Sitting of 15 October 2003

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND TRANSPORT FOR LONDON BILL [Lords]
Read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.
TRANSAS GROUP BILL
Considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

    St. Helena
    Bob Russell: If he will visit the island of St. Helena to discuss the (a) economy and (b) population level. [132038]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Gareth Thomas): I shall begin, if I may, by taking this opportunity to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development on his well deserved elevation.
    I have no immediate plans to visit St. Helena. Since June of this year, however, I have met twice with representatives of the island's Executive and Legislative Councils. I hope to have discussions with other island councillors during the Overseas Territories' Consultative Council meetings in December. St. Helena's economy and its population level are matters of concern, and featured strongly in my discussions with councillors.
    Bob Russell: I thank the Minister for that answer and I join him in congratulating the Secretary of State on his elevation to the Cabinet. He is respected on both sides of the Chamber and is a Minister who can be trusted—perhaps a rare commodity in this Government. Will the Minister think again about visiting St. Helena? No Minister of any Government has ever visited the island, which is a cause for great regret. The economy of the island is falling and the population has decreased by about a quarter in 18 months. Action is needed.
    Mr. Thomas: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's long standing interest in the economy and population levels of St. Helena. As he will know, one of the proposals that
    98
    we are considering to try to tackle some of those issues is air access. As he will know from the written answer that I issued, we have made progress. We have had four expressions of interest in developing air access and in wider economic regeneration initiatives. I would be happy to arrange a further briefing for him on that issue.
    Mr. John Smith: Should my hon. Friend decide to visit the island, he would discover great concern about future development because of the education of its children. Does he think that it is right and proper that the children of citizens of British overseas territories have to pay the foreign rate of student fees for higher education, but the children of French overseas territories who attend British universities pay the domestic rate? Can he look into that?
    Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question and I know that he, too, has had a longstanding interest in the affairs of St. Helena. That particular issue has not featured strongly in the discussions that I have had so far with the island councillors. However, following his request, I will look into the issue further and write to him.
    Mr. Robert Key: When the Minister visits St. Helena as I hope he will, will he consider carefully the health care system? A review of the system was carried out a few years ago by the Department for International Development, but is he aware of any improvements to health care on the island?
    Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. Some improvements have been made to elderly care for the people of St. Helena. I do not have the exact details of those improvements, so I will drop him a note to clarify the issue.

    India
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: If he will make a statement on British development programmes in India. [132039]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Gareth Thomas): In 2002–03, DFID provided £161 million of bilateral development assistance to support Government efforts to deliver pro-poor policies and services in India. We work closely with four state Governments committed to poverty reduction to help accelerate fiscal and public sector reform; increase access to basic health, education, and urban services; and empower the marginalised. We also support the Union Government and civil society in those areas nationwide.
    Mr. Dismore: I am sure that I do not need to remind my hon. Friend that one third of the world's poor live in India, where 400 million people try to survive on less than $1 a day. With the incidence of HIV likely to rise to 8 per cent. over the next 10 years, and the prevalence of long-standing diseases such as polio, will my hon. Friend say what the Government are doing to try to support the Indian Government and individual Indian

    99
    states in that respect? Will he make particular reference to Gujarat, where so many of my constituents have their roots?
    Mr. Thomas: I recognise the importance of Gujarat to my hon. Friend's constituents. Many of my constituents share an interest in, and affinity with, that state, and India more generally. He is right to highlight the rise in HIV/AIDS in India, where some 4.5 million people are, sadly, already infected. The British Government have provided just over £130 million to the Government of India, through their national AIDS control organisation, to help tackle HIV/AIDS. Gujarat is one of the states in which we are working.
    Tony Baldry: I understand that in 2003–04 the Department will give £233 million to India by way of bilateral development aid. That reflects what the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) rightly said was the great poverty in India. However, the Foreign Secretary is at the same time allowing India to spend £1 billion on purchasing 60 Hawk jets. In effect, therefore, every penny spent by the Government on development aid to India in the lifetime of this Parliament is effectively subsidising and enabling the Indian Government in the purchase of war planes. Am I alone in thinking that that is a somewhat bizarre arrangement?
    Mr. Thomas: First, I must correct the hon. Gentleman's figures on this year's likely spend. We estimate that it will be in the order of £200 million. He may know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has committed the Government to increasing our spend in India to some £300 million. The hon. Gentleman also referred to Hawk trainer jets, which are for training purposes, and not for operational and offensive purposes. The Government of India's defence expenditure is about on a par with what one would expect for an economy of that size. The initiative to which he refers will not have an impact on development programmes in India.
    Mr. Piara S. Khabra: Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that trade and development go together? Will not the absence of any agreement at Cancun affect development work in India? What progress is being made to initiate further negotiations with the parties involved?
    Mr. Thomas: My hon. Friend is right about the importance of making progress on trade negotiations. We were disappointed by the lack of further progress at Cancun. We welcome the statement by India's Commerce Minister, Arun Jaitley, that he is keen to get back to negotiations. My hon. Friend will have noted today that the World Trade Organisation has begun to look at how we might make that happen.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: I have just returned from a visit to India, as a guest of the Indian Government. Does the Minister share my concern that the World Bank has just written to the chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh—one of DFID's four chosen states—because of World Bank concerns about the failure to combat corruption? Does he share my surprise that for
    100
    the past year the European Commission has occupied the entire fifth floor of the most expensive hotel in New Delhi and used it for offices? Does he think that that is a good way to spend the money of EU and UK taxpayers?
    Mr. Thomas: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has visited India. I, too, have just returned from India, where I discussed with the EU Commission our programmes, and the programmes that it has in hand. It is worth noting that the EU programme in India has been audited and given a good bill of health. We have a very constructive dialogue with the EU Commission in respect of its work in India. The hon. Gentleman's criticisms of the EU reflect his party's ongoing hostility to Europe more than real concerns about what the EU is doing in India.

    Afghanistan
    Mr. Graham Allen: What assistance his Department has given to re-establish democracy in Afghanistan. [132040]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn): The Department financially supported both the traditional Loya Jirga in June 2002, which elected President Karzai, and the public consultation on the new constitution. We are helping to fund the current electoral registration process. We have also translated into Pashto and Dui the report that we commissioned on the political process in Afghanistan, and which has been distributed through the independent Human Rights Commission.
    Mr. Allen: First, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his very well deserved promotion? He is proof that merit need not stand in the way of a ministerial career. Does he agree that it is very important, in Afghanistan, that we are seen to be making a democratic infrastructure work? That is especially important, given the possibility that it may be extended into Iraq. We have been involved in Afghanistan for a longer period, and people need to see progress in respect of democracy there if they are to have faith that we can make progress in Iraq. Will he continue to work with President Karzai to ensure that the infrastructure is built in Afghanistan?
    Hilary Benn: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words, which give me the opportunity to express my appreciation to my noble Friend Baroness Amos for the work she did as Secretary of State and to wish her well in her new responsibilities. My hon. Friend is right when he says that we need to stick with the process of building a democracy in Afghanistan. That is why, as a Department, we are giving practical support to the constitutional process and to electoral registration, as I have said. The most important thing is that the people of Afghanistan now have the opportunity for that process to take place because of the action that was taken to remove the Taliban. We need to stick with them as they determine their own future.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: As I may be one of the relatively few Members of this House to have debated with the Secretary of State's grandfather as well as his father, may I too congratulate him on maintaining

    101
    his family's ministerial and aristocratic role in the Labour movement? On establishing democracy in Afghanistan, may I urge him to remind his colleagues that other countries often have cultures and traditions that are different from our own and that to try to impose foreign forms of government on them is often counterproductive and futile?
    Hilary Benn: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. I hope that he will find dealing with me a similarly pleasurable experience. The constitutional Loya Jirga process that has been adopted in Afghanistan is taking place precisely because we recognise his point about the need to respect particular traditions and ways of doing things. The Loya Jirga needs to be given the time to draw up the new constitution. Then, the process can take place—hopefully, with elections next year. We need to acknowledge the cultural tradition of countries while upholding the principles of democracy that all hon. Members hold dear.
    Joan Ruddock: May I also congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment and ask him to join me in congratulating President Karzai, who has said that, of the 50 delegates that he will appoint to the Loya Jirga, 25 will be women? My right hon. Friend will know that that is what Afghan women, within their traditions, want—they want to participate. Will he discuss with the United Nations Development Fund for Women, UNIFEM, ways in which special help can be given to women to ensure their safe and thorough participation in the Loya Jirga and to prevent the intimidation that happened last time?
    Hilary Benn: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that I will be delighted to discuss that issue with UNIFEM. Indeed, I had a conversation on the subject when I was in New York recently. I very much welcome what President Karzai said about the steps that he will take in appointing women to the Loya Jirga. Of course, under the arrangements that have been put in place, 19 per cent. of the delegates to that body will have to be women. It is also worth reflecting on the fact that one third of teachers working in the schools of Afghanistan are now women and 30 per cent. of the pupils are girls—a situation that did not obtain when the Taliban were in control of that country.
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I, too, congratulate the Secretary of State on his well deserved promotion. It is important, after an absence of five months, to have the Secretary of State in this House again. I am sure that the whole House will agree that giving Afghan women the vote is vital for the future of Afghanistan. Given the problems of electoral registration of women and the likelihood that those in traditional communities may simply vote as their husbands do, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what measures have been taken to inform and encourage women to participate on an individual and equal basis in next year's elections?
    Hilary Benn: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her kind words. She raises an important point about the process of change that is taking place in Afghanistan.
    102
    First, as she says, we have to get the electoral registration process to work. It will begin in the cities and then move on to the rural areas, where the job will be more difficult—we need to acknowledge that.
    Secondly, we are supporting activities of which I am sure that the hon. Lady will be aware, trying to encourage the kind of discussion to which she has just drawn the attention of the House. Thirdly, in the long term, the return of girls to school and the participation of women in civil society is the best contribution that we can make to enabling women to have the place in Afghan society that she and I would like to see.
    Mr. Bill Tynan: I shall pass on the congratulations as I think enough has been done. My right hon. Friend will be aware of the United Nations Security Council resolution to extend the role of peacemakers in Afghanistan. At present, 16 of the 32 provinces are no-go areas for non-governmental organisations. Will my right hon. Friend indicate what can be done by his Department to extend the role of NGOs in Afghanistan?
    Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend draws attention to the key issue in Afghanistan, which is security. The new UN resolution on ISAF—the international security assistance force—which has just been passed, will help. Four of the provincial reconstruction teams, which are a civil-military alliance, have already been deployed, including the UK team in Mazar. We hope that four more teams will be deployed before the end of the year. Training of the Afghan national army is being stepped up, as is training of the police. Those are all steps that we have to take to provide the security in which all the other things that we want to see in Afghanistan can happen.

    Middle East
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Which nations in the Middle East receive grants and assistance from the Department. [132041]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn): DFID currently provides bilateral assistance to Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, the Palestinian territory, Syria and Yemen. We also provide assistance for Afghan refugees in Iran. Our future plans are set out in our regional assistance plan for the middle east and north Africa, published last month. In addition, the EC funds large programmes in several countries in the middle east; 19 per cent. of EC programme funding in the region is attributed to DFID's budget.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: I offer my congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman. Has he yet had time to establish whether there are procedures in his Department to make sure that the money given to those countries is properly spent and that there is no question of any money going to organisations that support terrorism in any way?
    Hilary Benn: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that processes and procedures are in place precisely to protect against the concern that he raised. Concerns have been expressed as regards EC funding. Those have been looked into and they have not been substantiated.

    103
    In particular relation to the Palestinian Authority, under Finance Minister Fayyad big progress has been made in bringing the finances into shape and improving accountability, so much so that the United States Administration recently offered direct financial support to the Palestinian Authority. That is recognition of the progress that has been made. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is far too noisy. It is unfair to those who are interested in these items of business.
    Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Following his much appreciated visit to the Palestinian territories earlier this year, is my right hon. Friend aware that in Bethlehem last week the deputy mayor demonstrated to me how the Israeli plan to build a wall through Bethlehem will wreck that city's economy, destroying tourism by preventing access to holy shrines and obstructing access to the Church of the Nativity and preventing access by owners to thousands of acres of agricultural land? What action can my right hon. Friend take even now to try to prevent the building of that hideous wall?
    Hilary Benn: My right hon. Friend draws attention to a serious problem for the Palestinians. When I was there at the end of July I visited Qalqilya where the wall completely encircles a town, leaving an 8 m gap where it joins at the other end, with all the consequences to which my right hon. Friend has drawn attention. The Government have made our views extremely clear—my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary did so yesterday during Foreign Office questions—about the illegality of building the wall on Palestinian land, but it is a symptom of the problem, which is the lack of security, and that is why the peace process must be put back on track. We shall only deal with all the consequences to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has just referred when we get peace in the middle east.

    Iraq
    Dr. Vincent Cable: What consultations took place with the British Government on the foreign investment and tax policies introduced in Iraq by the interim authorities. [132043]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Berm): The order on foreign investment and the tax policies in the 2004 draft budget were approved by the governing council. The British Government have been kept informed about the coalition provisional authority's proposals for economic reform, and we have secondees in the CPA, assisting in Iraq's development. We share the CPA's aim of attracting investment into Iraq and the creation of a diversified tax base.
    Dr. Cable: May I add congratulations from the Liberal Democrat Benches?
    Since the first major decision was to spend £550 million of British taxpayers' money in Iraq, what steps has the right hon. Gentleman taken to assure himself that the economic policy framework is sound and democratically based? In particular, how does he
    104
    respond to the criticism of the Nobel laureate, Joe Stiglitz, and others that Iraq is being used as a laboratory experiment for the ideas of the extreme right wing of the American Republican party?
    Hilary Benn: That is not a view that I would share. I think that what the House is concerned about is how we can support Iraq in the process of getting the country back on its feet. The most important answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that the governing council took the decision about the steps on tax policy and investment. Iraq desperately needs investment because, if we can combine that with political progress and security and as it is a country with talent, resource, expertise, and a well-educated population, it should have a prosperous future if we stick with the course that we are currently charting.
    Mr. Peter Mandelson: May I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend on his promotion? I think that he will do his job very well, and I wish him every success.
    May I also commend the Government for their decision to contribute financially to the rebuilding of Iraq? Although there is obviously a mountain to climb, does my right hon. Friend agree that, since the removal of Saddam Hussein's vicious and destructive regime, security has been restored to the overwhelming bulk of that country, the police and the army are being rebuilt, the economy is stable, food and water are getting to the Iraqi people and the governing council is a vital step to restoring sovereign government in that country? Is not all that something that we in Britain can take considerable pride in helping to bring about?
    Hilary Benn: I agree with my right hon. Friend's description of what is happening in Iraq at the moment—a description that one would not always get from just reading the newspapers and watching the television. It is important that people have a balanced picture of the progress that is being made, while recognising the continuing security concerns. He is absolutely right: if Saddam were still there, we would not be having any of this conversation about the possibility of a new future for the people of Iraq.
    Tom Brake: I too congratulate the Secretary of State on his new position. I know that he will fight hard on behalf of his Department.
    Did the consultations include an assessment of whether the policies to be introduced by the Iraqi governing council are, in fact, in breach of the advice given by the Attorney-General to Her Majesty's Government? Does the Secretary of State favour the economic shock therapy that will be introduced in Iraq? Does he not in fact believe that that will only fuel resentment against foreign companies and foreign countries, particularly the US and the UK?
    Hilary Benn: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his first appearance as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson on international development.

    105
    The most important answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that this was a decision of the governing council. The House needs to trust the Iraqis, who now have responsibility for taking forward that country in the decisions that they take and in the hard process of moving from the nightmare that they have experienced for the past 25 years to the prosperous future that we all want for it.
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: In the Department's most recent Iraq update, 70 per cent. of Government investment in reconstruction has been allocated through the UN and yesterday's written statement reveals a further blank cheque. The Department has flatly refused to fund individual projects, such as the rebuilding of the spinal injuries unit in Baghdad. Does the Secretary of State accept that, because of that loss of control over how the money is spent, good projects such as that one just do not get a look in?
    Hilary Benn: The Government have not given a blank cheque. We are funding practical progress and real investment, as the hon. Lady will know, including in southern Iraq, where 17 projects have been approved to improve water and sanitation under the scheme that started just over a month ago. In relation to the particular hospital, in which I know that she takes a real interest, the discussion needs to take place with the Minister of Health, who is now in post, about Iraqi priorities for the future of the health service in that country. We need to back Iraqi judgment.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 15 October.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): Before listing my engagements, I would like to express our condolences on behalf of the Government and both Houses to the family of Gareth Williams, Lord Williams of Mostyn, who died suddenly on 20 September. He was an extraordinary man with excellent judgment and a fine intellect who earned the respect not only of his Cabinet and Government colleagues but of members of all political parties. He was a kind and generous man who sparked huge affection in all who knew him, and he will be deeply missed.
    This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.
    Mr. Robathan: Does the Prime Minister remember his commitment of September 1999 that by September 2001 anyone will be able to find an NHS dentist? Last month, September 2003, I received a document on dentistry from the Leicestershire strategic health authority, which said that in Leicestershire there are currently
    106
    problems—across the county, and around Lutterworth in south Leicestershire because there are no practices accepting new NHS patients. When will the Prime Minister fulfil his promise to my constituents and the people of Leicestershire on dentistry?
    The Prime Minister: I will certainly look into the situation in Leicestershire. We have made huge attempts to make sure that people can get access to NHS dentistry. I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was under the Government whom he supported that NHS dentistry was done more damage than at any time since the NHS started. I would also point out that whereas we are now increasing resources going into the NHS, his policy is to take them out.
    Ann McKechin: As the Prime Minister will be aware, low pay still remains a problem for thousands of workers in this country, particularly in cities such as Glasgow where they form the largest income group. Does he agree that the minimum wage is one of the best ways to tackle that problem, and will he consider repeating next year this year's excellent decision to raise the minimum wage above the rate of inflation?
    The Prime Minister: There are now 1.3 million workers in Britain who have benefited thanks to the minimum wage. The lowest paid have had their incomes increased by £1,500 a year as a result of the minimum wage. We are proud that this party introduced the minimum wage. We remember being told by some that introducing a minimum wage would cost 1 million jobs. In fact, we have managed to introduce the minimum wage and gain 1 million jobs.
    Mr. Lain Duncan Smith: May I join the Prime Minister in sending our condolences from this side of the House to Lord Williams' family? As he said, Lord Williams was highly respected by those in all political parties.
    The Minister for Local Government says that council tax bills have reached "the limit of acceptability". Does the Prime Minister therefore agree that it would be unacceptable for them to rise further?
    The Prime Minister: We have said that we will use the capping powers if necessary in respect of unacceptable council tax rises. I would point out, however, that we have funded a 25 per cent. real-terms increase in the money going to local government since 1997. In the end, of course, it is for councils to decide their level of council tax.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister, as ever, seeks to blame councils for those rises, but he knows that it is his Chancellor's hike in national insurance, the pensions tax and the huge salary increases that he has put down on councils that are to blame. He has said that the limit of acceptability has been reached, so why does the Red Book say that the Chancellor is banking on council tax increases of 13.5 per cent. over the next two years?
    The Prime Minister: We have made it clear that we are not prepared to see unacceptable rises in council tax. We have said that we will use the capping powers if

    107
    necessary. However, I repeat that it is necessary for central Government to fund local government generously. We are funding it generously and, in the end, it is for councils to decide their own level of tax.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The average family is now paying more than £1,000 in council tax and the Chancellor says that, on top of all that, they must pay £150 more over the next two years. This comes on top of council tax increases of 70 per cent. since this Government came to power. All this is from a Prime Minister who said he had no plans to raise taxes at all. Has not the council tax under this Government become the biggest stealth tax of all?
    The Prime Minister: No. As I said in answer to an earlier question, I believe that the responsibility of the Government is to fund local councils generously. A 25 per cent. real-terms increase since we came to power is very generous. It compares with the 7 per cent. real-terms cut in the few years before we came to power.
    The right hon. Gentleman talks about national insurance and, yes, it is correct that national insurance has been an additional cost, but we make no apology for having raised national insurance to fund the national health service better. If he is saying that he would remove that national insurance increase, perhaps he will say so.
    Ms Gisela Stuart: Given the Prime Minister's clear commitment and preference for an appointed rather than an elected second Chamber, will he share with the House his views on what kinds of qualities he will be looking for in those who he wishes to see appointed?
    The Prime Minister: I have given my view. So far as Labour Members are concerned, my preference, which is probably in accordance with the views of most Prime Ministers before me, would be for ones who would actually support the Government.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: I wish to associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with the very proper expressions of condolences to the family of the late Lord Williams. Those of us in all parties who worked with him in both Houses held him in great affection and respect. He will be greatly missed.
    Is it the Prime Minister's personal preference to introduce legislation to the House to bring forward a scheme for identity cards?
    The Prime Minister: As I have said before, I believe that identity cards have a place but two issues have to be resolved, which is why the Government are looking at them. The first is in relation to the logistics of such a card and the second is in relation to the cost. When we look at the levels of benefit fraud and the problems that arise from asylum and immigration, I think that, in principle, yes they are a good idea.
    Mr. Kennedy: At the end of that answer, the Prime Minister said yes, in principle, he thinks identity cards are a good idea. The Home Secretary publicly said on the record this week that there are divisions within the
    108
    Cabinet on this matter. Given that there is such disagreement around the Cabinet table, can we therefore assume that, despite the Prime Minister's personal preference, there will not be legislation in the Queen's Speech for identity cards?
    The Prime Minister: We must wait for the Queen's Speech to see what is in it. In relation to the two issues that I have just described, there are issues of cost and logistics. However, the question is whether those issues can be overcome, and that is precisely what we are looking at now. I remember a similar debate about identity cards under the previous Government, but I happen to believe that in today's world, where we have masses of migration across national frontiers and where there are real problems with fraud, if we can overcome the questions about costs and logistics, yes, in principle, identity cards are the right thing to do.
    Dr. Nick Palmer: Following the previous question, does the Prime Minister accept that if we claim benefits or any kind of entitlement from the state, it is not unreasonable to show who we are? Is there not overwhelming support for the principle of identity cards, so that we have a society in which people claim what they have the personal right to claim?
    The Prime Minister: It is for precisely that reason that the issue arises. The question, particularly with the new biometric technology, is whether there is a way in which the costs of introducing such a scheme will be justified by the benefits that we get back as a result. That is precisely why we need to undertake the detailed work, and we are doing that. I would have thought that that was sensible for any Government to do.
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: Has the Prime Minister had a chance to look at yesterday's report by the centre for education and employment research at Liverpool university, which concluded that this year's education funding crisis has forced schools, including many in Norfolk, to shed 21,000 staff, which has led to larger classes, poorer teaching and a reduced curriculum? With two thirds of all schools in England and Wales being worse off, what has happened to his election promise of "education, education, education"?
    The Prime Minister: I will tell the hon. Gentleman what has happened to that. Since this Government came to office, we now have 25,000 more teachers and 80,000 more classroom assistants. I shall tell him what he has actually got in Norfolk—almost 400 more teachers, 1,000 more teaching assistants and 1,300 more support staff. I agree that there are schools that have had problems with their funding this year—that is absolutely true—but the answer to that cannot be his policy, which is to impose cuts on state school funding. With the greatest respect, he should ask himself how he managed to go through the Lobby to vote against increases in education spending.
    Mr. Piara S. Khabra: Every week I receive letters from my constituents who are concerned about bullying, neighbour nuisance, vandalism, graffiti, thuggish behaviour, abandoned cars

    109
    and the dumping of rubbish. That sort of criminality is not acceptable to decent citizens. Will the House join me in congratulating the Prime Minister and his Cabinet on investing millions of pounds in schemes to tackle antisocial behaviour? Will the Prime Minister also assure the House that his Government will monitor the progress of the antisocial behaviour action plan?
    The Prime Minister: Everyone recognises the huge problem of antisocial behaviour, and the new powers that will come into effect early next year—especially with fixed penalty notice fines—will allow the police and others, such as local authority officials, to deal promptly and summarily with antisocial behaviour. Where the fines have been piloted, they have been immensely successful. From what was being said by many police officers throughout the country yesterday, I think that they now have available the range of powers to tackle antisocial behaviour. It is also important to point out, as I am sure my hon. Friend would like to, that whereas this side of the House supported the Anti-social Behaviour Bill, the Liberal Democrats opposed it.
    Mr. Lain Duncan Smith: Will the Prime Minister say how much a typical pensioner couple will have to save over their lifetime to avoid a means test?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot say the exact amount, but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that about 2 million pensioners have already benefited from the pension credit, which means, in many cases, that they benefit by £8, £10 or even more a week. His proposal, which is to take that money off them, would be disastrous for them and the poorest pensioners in our country.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Under the Prime Minister's own figures, 1.4 million of the poorest pensioners now will not get even an extra penny from the Chancellor's scheme. Under the Prime Minister's Government, persistent pensioner poverty has actually risen since 1997. Now, a pensioner couple will have to save £180,000—that is a massive amount—just to escape his means test, and that from the Chancellor who said that he would
    "end the means test for our elderly people".
    Will the Prime Minister now tell us how many more pensioners are on means-tested benefits since 1997?
    The Prime Minister: Those who are on the pension credit are, I think, absolutely delighted to be on it because it gives a substantial uplift to their income. That goes alongside the winter fuel allowance, free television licences for over-75s and above inflation increases to the basic state pension. Let us be quite clear: this Government have done a huge amount for the poorest pensioners in our community, but every single one of those measures has been opposed by the right hon. Gentleman and his party.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: There are now 6 million pensioners on the means test—that is 2 million more than when the Prime Minister came to power in 1997. Two million pensioners have to go cap in hand to his Government just
    110
    to make ends meet. Why will he not take people out of the means test, raise the state pension and give pensioners dignity and independence in retirement?
    The Prime Minister: This is the Conservative party that now says that it is the great champion of linking the pension to earnings, but they are the people who took away the link between earnings and pensions. As for saying that people go cap in hand, in light of the 2 million pensioners and the many hundreds of thousands to come who are receiving large additional amounts, we make no apology for saying that the poorest should get most. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can explain how he can afford his policy without taking that money off those pensioners who are on pension credit? Every one of those 2 million pensioners, including those people who are watching us now, knows that his policy is to take that money off them.
    Mr. Huw Edwards: Will my right hon. Friend join me in commending the work of the Territorial Army, currently employed in the reconstruction of Iraq, and in particular the 175 members of the Royal Monmouthshire Royal Engineers, based in my constituency, who are involved in infrastructure work and force protection? I talked to the commanding officer, Colonel David Caulfield, this morning. He wants to acknowledge the support of employers in allowing their staff to work for the TA. Does my right hon. Friend agree that when the TA leaves Iraq, there will be a great deal of humanitarian and infrastructure work for it to get involved in developing countries throughout the world?
    The Prime Minister: I concur with my hon. Friend. I pay tribute to the four members of the Territorial Army who lost their lives while on mobilised service in Iraq. Our condolences are with their families, friends and colleagues.
    The work of members of the TA who are from my hon. Friend's constituency and elsewhere has been of enormous assistance. As a result of what the British Army—both Territorials and regulars—is doing in the south of Iraq, it is possible to see real progress on the ground. When people hear the tragic cases of terrorist bombings and attacks, I only wish that they would also realise that massive good is being done by British and American troops. We can be proud of what they are doing.
    Mr. Nigel Dodds: Does the Prime Minister accept that the two parties from Northern Ireland that were invited to Downing street on Monday cannot deliver stability in the Province? Will he announce that elections, which he has twice postponed in North Ireland, will be allowed to proceed, that there will be no more attempts to save Dave or to appease the IRA, and that the people of Northern Ireland will have their say and choose who will negotiate a better way forward for them, based on an agreement that Unionists as well as nationalists can support?
    The Prime Minister: We accept that elections should go ahead and we are considering when those should be. However, I have two things to say to the hon. Gentleman. First, I believe that the agreement has

    111
    delivered tremendous benefits for people in Northern Ireland over the past few years. No one who returns to Northern Ireland now after an absence of, say, seven, eight or 10 years could fail to see the progress that has been made. With the greatest of respect to the hon. Gentleman, that progress is a result of the courage of those leaders, including Unionist leaders, who have been willing to participate in the process.
    Secondly, the hon. Gentleman says that some other agreement is waiting out there to be negotiated. As I said to some of his colleagues when they came to see me, I do not know what that agreement is, but I do not see him or his colleagues negotiating a better agreement. The agreement that we have is the only agreement on offer. To say anything else is deeply to mislead the people in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Chris Bryant: Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra), does the Prime Minister agree that antisocial behaviour is an issue not just in inner-city areas, but in many rural and semi-rural areas, such as former mining constituencies such as the Rhondda and Sedgefield? My constituents are sick and tired of the antisocial behaviour of a few ruining the lives of the many. They want a police service that is so well resourced that the phone is answered every time and every incident is dealt with robustly. Will the Prime Minister assure my constituents that that is not simply a vain aspiration but his determined intent?
    The Prime Minister: Overall in my hon. Friend's constituency and the country, crime has fallen in the past few years according to the British crime survey. We have record numbers of police officers and, in addition, community support officers. He is right, however, to draw attention to the fact that we need legislation to go with that. Antisocial behaviour legislation is important, as is the Criminal Justice Bill. I simply say to Opposition Members that the Conservatives in the House of Lords are still opposing central measures of the Criminal Justice Bill dealing with organised crime, previous convictions and other things that the police say are necessary in the fight against crime. I appeal to both sides of this House and the other place to support those measures because they are necessary in the fight against crime.
    Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: In his party conference speech, the Prime Minister promised to change asylum laws and end what he called the gravy train of legal assistance, and to stop judicial interference in such matters. How does he square that with the European constitution, under which all those matters will be transferred to the European Union to be decided by majority voting and asylum and immigration rights will be permanently entrenched in the charter of fundamental rights, which will be part of the constitution? That will mean more judicial intervention.
    How can the Prime Minister promise things at home, while simultaneously negotiating the transference of all these matters to another jurisdiction?
    The Prime Minister: The simple fact is that I am not. It is absolutely clear that the charter of fundamental rights does not enlarge the jurisdiction of the European Court.
    112
    As for the laws that we propose in this country, under the European Constitution we shall have every right to pass them, and we will do so. I hope that when we do, we shall have the support of the right hon. Gentleman's party as well.
    Despite what is, as usual, being said by the Conservatives—who have returned to their obsession with Europe after a brief interlude during which they appeared to depart from it—the plain fact is that we need this constitution to make a Europe of 25 work well. I make no apology for saying that this country's place lies not where the Conservatives want it, at the margins of Europe, but at the centre of Europe, leading in Europe.
    Tony Cunningham: I taught for some 17 years, and have spent a lot of time in schools in my constituency. It is fairly obvious that educational standards are rising. This summer we saw some of the best examination results that we have ever seen. It is also fairly obvious that teachers are working harder than they have ever worked. While I am sure the Prime Minister will join me in paying tribute to their efforts, does he agree that we really need to do something about their workload?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right: overall, standards have risen significantly over the past few years. They have risen substantially in primary schools, and GCSE and A-level results are better.
    My hon. Friend's point about teachers' workload is important. That is why we are negotiating a national agreement to reduce the workload. It is also important to get the right support staff into schools, which is why the introduction of 80,000 additional classroom assistants is so significant.
    Gregory Barker: Which policy does the Prime Minister think would find more support with his Back Benchers, the Conservative pledge to link pensions with earnings or his own commitment to introduce tuition fees?
    The Prime Minister: I will tell the hon. Gentleman what I think about both policies. In respect of tuition fees, I think that the Conservative policy of taking £500 million out of the university budget immediately would be disastrous for universities. [Interruption.] Yes—that is the Conservatives' pledge. They may think it an easy pledge to make; we will see how they explain it to the students who will have to leave universities as a result.
    As for pensions and earnings, I think—as any sensible person does—that the additional money we give to pensions is best targeted at the pensioners who need it most. What the hon. Gentleman will have to explain come the next election is why all the pensioners on pension credit will lose it under the Conservative plan.
    Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Will my right hon. Friend give a categorical assurance that should Israel and the United States engage in hostilities against Syria, this country will not be involved?
    The Prime Minister: We have absolutely no plans to engage in hostilities in respect of Syria. That is what my

