £

  NHS Direct Site

  Running costs 2003–04

  Anglia

  3,615,100

  Avon, Gloucester and Wiltshire

  4,111,100

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire

  3,754,904

  Birmingham, Black Country and Solihull

  4,412,627

  East Midlands

  6,327,300

  Essex

  3,997,750

  Greater Manchester, Cheshire and Wirral

  6,018,350

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  5,102,673

  Kent, Surrey and Sussex

  5,005,000

  Midland Shires

  3,976,650

  North Central London

  3,105,205

  North East

  4,848,900

  North East London

  2,067,000

  North West Coast

  5,218,529

  South East London

  3,480,144

  South West London

  2,691,449

  South Yorkshire and South Humber

  3,276,000

  Tees, East and North Yorkshire

  3,759,000

  Thames Valley and Northamptonshire

  4,177,866

  West Country

  4,955,000

  West London

  3,742,535

  West Yorkshire

  5,196,450

  Total

  92,839,532

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average monthly running costs of NHS Direct have been over the last six months; and if he will make a statement. [136872]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The average monthly running costs of NHS Direct over the last six months are approximately £12,686,000 a month.

  NHS National Programme
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what cost-benefit analyses have been carried out as part of the initial work of the NHS National Programme projects. [127634]

  Mr. Hutton
  Each major project within the national programme for information technology in the national health service (NPfIT) is subject to business case approval
  867W
  process. The business cases include what conventionally can be termed cost-benefit considerations, developed with increasing detail through the life of the project and subject to review and approval at key stages.

  The business cases completed and approved to date are as follows:
  NHS E-mail and Directory Service—Full business case approval received 13 September 2002, contract awarded to EDS on 26 September 2002.
  Electronic appointment booking—Full business case approval received 26 September 2003, contract awarded to SchlumbergerSema on 8 October 2003.

  The procurement process is continuing for the remaining key elements of NPfIT and relevant business case approval will be received before proceeding through to final award of contract for the following:
  Integrated care records service (includes local service providers for the geographic clusters and national application service provider for NHS Data Spine)
  N3 (The New NHS Network).

  National Institute for Clinical Excellence
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria the National Institute for Clinical Excellence uses to decide when to look at new treatments in between their particular class appraisals. [137575]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The work programme for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence is determined by Ministers having regard to national health service priorities and published selection criteria. These criteria are set out on the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk/nice/consultation2002/overviewdec02.pdf

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide the National Institute for Clinical Excellence with extra funds(a) to carry out more appraisals and (b) to issue interim guidance on new technologies during 2004. [137576]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence has been notified of its funding for the three financial years 2003–04 to 2005–06. The funding includes provision for an additional appraisal committee to be established.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance is being given to funders to ensure that new medical treatments that are class compatible with the National Institute for Clinical Excellence appraised treatments are not denied funding because they have become licensed in between NICE's appraisal. [137577]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  In August 1999, the Department issued Health Service Circular 1999/176, which asks national health service bodies to continue with local arrangements for the managed introduction of new technologies where guidance from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence is not available at the time the technology first became available. These arrangements should involve an assessment of all the available evidence.
  868W

  Nurses
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many learning disability specialist nurses are employed in each primary care trust; [138041]

  (2) what the ratio is of specialist learning disability nurses to (a) population and (b) patients receiving such specialist care in each primary care trust area. [138042]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 11 November 2003]Information is not collected centrally on the number of patients receiving specialist learning disabilities care. Employment arrangements of learning disabilities nurses vary from place to place; they are employed by organisations other than primary care trusts (PCTs), which often cover several PCT areas. It is therefore not possible to show the ratio of qualified learning disability nurses to PCT populations. Information on the number of qualified learning disabilities nurses by strategic health authority and per 100,000 population has been placed in the Library.

  Older People (Services)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the definition of a stroke unit in relation to the milestones within the National Service Framework for Older People. [138180]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The formal definition of a stroke unit is still being developed. We would expect, however, that there would be a consultant physician with specialist knowledge of stroke formally recognised as having principal responsibility for stroke services. This consultant would be supported by a multi-disciplinary team who are specialists in stroke care.

  Overseas Treatment Scheme
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 9 June 2003,Official Report, column 692W, on overseas treatment, how many further operations have been carried out abroad under the NHS overseas treatment scheme; whether he is now in possession of information on the clinical outcomes of these operations; and what proportion of them resulted in medical complications. [136944]

  Mr. Hutton
  Since 9 June 2003, no patients have been treated in France as part of the overseas treatment programme. The total number of patients treated in France is 275. The total number of patients treated abroad, including the pilot project, is 588.

  The Department does not routinely collect information about the post-operative complication rates arising after surgery for patients treated abroad.

  National health service organisations may collect and analyse this kind of information, among other indicators of quality, as part of their local clinical governance arrangements designed to assure and continuously improve the quality of care for all NHS patients. The NHS is responsible for ensuring that NHS patients receive high clinical standards of care wherever they are treated. From November 2003, where orthopaedic patients are treated abroad, there is support and agreement to register these patients on the United Kingdom National Joint Registry.
  869W
  East Kent Hospitals NHS Trust local audit committee, commissioned by the overseas commissioners, is undertaking a comparative audit of outcomes against patients treated by local consultants. When completed, East Kent Hospitals NHS Trust will hold this information.

  Patient Forums
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the proposed statutory patient and public involvement forums in England are served by local network providers who are insolvent. [137199]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  No local network provider contracted to support patients' forums is insolvent.

  One organisation involved in a joint contract, The College of Health, has recently become insolvent. However, the Council of Ethnic Minority Voluntary Organisations, which was a joint contractor with the College of Health to provide staff support, is now contracted solely to provide the support to the patients' forums previously covered under the joint contract.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who will determine which applicants will be selected to serve on each patient and public involvement forum. [137484]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health is responsible for appointing members of patients' forums. Regional managers or delegated members of staff lead the selection decision for each potential patients' forum member. The decision is made against nationally uniform selection criteria, supported by an appeals procedure.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many applications have been received for each patient and public involvement forum. [137485]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information for individual patients' forums is not available. The national figure for applications for membership of patients' forums is 3,793 at 11 November 2003, which represents over 90 per cent. of the target for the first tranche of recruitment.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to ensure that(a) organisations given contracts to organise patients' forums and (b) the members of patients' forums (i) have experience in patient advocacy, (ii) have knowledge of the working practices of the NHS and (iii) live in the local community. [135632]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  People from all walks of life are encouraged to join patients' forums, bringing with them a diversity of experience and views. The majority of members of a forum must be people for whom services are being or have been provided by the relevant national health service trust or relevant primary care trust (PCT) and, in the case of PCTs' patients' forums, are living in the area where the service is provided. A general understanding of the NHS by members is desirable. More important is to find individuals who have a real interest in improving services and a commitment to represent the views of the community served by the trust or PCT.
  870W
  Local network providers were identified using a competitive tendering programme and were awarded contracts on the basis of their ability to provide effective support at a community level, not where they were located.

  It is not the role of patients' forums or local network providers to provide patient advocacy. Under the new system this is given by patient advice and liaison services and independent complaints advocacy services.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patient forums are in place; and how many members have been appointed. [135633]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The programme of recruitment to the patients' forums is still under way. We understand the national and local advertising campaigns have elicited a large number of applications, which are currently being processed by the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health (CPPIH). The CPPIH is on track for achieving full forum coverage by 1 December.

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his Answer to the honourable Member for Truro and St Austell of 6th February 2003,Official Report, column 450W, on performance targets, how his Department will measure progress towards achieving the public service agreement target on value for money. [138199]

  Mr. Hutton
  The value for money Public Service Agreement (PSA) target requires that 'Value for money in the National Health Service and personal social services will improve by at least 2 per cent. per annum, with annual improvements of 1 per cent, in both cost efficiency and service effectiveness'.

  For the NHS, the cost efficiency element of the PSA target will be measured by comparing data from the National Schedule of Reference Costs between one year and the previous year. Adjustments to this simple comparison will be made to take account of changes in casemix, quality investment, input price inflation and externally driven, one-off, cost-increasing events such as rising employer pensions contributions.

  The quality element of the target will be assessed by comparing the estimated expenditure on increasing service effectiveness with data on quality from the NHS performance ratings exercise. A key element of this will be the value that can be placed on the lives saved from reducing mortality following health care interventions.

  For personal social services, costs will be based on unit costs of services, after some adjustments to allow for increases in funding for quality improvements. The quality element will be based on the quality indicators published by the Department, in the social services performance assessment framework, for instance, waiting times for care packages.

  Personal Care
  Mr. Patrick Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to reassess the means test limit for personal care costs. [138928]
  871W
  Dr. Ladyman
  All individuals receiving residential care services are assessed as to their ability to pay for the cost of personal care and for their board and lodging. The capital limits used in the means test are subject to an annual review. Any revisions would be implemented from April 2004. Care from a registered nurse is free to individuals in all settings regardless of their financial position following an assessment of their care needs.

  Pressure Ulcers
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the number of pressure ulcers occurring in the NHS in(a) England and (b) each strategic health authority, in each of the last six years; if he will estimate the cost of pressure ulcers to the NHS in these years; and if he will make a statement. [138178]

  Dr. Ladyman
  This information is not held centrally. We are taking steps to improve services for patients with pressure ulcers.

  A pressure ulcer risk assessment and prevention guideline was published by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) in April 2001. An updated version of the guideline was published on 22 October 2003. The guideline outlines best practice for health professionals caring for individuals who are vulnerable to or at risk of developing pressure ulcers.

  A wound care package of guidelines is also currently being developed by NICE, which will include a guideline on pressure ulcer treatment.

  As part of the guideline development process, NICE estimated that the cost of treating pressure ulcers may be as high as £750 million a year.

  Psychiatric Hospitals
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) in-patients and (b) in-patient beds there are in psychiatric hospitals in England and Wales; how many individuals serving prison sentences have been diagnosed with severe mental health problems; and if he will make a statement. [138450]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  There were 178,065 admissions to National Health Service inpatient facilities under mental illness specialties in 2001–02, the latest year for which figures are available. The data has not been grossed for coverage and therefore has a provisional status.

  Information about the number of beds in psychiatric hospitals in England is not available. However, the average daily number of mental illness beds for England in 2002–03 was 32,753. Questions about Wales are now matters for the devolved administration.

  We cannot say precisely how many sentenced prisoners have been diagnosed with severe mental health problems. Based on data from a survey of mental ill-health in the prison population of England and Wales, undertaken in 1997 by the Office for National Statistics, the NHS Plan (2000) stated that at any time some 5,000 people with a serious mental illness will be in prison.
  872W

  Smallpox Vaccine
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS staff were given smallpox vaccine in 2002–03; and how many suffered ill-effects as a result of the immunisations. [135758]

  Mr. Hutton
  As of 4 November 2003, the number of health care workers who have been vaccinated in England stood at 262. Of this total, 128 are doctors, 116 are nurses, 15 are scientists and three are from other areas.

  Information on suspected vaccine-associated adverse events experienced as part of the current vaccination programme have been collected by the Health Protection Agency and the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. The type of adverse reactions noted after smallpox vaccinations so far were mostly non-serious; the majority were expected reactions to successful vaccination with smallpox vaccine or are known to occur after any vaccination. These included reactions at the site of injection, fever, feeling unwell and swollen glands. Two vacinees were hospitalised, one with suspected encephalitis and one with severe local cellulitis. A further four people developed cellulitis at the injection site. Two vacinees reported shortness of breath. One vacinee retrospectively reported having experienced retrospective symptoms of suspected mycocarditis though no confirmation tests were carried out. Adverse experience occurring after vaccination does not necessarily mean that the vaccine caused the problem. Other factors, such as an underlying illness present before vaccination, must be considered as possible alternative causes.

  Social Services
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 6 October 2003,Official Report, column 1351W, on social services, how the figure published in paragraph 2.79 of the Chief Inspector of Social Services Annual Report was derived. [134068]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 27 October 2003]The Department is working towards achieving a guideline figure of 5 per cent. vacancy rates across the social care work force. The figures published in paragraph 2.76 are based upon current data published in the Social Services Workforce Survey 2002, gathered by the Employers Organisation on behalf of the Department.

  The figure of 50,000 whole-time equivalent (wte) people to join the work force is derived from an estimated 20,000 wte people coming into the system to staff service development and an additional 30,000 wte identified from SR2002 funding, estimated to be sufficient to bring vacancy rates down to the 5 per cent. guideline.

  The figures about the number of care trusts were extracted from the delivery and improvement statements which are those self reported to Social Services Inspectorate by all councils in May 2002. Each council was asked to report on progress with care trust planning.

  We can confirm that the actual number of children's trusts is 35. The number previously reported in the published Chief Inspector's report of 34 was an error.
  873W

  Strokes
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the average waiting time of those waiting for a scan after a suspected stroke; and if he will make a statement on waiting times for these scans. [138181]

  Dr. Ladyman
  This information is not collected centrally. The target in this area is to achieve a computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging scan in less than 48 hours. The summary report of the 2001–02 National Sentinel Stroke Audit reported that more patients than ever had brain imaging, with at least 83 per cent. meeting that target.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the research his Department has commissioned on the cost of(a) treating and (b) caring for patients who have had a stroke. [138182]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Department has not commissioned any recent research on the cost of treating and caring for patients who have had a stroke.

  Valuing People
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures within Valuing People are aimed at children; and what plans he has to expand its remit. [138495]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Our proposals for improving services for people with learning disabilities, their families, and carers are set out in the White Paper, Valuing People: A New Strategy for Learning Disability for the 21st Century (Cm 5086), published in March 2001. Valuing People had a chapter on disabled children which set out Government objectives and proposals for maximising opportunities for disabled children and supporting young people's transition into adulthood. In particular, it set out how we would develop an integrated approach to supporting disabled children. In Making Change Happen (HC 514), our 2003 annual report to Parliament on learning disability, we highlighted the progress we had made towards the achievement of the objectives.

  The Green Paper, Every Child Matters gave further commitments to improving services for disabled children and their families, particularly through: the development of the children's national service framework, which will set new national standards across the National Health Service, social services and interface with education for children; the development of the children trusts pathfinders, a significant number of which will focus on disabled children and their families; and the forthcoming special educational needs action programme.

  Waiting Lists
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the clinical areas where the NHS in London has longer(a) waiting lists and (b) waiting times than the national average. [133742]

  Mr. Hutton
  The clinical areas where the national health service in London has longer waiting lists and waiting times than the national average is shown in the tables.
  874W

  Consultant specialties in London where the waiting list per 100,000 head of population is higher than the national position: Position at 30 June 2003

  Waiting list per 100,000 head of population

  Specialty code

  Specially

  National

  London

  Difference

  101

  Urology

  140.39

  150.18

  9.79

  120

  Ear, Nose and Throat

  196.32

  219.81

  23.49

  141

  Restorative dentistry

  0.92

  4.13

  3.21

  142

  Paediatric dentistry

  2.94

  8.50

  5.56

  171

  Paediatric surgery

  16.78

  20.24

  3.46

  190

  Anaesthetics

  8.53

  9.54

  1.02

  302

  Endocrinology

  0.63

  2.28

  1.65

  303

  Clinical haematology

  0.96

  1.02

  0.05

  305

  Clinical pharmacology

  0.00

  0.01

  0.01

  310

  Audiological medicine

  0.05

  0.28

  0.22

  314

  Rehabilitation

  0.26

  0.42

  0.16

  320

  Cardiology

  62.52

  82.51

  20.00

  330

  Dermatology

  4.61

  6.96

  2.35

  340

  Thoracic medicine

  2.28

  7.05

  4.77

  350

  Infectious diseases

  0.02

  0.03

  0.01

  361

  Nephrology

  1.34

  3.77

  2.43

  370

  Medical oncology

  0.33

  1.11

  0.79

  400

  Neurology

  4.88

  8.71

  3.83

  401

  Clinical neuro-physiology

  0.09

  0.35

  0.26

  420

  Paediatrics

  1.92

  4.72

  2.80

  421

  Paediatric neurology

  0.51

  1.86

  1.36

  502

  Gynaecology

  159.14

  168.98

  9.84

  823

  Haematology

  0.13

  0.42

  0.29

  Source:

  Department of Health form QF01

  Consultant specialties in London where the median waiting time is higher than the national average: Position at 30 June 2003

  Median waiting times (months)

  Specialty code

  Specialty

  National average

  London average

  Difference

  100

  General surgery

  2.68

  2.70

  0.01

  101

  Urology

  2.38

  2.53

  0.16

  110

  Trauma and orthopaedics

  3.66

  3.74

  0.08

  120

  Ear, Nose and Throat

  2.90

  3.50

  0.60

  142

  Paediatric dentistry

  2.39

  2.46

  0.07

  160

  Plastic surgery

  3.09

  3.44

  0.35

  191

  Pain Management

  2.15

  2.62

  0.47

  300

  General medicine

  1.89

  2.06

  0.17

  303

  Clinical haematology

  1.68

  1.79

  0.11

  310

  Audiological medicine

  2.33

  2.42

  0.09

  314

  Rehabilitation

  2.19

  2.21

  0.02

  330

  Dermatology

  1.81

  2.01

  0.20

  340

  Thoracic medicine

  1.85

  1.93

  0.08

  350

  Infectious diseases

  1.93

  2.25

  0.32

  360

  Genito-urinary medicine

  1.93

  2.25

  0.32

  361

  Nephrology

  1.89

  2.01

  0.12

  370

  Medical oncology

  1.61

  1.62

  0.01

  371

  Nuclear medicine

  1.72

  4.00

  2.28

  400

  Neurology

  2.35

  2.82

  0.48

  401

  Clinical neuro-physiology

  2.76

  4.50

  1.74

  410

  Rheumatology

  1.81

  1.93

  0.12

  420

  Paediatrics

  1.98

  2.26

  0.27

  421

  Paediatric neurology

  2.19

  2.41

  0.22

  430

  Geriatric medicine

  1.96

  2.88

  0.91

  450

  Dental medicine specialities

  1.71

  2.84

  1.14

  502

  Gynaecology

  2.30

  2.36

  0.06

  620

  GP (non maternity)

  1.70

  2.00

  0.30

  710

  Mental illness

  1.61

  2.79

  1.18

  800

  Clinical Oncology

  1.52

  1.80

  0.28

  810

  Radiology

  2.04

  2.14

  0.11

  823

  Haematology

  1.63

  1.72

  0.10

  Source:

  Department of Health form QF01.

  Systemic Neglect (NHS Hospitals)
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of systemic neglect have been
  875W
  reported by users at NHS hospitals in (a) England and (b) Shropshire in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [139115]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Waiting Times
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting time for hearing assessments for(a) patients under 60 and (b) patients over 60, broken down by primary care trust, was in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [138157]
  876W
  Dr. Ladyman
  This information is not collected centrally. We have invested £94 million over two years, which will be used to make digital hearing aids available across England by April 2005.

  Working Time Directive
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will revoke the application of the European Working Time Directive as it applies to the healthcare profession. [137071]

  Mr. Hutton
  No. European Directives are negotiated and implemented across member states and they cannot be revoked by an individual country.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act (Detentions)
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett)
  Sixteen foreign nationals have so far been detained using powers in Part IV of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. Eight were detained in December 2001, one in February 2002, two in April 2002, one in October 2002, one in November 2002, two in January 2002 and one in October 2003. One further individual has been certified under Part IV of the ATCS Act in August 2003 but is detained under other powers.

  Of the total detained, two have voluntarily left the United Kingdom. The other fourteen remain in detention.

  My decisions to detain these individuals were made on the basis of detailed and compelling evidence. That evidence is being examined by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission as the individuals' appeals are heard, as provided for under the ATCS Act. The Commission is equivalent to the High Court. It has the power to overturn my decisions.

  Where terrorism is concerned, our paramount responsibility is to ensure public safety and national security. So long as the public emergency subsists, where a person is suspected of terrorism but cannot currently be removed and for whom a criminal prosecution is not an option, we believe that it is necessary and proportionate to provide for extended detention, pending removal.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Housing Revenue Account Subsidy (2004–2005)
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill)
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister consulted local authorities and others over the summer on proposals to introduce a new and fairer way of allocating management and maintenance (M&M) allowances within Housing Revenue Account (HRA) subsidy. The new approach was designed to take better account of the challenges now facing local authorities, including low demand and tackling anti-social behaviour. We also consulted on proposals about the treatment of debt charges within the HRA subsidy system in light of the new prudential borrowing regime. There was general support for our objectives, and we are today issuing final proposals for 2004–05 for consultation. These take account of a number of changes made in response to suggestions made to us by local government.
  28WS
  The proposed M&M allocations see significant increases for many authorities, with national increases in both management and maintenance allowances of 6 per cent. in real terms. This, and associated technical changes to the allowances to take account of rent restructuring, will provide local government with an extra £133 per dwelling compared with 2003–04.

  To protect those authorities that would otherwise see a reduction in M&M allowances, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is proposing generous transitional protection so that all authorities receive at least an inflation level increase per dwelling for both 2004–05 and 2005–06. We intend that transitional protection should continue beyond that period, subject to the outcome of the next Spending Review.

  We are also proposing that the Major Repairs Allowance should increase in line with inflation next year, and that local authorities should move their rents gradually towards their restructured rents, with average increases nationally of 1.5 per cent. in real terms.

  From 2004–05, rent rebates will no longer be accounted for in the Housing Revenue Account and will no longer be subsidised through the HRA subsidy system. Instead, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will allocate subsidy for rent rebates alongside his responsibilities in respect of subsidy for rent allowances and council tax benefit. Rent rebate subsidy limitation will continue to operate. There will be transitional arrangements to prevent this move from the HRA to the General Fund affecting council tax payers in 2004–05.

  On the capital side, the redistributive mechanism of set-aside is being replaced by pooling. Housing capital receipts will be pooled in the year they arise. Following consultation on the new subsidy arrangements, therefore, reserved receipts that have arisen in 2002–03 and 2003–04 (except those arising from large scale and small scale voluntary transfers) will not now be taken into account in the calculation of HRA subsidy entitlement.

  The requirement to set aside funds from revenue for debt repayment has been abolished in the HRA, along with the corresponding subsidy element. In some cases, this will have a negative effect on authorities' finances. We are therefore proposing a new allowance, which will compensate authorities over the next three with a reducing proportion of any loss.

  Copies of the draft HRA subsidy and Item 8 determinations for 2004–05, as well as the draft general determination of administration of HRA subsidy 2003 and supporting material, are being placed in the Libraries of the House, and will be available on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's web site www.odpm.gov.uk/ housing/consult/. These allocations are based on the most up-to-date information available to us from authorities, and may change as that information is refined. Authorities have until 16 December to comment on the draft determinations.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Man-portable Air Defence Systems
  The Minister for Europe(Mr. Denis MacShane)
  Man-Portable Air Defence Systems (MANPADS) are surface to air missiles, usually shoulder-launched and fired by an individual or more than one individual, acting as a crew. The Government are committed to preventing them from falling into the wrong hands. They are designed for military air defence use, but, in the hands of terrorists, they have been, and could again be, used against civil aviation. The House will recall that in November 2002 in Mombasa terrorists only narrowly missed downing a commercial aircraft using such a weapon.

  The international community is responding to this threat by a range of actions including strengthening export controls on MANPADS. The Prime Minister and other G8 Leaders, meeting at Evian in June 2003, expressed their deep concern about the threat posed to civil aviation by MANPADS, especially in the hands of terrorists or countries that harbour them. The G8 meeting agreed an Action Plan to Enhance Transport Security and Control of MANPADS. The Action Plan contains five measures, including an agreement to: "ban the transfer of MANPADS to non-state end users, MANPADS should only be exported to foreign governments or to agents authorised by a Government"

  The Government assess export licence applications on a case-by-case basis against the Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria. This involves considering amongst other factors, the risk of diversion or re-export under undesirable conditions. including to terrorists. The Consolidated Criteria also provide that the Government will not issue an export licence if approval would be inconsistent with the UK's international commitments regarding the application of strategic export controls.

  Taking the criterion of UK adherence to international commitments into account, the Government will therefore consider any licence applications for the export of MANPADS to any non-government body in the light of the G8 Action Plan commitment mentioned above. This is consistent with our current export control practice.

  In the case of any licence application for the export of MANPADS to Governments or to any agents authorised by governments, the Government's assessment under the Consolidated Criteria will also be informed by consideration of the proposed export
  30WS
  against the "Elements for Export Controls of Man-Portable Air Defence Systems (MANPADS)" agreed in the Wassenaar Arrangement on Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies. These provide that exports of MANPADS may only take place if a range of strict conditions to prevent diversion or leakage of these weapons to unauthorised end-users are met. This document is available at http:// www.wassenaar.org/. The Government are playing an active role in discussions to update and strengthen the Wassenaar document.

  The Action Plan also commits G8 countries to "ensure strong national regulation of production, transfer and brokering" (of MANPADS). The Government's secondary legislation under the Export Control Act 2002, laid before Parliament on 31 October 2003, implements this commitment. This legislation introduces controls on the brokering of all equipment on the UK's military list, including MANPADS, where any part of the transaction is carried out in the United Kingdom. It represents a very significant step in preventing the involvement of UK persons in undesirable arms transfers. To counter the terrorist threat from MANPADS the Government will decide over the next few months whether anything further needs to be done to control brokering of these weapons.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Export of Objects of Cultural Interest (Control) Order 2003
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell)
  I have today laid The Export of Objects of Cultural Interest (Control) Order 2003 (SI 2003/2759) made under the auspices of the Export Control Act 2002 before Parliament. In addition to this the Statutory Guidance required under the same Act about the general principles to be followed when exercising licensing powers on objects of cultural interest was also laid.

DEFENCE

  Ministry of Defence Police
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon)
  In light of the recommendations made by the House of Commons Defence Committee as a result of the introduction of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, I am pleased to place in the Library of the House on behalf of the Ministry of Defence Police their Operational Report for the year 2002–03.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Rochester.

Prisons: Purposeful Activity
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, and at his request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take in respect to the briefing published in October by the Prison Reform Trust on the current state of purposeful activity in Her Majesty's prisons.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Prison Service is well aware of the issues surrounding the involvement of prisoners in purposeful activity within Her Majesty's prisons. The Prison Service is committed to involving as many prisoners as possible in constructive activities as a way of reducing reoffending, improving prisoners' prospects on release and ensuring safe and decent conditions.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Bearing in mind that the Government's Social Exclusion Unit acknowledges that prisoners given skills training are significantly less likely to reoffend, and that two-thirds of men and women in prison have an educational level below that of primary school children, how does the Minister justify a per capita spend on prisoners that averages far less than half the per capita spend on primary school children?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, since this Government came to power in 1997, we have committed more resources to prisoner education. In the current financial year, £97 million will be spent on education and training in prisons; next year, it will rise to £122 million; and the following year., it will rise to £137 million. Within that sum, £12 million per year will be set aside specifically for vocational training.
We recognise the problems; we inherited a very poor education service within the Prison0020Service. Having marshalled and brigaded education within the DfES as operator and provider of education services, we are now beginning to spend significant sums of money on improving the quality of education in the Prison Service.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, when I was on the Parole Board, the teachers involved in prison education programmes observed academic terms. As
1846
the Minister will realise, prisoners cannot observe academic terms; there are no holidays. Do the people involved in education programmes still observe academic terms similar to schools?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, prisoners are obviously a captive audience. An education service in prisons should be tailored to prisoners' needs. As the noble Lord has observed, prisoners are in prison throughout the year and do not observe academic terms in the same way as everyone else.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords—
Lord Elton: My Lords—
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, perhaps I may suggest that we hear from the Liberal Democrat Benches.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, how do we monitor purposeful activities in prison? Has the Minister checked the outcome of what happens when prisoners leave prison? Does he accept that more than 60 per cent of people leaving prison reoffend within two years, and that more than 80 per cent of young people reoffend within two years? What are prisons for? Are they serving the purpose of rehabilitation? Does the Minister accept that the high level of the prison population is counterproductive to purposeful activity in prison?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, clearly, overcrowding in prisons is an important issue. It is the job of the Government to ensure that good quality resources are set aside so that prisoners have options before them. We want to see an improving education service which ensures that when people are released they have good opportunities for seeking employment and can make much better use of their life chances.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, what is the target in the Prison Service, in hours, for prisoners to receive education?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not have a figure for that target. But it is obviously an important objective to secure education within the Prison Service. I am happy to write to the noble Viscount with details on the numbers of hours spent on educational matters.
Lord Elton: My Lords, when the Minister writes to the noble Viscount, will he also write to my noble friend Lord Pilkington and answer his question about academic terms? When will any government recognise that continually spending more and more money on more and more prisoners in more and more prisons is absolute folly? We must rejig the system so that proper rehabilitative treatment is given and the prison

1847
population diminishes. The prison population could be reduced by spending money on children when they are at risk so that they do not become criminals.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord has not been following government policy. The Government have a record that is second to none in terms of spending money on providing and improving the quality of services for children and young people. That is generally widely acknowledged. Clearly, the noble Lord has not followed that particular plot. Of course, we would prefer to see a smaller prison population. But if people commit offences, are tried and are convicted, they should properly serve a prison sentence.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester: My Lords, does the Minister regard the activities organised in prisons by the very large number of voluntary groups drawn from the Churches and other faith communities as "purposeful activity"? If so, can he can give an assurance that attention will be paid to the effect of the downward pressure on staff numbers on the opportunities to arrange such activities, in particular during the evenings and at weekends?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, of course we recognise the important part played by religious organisations in our prisons. A wide range of activities is provided in most prisons and one might say that they do count as "purposeful activity" in terms of key performance indicators. We recognise, welcome and celebrate the role played by religious activities in our Prison Service.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, can the Minister comment on the fairly incredible increase in the percentage of women imprisoned over the past 10 years? Apparently the increase is 189 per cent.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is regrettable that there has been an increase in the number of women in prison. My guess is that much of that rise is related to the increased use of drugs by young women in particular. It is my recollection that some 40 per cent of women in prisons have a history of drug misuse and abuse. No doubt that is a contributing factor to their being in prison.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that, as prisoner numbers rise, the first thing to go out of the window is purposeful activity, while the second thing to go out of the window is education? That is self-defeating because it means simply that more people will reoffend. Can my noble friend tell me what discussions he is holding with the Prison Service better to deliver both purposeful activity and education in our prisons?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I cannot agree with the two statements made by my noble friend. The most current figures I have indicate that the number of
1848
hours available per prisoner for purposeful activity is 23.3 hours per week, which is the same as it was in 1997–98. However, far more is being done. I outlined in my earlier responses to this Question the amount of money that the Government are now committing to prisoner education. Roughly speaking, that sum will have more than doubled during the lifetime of this Government. So there is a commitment and we have reorganised the provision of education within the Prison Service. A better quality of education is being delivered and it is beginning to have results, as I am sure my noble friend would appreciate if he visited some of those prisons which now have much improved library and IT facilities, and teaching dedicated to ensuring that prisoners are given the opportunity, when they leave prison, of getting better jobs—as a result of the better education service being provided in our prisons.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that some of us are getting rather tired of hearing about how much money this Government have spent? Some of us are much more interested in seeing the results of that spending.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord would like us to spend less money on education. However, my general impression is that noble Lords support spending on education in prisons and want to see an improved quality of prison education services because that is recognised as a way of ensuring that prisoners do not reoffend.

Electricity Generation: Wind and Nuclear Power
2.46 p.m.
Lord Lea of Crondall Lord Lea of Crondall asked Her Majesty's Government: How many wind turbines of typical current design would be needed to generate the amount of electricity currently generated by Britain's nuclear power stations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, to replace the 81 terawatt hours generated in 2002 by Britain's nuclear power stations would require in the range of between 10,000 to 15,000 wind turbines, assuming a mix of onshore and offshore, and a load factor of 30 per cent onshore and 35 per cent offshore. The range is dependent on turbine size, where developments are moving rapidly. To supply 7 per cent to 8 per cent of our electricity generation by wind turbines by 2010, which is what is likely to be required to achieve to our renewables target of 10 per cent by 2010, would require in the range of 3,000 to 5,000 turbines, using the same assumptions. There are currently some 14,000 wind turbines in Germany, and 7,000 in Denmark.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that helpful response, putting on record what will come as a revelation to many people.

1849
Many of us welcome the contribution of wind power as a source of carbon-free energy, but we seek confirmation, first, that my noble friend's arithmetic means that even 10,000 wind turbines—or 15,000, if we take the higher number—generating three megawatts each would only just fill the gap being created by running down the nuclear industry. Secondly, does my noble friend agree that, even if we were to meet that rather astonishing figure, it follows that we still need to plan for some new nuclear power stations to replace those being phased out over the next 20 years if we are to make any net addition to the amount of carbon-free electricity?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the figures that I have already given demonstrate that we would require between 10,000 to 15,000 wind turbines to fill the gap left by nuclear power generation. However, the present target is to secure 10 per cent of our energy from renewable sources by 2010. Beyond that year, there will be other ways of filling the renewables gap. We would expect to see other sources of energy such as energy crops, solar voltaics, wave and tidal power generation gradually come into play. I do not think that one can say that there is an exact correspondence between the number of wind turbines and the reality of the situation which will follow as regards nuclear power.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, last week, the Minister kindly answered my Written Question which asked by what factor—that is, what is the number—will renewable power installations have to be increased in order to meet the Minister's 10 per cent renewables target by 2010. The Minister gave a detailed and interesting response, but he did not actually answer the question. I ask again: what is the factor?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we have slightly over 1,000 wind turbines in operation and we need to reach a figure of 3,000 to 5,000 turbines by 2010. Where the line is drawn will give the factor of increase. What 1 pointed out in my response to the noble Earl and what I shall point out again is that this is only about half of what has been done in Germany over recent years and about the same level of installation as that achieved in Spain. So it is not impossible to achieve that rate of installation.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, will the Minister write to planning authorities instructing them that there should be a presumption against the construction of wind turbines in national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, under our planning system we consider these issues on the basis of planning laws and we shall continue to do so. We shall certainly not be changing them.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in the light of the answers so far given by the Minister in regard to the issue of renewables filling the gap that will be left by the withdrawal of nuclear plants, and in order to meet our environmental objectives, will not the Government now consider further
1850
incentives to other ways of minimising emissions and applying the principle of the renewables obligation—for example, to combined heat and power (CHP), which is now going through a difficult time, to the recovery and treatment of methane from coal mines and to clean coal technology?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, renewables are not at this point replacing nuclear power stations. We closed only one nuclear power station over this period. They are providing extra capacity which will be put into the system. We shall probably reduce other inefficient forms of energy rather than nuclear, where there is only one nuclear power plant closing down over this period.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the Government will not authorise any new nuclear power stations until a proven method of disposal of radioactive waste—some of which, 1 believe, has a half-life of 1,000 years—has been found?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we are not at the moment ruling out the long-term nuclear option. No proposals are being brought forward at the moment. Clearly the way in which we treat waste is important—as well as the cost—before we consider any further nuclear power plants.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that residents near Cucklington in Somerset are extremely concerned about a proposal for wind turbines of 330 feet, which will dwarf King Alfred's tower and be visible from Stourhead? They do not feel that their concerns are being properly addressed.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I cannot comment on that situation. It is interesting that, as a whole, people are extremely favourably inclined towards wind turbines. Polling information suggests that people who live near wind turbines are more favourably impressed than people who live in other areas.
Lord Jordan: My Lords—
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister—
Baroness Amos: My Lords, there will be enough time if we take the questions very quickly. I suggest that we hear first from these Benches and then from the Liberal Democrat Benches.
Lord Jordan: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the Government's present policy of decommissioning nuclear power stations, together with the proposed alternative of Heath Robinson-style wind turbines and so on, means that by 2020 the base energy requirements of this country cannot be guaranteed?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is rather unfair to describe these extremely efficient wind turbines

1851
as "Heath Robinson". They do a perfectly good engineering job. I do not agree that we will not have security of supplies going forward; it is clear from the present figures that we will. If we do not, as I said, we will reconsider the nuclear power programme.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, as the wind does not blow all the time, there will have to be a back-up capacity for any wind turbines that are built?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, clearly there is a question of capacity. The calculations that I have given assume a load factor of 30 per cent onshore and 35 per cent offshore. They are realistic figures. If we take those into account, the variability of supply is not very different from other energy sources.

Cameroon
2.55 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress was made at the Commonwealth meeting on human rights and democracy in the Cameroon Republic on 31st October.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the United Kingdom strongly supports the Commonwealth Secretary-General's approach. The 31st October meeting was a useful step forward. The Government of Cameroon set out proposals to improve human rights and strengthen democracy in Cameroon, including new legislation on the National Election Observatory, the National Commission on Human Rights and Freedoms, decentralisation and criminal procedure. The international community welcomes these proposals, presses for their quick implementation and undertakes to provide assistance.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that positive reply. Is she aware that Britain has a special moral responsibility in this situation, especially for the anglophone minority within the Cameroon Republic, as we gave up the United Nations mandate many years ago without adequate safeguards for that anglophone minority? Will she do everything she can to support the initiative of the Commonwealth and the other countries involved to deal with the human rights inadequacies and to bring about an early general election in the Cameroon Republic?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I acknowledge the noble Lord's great experience in these matters as a former Minister. Britain does indeed have a special relationship with Cameroon and with the anglophone community there. We are doing everything we can to bring about reforms as speedily as possible. The noble Lord will know that we have made it clear to Cameroon that, as a member of the Commonwealth, it is bound to adhere to the Harare principles. We welcome the positive role
1852
played by the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth's special envoy. We engage with anglophones on issues of human rights abuses, raising them within the EU and the Commonwealth.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, we on these Benches very much share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson. In the light of the latest report by the International Federation of Human Rights that torture, arbitrary arrests and other violations of human rights are being carried out with impunity, will the Government ensure that Cameroon is now monitored by the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group is closely engaged with Cameroon. We are aware of the great concerns about torture. We have not been slow in raising these concerns with Cameroon and we will continue to do so.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, are the undertakings given by Cameroon to the special meeting on 31st October compatible with the closure yesterday of the independent Christian radio, Veritas, and the impounding of Insight magazine, which had the temerity to refer to historical events surrounding the federation that my noble friend was so instrumental in organising 40 years ago? Does not the noble Baroness consider that the Commonwealth should put its requirements in writing and that there should be a timeline which can be monitored not only by the international community, which will fund the reforms she has mentioned, but also by the people of Cameroon who want to be assured that in October 2004 they will have a fair and free election?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, we are doing all we can to ensure that fair and free elections take place in late 2004. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for the work that he does as chair of the Cameroon Campaign Group. We know of the restrictions on press and media freedom and we are aware of the case raised by the noble Lord. We continue to raise issues of human rights abuses with Cameroon and we will continue to do so.

Airport Capacity
2.59 p.m.
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether their consideration of airport capacity in the south-east includes the option of a new airport in the Thames estuary.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport has made it clear that he would consider all serious proposals for new airport capacity submitted in response to the consultation paper. A number of proposals that are alternatives to, or variants of,

1853
options set out in the consultation have been submitted. Those include proposals for new airports in, and around, the Thames estuary area.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. Will he confirm that there are no serious technical problems associated with building an airport in the Thames estuary, as it is quite shallow? Will he also confirm that many fewer people would be affected by noise if the airport were built in that location, although one must accept that more seagulls would be affected?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, there are advantages with a number of the additional submissions that have been made as a response to the consultation paper. The Secretary of State is in the process of considering those matters on a factual basis, taking into account all issues. The White Paper will be published before the end of the year.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, before I ask my question, I should say that for many years I have been on the board of the Thames Estuary Airport Company. I was grateful to hear the Minister's comments. The company has twice submitted our plans for the area.
I hope that the Prime Minister's meeting with the CBI yesterday may have caught on with the House. He suggested to the CBI the need to find new ways of attracting private finance into transport infrastructure improvements. Our offer to fund privately and build an offshore airport in the Thames estuary, together with the cost of all supporting infrastructure, to a sum in excess of £33 billion, surely provides an excellent opportunity to take up the advice of the Prime Minister. It would be almost folly to ignore private investment on that scale. Is it not essential, therefore, that the proposal should be accepted in principle and included as a valid and possible option in next month's White Paper?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as I have said, all serious proposals—that is a serious proposal—in addition to the ones contained in the consultation are subject to evaluation at present. As the House will recognise, the extension of airport capacity is not an easy issue. It involves the interests of a very large number of people, and there are disadvantages attendant on any solution, as well as a very real need to provide additional capacity. I assure the noble Lord that the proposal that he has advocated with strength today is fully under consideration.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, if the Government were to accept the airline industry's forecasts of the doubling of passenger numbers by 2020 and a trebling by 2030, we would have no chance whatever of meeting our Kyoto targets or reducing greenhouse gas emissions? Would it not be more appropriate for the Government, while they carry out their review of airport capacity, to consider seriously the role that
1854
long-distance rail services can play in replacing short-haul aircraft, especially now that the first stage of the high-speed Channel Tunnel link is open?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, undoubtedly, one advantage with rail, as opposed to internal airport capacity for internal flights, is its lower level of pollution. However, my noble friend will recognise that, even if it were believed that the capacity necessary in 2020 or 2030 was exaggerated by the airlines, it is still the case that airline travel, including overseas and internal flights, is increasing by a very significant factor. We must take account of the pressure of demand.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, is it the Government's intention that the White Paper, which as the Minister said is due by the end of the year, or perhaps even by Christmas, will be their final view, or will it be a consultation paper? Will the Minister accept that, if it is the latter, he will have a lot of extremely worried people coming to him on the subject of Gatwick? The destruction of the surrounding countryside, were another runway to be built there, is almost impossible to imagine unless one has actually been there and seen what would happen.
As for Stansted, are the Government determined to ensure that ground transportation, including rail transportation in particular, will have sufficient capacity to sustain an additional runway there?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Baroness seeks to draw me into debate on the White Paper in circumstances in which I am not prepared to be drawn in detail. However, she is right that we cannot conceive of an expansion of Stansted without considering the question of infrastructure and transport. That is true of all the other airport proposals as well. The noble Baroness is also right when she suggests that there are disadvantages to any expansion of Gatwick. The simple fact of the matter is that, with any proposal, there are manifest disadvantages. However, there is also a very real need.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, what weight do the Government give, in considering the capacity for future airports, to an airport being able to operate 24 hours a day, as I believe will be done in other countries? We need to keep up with that.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, if there is one way to upset those who live near airports, it is to suggest that the plague that they suffer from frequent flights during the day should continue at the same level overnight. That is a path down which I would not want to commit the Government at this stage. However, as all noble Lords will recognise, if we do not increase airport capacity, we will not only cause a severe reduction to our economic capacity in this country but disappoint the very large number of people who increasingly use air flights for their holidays abroad. We would certainly affect the capacity of London to be the finance capital of the world.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that broader considerations have been

1855
given in the deliberations, to issues such as job creation and the traffic and rail flows, in view of the large number of passengers who currently fly in and out of the London area but do not live in that area and travel significant distances? I refer particularly to those who come from west of Reading.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Baroness has a point, in that we may see the build-up of regional airports in order to reduce the use of Heathrow for on-flights by passengers. That puts very considerable pressure on all the south-east airports, and not only Heathrow. However, the noble Baroness will also recognise that the airline industry and the airports are a very significant contributor to the economy and a major form of employment for a large number of our fellow citizens.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that merely to refer to the demand for air transportation is only one side of the argument? Historically, the provision of roads on a demand basis only has resulted in a policy that has run out of road— if I may be allowed a small pun. Would it be possible at least that, in thinking about the expansion of airport capacity, the Government might consider that merely meeting demand is not necessarily the way forward?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness: we are not into "predict and provide", or simply making an assessment of the number of airline journeys that might be made and extending airports to meet that capacity. She will recognise from the figures that I have quoted that the potential expansion is so huge that it will need some response, even if it was scaled down very significantly. In some respects it will need to be, because of the necessity of meeting our Kyoto targets for emissions of carbon dioxide, to which reference was made earlier. To meet those requirements, we shall need to restrict some aspects of air travel. However, she must also appreciate that demand is such that to go some way to meet it requires extension to airport capacity, without any doubt.