    113
    hon. Friend would expect me to say. Let me also say that it is extremely important, obviously, for Israel to conduct itself with restraint in these very difficult times, but I hope that my hon. Friend understands how hard that is for a country such as Israel, a democracy that faces the carnage of so many of its citizens in these appalling terrorist attacks. It necessarily feels that it must react and do something about that.
    I think that, in the end, the only way forward is to put the middle east peace process back on track according to the road map that has been set out. I hope that those who look at the situation in the middle east realise that although, of course, there is misery and degradation on the Palestinian side—which is why the peace process is so important—there is also terrible innocent suffering on the Israeli side. It is important for us to recognise and remember that because there is too often a tendency for the international community to look only at the faults on one side, and not at those on all sides.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Why does the Prime Minister dislike pensioners so much? Let us look at the facts. One of the first acts of his Government was to raid their pension funds. Then he and his Government bullied millions of pensioners into switching their pensions away from post offices to banks, thereby closing hundreds of post offices, four of which have recently closed in my constituency. Now we see pensioners struggling to pay the obscene increases in council tax—up to 70 per cent. since his Government came to power. For the Government to give some money with one hand and claw back more with the other is not a decent policy for our pensioners. When will the Prime Minister start supporting our pensioners and stop kicking them at every turn?
    The Prime Minister: This Government have introduced larger than average rises in the basic state pension, the winter fuel allowance of £200, free TV licences for the over-75s and the free eye test. We are introducing in the pension credit money for the poorest pensioners, millions of whom will benefit as a result of it. People remember 18 years of a Conservative Government who broke the link between earnings and pensions, and who were associated with all the scandals of private pensions. As this is the Conservatives' latest opportunism, let me remind them what their social security spokesman said just a couple of years ago about re-linking earnings to pensions—that that is uncosted and unaffordable. The Conservatives have a plan in which they do not really believe, and which will mean that pensioners lose hundreds of pounds a year, because the pension credit will help pensioners and the Conservatives will take it off them.
    Liz Blackman: Like many Members, I represent a former mining community. Many former miners in my constituency have been compensated for the lung disease and vibration white finger that they contracted as a result of their former occupation. Others await redress. Can my right hon. Friend give me an update on the progress of the compensation scheme towards meeting those outstanding claims?
    The Prime Minister: I do not have the exact figures, but I understand that hundreds of millions of pounds
    114
    have been paid out in compensation claims. I know that there are still claims outstanding. As my hon. Friend recognises, part of the problem is that each claim has had to be assessed individually. We have made real efforts to speed up the process. Apparently, £1.6 billion has already been paid out, and I hope very much that we can deal with the remaining claims as swiftly as possible.
    Mr. Bill Wiggin: Considering that the Government were supposed to replace the special waste regulation for hazardous waste but have not done so, how are we supposed to trust them with radioactive waste? How much do the Government propose to spend on compensating communities that agree to have a radioactive waste management facility?
    The Prime Minister: Perhaps I can write and give the hon. Gentleman a more detailed reply. With reference to radioactive waste, there are rules, plus an independent objective body that assesses risk. Those rules must be adhered to and the body makes a report on them. Some of the concerns that people have often turn out to be far less well grounded than they think.
    John Robertson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the fact that call centres make simultaneous calls to customers, and when a customer answers, all the other calls continue ringing and cause a nuisance, particularly to the elderly, when they answer the phone and find that there is nobody there? This has been happening ever since the call centres started moving abroad. Will my right hon. Friend look into the situation, and also try to stop call centres relocating abroad?
    The Prime Minister: I am not sure that I can promise to stop call centres relocating. In the end it is a commercial decision that they must take, but I shall look into the point that my hon. Friend makes about the calls.
    Mr. Mark Francois: Council tax now represents the single largest outlay for many pensioners across the country, including those among my constituents in Rayleigh. Will the Prime Minister give a commitment to review the new formula spending share arrangements that determine how much money goes from central Government to local government, in order to overturn the iniquitous situation whereby so much money has been taken from councils in the south with the effect of subsidising Labour's friends in the north?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman's last point is simply incorrect. In fact, all councils have received real-terms increases since 1997; that compares with real-terms cuts in the last few years of the last Conservative Government. I have to say to him and his colleagues, who are asking for more money to be spent on virtually everything that they can think of—from schools to local government; even to hazardous waste—that the policy of the Conservative party is to cut public spending. That cut in public spending, which would include local government, would result in less money going to local government and therefore even more money on council tax. Whatever the solutions to the problems that the hon. Gentleman raises, they are not those put forward by his party.

Points of Order
12.31 pm
Mr. Quentin Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the House knows, today is the last day on which the Government can call for Assembly elections in Northern Ireland if the elections are to take place by the date that is required by the legislation-15 November. Devolved government in Northern Ireland is an essential part of the Belfast agreement, which the Prime Minister described only a few minutes ago as the only agreement in Northern Ireland.
The people of Northern Ireland are entitled to the right to democratic, peaceful political expression, and it is very important that that right is restored to them. So far as the momentum of the peace process is concerned, unfortunately, as I predicted at the time, the postponement of the elections in May had no other consequence than to bring to a complete halt the negotiations that had been launched at Hillsborough.
In those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, the whole of Northern Ireland is waiting to see what the Government are going to do about the situation, given that they have taken it down to the wire in their usual arbitrary fashion. Have you had any indication that the Government are to make a statement today about an intention to hold elections in Northern Ireland by the required date; or that they are to come before the House, as they would otherwise have to, with proposals for new legislation to give them the power—very unfortunately and regrettably, if that is their decision—to postpone the elections for a third time?
Lembit Öpik: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will know that Liberal
116
Democrat Members have been concerned that the silence on this matter is causing instability in Northern Ireland. I should like to associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's question and to add one. If the Government refuse to make a statement in the next few days, do you have any power to require a written statement from the Northern Ireland Office in order to provide clarification of the kind that the hon. Gentleman requests?
Mr. David Trimble: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the case that under the existing legislation the Government have the power to call elections; that that power remains effective until 15 November; and that the legislation does not require the election to be held before 15 November?
Mr. Peter Robinson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Given that the Northern Ireland (Elections and Periods of Suspension) Act 2003 has a sunset clause, is it not a discourtesy to this House for the Government not to come to explain to Members why they have not today made a statement calling elections? They are required by statute to come to this House to let us know whether they are going to hold an election in time. Instead of trying to appease someone who has been attempting to run away from the electorate since last May, they should come to this House and explain themselves.
Mr. Speaker: This is not a matter for the Speaker. However, the points have been made and the appropriate Minister will have heard what has been said in the Chamber. I draw the House's attention to the fact that tomorrow we have business questions, during which such matters can be raised if right hon. and hon. Members so wish; and, of course, representations can always be made to the appropriate Minister.

Representation of the People (Consequences of Devolution)
12.34 pm
Andrew George: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for a reduction in the number of Members of Parliament; to make provision for referendums on regional assemblies; and for connected purposes.
I am sure that I would be high on the list of Members whom certain people would like to cull from this honourable establishment, but it would cause me considerable grief even to contemplate anyone leaving it. For reasons that I shall explain, however, I believe that some tough choices need to be made as a consequence of the programme of devolution in this country.
Why am I proposing that we should significantly reduce the number of MPs in this House? I am not the first person to make the suggestion. I do so, first, because of a dislocation of the public from the political process and a disregard for politicians that is increasing over time; secondly, because there are more MPs in the United Kingdom than in any other European Union country, and certainly more than in any other comparable western democracy, because of the consequences of the process of devolution; and, thirdly, because we can make considerable savings by reducing the number of MPs. I am sure that the public would rather see those resources spent on front-line public services than on maintaining an unfeasible and inappropriate number of MPs in this House. I also believe that there would be operational improvements in the way in which the House operates.
Although I would have introduced a Bill of this nature in any case, I have to declare an interest, in that I currently face a boundary commission review in my constituency. With a population of 500,000, the five constituencies in Cornwall have an electorate per constituency of 77,000, which the boundary commission has decided is 7,000 over the national electoral quota. It has therefore decided that the number of MPs should be increased from five to six. We welcome the decision, of course, but it means that we face some difficult choices.
In my constituency, for example, the boundary commission has proposed that I should lose the whole of the Lizard, which is where I was born and brought up, but clandestine proposals have also been made by another political party to gerrymander the constituency's boundaries in another area, which would take out the town of Hayle, in which I live. That is not a choice that I welcome. The issue of under-representation in Cornwall should clearly be addressed, but we should do so in a quite different way—namely, by reducing the number of Members of Parliament coming to this House altogether.
I want to go through the points that I made earlier in more detail. The often-repeated claim that there is a dislocation of the electorate from the political process and a public disenchantment with politicians is often accompanied by the recognisable sound of hand-wringing and swift, energetic and urgent efforts to do absolutely nothing about the problem. The public have a perception that we vote ourselves generous pay rises and allowances and more favourable pensions than we
118
offer to them. Of course, we need to address those issues as well. There is also a perception—I think that it is right—that we lead a relatively charmed and luxurious life in the House, in comparison with the majority of our constituents. Failing to face up to the tough choices will result in our continuing to lose respect, when we need to regain the respect that I believe that the majority of hard-working right hon. and hon. Members richly deserve.
With regard to the comparison with other countries, the House of Commons Library has provided me with some figures. The United Kingdom has more MPs than other European countries, and a smaller electorate than comparable democracies. For example, the UK has a population of nearly 59 million and 659 Members of Parliament, giving each constituency an average population size of 89,410. In Germany, the average constituency population size is 136,000. Spain has a population of 40 million, and 350 Members of Parliament, making the average constituency population size 115,000. In France, the average population size is 102,000. In the Netherlands, which has a population of only 16 million, there are 150 Members and an average population size of 107,000. In the United States, the average population size for Congress is 658,000; in Japan, the figure is 264,500. We need to address that matter and compare ourselves with other countries.
Issues clearly arise as a consequence of devolution, but it is not the intention of the Bill to focus on one country or place that has been the subject of devolution. We should spread the pain—or, rather, the opportunity—of this process. I believe that we should introduce these measures across the country, whether a process of devolution is in place or not.
On savings, the House of Commons Commission's annual report recognised that Members of Parliament cost the equivalent of about £211,000 per annum, which covers pay, allowances, office costs and so on, but there are other costs in respect of running this place. If we were to reduce the number of Members to 500, my estimate is that we would make savings of £40 million per annum. We should ask the electorate what they would rather we spent that money on; hospitals, schools, and other public services, or maintaining an inappropriate number of Members of Parliament in this House?
There are other operational reasons concerning the efficiency of the House that I do not have the time to go into. However, our debates are oversubscribed and there is the fundamental issue of comfort; not, perhaps, for the present debate, but certainly for others when we do not have enough room.
The second part of the Bill is to aid the process of moving towards referendums so that devolution can be accelerated. Currently, a referendum decision is entirely within the gift of the Government. Devolution is about letting go, not holding on. We have a void at the centre of Government policy that is based on a flimsy tautology, which basically says that a region is a region because it is a region. We must question the way in which the Government approach the matter and allow communities, a proportion of the population and local authorities to be able to call their own referendums.

119
The House might expect me to say that because I very much favour a referendum for Cornwall, where more than 50,000 people—10 per cent. of the population of Cornwall—have signed a petition in favour of such a proposal. The people need to be listened to.
I do not believe or expect that I will succeed today because parliamentary time is running away from me, but the Government must take heed of the issues. I know from speaking to many hon. Members that there is widespread support for the measure and concern about the dislocation between the political process and the electorate. We must address that point and the issue of savings, and we need to make a comparison with other countries. We must make efforts to ensure that we resurrect a better engagement between this House and the electorate.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by
Mr. Andrew George, Mr. Graham Allen, Mr. Anthony Steen, Mr. Colin Breed, Nick Harvey, Sue Doughty, Mr. Paul Tyler and Matthew Taylor.

Representation of the People (Consequences of Devolution)
  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (CONSEQUENCES OF DEVOLUTION)
  Mr. Andrew George accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for a reduction in the number of Members of Parliament; to make provision for referendums on regional assemblies; and for connected purpose: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 November, and to be printed [Bill 165].
  Opposition Day
  [18TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Opposition Day

    State Pension Reform
    Mr. Speaker:Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
    12.45 pm
    Mr. David Willetts: I beg to move,
    That this House expresses its deep concern at Government policies that have led to a decline in funded pension provision and a massive extension of dependence on means-tested benefits; deplores the £5 billion per annum pensions tax and the erosion of incentives to save, which have caused the halving of the Savings Ratio, and have resulted in only 19 per cent. of final salary pension schemes remaining open to new members; condemns the Government for extending dependence on means-testing to over half of pensioners, despite earlier promises to the contrary, and for ignoring the interests of 1.4 million of the poorest pensioners who, on the Government's own target, will still not be receiving Pension Credit in 2006; notes that Government policies have created a big disincentive to save and led to an increase in the number of pensioners in persistent poverty; and calls on the Government to support state pension reform to reduce dependence on means-tested benefits, to remove the disincentive to save, to improve the financial position of pensioners, including the 1.4 million poorest pensioners, and to provide better incentives to save.
    I begin by drawing the House's attention to the relevant entries in the Register of Members' Interests.
    We have called this debate because the Government never debate pensions in this House. We have had two Government statements on pensions in the past year but no debate on the pensions crisis, despite the semi-promise that was given when my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) raised the matter during a debate held earlier this year. He called for a debate on the Government's Green Paper proposals on pensions, and the then Minister for Pensions—we miss him so much—said in his inimitable style:
    "Do not be so silly. I have made it absolutely clear that I welcome debates in the House."—[Official Report, 20 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 58.]
    The then Minister also said that the Government would "provide opportunities for debate", but there have been no such opportunities. On each occasion that this House has debated the pensions crisis, it has done so because the official Opposition or another party has called Ministers here to do so. The Government have failed to provide at any point a debate in which Members can give their views on their consultation document.
    Meanwhile, as the Government produce their Green Papers and make their statements, what has been happening? The pensions crisis has steadily worsened. The CBI pointed out that, in the past year alone, more than half the companies that it surveyed closed their final salary pension schemes. Final salary funded pension schemes are closing, and at the same time—the next step in this process took place last week—more and more pensioners are on means-tested benefits. The arrival of the pension credit means that, for the first time in a long while in British history, more than half of all pensioners are eligible for means-tested benefits.
    We called this debate because we think that those two trends in our society—fewer funded pensions and greater dependence on means-tested welfare—

    121
    constitute the wrong direction for our country to take. We wish to reverse those trends: we want more funded pension saving and fewer pensioners being dependent on means-tested benefits, but the Government's policies have caught us in a vicious spiral. As savings go down, more and more pensioners become dependent on means-tested benefits; and as entitlement to the latter is expanded, fewer people believe that it is worth while saving. That is the pernicious and vicious cycle in which we are now caught, and out of which we need to break.
    Michael Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend agree that although we all—particularly those who are borrowing—welcome low interest rates, the crisis is being exacerbated by the fact that the income of those who have money on deposit is also being diminished?
    Mr. Willetts: My hon. Friend makes an important point that I shall come to later. He is absolutely right: as interest rates have fallen, pensioners with modest savings in a building society have lost particularly heavily, and they lose under the pension credit.
    Things were not supposed to be like this. The Government made it clear in their first Green Paper of 1998—one of its authors is here today, and, as always, he is very welcome—that pensioners were then getting 60 per cent. of their income from benefits and 40 per cent. from funded pension savings, but that the Government's objective was to reverse that ratio, so that in future pensioners would get 60 per cent. of their income from funded savings and only 40 per cent. from benefits. In pursuit of cross-party consensus on these important matters, we are happy to endorse that very desirable objective, which we believe in and are committed to. Sadly—as with so many of the Government's targets—since they announced that target the percentage of income that pensioners get from social security and welfare has gone up, and the percentage that they get from funded savings has gone down.
    They are heading in the wrong direction.
    The latest evidence for that was the arrival last week of the pension credit, for which more than half of all pensioners are eligible. It is a far cry from the pledge made by the Chancellor—then shadow Chancellor—to the Labour party conference only 10 years ago, when he said:
    "I want the next Labour Government to achieve what in 50 years of the Welfare State has never been achieved. The end of the means test for our elderly people."
    That is not what Labour says now. We heard yet again at today's Prime Minister's questions a defence of the means test, despite the fact that many pensioners dislike it, that the savings industry opposes it and that there is mounting evidence that it does not work.
    Mr. Steve Webb: The hon. Gentleman issued a press release just before the Tory party conference entitled, "Tories to end the pensioners' means test by restoring earnings link". This afternoon, he has referred to reduced means-testing. Given that the press release promised to "end" it, in which decade does the hon. Gentleman envisage that happening?
    Mr. Willetts: We have set out our proposals and I shall talk about them later in my speech. Over time, our
    122
    objective is to get more pensioners off the means test. A target is necessary, and ours is to increase the value of the basic state pension so that it catches up with the level of the means-tested benefit. That is how British social security policy has always operated. The breach in the British way of running social security came under the present Government, who have put means-tested welfare so much higher than the basic state pension. That is the source of many of our troubles.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Willetts: I want to make some progress and explain why Conservative Members are opposed to the spread of means-testing and, most recently, to the operation of the pension credit.
    Ministers will say that it takes only one phone call to claim the pension credit—but some phone call it is! Pensioners have to reveal to the official at the other end of the line all the details of their financial affairs, all their savings and all their money around the house. In practice, they have to empty their pockets to a civil servant in order to receive a means-tested benefit. That is why pensioners, their representatives and the industry itself do not like means-testing. Let me quote the views of Help the Aged, which states:
    "Help the Aged believes that the Pension Credit is totally over-engineered…It would be so much simpler, and fairer, to boost the basic state pension".
    That is Help the Aged's view and everyone knows that the pension credit is far too complicated.
    Ministers say that after the one phone call pensioners can continue to receive the pension credit for five years without any interference or involvement. What Ministers do not say is how many different changes of circumstances have to be reported to officials. Pensioners have to tell officials if they have started marrying or cohabiting. They have to report whether they have died—I suppose that is logical. They have to report divorce or separation from a partner; change of name, address or payment location details; changes to any paid work; going into hospital or care home; going into prison and even joining a religious order. That is the information that the Government require.
    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith): In making his case, does the hon. Gentleman believe that he is encouraging pensioners to apply for what they are entitled to, or discouraging them?
    Mr. Willetts: Let me make it clear that we all believe that every person should secure the benefits to which they are legally entitled. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will do their best to help constituents find their way through the incredibly complicated process of securing the pension credit.
    Andrew Selous: Does my hon. Friend share the concern of one of my constituents who, when he rang up to find out about the pension credit on behalf of his elderly mother, was told that he had rung the wrong number? He was then transferred to a further three people in the Pension Service, only one of whom was an expert and none of whom could provide

    123
    an explanation of his mother's entitlement to pension credit. In view of the length of time that the Government have had to introduce it, does my hon. Friend agree that that is a shambolic state of affairs?
    Mr. Willetts: Yes, and it is a subject on which the Secretary of State made a written statement to the House yesterday—and it was indeed dismal news. The Secretary of State said that 1.9 million pensioner households were on the system and being paid the pension credit, but almost all of them had previously been in receipt of the minimum income guarantee and had been automatically transferred. After six months, it appears that only 200,000 extra pensioners are receiving the pension credit. The Secretary of State, having watched—doubtless in horror—the shambles that the Treasury made of the introduction of the child tax credit, had the ingenious idea that he could secure the smooth roll-out of the pension credit, provided that not many pensioners claimed it—the ultimate in bureaucratic mentality. Trains will run on time, provided that there are not any passengers; benefits can be paid smoothly, provided not many pensioners claim them. That is not how we believe the social security system should be run.
    Mr. Bill Tynan: What would the hon. Gentleman say to one of my constituents who informed me this week that, as a result of the pension tax credit, he will gain £26 a week from October this year? Would he tell my constituent that that should no longer exist?
    Mr. Willetts: I am again grateful for the opportunity to make the position clear. The Prime Minister outrageously misrepresented our proposals at Prime Minister's questions earlier this afternoon. Our proposals involve no change whatever in entitlements to the pension credit. Rather, we believe in increasing the value of the basis state pension slowly over time, so that fewer pensioners need to claim the pension credit. It is not part of our policy to abolish the pension credit.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Lynne Jones: Is not the hon. Gentleman rather misleading the House when he says that the Conservative policy is to allow the basic state pension to catch up with the means-tested benefit? In fact, he would allow that to happen by holding down the means-tested benefit and ending its link to earnings.
    Mr. Willetts: The hon. Lady raises an issue on which I hope to receive some clarification from Ministers in the debate. In the course of preparing our own proposals, we attempted clearly to establish the Government's own proposals for the future of means-tested benefits and the pension credit. The Government have several times been asked to clarify whether they believe that the value of the pension credit would increase in line with earnings if, by some extraordinary mischance, they were to win the next election, but they have failed to provide a clear answer. When we know the Government's intentions on the uprating of the minimum income guarantee and the
    124
    pension credit, we will be able to make our response. However, we do not yet know the Government's proposals for the future of the pension credit.
    Mr. George Foulkes: We now have an opportunity to find out what the Opposition intend. In common with my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan), I have a pensioner in my constituency who is £106 a week better off because of the Government's policies. Pensioners such as him are worried that they would lose out if, by some mischance, the Tories came to power. Will the shadow Secretary of State tell the House whether the Conservatives intend to spend more or less money on pensioners? If it is more, from where will they find the extra moneys?
    Mr. Willetts: Yes, we propose to pay more money to pensioners and we shall pay for it by offsetting savings in means-tested benefits and by the abolition of the new deal, which will allow us to increase the value of the basic state pension. Those are our proposals: no pensioners will lose and many will gain from them.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Willetts: I want to make some progress with my speech. I have already taken many interventions and explained that the main problems with means-testing are complexity and low take-up.
    The Prime Minister said today that the Government's approach provided targeted help for pensioners on the lowest incomes, but I am afraid that that is not so. I am sure that Labour Members who are genuine in their concern about poverty will be familiar with the statistics on the take-up of income-related benefits, which show that many pensioners who are entitled to means-tested benefits do not claim them and that many of them are among the poorest pensioners in our society. They are the people who are not reached by a Government who have become obsessed with spreading means-testing. I refer the Secretary of State and the House to table 1.10 on page 22 of the Department for Work and Pensions statistics on the take-up of benefits. I am sure that the Secretary of State is familiar with the document. It shows that approximately 60 per cent. of all the pensioners who do not claim means-tested benefits are in the poorest 20 per cent. for pensioner incomes. Our policy will help them, because our policy reaches the parts that the Government's policies do not reach.
    I will not take seriously assessments of our policies that assume 100 per cent. take-up of means-tested benefits as the alternative approach. As one of the fundamental problems with the Government's approach is low take-up, it would be wrong, even absurd, to compare our policy, which would get to everyone, with an alternative approach that, sadly, does not reach many of the pensioners who are entitled to the benefits.
    To prove how pernicious the spread of means-testing is, we asked actuaries to calculate how much people would need to save during their working lives to secure sufficient income to float them off means tests in their retirement. The answer is the shocking figure of £180,000. That is why Britain has a savings crisis. That

    125
    is why the savings industry tells us that it cannot encourage people to save. The industry is worried about being accused of mis-selling savings products if people retire and subsequently discover that they have lost means-tested benefits as a result of their savings. That is why our policy is not only right for pensioners, but is essential to get Britain back into the savings habit. Unless we can tackle the pernicious spread of means-tested benefits, millions of people will conclude that saving is not worth their while.
    Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Unless pensioners are able to save, they will not be able to bear the burden of the council tax. At Prime Minister's questions earlier, the Prime Minister did not deny that the Chancellor was budgeting for a 7 per cent. increase in council tax next year and a 6.5 per cent. rise the following year. Is it not grossly hypocritical for Downing street to announce that it is considering forcing local authorities to have referendums before imposing council tax rises of more than twice the rate of inflation? Why are the Government raising expectations when they know that they cannot deliver?
    Mr. Willetts: My right hon. Friend is right. Relations between No. 10 and No. 11 have reached the stage that No. 10 says that it will try to pass laws to stop people doing what No. 11 says is necessary for the public revenues to be secured. As an example of the failure of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor to communicate with each other, it is outrageous.
    Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt have read the Rowntree report that came out at one minute past midnight today. It says:
    "Calculated after housing costs, more than 1.2 million pensioners will have been raised above the poverty line by policies that include the Minimum Income Guarantee."
    It also says:
    "Without the recent improvements made to the tax and benefits system for those with low incomes, poverty would be much worse."
    Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the Rowntree trust?
    Mr. Willetts: One of the best refutations of the Rowntree trust was in that widely read document, "Opportunity for all", the fifth annual report that the Government produced only a few weeks ago. Page 200 gives the evidence on the percentage of older people living in low-income households and with persistent low incomes. [Interruption.] Well, they say it is out-of-date— [Interruption]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the hon. Gentleman reply.
    Mr. Willetts: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have to work very hard reading these tedious documents and now and again I like to share the little gems that I find with the House.
    Page 200 contains a chart entitled "Percentage of older people living in low-income households" and it shows the percentage of pensioners with persistent low incomes who have had incomes
    126
    "Below 60 per cent. of the median income in three out of the previous four years".
    It shows a slowly increasing trend in the number of pensioners in that group, from 16 per cent. in the mid-1990s, to 17 per cent. and, in the latest three-year period, to 18 per cent. The Government's policy is not working because people do not like all these means tests.
    As the Secretary of State knows, I have great respect for him and I do not lightly throw around charges that he has produced misleading information. However, I am very troubled that his information leaflet on the pension credit contains the assertion, which he endlessly repeats, that the pension credit
    "guarantees everyone aged 60 and over an income of at least £102.10 if you are single; or £155.80 a week if you have a partner."
    That is simply untrue. It is not correct. That is not how the pension credit works. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) pointed out, if someone has modest savings, the pension credit assumes an income from those savings of 10 per cent. That is an interest rate on savings way above what any pensioner in the real world is able to secure. However, that assumption was made for the purpose of modelling the pension credit. I shall not inflict the detailed calculations on the House although I would he happy if the Secretary of State wished to intervene to correct my calculations. They show that a single pensioner with savings of £20,000 held in national savings, earning 3.1 per cent., would be assumed to receive an income of £26.92 a week on the £14,000 of her savings above the limit of £6,000, which she would simply not receive. As a result, her total income from her savings, the basic state pension and the pension credit to which she is entitled would be £98.78 a week, not £102.10. Any pensioner with savings of between £6,000 and £54,000 is caught in that trap. It is not the case that pensioners are guaranteed £102.10 a week under the pension credit. I hope that the Secretary of State will accept that the information leaflet is seriously misleading. It is just not the case that the pension credit works in the way that he claims.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: My hon. Friend should not be surprised by that. The Government do not want pensioners to save, because they want people to be dependent on the state. That is the message that pensioners get time and again from the Government. They are told to forget saving because it is irrelevant and even irresponsible.
    Mr. Willetts: My hon. Friend gets to the heart of the issue. One of the worst and most pernicious examples of intrusive government is requiring millions of pensioners to fill in detailed claim forms to get means-tested benefits. The Conservative way is to try to roll back the means test, and provide people with a decent state pension, under which they are £1 better off for every £1 they save. That is what pensioners want.
    Ms Sally Keeble: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Willetts: No, because I must conclude so that the other hon. Members who wish to speak in this debate have a chance to do so.