Policing of State Visit of President Bush
3.10 p.m.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale Lord Corbett of Castle Vale asked Her Majesty's Government:
What discussions they have held with the Mayor of London and the Metropolitan Police concerning security arrangements for the state visit of the President of the United States.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, given the Home Secretary's responsibility for policing and security issues, he has of course had a number of briefings by senior officers of the Metropolitan Police on the security operation for the state visit. Senior officers
1856
have also had discussions with other relevant government departments and organisations including the Mayor of London.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. Now that those protesting about a range of American policies have pledged to do so peacefully, is she satisfied that the Metropolitan Police will not impede demonstrators getting their views across to both the president and the public? Is she able to join those of us demonstrating against the illegal duties that the US has put on imported steel, which put at risk jobs both here and in the rest of Europe?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the answer to my noble friend's first question is, "Yes". We are satisfied that appropriate provision will be made to enable people to protest peacefully if that is their desire. Secondly, I am happy to reiterate that the World Trade Organisation has made clear that the United States steel safeguard measures are inconsistent with the WTO rules and must be lifted. We have urged the US Administration to make it clear that they will comply with the WTO decision. The alternative is that the EU countermeasures—additional tariffs on US goods to a value of 2.4 billion euros—will come into effect as early as 6th December.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, does the Minister agree that despite the stridency of the legitimate protests, the tolerance of which this country can be proud, there exists in the United Kingdom a vast reservoir of people who will wish to welcome with courtesy and good will the head of state of a country with which this country has such close ties?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I absolutely agree with the noble Lord's statement. The relationship between ourselves and the United States is a very longstanding and deep one and prevails irrespective of the administration in being at any given time.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, did not President Bush himself say that he was delighted to visit a country where people still enjoyed the right to demonstrate? Will the noble Baroness confirm that when they demonstrated previously against the Iraq war, 1.5 million people were on the streets and not a single one was arrested for any offence connected with public order? In the light of those facts, does she not think that it would be useful to vary President Bush's arrangements so that he could have an opportunity to watch the demonstration?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, first, I join in the noble Lord's delight that we can demonstrate. I can certainly agree with his statement regarding the president's own views. I can also say that the president will have adequate opportunity to be delighted in the way that the noble Lord indicates.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I declare an interest as a council tax payer in London. Can the noble Baroness confirm that the extra cost of policing will not simply be loaded on to Greater London but will be accepted as a national responsibility?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can certainly reassure the noble Lord, first, that the Metropolitan Police are well funded for policing major events such as this. If, however, this went substantially over what they can afford, there are mechanisms for forces to be able to apply to the Home Office for a special grant to cover difficult-to-meet costs.
Lord Imbert: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there seems to be a misunderstanding about the role of the Metropolitan Police in restricting some demonstrations and marches? The restrictions are being imposed not because of President Bush's visit— they are not anti- or pro-President Bush—but because of the Sessional Order that ensures that Members of Parliament and Members of your Lordships' House can attend Parliament to carry out the democratic process.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as a former commissioner the noble Lord has particular experience of this matter. I am certainly delighted to confirm that what he says is, as so often, absolutely correct.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a structure which has many similarities to the Field of the Cloth of Gold has been erected in front of Buckingham Palace. Do the two leaders see some significance in that?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, other than saying doubtless it is a thing of beauty, I have no comment to make.

Business
Lord Grocott: My Lords, with permission, I should like to say a word about proceedings later today. This afternoon we should receive the Commons amendments to the Sexual Offences Bill. We will consider those amendments after consideration of Commons amendments to the Extradition Bill, but not earlier than 6.45 p.m. The Commons amendments to the Sexual Offences Bill will be available in the Printed Paper Office from 3.45 p.m. Peers who want to table amendments to the Commons amendments can do so in the Public Bill Office from 3.45 p.m. until 5 p.m. At 6 p.m. a Marshalled List of amendments will be available in the Printed Paper Office. I shall ensure that these events are indicated on the annunciators. If
1858
there are any complications later in the afternoon I shall do my best to come back to the House to explain them.

Ragwort Control Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill
3.16 p.m.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, have consented to place their prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Bill read a third time.
Clause 2 [General duty of regulator]:
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 1:
Leave out Clause 2 and insert the following new Clause—
"General duty of the regulator
THE REGULATOR MUST EXERCISE ITS FUNCTIONS IN A MANNER THAT—

(a) is consistent with the performance by the Secretary of State of the duties under sections 1, 3 and 51 of the National Health Service Act 1977 (c. 49) (duty as to health service and services generally and as to university clinical teaching and research), and

(b) has regard to the impact of an NHS foundation trust on the local health economy."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I make no apology for raising the matter set out in Amendment No. 1 once again, for the third time, on Third Reading. Very similar amendments containing in particular the last subsection of Amendment No. 1 were tabled both in Committee and on Report.
On Report, the Minister made some headway in his response to the amendment in its previous form which imported concepts of universality of access and the regulator's duties in that respect. However, the Minister really did not address the key issue in that amendment and at the core of the current amendment—the impact of foundation trusts on the local health economy and the regulator's duty to have regard to that. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, was quite cogent in his response to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on how the regulator would carry out his duties. If the regulator is to be a genuine regulator, that must be at the core of his duties. One of the key concerns throughout the Bill's passage in another place and in this House has been about the impact of foundation trusts on other aspects of the health service in their locality. That is absolutely at the core of this amendment.
On Report, the Minister addressed the local health economy and prayed in aid a number of arguments. He said that,
"the creation of NHS foundation trusts will support the development of NHS services in local health economies".
That is an assertion. One hopes that will be so but it is not necessarily the case under the Bill as drafted. The Minister continued:
"Foundation trusts will exist to provide and develop healthcare services for NHS patients in a way that is consistent with NHS values".
To support that, one can pray in aid the duty to act in accordance with, or in a way that is consistent with, the Secretary of State's duties currently contained in the Bill. However, it is not absolutely clear that that is the case. The Minister continued:
"Over 95 per cent of their income will continue to come from NHS commissioning".
That is the case, but that does not mean to say that foundation hospitals ipso facto will have to have regard to their local health economies. They may well build up their strengths without regard to other facilities of the NHS in their area. I believe the Minister considered that the following point was the crunch point in his argument. He continued:
"They will be under a statutory duty to work in partnership with other local NHS organisations and social services to deliver integrated packages of care centred around the needs of patients".—[Official Report, 6/11/03; col. 987.]
They have a duty of co-operation—I believe that is the precise phraseology—rather than a duty of partnership. However, that is very much open to interpretation. Foundation hospitals, along with all other facilities in the NHS, will have that duty, but who will police it? There will be no policing available. There will be little recourse to other organisations within a locality affected by the activities of a foundation trust. That is the reason for imposing this matter as a duty on the regulator. That is where it sits most comfortably. To assume that a foundation trust will act in accordance with the NHS Act and its duty of co-operation, particularly in the light of concerns expressed in both Houses and outside Parliament, seems to me a trifle optimistic.
I challenged the Minister regarding the intention that the regulator would have no oversight of the impact of employment contracts. I asked him to repeat what he said in Committee at col. 628 of Hansard of 13th October; namely that:
"They are not issues which should be arbitrated upon by a third party, such as the regulator".—[Official Report, 6/11/03; col. 987.]
I agree with that. I do not see that the regulator has a particular role in arbitrating employment contracts. However, it seems utterly right that the regulator should have regard to the impact of such employment contracts. That is a very different matter. It is not a matter of meddling in industrial relations or employment matters; it is a matter of seeing what impact those employment contracts have on the local health economy. The regulator could then make representations and exercise his powers under the Act relative to foundation trusts.
I very much hoped that between Report and Third Reading the Minister would have had a chance to reflect on the matter because it is absolutely at the core of the Bill. If the Minister were able to be more positive in this area, there would be a great deal more good will towards foundation trusts. It will not have escaped anyone's attention that the BMA recently wrote to the Secretary of State urging him not to introduce foundation trusts.
It is in the Minister's hands to provide considerable reassurance in respect of the regulator's duty. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): My Lords, during consideration of Part 1 of the Bill both in this House and in another place much of the debate has been about the need to balance the ambitions, and relative strength, of individual organisations against the wider interests of local health economies, the NHS nationally and the particular interests of individual patients. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that I have reflected on the debate that we had at earlier stages. I acknowledge that these are very important issues that go to the heart of the way we run the NHS. In that regard I have some sympathy with the points that the noble Lord made. However, it is a major strength of the NHS that following implementation of the Government's reform programme there are clear processes for ensuring that the system works as it should. I wish briefly to discuss these arrangements.
First, we have put responsibility for commissioning where it belongs—with primary care trusts—and we are in the process of introducing national tariffs. We have created strategic health authorities with responsibility for planning and supporting delivery of national policy for the NHS within local health economy areas. We have created duties for NHS organisations to co-operate with each other and to work in partnership with local authorities to develop integrated systems of care. We have developed, and will strengthen through this Bill, national quality standards and national inspectorates across health and social care. We have given patients and local people a greater say through patients forums and the creation of overview and scrutiny committees.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, made much of the policing point and asked whether we had "policemen" to enforce proper standards and checks in relation to "aggrandising" NHS foundation trusts. I have tried to illustrate that, just as this Government have put many bobbies on the beat, we have many "policemen"—perhaps we should call them community support officers—in this area of the NHS to provide checks and balances. NHS foundation trusts are not entering a totally unregulated and uncontrolled system.
Those are the mechanisms that will ensure the right balance is achieved. I believe that it would create nothing but confusion and uncertainty to overlay those processes with a statutory requirement on the independent regulator in carrying out his duties to

1861
have regard to the impact of foundation trusts on the local health economy. To do so in addition to his duty with respect to the 1977 Act could well create confusion over how the regulator is to exercise his functions and could extend the regulator's remit into areas that he will not have the knowledge and expertise to determine, and in which the levers he has to take action are limited to one sector only—NHS foundation trusts. He will not have any leverage over other parts of local health economies for the reasons that I have already given.
Such a measure could give the regulator a role in second-guessing the way that NHS organisations fulfil their duty to co-operate with other NHS organisations, and potentially in arbitrating between NHS foundation trusts and other bodies. The effect would be to fetter the freedoms that NHS foundation trusts have to determine locally how best to deliver their NHS obligations and in our view runs counter to the policy of replacing central control with local flexibility and accountability.
NHS foundation trusts will, of course, have to develop and consult on their forward plans taking account of what is going on in the local health economy. That is what the application process and new governance arrangements are designed to achieve. However, this amendment would require NHS foundation trusts to be continually looking over their shoulders and seeking direction from the regulator in a way that would be counter to the policy intention of setting up those trusts. In practice, we believe that it would be likely to stifle rather than promote a culture of innovation. I do not believe that the noble Lord intends that to happen but in our view that would be the effect of this amendment. I hope that when the noble Lord has reflected on my remarks he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. That was a splendidly gloomy prognosis for one sentence in the Bill. I shall use it for future occasions. The number of negative verbs— confuse, fetter, second-guess, stifle a culture of innovation—was probably a record in such a short ministerial speech. It was a splendid collection of verbs.
There is a fairly irreconcilable difference. The Minister believes that the amendment would create confusion. On this side of the House, we believe that it would create clarity. It is not intended to fetter. Everything depends on how the phrase would be interpreted, but it would not mean that foundation trusts would need to go back to their nanny to find out what was going on. It is simply a broad, general failsafe mechanism to make sure that foundation trusts operate in a way that is generally congenial to their local health economy. That seems an entirely laudable public policy aim.
1862
I do not believe that all that negativity will occur. It is a matter of opinion and, in those circumstances, I should like to seek the opinion of the House.
3.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 153; Not-Contents, 119.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Henley, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Higgins, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Howe, E.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Howe of Aberavon. L.

Ashcroft, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B

Astor of Hever, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Attlee, E.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Avebury, L.

Hussey of North Bradley, L.

Barker, B. [Teller]

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kimball, L.

Biffen, L.

Kingsland, L.

Blackwell, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Blatch, B.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Bowness, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Lindsay, E.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Liverpool, E.

Brookeborough, V.

Lyell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Buscombe, B.

McNally, L.

Byford, B.

Maddock, B.

Caithness, E.

Mancroft, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Chadlington, L.

Methuen, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Michie of Gallanach, B.

Chan, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Dorner, B.

Clement-Jones, L. [Teller]

Miller of Hendon, B

Coe, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Montrose, D.

Cuckney, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Naseby, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Newby, L.

Dholakia, L.

Noakes, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Northbourne, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Northesk.E.

Emerton, B.

Northover, B.

Ezra, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Falkland, V.

Onslow, E.

Ferrers, E.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Peel, E.

Flather, B.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Fookes, B.

Plumb, L.

Freeman, L.

Portsmouth, Bp.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Prior, L.

Garel-Jones, L.

Rawlings, B.

Geraint, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Glentoran, L.

Razzall, L.

Goodhart, L.

Reay, L.

Greaves, L.

Redesdale, L.

Hamwee, B.

Rees, L.

Hanham, B.

Rennard, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Renton, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

1863

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Swinfen, L.

Rogan, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Roper, L.

Taverne, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Tebbit, L.

Sandberg, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Seccombe, B.

Tordoff, L.

Selsdon, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Sharman, L.

Trumpington, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Tugendhat, L.

Ullswater, V.

Sharples, B.

Vinson, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Vivian, L

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Wakeham, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Walmsley, B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Wigoder, L.

Sutherland of Houndwood, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Grocott,L.[Teller]

Amos, B. (Lord President)

Hannay of Chiswick, L.

Andrews, B.

Harrison, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Haskel, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Haskins, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Hayman, B.

Bach, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Barnett, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Berkeley, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Billingham, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Borne, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Bragg, L.

Islwyn, L.

Brett, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Brookman, L.

Jones, L.

Burlison, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Carey of Clifton, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Carter, L.

Lewis of Newnham, L.

Chalfont, L.

Lockwood, B.

Christopher, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Marsh, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Crawley, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Mishcon, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Mitchell, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde,B.

Morgan, L.

Desai, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Dixon, L.

Nicol, B.

Donoughue, L.

Orme, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Dubs, L.

Paul, L.

Elder, L.

Peston, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord

Radice, L.

Chancellor)

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Richard, L.

Filkin, L.

Rooker, L.

Gale, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Gilbert, L.

Sheldon, L.

Golding, B.

Simon, V.

Goldsmith, L.

Stallard, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Goudie, B.

Strange, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Gregson, L.

Tenby, V.

1864

Thornton, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Whitaker, B.

Turnberg, L.

Whitty, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Wilkins, B.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Warner, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
3.41 p.m.
Clause 12 [Prudential borrowing code]:
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 6, line 3, at end insert—
"( ) In making the code the regulator shall ensure that the economic effect of all commitments to make payments over periods exceeding one year is taken into account."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 2 relates to the borrowing code for foundation trusts under Clause 12. We debated the matter extensively both in Committee and on Report. It is not inaccurate to say that there has been no meeting of minds between the Government Benches and the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Benches.
The Government believe that the borrowing code will somehow solve the problems of the borrowing capacity of foundation trusts. We believe that it is at best harmless and at worst a major distraction. This mystical borrowing code—mystical because no one has ever seen it—is somehow to distil the knowledge and practice of commercial lenders. It is supposed to help the regulator determine limits on total borrowing by any NHS foundation trust. But that is about all we know about it.
On Report, the Minister told us about information that late in the day was made available on the department's website. That information adds almost nothing to our knowledge of the borrowing code. It contains some highly simplistic ratios but no real substance.
We remain highly sceptical about the worth of the borrowing code. It seems to us to be a pseudo-technical device designed to conceal the fact that the emperor has no clothes. We believe that this part of the Bill is ill thought-out and that it will cause problems in practice.
The simple solution would have been to take this silly code out of the Bill, but if the Government are committed to it, it must be absolutely clear that the borrowing code will take account of the economic impact of liabilities which arise from long-term commitments, such as those from the private finance initiative. We have heard the Minister's arguments that PFI obligations will be scored in arriving at free cash flow, but we want the regulator—for it is the regulator who will be lumbered with creating this code—to be in do doubt whatever that the economic impact of PFI liabilities must be taken into account. It is not simply a matter of establishing free cash flow; it is as much about the overhang of liabilities.
I have previously argued that PFI liabilities in the NHS are a serious concern. They are continuing to rise at a rapid rate and we are concerned about the robustness of these deals over time in terms of practicality and value for money. The one thing that is absolutely certain is that PFI deals must be kept fully in mind when determining what borrowing should be permitted for foundation trusts. That is what the amendment seeks to achieve. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I support the amendment. We on these Benches do not believe that the question has been properly answered. It would be wrong not to have on the face of the Bill a provision of this type, making it clear that PFI was included in the terms of the prudential borrowing limit. The Minister's answers on Report were not fully satisfactory and in those circumstances we fully support the fact that the noble Baroness has brought the amendment back to the House.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I support the amendment. It is important that foundation hospitals should not become part of the Exchequer's charade in pretending that PFI has nothing to do with real borrowing. The debts incurred by foundation hospitals, and the interest due on those debts, will be no less than any other form of capital borrowing and interest on it. Surely, it should be taken into account and I therefore support the amendment.
Lord Warner: My Lords, on this issue, I feel slightly like someone being asked to keep taking his accountancy exams. It is the Government's view that Amendment No. 2 is unnecessary. As we have already discussed in Committee and on Report, the prudential borrowing limit, which determines an NHS foundation trust's ability to repay debt, must take account of payment commitments which affect the free cash flow of an NHS foundation trust. The checks in the system are not quite as mystical as the noble Baroness suggested.
When we discussed these issues on Report, the noble Baroness raised concerns that the financial ratios which will be used to determine the prudential borrowing code will not take account of balance sheet issues and accumulated liabilities. However, I can reassure her and other noble Lords that we agree that in addition to ensuring that there is enough cash in the business to service debt year on year, total indebtedness is also an important issue. That is why applicants were issued with guidance to model their debt profiles assuming a maximum 10-year debt maturity for the first period of borrowing. The application of the ratios together with this 10-year term limit serve to manage total indebtedness as well as year-on-year serviceability issues. The noble Baroness cannot dismiss those ratios merely as mystical. They are real ratios. She may not agree with them, but they are there as part of the checks on incurring excessive indebtedness.
We also agree that quality of cash flows is an important issue. In this regard, we recommended that the regulator takes into account the quality of the
1866
underlying data provided to support projected numbers—such as references from PCTs—and establishes appropriate rules for ensuring that the way the data are reported is transparent and robust. Work has been going on within the department on developing new reporting requirements to aid the regulator—when appointed—in this regard. We therefore believe that appropriate arrangements are in place and that this is not a mystical exercise. There are proper arrangements for ensuring that debt is bearable and that cash flows are adequate year on year.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and my noble friend Lady Carnegy for their support. I have not tried to subject the noble Lord to accountancy examinations, but I shall keep my own counsel as to whether I believe that he would pass them with distinction.
I was pleased to hear what the noble Lord said about moving beyond simple free cash flow and taking into account indebtedness and the quality of cash flow. But we have argued from the outset that the Government—led, in particular, by the Chancellor— have been trying to account PFI out of existence. We have argued consistently that we must keep it firmly in view. For that reason, I have been trying to make an amendment of this nature to the Bill. Going forward, it will be extremely important to ensure that, when considering the subject of foundation trusts, the full impact of PFI liabilities is scored alongside more conventionally financed liabilities. I was grateful for what the noble Lord said, but he did not meet that point. We believe that it is important, and I should like to test the opinion of the House.
3.49 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 177; Not-Contents, 122.

Division No.2

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Addington, L.

Buscombe, B.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Byford, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Caithness, E.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Ashcroft, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Chadlington, L.

Attlee, E.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Avebury, L.

Chan, L.

Barker, B.[Teller]

Clement-Jones, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Coe, L.

Blackwell, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Blatch, B.

Colwyn, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Cope of Berkeley. L. [Teller]

Bowness, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Cuckney, L.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Dean of Harptree, L.

1867

Denham, L.

Newby, L.

Dholakia, L.

Noakes, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Northesk, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Northover, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Elton, L.

Onslow, E.

Emerton, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Ezra, L.

Peel, E.

Falkland, V.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Feldman, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Ferrers, E.

Plumb, L.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Prior, L.

Flather, B.

Quinton, L.

Fookes, B.

Rawlings, B.

Freeman, L.

Razzall, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Reay, L.

Garel-Jones, L.

Redesdale, L.

Geraint, L.

Rees, L.

Glentoran, L.

Rennard, L.

Goodhart, L.

Renton, L.

Greaves, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Hamwee, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hanham, B.

Rogan, L.

Hannay of Chiswick, L.

Roper, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Rotherwick, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Henley, L

Sandberg, L.

Higgins, L.

Sandwich, E.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Howe, E.

Seccombe, B.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Selborne, E.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Selsdon, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Sharman, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Sharples, B.

Hussey of North Bradley, L.

Shaw of Northstead L.

Jacobs, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Kimball, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Kingsland, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Kingsland, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Swinfen, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Taverne, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Tebbit, L.

Lewis of Newnham, L.

Tenby, V.

Lindsay, E.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Liverpool, E.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Lyell, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Tordoff, L.

McNally, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Maddock, B.

Trumpington, B.

Mancroft, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Ullswater, V.

Marlesford, L.

Vinson, L.

Marsh, L.

Vivian, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Waddington, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Wakeham, L.

Methuen, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Michie of Gallanach, B.

Walmsley, B.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Wamock, B.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Weatherill, L.

Montrose, D.

Wigoder, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wilcox, B.

Naseby, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Amos, B. (Lord President)

Bach, L.

Andrews, B.

Barnett, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Berkeley, L.

1868

Bhatia, L.

Islwyn, L.

Billingham, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Blackstone, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Borrie, L.

Jeger, B.

Bragg, L.

Jones, L.

Brett, L.

Judd, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Brookman, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Burlison, L.

Lockwood, B.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Carter, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Christopher, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Clark of Windermere, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Crawley, B.

Mishcon, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Mitchell, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Morgan, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Desai, L.

Nicol, B.

Dixon, L.

Orme, L.

Donoughue, L.

Ouseley

Dormand of Easington, L.

Parekh, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Dubs, L.

Paul, L.

Elder, L.

Peston, L.

Evans of Parkside,L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Portsmouth, Bp.

Falconer of Thoroton, L (Lord

Prashar, B.

Chancellor)

Prys-Davies, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Radice, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Filkin, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux. L.

Gale, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen,B.

Richard, L

Gilbert, L

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Golding, B.

Sawyer, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Sheldon, L.

Goudie, B.

Simon, V.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Stallard, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Gregson, L.

Strange, B.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Harrison, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Haskel, L.

Thornton, B.

Haskins, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Hayman, B.

Turnberg, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Warner, L.

Howells of St. Davids. B.

Whitaker, B.

Hoyle, L.

Whitty, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Wilkins, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.1 p.m.
Clause 14 [Authorised services]:
Lord Turnberg Lord Turnberg moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 7, line 15, at end insert—
"and, in deciding how to exercise its functions under this subsection in a case where any of the corporation's hospitals includes a medical or dental school provided by a university, the regulator is to have regard to the need to establish and maintain appropriate arrangements with the university."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I suspect that this amendment will have a slightly easier ride than the first two. Your Lordships may recognise that, although the words of this amendment have been changed to protect innocent Back-Benchers, they give the same basic message as my two previous amendments, which were moved in Committee and on Report. However, this time I am somewhat more optimistic about their acceptability.
I shall not repeat my speeches from the previous two occasions, save to say that the need to ensure that medical research is fostered and supported in the NHS was well recognised and debated by many who spoke on the previous occasion, including my noble friend the Minister. I am extremely grateful to him for listening so carefully to what was said and for being so actively engaged in the subject of the amendment. I know that it is close to his heart. I believe I am in order in anticipating that the Minister will, indeed, show that his heart is in the right place on this matter. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I support this amendment. I believe that throughout the country universities and teaching hospitals will be erecting statues of the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, in years to come, and deservedly so. His persuasive powers are clearly enormous. The subsection itself is so finely crafted that one could not detect the workmanship.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I give enthusiastic support to this amendment.
Earl Howe: My Lords, at the risk of adding excessive endorsement—I am told that the word is "cloying"— to the contributions already made, I very warmly support this amendment, which seems to cover exactly the concerns that were raised by so many noble Lords both in Committee and at Report.
Lord Warner: My Lords, noble Lords will be astonished to learn that the Government are minded to accept this amendment. I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for his kind remarks. I compliment him in particular on his persistence in this area. I shall certainly enter into the public subscription for his statue if the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is to start a fund.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 [Private health care]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 7, line 40, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in Committee and at Report, I tabled amendments to remove Clause 15, which we on these Benches view as the single most unnecessary piece of political interference in the Bill. Although our views on the matter have not changed one iota, I have reflected on what it would be best to do at this stage of the Bill bearing in mind that there is a clear divergence of opinion between us and the Minister which we are unlikely to bridge.
I have concluded that the sensible course would be for me to give way to the Government on the main premise of this clause, namely, that the regulator should be allowed to impose a cap on the private patient income of foundation trusts. I do so of course without prejudice to the views which I have just expressed on the over-arching principle.
If the Government are allowed to have their way on the main premise of the clause then they should accept the force of the two points that I have previously tried to put to them. The first is that the clause as it stands is too prescriptive. It proposes that the amount of private patient income permitted to a foundation trust should be calculated by reference to the percentage of its income earned from such sources in 2002–03 and that this base year should apply to every single foundation trust without exception, no matter what its individual circumstances.
That is unreasonable. If the regulator is empowered to impose a cap, let him by all means do so by reference to a base year, if that is what he chooses to do, or by reference to some other benchmark. But the face of the Bill should not dictate to him exactly how the cap is to be calculated. I am sure that I am not the only noble Lord who has been approached by NHS trusts which have expressed grave anxiety about 2002–03 being the base year without any flexibility.
The Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre in Oxford, for example, has told me that in a normal year private patient work accounts for about 10 per cent of its overall income. But in 2002–03 it put in place a building programme specifically designed to enhance its private capacity and at the same time it took a conscious decision to use some of its private beds to treat NHS patients. In other words, 2002–03 was an untypical year for the centre.
I am not in a position to judge whether some other base year would be fairer for the orthopaedic centre or whether it could be allowed to defer the imposition of the cap for a period of time to accommodate its particular circumstances. But I believe that the regulator should be given this discretion. He may decide that hospitals in this sort of predicament will just have to make the best of the cap they are given. He may decide that the interests of the hospital and of the NHS are best served by permitting some measure of flexibility. Either way, it should be his decision. But if he has to apply the provisions of the clause as they stand, which are very strict, then there is no doubt in my mind that perverse and unfair consequences will ensue, which do not benefit anyone.
The second kind of situation which may merit a degree of flexibility is where a hospital wishes to invest in a piece of capital equipment. We need to get away from the mindset of thinking that private work equals private beds. I am not suggesting that foundation trusts should be allowed huge latitude by the regulator to expand their elective bed capacity for private patients. I accept that the term of the licence would need to be clear about that. But I believe that there may be circumstances from time to time where the interests of the NHS would be served by allowing a foundation trust to expand its private patient

1871
income beyond the percentage generated in 2002–03, if it could demonstrate a sound business case for doing so, and if the primary aim was to benefit its NHS patients.
The example 1 gave before was a proposal to invest in a new MRI scanner. It could well be that an investment of that kind could only make sense if a certain level of private patient income was assumed. What often happens as regards scanners is that NHS patients are given exclusive use during normal working hours and private patients are allowed access outside those times. The number of private patients per year need not be very many in comparison to the number of NHS patients, but they will often be enough to ensure that there is an income stream to the hospital which justifies the purchase of the machine. Here again, it should be for the regulator to decide what is or what is not a good business case and whether the NHS would benefit sufficiently from the investment. Each case would have to be judged on its merits. But to say that such special cases could never and should never be considered seems to me to fly in the face of all that is reasonable.
This is where the Liberal Democrat amendment, to which I have added my name, comes in. There is a clear and incontestable case for transparency in reporting if the private patient cap is applied and if it is to be monitored properly. I am also fully in sympathy with the wish of the Liberal Democrats to ensure that costings for private patient work are soundly based and that, where a hospital claims that private work contributes to its bottom line, there really is such a contribution after taking into account all costs that can appropriately be allocated or apportioned to the work in question.
Therefore, I hope that the Minister will feel able to give some ground on this matter. It is possible for us to disagree on the fundamental principle of a clause, but if, for a moment, we can put that matter aside, I hope that we can reach a consensus on how exactly the intention behind the clause can best be made to work for the benefit of the NHS. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 4 and speak to Amendment No. 5. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, spoke extremely cogently about the way in which Amendment No. 5 affects Clause 15. To eliminate the whole clause was a bridge too far, but on these Benches we believe that a cap is necessary. I entirely accept his arguments on the base year and the inflexibility built into the current clause.
I thank the noble Earl for his support for Amendment No. 5. It is designed to achieve transparency about such income. In regard to how trusts derive income from private patients, we see some straws in the wind as currently that is not transparent and the NAO review of UCLH shows that. That may be merely one example of trusts—in many cases through faulty accounting and perhaps even without malice aforethought—not really understanding the true costs attached to providing private care.
1872
On Report, the Minister's main argument against Amendment No. 5 was to the effect that it would require a separate annual report—a kind of anti-bureaucratic argument. It would be perfectly possible to include the figures in the annual accounts of a foundation trust and it would then be treated as complying with this new subsection of Clause 15. Nowhere did the Minister address the point of whether there is a mandatory requirement for the profits and the income attached to private patients to be reported properly. For that reason the amendment is important.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I support the amendment. Not many of your Lordships will remember the time, under a previous Labour Administration, when as a result of pressure from the unions in the National Health Service there was a move to remove all private beds from all NHS hospitals. That was when Lady Castle—then Mrs Castle—was Secretary of State for Health. In Newcastle, where I was working as a professor of neurology, there were three private beds in the entire body of NHS hospitals—one in each of the major hospitals.
As everyone knows, under the National Health Service there is an appropriate rule that any patients coming to this country from abroad specifically for medical treatment must, if they are admitted to an NHS hospital, be admitted as private patients. At that time I was in the very curious position of having to refuse admission to two patients from the United States referred to my specialist department for investigation because there were no private beds to which they could be admitted. My problem with Clause 15 is that the restrictions that are likely to be imposed could, at the very worst, result in a similar situation where it might not be possible for patients from overseas referred to this country for specialised care to be admitted to an NHS hospital for private care. For that reason I warmly support the amendment.
One great advantage of having private beds in NHS hospitals is that consultants working in those hospitals, who undertake private work—not all consultants do— are geographically there the whole time. The decision made by that previous Labour Administration gave the single most powerful impetus to the development of private hospitals outside the NHS of any other governmental decision. The result was that quite a number of consultants found themselves occupied in travelling distances between the NHS hospital where they worked primarily and the private hospitals where they saw their private patients. The advantages of having private care in NHS hospitals are profound. For that reason I support the amendment.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I support both amendments. On Amendment No. 5, if such information is not known already to any hospital, it should be. It would be wholly right to give a hospital that extra incentive by requiring it to report what are those income and costs. However, I am even more interested in the amendment proposed by my noble friend, particularly because of my association with a hospital that he mentioned, the Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre.

1873
Some 14 years ago, I was approached to see whether I would be willing to help raise money to build a new orthotics unit in the hospital. The existing building was literally falling down. Since then I have had the privilege of chairing a group of men and women who have done great things to help that hospital. Shortly, we will have completed putting into the hospital some £12 million or £13 million over the period. It has made an extraordinary difference to the hospital; £6 million will go into the PFI, currently being undertaken at the Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre. Without that £6 million of free, charitable money, the PFI would not have been possible.
I believe that PFIs are a disaster, but at the moment they are the only way in which so many such schemes can be taken forward. I prefer to refer to them as hire purchase agreements. They have all the evils of hire purchase agreements plus the fact that the hospital has to be serviced by those who sold it to the trust, which was not the case under a hire purchase: agreement on a motor car.
In the base year proposed in the Bill, the Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre was making a great effort to reduce waiting lists. To that end, it reduced the amount of private work undertaken to ensure that it could undertake sufficient of the mainstream NHS work to reduce the waiting lists. As a result its income from private practice in the base year fell sharply below its normal level of income. So, in any event, that base year would be unfair to that hospital. It seems quite wrong that there is no discretion available to deal with matters of that kind.
In addition, the Nuffield has an extra problem. At the same time as the PFI building is being undertaken, and in association with it, the hospital is undertaking a substantial building programme to increase its private-sector capacity. That is a classic example of being hit two ways by this Bill. I do not know what the effect will be on the finances of the hospital were the Bill to be enacted in its present form, but they would be serious, not merely for its private practice, but also for the finances of the hospital as a whole. It is a quite arbitrary, a quite unjust, a quite unfair and an extremely wrong way in which to behave towards a hospital that has a fine reputation and which I believe would be a front-runner in achieving foundation hospital status were that to be available to it.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I too support the amendment, especially as I have seen private patients arrive for very specialised treatment, which is often not available in private hospitals. Not only do they bring income into this country, because they have their entourage with them—their friends and relations—but it is a service that we can give. If it is not available in this country, they will go elsewhere. They will go to France, Switzerland or Germany and we shall lose some of our specialties in these fields.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I remind noble Lords that NHS foundation trusts have a primary purpose under this legislation to provide NHS services to NHS patients, based on need and not on the ability to pay and free at the
1874
point of use. To ensure that foundation trusts continue to focus primarily on servicing the needs of NHS patients, the terms of authorisation of an NHS foundation trust will place strict limits on the extent that it can undertake private patient activity. Amendment No. 4, with which I deal first, would effectively remove a clear basis for placing a cap on private patient activity and is therefore unacceptable to the Government.
The Government believe that income derived from the provision of services to private patients needs to be capped as a percentage of total income from clinical activities. The percentage will be fixed as the percentage that applied for each NHS foundation trust in the financial year ending April 2003. That will prevent NHS foundation trusts from carrying out a higher proportion of private work than they do today.
I believe that the cap on private activity provides NHS foundation trusts with clear parameters within which to plan their services and decide what private healthcare to provide. The existence of a cap based on explicit rules means that NHS foundation trusts will not need to go to the independent regulator for approval each time they propose to vary the amount of private patient work they undertake. I have to remind your Lordships that relying on a permissive power could of course mean—this point is particularly addressed to the Liberal Democrat Benches—that the regulator would impose no limit on private practice at all. Amendment No. 4 has that effect. I am not sure whether, in giving support to the amendment, noble Lords are aware of that.
I say to the Conservative Benches that, having just moved the amendment to give the regulator the right to interfere with regard to the local health economy, the regulator might take the view, armed with Amendment No. 4, that he should be even more rigorous in the capping of private practice than is provided for under the Bill. Noble Lords might like to think about both those issues before they get too carried away with Amendment No. 4.
On Amendment No. 5, as I have said previously, I do of course support the principle that information about income—
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for the elegant way he has read his official brief, but will he deal with my point concerning the Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I thought I had made it fairly clear that we believe that this provision, which sets a limit on capping private patients, should be in the Bill. I know the noble Lord does not agree with me on that, but that is the Government's position. It has been our position throughout the proceedings on the Bill and we are not resiling from it.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. Does he agree that the cap should be fair?
Lord Warner: My Lords, yes, I do. We believe that the cap is particularly fair.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister what the cap is.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I shall repeat what I said earlier. The income derived from the provision of services to private patients will be capped as a percentage of total income from clinical activities. The percentage will be fixed as the percentage that applied for each NHS foundation trust in the financial year ending April 2003. So that is the base year for which one calculates one's percentage. The percentage is then fixed in accordance with that particular base year's income in relation to clinical activities.
I know that noble Lords do not agree with this policy, but that is the policy of the Government. We are not changing it at this stage of the proceedings on the Bill.
On Amendment No. 5, as I have previously explained, I do of course support the principle that information about income and expenditure from private healthcare must be available and publicly accessible. However, I say again that Amendment No. 5 is unnecessary. This information will be set out in each NHS foundation trust's annual accounts, which must be made publicly available.
I understand that noble Lords may be concerned that information about income and expenditure related to private healthcare may not be set out transparently within NHS foundation trusts' accounts. But I hope it will reassure them if I explain that under provisions in the late lamented Schedule 1, all NHS foundation trusts must keep and prepare their annual accounts in line with directions set out by the independent regulator.
We expect that the regulator will issue an accounting manual for NHS foundation trusts, setting out the form, content, methods and principles to be used in preparing the accounts. That is likely to include detailed provision relating to income and expenditure from private income because the regulator will need this information in order to operate the private patient cap under Clause 15.
There is, therefore, no question of NHS foundation trusts somehow concealing the financial information relating to private activity within their accounts. Furthermore, since this information will be freely available, there is simply no need to duplicate it in a separate report.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he could clarify a matter. I take the example given by my noble friend Lord Tebbit. No doubt there are other examples, perhaps even worse than the one he gave. Is there to be any provision for the hospital concerned to make an appeal on the ground that the base year provided exceptional circumstances which were not typical in its normal running; and, therefore, further consideration should be given on the grounds of fairness and common justice to the case it made?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I have nothing to add to that which I have already said about how the base year
1876
is decided and the basis on which the cap is decided. I repeat again that I understand that noble Lords do not agree with it, but that is the Government's policy on the Bill and that is the way we have framed the legislation.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am extremely disappointed by that reply. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Walton and Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, for their support. I thank my noble friend Lord Tebbit for the compelling case he put regarding flexibility for the Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre. The ability for the regulator to impose a cap on private income is, as far as I am concerned, taken as read in this debate. We have got past the hurdle of trying to argue that that should be removed altogether. I am not in the least concerned with disputing the Government's policy in general towards private income, I dispute whether the clause as drafted is right. It seems far too prescriptive.
My contention to the Minister is that the regulator can if he wishes cap the income of a hospital. He can do so if he chooses in relation to the base year 2002–03. Indeed, if he wants to be rigorous towards hospitals he has that ability. The case put by my noble friend Lord Tebbit is absolutely incontestable. By contrast, the Government's position is so unreasonable that I cannot understand how the Minister can articulate it. This is a matter of principle on which I should like to test the opinion of the House.
4.29 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 189; Not-Contents, 124.

Division No.3

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Addington, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Carrington. L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Chan, L.

Arran, E.

Chorley, L.

Ashcroft, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Cobbold, L.

Attlee, E.

Coe, L.

Avebury, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Barker, B. [Teller]

Colwyn, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.[Teller]

Blackwell, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Blaker, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Blatch, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Bledisloe, V.

Dahrendorf, L.

Bowness, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Denham, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Dholakia, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Buscombe, B.

Elles, B.

Byford, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Caithness, E.

Elton, L.

1877

Emerton, B.

Noakes, B.

Ezra, L.

Northesk, E.

Falkland, V.

Northover, B.

Feldman, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Ferrers, E.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Flather, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Fookes, B.

Patten, L.

Freeman, L.

Peel, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Garel- Jones, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Geraint, L.

Plumb, L.

Glentoran, L.

Prashar, B.

Goodhart, L.

Prior, L.

Goschen, V.

Quinton, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rawlings, B.

Greaves, L.

Razzall, L.

Greenway, L.

Reay, L.

Hamwee, B.

Redesdale, L.

Hanham, B.

Rees, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Rennard, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Renton, L.

Henley, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Higgins, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Rogan, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Roper, L.

Howe, E.

Rotherwick, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Russell, E.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Sandberg, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Jacobs, L.

Seccombe, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Selborne, E.

Jopling, L.

Selsdon, L.

Kimball, L.

Sharman, L.

Kingsland. L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Sharples, B.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lewis of Newnham, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Lindsay, E.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Liverpool, E.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Strange, B.

Lucas, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Swinfen, L.

Lyell, L.

Taverne, L.

Mackie of Benshine, L.

Tebbit, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Tenby, V.

McNally, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Maddock, B.

Thomas of walliswood, B.

Mancroft, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Tordoff, L.

Marlesford, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Tugendhat, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Ullswater, V.

Methuen, L.

Vivian, L.

Michie of Gallanach, B.

Waddington, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Wakeham, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Walmsley, B.

Monson, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Warnock, B.

Montrose, D.

Weatherill, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wigoder, L.

Moynihan,L.

Wilcox, B.

Naseby, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Newby, L.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

Nickson, L.

Wolfson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Amos, B. (Lord President)

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Andrews, B.

Bach, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Barnett, L.

1878

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Berkeley, L.

Jeger, B.

Bhatia, L.

Jones, L.

Billingham, B.

Judd, L.

Blackstone, B.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Bragg, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Brennan, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Brett, L.

Lockwood, B.

Brookman, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Burlison, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Carter, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Christopher, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Mishcon, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Mitchell, L.

Crawley, B.

Morgan, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Davies of Oldham,L. [Teller]

Nicol, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Orme, L.

Desai, L.

Ouseley, L.

Dixon, L.

Parekh, L.

Donoughue, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Paul, L.

Dubs, L.

Peston, L.

Elder, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Portsmouth, Bp.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord

Prys-Davies, L.

Chancellor)

Radice, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Ramasay of Cartvale, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Rea, L.

Gale, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Richard, L.

Golding, B.

Rooker, L.

Goldsmith L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Sawyer L

Goudie, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Sheldon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Simon, V.

Gregson, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Hannay of Chiswick, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Harrison, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Haskel, L.

Thornton, B.

Haskins, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Hayman, B.