    127
    We have been driven by an ineluctable logic through the following stages of argument. We have concluded that means-testing under this Government has increased, is increasing and should be diminished. We wish to see pensioners off the means test. We also do not believe that it would be right to take any benefits away from pensioners. We do not propose to take cash off pensioners, because none of us believes that that would be the right thing to do. The only way, therefore, to roll back the means test is by increasing the value of the basic state pension so that it catches up with the value of the means-tested benefits. What more powerful way is there to signal a slow but steady process of increasing the value of the basic state pension than by saying that we will increase it in accordance with earnings rather than prices? That is the policy that we have put forward as a way of rolling back the means test.
    Paradoxically, the policy can be financed because the Government have spread means-tested benefits so far. They have got more than half of pensioners on the pension credit. For all those pensioners, we will replace—gradually and over time—the income that they get from their means-tested benefits, and instead provide them with money on the basic state pension.
    Labour Members always argue that the problem is that large numbers of very rich pensioners will gain from our policy, so I refer them to another classic publication from the back catalogue of the Department for Work and Pensions. The pensioner incomes series measures pensioner incomes by quintile—every 20 per cent. of population. It shows that nearly 80 per cent. of pensioners have below-average incomes. It is not the case that there are large numbers of rich pensioners. The figures for the five quintiles are as follows. The poorest pensioner couples have a gross income of £165 a week. The next poorest get £221 a week, rising through £276 and then £373. The top fifth of pensioner couples get £889 a week.
    It is not the case that there are large numbers of very affluent pensioners. Only the top 20 per cent. of pensioners are anywhere near what the rest of society would regard as prosperity. I would rather that they faced a 40 per cent. tax rate on their incomes than that millions of pensioners on much lower incomes faced a marginal rate of 40 per cent. at the best, and quite possibly of 100 per cent.
    The Conservative party has proposed a clear direction of travel that tackles the two problems at the heart of our savings crisis. First, we are proposing increases in the value of the basic state pension that will enable us, over time, to take pensioners off means-tested benefits by replacing those benefits with a decent state pension. Secondly, we are proposing measures to tackle the problem of the lack of incentives to save by introducing a much better way of using the incentives currently in contracted-out rebates. We believe that the combination of a simple, decent and straightforward basic state pension, with strong incentives to save, is the only practical way of solving the pensions crisis faced by the country.
    I commend the proposals to the House.
    1.12 pm
    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
    "welcomes the fact that people are living longer than ever before; welcomes Government action to tackle pensioner poverty and to promote retirement flexibility, occupational pension security and informed choice; condemns the inheritance of 1997, with millions of pensioners in poverty, many being expected by the Government to live on under £68 a week, and the legacy of pension mis-selling; endorses the Work and Pensions Committee's judgement that "current policies have been successful in reducing pensioner poverty"; notes that the Government is spending £9 billion extra per year in real terms on pensioners compared with the 1997 system; further notes that this is £5.7 billion more than if the basic pension had been linked to earnings; applauds the fact that the poorest third of pensioners will be £1,600 a year better off; welcomes the successful payment of Pension Credit from this month to over two million pensioners and the fact that 1.3 million are gaining more money than they had before; further supports the Government's approach to renew the pensions partnership, outlined in the recent Green Paper and Action Plan; commends plans to introduce a Pension Protection Fund, guaranteeing protection if a company scheme winds up; welcomes proposals to allow individuals to defer their state pension and draw it as a lump sum; looks forward to further measures enabling people to make an informed choice in pension provision, increase flexibility approaching retirement and to work free from age discrimination; and condemns the unfair, unaffordable and unsustainable policies of Opposition parties."
    In moving the amendment, I am happy to set the record and proposals of this Labour Government against what we have just heard from the Opposition. This Government recognise the challenges that this country faces on pensions, and we are taking action to deal with pensioner poverty, to protect the pension promise, to help people save and to enable people to choose when to retire.
    On pensioner poverty, pension credit is getting more money to those who need it and rewarding those with modest savings. On occupational pensions, we have said that we will legislate for a pension protection fund, and take action to stop firms dumping their pension obligations. On savings, we are simplifying the tax regime, enabling people—especially women—to build up rights in short-stay jobs, and giving people the information that they need to make their own choices on pensions.
    On flexible retirement, we are giving people more options on when to retire, tackling age discrimination, and giving a better deal to those who defer their state pension. However, we will not force people to work longer, which is why we have not proposed raising the state pension age.
    The House should remember that it is thanks to the reforms that this Government have put in place that, from next April, we will be spending more than £9 billion extra in real terms than in 1997. That is £5.7 billion more than if the basic pension had been uprated in line with earnings.
    Paul Flynn: Does my right hon. Friend recall that for five successive years under this Labour Government, early-day motion 1 called for a restoration of the link between earnings and pensions. In some years more than 100 hon. Members signed the motion, but no Conservative Member ever did.

    129
    Moreover, the Conservatives did not support the restoration of the link after the Conservative Government broke it in 1980. Does my right hon. Friend think that the Opposition's sudden Pauline conversion to the idea of restoring the link is nothing more than a shameless piece of opportunism?
    Mr. Smith: Yes, I do, and I shall have more to say on that later.
    Andrew Selous: How can the Secretary of State tell the House that the Government are giving money to the pensioners who need it most when we have just heard that the pensioners in the most persistent poverty are either unwilling or unable to take up the very benefits that he is talking about?
    Mr. Smith: This Government have introduced the minimum income guarantee and improved it by means of the pension credit. That means that we are getting much more help to the poorest pensioners. That is borne out by the statistics for households on below-average incomes. On the basis of an absolute measure of poverty, more than 1.5 million pensioners have been taken out of poverty thanks to what this Government have done.
    The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) referred to cross-party consensus. I am all for a bit of that where we can establish it. However, that cause will not be helped by a Conservative party that has learned so little from its last time in office. We will take no lectures from a party whose record on pensions has so often been part of the problem and not part of the solution. The truth is that on one issue after another this Government are acting where the Conservatives failed to act. When the Conservatives were in power, they chose to increase the value of the basic state pension just once in 18 years—and then only to compensate for imposing VAT on fuel. They left millions in poverty, and expected the poorest pensioners to live on just £68.80 a week. It is this Government who have made sure that no single pensioner need live on less than £102 a week, and that no pensioner couple need live on less than £155 a week.
    Mr. McLoughlin: My hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) pointed out that the pension credit deems that some pensioners will earn 10 per cent. interest on their savings. Will the Secretary of State tell my constituents where they can get 10 per cent interest on their savings?
    Mr. Smith: I do not blame the hon. Gentleman for asking that question, as the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) slipped in what he really meant so quickly that one might not have noticed. The claim was not that people could earn 10 per cent. He actually referred to a 10 per cent. attributed rate above £6,000. We must remember that 93 per cent. of pensioners have less than £10,000 in savings. There is no attributed rate on the first £6,000, but the rate is £1 for each £500 of savings above that level. On £10,000, that equates not to 10 per cent. but to 4.2 per cent. That is the truth hidden in the small print of what the hon. Member for Havant said.
    I am proud that it is this Government who are guaranteeing, through the pension credit, an income of £102 a week for single pensioners and of £155 for
    130
    couples. We are also rewarding saving, whereas the Opposition penalised it by pound-for-pound withdrawals. Carp though they do about the pension credit, means-testing and the rest, the Opposition should have the grace to admit that, with the introduction of the pension credit, the Government have taken an important step away from pound-for-pound withdrawal. In government, the Opposition gave the strongest possible signal that it did not pay to save. Under this Labour Government, it does pay to save.
    Gregory Barker: The Secretary of State has spoken about taking action, but the Government have in fact taken billions and billions of pounds out of pension funds. Since the Chancellor's first £5 billion tax raid, how much money year on year has been taken out pension funds in the past six years?
    Mr. Smith: All hon. Members know that that was part of a comprehensive reform of corporate tax. The rate of corporation tax was cut by 3 per cent. as a way of ending the perverse incentive that existed in the system to distribute money through dividends rather than to reinvest it. I respect the sincerity with which the hon. Gentleman speaks, but I would have a great deal more respect for Conservative Members when they make such complaints if one of their Front-Bench team would pledge to reintroduce the dividend tax credit. They have been challenged time and again to do so and that is not their policy, so it is an argument that carries no force.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Smith: I shall make a little more progress before I give way.
    As a result of the pension credit and the other measures that we have introduced since 1997, the poorest third of pensioners are on average £600 a year better off than if the same money had been put into raising the basic state pension. The Conservative party was happy with the situation where pensioners who had saved had their benefit withdrawn pound for pound, giving the strongest possible signal that it did not pay to save. This Government, with the pension credit, are for the first time rewarding those who have saved and who have so often just missed out.
    People will never forget that it was the Tories who presided over the pension mis-selling saga, leaving hundreds of thousands short-changed, just as they changed the rules on inherited SERPS, halved their value and forgot even to tell those affected. This Government have had to sort out the mess and take action to rebuild confidence in the system. This Government will stop employers walking away from their obligations, stop companies using takeovers to scrap pensions, and stop firms changing schemes without consultation.
    John Robertson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Opposition have shown their true colours here today by speaking about the top 10 per cent. and forgetting the bottom 60 per cent.—the

    131
    people they should be looking after? Once again, the Opposition show that they have no concern and no care for the poor.
    Mr. Smith: Yes, indeed. The Conservative party's proposals would do relatively more for better-off pensioners and relatively less for the poorer pensioners. It was ever thus.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): What a surprise.
    Mr. Smith: Indeed. The truth is that both on state pensions and occupational pensions we are taking the action that is necessary. We are concerned that a pension promise made must be a pension promise honoured. That is why we will introduce a pension protection fund to give employees the protection that the Tories never saw fit to provide. The fund will step in to guarantee that, when a sponsoring employer goes bust and the pension scheme is underfunded, pensions already in payment will continue to be paid out in full and, subject to a salary cap, those who expect a pension will be guaranteed up to 90 per cent. of that entitlement.
    I listened to what the Conservative spokesman was saying about pension credit. Not for the first time, we heard those on the Opposition Front Bench twisting and turning—first, deriding Labour proposals and then being forced by public opinion to accept them. Does the hon. Member for Havant remember the winter fuel payment? He called it "a gimmick" and pledged that the Conservatives would abolish it. We do not hear much about that any more, do we?
    On the pension credit, the Conservatives have carped and criticised. First, they said that they would scrap it; then they said that they would "reconsider" it; now, they say that they are going to keep it—and so they should, because around half of all pensioner households will be eligible and stand to gain £400 a year on average. As of last week, pension credit is helping more than 2 million pensioners throughout the country.
    Despite the claims from the Opposition parties, the systems are working well. More than 1 million pensioners have already contacted us and feedback is showing that they like the help that they are getting from the Pension Service—the first ever dedicated service for pensioners in this country.
    Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: About 4,000 of my constituents are up to £30 a week better off in real money than they would have been under the old Tory system of simply keeping income support up to inflation levels. More importantly, does my right hon. Friend understand the Opposition's policy to be that they will not give another rise for the next seven years if we have to wait for pensions to catch up with present benefit levels?
    Mr. Smith: That certainly seems to be the case. My hon. Friend is right. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson), Conservative policy consistently skews the odds against the poorest in the pension system, which is just what the Conservatives did when they were in office.
    132
    We all realise that big challenges are facing the country in relation to pensions. Thanks to the good news that people are living longer, between us we need to save more or work longer, or some combination of the two, if we are to sustain a given standard of living in retirement. We have already set out a number of proposals for addressing these challenges.
    The recent announcements of the hon. Member for Havant and what he told us today fail three basic tests. First, they fail the test of affordability. It is just three years since the hon. Gentleman said that he opposed reintroducing the earnings link as it was "not affordable". Nothing has changed. That is why his figures continue to show that the sums do not add up. Even after taking more than £200 million off pensioners in extra tax—that is part of the cost calculations that he left out of his list today—there would be a £500 million shortfall by year four of a Tory Parliament. That £500 million black hole would in reality be far bigger because they are claiming "savings" where there are none to be had. For example, they claim that they can save hundreds of millions of pounds by scrapping the new deals—new deals that have now helped more than 1 million people into jobs. The evidence shows that the new deal for lone parents alone has saved the Exchequer £40 million pounds a year by getting people off benefits and into work. The report of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research on the new deal for young people showed that it was virtually paying for itself. The truth is that scrapping the new deals would make it harder to pay for pensions, not easier.
    Once again, the Conservative party is making the mistake of imagining that it can put Britain's finances in order by keeping people on the dole. The Conservatives have learned nothing from the last time they were in power, when the British people saw all too clearly that mass unemployment was the way not to stronger public finances but to a net public debt of 44 per cent. of gross domestic product, which is where they left it. They have not learned the lesson that we cannot pay for pensions tomorrow by pushing up unemployment today.
    Their failure on a second test, sustainability, is even more abject. I cannot honestly believe that the hon. Member for Havant does not know that. The further forward one looks, the more unsustainable Tory policy becomes, even though we all know that pensions policy should be for the long term. The hon. Gentleman told this House just three years ago that restoring the earnings link would be
    "a wild and uncosted policy".—[Official Report, 8 June 2000; Vol. 351, c. 440.]
    Before that, he had boasted to the House that his Government had taken the "crucial" step of
    "ending the link between the basic pension and earnings"
    and he pledged that he would resist the
    "seductive politics, but dangerous economics"
    that
    "bedevilled state pension arrangements in other countries".—[Official Report, 8 July 1993; Vol.228, c. 516.]
    The hon. Gentleman has been seduced into dangerous and unsustainable economics. At that time, he appeared to understand what he seems to have forgotten now. After five years, the earnings link costs £4.3 billion more;

    133
    after 10 years, £9 billion more; and after 30 years, £45 billion more, which is equivalent to 14p on the basic rate of income tax. That is an unsustainable policy.
    Mr. Willetts: The Secretary of State said that nothing had changed, but something important has changed: now that the pension credit has arrived and is being implemented, more than half of all pensioners are on means-tested welfare and, as he knows, the predictions are that the number will grow and grow. That is what we need to reverse, and that will secure more than half the cost of delivering the earnings link.
    Mr. Smith: That is another way of saying that what the hon. Gentleman purports to give with one hand he will take away from the poorest pensioners with the other. No wonder the shadow Chancellor admitted that the Tory policy would do nothing for the poorest pensioners in our community. Given that unsustainability, it is hardly surprising that only last week the hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench colleague, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), once again let the cat out of the bag when he admitted that
    "we may have to make some further painful decisions"
    to pay for the policy. He did not share his hon. Friend's confidence that they could afford it.
    The Conservatives should tell the British people what painful decisions they have in mind. Where will the axe fall? Will it be on schools or on the police, or will it be on the hospitals on which our pensioners rely? The whole House will have been struck by the Conservatives' failure to match our commitment to invest in hospitals and schools.
    Lynne Jones: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend that it is essential that pensions policy is sustainable in the future, not least to allow younger people, who are currently trying to make informed choices about pensions, to know what they can rely on. Does he think that such people can rely on the current Government's pensions package being in place when they reach retirement age, because as he is aware, most informed commentators do not think that that will be the case?
    Mr. Smith: I assure my hon. Friend that the Government's record shows that we have given more help to all pensioners and, especially, extra help to poorer pensioners in the dramatic terms that I have already set out. The combination of above-inflation increases in the basic state pension, the introduction of the winter fuel allowance—up to £300 this winter for those aged over 80—free eye tests, free television licences for the over-75s and the pension credit is the basis for helping pensioners out of poverty towards dignity and security in retirement. Of course, we shall need to do more for the future. Our record shows that as action becomes necessary, we will take it, but we shall do so on the basis of fiscal sustainability and financial prudence, not on the basis of opportunistic, unsustainable, half-cocked, half-baked, back-of-the-envelope, calculations like the Opposition's.
    Bob Spink: As the right hon. Gentleman is talking about the Government's record on pensions, may I point out that it has been said that, under seven years of Labour Government,
    134
    "occupational pensions…have come under particular pressure, which has undermined people's confidence in pensions."?
    That is a quotation from a letter to me of 14 October, from no less a person than the Minister of State.
    Mr. Smith: As I made clear earlier, we recognise that there is a challenge in relation to occupational pensions. I have already charted the history. What did so much to damage confidence was the whole mis-selling scandal, the Maxwell scandal and all the rest. Through our action to put in place a pension protection fund and our actions on full buy-outs on the wind-up of schemes and the requirement for protection under TUPE—the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations—so that firms cannot use takeovers or mergers as an excuse to scrap pension schemes, the Government are setting up the building blocks to restore confidence. We should have the support of the Opposition in doing so, because those proposals are supported by the—
    Mr. Willetts: Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify an important point? Is it the Government's intention if reelected to increase the value of the pension credit by earnings during the lifetime of the next Parliament?
    Mr. Smith: Our pledge for this Parliament is to increase the pension credit by earnings, and so we will. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones), we will take such decisions for the future as are necessary and we will announce them at the proper time. Unlike what we have heard from the Opposition, those decisions will be based on what is financially responsible, fiscally prudent and sustainable. We are taking the long view and maintaining control of public expenditure, while the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are seeking a quick fix that they know cannot be sustained. They are putting a false prospectus to the nation's pensioners. They know that they could not sustain their policy in the future, any more than they thought a few months or years ago—
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Smith: I must make a little more progress.
    Nobody can believe the Leader of the Opposition—whoever that is—when the Conservatives claim on one hand that they can make such huge spending commitments for the future while on the other claiming that they can cut taxes.
    The most important test that the Conservatives are failing is the test of fairness. Under their plan, as the shadow Chancellor conceded, nothing will be done to help the poorest pensioners, who would not only fall further behind but would see any increases in their state pension knocked straight off their pension credit. As a consequence, women would fare especially badly; half of them do not receive a full basic state pension so they would be seriously short-changed. With pension credit, women actually get two thirds of the available money, so our policy helps to tackle entrenched gender

    135
    inequality while the Opposition would make it worse, as borne out by an analysis published this morning by the Pensions Policy Institute.
    On fairness, how typical it is of the Opposition to look for extra funds to benefit the better off by going straight to a cut in the support provided to unemployed people. That is madness, given that the best foundation for retirement and pensions is to have a job in one's working life, and given that the policies that the Opposition propose to abolish have helped more than 1 million people into work since 1997.
    The hon. Member for Havant has re-started his war on lone parents. He only called it off a year ago, so the truce did not last long. He will deny them their opportunity through the new deal for lone parents by his proposal to abandon it. Furthermore, he has not come clean about how young children will be affected by his plans to force lone parents to look for work. That is another part of the hidden arithmetic behind his plans. He and his colleagues must make it clear how young a child has to be before the Tories would allow its mother to stay at home to look after it.
    The Government have helped 200,000 lone parents into jobs and expanded child care provision, and we have also ensured that 15 million people on low to moderate earnings will be able to build up a better state pension. With the state second pension, 5 million carers and disabled people will for the first time be able to build up entitlement. Yet just as that is going into people's hands, along come the Conservatives with their half-baked plan to take it away. If their ramshackle policy were ever implemented, even the higher pension that they say they could deliver, taken with the scrapping of the state second pension, would eventually mean losses of £43 a week for millions of carers, disabled people and low earners.
    While the Tory policy is unfair, unsustainable and unaffordable, the Government will continue our drive to tackle pensioner poverty, while giving more help to all pensioners. With pension credit, we put the poorest first and reward saving.
    Mr. Michael Weir: As the Secretary of State is talking about fairness, does he accept that one element of fairness is ease of applying? The problem with the pension credit is its complexity, even when applying by phone. I spoke to an old lady who phoned the helpline, got a recorded message that she did not understand and was so frustrated that she gave up, so we had to intervene on her behalf. What would the right hon. Gentleman say to her? There is a problem even applying for the pension credit.
    Mr. Smith: I should be happy to look into any case that the hon. Gentleman or other hon. Members would like to raise with me. Both the feedback that we are getting and our own monitoring show that the pension credit application line is working remarkably well and that 94 per cent. of calls have been answered within 30 seconds—not by a mechanical answering machine, but by a human voice. People really appreciate the help that they are being given.
    136
    I shall quote a letter in today's Daily Mail. It is not always my pleasure to quote the Daily Mail in the House, but I am pleased to do so now. The question at the head of the letter was, "Is pension credit too hard to get?" Someone wrote in and said:
    "Here's my timetable for having obtained the new pension credit. I received the letter from the pension service and phoned through my application last month. I was connected in seconds. My application form was completed in 20 minutes. Two days later the form was returned to me for signature and proof of income. I returned the form, signed and with the relevant proof. On September 23 my application was approved. I received my payment book on September 29 and my first payment on October 6. The application process is very efficient."
    We are getting scores of messages from pensioners who not only find it easy to use the service, but are greatly appreciative of the individual help and support that they are getting from members of the Pension Service.
    The hon. Member for Havant spent a large part of his speech claiming that he would keep pension credit; that the Conservatives would not want to take money away; and that, yes, everyone should apply, while spending the rest of the his speech—95 per cent. of it—branding the pension credit as means-testing, saying that it was complicated and effectively discouraging people from getting it.
    People are getting that help and receiving the credit itself from a dedicated Pension Service and, along with all the other things that we have done to make the application procedure simple and straightforward, the policy is a million miles away from the old-style means test and the images of carting people's furniture out the door that it raises in people's minds. All hon. Members ought to join in helping the whole country to understand that pension credit is an entitlement, that it is helping poorer pensioners and rewarding saving, that the Pension Service is doing a first-rate job in delivering it and that we should all get behind it and make it a success.
    Huw Irranca-Davies: I have visited my local pension centre and the telephonists who deal with the pension credit, and I was assured that, on average, applications are dealt with in less than nine minutes. People in the remoter parts of my constituency have been visited in their homes by people from the local Pension Service to help them to complete the forms. It seems that we are bending over backwards to make things as easy as possible. I am sure that my right hon. Friend would agree that the worst disservice that the House could do would be to put obstacles in people's way and dissuade anyone from applying for what is rightfully theirs.
    Mr. Smith: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend, especially in suggesting that praise is due to his constituency's local Pension Service, which is clearly doing such a first-rate job.
    Kevin Brennan: Was my right hon. Friend as surprised as I was that the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) did not tell us about another of his hare-brained ideas for pensioners: that we need people to breed more to reduce the burden on the state? I know that the hon. Gentleman has been seduced by

    137
    something that he previously spurned, but in thinking that he can affect the birth rate, is he not exaggerating his own allure?
    Mr. Smith: I shall not comment on that, except to say that I read one comment on the hon. Gentleman's unfortunate remarks in which someone said that nothing would be more likely to put her off having children than the idea that those on the Tory Front Bench wanted her to.
    Ann McKechin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the biggest pension crisis that we have inherited is a lack of proper pension provision for many of the oldest women living in our society today? The Opposition have offered nothing to assist those women. In fact, their policies will specifically work against them.
    Mr. Smith: Yes, indeed. I certainly accept that the pension credit already has the potential to help much more effectively the older women on low incomes to whom my hon. Friend refers, but we must do even more, through the Pension Service, to ensure that they get their entitlement. As I said earlier, I believe that the fact that the pension credit comes through the Pension Service, rather than the social security system, helps to tackle the stigma. I invite any hon. Member to go out with those in the local Pension Service and to see the meetings that they are holding in sheltered housing schemes and lunch clubs and how they are sitting down with pensioners and helping them through this. That is the way in which we can ultimately ensure maximum take-up. I hope that I have the support of the whole House when I say that we want everyone to get their entitlement.
    I will draw my remarks to a close now, but I shall sum them up by saying that, whereas the Tory policy is manifestly unfair, unaffordable and unsustainable, the Government will continue our drive to tackle pensioner poverty, while giving more help to all pensioners. With pension credit, we both put the poorest first and reward saving. Looking more widely, we will simplify the occupational pensions landscape, removing millions of pounds of unnecessary cost and making it easier for firms to get on and run good schemes.
    We will offer the chance for flexible retirement, enabling people to combine part-time working with drawing a pension from the same employer—something that could be very popular—giving a better deal when people choose to draw their state pension later and tackling the age discrimination that is still a barrier to so many. We will also drive forward with our measures to bolster occupational pensions security, working in partnership with employers and trade unions.
    As I have said, greater longevity brings challenges to both state and private pension provision, but we should never forget that longer lifespans are good news and that, to make the most of them, older people need security in retirement. They must be enabled to lead full and fulfilling lives. The measures that Labour has taken—and the further steps to come—will help them do just that.
    1.47 pm
    Mr. Steve Webb: Hearing the Conservative party's announcements on pensions in the past few weeks has felt like stepping into a parallel universe. The Government are pledged to extend mass means-testing, but the old Labour Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) demands that the link with earnings be restored. We might have assumed that a policy that became public only about 10 days ago would have formed the centrepiece of today's debate, so it is rather interesting to read the motion that the Conservative party has tabled. In rather a long motion about state pension reform, there is no mention of restoring the earnings link. If that is that party's flagship new policy, why is it not in the motion? It is possible that the Conservatives are not absolutely sure whether it is their party's policy, or whether it will survive any hypothetical change in leadership, for example.
    The Conservatives might, if they had the opportunity, restore the earnings link for perhaps four years, although the sums do not add up, but they will then break it again. As the Conservative party spent 18 years undermining the real value of state pensions, can pensioners believe that it will restore the link and keep it? The hon. Gentleman has already stated in the past that the earnings link is unsustainable in the long term, and the costings that the Conservatives have put together to show how it will be afforded simply do not stack up.
    During the hon. Gentleman's speech, I showed the House a press release from Conservative central office. That press release is not available on the Conservatives' website unless people have a password, but the password is available only to the press, because the Conservatives do not want the public to know what they are claiming about their policy because it is not true. The Conservative news press release is headed "Tories to end the pensioners' means test".
    Kevin Brennan: What is the password?
    Mr. Webb: I think that it is IDS, or something like that, but I cannot remember.
    The Conservative motion says nothing about ending the means test; it suggests reducing it. One of the problems with that policy is that it is relatively limited—£7 over four years does not take people a terribly long way—yet that has been elided into getting rid of the means test. The means test is £25 above the pension, not £7, so despite the policy being described as ending the means test, that will be nowhere near by the end of one Parliament. The first problem with the policy is therefore that its potential benefits are absurdly exaggerated—spin indeed.
    It gets worse. Other things are not included in the motion. The Conservative party conference also featured an announcement that the Conservatives want to scrap contracting out. That would give the hon. Member for Havant £11 billion burning a hole in his back pocket. He does not know what to do with it—he knows that he wants to scrap contracting out, which, dare I suggest it, is an £11 billion tax hike, and even I, in my wildest tax-and-spend moments would not go quite that far—so he is going to consult the industry. I have a suggestion for him. His motion suggests that the

    139
    Chancellor of the Exchequer is responsible for a £5 billion hole in pension funds. If he is going to have £11 billion burning a hole in his back pocket, why does he not pledge to use half of that to restore the dividend tax credit? That would have been a reasonable idea, but he did not propose it. Even when he has £11 billion to spend, spending it on restoring what is complained about in the motion is low on his list of priorities. His are crocodile tears.
    The critical point on which the Tory policy is dishonest is that it conceals the fact that the poorest pensioners will do worse under it, because we have seen the minimum income guarantee linked to earnings. The Tories want to pay for some of their policies through those recipients of the minimum income guarantee and the pension credit getting smaller rises in future years, which is part of how they make the sums add up. The hon. Member for Havant says that the people who are not claiming it will do well out of a good state pension, which is right. He would accept, however—I think that he has used these numbers—that in a year or two roughly 3 million pensioner households will get the pension credit and 1 million will miss out. Of those 4 million poorest pensioner households in the land, therefore, three quarters will do worse under his policy than under maintaining the link with earnings of the means test.
    Mr. Willetts: The hon. Gentleman may not have been listening when I asked the Secretary of State what his policy was. I did so to establish whether the Government intended that the pension credit should be uprated by earnings not prices. In our careful costings, we have used the cautious assumption that the pension credit will rise in line with prices. If and when we hear any alternative policy proposed by the Government, we can decide how we should reply. He should work on the basis of what we have just heard from the Secretary of State, not on fantasies that the rise will be in line with earnings.
    Mr. Webb: We tend to judge political parties by their record in office. Whereas in their 18 years the Conservatives broke the link—so there is no reason to believe that they would restore it—we have the evidence that this Government have linked the means test to earnings and most of the projections produced by the Department for Work and Pensions are on that basis. If the Government go ahead with linking the means test to earnings, will the hon. Gentleman clarify what will be the Conservative policy in relation to poorer pensioners?
    Mr. Willetts: Wait and see.
    Mr. Webb: As the hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position, up to 3 million poorer pensioners will have to wait and see. It is therefore no surprise that the Pensions Policy Institute has looked at the Conservative proposals and has found that they favour the better off.
    Mr. Willetts: When I said, "Wait and see," what I meant was that we will wait and see what the Government say they will do to the pension credit. It is perfectly reasonable for us to say that, in preparing our
    140
    plans, until we know what they will do to the pension credit, it is sensible for us to assume price indexation, which is all that they are committed to do. In relation to the Pensions Policy Institute, does the hon. Gentleman accept that the other flaw in that analysis is that it assumes 100 per cent. take-up? As one of the big problems with these means-tested benefits is low take-up, there is no point modelling effects that assume away one of the biggest problems that we all know that our constituents face.
    Mr. Webb: The Pensions Policy Institute's analysis of the Conservative proposals published today considers an illustrative person who claims the pension credit. As I just said to the hon. Gentleman, of the 4 million poorest pensioner households in the land, we are agreed that 3 million will claim it, and 1 million will not. While the hon. Gentleman's proposal will be better for the 1 million who will not do so, it will be worse for the 3 million who will, because he wants to give them price indexation.
    Kevin Brennan: As the hon. Gentleman has such a command of statistics, and as he is talking about illustrations, can he enlighten the House as to what proportion of pensioners in this country have savings of £20,000, as in the illustration given by the hon. Member for Havant?
    Mr. Webb: Among pensioners who might consider claiming the pension credit, it would certainly be a tiny fraction. The hon. Member for Havant made another somewhat disingenuous observation. He harangued the Government for assuming that pensioners can get 10 per cent. on their savings when they apply for the pension credit, not mentioning that when he helped to introduce this system in 1988, the assumed rate was 20 per cent. Perhaps he has changed his view.
    It gets worse. How will the largesse be paid for by scrapping the new deal, which is a flat amount every year, whereas the cost of the earnings link is a rising amount every year? That provides no sustainable way of paying for it. The hon. Gentleman's other proposal, apart from the netting off of means-tested benefits, which is of course what would happen, is forcing lone parents with secondary school age children to apply for jobs. Apparently, that would save £400 million a year by the end of this Parliament. I do not follow that logic. If we require a lone parent with secondary school age kids to look for work and she does not get it, we have not saved anything. If she does get it, unless it is a new job that has appeared like confetti from the sky, it is a job that someone else who was otherwise on benefit would have taken. Therefore, where does the £400 million come from, and how is the policy sustainable when most of it is paid for by abolishing something that costs the same amount every year? It simply does not add up. I hesitate to lecture the hon. Gentleman on fiscal rectitude, but as we believe in it in our party, I should share it with him.
    Reference has also been made to other aspects of the hon. Gentleman's proposals for solving the pension crisis. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) mentioned the fertility proposals of the hon. Member for Havant. I have been back to the Conservative website to find a rather amusing proposal