Turnberg, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Warner, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Whitaker, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Whitty, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Wilkins, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Islwyn, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.40 p.m.
Baroness Barker Baroness Barker moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 8, line 7, at end insert—
"( ) Every NHS foundation trust shall publish a statement of its total income and expenditure relating to the goods and services referred to in subsection (4) in each financial year."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 25 [Dissolution etc. ]:
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 11, line 19, at end insert—
"( ) An order may not be made in respect of property and liabilities under subsection (3) if it appears to the Secretary of State that the property remaining in the NHS foundation trust immediately after the transfer will be insufficient to meet the liabilities remaining in the trust at that time unless the Secretary of State has made arrangements which have the effect of leaving the creditors of the trust in no worse a financial position on a dissolution of the trust than if the property and liabilities had not been transferred by the order."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment would insert into Clause 25 a new subsection dealing with what happens when a foundation trust is wound up. We had an interesting debate on the financial failure regime on Report. Throughout, we have expressed surprise that foundation trusts, which are classified by the Office for National Statistics as central government, will not be backed by explicit or implicit government guarantees. If NHS foundation trusts have one differentiating characteristic from NHS trusts of the non-foundation variety, that is it.
Accepting that the Government were set upon the policy, our concern shifted to the effect of the Bill, which appeared to leave private sector creditors and lenders to shoulder the whole burden of any financial loss when a foundation trust goes belly up. That would not have been fair. On Report, I thought that I was crying in the wilderness, so little effect did my words appear to have on the Minister. But I am delighted to see that he has tabled other amendments in this group, particularly Amendment No. 28, which will make the first regulations under Clause 26 subject to the affirmative procedure. I shall say no more on my amendment but look forward to the Minister's explanation of his. I fully expect to be able to withdraw my amendment in due course.
When the Minister speaks to his amendments, will he say whether the Government believe that public dividend capital is a liability of a foundation trust? The implication is that the Government would bear loss proportionately with other lenders or creditors. I am not saying that I object to that, but I would like it to be clear, because public dividend capital, throughout its history, which predates its use in the NHS, has always been a form of hybrid financing, not fitting into any private sector pigeonholes. With the use of the private sector insolvency regime proposed in the Bill, it is necessary to be clear.
Clarity is particularly important to lenders and creditors. The Minister said on Report:
"It is clearly very important that the insolvency regime applied to NHS foundation trusts is completely transparent so that those who are thinking of doing business with them can properly assess the risks, particularly should one fail".— [Official Report, 6/11/03; col. 1029.]
We agree, which is why I hope that the Minister will clarify today the status of PDC. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Warner: My Lords, we listened carefully to concerns raised by the noble Baroness that the provisions on dissolution could be applied in a way that was unfair to creditors. Although that was not our intention, we saw that we needed to address legitimate concerns. We therefore propose to introduce safeguards to address those concerns, through Amendment No. 10 and its consequential amendments, Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9.
In earlier debate about the failure regime for NHS foundation trusts, we made it clear that the Secretary of State must be able to ensure the continuity of essential NHS services. I do not believe that there is any difference between us and the opposition Front Bench on that. New subsection (4), to be introduced by Amendment No. 10, makes explicit that any transfer of assets made by the Secretary of State must be motivated by the need to ensure continuity of the protected services that the NHS foundation trust is required to provide under its terms of authorisation.
Only property linked to the provision of protected services may be transferred—for example, hospital buildings and equipment—and liabilities may be transferred only to the extent that that is necessary to ensure the continuity of protected services, not simply because they relate to, or arise from, the provision of those services. The intention is that the Secretary of State would transfer only those liabilities that relate to his interest in the failed NHS foundation trust, including public dividend capital, loans made for developments in protected services and contractual liabilities relating to staff, together with any fixed charge on property transferred. He would not selectively transfer liabilities beyond that in a way that would favour some creditors over others.
We have also made it clear that the Secretary of State would not remove valuable assets from an NHS foundation trust without recompense, which could penalise creditors by reducing the funds available for distribution in winding up. New subsection (5) requires the Secretary of State to ensure that any transfer does not result in a net loss of value to the NHS foundation trust. That means that if the value of the assets transferred by the Secretary of State to ensure continuity of protected services is greater than the value of the liabilities transferred, as described above, the Secretary of State will need to fund the difference. He can do that under his powers in Clause 11(2). The funds injected by the Secretary of State would then be available to the NHS foundation trust's creditors for distribution in winding up.
New subsection (5) will have the same effect as intended by opposition Amendment No. 6. I hope that the opposition Front Bench will find it an acceptable alternative to their amendment. Subsection (5) includes a power to make regulations setting out the rules on how the net value is to be calculated. That will include rules on how the assets and financial liabilities are to be valued. As a result of Amendment No. 28, the regulations will be subject to affirmative procedure in the first instance, with subsequent sets of regulations subject to the negative procedure.

1881
New subsection (6) ensures that the Secretary of State, in applying a modified version of the Insolvency Act 1986 to wind up an NHS foundation trust, cannot modify insolvency law to discriminate between different types of creditor. Once a winding-up procedure has begun under Clause 25(4), the NHS foundation trust's debts must be dealt with according to the same priority that applies in the Insolvency Act.
We intend to ensure that creditors have sufficient information to assess the risk of doing business with an NHS foundation trust—not in the expectation that every small business dealing with an NHS foundation trust would assess its creditworthiness, but because, as a point of principle, it should be no more difficult for potential creditors that wish to make such an assessment than if they were dealing with a company. NHS foundation trusts will, therefore, be required in their accounts clearly to set out the Secretary of State's interests so that creditors can easily see what property and liabilities may be transferred by the Secretary of State when winding-up procedures begin.
No amendment is required to effect that aim; it is secured through the requirement for the Treasury to approve the accounting requirements for NHS foundation trusts that appear in the schedule on the constitution of public benefit corporations. That schedule would need to be re-introduced if NHS foundation trusts are to be established, and we will look to the other place to do so.
In response to the noble Baroness's question, public dividend capital is an asset of the Consolidated Fund. It is issued to NHS organisations on the basis that it can be required to be repaid, and, as such, is a liability.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation and for taking on board the points made in earlier stages. I still believe that this is a hugely complicated area. I hope that we now have sufficient legislative cover. As the Minister is aware, I am moving from the health brief to pastures new and would like him to know that I am looking forward to the first affirmative regulations under this clause. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26 [Sections 23 to 25: supplementary]:
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendments Nos. 7,8,9 and 10:
Page 11, line 31, leave out subsection (1).
Page 11, line 32, at beginning insert "In sections 24 and 25"
Page 11, line 33, at end insert "under section 24(2)"
Page 11, line 39, at end insert—
"(4) The power conferred by section 25(3) is to be exercised with a view to securing the provision of the goods and services which the authorisation requires the trust to provide.
(5) That power is also to be exercised (together, if required, with the power conferred by section 11(2)) with a view to securing that any transfer of property in pursuance of the power does not result in a net loss of value to the trust; and the question whether a transfer would result in a net loss of value is to be determined in accordance with regulations.
(6)The Insolvency Act 1986 may not be modified under section 25(6) so as to alter the priority of debts or the ranking of debts between themselves."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 31 [Patients' Forums]:
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 14, line 11, after "each" insert "NHS"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we accepted the will of the House by accepting amendments on Report to Clause 31 that provide for all NHS foundation trusts to have a patients' forum on the same basis as NHS trusts. The amendments are technical amendments to tidy up Clause 31 and to ensure that the provisions on patients' forums in the 2002 Act apply to NHS foundation trusts in the same way as they apply to NHS trusts. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I would like to thank the Minister for graciously accepting the will of the House—in his words. He is right to do so, and we fully accept the spirit of the amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendments Nos. 12 to 14:
Page 14, line 11, at end insert—
"(b) in subsection (9), in the definition of "relevant overview and scrutiny committee", for "or NHS trust" there is substituted ", NHS trust or NHS foundation trust"."
Page 14, line 15, leave out from "reports)" to "there" in line 18 and insert "in subsection (2)—

(a)in paragraph (c)(ii), after "NHS trust" there is inserted "or NHS foundation trust",

(b) after paragraph (d)"

Page 14, line 26, at end insert ", and
(b) in subsection (4)(a), after "NHS trust" there is inserted "or NHS foundation trust."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 36 [Offence]:
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 15, line 30, leave out from "form" to end of line and insert "of the particulars of his qualification to vote as a member of the constituency for which the election is being held"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Bill requires members of an NHS foundation trust, when voting, to make a declaration that they are eligible to do so. Amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 17 remove that requirement and replace it with a requirement that voters confirm their details, including their qualification to vote. That provides a mechanism for the NHS foundation trust to make sure it has up-to-date details of all its members. That need not be an onerous requirement for members—there could be two sections on the voting paper, for example, one for voting, and another for members to complete with their details. Amendment No. 18 removes the requirement on staff to make a declaration when they vote, since it seems reasonable to assume that an NHS foundation trust would in any case hold up-to-date details on staff members. In addition, noble Lords will recall that, in response to an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on Report, we indicated that we would consider amending the Bill to give NHS foundation trusts discretion to adopt an opt-out system for membership of the staff and patient constituencies. Such amendments would, however, need to be made to the former Schedule 1, which noble Lords voted to remove

1883
from the Bill on Report. If we are successful in restoring the Schedule in another place, we may pursue the issue. The amendments would facilitate the introduction of any such provisions. However, I would make the point that they also stand alone, and are not dependent on the making of other amendments in the other place. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendments Nos. 16 to 18:
Page 15, line 32, leave out "that he is" and insert "of the particulars of his qualification to vote as"
Page 15, line 37, leave out "that he is" and insert "of the particulars of his qualification to vote as"
Page 15, line 38, at end insert—
"( ) This section does not apply to an election held for the staff constituency."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 48 [Introductory]:
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff Baroness Finlay of Llandaff moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 19, line 5, at end insert ", and
( ) the implementation of ethical principles in decision making processes"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, at previous stages of the Bill, we have debated issues surrounding equity and ethics and, on Report, the Minister expressed sympathy with my amendment but pointed out the problem with the wording, which included the word "equity". The Minister said that CHAI judgments could not cut across difficult decisions involving weighing up all relevant factors. This amendment, therefore, uses the words,
"the implementation of ethical principles".
CHAI will not be able to judge on the clinical results alone, but must ensure that the principles are implemented.
The Minister stated that the issues are traditionally left to the General Medical Council and other regulatory bodies—as they should be. I quote briefly from the General Medical Council booklet, Management in Health Care: The Role of Doctors, which is consistent with the guidance set out by the British Association of Medical Managers, the Institute of Health Services Management and the UKCC for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting. It states:
"Conflicts may arise… when the needs of an individual patient and the needs of a population of patients cannot both be fully met. Dilemmas of this kind have no simple solution. When taking such decisions, doctors should take into account the priorities set by Government and the NHS and/or their employing or funding body. But they must also be clear about their own role. As clinicians, doctors must make the care of their patients their first concern, bearing in mind the effects of their decisions on the resources and choices available for other patients. As managers, doctors must allocate resources in the way that best serves the interests of a community or population of patients. In both roles doctors should use evidence from research and audit to make the optimum use of the resources available".
It is precisely the weighing up of decisions and the difficulty behind clinical decisions that demand an ethical approach.
In the Bill as it is worded, CHAI will be charged with the effectiveness of healthcare economy and efficiency and looking at information provided to the public. It will also need to safeguard and promote the rights and welfare of children. However, I am concerned about groups in the population who are vulnerable but are not children. There are issues for those with severe disabilities, communication problems or complex social needs and for those in custody.
The inspectorate of CHAI is charged not only with looking at NHS providers, but non-NHS providers who provide for NHS patients. That is where my greatest concern lies. Where there is pressure on the resources, it is much easier to provide for those patients who will not be disruptive, will not take up a lot of staff time and who will be easier to discharge back into the community when prioritising. However, that may not be to treat on the basis of clinical need. That is the background to those concerns, and I would like CHAI to ensure that the ethical principles of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice— justice to the individual and to the population served, as outlined in the GMC booklet and in guidance to the other professions—are being adhered to. If not, we will fail the very population that any NHS service must seek to meet. I beg to move.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, in her excellent argument. Throughout our debate, we have primarily focused on the issue of equity. Today we move away from that—happily, in my view—to examine the far more important element of ethical principles.
On Report, when the Minister addressed these matters, he said:
"As for equity in terms of ethical decision making, we believe that traditionally, many of those issues should be left to the General Medical Council, and to the other regulatory bodies of the healthcare professions".— [Official Report, 10/11/03; col. 1148.]
I believe that that is a mistake on the issue.
While we are not concerned about whether the General Medical Council adheres to, recognises or upholds ethical principles, we are concerned that, in practice, government policy forces clinicians to abandon some of those ethical principles. Therefore, the reason for wanting these words in the Bill is not to put any restraint on the GMC, but to ensure that government policy does not traduce those important fundamental principles.
Throughout the debates, we have talked about the extent to which management measures have been given greater pre-eminence than medical and clinical principles, which we have always believed to be wrong. It is an important protection for the health service that government policy should not produce the kinds of dilemmas about which the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, spoke.
I do not understand why it has never been explained satisfactorily why economy and efficiency are sufficiently important to be in the Bill, but ethical principles are not. The Minister has one last chance to convince us on this matter, but his track record to date

1885
does not fill me with great hope. This is a fundamental and important matter. I therefore support the noble Baroness wholeheartedly.
5 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. Ethical principles written in the Bill would safeguard many very vulnerable people; one has to look only at the huge pressures on the National Health Service as regards the mentally ill, drug abusers and some very unpopular kinds of patients.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. It is perfectly true that the General Medical Council gives advice to the medical profession about ethical principles that should be followed. Indeed, so, too, does the British Medical Association, which publishes a very weighty volume on the responsibilities of doctors. But, surely, one of the principles of medical care in the National Health Service must be that ethical principles should be foremost in the minds of every doctor and every healthcare professional in the management of disease and in their treatment of patients. I therefore warmly support the amendment.
Lord Warner: My Lords, indeed, this has been an educational Bill; I have had to brush up my accountancy and now my philosophy and ethics as well. I have a great deal of sympathy with what I think is intended in the amendment, but its practical effect continues to bother me.
As I understand it, ethical principles do not have any set meaning, but would cover issues such as patient consent to treatment and the use of novel drugs or treatments by NHS bodies. On enquiring further into this area, it seems that there are differing views as to which precise ethical principles should be used.
I agree that CHAI has a role in considering ethical matters, but that role is adequately covered already. CHAI must consider whether NHS bodies have appropriate procedures in place to ensure that proper regard is given to ethical considerations by appropriate persons when decisions are taken in individual cases; it must consider whether those procedures are being followed. That is relevant to its consideration of the availability of, and access to, healthcare and the quality and effectiveness of healthcare, which is provided for in the Bill.
CHAI's Vision document makes clear the inspectorate's intention to assess the quality of healthcare provided from the patients' perspective. In doing so, Sir Ian Kennedy, has made clear his intention to take the concerns of current healthcare inspection one step further and reflect, particularly, the rights and entitlements of a myriad of vulnerable people in its assessments and, in doing so, promote the social justice concept of "equal citizenship".
However, we do not envisage CHAI reviewing decisions made by doctors or ethics committees in individual cases. Ethical questions typically involve
1886
balancing the risks to individuals of particular treatments against the benefits of those treatments for them and the benefits to wider society. Traditionally, that is a matter for doctors, other health professionals and research ethics committees, acting under the guidance of bodies such as the General Medical Council.
As I previously said both in Committee and on Report, the General Medical Council is concerned with giving guidance to doctors on ethical matters. What it considers to be the "duties of a doctor" is already well documented. Furthermore, the council builds on those principles in guidance covering both general aspects of good medical practice and more specific areas, such as confidentiality and consent. In short, it has a long tradition in medical self-regulation, which should continue.
There is a real risk that giving CHAI a core task, which is what the amendment would do, of reviewing the "implementation of ethical principles" would cut right across the remit of the General Medical Council. It could lead to CHAI proposing a set of ethical principles that conflicted with guidance from the GMC. That might be inadvertent, but it could have the same consequence. It could also lead to duplication in inspection activities when we are trying to make the inspection of healthcare more efficient and less burdensome on the professions.
I sympathise with the sentiments behind the amendment, but I continue to believe that it is unnecessary and unworkable. Therefore, with the greatest respect, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I have listened carefully to the Minister and I am most grateful for the interventions from other noble Lords. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, was very clear that government policy must not produce dilemmas or pressures which would drive against the interests of the population to be served.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, also outlined the pressures on the NHS, particularly from the mentally ill and drug abusers. I am grateful, too, to the noble Lord, Lord Walton, for pointing out that these principles should be at the front of every healthcare professional's mind.
I hear what the Government say about the effect of the amendment and I hear their concerns that it could cut across the remit of professional bodies. I am most persuaded by the argument that there could be a risk of duplication of inspection activities or an increased burden from inspections. As it is, healthcare professionals are already bowed down with the amount of inspections. Perhaps that is the one argument given by the Minister which is beginning to persuade me that giving the task to CHAI may not be helpful.
I am also glad to hear that CHAI will have proper regard to appropriate decisions and procedures being in place for decision making. From the patient's perspective, the quality of healthcare is of concern, as well as their rights to entitlement of healthcare. CHAI

1887
will have the ability to look at clinical records. With those reassurances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 102 [Transfer of functions to CHAI and CSCI]:
Baroness Barker Baroness Barker moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 44, line 13, after "Part" insert "insofar as they do not carry out excepted treatment"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, on Report we had a most interesting debate about the interface between CHAI and CSCI. Noble Lords will perhaps recall the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, intervening in that debate. She helpfully enabled us to clarify that the point of most concern to noble Lords was the involvement of CHAI in the inspection of healthcare in settings that are primarily concerned with the provision of social care.
I expect that noble Lords, like me, have received a letter from the shadow chairs of CSCI and the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection, for which I am most grateful. To an extent, they have gone some considerable way towards addressing the fears expressed by noble Lords. However, I am not sure that they have managed to allay them altogether, in that they repeat many of the arguments made on previous occasions by the Minister.
My concern is not that CHAI should assume responsibility for the inspection of social care services; that is not an appropriate use of that body's experience or resources. My concern has always been that it should be involved in the inspection of the medical care given—perhaps not frequently and not to any great extent—in social care settings. The great disappointment of the letter from the shadow chairs of CSCI and CHAI is that they have failed to recognise that point. Had they admitted that, at the moment, there is a considerable problem which is not being addressed, perhaps I would feel more confident.
Only last week, yet another report was published that was almost unchanged from that produced some time ago by my honourable friend in another place, Mr Paul Burstow, about the overuse of sedation in residential homes. I do not believe that the people employed by CSCI will have the wherewithal to recognise or to deal with such issues. The letter goes on to discuss conditions such as diabetes, those which can be managed well and are unlikely to be life threatening. Indeed they are well managed, but it would be an inspection by representatives of CHAI rather than CSCI that would reveal the bad management or mismanagement of a diabetic condition, which could then become life threatening.
I take heart from and cannot ignore the undertaking given by the shadow chairs that they will seek to work together under the powers provided in Clauses 120 and 123, which places a duty on the two bodies to co-operate. However, I would be a great deal more convinced if the shadow chairs had detailed how they will go about doing that, in particular in the circumstances mentioned by noble Lords throughout our debates. There is an existing problem here.
I accept that providers that are principally providers of healthcare not in an acute setting do not wish to be burdened unnecessarily with inappropriate inspections by CSCI, but the lack of detail is what bedevils me. I hope that, in responding to the amendments, the Minister can put to rest some of my fears. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Baroness in all she has said. What concerns me most about this issue is that everything rests far too much on chance. Whether a particular clinic is to be regulated by CHAI or by CSCI often has little to do with logic and much more to do with an accident of history. As the noble Baroness pointed out, the dividing line between what is healthcare and what is social care is not one that can be drawn neatly or easily. Some treatment centres will end up being regulated by CHAI, while others will be the responsibility of CSCI. In such circumstances, where the basis of regulation is haphazard, then we must make an effort to introduce some consistency.
The Government favour CSCI as the regulator for the kinds of establishment we have been discussing. The Minister was right to say in Committee that such clinics focus to a great extent on nursing and personal care, but there is also an important element of acute medical intervention by doctors and specialists. If we do not regulate appropriately the medical care element as well as the nursing care element, then the effectiveness of those treatment centres will suffer.
The question is, therefore, which body is better equipped to undertake both kinds of regulation. I do not think that there is any doubt that it is CHAI. If, as we have been told, CHAI is to be the regulator for some of these establishments, then we need to ask whether the principle of consistency is better served by a conscious decision to make CHAI the regulator of them all.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I strongly support this group of amendments. I am concerned about the patient who finds himself in the wrong place of care. I refer in particular to the vulnerable patient who develops an acute medical condition which, if treated, is eminently reversible, but if left untreated may be life threatening or, more seriously, may leave the patient with an ongoing disability that worsens their overall condition and leaves them even more vulnerable. The difficulty here is that only a degree of expert knowledge will pick up the elements of clinical mismanagement that may be taking place, and I am not convinced by the previous arguments put forward that a socially orientated inspectorate will have either the background knowledge or the clinical acumen to spot such problems if they arise. I say that bearing in mind in particular those patients who may be languishing in the wrong type of institution because their clinical status has changed.