    141
    on that front—[Interruption.] There is a different password for the section on fertility. The hon. Member for Havant's policy is headed, "Make more babies to solve EU population problems". It states:
    "David Willetts has called on couples"—
    not single parents—
    "to have more children to counter Europe's ageing population and boost…flagging economic growth."
    Later, it mentions a good soundbite:
    "Europe has a birth-dearth."
    The final line, if anyone understands a word of it, states:
    "Feminism is the new natalism."
    The hon. Gentleman's solution to the pension crisis is therefore that couples have more babies. The trouble is that he wrote an article in Prospect this month entitled "Too many kids". The general thrust of his argument is that on run-down estates there are too many kids and not enough adults. Therefore, it is really a problem of the wrong sort of people having the wrong sort of children.
    What we have had from the Conservatives is an entirely opportunistic policy of allegedly restoring the earnings link and breaking it in four years, smaller rises for the poorest pensioners that cannot be paid for anyway, scrapping rebates—which is an £11 billion tax hike but they are not sure where the money will go and, dare I say it to the hon. Gentleman, saying different things to different audiences. I always find that very difficult.
    What of the Government's strategy for dealing with the pensions problem? The Secretary of State did not counter the hon. Gentleman's assertion that so far virtually everybody receiving the pension credit was already on the previous system. He published figures yesterday saying that 1.9 million pensioner households are now getting payments of pension credit. I understand that 1.8 million pensioner households, to the nearest 100,000, were getting the minimum income guarantee—I hope that he will correct me if I am getting anything wrong. That implies only about 100,000 to 150,000 new extra recipients. He has written to 1.6 million pensioner households, so fewer than one in 10 of them are gaining from those letters. If I am wrong on that, I hope that he will clarify the matter. That gives us real cause for alarm, however, about the prospects for hitting even his meagre take-up targets. If only one in 10 of the people to whom he writes are claiming, what prospect do we have of reaching the 4 million who should be entitled, or even the 3 million that he is trying to reach? If what is happening is that vulnerable pensioners are getting those letters and do not know what to do with them, or are not responding in significant numbers, his whole policy is flawed. He has not queried those numbers or that analysis, so we must take it that it is correct.
    The other key pension crisis that we need to address is confidence in occupational pensions. If people's occupational pension rights are not honoured, they will find themselves claiming state benefits, and many people do not want to be in that position. At our party conference, we were visited by workers from Allied Steel and Wire, including workers from the sister plant to the one in the constituency of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West, and by workers from Dexion in Hemel
    142
    Hempstead. They will not benefit from the pension protection fund to which the motion refers, because it will come in too late for them.
    We have joked about a cross-party consensus, and a key question for the House is the problem faced by a relatively small number of people. About 20,000 seems to be the best estimate, but if the Secretary of State disagrees with that figure, I hope that he will provide me with an alternative. Those people have worked hard for firms and saved hard, but found as they came up to retirement that their company had gone bankrupt and that there was not enough money in the pension fund. Those people have lost catastrophically; they have lost not just a pound or two but potentially all their life savings.
    We met Dave Allen from Dexion in Hemel Hempstead, who told us that he was coming up to his 40th year of working for the company. All his pension was in that pot and, because he will receive virtually no pension, he feels that he has failed himself and has failed to provide for his wife in retirement. In the town where the company is based, the people who have retired and who are drawing their pensions cross the road rather than talk to him. They feel embarrassed, because they receive a pension when he will not. The problem is dividing communities and causing catastrophic losses for relatively small numbers of people.
    Although we are not talking about millions, the problem is critical for each of those whom it affects. I condemn the Government because they do not know how many people are affected. When a scheme winds up, the Government do not ask for and collect the information. Ros Altman and the campaign groups have been to see the Secretary of State and they have come up with their own estimates. They think that about 20,000 people are affected and that it will cost an average of £60 million a year to sort out the problem. The Secretary of State's Department has annual unallocated expenditures of £150 million for next year and £200 million for the year after that. I should have thought that, prior to the introduction of the pension protection fund, such a scheme would make good use of unallocated departmental resources to help a small number of people who would otherwise suffer catastrophically.
    I listened to the Secretary of State's conference speech with great care, and he repeated the same soundbite in his speech today. He said:
    "A pension promise made must be a pension promise honoured. When a firm goes bust, it can't be right that workers see their life savings destroyed."
    We say "Amen" to that, but why is that not true now? Why will it be true only in 18 months' time? If a pension promise made should be a pension promise kept, why should not those workers receive some form of compensation? Governments of different parties have in some cases required them to join company schemes—it was often a statutory requirement—and the Pensions Act 1995 put them at the back of the queue when the schemes wind up. Subsequent legislation removed the requirement on companies to warn them that their pensions were not safe. These people have been done down by successive Governments, and they deserve compensation.
    Kevin Brennan: We all understand the usual reluctance of Governments to legislate retrospectively,

    143
    but is there not a special case to be made for such workers? I do not think that anyone, including even the most virulent opponent of the Conservative party, would suggest that the Pensions Act 1995 ever envisaged that workers would be left to suffer from the jaw-dropping injustice that resulted from the collapse of these companies. As the pension promise was made by successive Governments, is there not a case for considering providing compensation in these instances?
    Mr. Webb: That is right. It is helpful that the campaign group, for which I have an enormous amount of respect, has not called for future legislation to be made retrospective. It is not suggesting that these workers will be covered by the insurance scheme in some way. It has done the work that Government should have done by finding out how many people are affected and how much it would cost to solve the problem. The solution is relatively cheap, because if all the balances of the funds go into one big pot of money, it will not be necessary to buy annuities, which are very bad value for money. It will cost the taxpayer nothing for a few years and then, on average, £60 million a year. In the context of even the Department's spare cash, that is affordable.
    I hope that people across the parties will recognise that this small group of people has lost catastrophically. Some of them will end up claiming means-tested benefits if we do not help them, and the savings there have not even been included in the costs that I have given. The net cost could be less than I have suggested.
    John Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me his party's policy on compulsory employer and employee contributions?
    Mr. Webb: I will deal with that point in a second, but I want to round off my points on the issue of compensation.
    Trying to amend the forthcoming pensions Bill against the will of the Government will always be an uphill struggle. I hope that between now and the final drafting of the pensions Bill further discussions will take place. I know that a number of Labour Members are keen for them to take place. My colleagues will be happy to help in a positive way to see whether something can be done. I know that many people have seen the Secretary of State and his colleagues about the issue, but the losses to some people are catastrophic. It is time that we addressed the problem.
    I know that many folk wish to contribute to the debate, so I shall draw my remarks to a close. However, I shall deal with the intervention that I have just taken. If the strategy is not mass means-testing or the opportunistic restoring of the earnings link for a few years and then stopping it, what is the alternative way forward? The hon. Member for Havant and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) used to say—the right hon. Gentleman still does—that we can target poverty without resorting to mass mean-testing by using the fact that most poor pensioners are old pensioners. In that way, we avoid all the problems of take-up that the hon. Member for Havant referred to and can tackle the problem in a sustainable way. In the short term, using the state pension that is claimed but with additional
    144
    amounts for older pensioners tackles poverty effectively. However, in the longer term, the Liberal Democrats believe that compulsory contributions—we would have to begin with employers—are the way to ensuring that we do not let people retire poor and try to catch them inefficiently through a means test. We would make sure that as many people as possible build up good pension rights from the state and the private sector while they are working so that means-testing becomes for the few and not for the many.
    2.6 pm
    Mr. Bill Tynan: I welcome this debate, but I am surprised that the Conservative party has chosen it for its Opposition day. Normally, it would select an issue on which the Government were failing and not making progress and on which the electorate were not benefiting from Government policy. When the Conservative party selected this debate, it was good news for the Government. Perhaps the choice is part of a plot to sustain the Labour Government in power until the Opposition manage, perhaps with a new leader, to attract some voter support.
    We have no need to apologise for what we have done for pensioners. Many issues have been raised, and I commend the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on his thoughtful speech. He made several excellent points that I shall touch on briefly in my short contribution.
    Targeting payments at the poorest people is essential. They are not able to save for retirement, and current pensioners do no have that luxury. The poorest people never had the option of being able to save for retirement, so there is no contradiction between some people saving for retirement and others receiving benefit from the Government. Such benefit can support the people who need it most and who never had the chance to save in the past. We must dispel the myth that targeting the poorest pensioners will create the conditions in which people will not save. The pension credit overcomes that problem and it creates an opportunity for people who have saved.
    In the general election campaign, I remember speaking to someone whose support I was seeking. His big concern was the minimum income guarantee. He had contributed to a small occupational pension scheme and, because of that, he did not benefit from the minimum income guarantee. I was able to tell him that there would be a pension credit, and I asked for his vote. I hope that he voted for me. If he did not, he will now realise that what I said at the time was correct. We have introduced the pension credit and he will be one of the beneficiaries.
    The issue of occupational pension schemes has been raised. I have come across the problems caused when Melville Dundas went into liquidation in Scotland. People who had 36 years' service and contributed to a sixtieth pension scheme are now worried that they will receive nothing. They do not know whether they will get 100 per cent., 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. of their pension. They have been told that the matter is in the hands of Aon and that they will have to wait and see what money will be available from the pot. We must address that issue in the future.
    A television series that was broadcast over three Sundays a few weeks ago showed the dire poverty in which people lived in the early 1900s. I was fortunate

    145
    because I was not born until 1940, but I lived in a tenement. Conservative Members might not know what a tenement is—they will never have lived in one.
    Mr. Peter Duncan: I know them well.
    Mr. Tynan: I am delighted that someone knows what a tenement is. I lived in a two-room and kitchen with three sisters, my brother and my mother and father—there were seven of us. My mum and dad had to let one of the rooms so that they could survive in 1940. One should think about the means-testing that applied at that time and the disdain with which people were treated when they asked for help from the state. If their request was successful, the uniform that they were given to wear was made up of the same jacket, trousers, blouse and skirt, so it could be recognised that they had been to the parish. That was a real stigma for those people. My mum and dad were too proud to accept such help because they did not want their sons and daughters to be identified as those for whom their mum and dad could not provide. That is what I call means-testing.
    I despair when I hear people speaking about the 5 million people who are means-tested because elderly people in our society remember the stigma of the means-testing days. At the moment, we are reaching out to the people who most need our help. They have the opportunity to phone a helpline or ask a person such as an MP to help them to fill in a form so that they will receive more money. That is something that we should applaud. We talk about cross-party support, but if we were working efficiently and effectively, we would not worry about take-up because as long as we continue to refer to the means-testing that once existed and deprecate what exists now, we consciously encourage people not to participate in the pension credit. I implore every hon. Member to ensure that we do the best that we can to encourage people to take up the benefit.
    Mr. Duncan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging that at least one Conservative Member knows what a tenement is. I accept that hon. Members of all parties want all benefits to be accepted by as high a proportion of the population as possible. Why does he think that after three years of pension credit, 1.4 million pensioners, by the Government's figures, are still not in receipt of it?
    Mr. Tynan: There are people in this country who are in poverty and some who are not taking the opportunity to get recompense from the Government. We continue to debate means-testing but that system is stigmatised in this country. We must get out of the mindset of comparing the current system with what existed before. I believe—although I have obviously not impressed the hon. Gentleman given that he made his intervention—that it is essential that we do as should be done.
    Mr. Oliver Heald: When the last Conservative Government were in power, the Labour party talked about means-testing. In "Getting Welfare to Work", it said that means-tested benefits were claimed by more than 3.5 million people. The document went on to deplore the fact that 600,000 people did not receive the income support to which they
    146
    were entitled and said that those people were forgoing £14 per week and were among the poorest in Britain. The Chancellor—he was not the Chancellor then—called for the end of the means test. Now that Labour is in power and failing with the means test because people will not claim the benefit to which they are entitled, surely it is a bit rich for the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to say, "Oh, don't let's talk about this; let's keep it quiet." We should not keep it quiet because it is a disgrace.
    Mr. Tynan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention but the final part of it was a disgrace. My position is clear. I am speaking from the perspective of the constituents whom I represent. I was not a Member in 1996 but I understand the damage that the Conservative party did to the poorest people in this country during its 18-year reign—that was a disgrace, as far as I am concerned. If we continue to have the mindset of depriving each other due to the means-testing provision, we will destroy a great opportunity for the people whom he and I represent.
    Lynne Jones: Although my hon. Friend is right that we must try to encourage people to apply for the benefits to which they are entitled, stigma is not the only problem with means-tested benefits. Does he agree that there is a problem relating to younger constituents who try to make an informed choice about how to save for their retirement? We are not addressing the disincentive for younger people to save for retirement when they do not have a clue what the state will provide for them in 20, 30 or 40 years.
    Mr. Tynan: Occupational pension schemes are the key to moving forward on retirement. I was fortunate to be a member of a good occupational pension scheme. It was a sixtieth scheme that allowed me to transfer to a full-time officials' pension scheme and then the parliamentary scheme. No hon. Member will need the state pension when they retire because they will earn much more than £400 a week. I hear people talking about pensions as a universal benefit and saying that everyone should receive the same benefit. If that system is put against one that allows the poorest people to get more, I believe that the system should be run in the latter fashion. People might think that I am wrong but we should target the poor. I understand that one third of pensioners in this country receive more than £400 a week, although I am sure that I will be corrected if I am wrong. They do not need to be targeted because they receive a substantial pension. We need to target those who do not have a substantial pension at present, which is what the Government are doing.
    I accept that there are problems with occupational pension schemes. As I said, a constituent contacted me about Melville Dundas. He was a foreman but, unfortunately, he had no union representation at the plant. As a union official, I recognise the benefits of trade unionism—I am sure that some hon. Members disagree with that. After 36 years' service with two years left to go, my constituent thought that he was protected for his retirement. He thought that his pension scheme would give him £17,000 a year but he is now in despair because he does not know how much he will receive. I ask the Government to consider seriously redressing the

    147
    problem experienced by the 20,000 people who have been identified. It will not be easy to decide how to do that because those people will find themselves in a situation in which they might receive some money from the pension scheme. We may need to compensate people on a universal basis if, through no fault of their own, and through no fault of the Government, they are suffering because a company and its pension scheme, run by trustees, has gone bust. We should apportion blame where blame exists. We must be sympathetic and deal with the problem. The Government should seriously consider that.
    As for compulsion, I believe that employer contributions, whether they be 2.5 per cent. or 4 per cent., to occupational pension schemes are the best way forward for this country's future. We need to grasp the nettle on compulsion.
    David Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend agree, however, that occupational pension schemes will not deal with the many hundreds of thousands of people who receive just above the minimum guaranteed wage? We will always have to look after that group because when they reach retirement age they might not have contributed enough.
    Mr. Tynan: I agree wholeheartedly, but we have to start somewhere. Once we address the problem of occupational pension schemes, we can move forward and deal with other problems.
    I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in the debate. We need cross-party consensus on pensions because that will enable us to make progress on eradicating poverty. We make no apology for what this Government have done for pensioners. We no longer talk about the changes to the rules governing the 52-week stay in hospital, but those changes were sought for a long time. We have taken a great step forward. The debate is essential. I look forward to the Government considering the suggestions made.
    2.22 pm
    Mr. Peter Lilley: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan), whose concern for pensioners is obviously genuine. All I say in response is that pensioners in my constituency do not think that it is politicians who stigmatise the means test, but that it is the means test that stigmatises them. They hate having to prove how little they have saved or have by way of income in order to claim benefits and to find that every extra pound of savings that they have made results in a loss of some, all or a commensurate amount of benefit.
    I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) on securing the debate and putting the focus on means-testing. That is central to the consideration of pension issues. It is good that the Opposition have chosen to debate pensions because the most important single issue facing every modern Government in developed countries is how to provide pensions for an ageing population with fewer children.
    The UK used to be better placed to face that problem than most of our European partners because we had persuaded more of our population to put aside savings.
    148
    As a result, we had more funds to meet future pension liabilities not just than any other country in Europe, but than all our partners in the European Community put together. Now that very healthy situation is under threat. The situation with regard to the provision of occupational pensions, not least of defined-benefit pensions, is little short of meltdown. According to Adair Turner, the pensions tsar appointed by the Government, 60 per cent. of occupational schemes have already closed to new members and a further 10 per cent. have closed entirely, and that is weighted by membership of those funds. Employers are contracting members back wholesale into the state system. We know that that is not purely the Government's fault. The stock market fall was a shock to the system and the anticipated rises in longevity have increased the liabilities of pension funds, but the Government must stand convicted of imposing a £5 billion a year tax on pension funds and introducing means-testing, which will increasingly affect the majority of pensioners, thus making it less likely that they will save for the future.
    Four key questions have to be asked and, more important, answered when we consider what to do about pension provision. For those who cannot stay until the end of my speech, they can obtain a copy of "Save Our Pensions" for £15 from the Social Market Foundation or free from my website, www.peterlilley.co.uk.
    The first key question is how much, if any, pension provision should people be required to make during their working life? My conclusion is simple. Everyone in work should be required to provide for a pension that will be sufficient to avoid dependence on means-tested benefits when they retire. That is the ideal. I do not prejudge whether that provision should be made through a state pay-as-you-go system or funded savings. When I initially considered the matter, I was hostile to compulsion until I reflected that we already compel people to contribute towards the basic state pension and the state second pension if they are in employment. We also compel taxpayers, including those who have made voluntary provision for themselves over and above anything required by the state, so ensuring that they do not need means-tested benefits, to pay through the tax system for those who do need means-tested benefits.
    We would all agree that everyone should pay through the tax system to provide help for those in retirement who need means-tested benefits because during their working lives they could not provide a sufficient pension for retirement, perhaps as a result of disability, unemployment or some other misfortune. But is it right to compel people to pay through the tax system to provide state benefits for those who could have made provision for their old age but failed to do so? It is better that the compulsion, if it exists in the system at all, should compel everyone to provide for a basic minimum pension for their retirement, sufficient to ensure that they do not need state means-tested benefits if at all possible.
    John Robertson: I know that the right hon. Gentleman is knowledgeable about pensions. He talks about compulsion for the employee. What about the employer?
    Mr. Lilley: The compulsion applies to employee and employer because they both contribute to the national

    149
    insurance system and, through that, to the state system, and to people who contract out but who receive rebates from national insurance. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's question.
    The second key question is, how much of any compulsory requirement of provision for retirement income should be funded by saving? I concluded that the state second pension should be replaced by a mandatory funded pension system set at a level, together with the basic state pension—which would remain unchanged—that is sufficient to float clear of means-tested benefits. The Government have set an admirable target of increasing the proportion of future pension liabilities that are met from genuine savings to 60 per cent. against the current 40 per cent. That is good and I am glad that my Front-Bench colleagues have endorsed it. I cannot envisage an alternative way of achieving that target other than to require people to have a funded state pension. That would avoid leaving many people—indeed, an increasing proportion of people—contracted back into the state second pension when they could be contracted out.
    I propose that everyone in work should be required to have a pension fund of their own into which national insurance rebates would be paid that are sufficient to meet the level of pension that I have described. That rebate would mirror the structure of the present state second pension, having a strong flat-rate element that is the same for everyone, even if their income is below half the average earnings, which is probably the rough target. That element of the pension should be guaranteed by the state. If, when people retire, they find that, owing to bad investments or for any other reason, their pensions cannot be provided at target level, the Government should top them up—just as, in a defined-benefit scheme, an employer guarantees a certain pension level.
    The system that I propose would be introduced gradually. Initially everyone under 30, say, would benefit from the fund, but eventually it would apply to everyone entering the labour market.
    Rob Marris: I am listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman's thoughtful speech. Is he aware that the system that he is describing exists in broadly the same form in Canada, under the Canada and Quebec pension plans? If so, will he tell us whether he thinks it is working there?
    Mr. Lilley: It would be truer to say that the system that I propose has counterparts in Australia, where everyone is now required to have a personal or occupational pension fund and is compelled to make a minimum level of provision. That has demonstrated one of the benefits of my proposed scheme. When everyone owns his or her pension, with ownership comes greater choice. It is easier for people to choose to save more. They need not go through the hassle of setting up pension funds, because they have them automatically. They can make marginal extra contributions if they
    150
    wish—and in Australia the level of additional voluntary contributions has doubled since everyone has had his or her own fund.
    Mr. John Horam: I am interested in my right hon. Friend's proposed scheme. How would he deal with the low-paid worker who finds it difficult to save any money at all?
    Mr. Lilley: As under the present state second pension scheme, the low-paid worker would receive a flat-rate rebate. At present, he accrues flat-rate pension entitlement. If he earns less than half average earnings, he is treated on the assumption that that is the case. Under my scheme, he would receive a rebate on the same basis—a flat-rate rebate. Even if no additional voluntary contributions were made, everyone would be able to save enough to be free of means-tested benefits; but people would find it easier to save more, and I think that many would take advantage of that.
    The third question is, how long should people be required to work before drawing a pension? If we do not adopt a scheme like the one that I propose, the Government will be able to achieve their objective of enabling 60 per cent. of pension liabilities to be met from genuine savings only by postponing retirement—by reducing the amount that people pay by making them retire later. That is the only arithmetical possibility, and the Government are clearly edging, or nudging, in that direction.
    One great advantage of everyone having his or her own fund is choice. After all, this should not ultimately be an issue on which the state makes the decision. Whenever possible, the individual should be free to decide how long to work and when to retire. When people have their own funds, once those funds are sufficient to ensure that they require no additional state benefits, they should be free to retire—but once they have the funds, they will have a double incentive to work for longer. For every extra year they work, they will be able to make an extra year's contribution, or have it paid automatically into the fund if they choose. As they will have one year's less pension requirement to fund, they can look forward to a higher income in retirement.
    The present system is not fair on those with low incomes and in manual or stressful occupations, who tend to have the lowest life expectancy. The life expectancy of manual workers retiring at 65 is four years shorter than the upper quintile. Although they are paying into the system on the same basis as everyone else, they are drawing out four years' less money. At present, the annuity providers accentuate the problem, because annuities are based on the life expectancy of those who buy them and are thus geared towards the long-lived rich, who are artificially subsidised by the less long-lived and less well-off. I should like the providers to be able to produce annuities that reflect average incomes during people's working lives and that correlate with their life expectancy. It would be easier if we could provide information from the national insurance recording system computer, such as an income tax code number giving a coded overall picture of lifetime earnings. The least well-off would then be in a better position to choose what to do in retirement, and consequently to enjoy a more prosperous retirement.

    151
    The fourth question is, how can we cut the costs of pension provision—costs that are absorbed by administration or other measures and do not go into saving and investment to provide for the future? The stakeholder pension schemes were designed to help to achieve that by setting a cap of 1 per cent. on costs, and I hope that the Government will think carefully before relaxing that; but it has not worked, because stakeholders have not spread the costs over a greater volume of savings.
    In fact, the single most effective way of reducing the cost of providing funded pensions would be to make them compulsory. If everyone has a pension fund, there will be a larger volume of savings over which to spread the costs. More important, between half and two thirds of the costs at present are absorbed by the costs of acquiring customers. If customers are delivered on a plate, those costs will be greatly reduced, and in some cases eliminated.
    Mr. Edward Davey: I hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would speak today, because he has thought long and hard about a long-term vision. But will he comment briefly on the short-term policy that we are discussing today? His policy was price indexation, while that of his hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) is earnings indexation. Will he now give us a ringing endorsement of earnings indexation?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend the Member for Havant correctly identified the big problem. A huge gap, which did not exist in the 1980s when we ended the earnings link, has opened between the basic state pension and the level of means-tested benefits. I propose filling that gap with compulsory funded savings, and my hon. Friend hopes to reduce it by restoring the earnings link. It must be done in one way or the other, and I think that my proposals and those of my hon. Friend are compatible, based as they are on a common analysis. I am only sorry that we heard nothing from the Liberal Democrats about what they propose to do, this being an issue in which creative thought rather than party political point scoring is needed, although, to be fair, the hon. Gentleman is less prone to party political point scoring than many of us.
    Lynne Jones: The right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but he seemed to be saying earlier that people at the lower end of the income scale might be forced to make contributions to private pension schemes in order to retire on an income similar to that of means-tested benefits. Why should people obtain better value for money by doing that than they would obtain by contributing more to a state scheme that assured them of a decent pension in the first place?
    Mr. Lilley: I commend my pamphlet, which may explain what I mean more clearly. The essential point is that we compel everyone in employment to contribute to a state second pension. At present, that is done on an unfunded pay-as-you-go basis; we hope that the amount will subsequently be met from future taxation, but I should prefer it to come from savings that have
    152
    accumulated through investment and to be underwritten by the taxpayer, so that the target level is a certainty—the target level being higher than the current compulsory level, which leaves people still subject to means-tested benefit. I hope that that explains the matter a little more clearly than I had evidently done up to now.
    I return briefly to the point that I was making about reducing costs. Compulsion will reduce costs. In Australia, despite the fact that I have many criticisms of the Australian system and the fact that it has not paid much attention to reducing costs, overall costs have been steadily falling and are down to the sort of level that the Government are talking about for stakeholder pensions, because of the increasing volume over which those costs are spread.
    There is one aspect to which little thought has been given as to how we can reduce the costs. After people have accumulated their pension fund, it is converted into an income for the rest of their life—an annuity or a pension income. Annuity or pension provision is a good way of pooling risks within a population with known characteristics. We know the mortality rates on average for the whole population and we can pool them. The annuity companies do that and pay out, taking that into account.
    There is no effective way of taking into account the possibility that the characteristics—the mortality rates—of the population as a whole may change in unexpected ways in the future. The companies have all been caught out because longevity has increased more rapidly than they anticipated. They therefore have to make provision not for the best estimate of future longevity, but for conceivable but unlikely increases in life expectancy that may occur. If they do not occur, people will be paying for something that they never receive, so they will be paying too much.
    Since the greatest risk about unexpected future life expectancy is that people will live beyond, say, 85, my proposal would require that they provide themselves, through the state rebate system, with a funded pension for the first 20 years of retirement, and that, after that, the state resume paying on a pay-as-you-go basis for the over-85s at a similar rate to that guaranteed for the years prior to 85. That would mean that the state was bearing the risk of unanticipated increases in future longevity, and that it would not be borne by people who subsequently get no benefit from it.
    I believe that the proposals that I am putting before the House are compatible with those advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant and are based on a similar analysis. They would mean the greatest extension in wealth ownership that this country had seen since the spread of home ownership. Everyone would own a pot of money that was theirs. If they died prematurely, they could leave it to their heirs and successors. They could add to it and would have an incentive to do so. They would have a stake in the wealth-creating system because they would know that they, through their pension pot, would benefit from it. That would transform relations between people in this country and the economic system in a way that was profoundly to the country's benefit.
    2.43 pm
    Ms Sally Keeble: It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley).
    Compulsion is an interesting issue. It has often been pointed out to me that the quid pro quo of compulsion is sanctions. What happens if people do not take part in the compulsory scheme? Are they to be denied benefit when they are old? It has consistently been shown that the British public will not tolerate pensioner poverty. Pensions policy must not only tackle absolute pensioner poverty, but make sure that pensioners can lead comfortable and satisfied lives, which implies a reasonable level of income, services and so on. There has never been a satisfactory response to the question of what happens to those who do not take part in a compulsory scheme. Are we to apply sanctions when those people are at their most vulnerable? I have not read the right hon. Gentleman's leaflet, but I shall do so.
    After the Conservative party conference, two approaches became apparent. Is there to be a graduated system of state support that targets and progressively wipes out pensioner poverty and provides people with increasingly comfortable lives in their old age and good options, or is there to be a single flat-rate system, which is regressive and might give money where it is not needed? That money might be clawed back through the tax system, but such a system would put many people back into an unacceptable level of poverty.
    It is clear from the debate this afternoon that the choices are not quite so stark. It is important that we consider carefully what the Conservative Opposition spelled out. Although the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) made an immensely amusing speech, he did not tackle some of the key issues. He did so in the previous debate on the subject, and his proposals then fell into the same hole as the Conservative proposals today.
    The Conservative spokesman said that his party would continue with the pension credit for as long as it took for the flat rate to catch up. The pension credit is means-tested, and the means test or any other kind of assessment cannot be abolished as long as the pension credit is retained. That was the point raised by the hon. Member for Northavon last time. The Conservative Opposition might be offering something different, but it is not the ending of the assessment of pensioners' income and the provision of additional benefits.
    If we take £77 as the basic state pension and either £98 or £102 as the means-tested level, so to speak, and we assume an inflation rate of about 3 per cent.—it could be a little more or less, depending whether it was based on prices or earnings—it would take at least seven years to catch up, assuming that the means-tested levels were capped. The present system would have to continue for at least the lifetime of one Parliament. The Opposition should be honest about that when they spell out options to the public, on which they will have to decide. Decisions about pensions are critical and, as other hon. Members have pointed out, they must be kept in place for a long time because of the time span between paying in pension contributions and retirement.
    I have no doubt that the first approach, the one adopted by the Government, is the right one, with money being paid to those who need it most. We need to
    154
    make sure not only that pensioners are not poor—nobody wants to see pensioners living in absolute poverty—but that they have comfortable lives with dignity and good services. They should be able to make good choices about their quality of life not just for a couple of years after they stop working, but possibly for another 20 years or so. The only way that that can be achieved is through proper targeting.
    We all know the state of pensions in 1997. In my constituency people who had worked virtually all their adult lives were still left poor, particularly the women, mostly because they did not have the employment and contribution history to qualify for pensions, and they did not have the same occupational pensions.
    Mr. Heald: The hon. Lady will have heard the Secretary of State say that in 1997 there were people managing on £68 a week. Those were people who were not claiming means-tested benefits. Today, there are people managing on £77 a week because they are not claiming means-tested benefits. Only proposals such as we are putting forward tackle that problem. The pension credit does not. According to the Government's own figures, by 2006 1.4 million pensioners will not be claiming it.
    Ms Keeble: I take the point about the difficulty of getting people to claim their entitlement. I intended to deal with that. People should not be on just the basic state pension. They should have access to a range of other benefits, including the minimum income guarantee and the targeted benefits that have been described. The increase in personal tax allowances for pensioners and the introduction of a lop starting rate in tax have certainly been important for my local pensioners, many of whom have income and employment profiles that differ from those in big city communities.
    Now we have the pension credit, too. It is completely wrong to scare people off from claiming it by likening it to means testing—I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) about that. The approach taken to assessment of income is exactly the same as that taken in respect of claiming the child tax credit, whereby every family with children gets child benefit, and its income is assessed to decide whether extra income is needed. The procedure does not take place every year, but after five years or if circumstances have substantially changed for example, if people get married, which is fairly straightforward to declare.
    The working of the pension credit introduces important changes that take into account the consultations that took place on the proposals. I had such a consultation session in my constituency, where pensioners expressed concerns that have since been addressed. For example, they wanted to keep their nest eggs, which are mostly not huge amounts of more than £10,000, but around £5,000. They do not want that money to be touched by any kind of means-testing, because they want it to pay for their funerals. The assessment considers factors such as income from savings and it can be done on the phone, which is important. I particularly congratulate the Pension Service on its outreach work. I have run street stalls with the Pension Service and Age Concern. Of course, some people will have criticisms, but we are encouraging