1889
We need to see very clearly defined roles and responsibilities for each of the inspectorates, along with working protocols and, I would hope, joint inspections. It is on that basis that I support the amendments.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I must respond to the amendments as they have been tabled on the Marshalled List. However, I do not deny that sometimes there are difficult issues of judgment to be made in relation to the regulatory arrangements about which the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, has expressed her concerns. I have expressed some sympathy for the thinking behind the amendments discussed at earlier stages. However, the amendments before the House do not solve the problem, and I should like to take noble Lords through the arguments.
The amendments would have the effect of giving CHAI the function of regulating under Part 2 of the Care Standards Act 2000 institutions carrying out "excepted treatments". I recall that it was unclear in Committee what the excepted treatments were to be and I am afraid that it remains unclear now. We have debated at length the difficulty in setting boundaries for regulation between health and social care. These amendments would take us no further forward in that debate, but would, if passed, fundamentally undermine the regulation of social care services to the detriment of service users. I shall come back to the letter which has been sent to noble Lords by the shadow chairs of the two inspection bodies.
The intended effect of the amendments is to make CHAI the regulator in the case of all services providing support to people with long-term conditions. I do not doubt the sincerity of noble Lords, but I believe that it would be fundamentally wrong and detrimental to the welfare of many thousands of people using these services to take such a step. To agree to the amendments would be, in effect, to wreck Part 2 of the Bill because they would drive a coach and horses through the system of registration set out in Part 2 of the Care Standards Act 2000.
This system of registration is based on the premise that establishments of a particular type must register as such before they may lawfully operate. Any relevant establishment which does not register will be operating unlawfully and its managers liable to prosecution. Accepting the amendments would mean that the identity of the commission with which the establishment in question was required to register could change on a regular basis, leading to complete confusion and making the registration system established by the Care Standards Act 2000 effectively inoperable.
I shall explain why this is so. Amendment No. 22 would defined "excepted treatment" as the,
"treatment of long-term conditions and substance and addictive behaviour treatment".
This is fraught with difficulties, as we discussed in some detail in Committee. The effect of the amendment is that a care home which has residents with long-term conditions would be regulated by CHAI rather than CSCI. That would be contrary to
1890
what all sides have previously accepted as "social care". The Bill does not define a "long-term condition" and so our advice is that it would most likely be interpreted by the courts to mean any medical condition, however manageable, which cannot be cured in the short to medium term, but can be managed with medication.
Let me give one or two examples to illustrate the concerns. There might be in a care home a resident over 65 who has mild diabetes—or, indeed, Parkinson's, as my mother has. These conditions are easily treated by self-medication, with or without the assistance of care home staff, but they are long-term conditions. Treatment for these kinds of conditions may require only intermittent intervention from a GP or other health professional but, on the other hand, because of their general age and infirmity, such persons might need constant personal care. Which is the prime need? In this instance, I would suggest it was personal care rather than healthcare and that CSCI should inspect.
Another example is that of people in care homes who are receiving services for alcohol or drug abuse. They may need some healthcare input but in the majority of cases counselling and support about their life circumstances and lifestyles will be equally important. Such counselling, as well as other support with personal care needs, is as fundamental to the successful treatment of substance abuse as any health support. This kind of counselling has always been considered as part of the social care provision of such services and I find it hard to see how these amendments would ensure the proper regulation of such provision. I could give many more examples but the two that I have given will suffice to support the point that I am trying to make.
I do not believe that it was the intention of noble Lords to bring the regulation of such services within the responsibility of CHAI, given that we are establishing CSCI and taking over responsibilities in social care. But that is the effect of the amendments. They call into question the legal basis of regulation currently applied under the Care Standards Act in a large array of cases. This would have truly perverse consequences and cause great confusion in the services.
There are more than 10,000 care homes in England providing homes to many tens of thousands of older people and adults. As I have explained, the amendment could also have implications for other types of registered services such as children's homes or domiciliary care agencies. I find it hard to believe that, in spite of the potential harm this would cause, especially to older people, noble Lords would want to throw the system of registration established by the Care Standards Act into such array.
The chairs of CSCI and CHAI have written to noble Lords to express their concerns about the amendments. It was their decision to do so. They were not put up to it by the Government. They have made those representations because of their concerns about

1891
the disarray that might be caused in this area. I hope that noble Lords will heed their concerns, even if they will not heed me.
As I stated in Committee, the Bill provides in Clauses 120 to 123 for co-operation and joint working between CSCI and CHAI. The intention is that the commissions should be able to plan to work together, to review the quality of any joint services provided by or for the NHS and local authorities and to share expertise where services regulated by either commission have substantial health or social care aspects. This allows, for example, CSCI to seek the assistance of CHAI when inspecting care homes or other social care services providing nursing or associated health services so that professional issues can be appropriately covered.
I ask the House to reconsider the issue very carefully. This is a potentially extremely damaging amendment, as the shadow chairs of both CHAI and CSCI have expressed to your Lordships.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. On behalf of all noble Lords, I should like to place on record our thanks to the shadow chairs of the two bodies for their letters and for their appreciation of the reasoning and concerns behind the amendments. It is heartening to know that there will be a commitment to co-operation from the chairs of those bodies.
I remain in great sympathy with the noble Earl, Lord Howe. The role that chance plays in the places in which people find themselves and the kinds of services they receive is immense. The blurring between nursing care and residential care is getting greater and greater all the time. There will have to be a step change in the degree of co-operation between CSCI and CHAI if we are ever to have the kind of system we need where the amount of inspection and regulation from each body can vary but is appropriate to the needs of patients. I continue to retain a great fear that people who are receiving what is primarily social care are being subjected to inappropriate medical procedures.
I have listened with great care to what the Minister said about the effect of the amendment on the implementation of the Care Standards Act and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 not moved. ]
Baroness Barker Baroness Barker moved Amendment No. 23:
Before Clause 113, insert the following new clause—
"COMPLAINTS

(1) Complaints under this Act may be made by an individual or a body of persons, whether incorporated or not, as specified in section 3.

(2) A complaint may be submitted in respect of—

(a) the exercise by an NHS body of any of its functions;

(b) the provision by any person of health care for which the body is responsible;

(c) the provision of an NHS service by a health professional supplied under private contract; and

1892

(d) the provision of services by the body or any other person in pursuance of arrangements made by the body under section 31 of the Health Act 1999 (c. 8) (arrangements between NHS bodies and local authorities) in relation to the exercise of the health-related functions of a local authority.

(3) A complaint may be initiated by—

(a) the aggrieved patient, or

(b) on behalf of the patient by—

(i) his personal representative;

(ii) a member of his family;

(iii) an independent advocate; or

(iv) some body or individual suitable to represent him.

(4) Where the patient lacks capacity, a complaint may be initiated independently by any person able to exercise an enduring power of attorney for the patient under the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act 1985 (c. 29) or successor legislation, or the patient's carer under the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995 (c. 12) or the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000 (c. 16) (or both), or their Guardian under the Mental Health Act 1983 (c. 20) or successor legislation."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I return, I hope for the last time, to the subject of complaints—a subject which is close to my heart. On Report, the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, made a characteristically thorough demolition of the amendments that I had brought forward on this subject. She will be delighted to know that I listened to every word she said and that I have come back with a carefully crafted amendment that addresses every point she put forward.
Why do I bother at this late stage of the debate? Because complaint procedures are an important part of patient protection and patient involvement in the healthcare system. While the noble Baroness, convincingly and at length, spoke about the benefits of having complaint procedures in regulations so that they can be changed, there is nothing on the face of the Bill which provides an enabling power to establish a complaints procedure. We believe that to be a major deficiency. The existing NHS complaints procedure is fraught with inefficiencies and does not work. When we move to the new system, as we will, it is important that we do so on the basis of a procedure that does work.
We have tried to address many deficiencies in the amendment. We referred to the role of CHAI. The Minister expressed concerns at an earlier stage that our amendment widened the field of complaint beyond individual patients, and so we have changed it to specify in subsections (3) and (4) who can make a complaint.
We spoke about how CHAI should take over responsibility for second stage health complaints and we have attempted to put right a number of the problems in the existing procedures. We want to ensure the independence of complaints procedures; we want to provide a mechanism for ensuring that feed-back is given to people who make complaints; and we want to drive up standards.
We have spoken about the need to integrate complaints procedures with ICAS and the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health proposals,

1893
which, I am delighted to report, are now known on the ground as "Chippy" proposals. We have spoken about fast-track procedures for the ombudsman stage of complaints where CHAI deems that to be appropriate and, crucially, we have spoken about harmonisation between health and social services complaints procedures.
One has only to talk to users out there for not a very long time to find that there are people who are battered back and forth between the two different parts of the complaints procedure and never get a satisfactory answer. It is the potential for being battered between different bodies—between CHAI and local complaints procedures—that may be a possible cause of huge dissatisfaction with the complaints procedure.
We talked again about the need for oral hearings. When people have complaints or, more than that, are simultaneously dealing with matters such as bereavement, the right to have an oral hearing can be extremely important to everyone concerned. So far, we believe that the Minister's promises about regulations have addressed some of our complaints. However, without that power in the Bill, we believe that there is a deficiency.
Finally, the legislation so far includes only complaints about NHS bodies; it does not refer to complaints procedures as they might apply to private contractors when services are contracted out.
For all those reasons, I hope that the Minister accepts that I have gone away and done my homework and presented her with a perfect amendment. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I share the sense of déjà vu that the noble Baroness clearly demonstrated. I was obviously far too helpful on Report. Her amendment is a good one but, I am afraid, not good enough. I want to explain why that is so, and to reiterate how much we share her concern that the process should be as robust, sensitive and effective as she said that it should be—and I could not improve on the way in which she said that. The complaints procedure needs to do exactly what it intends to do.
Clause 113(1) is intended to set out in general terms what a complaint under regulations may be about. Clause 115 expands on the types of provision that can be made in regulations. Amendment No. 23 would place a detailed provision in the Bill, stipulating precisely who might make a complaint under the regulations, while stating in slightly more detailed terms what a complaint may be about. I was hoping that I had been able to reassure noble Lords in Committee and on Report that the concerns they are raising through this amendment would be dealt with, and better dealt with, through regulations. This is not a question of the Government being perverse or obstructive; we are convinced of this case, and I shall say again why I believe that.
The amendment has attempted to address one of the deficiencies that I highlighted. The previous version did not address the question of capacity. However, the
1894
added wording on capacity highlights the fundamental problem with the amendment, because it adds too much detail. Subsection (4) of the amendment is over-prescriptive, and is not helpful about the persons who may make a complaint on behalf of a person who lacks capacity. Precisely because it would not be possible to modify provisions should circumstances change, the danger is that by having that in the Bill, we would make the system less rather than more accessible to such a person.
The regulation-making power in Clause 115 already allows the Secretary of State to make appropriate provision for persons making a complaint. Subsection (2) of the amendment adds nothing of substance to the existing provision in Clause 113(1). Subsection (l)(b) already covers all healthcare by or for an NHS body, including services commissioned from the independent sector. Therefore, I believe that the noble Baroness's point is covered.
With regard to the specific content of subsections (3) and (4) of the amendment, I assure the noble Baroness, as I did in Committee and on Report, that it is our intention that regulations will make provision to enable the types of person listed in those subsections to assist a complainant in bringing a complaint or, where appropriate, to bring a complaint on their behalf. We intend to consult fully on those regulations to ensure that they are as full and complete as possible. I must repeat again what I said in Committee and on Report—that subsection (3) of the amendment is not detailed enough. It makes little reference to the patient himself or herself, to his or her consent to having the complaint made, or the involvement that he or she might have in the process, despite the fact that the noble Baroness is a great champion of the consent process. We can do all that in regulations; that is the genius of the regulatory system.
Meanwhile, the relationship between subsections (3) and (4) of the amendment is not clear. It is unclear whether a member of a patient's family may initiate a complaint on behalf of a patient without capacity, as such a person, although specified in subsection (3), is not specified in subsection (4). That would create more problems than it solved. Subsection (4) sets out a precise list of which persons may make a complaint on behalf of someone who lacks capacity but does not allow scope for the list to be expanded or contracted, or for the person handling the complaint to exercise discretion over which persons should be allowed to act as representatives. That is why a broad regulation-making power such as is contained in Clause 115 will allow the Secretary of State scope to deal with the very complex issues of patient consent and incapacity in an appropriate way. It also means that the class of persons who may bring a complaint is appropriate and flexible, and not too narrow or too wide.
I reiterate that consultation is very important and that we have to get the process right. I conclude with a positive restatement of that. It is our role to ensure that the complaints procedures that we adopt truly reflect the needs of patients, service users and others who have an interest in the consideration of complaints. The Bill provides us with an opportunity, and we want to make the best possible use of that opportunity. To

1895
do that, we must consult widely on the content of the regulations so that we can be in a position to respond to comments received. It would be nonsense not to be able to do so. We must make changes when people come up with sound reasons for doing so. It would be a betrayal of what we were trying to do if we were not in a position to do that. Having the detail in the Bill suggested by the amendment would restrict our ability to respond to the results of the consultation. Indeed, we would have to amend primary legislation if specific changes were required. It would also disable us from dealing with future changes.
I do not really need to add the following, but I shall. At this stage in the parliamentary process, we could not be sure that any detailed provision we produced would be sufficient to cover all possible eventualities— for much the same reasons as I have had difficulties with the noble Baroness's amendment. I agree that the Government have the huge benefit of parliamentary counsel on their side, and the noble Baroness has shown enormous resilience and resourcefulness in returning again with the amendment. I wish that I could accept it, but I hope that she is finally persuaded by my arguments that the provisions are better done by regulation.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I would never accuse the Minister of being perverse or obstructive. I accept her argument. I believe that the discussion has been helpful and that, in fact, it has been helpful to have it repeatedly and in detail, because there is a great deal of concern out there about the scope and extent of the procedures. At this stage, I shall not treat the House to a summary of the upheaval going on around the ICAS project or the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health. There is a great deal of uncertainty out there about how complaints systems will work in practice. It has been good to hear the Minister's statements about the extent of the consultation and of the involvement that different people will have in the process.
Fair game to the Minister—she has parliamentary counsel on her side and I do not. Several noble Lords in the past few weeks have talked about the rugby, but those of us who are Scots or Welsh are far more interested in the football this week. Therefore, on that note, I shall say that it is a score draw to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 145 [Co-operation between Assembly and CHAI]:
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Lockwood): My Lords, I should point out that, if Amendment No. 24 is carried, I cannot call Amendment No. 25, under the pre-emption rule.
Baroness Andrews Baroness Andrews moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 65, line 7, leave out from "other" to "for" in line 8.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am pleased to speak to government Amendment No. 24 and to respond, at the same time, to Amendment No. 25, standing in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Howe.
When I spoke on Report to an earlier amendment of similar intent tabled by the noble Earl, I undertook to return with a government amendment to meet concerns expressed by him, by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and by other Members of your Lordships' House. Concerns were expressed that English NHS bodies that provided services to Welsh patients under commissioning arrangements made by Welsh NHS bodies—or, indeed, Welsh bodies providing services to English patients—might be the subject of conflicting or duplicated reviews or inspections by both CHAI and the Assembly and that none of that would be in the interests either of those running the health service or the patients themselves.
Government Amendment No. 24 meets the obligation I gave. It strengthens the duty of co-operation between the Assembly and CHAI in Clause 145 by removing all the qualifications. In that way, we are making it absolutely clear that CHAI and the Assembly must co-operate with regard to their relevant functions at all times and in all circumstances in order to avoid unnecessary overlaps or duplication. That will ensure that joint working and mutual support are in place, ensuring that patients' interests are served as well as they can be.
In effect, the government amendment goes rather further than the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. Clause 145, as it would be amended by the government amendment, requires, as I said, the Assembly and CHAI, without qualification,
"to co-operate with each other for the efficient and effective discharge of any relevant function".
They will be under an unequivocal duty to co-operate with respect to all their functions.
The amendment tabled by the noble Earl would seem to oblige the bodies to consult the other body on each occasion that it exercises a function that affects an English or Welsh body, as the case may be. Our amendment goes further. I would expect CHAI and the Assembly to co-operate with each other on the inspection planning process and as regards their general work plans for their proposed activities over a particular period, in order to anticipate and prevent things going wrong. So it is very much a positive and proactive power rather than a reactive power. We believe that it is preferable to give CHAI and the Assembly the widest scope to determine the precise method of co-operation. The Bill will be extremely clear on those points. I think that that is important as they are new bodies. HIW, in particular, is very much in its formative stage. The government amendment sends a crystal clear signal that that is what we expect to happen. As I believe that our amendment is preferable, I invite the noble Earl not to press his amendment. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, very briefly, this seems to me a neat amendment, and I welcome it. I agree that it is superior to the amendment that I tabled, for the reasons that the Minister gave. I certainly will not move my amendment.
We had a useful debate on Report in which the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and I raised separate but related concerns on cross-border issues. I know that

1897
the House was grateful to the Minister for saying that she would look at ways of strengthening the duty of co-operation contained in Clause 145. It has always seemed to me that, with the duty qualified as it is, the success of cross-border collaboration and the avoidance of duplication would depend on the extent to which CHAI and the Welsh inspectorate applied themselves to those issues. With the qualification removed, we can all have a lot more confidence that the potential problem areas will be eliminated or at least minimised.
I thank the noble Baroness for recognising the worries that I and a number of others have raised and for addressing them in the amendment.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I feel that the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, deserves congratulations on the way in which she has listened carefully to all the points and negotiated with both CHAI and the Assembly inspectorates. She has given a crystal clear signal that there must be collaboration and co-operation. All we can do now, other than support her amendment, is to wish those inspectorates well in the task that lies ahead of them. There has been a huge amount of work behind the scenes. I think that the amendment neatly addresses the concerns about the future direction which needed to be addressed.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, if I may, I should like to use this debate on cross-border co-operation to thank the noble Lord, Lord Warner, for a helpful letter he wrote in response to a question that I asked about whether Scottish-based patients would be able to use foundation hospitals in England. It was explained to me that, provided the Scottish health body commissioned work from a foundation hospital, that could take place, and that any Scottish-based patient who required accident and emergency help could receive it from an English hospital. I was grateful for that. Although it does not impinge upon CHAI, I hope that I will be forgiven for saying that.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 25 not moved. ]
5.45 p.m.
Clause 185 [Replacement of the Welfare Food Schemes: Great Britain]:
Baroness Andrews Baroness Andrews moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 104, line 39, at end insert—
"( ) The Secretary of State may not make a statutory instrument containing the first set of regulations made under subsection (1) unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am pleased to move this amendment, which was anticipated on Report. We appreciate that noble Lords felt that there was insufficient detail about our proposals for reform of the Welfare Food Scheme to enable them to be confident that it was appropriate for regulations made under subsection (1) to be subject to negative, rather than affirmative, resolution. We had good debates in Committee and on Report about the emerging scheme.
As I promised on Report, we have considered again the level of parliamentary scrutiny that should be applied to the regulations.
Our amendment will require the first set of regulations made under subsection (1) to be laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament. That will ensure that each House has full opportunity to consider carefully the regulations and to debate them. Of course—it goes without saying, but I shall say it—it is still our intention to consult fully all those with an interest in the content of the regulations before they are laid. I hope that noble Lords will find that acceptable. I look forward to our first debate on the affirmative regulations. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, it is with much pleasure that I thank the noble Baroness for listening to the concerns raised at earlier stages of the Bill and for fulfilling her undertaking to table the amendment, which I warmly welcome.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 187 [Appointments to certain health and social care bodies]:
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 106, line 25, at end insert—
"( ) Nothing in this section applies in relation to the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection or the Commission for Social Care Inspection."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to speak to all the government amendments in the group. Amendments Nos. 44 to 46, 48 to 50, 53 to 59, 61 and 64 in this group were tabled following your Lordships' decision on Report. They ensure that a special health authority rather than the Secretary of State will be responsible for appointing the chair and members of CHAI and CSCI. In practice, we intend to give that task to the NHS Appointments Commission, which, at present, is the special health authority charged with the making of appointments to NHS bodies. I will return presently to the issue of why we have not named the NHS Appointments Commission in the Bill.
Given the amendments we are proposing in relation to the role of the Secretary of State, Assembly officials have agreed that it would be inappropriate for the Assembly to continue to maintain the power to appoint a member to the board of CHAI. Consequently, the amendments make similar provision in relation to the Assembly's powers to appoint a member of CHAI. We have also provided that other functions of the Secretary of State relating to appointment or removal may be delegated to the special health authority. That was previously dealt with in Clause 187, but it seemed more logical to deal with the entire position concerning those functions in Schedules 5 and 6, rather than partly in Clause 187 and partly in the schedules.
Amendment No. 27 is a technical amendment that clarifies that Clause 187, which gives the Secretary of State a general power to delegate appointment functions in relation to health and social care bodies to a special health authority, does not apply to CHAI and

1899
CSCI, as the exercise of such functions in relation to CHAI and CSCI is now dealt with in Schedules 5 and 6.
We are also proposing Amendments Nos. 51, 52, 62 and 63, which are technical in nature. The amendments clarify that the Secretary of State or the Assembly, in the case of CHAI, may remove a member from office where it comes to light after he has been appointed that he was disqualified from appointment at the time he was appointed.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I give a clarificatory explanation in relation to why the NHS Appointments Commission is not named specifically, which I think is probably the intention behind Amendments Nos. 43 and 60 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. However, the noble Baroness shakes her head so I shall not delay the House further. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, it is very good of the Minister to offer to give that explanation. However, in view of the Minister's earlier remarks, I am perfectly prepared to accept not only the letter but also the spirit of the amendments that he has tabled. I thank him for responding in this way to the decision of the House on Report. I am sure that the amendments will be extremely welcome to noble Lords on all sides of the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 195 [Orders and regulations]:
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 109, line 20, after "section" insert "26,"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 199 [Commencement]
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 110, line 22, leave out "section 57" and insert "sections 57 and 61"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 29, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 30. As a consequence of the removal or addition of clauses to Part 2 I am tabling consequential amendments to the commencement of Part 2 provisions under Clause 199. These are technical amendments being made for purely practical purposes to ensure that the revised Bill can be commenced in the appropriate manner. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 110, line 23, leave out "and 139" and insert", 139 and 141"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Independent Regulator of NHS Foundation Trusts]:
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 114, line 5. leave out sub-paragraph (2).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 31, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 65.
Amendments Nos. 32 and 35 are technical amendments. They ensure that the chair of the Office of the Independent Regulator will have access to the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PCSPS) if he has previously been a member of that scheme. The wording is taken from the Pensions Act 1995. Without this amendment there would have been doubt over his eligibility for the scheme if he were not already an active member on becoming the chair.
Amendment No. 37 amends the Superannuation Act 1972 by adding the Office of the Independent Regulator to the list of bodies that can admit employees to the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme. Under the current arrangements in the Bill, staff transferring to the Office of the Independent Regulator who were already members of the scheme would be able to remain members of that scheme upon transfer. This amendment will ensure that all staff members will be able to join the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme irrespective of whether they have previously contributed to the scheme.
Amendment No. 37 also ensures that the Minister for the Civil Service is reimbursed for expenses incurred in the participation of his staff in the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme. Amendment No. 65 makes similar provision in respect of CHAI and CSCI. These are technical amendments and introduce standard wording for bodies that can admit members to the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme.
Amendments Nos. 31, 33, 34 and 36 are consequential to Amendment No. 37. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendments Nos. 32 to 37:
Page 114, line 12, leave out "a participant in" and insert "an active or deferred member of"
Page 114, line 14, leave out from "chairman" to end of line.
Page 114, line 16, leave out from "chairman" to end of line.
Page 114, line 18, leave out "was a participant" and insert "is a member"
Page 114, line 19, leave out "or 4(2)"
Page 114, line 19, at end insert—
"(3) Employment with the regulator is to be included among the kinds of employment to which a scheme under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 (c.ll) can apply; and accordingly in Schedule 1 to that Act (in which those kinds of employment are listed), at the end of the list of Other Bodies there is inserted—
"The Independent Regulator of NHS Foundation Trusts".
(4) The regulator must pay to the Minister for the Civil Service, at such times as the Minister may direct, such sums as he may determine in respect of any increase attributable to sub-paragraph (2) or (3) in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under the Superannuation Act 1972 (c. 11)."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I have to point out that if Amendment No. 38 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 39 under the pre-emption rule.
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 115, line 11, leave out from "year" to end of line 13.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we listened to the persuasive arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, in Committee on the importance of a summarised account of NHS foundation trusts and responded by introducing amendments to this effect on Report.
However, the noble Baroness spotted a technical error in the government amendments—I am sure that my noble friend Lord McIntosh will look forward to her spotting similar amendments when she moves jobs—which meant that the summarised accounts of NHS foundation trusts would be one year in arrears. I should like to take this opportunity to thank the noble Baroness for her attention to detail.
Amendments Nos. 38, 40, 41 and 42 replace those made on Report, and ensure that the summary of NHS foundation trust accounts is prepared as soon as the regulator receives the accounts from individual NHS foundation trusts. Given that we have tabled these amendments which have a similar effect to Amendment No. 39, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to accept these amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I just say thank you.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Andrews Baroness Andrews moved Amendments Nos. 40 to 42:
Page 115, line 15, leave out "each" and insert "the"
Page 115, line 16, leave out "them" and insert "it"
Page 115, line 16, at end insert—
"( ) The regulator must in respect of each financial year prepare a report which provides an overall summary of the accounts of NHS foundation trusts.
( ) The report must be prepared as soon as possible after the regulator has received the accounts of all NHS foundation trusts for the relevant financial year.
( ) The regulator must—

(a) lay a copy of the report before Parliament, and

(b) once it has done so, send a copy of it to the Secretary of State."