    155
    pensioners to apply for the benefit and making it easier for them to ensure that they can get the extra money to which they are entitled. Take-up in the Northampton area has been quite good, which has a lot to do with the innovative work of the Pension Service.
    I accept that there is more to do to ensure that people can enjoy the living standards and life chances in retirement that we would all want for ourselves. We need to tackle a range of issues such as annuities and the problems of occupational pension schemes, as well as council tax and house rentals, about which large numbers of pensioners complain. I am particularly concerned about pensioners' housing. We should support schemes similar to an equity release scheme to enable them to realise some of the value of their property in order to carry out home improvements and thus to live in their own homes in comfort for a longer period. It is also important to ensure that people are not ripped off by home income plans and equity release schemes, which represent a growing sector of the market.
    The flat-rate approach is an illusion, because any flat rate that the country could afford to apply across the board would not be enough for people who rely solely on this benefit to live on. It will always be necessary to have the option of increasing income over and above the flat rate level. Any system that is to provide an enhanced income will have to include measures to allow for its proper assessment. Otherwise, it becomes completely insupportable in tax terms; and I have no doubt that my constituents would be the first to complain in the event of large tax increases.
    Lynne Jones: Has my hon. Friend studied the proposals by the Institute for Public Policy Research suggesting that the basic state pension could be set at the same level as the means-tested pension credit if the state second pension were to be done away with; and that it could be done over 30 years if the retirement age increased to 67? In that context, it is not correct to say that it is impossible to set a reasonable level of basic state pension without substantially increasing taxes.
    Ms Keeble: I shall look carefully at that publication. My hon. Friend mentioned a progressive increase in the retirement age over 30 years, but we need to consider the matter over a shorter term than that. I do not see how one can get from £77 a week to £98 or £102 a week in a few years without a very big tax increase, which will not be supported. Moreover, most people would recognise that taxpayers' money has to be spent in the most cost-effective manner—that is, where it is most needed. There is no way round that, unless, as the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden suggested, one develops a system that makes it possible to feed money in at the savings end to get the equation right in terms of support for pension schemes. I fail to see how one can have a flat rate that is comfortable without having a very big tax increase. Furthermore, in any flat-rate system the pensioners who would be most likely to miss out are women, who often have the most interrupted employment patterns, the most difficulty in making up contributions, lower earnings and longer life expectancy. We have to be careful about holding out a flat-rate approach as a panacea.
    156
    We should consider how much pensioners' expectations have changed in terms of making choices. The speech from the Conservative Front Bench was completely opportunistic and targeted at getting the so-called grey vote. People should remember which party gave them the pensions mis-selling scandal—people paying into a Government-sponsored, Government-advertised scheme that sold them down the river and the botched handling of the abolition of the widows' state earnings-related pension scheme.
    Mr. Peter Duncan: Would the hon. Lady care to remind the House which party has given people a £5 billion per year tax grab on pensions?
    Ms Keeble: I just say this: which party gave this country the most stable economic management, with the lowest unemployment and lowest inflation, that I can remember in my lifetime? It was this party. The sound working of the economy is the underpinning of any pensions policy. That is why, painful as it was, the decision on tax credits was right.
    Who gave us cold weather payments? We should remember the lack of dignity involved in trying to get benefits at the time when if the temperature went below a certain level for four nights one could claim £5. As a councillor, I ran around in the snow with claims forms so that bitterly cold pensioners could claim £5; now, they automatically get £200 as of right.
    I also remember who introduced the eye tests. Let us think back to the time when only the pensioners who lived in Labour areas got bus passes; now all pensioners have them as of right because they have a Labour Government.
    Women will remember how, if they were lone parents, they used not to be able to get out to work because they did not have help with child care costs or nursery provision, and they did not get the support that they now receive through the new deal for lone parents, which is one thing that the Conservatives have said they would scrap. Having been unable to get out to work, those women then copped it by not having proper pension provision or carer's allowance for their old age. I hope that people will remember what happened before and think about how things have now changed. Pensioners can now be warm enough in winter, and women can go out to work and have a proper pension entitlement.
    We all recognise that life is not perfect, but I hope that people will realise that this Government's carefully worked out approach to pensions is on the right track—even though everything is not perfect yet—and that there has been a quantum leap in the living standards of older people in this country.
    3.1 pm
    Mr. Peter Duncan: Yet again, it is an Opposition day debate that provides us with the opportunity to discuss the pensions crisis in the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) talked about the carefully crafted approach to pensions, but I came across some extraordinary figures yesterday that referred to the liabilities in Government pension funds. They showed that, whereas in 1997 the liability figure

    157
    was £290 billion, it is now estimated by Mercer—an independent consultancy firm—to have exceeded £600 billion. In the last year alone, it has gone up by £110 billion. Is it any wonder that we are debating in Opposition time—a pensions system that is in crisis?
    There was a regrettably long delay last year before the appointment of a Pensions Minister, and this year we have seen a tax grab of another £5 billion. I think that the cash register is now ringing up a figure of £35 billion taken from the nation's pensions. Is it any wonder that the system is in crisis? We have no debates on this issue in Government time because, irrespective of what the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) says—I regret that he is no longer in his place—the Government do not want to talk about pensions because they know that there is a crisis in the system.
    John Robertson: May I inform the hon. Gentleman that the reason that my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) is not here at the moment is that he is in the European Scrutiny Committee? My hon. Friend said earlier that the Conservative party had done absolutely nothing to help the poor; perhaps the hon. Gentleman can tell the House what he would do in that regard.
    Mr. Duncan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I shall come to that matter in a second, and I shall be delighted to have the opportunity to do so.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) rightly pointed out the spiralling system of lower-funded schemes and increasing means-testing. In 1998, the Green Paper stated that the Government wanted that situation to be reversed. Has the policy changed, or has it just failed? I hope that, if nothing else, the Minister will provide an answer to that question when he responds to the debate.
    As a constituency MP, I am aware that 60 per cent. of the pensioners who are not claiming means-tested benefits are among the poorest fifth of pensioners. My constituency is very rural and isolated, and a significant problem is that many of those who live in rural areas are simply excluded from the most complex and detailed of benefit systems. I am engaged in a regular dialogue with the Dumfries and Galloway elderly forum, which I am happy to recognise as the pensioners' voice in southwest Scotland. It is an active organisation that gives politicians a hard time. It is not party political; it gives politicians on all sides of the fence a hard time, and I am delighted to recognise the role that it plays in doing so.
    The forum's members are powerful advocates for all pensioners, and particularly for the poor. They would recognise that, as the Pensions Policy Institute has pointed out, the income of the bottom fifth of pensioners in 1979 was 23 per cent. of average earnings, yet by 2001 this figure had fallen to just 21 per cent. The poorest pensioners are getting poorer. Pensioners recognise that, I recognise that, and I hope that, if nothing else, this debate will give us the opportunity to provide a pointer towards a way of reversing that trend.
    Pensioners have welcomed the proposal elaborated at our party conference last week to restore the earnings link. They remind me constantly that that is the one item that they wanted to see: a simple restoration of the link
    158
    that would give a benefit to each and every pensioner up each and every farm track, including those who do not have access to the telephone and free phone lines. Each and every pensioner should be able to get an earnings-linked pension, and I am delighted that my Front-Bench colleagues have proposed such an innovative scheme. Our proposal is supported by all pensioners' groups. Help the Aged has welcomed our
    "commitment to lift pensioners off a dependence on means-tested benefits. The pledge to link pensions to average earnings will allow older people to share in the rewards of growing national wealth."
    I, too, welcome the proposal, and I hope that it will reach fruition when we see a Conservative Government within the next two years.
    Means-testing is part of the problem, not part of the solution. In 1993, the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, now the Chancellor, said:
    "I want the next Labour Government to achieve what in 50 years of the Welfare State has never been achieved. The end of the means test for our elderly people."
    He understood the problem; he saw that means-testing was part of the problem and not the solution in terms of providing dignity for people in their old age. Yet, since then, we have seen an extension of means-testing. I accept the genuine approach of the hon. Member for Northampton, North to the question, but the fact is that, if the pension credit looks like a means test, breathes like a means test and walks like a means test, it is a means test. Pensioners know that. When this Government took office, 40 per cent. of pensioners were dependent on means-tested benefits; that figure has now reached more than 60 per cent. and is heading for 75 per cent.
    Ms Keeble: The hon. Gentleman said that he was in favour of restoring the link to earnings. Would that include the catch-up for what has been lost? What level does he envisage for the pension? A figure of £84 has been floated.
    Mr. Duncan: I shall try to put this as simply as possible. Pensioners' groups throughout the UK will welcome the fact that the next Conservative Government will restore the annual link between the old age pension and average earnings.
    The trend towards greater means-testing is wrong and is taking away people's dignity in retirement. The hon. Member for Hamilton, South—who I understand is now in Committee—painted a moving picture of life in a tenement where means-testing had a stigma attached. I understand that, and to many people, there is still a stigma attached to lifting the phone and having to go into great detail about their life savings. That does not provide them with any dignity. An increasing proportion of our pensioners have to go cap in hand to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to find dignity in their retirement, and I believe that that is wrong.
    The pension credit was lauded by the Government as their great solution, but the simple fact is that 1 million households will be excluded from it after three years. Even on the Government's own figures, some 1.4 million pensioners will not be getting the money to which they are entitled. I do not want Labour Members to suggest that I am talking down the pension credit. I am always accused, when discussing Scottish issues, of talking

    159
    down Scotland. I am talking down neither Scotland nor the pension credit. I want every single person in my constituency who is entitled to this credit to get it, but the Government's own figures tell us that it will not reach every person who is entitled to it.
    I was particularly impressed by the evidence in the report of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, which the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) will know intimately. It states that the pension credit
    "does significantly increase the number of pensioners who fall within that means test."
    I find it surprising that the hon. Gentleman suggested in a sedentary intervention that MPs say, "That's what we're paid for", when dealing with increased inquiries to expand the use of the pension credit. It is the Government's role to provide benefits to those entitled to them. I was astonished by the amount of time it took my office to sort out the chaos in the child tax credit a few months ago. I was willing to do that because it is part of my role, but it should not have been necessary. It was chaos of the Government's making and it is shameful that they have continued to preside over a system that does not provide benefits to those entitled to them.
    There is a growing perception, and reality, that looking after oneself is not worthwhile. I was shocked last week to be described for the first time as old; I am only 38. I read that I was at the end of the baby boom generation, born between 1945 and 1965, who are now becoming old and having to look after themselves. Where is the incentive for people of my generation to start looking after ourselves?
    Figures provided by Mercer, the independent consultants, show that a pension fund of £180,000 is required for a married couple before they are better off. If that is not the case, the Government must deny it. That is our understanding. It is a shocking figure and an indictment of how means-testing has so permeated the system. Means-testing takes away all incentive to look after oneself, not least by the ridiculous 10 per cent. assumed rate on savings beyond £6,000, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Havant said, is an appalling travesty of reality.
    The pensions crisis will never be resolved until we reverse the trend towards greater means-testing and go back to a system whereby it is in people's own interests to start looking forward to their old age and the opportunities that it provides, and until we provide dignity in what is surely one of the most attractive phases of life.
    3.11 pm
    Lynne Jones: There is no doubt that the Government have substantially increased the incomes of many of our poorest pensioners. Many are better off than they have ever been in their lives. Certainly that is what my mother told me; she is looking forward to receiving about £10 a week pension credit because she receives a small occupational pension as a result of 25 years of working and paying into a scheme.
    My problem is that even at £102 a week the pension credit still does not provide a high standard of living. Age Concern says that a modest but adequate income
    160
    for today's pensioners would be about £130 a week. The other concern is the disincentives built into the system as a result of the universal benefit—the basic state pension—being set at nearly £25 a week below the means-tested benefit. Under Labour's proposals, the pension credit would be set to increase over the next four years to about £122 a week—making various assumptions about rises in earnings—whereas the basic state pension would be expected to rise from £77.45 to £85.55 a week. The gap between those two pensioner benefits would continue to increase.
    The Tories have proclaimed that they have suddenly seen the light and decided that they want to restore the link to earnings. That is not what they are proposing. Their concern, and I agree, is that there is too big a gap—I do not think there should be a gap at all—between the basic state pension and the means-tested benefit, and they want to reduce the gap. Over four years, they would do that by restoring the link to earnings; that is a four-year commitment.
    Under the Tory proposals, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the basic state pension, instead of being £85.55 as under Labour's proposals, would be £92.40. In order to bridge the gap between the pension and the means-tested benefit, about which the Tories are rightly concerned, they would thus slightly boost the level of the basic state pension but hold down increases in the means-tested benefit. Under the Tory proposals, if the means-tested benefit were linked only to earnings, it would be £10 a week below Labour's proposals. In other words, the Tory proposals reduce the maximum help that would be available to the poorest pensioners. It will not be acceptable in 2009 if the means-tested pension is a mere £112.70 a week, in today's figures.
    It is dishonest of the Tories to suggest that they would restore the link. They want, rightly, to reduce means testing; in that, I agree with them entirely. But we must also ensure that we tackle pensioner poverty, and the Tories have not come up with proposals to deal with that.
    A person in their twenties planning for retirement will have to bear it in mind that when they retire in 40 years' time, there will be 40 per cent. more pensioners. The Government's plan is that we should spend no more than 5 per cent. of GDP on state pensions—the current level. Clearly, if there are to be 40 per cent. more pensioners, that is an unrealistically low and socially unacceptable level at which to aim.
    It might be possible to have a massive increase in private saving, but under the current arrangements with means-testing, that seems unlikely to be the case. My concern is about younger people who are trying to make an informed choice about saving for retirement, something the Government say they should be able to do. Unfortunately, the complexity of the current system makes it impossible for them to work out what they can expect from the state when they retire in up to 40 years' time. People doubt that the state will commit to paying a decent basic pension, particularly those who, unlike Members of Parliament, are not fortunate in having reasonably high salaries and good pension schemes. People on low incomes cannot see the point of saving for pensions, hence we see the crisis in the private pensions system, fuelled by an inadequate state system.

    161
    If we want to alleviate pensioner poverty, we have to save more for our pensions. The question is how that should be done and what the combination of state and private contribution should be. For the last 20 years, the financial services industry has tried to persuade opinion formers that state provision is failing and that the Government should privatise the process. Clearly that is what the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) believes.
    The financial services scandals have proved that markets cannot provide the level of security needed by people on low incomes if they are to be persuaded to put their money into retirement savings. We must decide what gives us the best value for money; whether it is putting money into a state pension through national insurance or taxation, or whether it is through private investment. The only way in which there will be a better return if money is put through private investment is if that increases growth in GDP above that which would have been the case had the state invested the money. There is nothing to indicate that that is the case. People now realise that the stock market is not a secure place for people on low incomes to invest their savings. In talking about compulsion, we need to guard against potential future accusations that the state forced people to contribute to a pension that did not give a decent return on their investment. If they are not careful, those who advocate compulsion could be accused in future of mis-selling.
    If we are to have a sustainable pensions policy, people of all political persuasions must come together to create it. I welcome the Conservatives' commitment to the establishment of the means-tested benefit at the same level, hopefully, as the basic state pension. That would surely provide a foundation for people to plan for the future. I do not believe, however, that in being committed to that, they are also committed to ensuring that pensioners are kept out of poverty. If that really is their aspiration, they would have to ensure that the basic pension is set at a decent level. There are plenty of arguments for spending more, in terms of contributing to a state pension. The Pensions Policy Institute said that bringing the basic state pension up to the same level as the means-tested benefit would cost 0.5 per cent. of gross domestic product. This Government should aim for that over time, because it would then be possible to phase out the pension credit. That would also provide a real incentive for younger people, in that they could keep for themselves everything that they saved above the state provision.
    I am an unreconstructed believer in universal benefits, coupled with a progressive taxation system through which people such as me—who benefit from child benefit or, eventually, a basic state pension—pay higher taxes if they have a sufficiently high income. That is a simple, affordable system that people can understand. Organisations such as the Institute for Public Policy Research and an increasing number of people in the pensions industry are saying that, to encourage private saving and to save taxpayers' money and spending on future means-tested benefits, we must set the basic state pension at a decent level.
    We need to start talking about how we can simplify the system. If the Government really want people to make informed choices, they must tackle the interrelationship between basic state provision and
    162
    private provision. I urge my hon. Friends to extend the remit of the pension commission, so that it can examine this important issue.
    I shall examine the proposals of the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden, but it appears that they have nothing additional to offer today's pensioners or future pensioners, when compared with the Government's state second pension. Of course, if we were to do away with contracting-out provision and examine how we spend tax relief for private provision, we could release some £17 billion. That money would be much better spent on ensuring that the basic state pension is set at a decent level, and on giving greater incentives to people on lower incomes to save privately, or in other ways. For example, Richard Murphy, Colin Hines and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) have come up with an interesting proposal in a pamphlet entitled "People's Pensions", which is about investing in Government bonds. I remind Members that in the 1960s, 50 per cent. of pension fund assets were invested in Government bonds; now, only 6 or 7 per cent. are so invested. So there are ways other than equities—investing in equities is a highly risky business—in which people can invest money, over and above what the state provides. I encourage people to look at such provisions.
    We have to do more to ensure that people on low incomes can rely on the state, and on the fact that anything that they save will be available to them when they retire, rather than being clawed back through means-tested benefit. That is the real flaw in the Government's policy, even more so than the question of stigma. The Government are not making clear to younger people what the state will provide for them when they retire. That is a crucial flaw, and I urge the Government to rectify it.
    3.26 pm
    Hywel Williams: I shall be brief as I appreciate that time is rather short. I must confess that this debate has a slight feeling of unreality, given the free transfer of policies that we have witnessed between Government and Opposition Front Benchers. As that great philosopher Yogi Bear might have said, "It looks like yet another case of déjà vu, Boo Boo." The party that broke the link between pensions and benefits and earnings—albeit under different circumstances—is now advocating the re-establishment of that link and a return to universalism. And the party that condemned the breaking of that link—to its credit, it established it when in government, between 1974 and 1979—is now arguing contrariwise.
    Many good people in the Labour party who are my friends—some of them are even in the Labour party in Wales—despair at the Government's determination to extend income testing even further. These are the people alongside whom I worked to ensure that child benefit was retained and, indeed, improved as a universal flat-rate benefit. They are the same Labour people who argue, rightly, that applying the income test guarantees that some people—often the poorest, who should be receiving additional benefits—will not claim, for a variety of reasons. Those people are guaranteed to lose out in the very long term.
    They are also the Labour party people who realise that applying the income test on an ever-increasing scale will inevitably lead to ever-increasing complexity, which

    163
    has been a theme of today's debate. The Government might say that their new income test is not like previous tests, and I am sure that there is an element of truth in that assertion. But in the end, we cannot buck the fundamentals. If the payment of benefit is contingent on an individual assessment, that assessment has to be carried out. Even the simplest and most infrequent of individual assessments will inevitably lead to more complexity and more scope for mistakes, and to disincentive effects on claiming and saving. We know that, in reality, those assessments will not apply for five years, because people will have to report changes much more often. I wish that I shared the confidence of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), who said that reporting the changes would be straightforward and unproblematic. It might be unproblematic for Members, but not to older people in my constituency and throughout Wales.
    I want briefly to draw attention to some of the problems experienced at the Swansea pension centre—the only pension centre in Wales. It is our national pension centre and its problems are a national issue in Wales. It has proved a problem to get through to workers dedicated to particular cases, rather than to a different person every time that people phone. Indeed, people certainly experience a problem in accessing the telephone lines. I look to the Minister for an assurance—perhaps in a letter—that the workers who staff the telephone lines, and particularly the Welsh language telephone line, will be suitably trained and qualified. They should be directly employed by the pensions centre and not, as people suspect, agency workers.
    I have to say that the experience of my constituents is not good, certainly in respect of the computer system. Members will be interested to know that this morning I phoned the new directory inquiries companies to ask for the pension line number. One company had no idea what I was talking about, so I phoned a competitor company, which was equally baffled. So much for the privatisation of the old 192 system. Pensioners in my constituency who are looking for the number will be equally baffled.
    Reference has been made to home visits. Local pension clinics are certainly held in my constituency and their work is valuable, but they are run fortnightly and there is a question about what counts as local. I shall provide one example for people who are familiar with the geography of north-west Wales. A clinic is held in Porthmadog, which my constituents might be able to attend, but, unfortunately, it is about 30 miles away and public transport is not what one would like.
    We know that pensioner poverty is not evenly spread; it is much worse in northern England, Scotland and Wales. Such regional problems are real. Will the Minister give an assurance, again by a letter, that the Government have targets for take-up in the appropriate regions of England, Scotland and Wales? What are those targets and what is the time scale for their achievement?
    The pension protection plan, which has already been discussed, is welcome. However, Plaid Cymru Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price),
    164
    highlighted the scandal at ASW months ago. The Secretary of State for Wales said that the then proposed protection was a gimmick. I am glad to see that that gimmick has now crossed the Floor from these Benches to the Government Front Bench.
    Another issue is the extension of the right to work up to the age of 70. Members on both sides of the House are concerned about extending employment protection to those working longer into their lifespan. The right to sue for unfair dismissal is essential and should be in place now rather than in 2006, if it comes at all.
    I should like to finish with a couple of points that apply particularly to Wales and to some of the ways of solving the conundrum posed earlier by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones)—how to pay for it all. My party's policies on regional economic matters and national Welsh economic matters come into play. The inactivity of large parts of the work force over the age of 50 is an important factor, and such economic inactivity is much worse in Wales, Scotland and some English regions than in the south-east of England. On some calculations, if the rate of economic activity were raised in those regions, it would provide sufficient tax take and national insurance contribution to pay for a much better pension. I am no mathematician and I am not sure that that income would be enough, but I certainly commend that way of dealing with the problem. Finally, my party believes that greater means-testing will play badly in Wales, particularly among poorer people. It is not the way to proceed.
    3.34 pm
    John Robertson: I was interested in the contribution from the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) or, as he is known in Scotland, the Tory one. I feel that he is a friend, but a misguided one. I have been surprised by the crocodile tears of the Conservatives. Those tears are a ruse: they do not care one jot about means-testing and that has been shown over many years. Nor do they care one jot about the poorest in society. It is political point scoring at its worst and it is done without any thought of or consideration for the people who they are using to make those points.
    I represent Glasgow, Anniesland, and we have some 13,500 pensioner households on a conservative—with a small c—estimate, or about 18,000 over-60s. The pension credit appears to be working well. The complaints that we have heard today about the telephone lines are not matched in the Anniesland area. The only problems that we have relate to paperwork and letters received. I have talked to the pension people and, apparently, the letters are written by a computer. They are formulated according to the answers given on the forms. However, that is not the way to do it when dealing with real people, especially the elderly. I ask the Minister to look at the problem—I have mentioned it to him before—so that people receive letters that they can understand. More importantly, MPs should be able to understand them—it has taken me a few readings to work some of them out. I have some knowledge of what has happened with the pension credit, however, and I pay tribute to the people manning the telephone lines for the good work that they are doing.

    165
    We should remember what the Government have done and people should realise what could be lost if the Conservatives were to come to power. My pensioner households receive £200 every winter as their winter fuel allowance, not the measly £5 that was mentioned earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), who talked about running all over her constituency trying to hand out forms. The £200 is given to every pensioner household every year and I am glad to say that after my prompting and prodding the Chancellor put it up to that amount. I take personal credit for that.
    Mr. Peter Duncan: Are any of the pensioner households that the hon. Gentleman mentions paying more council tax? Is that increase greater than the £200 that he mentions?
    John Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The sad fact is that many pensioner households in Anniesland do not pay council tax, because they are so far down the economic ladder. However, for those who do pay it, the council in Glasgow has kept it fairly level over the past four or five years and it has actually gone down in real terms. I thank him for that question because I am sure that it has added a couple more votes to my majority.
    The Government have not and should not apologise for means-testing. It was not introduced by this Government, but it is necessary if we are to find out who are the poorest in society. The number of people we have taken care of holds up against any Government in the past and, I hazard a guess, in the future as well. The Government should be commended for their work on pensions. It is important that we look after those who need to be looked after the most. Anybody who suggests otherwise is talking through a hole in their head.
    Rob Marris: Other than their mouth.
    John Robertson: Exactly. The across-the-board increases mentioned by the Opposition sound very nice, but—as was clear from their speeches—they are trying to help only the top 10 per cent. The Opposition do not care about 60 per cent. of the population. Why not? Because that 60 per cent. do not vote for them. If that 60 per cent. voted for them, they would start to care about them. As it is, the Conservatives are happy to throw that 60 per cent. in a dustbin.
    I am aware of the time and I shall be interested to hear what the Opposition spokesman has to say, but I have one further comment about the 18 years of misrule during which the Tories did little for pensioners. We have known for decades that there is a pension problem. It is not confined to the UK, but affects the rest of the world, especially those countries in the western hemisphere that do rather well in financial terms.
    We do not need to take lessons about pensions from the Opposition. The Conservative Government created 4 million unemployed. Where were the pensions of the long-term unemployed? I congratulate the Government on what they have done, and want them to do an awful lot more. I wanted to say a word about final-salary pensions, but that will have to wait for another day.
    3.40 pm
    Mr. Oliver Heald: We have had an excellent debate this afternoon. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) got a little overheated, but even he made some excellent points about the need for everyone involved to take a serious look at this issue. Early in his remarks, he made the point that there must be means-testing if we are to find out who are the poorest pensioners. That contrasted with the comment made just before by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams), who said that it is the poorest pensioners who will not and do not claim under the means test.
    A range of excellent speeches were made by Back-Bench Members. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) made a distinguished contribution, to which I shall return. My hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) did not deserve the somewhat uncharitable comments from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland, as he made an excellent speech too. Hon. Members of all parties recognise, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) noted, that reform is needed. We must improve the situation with the state pension scheme in particular if we are to tackle the problems that the country faces.
    Before this Labour Government came to power, Labour Members were deeply concerned about means-testing. I remember well a document published in 1996 entitled "Getting Welfare to Work", in which the Labour party made the point that means-tested benefits at that time were claimed by 3.5 million people over state retirement age. It complained that 600,000 were not receiving the income support to which they were entitled, and said that they were among the poorest people in Britain. In fact, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer called at that time for an end to the means test, and spoke about the massive increase in inequality among pensioners. He made the point that the poorest pensioners were those who did not claim.
    In this debate, we have heard the comments made by the hon. Members for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) and for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden and by my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale. They all noted that we parliamentarians will have to work hard to encourage people to take up the benefits to which they are entitled, and of course they are right.
    When I was a junior Minister, we used to have take-up campaigns with Age Concern. We used to push hard for take-up. The current Government have made a real effort in that regard, but it has not worked. That is what has led the Opposition to review our policies.
    Labour made bold statements in opposition, but the income of the bottom fifth of pensioners, as a percentage of national average earnings, is now lower than in 1979. Stakeholder pensions were supposed to be the solution for those earning between £9,000 and £20,000 a year. The information company Datamonitor has said that that policy was simply "cannibalising" existing retirement provision, and noted that almost everyone joining the schemes was simply changing within the system, rather than being a new applicant. Ninety per cent. of the company schemes set up for stakeholder

    167
    pensions have no money in them. Pension credits have been introduced, and they have spread means-testing to more than 50 per cent. of the population.
    The Government's ambition means that in 2006—that is, in three years' time—1.4 million of the poorest pensioners will still be missing out on the benefits to which they are entitled. And the Government say that they are targeting help on the poorest pensioners. It is nonsense.
    The modelling assumes that every poor pensioner will claim the benefits to which he is entitled—the Secretary of State is always saying that, but he is defying the experience of Ministers and individuals who have been concerned about the problem for the past 10 years. We have seen what happens; it does not work. One has only to read the comments of people such as Gordon Lishman, who heads Age Concern, to realise that. He says that there is further evidence that money is not getting to the poorest older people and that hundreds of thousands of older people who are eligible for the minimum income guarantee do not claim because they are put off by the stigma or because they do not understand their pension rights. He has explained all the difficulties.
    It is not enough to suggest, as some hon. Members have, that if one calls the means test something else, one gets rid of that stigma. That is not what is happening. Let us look at the latest figures, six months into the pension credit. Of course, there are the 1.8 million households that were transferred automatically to the new system, but only 100,000 further households have been processed in six months, which is fewer than 200,000 individuals. The case load is 3.1 million. How long will those people have to wait for the money that the Government have already committed themselves to? They say that those people are entitled to the money, but it will take years even to reach the point where 1.5 million people get it. It is a failed system.
    The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak has been involved in these issues for years. She and others who spoke in the debate, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden and, of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) in his opening speech, pointed out that there is a massive disincentive to save if we have means-tested benefits so high up the income scale. The approach is misplaced. Even the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) pointed out that the current arrangement is damaging retirement income because it is such a disincentive to save. Under this Government the savings ratio is half what it was under the Conservatives.
    What has happened to funded pensions? My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden described them as being in "meltdown" and other hon. Members have described the situation as "disastrous". Why did that happen? There was the £5 billion a year pensions tax—the ending of dividend tax credits—and the erosion of the basic protection provided by the minimum funding requirement, which the Government twice deliberately eroded. They slashed it. There were the contracted out rebates, which have not kept pace with the actuarial value of the rights for which they are supposed to pay—a further £1.5 billion pension tax imposed by this Government. Then, we are supposed to
    168
    be surprised—they say that it is due to the economic conditions—when only 19 per cent. of final salary schemes are now open to new members. What will that do to the future livelihoods of our people? For the first time in generations, workers will expect a worse income in retirement than their predecessors.
    Twenty-six organisations have called for state pension reform. The Conservative party has looked into that and come up with proposals that are costed, hold water and will improve the situation. People throughout the country are despairing about the fact that this Government will not even consider reform—even members of the Labour party in Wales are despairing of that fact, as the hon. Member for Caernarfon said.
    All that the Government have come up with are proposals designed to limit the damage that they have done: proposals for protection schemes, for example. One can cautiously welcome such proposals, but what about creating incentives to save? As my right hon. Friend and most other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate have acknowledged, savings are what will give people the pensions that they need. Until we have a system that gives pension schemes, employers and individuals some scrap of incentive to save, we will not solve the problem.
    I have a lot of sympathy with the point made by the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) about the winding-up victims. I have met them and marched with them. We have held debates in the House about them. We supported the Second Reading of the Bill promoted by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, but blocked by the Government time after time after time.
    The Government promised so much. They promised less means-testing, but we got more; more equality, but we got less; better take-up, but we got worse take-up. They promised a move towards more saving and funded provision compared with state benefits, but we got less. Some people say that less is more and perhaps in the language of new Labour—the language of spin—that is the case, but the truth is that this is the failed record of a failed Government. They live in such an unreal world that they believe that failure is the new success. "New Labour—best at its boldest." Bold as brass—brass neck!
    Hon. Members: Follow that.
    3.50 pm
    The Minister for Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): Follow that indeed. I was about to say that we had heard a fine debate with thoughtful speeches, but it went off a bit towards the end. I had not realised that I was following a marcher and a demonstrator. I can imagine the chant, "What do we want? Tory leadership. When do we want it? Now".
    The debate has been useful. The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), made a significant speech that I much enjoyed. I did not agree with all of it but it was an important speech. I heard recently that the Liberal Democrat leader had shuffled away all the lefties. I have never seen

    169
    a leftie on the Liberal Democrat Benches, but it is good to see that the hon. Gentleman is still in his place in the senior common room.
    The hon. Gentleman mentioned the concerns of the shadow Secretary of State about the nation's fertility but I shall not follow him down that path. We do not want the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) to be referred to as "two brains and three or more babies".
    My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) made an important speech in which he contrasted the mean-minded means-testing of yesteryear, drawing on his family's past and experience, with the approach to pension credit today— [Interruption.] I hope that people will read his speech, including the laughers who were not in the Chamber during the debate, and that, whatever their concerns about income testing, they will at least understand the significant points that he made. It was a moving speech.
    The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), a former Secretary of State, made an important speech about occupational pensions. He modestly advertised his new Social Market Foundation pamphlet. I already have a copy, but I imagine that others might wait for the January sales to get a better bargain. He presented his proposals with great care and research and I enjoyed his speech.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) talked about policy objectives and the importance of ensuring not only the relief of poverty but also comfort and dignity in old age. I commend her efforts in Northampton in boosting pension credit; such action is important.
    The hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) referred to issues in his rural constituency. I should like to talk to him more about that so that we can ensure that our local Pension Service, which is doing a good job across Great Britain, can be of greater significance in his constituency in respect of the location of advice surgeries. I shall be happy to talk to him about that.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) outlined her concerns, which are well known. I appreciate her points although I do not agree with them. She was in some difficulty; I thought that I heard a tremor in her voice when she said that she agreed with the Conservatives' new approach to the earnings link. However, as the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden praised the Australian Labour Government's approach to pensions, it has probably just been one of those interesting afternoons.
    The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) expressed some concerns about the Pension Service in Wales. I should like to talk to you seriously about those. I think that the service is doing a good job there, but if there are concerns I want to look into them and I should appreciate your advice.
    170
    My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson), among other things, paid tribute to our Pension Service.
    Mr. Adrian Flook: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Malcolm Wicks: May I make some progress? I will give way if you catch my eye again.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that he should be speaking in the third person? I let it go to start with but he seems to have got into a groove.
    Malcolm Wicks: I am so carried away by the debate on pensions, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    We have touched on a range of issues about the state's responsibilities for pensions. Of course, those important responsibilities include establishing a reasonable basic pension and related rights; tackling poverty, which I want to come on to; increasing access to second and earnings-related state pensions; promoting confidence and trust in pensions, which has been a theme today; and informing and educating the public, particularly younger people, about pension choices and the importance of pension forecasts.
    Finally, the responsibilities include enabling the development of flexible work and retirement patterns so that we can promote work among the over-50s, abolish age discrimination, promote favourable financial arrangements for those who defer the state pension—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has introduced proposals—and. of course, allow older people to draw their pension and continue employment at the same time.
    On the central issue today—pension credit—I urge right hon. and hon. Members to be careful about how we discuss such issues. It is important to have a debate and there are differences between us, but if we use words such as "stigma" in relation to claiming pension credit, I am afraid that we may achieve the result that we all do not want to achieve.
    Mr. Flook: In the Minister's tribute to all those who have contributed to the debate—sadly, although I have been sitting here, I was unable to do so—he has still not mentioned the word, "means-testing". Given that mean-testing has increased dramatically under this Government, can he explain how my generation can be encouraged to save for the future?
    Malcolm Wicks: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman missed the debate. No doubt he will catch up by reading Hansard. The point that I am trying to make is that, if we talk about stigma, we will put off frail and vulnerable people from applying for their rights to pension credit.
    Let me quote from The Times of 10 October. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State quoted the Daily Mail; I want to go up market and quote from The Times, where someone writes:
    "I fail to understand why the current pensions regime should attract so much criticism. As someone who has recently dealt with the pension service on behalf of an elderly relative, I can say that

    171
    the process of applying for pension credit was extremely straightforward, with the form being almost fully completed over the phone."
    Mr. Heald rose—
    Malcolm Wicks: No doubt, the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about stigma again.
    Mr. Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman think it wrong for the director general of Age Concern, who helps the Minister to run his campaign on take-up, to refer to stigma? The quotation came not from me, but from the director general of Age Concern.
    Malcolm Wicks: Yes, I think that the director general is wrong. That is the short answer to that question.
    We have had much success on pension credit. All those on the minimum income guarantee have been successfully transferred to pension credit. We have written to 1.6 million households, and 1.1 million households have already gained extra money as a result of pension credit. It is heartening to hear many of the success stories about people ending up with £86 more a week—not only from pension credit, but from other benefits, such as housing benefit—and, in another case, in Essex, with £35 more a week.
    The Tory proposal to return to the earnings link is farfetched, given that a Conservative Government abolished it back in 1980. If this goes on, we will soon see the shadow Home Secretary visit a comprehensive school just to show that he understands such things and, no doubt, he will talk to the lads and lasses about whether they prefer fox hunting or fives as a sport.
    Gregory Barker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Malcolm Wicks: I have not got time.
    I am afraid that, if the Conservatives were ever to implement their policies, it would be bad news for women, who should be major gainers, and the very group who would not receive any help would be the very poor. Let me quote what the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer said on the Dimbleby programme on 5 October. He said:
    "Those who are entitled to the pension credit and do claim…will not be better off"
    under Conservative proposals. There we have it. If the Conservatives abolished the state second pension, carers would be no better off either.
    The fact of the matter is that, whatever the Conservative party says today, people contrast the Conservative Government's record, when nothing was done for the poorest, with the policies of this Labour Government who, as well as bolstering the basic state pension, have helped the poorest, with the pension credit, free television licences for the over-75s, the winter fuel payments and re-establishing the eye tests that the Conservatives abolished.
    That is our record. We will debate it, put it to the British people, and compare it not with the promises of the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions but with the record of the previous
    172
    Conservative Government. I hope that everyone will go out and argue for the pension credit and ensure that those people in our communities and constituencies who most deserve pension credit receive it. Our take-up target is 100 per cent. We want everyone to get it. There will be those who sneer, but we will do our best to ensure that everyone who deserves pension credit will receive it.
    Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
    The House proceeded to a Division.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.
    The House having divided: Ayes 200. Noes 331.

    Division No. 324]

    [4:00 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Evans, Nigel

    Allan, Richard

    Ewing, Annabelle

    Amess, David

    Fabricant, Michael

    Ancram, rh Michael

    Fallon. Michael

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Flight, Howard

    Bacon, Richard

    Flook, Adrian

    Baker, Norman

    Forth, rh Eric

    Barker, Gregory

    Fox, Dr. Liam

    Baron, John (Billericay)

    Francois, Mark

    Beith, rh A. J.

    Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

    Bercow, John

    George, Andrew (St. Ives)

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

    Blunt, Crispin

    Goodman, Paul

    Boswell, Tim

    Gray, James (N Wilts)

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Grayling, Chris

    Brady, Graham

    Green, Damian (Ashford)

    Brazier, Julian

    Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

    Breed, Colin

    Greenway, John

    Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

    Grieve, Dominic

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Gummer, rh John

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Hague, rh William

    Burnett, John

    Hammond, Philip

    Burns, Simon

    Hancock, Mike

    Burstow, Paul

    Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W &

    Burt, Alistair

    Abingdon)

    Butterfill, John

    Harvey, Nick

    Cable, Dr. Vincent

    Hawkins, Nick

    Calton, Mrs Patsy

    Hayes, John (S Holland)

    Cameron, David

    Heald, Oliver

    Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

    Heath, David

    Carmichael, Alistair

    Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

    Cash, William

    Hendry, Charles

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

    Hermon, Lady

    Barnet)

    Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

    Chidgey, David

    Hogg, rh Douglas

    Chope, Christopher

    Holmes, Paul

    Clappison, James

    Horam, John (Orpington)

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Howard, rh Michael

    Collins, Tim

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Cotter, Brian

    Hunter, Andrew

    Cran, James (Beverley)

    Jack, rh Michael

    Curry, rh David

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

    Keetch, Paul

    Stamford)

    Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

    Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

    Inverness)

    Howden)

    Key, Robert (Salisbury)

    Djanogly, Jonathan

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Dodds, Nigel

    Lamb, Norman

    Dorrell, rh Stephen

    Lansley, Andrew

    Doughty, Sue

    Laws, David (Yeovil)

    Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

    Leigh, Edward

    Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

    Letwin, rh Oliver

    173

    Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

    Selous, Andrew

    Liddell-Grainger, Ian

    Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

    Lilley, rh Peter

    Shepherd, Richard

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

    Loughton, Tim

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

    Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

    Kincardine)

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Soames, Nicholas

    Maclean, rh David

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Malins, Humfrey

    Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

    Maples, John

    Spring, Richard

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

    Stanley, rh Sir John

    Steen, Anthony

    Maude, rh Francis

    Streeter, Gary

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Stunell, Andrew

    Mercer, Patrick

    Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

    Syms, Robert

    Coldfield)

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Taylor, lan (Esher)

    Moore, Michael

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Norman, Archie

    Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

    Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Teather, Sarah

    Opik, Lembit

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Osborne, George (Tatton)

    Thurso, John

    Ottaway, Richard

    Tonge, Dr. Jenny

    Page, Richard

    Trend, Michael

    Paice, James

    Trimble, rh David

    Paterson, Owen

    Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

    Pickles, Eric

    Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

    Portillo, rh Michael

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

    Viggers, Peter

    Dinefwr)

    Walter, Robert

    Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Pugh, Dr. John

    Webb, Steve (Northavon)

    Randall, John

    Weir, Michael

    Redwood, rh John

    Whittingdale, John

    Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

    Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

    Rendel, David

    Wiggin, Bill

    Robathan, Andrew

    Willetts, David

    Robertson, Angus (Moray)

    Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

    Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

    Williams, Roger
    (Brecon)

    M-Kent)

    Wilshire, David

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Winterton, Ann
    (Congleton)

    Robinson, Mrs lris (Strangford)

    Winterton, Sir Nicholas

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    (Macclesfield)

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Wishart, Pete

    Rosindell, Andrew

    Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

    Ruffley, David

    Young, rh Sir George

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Salmond, Alex

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Sanders, Adrian

    Angela Watkinson and

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Mr. Mark Field

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Best, Harold

    Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

    Betts, Clive

    Ainger, Nick

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Blizzard, Bob

    Allen, Graham

    Blunkett, rh David

    Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

    Boateng, rh Paul

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

    Borrow, David

    Darwen

    Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Bailey, Adrian

    Brennan, Kevin

    Baird, Vera

    Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

    Barnes, Harry

    Wallsend

    Battle, John

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Browne, Desmond

    Beard, Nigel

    Bryant, Chris

    Benn, Hilary

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Bennett, Andrew

    Burden, Richard

    Benton, Joe (Bootle)

    Burgon, Colin

    Berry, Roger

    Burnham, Andy

    174

    Byers, rh Stephen

    Gilroy, Linda

    Caborn, rh Richard

    Godsiff, Roger

    Cairns, David

    Goggins, Paul

    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)

    Challen, Colin

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Chaytor, David

    Hanson, David

    Clapham, Michael

    Harman, rh Ms Harriet

    Clark, Mrs Helen
    (Peterborough)

    Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

    Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

    Rhymney)

    Pentlands)

    Healey, John

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

    Hendrick, Mark

    Chryston)

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Hesford, Stephen

    Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

    Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

    Coaker, Vernon

    Heyes, David

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Cohen, Harry

    Hinchliffe, David

    Coleman, Iain

    Hodge, Margaret

    Colman, Tony

    Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

    Connarty, Michael

    Hoon, rh Geoffrey

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Hope, Phil (Corby)

    Cooper, Yvette

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Cousins, Jim

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

    Cranston, Ross

    Sefton E)

    Crausby, David

    Howells, Dr. Kim

    Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

    Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

    Urmston)

    (Copeland)

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Iddon, Dr. Brian

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Illsley, Eric

    David, Wayne

    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

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Dismore, Andrew

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    Dobson, rh Frank

    Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

    Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

    Drew, David (Stroud)

    Kaufman, rh Gerald

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Keen, Alan (Feltham)

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Keen, Ann (Brentford)

    Edwards, Huw

    Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

    Efford, Clive

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Kidney, David

    Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Farrelly, Paul

    King, Andy (Rugby)

    Fisher, Mark

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Bow)

    Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Foster, rh Derek

    Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Lammy, David

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings &

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Rye)

    Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

    Foulkes, rh George

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Francis, Dr. Hywel

    Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

    Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Gardiner, Barry

    Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

    George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

    Linton, Martin

    Gerrard, Neil

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Gibson, Dr. Ian

    Love, Andrew

    175

    Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

    Pike, Peter (Burnley)

    Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

    Plaskitt, James

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Pollard, Kerry

    McCabe, Stephen

    Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

    McCafferty, Chris

    Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Pound, Stephen

    MacDonald, Calum

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

    McDonnell, John

    E)

    MacDougall, John

    Primarolo, rh Dawn

    McFall, John

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Mclsaac, Shona

    Purnell, lames

    McKechin, Ann

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Rammell, Bill

    McNamara, Kevin

    Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

    McNulty, Tony

    Raynsfoid, rh Nick

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

    McWalter, Tony

    Robertson, John (Glasgow

    McWilliam, John

    Anniesland)

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    NW)

    Mallaber, Judy

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

    Rooney, Terry

    Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

    Marshall, David (Glasgow

    Ruane, Chris

    Shettleston)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Russell, Ms Christine (City of
    Chester)

    Marshall-Andrews,

    Robert

    Martlew, Eric

    Salter, Martin

    Meacher, rh Michael

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Merron, Gillian

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Michael, rh Alun

    Sawford, Phil

    Milburn, rh Alan

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Miliband, David

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Moffatt, Laura

    Sheridan, Jim

    Mole, Chris

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Moonie, Dr. Lewis

    Short, rt Clare

    Moran, Margaret

    Simon, Sion (B'ham Erdington)

    Morgan, Julie

    Skinner, Dennis

    Morley, Elliot

    Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

    Morris, rh Estelle

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Mountford, Kali

    Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

    Mudie, George

    Finsbury)

    Mullin, Chris

    Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Lunesdale)

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Naysmith, Dr. Doug

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

    Soley, Clive

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Spellar, rh John

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Squire, Rachel

    O'Hara, Edward

    Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

    Olner, Bill

    Steinberg, Gerry

    O'Neill, Martin

    Stevenson, George

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Stewart, David (Inverness E &

    Owen, Albert

    Lochaber)

    Palmer, Dr. Nick

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Pearson, Ian

    Stoate, Dr. Howard

    Perham, Linda

    Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

    Picking, Anne

    Stringer, Graham

    176

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

    Tami, Mark (Alyn)

    Williams, Betty (Conwy)

    Taylor, Dan (Stockton S)

    Wills, Michael

    Taylor, David (NW Leis)

    Winnick, David

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

    Tipping, Paddy

    C)

    Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

    Wood. Mike (Batley)

    Touhig, Don (IsIwyn)

    Woodward, Shaun

    Trickett, Jon

    Woolas, Phil

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Worthington, Tony

    Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

    Wray, James (Glasgow

    Kemptown)

    Baillieston)

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Yarmouth)

    Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Vis, Dr. Rudi

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Wyatt, Derek

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Watts, David

    Mr. John Heppell and

    Whitehead, Dr. Alan

    Mr. Fraser Kemp

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
    MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House welcomes the fact that people are living longer than ever before; welcomes Government action to tackle pensioner poverty and to promote retirement flexibility, occupational pension security and informed choice; condemns the inheritance of 1997, with millions of pensioners in poverty, many being expected by the Government to live on under £68 a week, and the legacy of pension mis-selling; endorses the Work and Pensions Committee's judgement that "current policies have been successful in reducing pensioner poverty"; notes that the Government is spending £9 billion extra per year in real terms on pensioners compared with the 1997 system; further notes that this is £5.7 billion more than if the basic pension had been linked to earnings; applauds the fact that the poorest third of pensioners will be £1,600 a year better off; welcomes the successful payment of Pension Credit from this month to over two million pensioners and the fact that 1.3 million are gaining more money than they had before; further supports the Government's approach to renew the pensions partnership, outlined in the recent Green Paper and Action Plan; commends plans to introduce a Pension Protection Fund, guaranteeing protection if a company scheme winds up; welcomes proposals to allow individuals to defer their state pension and draw it as a lump sum; looks forward to further measures enabling people to make an informed choice in pension provision, increase flexibility approaching retirement and to work free from age discrimination; and condemns the unfair, unaffordable and unsustainable policies of Opposition parties.

    Neighbourhood Policing
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): We now come to the second debate on the Opposition motions. I must inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
    4.17 pm
    Mr. Oliver Letwin: I beg to move,
    That this House welcomes the emerging political and professional consensus about the need to increase the level and effectiveness of neighbourhood policing in Britain in order to restore the confidence of the public but regrets that the Government is seeking to achieve this through a burdensome and ineffective bureaucracy; and urges the Government instead to return power to decentralised local policing and to make local policing more accountable to local people.
    As I will mention some things on which the Opposition and the Government are not in total agreement, I begin by acknowledging the significant overlaps and degrees of consensus that exist between us on neighbourhood policing. I am heartened that all three main parties agree, I think, that we need to do something serious to improve the effectiveness of national and international policing by increasing the co-ordination of the many bodies involved in that endeavour. That includes not only parts of the Metropolitan police, but other agencies—the National Crime Squad, the National Criminal Intelligence Service and parts of Customs and Excise, the immigration and nationality department and the security services. I hope and trust that we can advance on the basis of agreement, although we may be at variance over time, and sustain change in that aspect of our national life. I add that it is remarkable for a senior chief police officer to make a speech in which he applauds both the Home Secretary and myself for moving in the same direction on something, as he did on that policy.
    The second and last matter of consensus is that the Home Secretary and I agree—I suspect that the new spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), whom I welcome to his position, will also agree—on the need for effective neighbourhood policing. That is not as anodyne as it might seem. Some years ago, many chief constables and the political parties would not have regarded that as a priority. For some years we were all under the sway of the idea that real, proper, professional policing involved turning away from the neighbourhood and towards the pursuit of the serious criminal by means of the intelligence model and other devices rightly and admirably developed by Sir David Phillips and others in our police forces.
    I think that, partly as a result of seeing what has been done in other countries—primarily in some American jurisdictions—we have all now concluded that we need, in one way or another, to add to the splendid pursuit of effective means of containing the serious criminal a renewed emphasis on neighbourhood policing. I think that we also agree that this is not just a matter of reassuring people and making them feel comfortable, but of taking ownership of the neighbourhood—a matter of putting the police officer into the
    178
    neighbourhood and making him feel that he is its custodian. It is a matter of ensuring that the low-level intelligence that comes from a police officer's really knowing the people for whom he or she is responsible, and from their really knowing the officer, can be used to benefit the control of not just crime but—equally important—disorder.
    I believe that those aims are shared by Members throughout the House; it is about the means that there is so much debate. The Home Secretary and the Government have adopted a number of means to try to achieve the neighbourhood policing of which I have spoken. For instance, a huge amount of energy has been poured into initiatives, most recently—in the last 36 hours—the initiative on antisocial behaviour. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] We shall see whether Labour Members' delight persists.
    There have been many initiatives from the Home Secretary—I believe that they are currently running at roughly one a week—but the record has not been entirely good. The night courts turned out to cost £8,000 a case, and have been abandoned. The cash point fines did not cost anything, because they were abandoned before they could. The child curfews have cost nothing, because there have been none. The proposal most apposite to the antisocial behaviour initiative—the proposal to withdraw housing benefits from bad tenants—has never been implemented.
    It might be regarded as a mere piece of cheap politics to point out that many of the initiatives do not exist, but a deeper issue is at stake. It must be admitted that some initiatives have been carried through and that some, in their own terms, have enjoyed some success. The question is, has anything sustainable been left behind?
    Let us take the street crime initiative. I have admitted publicly, and will go on record as admitting today, that it has succeeded to some extent, for a period, in the places to which it has been applied. It is true that it has been rather expensive—I believe that it costs about £14,000 per mugging eliminated and that it has, to a degree, distracted the attention of the local constabulary: in the areas where street crime has fallen, burglaries have increased. Those, however, are not my main points, and over time they may no longer apply. The situation will vary from area to area.
    The real issue is that the lasting effect is unlikely to be great, because an initiative cannot deal with underlying problems. Drug-related crime is an example. The street crime initiative rightly identified, for instance, the need to ensure that the young hard drugs addicts who, I regret to say, are responsible for a huge proportion of acquisitive crime—especially acquisitive street crime—were treated, and correctly stated that they would be treated very quickly. It failed to note, however, that no effective intensive treatment was available. As we all know, a large number of those young people were led up the garden path: they secured appointments, but they never secured intensive treatment. That is a serious failure to tackle the underlying problem.
    It is not just me who says these things. The Lord Chief Justice, who I do not believe is a supporter of the Conservative party—not that he is a supporter of any party; he does not speak from a political position—said:
    "You can have initiative after initiative … but if you don't touch the basic problems, you will never achieve public confidence."

    179
    I know that from time to time the Home Secretary comforts himself with the thought that members of the judiciary are wholly out of touch, do not believe that, but the Home Secretary does, so let us hear from Jan Berry, the head of the Police Federation—one could not get much more in touch with reality than that—who said:
    "There is a real danger that with the centre increasingly dictating police priorities, police resources will increasingly be skewed to respond to the latest high profile cause célébre"—
    she uses the term "cause célébre" because she is an intellectual; I use the word "initiative—"
    "to hit the media. Policing is not just about quick wins or one-dimensional responses. We are in the business of delivering longterm sustainable solutions to crime and disorder."
    That is indeed the business that we ought to be in. I do not believe that initiative after initiative is likely to deliver that result.
    It would be very unfair—I hope that I have some reputation for being fair about these matters—to accuse the Home Secretary of merely engaging in initiatives. His energy is limitless, and initiatives occupy only a small part of it. He is also fond of creating bureaucratic structures. He inherited many and he has much amplified them. In the Home Office there are 63 units, 10 teams, six directorates, five groups and 25 miscellaneous bodies. In case that seems too abstract, let me retail to the House—my hon. Friends will be surprised by this, as I was—a small sample of the units particularly concerned with a topic close to the Home Secretary's heart, criminal justice.
    There is the criminal justice performance directorate, the criminal justice local performance and delivery support, the criminal justice confidence team, the criminal justice strategic planning and analysis team, the criminal law and policy team, the Criminal Justice Bill team, the criminal law policy unit and the criminal procedure and evidence unit. I do not know what the ladies and gentlemen in those many directorates and units do or say to one another, but I rather imagine that there is some connection between confidence, performance, local performance, strategic planning, policy, Bills and procedure. If there is a connection, one wonders why there must be eight such units in the Home Office. And it is not just a matter of units. There could be a small number of people divided into a large number of parts, and that might be an effective way to proceed, but the Home Office statistics show that those are not small bodies. The criminal policy group has 537 members. The police and crime reduction group has 663 members. The community policy directorate—I do not know what the community policy is, but the directorate is undoubtedly responsible for it—has 216 members.
    Of course, these hard-working and no doubt stressed-out officials, who probably need stress counselling because they are so busy talking to one another, are complemented by a tremendous apparatus for ensuring that the public are aware of their efforts. That is why the national publication directorate within the Home Office—a remarkable term—has 233 members, and the communications directorate 232. I do not know why the communications directorate deserves one member fewer than the national publication directorate, or whether the
    180
    communications are published by the communications directorate, or whether the publications are communicated by the publication directorate, but one way or another these 465 people are involved in communicating and publishing I know not what.
    I must inform my hon. Friends and the House as a whole that great effort goes into administering these administrators. The corporate development and services directorate and personnel directorate have 952 people between them—952 people administering the administrators.
    Dr. Nick Palmer: If I have counted correctly—he will correct me if I am wrong—the right hon. Gentleman has so far mentioned a total of around 1,300 people. The proportion of the crime prevention budget represented by those people is less than 0.1 per cent. When will the right hon. Gentleman come on to the remaining 99.9 per cent. of our effort?
    Mr. Letwin: I will proceed to that. I have considerable respect for the hon. Gentleman, as he knows, but the main problem about these ladies and gentlemen is not the amount that it costs to maintain them—although that is undoubtedly considerable—but the costs that they impose on the system by obscuring it, obfuscating and destroying incentives. How do they engage in the activity of lessening the effectiveness of our police forces? An admirable document has been produced, entitled "The National Policing Plan 2003–2006". I can best describe the wonders of that plan by revealing—I summarise—that it is about ensuring that KPIs fit into BVPIs so that they form part of the PPAF so that they can be made part of the PR so that the PSU can ensure that the Home Office delivers its PSA. That is the great work that is being done under the heading of the national policing plan.
    What does that mean in practice? I shall quote at some length—I hope that the House will forgive me—from the magazine "Constabulary":
    "the Home Office, attempting to satisfy the Treasury's demand for numerically measurable results, converted the initiative into a bureaucratic obstacle"—
    that is, obstacles such as those I mentioned to the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer). The magazine continues:
    "They insisted that persistent offenders must be defined as those who had been convicted of at least six offences in the previous 12 months."
    The Home Secretary may feel that that is admirable, but the chief constables were not so persuaded. They
    "complained that was a definition not of a persistent offender but of a stupid one; that it diverted their efforts from the clever offender who had evaded conviction and also from the imprisoned offender who was about to be released without any recent convictions simply because he had been locked up; that it invited them to go after the schoolgirl who had been caught shoplifting six times but not the habitual burglar who had only been caught twice."
    That is an example of my point: the targets distort things.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): So when the debate on bad character takes place and the Conservatives vote in the House of Lords, will they support us in ensuring that the police

    181
    can take evidence to the courts in situations such as those that he describes, where people have not been jailed for offences?
    Mr. Letwin: The Home Secretary and I have a slightly different view of the meaning of justice—that has emerged during the debates on the Criminal Justice Bill. I have never quite believed that being shown to be innocent on several occasions is a good basis for being shown to be guilty on the next. I believe that effective policing is directed towards those people about whom the police have suspicions, but that in court, proof beyond reasonable doubt of the particular offence is the greatest bulwark of our liberties.
    Mr. Blunkett: So what is the definition of an "offender"? Is it someone who has been found guilty of an offence, or is it someone who is suspected of having committed an offence but has never been arrested or found guilty of it? Given the right hon. Gentleman's ridiculing of the definition of a persistent offender as one who has been found guilty six times, I presume that he would want to back the police in saying that those who have not been found guilty and designated an offender should now be designated an offender according to that definition.
    Mr. Letwin: The Home Secretary needs to engage in a paradigm shift. He seems to believe that my attack is on his target, but the problem lies not only in the target, but in the idea of such a target. The police need to know which people to go after and to go after them, not spend their time working out whether those people fit the definition in the Home Secretary's national policing plan. That is the fundamental difference between us. I accept that he passionately and sincerely wants to get the same result as I do. He wants to get those people behind bars, or at least off the conveyor belt to crime. I accept that there is unity between us on that. He thinks that he can achieve that through bureaucratic targets; I think that it should be done by letting the professionals get on with the job. That is the fundamental difference between us.
    Mr. John Denham: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be sensible if the police went after not only those who are regularly convicted but those who are identified locally—for example, through the national intelligence model—as being a significant cause of crime in the area? If so, does he also agree that the national policing plan, which was published last year, makes it clear to the police that they should pursue the very people being identified by the national intelligence model? What the right hon. Gentleman has portrayed today as the contents of the plan are not in fact the contents of the plan.
    Mr. Letwin: I hope that my response will not be seen as unfair, but I very much welcome that intervention because it enables me to remind the former Minister,
    182
    who was to some degree responsible for the national policing plan, just what the chief constables said about it.
    Chris Ruane: What do they think about your sheriffs?
    Mr. Letwin: I think that the hon. Gentleman will reflect in a moment that that might not have been a wise intervention.
    I shall quote again from an article in Constabulary:
    "For many months, in private, the most senior officers in the land told Mr Blunkett their opinion of this central manifesto of the Government's attack on crime."
    That is referring to the national policing plan. I apologise in advance for this, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that what I am about to say is parliamentary language, but it is in a quotation. The article continues,
    "One chief constable captured in a single vivid sentence the message his colleagues conveyed: "Frankly, sir, with respect, this is crap."
    Mr. Denham: He did not actually ever say that; that is the problem. I hope the House will accept that, although I may not have been present at every meeting that took place between my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the chief police officers, I was there for virtually all of them. I was also present at every meeting at which the Association of Chief Police Officers was represented at the most senior level in drawing up the national policing plan. The right hon. Gentleman quite reasonably quotes from something that has been published in a non-official magazine, but I hope he will accept that those words were never said in relation to the plan, and that the plan was agreed by a whole variety of organisations, including ACPO. It would be wrong to proceed on the basis that things were any different from that.
    Mr. Letwin: Because I know that the former Minister—I say this without a hint of irony—is someone who is persistently determined to tell the truth, I accept that the magazine might be wrong in the particular. However, I spend a large amount of my time—as the former Minister used to—going round the police forces of this country, and I hear what chief constables tell me when they are not under the Minister's eye and when they have not been able to be persuaded by the power of the purse. I can assure the House that the chief constables' view of the national policing plan is not something that would make happy reading for Ministers.
    We cannot take lightly the demoralisation that these tactics of excessive bureaucracy have created. The gentleman who is currently the Secretary of State for Education and Skills was once a Minister in the Home Office. [Interruption.] I do not know about that. I was not in my present post at the time. I do know, however, that in December 2000, the right hon. Gentleman said one thing that was very true:
    "The number of people leaving a profession may be taken as an indicator of morale."—[Official Report, 11 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 65W.]
    That is not a statement by a Conservative or Liberal Democrat spokesman or a Back Bencher; it is a statement by a Minister.

    183
    In 1997, there were 774 resignations from the police forces of this country. In 2001–02, there were 1,644 resignations—an increase of 112 per cent. As we go round the country, the reality strikes us over and over again. I hope that the Home Secretary will attend to this; he must know that it is the case. There is intense demoralisation in our police forces as a result of the amount of bureaucracy with which they are faced. The Home Secretary can deny that to himself or deny it in public as much as he likes, but the fact remains [Interruption] It is not fantasy, as the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing, and Community Safety says, chuntering from a sedentary position. If she is so protected by her officials, her cars and her grandeur that she cannot understand what the ordinary police officers of this country are feeling, it is very bad news. I accept that it is difficult for reality to pervade the Home Office, but that is the reality.
    Interestingly, at a recent meeting with a prominent chief constable, some of my colleagues were told—I have heard this over and over again—that there is an increasing disinclination at present even to use stop and search because of the Home Secretary's recent proposals to enforce over-burdensome reporting.
    On Friday, I was in a police station in East Yorkshire—[HoN. MEMBERS: "For begging?"] I had no opportunity to beg. Police officers were telling me time and again that they simply could not bear the number of forms they were now compelled to fill in.
    Mr. Blunkett: It is important to put it on record that we have not introduced the new reforms to stop and search in East Yorkshire.
    Mr. Letwin: Is that not remarkable? It was not in East Yorkshire but elsewhere that the report about stop and search was given to a colleague. I will have a private conversation with the Home Secretary and tell him where it was. In East Yorkshire, coppers were showing me other forms that they had to fill in and were telling me of their demoralisation. I have no reason to suppose that they were trying to mislead me: they were giving me an impression that emerges over and over again.
    There is another point that is at least as important, if not more so, as demoralisation, resignations, chief constables feeling that their priorities are distorted or complaints by the Police Federation, although all those are of some importance. The most important point is where the attention lies. As in any organisation, the effectiveness of the police will depend on where they are focused. They can be focused only on one of two places. They can either look upwards to the Home Office or downwards to the customers they are meant to be serving: the populations on whose behalf they are policing. It is not possible to face in both directions at once.
    The common experience of people at all levels in the police force today is that they are being driven to look upwards, which will diminish and not increase their attention to their customers. In May, the chairman of the Police Federation said:
    "We are seeing more and more priorities, targets and diktats handed down from the centre but often they fail to reflect public concerns and divert—that is my point—police resources away from the kind of policing the public want and indeed the style of policing that can make a genuine difference to tackling disorder."
    184
    He added that policing was not just about number-crunching, record burglary detection rates or street robbery initiatives. It was about providing reassurance to the public closer to home.
    Mr. Robert Key: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Home Office police forces also need to look sideways? If he casts his mind back to a visit to Bulford in my constituency, he will recall that he came across the Ministry of Defence Police's DARE—drug abuse resistance education—project, which is educating children in schools against drugs and alcohol. He will recall that, in many areas, Home Office police forces are working closely with the MOD police and the military police and we must see this in the round if we are serious about neighbourhood policing.
    Mr. Letwin: Of course my hon. Friend is right. The DARE project is a good example of the long-term attitude to policing that I am recommending. I suspect that not a single target set by the Home Office has ever been brought closer to fulfilment by the DARE project. I suspect that if chief constables were to follow exclusively the recommendations of the national policing plan and try to fulfil the targets set for them by the Home Office—I pray that that will never be their sole objective—they would pay no attention all to the DARE project, which seeks to lead youngsters away from drugs. The Home Secretary wants that to happen just as much as I do, but he is creating an apparatus that has the opposite effect.
    James Purnell: The right hon. Gentleman has been speaking for nearly half an hour and has not even mentioned his policy from his party conference about increasing police numbers. Is that because it has fallen apart so badly that he has already ditched the policy? If he is not to have targets, performance monitoring or a national police plan, how will he enforce his policy in the first place?
    Mr. Letwin: I am sorry to ask the hon. Gentleman to exhibit just one and a half minutes' more patience, but my next plan of action is indeed to mention our policy.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Letwin: I have taken many interventions from Labour Members, I hope to the benefit of debate, but I shall take none further as I have been invited to pursue this issue.
    Before I move on to describing the alternative that we proposed at our party conference, and which we will continue to propose during the next 18 months—hopefully, we will eventually have the opportunity to implement it—I want to point out that it is not just the Conservative party, the constabularies of this country and ordinary electors who have noticed that there is a problem. The Home Secretary certainly speaks the language of community policing, and as if he wants to increase the focus on the customer, but that does not persuade even The Guardian—a journal which I think supports the Labour party on the whole. One of its leaders stated:
    "New Labour doublespeak continues: much talk of devolution to local basic command units, while new powers are consolidated at the centre. Stalinism won't work because constables have to have discretion."