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 5 [CHAI: supplementary]:
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, there is a printing error in Amendment No. 44. The amendment should refer to line 28 and not line 29. I shall therefore call Amendment No. 44 next. I shall then call Amendment No. 43.
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 131, line 29, leave out "body specified in section 187(3)" and insert "relevant Special Health Authority"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 43 not moved. ]
Baroness Andrews Baroness Andrews moved Amendments Nos. 45 and 46:
Page 131, line 30, leave out from first "the" to end of line and insert "relevant Special Health Authority who appears to that Authority"
Page 131, line 32, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "relevant Special Health Authority"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 47 not moved. ]
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendments Nos. 48 to 58:
Page 131, line 32, at end insert—
"(1A) In paragraph (a) and (c) of sub-paragraph (1), "relevant Special Health Authority" means the Special Health Authority which is directed by the Secretary of State to exercise the function of appointment under that paragraph.
(1B) In paragraph (b) of sub-paragraph (1), "relevant Special Health Authority" means the Special Health Authority which is directed by the Assembly to exercise the function of appointment under that paragraph.".
Page 131, line 34, leave out "by him"
Page 131, line 38, leave out "by it"
Page 132, line 5, leave out "has become disqualified from holding office" and insert "is disqualified from holding office (or was disqualified at the time of his appointment)"
Page 132, line 12, leave out "become" and insert "are"
Page 132, line 18, at end insert—
"( ) The Secretary of State may direct the Special Health Authority referred to in sub-paragraph (1 A) to exercise so much of any function of his under sub-paragraph (2) or under regulations under sub-paragraph (5) as may be specified in the direction.
( ) The Assembly may direct the Special Health Authority referred to in sub-paragraph (1B) to exercise so much of any function of the Assembly under sub-paragraph (?) or under regulations under sub-paragraph (5) as may be specified in the direction.
( ) The Special Health Authority referred to in sub-paragraph (1A) must consult the Assembly before exercising the function of appointment under sub-paragraph (l)(a) or (c); and the Special Health Authority referred to in sub-paragraph (1B) must consult the Secretary of State before exercising the function of appointment under sub-paragraph (l)(b)."
Page 132, line 20, leave out "this paragraph" and insert "sub-paragraph (2) or (5)"
Page 132, line 22, leave out "the preceding provisions of this paragraph" and insert "sub-paragraph (3) or (5)"
Page 132, line 23, leave out sub-paragraph (9).
Page 132, line 25, leave out "If directions are given under sub-paragraph (9)" and insert "Where directions are given under this paragraph to a Special Health Authority"
Page 132, line 30, at end insert—
"( ) Subsections (4) and (5) of section 187 apply in relation to directions under this paragraph as they apply in relation to directions under subsection (2) of that section."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 6 [CSCI: supplementary]:
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 135, line 13, leave out "body specified in section 187(4)" and insert "relevant Special Health Authority."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 60 not moved. ]
Lord Warner Lord Warner> moved Amendments Nos. 61 to 64:
Page 135, line 13, at end insert—
"(1A) In sub-paragraph (1), "relevant Special Health Authority" means the Special Health Authority which is directed by the Secretary of State to exercise the function of appointment under that sub-paragraph.".
Page 135, line 19, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
"(c) is disqualified from holding office (or was disqualified at the time of his appointment)."
Page 135, line 26, leave out "become" and insert "are"
Page 135, line 31, at end insert—
"( ) The Secretary of State may direct the Special Health Authority referred to in sub-paragraph (1 A) to exercise so much of any function of his under sub-paragraph (2) or under regulations under sub-paragraph (3) as may be specified in the direction.
( ) Where directions are given under this paragraph to a Special Health Authority, the 1977 Act has effect as if—

(a) the directions were directions under section 16D of that Act for the exercise of functions relating to the health service, and, accordingly,

(b) the functions were exercisable by the Special Health Authority under that section.

( ) Subsections (4) and (5) of section 187 apply in relation to directions under this paragraph as they apply in relation to directions under subsection (2) of that section."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Part 2: minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 140, line 16, at end insert—
"5A The CHAI and the CSCI must each pay to the Minister for the Civil Service, at such times as the Minister may direct, such sums as he may determine in respect of any increase attributable to paragraph 5 in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under the Superannuation Act 1972 (c. 11)."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 13 [Repeals and revocations]:
Baroness Andrews Baroness Andrews moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 168, line 26, at end insert—

"National Health Service Reform and Health Care
Professions Act 2002 (c. 17)

In section 15(1), the "and" before paragraph (b)."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Business
Lord Grocott: My Lords, before the next business, I want to make a brief announcement about proceedings tomorrow. As your Lordships will know, the House of Commons is currently considering our amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill, and a list of Commons reasons and amendments will be available in the Printed Paper Office tomorrow morning from nine o'clock. Peers who wish to table amendments or motions for tomorrow's consideration of Commons amendments on the Criminal Justice Bill should do so in the Public Bill office before noon tomorrow.

Extradition Bill
6 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments and reason be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments and reason be now considered.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal. )
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO CERTAIN LORDS
AMENDMENTS, COMMONS REASON FOR
DISAGREEING TO A LORDS AMENDMENT AND
COMMONS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU OF CERTAIN
OTHER LORDS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to HL Bill 50 (Rev) as first printed for the Lords. ]

LORDS AMENDMENT
3 Clause 2, page 2, line 12, leave out from "including" to end of line 14 and insert "a description of the circumstances in which the offence was committed, including the time, place and degree of participation in the offence by the requested person, the nature and legal classification of the offence and the applicable statutory provision;"
The Commons agree to this amendment with the following amendments—
3A Line 1, leave out "a description of the circumstances in which the offence was committed, including' and insert 'the conduct alleged to constitute the offence,"
3B Line 3, after "time" insert "and"
3C Line 3, leave out "and degree of participation in the offence by the requested person' and insert 'at which he is alleged to have committed the offence and"
3D Line 4, leave out "the nature and legal classification of the offence and the applicable statutory provision' and insert 'any provision of the law of the category 1 territory under which the conduct is alleged to constitute an offence"
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 3A to 3D to Lords Amendment No. 3.
I invite your Lordships to agree to amendments which another place made to the amendment that was pressed in this House on Report. The other place was happy to accept the Government's proposals in that regard, and I hope that noble Lords will take a similar approach.
In putting forward our proposals, the Government sought to try to preserve the spirit of the amendment that your Lordships made while using language suitable for a piece of UK legislation. What we are concerned with is the information that an incoming Part 1 warrant should contain. In the Government's view, the Bill was already explicit on that point, but we appreciate that noble Lords took a different view.
In particular, your Lordships decided to import some wording from the framework decision on the European arrest warrant directly into the Bill. We have no objection to the principle, but it seemed much more sensible to use language which would be readily understood by people in this country and which has been prepared by our expert Parliamentary Counsel.

1905
The amendments to the amendment which were made in another place remove the requirement that the warrant should contain details of,
"the nature and legal classification of the offence and the applicable statutory provision".
That was replaced by,
"any provision of the law of the category 1 territory under which the conduct is alleged to constitute an offence".
I hope that your Lordships will recognise that as a slightly neater and more straightforward formulation. I should make it clear, for the avoidance of doubt, that there is already a separate requirement to give details of the sentence that could be passed.
Similarly, the amendments in another place replaced,
"a description of the circumstances in which the offence was committed",
with details of,
"the conduct alleged to constitute the offence".
Again, it is the same requirement but simply expressed rather more neatly and in keeping with how our legislation is normally drafted.
One part of the amendment passed by your Lordships was removed without replacement in another place, which was that a warrant should contain information about the,
"degree of participation in the offence by the requested person".
We did not really understand what was meant by that or its relevance. For extradition purposes, it does not matter if the person is the ringleader or an accomplice, provided that the person is alleged to have committed an extradition crime. To use the example used by my honourable friend Caroline Flint in the other place, does it matter whether the person was waving the sawn-off shotgun at the bank teller or driving the getaway car? Clearly, that may be an important consideration at the eventual trial and in determining sentences to be imposed, but for the purposes of extradition to another EU country we do not think it of the first importance.
As I have tried to indicate, the Government sought, so far as possible, to accept the spirit of the amendment. I am pleased to say that that was accepted in its entirety by Members of another place without dissension or division. I very much hope that noble Lords will similarly give the amendments a warm welcome.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 3A to 3D to Lords Amendment No. 3.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal. )
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
26 Clause 20, page 10, line 26, at end insert—

"(8) For the purposes of subsection (5), the judge should not regard as a retrial or (on appeal) a review amounting to a retrial, any proceedings that do not in particular include provision for—

(a) the suspect to be present at the retrial;

(b) the suspect to have like rights to hear and examine witnesses as he would have done at the original trial;

1906

(c) the suspect to have the same right to publicly funded legal services as any suspect or defendant."

The Commons disagree to this amendment but propose the following amendment in lieu—
26A Clause 20, page 10, line 26, at end insert—

"(8)The judge must not decide the question in subsection (5) in the affirmative unless, in any proceedings that it is alleged would constitute a retrial or a review amounting to a retrial, the person would have these rights—

(a) the right to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he had not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so required;

(b) the right to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him."

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 26 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 26A in lieu thereof.
Your Lordships will have seen that all the amendments are concerned with convictions in absentia. The Bill provides that, in a case where the person has been convicted in absentia and did not deliberately absent himself, we cannot extradite unless the person is guaranteed a retrial or a review amounting to a retrial on his return. The amendments were agreed on Report in the Lords to try to make that clear in the Bill. We are again broadly accepting the spirit of the amendments, but using different wording that draws more closely on the wording of the ECHR.
We are not accepting one element of the amendments, as they would have given the person an entitlement to be present at the retrial. Although that appears unobjectionable, we have to recognise that the court must have the right to remove an abusive or disruptive person, so we do not believe that we can grant an automatic entitlement.
The wording that we have adopted has been drawn straight from Article 6.3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, so it certainly has impeccable pedigree, although I should repeat my concern about it being seen to highlight particular parts of the ECHR. I want to make it plain that we consider that all parts of the ECHR bite on the provisions of the Bill, and that nothing contained in it dilutes that reality.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for giving such clear direction to his colleagues in the other place in relation to other matters.
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 26 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 26A in lieu thereof.— (Baroness Scotland of Asthal. )
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the amendments on retrial. I accept the Government's reasons for omitting the section that does not appear in their redrafted amendments, where we required the defendant to be present. We discussed that at some length in Committee and on Report. I

1907
certainly appreciated the comments made by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, in particular, with regard to the practical difficulties that can ensue if one has an obstreperous defendant. It might appear in that person's interests to ensure that he is not present, as it might scuttle what is otherwise a very proper trial.
We also were concerned to find some way to redraft the retrial provisions so that they preserved the proper fairness and equitable procedure that one would want at a retrial, without in any way making provisions that would jeopardise that trial. The Government have achieved that. I note precisely what the Minister said with regard to the way in which all the articles on human rights are to be taken seriously. We, too, take them all seriously but it was right to focus on the particular explanation of retrial. I certainly welcome the amendments.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the provisions were moved in an amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, but we supported them. We on these Benches are also happy with the version of the amendment now proposed by the Government.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
27 After Clause 21, Insert the following new Clause—
"Minimum procedural rights

(1) In reaching a decision under section 21(1) the judge shall have particular regard to the person's Convention rights under Article 6.3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the judge may accept a written assurance from an appropriate authority in the category 1 territory in which the warrant was issued that the person's Convention rights under Article 6.3 will be observed.

(3) Where a written assurance has been given under subsection (2), the Secretary of State shall make arrangements to monitor the subsequent conduct of the proceedings against the person in the territory to which he has been extradited.

(4) If the Secretary of State believes as a result of monitoring under subsection (3) that a person's Convention rights under Article 6.3 have not been observed, he may draw that conclusion to the attention of a judge acting under section 21 in relation to any proceedings for the extradition of any other person to the same category 1 territory."

The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
27 A Because it would not be appropriate to provide for the giving of an assurance, or for monitoring, of the kind described in the Lords Amendment.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 27 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 27A.
The new clause was inserted on a very narrow vote, as noble Lords will remember, by your Lordships on Report. I said on that occasion that I thought the clause unworkable and inappropriate, which is the very term which the Members of the other place use in their reason. I regret to tell the House that that remains the Government's view.
1908
I can be fairly brief because, on consideration of Lords amendments in the Commons on 13th November, my honourable friend Caroline Flint demonstrated in a masterly exposition precisely the difficulties attendant on the new clause. If your Lordships wish further enlightenment, by reading Hansard they will see that she went through every subsection and explained why it would not sit well in the Bill. For that reason, I do not intend to entertain your Lordships today with a recitation.
My honourable friend set out why it was inadvisable to single out one particular sub-article of the ECHR. She showed why we should not give my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, or any other Secretary of State who follows him, the monitoring role for which the amended Bill would have provided. She enumerated all the dangers that would flow from making the Secretary of State effectively a party to extradition proceedings.
However, I hope that your Lordships will be comforted to know that you do not have to rely on my logic or that of my honourable friend. During Commons consideration of Lords amendments, Mr Alistair Carmichael, the Liberal Democrat spokesman, revealed the contents of a memorandum which he had been sent by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. Apparently in respect of this amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, had written:
"The Government says that the new clause is unworkable (probably correctly!)".— [Official Report, Commons, 13/11/03; col. 446.]
I unreservedly agree with the noble Lord's assessment. I am grateful that Mr Carmichael decided to put this in the public domain, even if I can appreciate that the noble Lord would have preferred that he remained silent on the issue.
When your Lordships passed the amendment, the Government did, of course, look very hard to see whether any kind of compromise was possible, but I regret to say that, like the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, we concluded that none could be forthcoming. The Bill already provides that the judge is required to consider whether extradition would be compatible with the person's ECHR rights, and that relates to all articles of the ECHR and not just Article 6.3.
It would simply be impossible to provide for the Secretary of State to undertake a monitoring role of trials held overseas, to say nothing of the potential abuse of sovereignty that that would entail. However, most seriously of all, the new clause sought to require the Secretary of State to intervene in, and become a party to, extradition cases. Under our current arrangements, the Secretary of State very deliberately acts in a quasi-judicial capacity in extradition cases and to depart from that would be dangerous.
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 thought it necessary for the Secretary of State to monitor their internal systems.

1909
Ultimately, we have to decide whether or not we trust our extradition partners. We have had that trust in other European countries for more than 100 years. If we do trust them, we should be prepared to extradite to them without putting in place a complicated monitoring system, as envisaged by this new clause.
It was for those reasons that the other place decided to remove the new clause and I hope that your Lordships will see the wisdom of their decision and agree with them. I am confident of the position expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and I believe that I can have similar confidence in the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay.
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 27, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 27A.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal. )
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I have a certain regret at seeing the last of this new clause and at some suitable time I may have words with my honourable friend for being perhaps a little too frank about what I had passed to him in an e-mail.
Undoubtedly, the real protection for people against whom extradition is sought is Clause 21. That makes it a ground that to order extradition would involve a breach of the person's convention rights under the ECHR. Those include rights under Article 6.3. The purpose of the new clause was to simplify the matter and avoid some of the problems. In my view, it is clear that defendants against whom extradition is sought will rely strongly on Clause 21 as grounds for objecting to extradition. I therefore suggested that matters might be simplified and speeded up if it were possible for an overseas territory seeking extradition to say, "You do not need to go into the whole question of whether our procedures generally meet up with the rights because we will give an undertaking that in this case the rights will be fully observed.".
It is fair to say that not many states would have done that because, by implication, it suggests that their proceedings in general do not meet up with convention standards. It may be that most of the other territories would have been unwilling to accept that implication. However, I do not see that that would have involved the Secretary of State as a party to proceedings because his role would have come in only at a later stage and only if the overseas territory had chosen to rely on subsection (2).
However, I see—and I have from the beginning—that there are certain practical difficulties in the clause and on the balance of what the Government have done it is not an issue I would want to press. I want to draw attention to the fact that the Government have not chosen to reverse what I regard as the more important amendments we made to the Bill; those leaving out the gold plating and the abolition of the dual criminality rule. They are important amendments and I am pleased that the Government have allowed them to stand. In those circumstances, I have no wish to press further the retention of Clause 22.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for his generosity in highlighting what we have achieved together. I want also to thank the Front Bench of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for the way in which she has done the job so well. I thank, too, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I also thank my noble friends Lord Bassam and Lord Filkin for the sterling way in which they have supported me with the Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
111 Clause 84, page 45, line 7, at end insert—

"(8) For the purposes of subsection (5), the judge should not regard as a retrial or (on appeal) a review amounting to a retrial, any proceedings that do not in particular include provision for—

(a) the suspect to be present at the retrial;

(b) the suspect to have like rights to hear and examine witnesses as he would have done at the original trial;

(c) the suspect to have the same right to publicly funded legal services as any suspect or defendant."

The Commons disagree to this amendment but propose the following amendment in lieu—
111A Clause 84, page 45, line 7, at end insert—

"(8) The judge must not decide the question in subsection (5) in the affirmative unless, in any proceedings that it is alleged would constitute a retrial or a review amounting to a retrial, the person would have these rights—

(a) the right to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he had not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so required;

(b) the right to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him."