    185
    What is our alternative? It is threefold and quite simple, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell) for prompting me to describe it. First, there must be resources; secondly, there must be professional autonomy; thirdly, there has to be local accountability. The resources issue is plain. As Members are probably aware, I am not the greatest proponent in this House of expanded public expenditure. On the whole, I have been devoted to reducing public expenditure, so I did not begin in my current post by assuming that what the police need is more resources. But like the Home Secretary, I have been to other countries, talked to other police forces and seen what has been achieved. One common pattern that emerged—I hoped that this issue might prove common ground, but I fear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has come between us—is that our police forces are relatively and absolutely under-resourced. They do not have enough coppers to undertake proper pursuit of serious criminals under the national intelligence model, or to get police on to the streets. There is no solution to that problem, other than to provide them with the resources that will enable them to get police on to the streets.
    I want to congratulate the Home Secretary, although I hope that he will not object and think it a brussels sprout congratulation. [Interruption.] The Home Secretary referred to me in that way in his party conference speech, so it is his phrase, not mine. I want to congratulate him on increasing very significantly this year the rate at which he is increasing police numbers. Some 9,000 extra coppers have been recruited since the election. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) reduced police numbers when in his previous post, which was not the right direction in which to go; indeed, he needed a little encouragement in such matters. To the current Home Secretary's credit, he has increased police numbers, which is marvellous. We have 9,000 extra coppers—just 1,000 fewer than the number of additional administrators taken on since this Government took office.
    The strike rate is now respectable. As I understand it, the Home Secretary has allowed the police forces to employ more than 4,000 additional coppers in the financial year. Marvellous. That rate now needs to continue for seven or eight more years. We need to achieve a figure of some 40,000 additional police officers, and I do not believe—I hope I am not being over-optimistic—that any Labour Member in the House today, or anyone who has the right to sit on the Labour Benches, disagrees with that well-known fact.
    Mr. Mark Oaten: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Letwin: I would not normally do so, but as the hon. Gentleman is making his first appearance in the House in his current guise, I feel compelled to give way.
    Mr. Oaten: I am most grateful. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how he arrived at the 40,000 figure? What independent assessment informed him that this country needs 40,000 extra police officers?
    Mr. Letwin: I shall indeed tell the hon. Gentleman how we came by that figure: it is not an independent
    186
    assessment—it is ours. Indeed, it is the responsibility of a possible future Government to assess that matter. We looked at the level of policing available in New York, which is the most successful example of neighbourhood policing in the world. Since it began its new neighbourhood policing and its serious attack on disorder, it has reduced crime by about 60 per cent. on a sustained basis over 10 years.
    The level of policing that we recommend for this country is per capita almost identical to that in New York. That was the basis on which we derived our figures. We then cross-checked—this will interest the hon. Member for Winchester who is also concerned about rural areas—against the question of how we could be sure that a police officer would be available for every parish in this country. We found, not altogether to our surprise, that roughly the same number would enable that to occur. If this country were one in which our cities were policed as in New York and in which our rural areas were able, after many years of failure, to have a police officer in charge of the parish who knew the parish, it would make a huge difference to public confidence in the control of public order in this country.
    Mr. Ivan Henderson rose—
    Mr. Letwin: I will not give way.
    I turn now to professional autonomy. There is no hope of restoring serious professional autonomy so long as the Home Office continues to run local policing. There is too much of a temptation for Ministers to do exactly what the Home Secretary and his colleagues have done—try to run the whole show on the basis of strings pulling puppets. That applies to the present national policing plan or any other such plan. We have to move power away from the centre to the localities and give back to the police the professional autonomy that comes from not being controlled from on top.
    Mr. Henderson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Letwin: No.
    That is why I proposed at the Conservative party conference last week—and will continue to propose and develop—our plans to give serious autonomy to the police.
    Mr. Henderson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Letwin: I will not: otherwise Government Members will accuse me of continuing for too long.
    We have to create for the first time in English law a statutory version of the Denning doctrine. We must establish the absolute right of the chief constable to operational independence, so that no politician—local or central—can tell a chief constable how to behave in respect of operations.
    The third element—that of local accountability—is equally important. Once we have removed powers from the Home Office, we cannot dispense entirely with the democratic check. If the check cannot, in order to avoid a top-down centralist bureaucracy, be from above, it

    187
    must be local. If a serious transfer of power to the localities goes ahead, we can expect local electorates for the first time to take an interest in those elected to police authorities under a system of direct election.
    Mr. Henderson rose—
    Mr. Letwin: I have every confidence that that thesis is gaining ground. I say that because, just a couple of days—[Interruption.]
    Chris Ruane rose—
    Mr. Letwin: When the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) hears who I am about to quote, he might change his mind. A couple of days after our announcements, Sir Ian Blair, deputy Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, and two other chief constables with whom he was working, came up with a most illuminating, inspiring and excellent set of proposals. I shall quote from Sir Ian's speech:
    "It is now becoming increasingly clear that what we would describe as policing for the purposes of reassurance has got to become a matter as significant as preventing and detecting recorded crime; we have to understand what it is that people see as being the signal events which show disorder within their community… I am quite certain that this will be pointing the police service towards its role in the strengthening of communities … We need to go much more local, much more accountable … However, it is no use doing so, unless those local policing boards can actually determine what the local police should broadly be doing … If localism is to work, then the number and weight of national … targets must lessen."
    A direction is discernible here that is not only the direction of the constabularies and the Conservative party, but of the most serious professionals in today's police forces.
    In summary, the argument is simple. The need for neighbourhood policing is a matter, as I said earlier, of consensus. That top-down bureaucracy directing insufficient resources to the police does not work is an emerging consensus among those most seriously involved. A consensus is also emerging that the way forward is a properly resourced professional autonomy subject to local democratic accountability. The Home Secretary is part of that emerging consensus at the level of rhetoric. [Interruption.] As he says quietly from a sedentary position, he writes such things. He does. He writes and says such things, but he does not do them. The question is, when will the Home Secretary stop merely talking about localism and professional accountability and autonomy, and start doing them?
    4.55 pm
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
    "welcomes the Government's investment in policing which has resulted in 136,386 officers by the end of August 2003, an increase of more than 4,000 since December 2002 and the highest level ever; notes that there are now more than 1,900 Community Support Officers and record numbers of police staff assisting police officers in their work; further notes the priority given by the Government to reducing bureaucracy to enable officers to concentrate on
    188
    frontline duties; and welcomes the Government's commitment to further reform to improve accountability and engagement between the police and the communities they serve."
    I welcome the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) back from his exertions in Blackpool, which profoundly demonstrated to the world his grasp of inner city problems and the difficulties of disadvantaged areas and how glad he is that he has nothing to do with them. Well, I do. I was brought up in such an area, I represent such an area and I am proud to say that what is happening in my area, as a result of the last six and half years of this Government, is transforming the life chances of children, giving hope to adults, engaging them in the solutions that they want for their communities and inspiring them to believe that they can make a difference. That is the difference between the right hon. Gentleman and myself.
    We are all looking forward to the right hon. Gentleman's forthcoming visit to fantasy island, once he has identified which island it is. On that island, with the asylum seekers, there will be sheriffs and new local boards. They will seek to hold to account the local chief constable who will have been granted complete autonomy. Not only could the Home Secretary not require or demand anything on behalf of the people who elected the Government who then selected him, but of course the local board and sheriff would not be able to demand anything of the local chief constable. Autonomy means complete freedom from any political direction and complete detachment from any requirement from whoever has been elected locally or nationally. That cannot be the same thing as accountability. The right hon. Gentleman used the word "direction" and he quoted Sir Ian Blair accurately. We agree with Sir Ian Blair, but he also mentioned responsiveness and accountability.
    Mr. Letwin: Does the Home Secretary recognise the difference between operational autonomy and the general character of policing in an area, and does he accept that a force can be operationally autonomous and also accountable to a local, directly elected police authority for the general pattern of policing?
    Mr. Blunkett: Of course I accept that, and the police already have operational responsibility. At another time and in another place, we might have an interesting intellectual debate about where the line lies between operational responsibility and some form of accountability. If the police authorities, or their successors under the Conservative scheme—or revisions under the scheme that I shall bring forward for consultation—have any form of influence, let alone power, there has to be an understanding of where the power lies. Otherwise, we would have a Home Secretary who appeared on the "Today" programme and bemoaned the fact that nothing could be changed. Under the scheme devised by the Conservatives, Home Secretaries could not do anything, because they would have no power. They might want to suggest change, but they would have to get in touch with the multiplicity of different police forces, sheriffs and boards. What is more, the local sheriffs and boards would not be able to effect change, because nobody would know what they could ask the chief constable to do.
    Mr. Ivan Henderson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the comments by Robert Chambers, the chair of Essex

    189
    police authority, on the Conservatives' proposal to introduce sheriffs? He has tried to raise his concerns, and those of his colleagues, with the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), but he says in an article on the subject that he has not even had the courtesy of a reply. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the right hon. Gentleman should start listening to his own members and to the chairs of police authorities before he introduces such a ridiculous initiative?
    Mr. Blunkett: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's prognosis. We do not have to disagree with Opposition Members: they disagree with each other so readily that the matter is taken out of our hands.
    In future, we may disagree more with the Liberal Democrats than with the Conservatives. I should like to take this opportunity to welcome to his new post the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten). I am sure that the House will be looking forward to shorter speeches from now on. I have paid tribute to his predecessor, who had real commitment and understanding and who was certainly around a long time in connection with Home Office matters. His contributions were enjoyable but—
    Mr. John Bercow: He got paid by the word.
    Mr. Blunkett: As the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) says from a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Winchester's predecessor was, like Dickens, paid by the word. We understood his words, and we heard them often and tediously. Nevertheless, we are very pleased to welcome the hon. Member for Winchester, who I believe is the chairman of the Peel group. That group aims at uniting moderate Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, and will no doubt give new meaning to the adage that, if one peels a Liberal Democrat, one will get the taste of the Conservative underneath. We look forward very much to seeing the unity of purpose between people in Dorset and in Hampshire—and wherever else the Liberal Democrats can manage to take Conservative seats in the next general election.
    Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Blunkett: How could I resist?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: Before my right hon. Friend moves on, does he share the suspicion that some of us have about what the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) means when he speaks of local democratic accountability? Does he suspect that the right hon. Gentleman does not mean the accountability to the broader community that my right hon. Friend and I understand, but accountability to a group of the local great and good? That might be acceptable to the right hon. Gentleman, but not necessarily to the communities involved.
    Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. These days, the word "sheriff" refers to those who are appointed to represent the Queen's interests and to attend dinners and banquets. I am sure that the role is
    190
    very important, and I commend the people who perform it. However, times have changed since the days of the sheriff of Nottingham, who it must be said did not have too good a reputation in mediaeval England. I should be interested to hear the definitions that will be produced in due course.
    However, I was going to say that the one matter on which the right hon. Gentleman and I appear to agree is that we require more law enforcers and crime fighters. We are very proud that there are 136,386 police officers now. That is some 9,000 more than when we came to office, and 4,110 more than at the beginning of this year. We are proud that we have almost 2,000 community support officers, who did not exist until we pushed the idea through this House and encouraged local forces to take them on. At the time, it was claimed that that would not happen, but of course it has, and the new officers are welcome on the ground.
    I want to remind the House, and the Opposition, about street wardens. We supported that initiative, and funded it through what is now the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. People are very keen about including those wardens in the police family.
    Mr. Mark Francois: Will the Home Secretary give the comparable figures for the numbers of special constables in the police service over the years to which he is alluding? He will be aware that there has been a large decline, with many special constables leaving the force because they were so disillusioned.
    Mr. Blunkett: Yes, there has been a decline in the number of specials. I regret that, as the civil renewal agenda requires that people who are not full-time police officers but who are prepared to devote some of their own time to the job—often between six and eight hours a week—should be encouraged to do so. I want to find ways to encourage employers to release people for a little time each week. I want to look into new ways to encourage the badging of those involved in crime prevention and protection with the powers that special constables have at present. Yes, there has been a reduction. Of course, my figures are for full-time equivalents. The number of people employed as full-time police officers and CSOs is a great deal higher than the 9,000 extra people I mentioned because some of them are part-time. We should bear that in mind.
    In the past six and a half years, there has been a drop in crime of more than a quarter. That has been true of burglary and car theft. Under the street crime initiative, there were 17,000 fewer theft and mugging offences last year and I am proud of that. We took that initiative. It made a difference to people's lives. Returning to what the right hon. Gentleman said about Jan Berry's comments, the public demanded that initiative because people were being mugged and robbed on our streets. If we had the right hon. Gentleman's system and the Home Secretary and Prime Minister had no powers, we would not have been able to act.
    The interesting aspect of this debate is that there would be no point in having it under a Conservative Government. Why debate community policing, the role of the Home Secretary and what the Government want, if the Government have no power and if full autonomy means that the Home Secretary merely does as the right

    191
    hon. Gentleman suggests? I suppose that the idea has been drawn from the ideological vacuum in which the Conservatives have been living—it is what Nicholas Ridley once described as a situation where a Secretary of State would convene a lunch once a year, let contracts and then go on holiday. I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman, who is gentler, more convincing and more understanding than the late Nicholas Ridley—for whom I had a lot of time as an ideologue but not as a politician—actually believes the same sort of garbage. Nicholas Ridley once said that we could solve London's traffic problems if we did away with traffic lights. There was a free market logic to that. When people were so snarled up that they could not get their cars out of their driveway, they would go on the tube. The only problem is that unless one invested in public services to improve the tube, they would not be able to get on that either.
    Yes, we want investment and accountability, but we want it in the real world, to reflect what is happening on the ground. The motion talks about the return of powers. The return of powers to whom? Is it to the chief constables? Which powers have this Government taken away from them? How have we diminished the powers of constables on the street? We have increased them. We have given them greater powers, although they do not always know that they have them. My right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) said on the radio yesterday that he had just discovered a local constable who did not know of the powers on off-road vehicles and their confiscation in the Police Reform Act 2002.
    The motion talks of decentralising to "local policing". Does that mean the sheriff, the board, or the chief constable alone? Are we simply to say that there should be 43, 80, 140 or whatever number of fiefdoms, which is what would happen under the Tory plan? Who will be the powerful person? Who will make the decisions? Who will be able to wield influence on behalf of the public?
    That brings us back to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle). In the end, we need to find a system that at the local level, in the neighbourhood, holds to account those who are working there and the commander of the unit, and gives them power and resources. Who has delegated the £50 million directly to basic command units? It happens to be this Home Secretary and this Government. Who has devolved to 30 of the basic command units with the highest levels of drug-related Crime—under the new initiative on criminal justice and drugs—the locally decentralised resources? It happens to be the same centralising, overbearing and over-powerful Home Secretary who is being criticised this afternoon.
    Mr. Graham Allen: Some years ago, we tried the sheriff system in the city of Nottingham and it was found wanting.
    Is not the test for all parties what happens when there is consensus for community policing, or neighbourhood policing as it is referred to in this debate, but the local chief constable decides not to enact it, even when that chief constable has more police officers to deploy than at any time in the past? What do we do? What can local
    192
    Members of Parliament, members of the public and indeed the Home Secretary do when confronted with that test? How do we surmount that problem?
    Mr. Blunkett: That is an important question and I invite chief constables, police authorities and Members of Parliament to assist us during the year ahead in a sensible dialogue about how to make the tripartite system work. This afternoon, the shadow Home Secretary has done away with the tripartite system, or he would do so if he had the power, which God forbid. The system cannot be tripartite if one of the three legs is taken away. The right hon. Gentleman would remove one leg—the Home Secretary; he would remove the power and relevance of the post that he wants to occupy. He is asking the electorate to give him a majority to put him into a position that he could no longer occupy or take power to use. Secondly, he has made it clear that the rest of the tripartite approach would be disabled overnight by giving full autonomy to chief constables. The police authority would be able to think, but it would be unable to act.
    I want a dialogue about accountability in the neighbourhood and about how to achieve responsiveness without taking away the operational rights of the police. We cannot second guess or put in place the action necessary to catch criminals, to deal with criminal gangs and overcome antisocial behaviour, but we can give support and provide additional powers and resources. We can legislate, but we cannot do it all.
    There is a real issue about how we ensure that the extra police and those who work with them are visible, available and accessible on the street. How is it that we have 136,000 officers and all their additional support staff, including 10,000 additional civilian staff, amounting to a staggering 200,000 crimefighters—36,000 more trained and uniformed police officers than 30 years ago—yet people see fewer officers on the beat and in their communities and certainly feel that the police are not as accessible or responsive as they used to be? That question is profound.
    Even if we left aside the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which had to be brought in to overcome the injustice and misuse of power that was taking place, and if we stripped away the requirement to monitor at least basic equality of provision across the country, how could we get rid of the remaining burdens that are, it is claimed, the obstacle to the police being out on the beat? I said "claimed" because when we actually ask people—not just chief constables, but commanders—to manage, they are inclined to suggest that it is not their job. However, I suggest that it is and that the six forces that have removed 2,800 surplus and unnecessary forms are the leaders in getting rid of bureaucracy. I cannot get rid of bureaucracy purely from the centre; we need local forces to do it, too.
    That exercise was started by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen who examined the diary of a police officer to see what was keeping officers in the station. We found that local forces were duplicating national forms. They were collecting data that had never been requested by the Home Office and asking constables to do things that were no longer required.
    Let us join things together. The O'Dowd taskforce, which included police officers of different ranks, came up with a set of proposals, some of which have been

    193
    acted on. Some remain to be acted on and that must be done swiftly. However, the cry that all we have to do is remove the Home Office and get rid of any central involvement is nonsense. The moment that we did so there would be cries from across the country to reinstate the system.
    Yesterday, I met some of those people in the Conservative party who have embraced what the Government have done. I met those in the community protection department of Westminster city council who have effectively used the powers granted to them by using CCTV or embracing the new powers that we have given to local government through antisocial behaviour orders and the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which has been so often ridiculed, but which is so often praised locally. I commend my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary for what he did in introducing that Act, which is being used.
    I shall tell the House what those in Westminster council told me. They told me that, two years ago, 1 per cent. of the borough's landmass accounted for 25 per cent. of the crime and that Leicester square was virtually unusable. They have used the powers in the 1998 Act and the resources that we have given them, as well as their own initiative, to pull together in that new community protection department, working hand in hand with Metropolitan police, to clean up Leicester square and the surrounding area, so it can be used by local people and visitors alike. I commend that Conservative council for its initiative in that respect, although not in any other way, and for using Government money—after all, Westminster gets enough of it, as those of us who were in local government know. If my city received anything like the per capita investment that Westminster receives, we could do a damn good job with it.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: Will the Home Secretary also listen to Westminster council on the subject of what the Licensing Act 2003—put through by his hon. Friends in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport—will do for the very issues that he mentions, not just in Leicester square, but across the whole area?
    Mr. Blunkett: That Department is pulling together its licensing, trading standards, health and safety and other activities to ensure that the lessons can be learned. I am absolutely certain that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport would agree that, if it were proved that those changes—the liberalization—caused a major disadvantage or problem, we would address that. I should have thought that the Conservative party in its new free-nation mode would welcome the ability to act more flexibily at local level, although perhaps, with Charles Moore's departure from The Daily Telegraph, there will be a change in stance on the free-nation front.
    The police, local authorities and all those involved welcome the new powers that we have given to them to use fixed-penalty notices, which cut out bureaucracy. [Interruption.] It is no good laughing. Wherever we go,
    194
    the police tell us that they welcome the fixed-penalty notices because they cut out the prolonged process that has bedevilled them. They welcome the investment that we making in new technology, including the Airwave system—£500 million of new technology—to make it easier to do the job. They welcome street arrests and cutting out the existing unnecessary burdens that are placed on them.
    But it is not this Home Secretary who is refusing to use the new video identification scheme in 18 forces; it is not this Home Secretary who is using helicopters, rather than people on the ground; and it is not this Home Secretary who introduced the mobile police, rather than the community police. In fact, most of that occurred under a Conservative Government. Sir John Stevens, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, bravely said that the initiatives—I use the word advisedly—that were taken 10 years ago and that moved away from community policing were a mistake, but they were not my mistake. They were not even Douglas Hurd's mistake. They were a mistake made, presumably, at local level; it was a 'lend that was picked up and used.
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: The Home Secretary makes a point about bureaucracy, but I can assure him that, on the specific issue of the bureaucratisation of stop-and-search powers and their recording, the fact that those powers will be used less because of the associated bureaucracy is causing the police serious disquiet. I have to tell the Home Secretary that that is entirely the result of his Government's policy and we pointed out at the time that that policy would have exactly that consequence.
    Mr. Blunkett: It is very difficult to know what consequence the hon. Gentleman is talking about. We can judge the consequence when we have done it. We agreed to phase in a new programme, using technology and slimmed-down methods of simply writing down why someone had been stopped and searched. Correctly done, that will save time and difficulty and allow constables—who are accused constantly of racism—to have greater confidence in undertaking stop and search, as they will be able to outline why it was undertaken and provide that note. That is not impossible, but because it causes such fear in the police service we said that we would experiment, ask forces to volunteer and see which approach worked best. That is what we promised to do and that is what we are doing. I do not think that it is unfair to provide people who are stopped and searched in the street with an explanation as to why, as long as we do not burden the police—on which I agree with the hon. Gentleman—in a way that would preclude them from doing it, and there is no evidence whatever that that is likely to take place.
    Let me quote from the shadow Home Secretary's speech in Blackpool, which is material to the debate this afternoon. He said:
    "No more so-called National Policing Plans"—
    so there would be no overview from the centre in future. He said:
    "No more centrally imposed targets"—
    so there would be no drive for the street crime initiative to achieve a particular goal. He continued:
    "No more Whitehall-based units and initiatives".

    195
    When is an initiative not an initiative? I suggest that it is when the Opposition propose it rather than the Government. An initiative is a decision to take action to overcome a perceived or real problem. Action is what Governments should be about, not ineptitude, inaction or inertia. It is about ensuring that when there is a problem, democracy can deal with it. If democracy cannot deal with it, we will see the rise of the British National party. A delegate at the Labour party conference in Bournemouth made the fair point that the way in which the Liberal Democrats sometimes behave undermines democracy, as they pretend that there are simple solutions, and that if only they were in power, all the difficulties would disappear. Well, they would not disappear, because government—locally and nationally—is difficult, as the Lib Dems found out in Sheffield, which is why they were booted out.
    James Purnell: My right hon. Friend will remember that I used to be something of a policy wonk, and I think that the shadow Home Secretary used to be one, too. Is not the idea about sheriffs and, as my right hon. Friend mentioned, the possibility that the BNP could run policing in my area or his area, policy wonkery gone mad? Is not it the kind of ideological extremism that we would expect from the person who came up with the idea of the poll tax?
    Mr. Blunkett: That is absolutely certain. Once the Opposition get into an ideological framework that has a dead end, and their leader pleads for a novel idea—as the Leader of the Opposition said the other day, no one would deny that they had not come up with eye-catching initiatives—
    Mr. George Osborne: That was Blair's phrase.
    Mr. Blunkett: Ah, they were not initiatives. Fantasy island is not an initiative but a fantasy. When an initiative is from the Opposition it is a fantasy, but when it is from us it is an initiative. I am happy to plead guilty to an initiative, however, and I am happy to plead guilty to all the units that the right hon. Gentleman would also do away with, because they include the antisocial behaviour unit that we have established, which will drive forward and spread best practice at local level. Incidentally, if there were sheriffs—here is the rub—they would need information. Even if they were going to approach or e-mail the chief constable to take him or her out to dinner to plead with him or her to do something, they would need comparative information. They would need to know the performance of their own force vis-à-vis other forces across the country. Is that agreed? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I am very pleased that it is agreed, and there were even some voices from the Opposition Benches who agreed. At the end of this wonderful quote from the shadow Home Secretary in his conference speech, he said, "and performance monitoring". Who by? Oh, by the centre. Therefore, each of the 140 police services would set up their own little monitoring unit so that they could find out what other forces were doing, how they were doing it and what the performance looked like vis-à-vis their own. That is game, set and match.
    Mr. Letwin rose—
    Mr. Blunkett: I am happy to give way for clarification.
    Mr. Letwin: I apologise, because for quite a long time I thought that we were having an interesting debate. We now have slapstick instead.
    The Home Secretary surely realises that his standards unit, which is trying to run the activities of every basic command unit in Britain, collects information from the localities, brings it to the centre and then dispenses it back to the localities to tell them what to do. We are simply short-circuiting that activity in having the information at the local level where it can be acted upon effectively without the level of bureaucratic intrusion that is required when one is trying to operate such things from hundreds of miles away in Whitehall. That is a rational proposition. We may disagree about it, but surely the Home Secretary understands that there are two possibilities.
    Mr. Blunkett: Yes, there certainly are. To use the New York analogy, unless one can collate the information at the centre—that is what the commissioner in the New York force did from the various units—one cannot make sense of the data and one cannot spread best practice. [Interruption.] I shall wind up, because I do not want to be speaking after all the Conservative Members have crept off to the 1922 committee to determine the future of their leader and their party.
    Mr. Letwin: The Home Secretary has put in mind a point that he will find very difficult to wrestle with. If he thinks that New York is the model, does he believe that the Federal Government or the mayor run policing in New York?
    Mr. Blunkett: As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the mayor of New York had much more power over the police than I have over the police in Britain or that the Home Secretary had over the Met when he was directly responsible for it, which incidentally was the policy under the Conservative Government until we changed it. Six commissioners were sacked or removed under the previous mayor.
    To return to the issue, there is a real cost in any ideas that are put forward. The real-life costs of what Conservative Members want would not be felt in Dorset but in constituencies such as mine and those of many other hon. Members. The articulate can usually get their way. Those who have access to the media usually have their voice heard. Those who have the cash can move out of the areas of greatest disadvantage and antisocial behaviour. They can install alarm systems in their houses, and they can even live in enclaves where they employ what amounts to their own protection service.
    We want the same protections for the people we represent. When they approach us, we want to be able to tell them that a Member of Parliament can approach the Home Secretary and that there will be just a chance that the Home Secretary might be able to do something about the problem. We want to appear at the Dispatch Box with some levers to pull that would make a

    197
    difference to the lives of the people we represent. We want democracy to work in such a way that when people vote, they believe that it will make a difference. We want to link that to greater accountability and responsiveness at local level and to a new debate about the reform agenda for the police and those working with the police in the family of the police.
    We want to do that as part of the regeneration programme at local level. We want to build the capacity of people to be able to take part in that debate and to be able to bring influence to bear. If we can get this right, the new tripartite approach will not take away responsibility for operational policing, but it will restore confidence that the police will react to the needs of the local community and that the Government will remove bureaucracy. However, the Home Secretary and his colleagues in Parliament will at least be able to go into a general election accepting some responsibility for what happens in our country, for the steps that we take to spread best practice, for the units we have established in making a difference and for the investment to go effectively into changing the nature of policing. That is what we are advocating; that is what we will vote for later tonight.
    5.29 pm
    Mr. Mark Oaten: I start by thanking the Home Secretary and his shadow for their warm welcome, although I suspect that it will not last for long. I also pay tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). He had enormous energy and was a great guardian of civil liberties in this place. As chair of the Liberal Democrats parliamentary party for the past two years, I note the point about the length at which he made speeches—I was aware of that myself. I shall try to be brief because I am sure that a much more interesting event is taking place on the Corridor Upstairs—I note that fewer than 25 Conservative Members are in the Chamber.
    I am delighted to have the opportunity to talk about the police in my first Home Office speech. There is nothing more important than ensuring that we have a strong police force in this country that can protect and reassure people—it is essential for that to be in place. Despite the differences that have emerged during the debate, it is important for hon. Members in all parts of the House to recognise that this country has an absolutely wonderful police force and that compared with many countries, ours is safe and secure. That is sometimes forgotten when we debate these issues.
    It is rightly in the nature of politicians to examine constantly how things can be improved, to react constantly to new problems and to want to endorse and approve new forms of technology so that we may improve the police force. Although I am sometimes critical of the fact that politicians always want change, it is right to try to respond and make improvements. With that in mind, I welcome several of the suggestions and initiatives that have been proposed by the Conservative party this afternoon. We need new thinking on the police and although I disagree with many aspects of the party's document, it brings forward new ideas that are worthy of merit, which I shall talk about later.
    A much bigger question is bubbling under the debate with which all three parties are trying to come to terms: what is meant by devolving down, new localism and
    198
    central control? That is a real difficulty because politicians of all parties increasingly want to move toward a more local solution but, instinctively, we are nervous of doing that because we like to keep a form of central control given that we make promises at elections and such control is the only way to deliver on them. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) hit the nail on the head in his intervention because the real worry about letting go is not knowing what will happen when the system goes wrong or where the blame culture will lead. Devolution underlies the debate and I shall talk about it a little later in my speech.
    I largely agree with several of the shadow Home Secretary's criticisms of the Government's approach on crime and policing, although I do not have a clue what the reference to brussels sprouts was about. It must be an in-joke between him and the Home Secretary, so perhaps I shall be let in on it when I have been part of the club for a little longer. We have all heard anecdotally from our constituencies about the difficulty that the police have when juggling their real job of catching criminals, reassuring the public and reducing crime, and their burden. The word "burden" is used constantly and although I understand the Home Secretary's sensitivity, I have been in my job for only 48 hours and the word has been used many times by the police. They say that I must address the burden of their work load.
    I want to address the critical question of what the police should be doing. What do we mean by neighbourhood policing and what are the priorities? The Home Secretary said this week—and passionately this afternoon—that he is dissatisfied that some of the new police officers, whom I welcome, are not visible enough. It is hardly surprising that they are not visible enough because there is no that they could be described as almost handcuffed to their paperwork and desks. I was troubled to experience that a couple of months ago when I went out on a Friday night in Winchester, which is not one of the most violent places on a Friday night.
    I was amazed by the lack of respect toward policemen and the extent of the provocation to which they were subjected. One policeman was spat at—middle-class children under the influence of drink were doing such things. The problem was that there were only six officers out on that Friday night. I was amazed when they were spat at and called rude names, so I asked why they did not do something about it. They said, "Look, we can't do something about it. If we do, we have to go back to headquarters and vie will be in there for a couple of hours. Our judgment is that it is better to ignore it and stay out for the rest of the evening in case something worse happens." That cannot be right. Despite the Home Secretary's protests, there is concern about the work load balance. The Home Office report a year or so ago said that 17 per cent. of police time is spent on patrol. That means an awful lot of time is spent doing other things. I acknowledge that a lot of that work is worth while, but much of it is not appropriate police work.
    We welcome the establishment of a bureaucracy taskforce, but we also acknowledge that many police authorities think that that will only touch the tip of the iceberg. One message that came through in my discussions with police officers over the past 24 hours is that although the taskforce is welcome and many of the recommendations are good, much of the work revolves