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords. I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 111 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in Amendment No. 111A in lieu thereof. I have spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 26A.
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 111 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 111A in lieu thereof.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal. )
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I mentioned earlier that it was hoped we would be able to begin consideration of Commons amendments to the Sexual Offences Bill at 6.45 p.m. That remains the position and I therefore beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until that time.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 6.19 to 6.45 p.m. ]

Sexual Offences Bill [H.L.]
A message was brought from the Commons, That they agree to certain Lords amendments to Commons amendments without amendment; they do not insist on a certain Commons amendment to which your Lordships have disagreed and agree to your Lordships' amendment in lieu thereof without amendment; they do not insist on a certain other Commons amendment to which your Lordships have disagreed but propose an amendment in lieu thereof to which they desire the agreement of your Lordships; and they disagree to the remaining amendment made by your Lordships in lieu of words left out of the Bill by a Commons amendment for which they have assigned a reason.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons message be considered forthwith.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS REASON FOR DISAGREEING TO A LORDS AMENDMENT, AND A COMMONS AMENDMENT IN LIEU OF A COMMONS AMENDMENT NOT INSISTED UPON
[ The page and line refer to HL Bill 128 as first printed for the Commons. ]

LORDS AMENDMENT
1A Clause 2, 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 Commons disagree to the amendment proposed by the Lords in lieu of the words left out of the Bill by Commons Amendment No. 1 for the following reason—
1B Because it is unnecessary to make provision for the anonymity of suspects and defendants.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1A to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 1B.
We recognise the difficulties associated with this area of law. Being accused of a sex offence often carries with it 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.
Amendment No. 1C in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, seeks to provide anonymity to a person suspected of an offence under this Bill up to the point of charge. It also provides for circumstances whereby the reporting restrictions can be lifted either by the suspect or by a magistrates' court, including a single justice, upon application by a police officer of the rank of inspector or above or an equivalent Customs and Excise officer. It provides for a penalty of a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale. There are definitions of "publication" and "relevant programme" which follow those set out in the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.
There are a number of deficiencies in relation to this amendment. It limits its scope to sexual offences under the Bill. That statement is ambiguous. It is not clear whether it is intended to cover offences in Part 1 of the Bill only or to include those set out in Part 2 as well. It also does not make clear whether it includes offences of aiding, abetting and counselling, and so on. If the provision is limited to offences in Part 1 of the Bill, that means that sexual offences set out in previous Acts will not be covered by reporting restrictions and nor will offences relating to child pornography under the Protection of Children Act 1978, with no obvious reason why that is so.
There is no defence for the commission of the offence, except where a relevant programme is broadcast live. Therefore, the proprietor of a newspaper would commit an offence if one of his staff revealed a suspect's identity, even if he had no knowledge of that whatever. It might be said that the penalty is only a fine and that therefore it is justifiable to create a strict liability offence in those circumstances. Regrettably, we do not agree. It should not be forgotten that the result would be that the proprietor would have a criminal record.
Amendment No. 1C provides that anonymity can be lifted by the court only on application of the police at the rank of inspector or above or an equivalent Customs and Excise officer. That would place an undue burden and difficulty on the enforcement authority investigating the crime. It would also mean that the victim or the press would not be able to apply for the defendant's anonymity to be lifted. It would also be most unfortunate for any amendment on anonymity to be made to Clause 2. Such provisions immediately following a clause on the matter of rape would fail to show sensitivity to the victim of such a crime and would give undue prominence to this issue. The clause seems properly to belong at the beginning of Part 3 of the Bill.

1913
We have listened very carefully to the representations from those concerned about the real harm that can be caused by the reporting of defendants' details. We also recognise that much concern in such 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.
Agreement has been reached with ACPO that it will amend its media and disciplinary guidelines to all forces to give greater prominence to the rules that govern the release of information about anyone suspected of, but not yet charged with, an offence. That stronger guidance has already been put into effect, bringing the importance of the issue to the attention of police officers.
The Government have held creative and constructive 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 it can be strengthened to ensure that those suspected of but not yet charged with offences are not named in the media. The Government have gone much further than the proposed amendment.
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 amendment.
We understand why the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has sought—properly, in his view—to press the amendments. We understand, too, the mischief that he wishes to see cured. We clearly wish to address that ourselves. We will address it through the regulation that will be put in place. The Government will continue to work positively with the media and ACPO to ensure that self-regulation is adhered to.
Notwithstanding the unkind analysis that I have had to make of the amendment, I assure the noble Lord that I understand why he sought to craft something that might be a little better than that brought forward before. I am so sorry that he does not appear to have succeeded.
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 1A to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason 1B.— (Baroness Scotland of Asthal. )
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 1A to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 1B, at end insert "but do propose the following amendment in lieu of Lords Amendment No. 1A—
1C Clause 2, Insert the following new Clause—
"Anonymity of suspects in certain cases

(1) This section applies (subject to subsection (5)) where an allegation has been made that a sexual offence under this Act has been committed by a person, the disclosure of whose identity is not otherwise restricted by law.

1914

(2) 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 that person is charged or the criminal investigation has been completed and a decision not to charge the person has been made.

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

(a) the author or broadcaster, if the publication or relevant programme took place with their consent,

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

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

(d) in the case of 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 ofa newspaper,

shall be guilty of an offence triable summarily and punishable by a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

(4) Where a relevant programme is broadcast live, it shall be a defence for any body corporate or editor referred to in subsection (3)(d) to show on the balance of probabilities that it took such steps as were reasonably practicable to ensure that no matter was included in the programme in contravention of subsection (2).

(5) Subsection (1) shall not apply—

(a) if the person against whom the allegation was 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, or a customs and excise officer of equivalent rank.

(6) The power under subsection (5)(b) of a magistrates' court in England and Wales may be exercised by a single justice.

(7) In this section the expressions "publication" and "relevant programme" have the same meaning as that given to them in section 63(1) of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.""

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Minister referred to an unkind analysis of my amendment. Her analysis is not simply unkind, but wrong. I propose to set out why I believe that.
The reason given by the Commons for disagreeing to the amendment was that it was unnecessary to make provision for the anonymity of suspects and defendants. We totally disagree with that. The press codes that have applied in the past have failed to work, and it is time that Parliament took the responsibility of ensuring that people who may very well be innocent and never be charged enjoy anonymity in respect of terrible allegations made against them. The noble Baroness said that it applied only to sex cases. We say that such cases attract the most publicity, and, whether the allegation is established or a charge brought, such publicity results in considerable pain and anguish to a suspect. It can result in the ruination of his reputation and the destruction of his family life. Therefore, sexual offences are distinct for that reason.
They are distinct for a second reason. As we said in earlier debates on these provisions, the complainant who may well be lying, as happens in sex cases, is granted anonymity throughout, no matter the result of

1915
the case. So a person who is acquitted at the end of a trial, or who is never charged, may go through pain and anguish while the complainant herself has the cloak of anonymity.
I turn to the specific criticisms made of the Bill. In subsection (1) of my amendment to the Motion, we have made it clear that an allegation may refer to any sexual offence in the Bill. The noble Baroness said that we had not made it clear whether that covered Part 1 or Part 2. A sexual offence under this Bill clearly covers both Part 1 and Part 2.
The second criticism was that the author, publisher or programme editor, if it is a broadcast, will be punished and that they cannot be held responsible for faults of people under them. At the same time, the Government talk about introducing manslaughter against the directors and controllers of a company to make people responsible for the deaths of victims who may die as a result of negligence that has nothing to do with the management or the people who are charged. So the Government speak with one voice in that area and with another voice in this area. It is perfectly right that a publisher, an editor, or the person in control of a programme or the body that produces a television programme should be made responsible for offences of this nature, because unless the people at the very top carry that responsibility, nothing will be done to put in place the controls.
In our subsection (4) we have recognised that, with a live broadcast, a defence for such a person could be to show, on the balance of probabilities, that the body corporate or the editor took such steps as was reasonably practicable to ensure that no matter was included in the programme in contravention of the subsection. That provision has been put in for the reason mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, on the previous occasion that we discussed the matter; that in the course of a live broadcast—as happened in one very well publicised case—a guest may say something that indicates the identity of a person charged with an offence. In those circumstances it would be unfair for a television company, a radio company or an editor of a programme to carry the can.
We recognise that, but in relation to those within the chain of command, headed up by the editor and by the publisher, we believe that the responsibility has to lie with them. I will be interested to see whether the noble Baroness can justify in any way the Government's policy in seeking to make the heads of companies liable for manslaughter and at the same time make the argument that she has made in this case.
The noble Baroness also criticises this amendment for not referring to aiders and abettors. She knows that it is possible to charge anyone with aiding and abetting an offence. I considered that point. I am aware of the aiders and abettors Act; I cannot give the date of it but it is very familiar to me. It is certainly perfectly possible for a person to be charged with aiding and abetting an offence of this kind and to stand trial for that. The kind of person whom I have in mind is the police officer who leads an investigation and leaks to the press, as has happened, the details of a person who is a suspect. The
1916
noble Baroness says that they will put in place the press code although, interestingly, she said that they had not finally agreed on it. So the amendment is rejected without our knowing what will be put in its place.
Finally, a criticism made on the last occasion was that an application to a magistrates' court would involve some delay. For that reason, we have included subsection (6) so that an application by a police officer of the rank of at least an inspector can be made to a single justice, if necessary in his own home. It is not necessary to convene the court within the precincts of a magistrates' court for a magistrate to make an order. So the criticism of delay made the last time can no longer be made of this amendment.
I do not know why the Government take the attitude they do. It may be that they are in thrall to the tabloid press and simply dare not take a lead on such an issue. They simply fear the fact that there are newspaper proprietors who are making money from leaks, and they cannot face it. That is typical of how the Government have acted regarding the tabloid press. I think that we shall probably hear a little more about that issue before we finally finish the Session.
So, my Lords, I strongly support the amendment put down in the name of the Liberal Democrats. It is a very liberal point we make. It is met with hostility by the Government. That just indicates that any credentials they ever had for a liberal approach to matters of this kind have been lost and were lost years ago. I shall wait to hear the Minister's response before I decide what to do. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 1A to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 1B, but do propose Amendment No. 1C in lieu of Lords Amendment No. 1A.— (Lord Thomas of Gresford. )
7 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said that the Minister's analysis was unkind. I shall not accuse the noble Baroness of being unkind, but I have noticed, both today and last week, that she has taken an undue pleasure in criticising the very earnest attempts from these and the Liberal Democrat Benches, both in this House and in another place, to find a solution to what I thought was a common cause on a very real problem.
There have been many attempts to find a good legislative solution to the problem. All attempts have been comprehensively rejected by the Government. We continue to believe that these issues are important. Defendant anonymity is important, especially in cases of sexual offences. We are genuinely disappointed that the Government have failed to find a solution with us to those very real issues. If the Government had wanted to find a technically competent solution one could have been found, but they did not.
We on these Benches have throughout supported defendant anonymity on a pre-charge basis. We were minded to continue to support that this evening. However, the Minister in another place made it very

1917
clear earlier today that the Government will not change their mind if the Bill returns. That threat raises the prospect of the Bill being lost for the sake of defendant anonymity. We on these Benches are not prepared to let all the good things in the Bill be lost. So it is with very great regret that we find ourselves unable to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford.
The Government have made it plain—and the Minister again made it plain this evening—that their hopes are pinned on a self-regulatory solution. We believe that effective self-regulation would be ideal. But if self-regulation does not work, more innocent lives will be ruined. I hope the Minister will at least make a clear commitment to using one of the very many legislative opportunities that I am sure her department will have at its disposal to act decisively if a regulatory regime is not agreed or, if having been agreed, proves to be unsatisfactory.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I previously rose to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, in principle although, even as a mere layman, I felt that as drafted it contained imperfections, omissions and ambiguities. The noble Lord has now vastly improved his proposed new clause. Although, as the Minister argues, it may still not be 100 per cent perfect, it is still preferable to leaving the law as it is. Therefore, if the noble Lord decides to press the amendment to a Division, I shall certainly support him.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, it is necessary that some voice be raised from these Benches. There have been many claims for originality in the defence of the anonymity of persons who have not even been charged. It is traditional to our party to take up such a stance; it is not for want of belief that many in our party would support such a position. As I have heard the criticisms of the amendment, they have been answered point by point. The fact that this is populist stuff and a genuflection—with a liberal face— to the tabloid press is obvious. My party had better get used to the fact that, with the co-operation of the Official Opposition, the next election will be fought on a competition on who can "bang 'em up" most and who can make heavy petting at 15 illegal—which is what the Bill does and why, the Opposition seem to think, it cannot be lost.
It is incredible to many members of my party—few of whom are in the Chamber; a dozen people will have heard the argument but many will be brought to troop, lemming-like, through the Lobby—who know well that without the defence by way of mutual anonymity in highly sensitive cases, the tabloid press and even television will put them to a malign use, to the disadvantage of people who, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said, may well be innocent. Codes of conduct; practice directions from the Government; or suggestions? What guarantee does the noble Baroness give us that that will produce any change of character in the media? None.
1918
I am driven to say that if the amendment is pressed to a vote, I shall be bound in conscience to vote for it.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, with the greatest clarity at my disposal, I say that this is not a populist move; neither are we genuflecting towards the tabloid press. Of course I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said about that. I also heard his exhortation to liberality, but that sits ill when we consider the amendment, because one tenet of our democracy is freedom of the press. That is something that we have always honoured; I had always believed that was dear to the hearts of Liberal Democrats as well. I am sure that it remains so.
The Government's stance represents a proportioned and reasoned response. We have been clear and robust with both ACPO and the media through the complaints council. We have made clear that we have identified a mischief that needs to be cured. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, was right when she said that if self-regulation can work well, efficiently and properly, that is the better course. We agree. We have also made it clear that the Government wish the police and the media to adhere to self-regulation, and that self-regulation is a privilege, not a right. If that privilege is abused, the Government will have to think about what alternative measures may be necessary to bring about compliance with what all sides of the House believe is proper. That is a moderate, proper approach, but it does not lack rigour.
My noble friend Lord Wedderburn—he remains my noble friend—could not be more wrong when he casts aspersions on the honour of this party and the Government. Having had the privilege and joy to deal with this Bill, the Criminal Justice Bill, the Anti-social Behaviour Bill and the Extradition Bill, I can reassure my noble friend that I have seen no lemmings yet, certainly not on our Benches. Our Benches have demonstrated their usual robust independence, as doubtless the Whips will demonstrate, and as my noble friend has demonstrated on occasions too numerous to particularise.
This is a proportionate response—the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, is right. I commend the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, on his tenacity, but, on this occasion, tenacity to press the amendment is not necessary. In response to the noble Baroness, the flaws that I have identified are real. 1 try to do that as gently as I can, but the flaws are patent. During the previous debate, I gave every opportunity to take guidance on how to address the matter, but it has not borne the fruit that others seek. I invite the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, not to press his amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, as I listened to the noble Baroness, the explanation by Sir John Falstaff in Verdi's opera "Falstaff", "L'onore!", flashed across my mind. I wish that I could play it over loudspeakers to the Cabinet room at full volume, so that the Cabinet could have some comprehension of what honour really is.

1919
As the noble Baroness recognised, the Liberal Democrat Benches, in co-operation with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, have worked very hard on the Bill. I pay tribute to her efforts. We have fashioned, in many parts of the Bill, a workable solution to what started off as something totally unworkable and that would have caused huge problems in the criminal justice system where sexual offences were involved. We have improved the Bill, and we have done it in this House.
So, when the Official Opposition are threatened by the Government that the whole Bill, which we have worked so hard to improve, will be lost on this amendment, I understand why they hold their current position. I do not blame them. As I have told noble Lords many times, my family motto is "Ar Bwy Mae'r Bae?"—"Who can we blame?". In this instance, the blame rests with the Government.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, no such threat has been made. It is for the noble Baroness and her party to decide whether they wish to have the Bill. We have made no threat about the Bill, and it is wrong to suggest that we put it at risk. Each party must choose how it wishes to deal with the matter. We have made plain our policy. The choice has been exercised; please do not blame us.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, will the Minister agree that her honourable friend in another place made it clear that, if this House sent the Bill back amended again, the amendment would be comprehensively rejected, thereby imperilling the passage of the Bill.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I have made it absolutely clear. We have stated our position and we have said that that position is not going to change. We do not imperil the Bill thereby. We have set and adhered to government policy and it is for Her Majesty's loyal Opposition to decide what they wish to do in response. That is not a matter for us. It is a privilege and joy for the Opposition to decide whether they wish to put the interests of the country first, or other matters.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I always admire the way that the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, presents her case. She does it extremely well. However, we know and the people of this country will know when a threat is a threat and a positive threat was made in this place that the Bill would be lost if this amendment went back to the Commons. I have that in mind. I also have in mind that I cannot, because it has happened so often in these past few weeks, again watch the lemmings go over the cliff. The sight is too sad, so I will spare the Government in this case. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
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,

(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) recordd 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 10 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 Commons do not insist on their Amendment No. 261 to which the Lords have disagreed, but propose the following Amendment to the Bill in lieu of the Amendment not insisted upon—
261B Page 86, Line 32, at end insert—

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, at the time of the offence, the other party to the act of buggery or gross indecency—

(a) where paragraph l(a) applies, was aged 16 or over,

(b) where paragraph l(b) applies, was aged 17 or over, and 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,

(c) so far as known to him, the time when and the place where the conviction or finding was made or the camion 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.

1922

(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.

Interpretation

6

(1) In this Schedule a reference to an offence includes—

(a) a reference to an attempt, conspiracy or incitement to commit that offence, and

(b) a reference to aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of that offence.

(2) In the case of an attempt, conspiracy or incitement, references in paragraph 2 to the act of buggery or gross indecency are references to the act of buggery or gross indecency to which the attempt, conspiracy or incitement related (whether or not that act occurred).

Transitional provision
7 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."
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 261B in lieu of the Commons Amendment No. 261 to which the Lords have disagreed.
I hope that, in relation to this amendment, I will be able to give the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, a little more pleasure than I could on the previous amendment.
The House will be aware that, in the other place, the Government introduced to this Bill a schedule that provided for a procedure for the removal of the notification requirements from offenders convicted of buggery and indecency between men when the activity was consensual and the victim was aged 16 or 17. However, it came to my attention, shortly before your Lordship's House was due to consider this amendment, that the procedure provided for was insufficient. This was because it referred only to the offences of buggery and indecency between men and

1923
omitted to include an attempt, conspiracy or incitement to commit these offences or aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of the offences.
I am pleased to say that that omission has now been rectified by my honourable friend Paul Goggins in the other place. I am therefore seeking agreement to Amendment No. 261B, which provides for a suitably revised procedure, with the relevant new paragraph at paragraph 6. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, will agree with the liberality of this amendment and, if it were put to a Division, would be more than content to see every lemming in this House go through the Lobby, because they would not be lemmings they would be discharging their duty. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 261B in lieu of the Commons Amendment No. 261 to which the Lords have disagreed.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal. )
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, we have just been talking about the workable solution that we have been trying to insert into the Bill. I agree with the regret expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, that we were unable to find a workable solution to the issue of criminalising half the teenage population of this country. However, the amendments are a workable solution. Little did I know, when I raised this issue at an earlier stage of the Bill as it passed through this House, that it would take right up until the last minute to find the perfect and accurate workable solution.
1924
I am delighted that a workable solution has been found. I thank the Minister for her tenacity in ensuring that this has come back in a form which I think that we all intended from the outset. The notification procedures cast such a shadow across the lives of those people put under it. It would be regrettable if the notification procedures had to be applied to those who committed acts which are no longer offences under the law. I am grateful to the Minister and, of course, we support the amendment.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I therefore take this opportunity to thank noble Lords on all Benches who have supported me and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, who held the brief before me. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes and Lady Walmsley, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for their energy and tenacity in ensuring that the Bill is now in very good order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Transas Group Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
Anti-social Behaviour Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.

Courts Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty two minutes past seven o'clock.

  North/South Language Implementation Body: Budget
  North/South Language Implementation Body: Budget
  Northern Ireland: Public Sector Pension Schemes
  Northern Ireland: Public Sector Pension Schemes
  East Belfast: Holywood Arches Pedestrian Crossing
  East Belfast: Holywood Arches Pedestrian Crossing
  Killinchy: Sewage Disposal Works
  Killinchy: Sewage Disposal Works
  Special European Union Programmes Body
  Special European Union Programmes Body
  North/South Ministerial Council: Business Plan
  North/South Ministerial Council: Business Plan
  North/South Implementation Bodies: Budgets
  North/South Implementation Bodies: Budgets
  Northern Ireland: Nomenclature
  Northern Ireland: Nomenclature
  Northern Ireland Commission for Employment Tribunals: Recruitment
  Northern Ireland Commission for Employment Tribunals: Recruitment
  Northern Ireland Assembly: Elections
  Northern Ireland Assembly: Elections
  Ulster-Scots Agency
  Ulster-Scots Agency
  Northern Ireland Legislation: Religious Discrimination
  Northern Ireland Legislation: Religious Discrimination
  Northern Ireland: Civil Service Smoking Chambers
  Northern Ireland: Civil Service Smoking Chambers
  Northern Ireland Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure
  Northern Ireland Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure
  Northern Ireland: Employment and Smoking
  Northern Ireland: Employment and Smoking
  North/South Ministerial Council: Equality of Status
  North/South Ministerial Council: Equality of Status
  IRA Terrorism: Libyan-supplied Weapons
  IRA Terrorism: Libyan-supplied Weapons
  Northern Ireland: Devolution
  Northern Ireland: Devolution
  Zimbabwe: Aid
  Zimbabwe: Aid
  Guantanamo Bay: Judicial Procedures
  Guantanamo Bay: Judicial Procedures
  Law Officers' Advice: Disclosure
  Law Officers' Advice: Disclosure
  Mr Hadi Soleimanpour: Order to Proceed
  Mr Hadi Soleimanpour: Order to Proceed
  Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001: Detention of Foreign Nationals
  Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001: Detention of Foreign Nationals
  Armed Forces Pension Scheme
  Armed Forces Pension Scheme
  Gulf War 1990–91: Vaccines
  Gulf War 1990–91: Vaccines
  Health and Safety Commission
  Health and Safety Commission
  Disabled People: Employment
  Disabled People: Employment
  Licensing Act 2003
  Licensing Act 2003
  Public Schools: Charitable Status and Tax Relief
  Public Schools: Charitable Status and Tax Relief
  Export of Cultural Objects
  Export of Cultural Objects
  Newspapers and Periodicals: Resale Price Maintenance
  Newspapers and Periodicals: Resale Price Maintenance
  EU Working Time Directive
  EU Working Time Directive
  Manufacturing
  Manufacturing
  Primary Care Practices: List Size
  Primary Care Practices: List Size
  Hunting Bill
  Hunting Bill
  Better Regulation Task Force Report: Independent Regulators
  Better Regulation Task Force Report: Independent Regulators
  Ministers: Training
  Ministers: Training