    199
    around switching from a paper-based system to an IT-based system. That is costly, complex and needs a great deal of support. Jan Berry, the chairman of the national Police Federation, sums it up well by saying that for far too long officers have been
    "hamstrung by an unwieldy and excessively bureaucratic system."
    There is concern about that.
    I welcome the fact that the Home Secretary wants to tackle such issues. Perhaps he could take some of the pressure off chief constables, especially by reconsidering targets on burglary and robbery. I was interested in the evidence given to the Public Administration Committee by the chief constable of Thames Valley. He reported that when he faced what he regarded as unrealistic Home Office targets, his police authority chose to ignore them and to set its own. According to Home Office targets, Thames Valley would have been set a target this year of reducing robbery by 25 per cent. Instead, the local judgment is to reduce it by 10 per cent. Robbery fell by 18 per cent. in the previous year. Having achieved that cut, the police authority thought it unacceptable to move on to a Home Office aspirational target of 25 per cent.
    In such circumstances, it has to be right to give chief constables greater freedom to set targets as they think best. Central targets, inspections, audits and ring-fenced money undermine the ability of chief constables and police authorities to act. They are, after all, on the ground. They know the lay of the land, can identify the large problems and should have the freedom to set more targets themselves.
    Dr. Palmer: I worked in industry for many years and as a manager I would have liked to set the targets that I was to achieve. Does the hon. Gentleman not fear that chief constables will set targets that they are confident they can achieve so that they give themselves a slightly easier life?
    Mr. Oaten: I have yet to meet a chief constable who takes that approach. Most chief constables that I have met are committed to delivering a good and realistic job locally. They are not in the business of raising public expectations on which they cannot deliver, a criticism that we could, perhaps, level at some politicians.
    Mr. Michael Clapham: The hon. Gentleman says that chief constables will be concerned with the local situation and adjust targets so that they are reasonable in the local context. Will that be based on figures produced by the local crime community safety groups? If so, does he agree that the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, and the organisations that it established, moved the focus on to neighbourhood policing?
    Mr. Oaten: I agree that a key tool for chief constables is better and clearer intelligence drawn from data that reflect local experiences. I do not mind whether the data are managed locally or centrally and then used for local decision making. I want chief constables to take decisions based on the best possible forms of data available.
    200
    On visibility and the politicians' dilemma of whether we should see more bobbies on the beat, we all know the Audit Commission's argument that a bobby on the beat will walk around an area and stop a crime once every 100 years. At the same time, we all say in our Focus leaflets and statements to the media that there must be more bobbies on the beat. We know instinctively that the public want to hear that, and while we may have our doubts about the effectiveness in terms of actual detection, we are aware that it is a good idea for the purposes of reassurance and some of the latest thoughts on neighbourhood policing.
    I welcome the national reassurance project, which steps outside some of the arguments about crime rates and concentrates on people's perceptions of the safety of their communities. We know now that visible policing makes a difference, but I am not sure that we have all the answers to what is the best form of it. I note with interest research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation: it was announced last week that a project near York had shown that an increased number of bobbies on the beat had actually increased the fear of crime. As a layman, I am not convinced that that is possible—it seems plain to me that more police in an area must provide some reassurance—but we should not dismiss it out of hand. It suggests that we need more research so that we can ensure that we are giving the reassurance that we think we are giving.
    Mr. Letwin: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting speech. First, does he agree that, according to the evidence, the constable involved in that project was not often on the streets? That seems to me to vitiate much of what has been said publicly. I am glad to note that the Home Secretary agrees.
    Secondly, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not solely, or primarily, a question of reassurance, but primarily a question of preventing crime and disorder where it would otherwise occur, and depriving the criminal fraternity or gang of the environment in which crime persists?
    Mr. Oaten: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point. There is a danger in some of the simplistic language that we have all used in speaking of increasing the number of police. The three main political parties tend to become involved in a Dutch auction in which we hear 9,000 from the Government, 10,000 from the Liberal Democrats and 40,000 from the Conservatives. That approach is too simplistic. We should try to make a genuine assessment. Perhaps what we need is an independent assessment of the number of police who are actually needed. I probed the right hon. Gentleman on that because I was horrified that he had plucked the 40,000 figure from the air on the basis of some evidence from America. A system based on such evidence does not strike me as sufficiently robust. To take the heat off the issue, the three parties should possibly assign a standing commission or review body to establish a realistic level of policing that is needed.
    Let me deal with the Conservative proposals in more detail. The right hon. Gentleman was prepared to take many interventions on the generality of the issue, but was not prepared to take many relating to the detail and substance of the proposals. He believes in devolution, or localism, and as a Liberal I support that. I do not want

    201
    to knock the Conservatives' suggestions, because they are genuinely trying to achieve a different form of delivery, and we support that trend. It contrasts slightly with the Government's approach during their first five or six years in office—although I am interested to note that over the past year they have placed much more emphasis throughout the public services on the need for fewer targets, and the need to devolve down and let go. The difficulty is that there is too much of the nanny state in this Government for them to be prepared to let go.
    Mr. Blunkett: Kiss granny good night.
    Mr. Oaten: I would thoroughly recommend that to the Home Secretary. Political thinking is, however, moving in the right direction. I do not think that the Conservatives have responded to many of the dilemmas relating to letting go of control. The most astonishing feature is the 40,000 figure: I am bewildered by how they arrived at it. The right hon. Gentleman is living in a fairytale world if he thinks that the cash needed to fund additional police numbers can be based on stumbling across some island for asylum seekers.
    Shona Mclsaac: Where?
    Mr. Oaten: Let us set aside for a moment not just the "where" question, but some of the legal issues arising from the Geneva convention on refugees, before even getting on to the subject of cost. Until we get answers to these questions, voters would be well advised to take the figure of 40,000 with a large pinch of salt. If the target is not to be met from some magical island, the shadow Home Secretary will have a difficult job convincing his shadow Chancellor to fund the proposals, given the shadow Chancellor's agenda to cut public spending.
    Mr. Letwin: I am sure that in due course we will have many happy hours debating our asylum proposals. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear it in mind that in a couple of months he will hear a great deal from us about how we intend to tackle the legal issues. I expect that we will not agree about them, but our proposals will be clear-minded and extremely radical.
    Mr. Oaten: I cannot wait. If the right hon. Gentleman can bring an atlas and identify the island, that would be useful. Perhaps he could also help me understand the 40,000 figure. We have no published costings for it, so the best analysis that I have been able to come up with is that he took a calculator and keyed in the budget for the immigration and nationality directorate, which happily comes to £1.74 billion. He then pressed the appropriate button and divided that sum by the cost of training and paying a police constable—about £44,000 a year. Magically, that produced the figure of 40,000 police officers. I suspect that that is where the figure came from, not just from New York. Perhaps he will provide a more reasoned explanation for the costing.
    Mr. Letwin: So that the debate does not continue tediously, let me explain that the savings of about £1 billion in the asylum and immigration system that we hope to achieve, which we can debate in due course, are
    202
    intended to fund only the first four years of the programme, at about £50,000 a head. It is the New York experience, not the asylum facts, that leads us to the numbers. I have been entirely open about the fact that we do not yet know how we would fund the second Parliament of a Conservative Government, and I admit that I am not yet ready to assume that there will be a second Parliament of a Conservative Government, although I very much hope that there will be.
    Mr. Oaten: In the unlikely event that the right hon. Gentleman gets the first one, we will see what happens with the second one.
    Mr. Blunkett: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the figure is based entirely on the New York ratio, and New York lost 3,000 police officers last year, as it did, the figure is now down to 37,000 officers, presumably achieving the same goal?
    Mr. Oaten: The Home Secretary highlights the folly of basing a system in this country on the system in New York.
    I shall deal now with elected police authorities and elected sheriffs. If, under the system, decisions about money are to be devolved, it is difficult to see how the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) would be able to achieve the targets. Would there be some binding condition that the money that came through had to be spent on extra police? If that were not a binding condition, what controls would be in place to make sure that the target of 40,000 could be achieved?
    An important issue is involved. If £1.8 billion is available for extra policing, has the Conservative party worked out that extra police represent the best use of that money? Are there other police priorities that should be put in place? How does the Conservative party know that the number of extra police should be 20,000, 40,000 or 60,000?
    I welcome the record number of police officers announced by the Secretary of State earlier this month, and I hope that the Government will not allow numbers to slip, as they did in 1997. If major new resources are to be spent on further increases, such as the Conservatives suggest, surely that should be on the basis of evidence. I ask the right hon. Member for West Dorset to get out of the bidding war and join me in calling for a standing commission on policing. Such a body, independent of Government and staffed by experts, should examine the case for a large increase in police numbers, consider the costs and the potential benefits, and recommend a figure towards which we could all work.
    I shall touch on a couple of other aspects of the Conservative proposals. We did not hear much about sheriffs. I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman even mentioned the word. It did not feature in the consultation paper, but it featured prominently in the press coverage last week. Sheriffs were an idea imported from England and were ideally suited to the lawless conditions of the wild west, but is the lawlessness of Bristol and Manchester the lawlessness of Dodge City and the wild frontier? Can we expect sheriffs to go out on a Saturday night and take direct control? The American model of policing is not necessarily suited to this country. For a start, in America there are 18,000 US

    203
    police departments. Imagine the issues of joined-up working if we moved towards much greater devolution along those lines. Assuming that sheriff powers were to be meaningful, another nightmare scenario was raised earlier. How would the right hon. Gentleman feel about the prospect of a BNP-sponsored candidate winning a directly elected election on a low turnout in, say, Bradford or Oldham? We trust our police to wield their power for the good of the whole community, not in the interests of one section of it, but there is a danger that that could start to happen in the event of such elections.
    There is another danger. The areas that most need reform and change may be those in which the electorate are less likely to get engaged in the process. We could end up with a chattering class culture of people who are heavily involved, while people in areas with more problems to be tackled are not involved.
    Mr. James Paice: I join other Members in congratulating the hon. Gentleman on his appointment.
    Is it not somewhat odd that although the Liberals espouse a local income tax—in other words, local people paying a local tax decided by local representatives—the hon. Gentleman does not want to give such local representatives any control over the police?
    Mr. Oaten: I am highlighting my concern about installing, on the basis of a low turnout, an individual with the power to take fundamentally important decisions. That is very different from a system based on an elected council comprising a large number of individuals.
    Mr. Letwin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Oaten: I promised that I would not be like my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, so I shall take one last intervention.
    Mr. Letwin: At least it demonstrates that the hon. Gentleman is saying something interesting, even if I do not agree with it. Is he proposing that the Liberal Democrat candidate for the mayoralty should not have the right to run London's police?
    Mr. Oaten: No: my proposition is that in an area as large as London one can take reassurance from the electorates and the existing system. My nervousness is based on some of the trends and examples that have emerged, particularly in northern cities where difficulties have arisen after elections with very small turnouts. I am urging caution on those who advocate the establishment of a powerful new elected tier, such as a sheriff, in those areas.
    Some of the Conservative proposals for the delegation of power and the reform of police authorities are not that different from the Liberal Democrat model. The structures and organisation of policing in England and Wales need to catch up with public expectation and the realities of crime and disorder, both locally and nationally.
    Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Oaten: I want to finish, as I made a commitment to try not to speak for too long.
    204
    We already have a national police squad that deals with the most serious national and international crime and liaises with Interpol and Europol. There is an argument for reviewing and expanding its functions, perhaps merging it with the National Criminal Intelligence Service, Customs or special branch. The logic is that that new force should be accountable to the Home Secretary and an appropriate, more widely democratic authority along the lines of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. Alongside that body, there should be a common border force, as recommended by the Home Affairs Committee, to do away with the confusing alliance of police, immigration officers and Customs staff and to implement greater levels of security at our borders.
    We will support Conservative Members in the Lobby because we believe that the thrust of their new ideas is worthy of further discussion, but I have grave concerns about their approach. We tabled our amendment because we believe that if the structure of local policing is up for review, the rest could be, too. It has been 40 years since the last royal commission on policing. Given the comments that have been made about the possibility of setting up a national police force, there can be no doubt that we need a serious debate on the issues. I urge hon. Members to move away from rhetoric and bidding wars and to take up the Home Secretary's offer to look seriously at ways in which we can improve an already very good police force.
    5.54 pm
    Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: I shall try to be as brief as possible, because so far the debate has mainly been a conversation between Front Benchers, and it should be informed by the experience of more hon. Members. I note that although the motion makes great play of neighbourhood policing, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) said little about the reality of neighbourhood policing on the ground. I would like to speak a little about that.
    I do not want to wax lyrical on sheriffs. We could make a lot of mischief out of the use of the word "sheriff", but a posse of sheriffs—or even of John Waynes—would not make much difference in constituencies such as mine, which operate under so-called neighbourhood policing.
    I am sad that the Liberal Democrats are going to join the Conservatives in the Lobby tonight, not least because, when the Government announced their initiatives yesterday on antisocial behaviour and low-level disorder—as I describe it—in communities, my local Lib Dem council immediately tried to upstage the Government by commenting that Liverpool city council was already geared up for getting rid of burnt-out cars within 48 hours. I had never heard of that service before. That breakdown in communication was underlined when I got one of my staff to try to speak to a real living person who could tell us something about the unit. My colleague spent the whole day trying, but failed to find anyone, and could see no mention anywhere in the council's indicators that it provided such a service. I am not saying that it does not, but the essential lesson is that it has to communicate to people the information about the services that it provides. That will be the gist of what I have to say about neighbourhood policing.

    205
    I am a firm admirer and supporter of the police in my authority who are trying to put neighbourhood policing into effect and stand second to no one in my admiration of the difficult work that the police do generally. I recognise that there have been great successes in neighbourhood policing in the Merseyside police authority area, as I am sure the Home Secretary and chief constable would agree. However, I want to talk about my constituency, which is a classic inner-city area.
    The way neighbourhood policing works in my part of the world is that a number of local government wards are grouped together and a police resource allocation is then made to them, normally comprising about 30 constables, two sergeants and an inspector. In theory, the first point of contact is the inspector. That sounds quite a lot for a relatively small local government unit, but when we examine the situation in detail, we find that the officers work a shift system, so two thirds of them are not on duty at any one time. We also find that some people are away on training courses or holiday leave. We then discover that the numbers are made up with what I describe as ghost workers—people on long-term sick leave who have been allocated to a particular unit to effect neighbourhood policing, but who never appear because they are on permanent sick leave. That is grossly unfair to the officers who are trying to work in these under-staffed units. I have been out with them and seen the work that they do, and I recognise that they can only do so much in any given working day. It is also unfair to the communities that have a right to expect those units to do the job that has been allocated to them, namely neighbourhood policing.
    The problems that result from all this are immense. First, there is a rotation of the people in charge of the teams, and in the composition of the teams themselves. By the time one person has got to know the community leaders in an area, they are moved on or promoted. There does not seem to be any consistency.
    A second problem that I always encounter relates to priorities. I was interested to hear what the shadow Home Secretary said earlier about the operational autonomy of chief constables. Yes, chief constables and senior management can decide what their operational priorities should be. In my area, they have made a decision that the priority, certainly at weekends, should be to flood the city centre with police officers, and they do. It is a very safe city centre—so safe that the Duke of Westminster commented that he was happy when his daughters travelled from Eaton Hall to Liverpool, but not when they went out in Chester. That is his view.
    Liverpool has a very safe city centre, but when all those officers are in the centre, they are not policing the neighbourhoods where people live. In those areas, one cannot get a response from the police. If one does, it is not followed through. The most repeated subject in my surgeries and postbag and on the telephone comes from people bedevilled by low-level disorder. What do I mean by that? I mean the vandalism that leads to burnt-out cars, gangs of scallywags on the streets making people's lives a misery and the archetypal neighbours from hell who appear to know no bounds when it comes to their irresponsibility towards their neighbours.
    Mr. John Horam: I can reinforce that point. I had cause to investigate a serious incident in Orpington, but found to my horror that because of a
    206
    police exercise in Kent and an exhibition at the dome there was only one policeman in the whole of Orpington to deal with antisocial behaviour.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: That is a repeated problem; I hear the same story from colleagues around the House.
    We all accept that the police must prioritise, but when we bandy police numbers around, do we know what a realistic figure is? I am sure that we could go from 40,000 to 100,000 without meeting the real demand. The professionalism and expertise of senior management in police forces is shown by how they manage their resources and how they grade, in an elastic and organic way, the priorities in their operational area at any given time.
    I wish to give some examples of incidents in my area where I have tried to raise instances of antisocial behaviour and low-level, localised crime within the context of community policing. When I checked, I was horrified by the lack of response to alleged crimes that do not appear to have been investigated. I wrote to a senior officer on 7 July and pointed out a house that was being used to sell drugs, the telephone boxes used for drug drops, the registration numbers, makes and colour of the cars and the times at which they went back and forth. I described the concerns expressed to me by local residents. That was on 7 July; I have had no answer.
    I wrote on 27 May to list allegations made by a woman, including assault, harassment, threats to kill, criminal damage, more common assault and burglary. I still have had no response. I am not saying that the police have not responded, but it would be nice to know that they have. I should like to liaise with my constituents and tell them that an incident is being followed up and act ion taken. That is not the case. It is not that we let these incidents lie; we try to elicit a response and fill the black hole in communication.
    On 26 April, I raised the usual story: bunches of youngsters creating mayhem and damaging property. There was no answer. I can go back further, to 31 March, when I wrote about antisocial behaviour by youngsters. There was no answer. This is not about bureaucracy. I am asking someone to pick up the phone and let my constituents and me know that the police have taken cognisance of the comments and are attempting to make people's lives a little more tolerable by some sort of intervention.
    On 27 March, I asked why scrambler bikes had not been confiscated. There was no answer. On 24 February, allegations were made—I kid you not, Mr. Deputy Speaker—of rape, siphoning off money and arson, yet still there is no answer as to what the police are doing in that case.
    Incidentally, I issued a press release on Monday, not knowing of the announcement that was to be made by the Prime Minister. My view was very simple and the press release was headed, "Neighbourhood policing is not working."
    I wish to give an example to the Conservative party, the "party of business", of what a business has to contend with when neighbourhood policing is not working. Mr. N. Harrison, the managing director of a small dairy that has been built up and now employs 30

    207
    of my constituents, wrote to me with a list of incidents. The following account sounds funny initially, but it is no laughing matter. He states:
    "The most recent event was on Saturday August 9th at 4.30 am. One of my drivers was out in his milk float and was followed by a car carrying 6 or 7 youths. At some point 2 of the youths got out of the car and got into the float either side of the driver. They forced him to drive all around the streets in the Oakfield Road area and would not let him out."
    Eventually, they
    "took control of the float and drove it into two telephone kiosks demolishing them. They then ran away."
    The driver telephoned the depot and a supervisor was sent out. The depot telephoned 999 to report what happened and to make a formal complaint. Mr. Harrison said:
    "We had no response whatsoever from the police, but they did take the time to contact BT to ask them to clear the site of the demolished kiosks. It is now … August 12".
    So in three days, the police never responded to the 999 call. Mr. Harrison continues:
    "I am having extreme difficulty recruiting staff".
    Are we surprised?
    A business is being threatened, individuals are being threatened, and residents' lives are being made a total misery—all under the aegis of neighbourhood policing, which I am told works. Forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for being extremely doubtful about the efficacy of neighbourhood policing. As I understand it, it is not about the high-flown rhetoric of various Front Benchers but about trying to improve the lives of the people on the ground, who desperately need the police to intervene if there is to be any tangible improvement.
    Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman is making a most interesting speech. Does he agree that one thing that would be useful in the context of crime against retail business is some figures? It is remarkable that no central statistics on retail crime whatsoever are collated.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: That may or may not be so—I do not doubt the hon. Gentleman's word—but my only concern is the constituents whose interests I represent.
    In closing, I repeat that I am aware that neighbourhood policing can be very effective in many areas, including on Merseyside, but I can only speak from my own constituency experience and the particular problems in it.
    6.7 pm
    Mr. Richard Bacon: I shall try to be brief, as I know that other Members wish to speak. Our motion states that we believe that the Government are seeking to achieve their aims
    "through a burdensome and ineffective bureaucracy",
    a phrase that the Government amendment seeks to strike out. In listening to this debate, I have been struck by the fact that most contributors, including our own Front Benchers and the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten)—he now speaks on these matters—have made it clear that the situation is burdensome. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman used such phrases several times, yet
    208
    he has been in his job for only 24 hours. I should like to hear the Minister acknowledge that the police still face an excessive burden.
    I went out on patrol with the Norfolk constabulary a few months ago, and before doing so I visited the new headquarters, which is in my constituency, and the local Wymondham police station. The officers there showed me all the forms that they have to fill out; indeed, they spread them out over a huge conference table, which the forms more or less covered. [Interruption.] I see that the Minister is writing this down, and I can tell her that the forms were supplied not by Norfolk constabulary but from the centre, and that local officers were forced to comply with them.
    If the Minister does not believe that the system is now too burdensome and bureaucratic, perhaps she will take the word of the chief constable of the Norfolk constabulary. His report of 26 August to the Norfolk police authority enumerates the problems that the police have been facing. We are familiar with the problems that many police forces have had to absorb: additional tasks in support of, or compliance with, extra initiatives, legislation and processes, including best value; data collection for performance indicators; efficiency planning; annual reports; performance planning; consultation; activity-based costing; and various legislation, including the Human Rights Act 1998, the working time directive, and legislation on information and security, and on freedom of information. There are also the diversity issues that constabularies now have to contend with, the implementation of the recommendations of the Climbié report, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, equal opportunities provisions, the implementation of the Police Reform Act 2002, and so on. Those, of course, impose extra burdens as well as extra costs, but there is the additional problem of the funding process itself, which imposes still further costs.
    The chief constable of Norfolk expressed in his report to the police authority the constabulary's concern that Government policy
    "seems to provide funding more and more by discrete ring-fenced packages rather than through the general formula, often on a bidding basis which is competitive between Forces. This causes a great deal of work on the part of individual Forces, often at short notice and with the prospect that this work may not result in funding being allocated and may therefore be nugatory. Even when bids are successful, a huge bureaucratic process is attached to grant claims, monitoring and reporting expenditure, and auditing, and, typically, the long-term continuation of ring-fenced funding streams is not guaranteed."
    I know that the Minister said recently that she would like to see, where possible, a reduction in the amount of ring-fenced grants, and I urge her to take that commitment seriously. Where such funding is necessary, it should be as clearly defined as possible and requirements should be given to constabularies as early as possible.
    Even if the Government believe that they are doing their best, I would like them to acknowledge that there is still a long way to go in reducing burdens on the police. I quote again from the chief constable's report, which said that police staff were
    "being subjected to an increasing burden of form-filling, paperwork and bureaucracy arising from numerous statutory and other initiatives, target-setting and performance monitoring that is significantly diverting resources from front-line policing."

    209
    He was talking about August this year, and continued:
    "We accept that the police service must be fully accountable and open to scrutiny but we feel that the balance has tilted too far in one direction."
    I would like the Government to acknowledge that the balance has indeed tilted too far in one direction. Much more radical action is necessary to tilt that balance back in the other direction and I hope that the Minister will confirm that in her response tonight.
    6.12 pm
    James Purnell: I too shall be brief. I want to draw the Minister's attention to neighbourhood policing in my area, and particularly to two issues on which my local council leader and chief superintendent told me that they would appreciate some help.
    In 1997, Tameside had 353 police officers; it now has 432. That contrasts with the reduction in police numbers that took place under the Tories. It is worth saying that their promise of extra police numbers amounts to a cruel deception. The kindest way of describing it is as spin. If they really believe that they can find £1 billion from putting asylum seekers on an island, they have gone into fantasy politics mode. The problems in the asylum system were, of course, caused by Tory cuts in the first place. Solving the problem by magically finding £1 billion is extraordinary. Frankly, I do not believe that they believe it themselves.
    I base my politics not on fantasy, but on talking to my constituents. In the past few weeks, I have done roving surgeries, in Godley, Ridgehill and Newton. My constituents told me that the key issue for them was antisocial behaviour. Time is short, so I shall provide just one example. A woman with a garage and patch of land behind her house has to contend with young people on that land every night who drink, dump condoms, rubbish and bottles, and terrorise the neighbourhood. Local people are terrified of going outside their doors at night. Members throughout the House are worried about precisely that issue, so I greatly welcome the Government's announcement this week.
    David Taylor: In common with my hon. Friend, I speak to many communities in my constituency. One of the difficulties of tackling antisocial behaviour is obtaining witnesses to stand up and report what they have to endure to the courts. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should do more to encourage the use of professional witnesses, which would remove some of the pressures and fears of those communities?
    James Purnell: That is an interesting suggestion and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will take it up when she replies.
    The burden of community policing must fall at the community level and in Tameside an innovative approach is being adopted that combines the police and local patrollers. With 100 or so people working together, we will reopen the sub-police stations that have been closed, base people in those areas permanently and have them available from 8 am to 10 pm, so that people will once again know their local constable. The constables will know the regular offenders in the area in the same
    210
    way as they know the people who run the local post office and local teachers. The constables will have a genuine understanding of what is going on in the community, and that is where the real value of community policing lies. Individuals can build up a relationship with the people they serve, and work with local youth workers, schools and sports clubs to provide young people with an alternative and constructive use of their time. The great majority of young people are scapegoated for the misbehaviour of a small minority.
    I hope that the Minister will consider two points. The first is bail. At my roving surgeries, people complained that curfews or restriction orders on offenders are difficult to enforce. A 15-year-old might be bailed on condition that he does not leave his home after 10 pm, but he does. He can be rearrested, bailed under the same condition, and break it again the next day and the day after. A shoplifter banned from the centre of town can go back again and again. I am told by David Crompton, my local chief superintendent, that it is difficult to take specific measures beyond the bail conditions to stop offenders breaking them time and again. Further measures are possible only in specific circumstances, such as interference with a witness or the possibility that the offender will not surrender to the police. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will address that issue.
    The other issue of concern is alcohol. The sale of alcohol to young teenagers fuels much antisocial behaviour. We all know that it goes on, but the problem sometimes is that the only punishment is taking away the licence of the person selling the alcohol, and that is a big punishment. It should be used when licensees gravely abuse the terms of their licence, but I wonder whether intermediate measures could be threatened. For example, many off-licences rely significantly on lottery income. They can lose their lottery machines if they sell tickets to under-age players. Perhaps we could consider withdrawing that facility from those found guilty of selling alcohol to those under age. I also wonder whether anything else could be done to prevent people from selling alcohol to young teenagers. I would be grateful for the Minister's comments on those two issues.
    6.18 pm
    Bob Spink: We need a balanced approach to what is a sensitive and important subject for all our constituents. Neighbourhood policing is essentially about antisocial behaviour, and juveniles are largely responsible. But the kids should not be stigmatised. Kids in this country are generally great and we must allow them to go out and enjoy their childhood, to grow up, to play games and to gather together socially. We must understand that they will occasionally rebel and experiment, especially with alcohol, and we need to seek tolerant and caring ways of dealing with the problem.
    The children need more facilities to distract them from bad behaviour. We owe that to them, and I congratulate Legacy XS in my constituency on the project that it is running. The kids also need a disciplined framework, with clear boundaries and consistent enforcement. They also need to know that tough consequences will ensue if they break the rules. We need much more parental involvement in ensuring that children behave. I know that not all children these

    211
    days have two parents, and we all appreciate the difficulties of single-parent families, but we need parents to take responsibility in stopping bad behaviour by children. For instance, my Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Act 1997 enabled the police to involve parents in connection with incidents of under-age drinking. It should be more widely used. I contend that greater local control of the police would ensure that such action is taken, as local people would demand it.
    My second point has to do with the police. Like some other hon. Members, I went out on patrol with my police force on a Friday night in the summer. I encountered some good behaviour among youths gathering together, but other youths displayed a great lack of respect towards the police. My respect for front?line officers certainly grew as a result of that experience.
    I believe that the police should not have to deal with so much bureaucracy. They need to have access to new technologies such as palm-top computers. They need more resources, as well as the 40,000 officers that the Conservative party promises. The number of special constables needs to rise, not fall as has been happening lately.
    The law needs to be clearer and more consistent. In their six and a half years in office, the Government have failed abysmally in that respect. Initiative after initiative has been introduced, often by the Prime Minister himself, and then failed. For instance, child curfews were introduced in 1998. They were a total failure. In 1999, antisocial behaviour orders were introduced. They were an almost total failure, and they died because of bureaucracy. In 2000, the Prime Minister suggested cashpoint fines.
    Mr. Bacon: That was a farce.
    Bob Spink: My hon. Friend is right to say that that was a farce. In addition, fixed-penalty fines were introduced, followed by the suggestion in 2001 about night courts, which copied what happens in America. The Government also promised to remove housing benefits from bad tenants. None of that made a lot of difference, so what happened next? En January this year, the Government established the antisocial behaviour unit, which was designed to "tackle anti-social behaviour" and
    "make an immediate and lasting difference to the lives of people who experience anti-social behaviour day after day."
    What has happened? Nothing—absolutely nothing: if anything, things are getting worse on our streets. Yesterday, the Prime Minister launched an action plan called "Together: Tackling Anti-Social Behaviour". Do not hold your breath, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Under-age drinking is a particular problem. It leads kids on the street into bad behaviour and the first use of drugs, and it needs to be tackled. My 1997 Act gave police the power to remove all alcohol from under-age kids on the streets. It was designed to keep kids out of trouble and to save communities from the trouble that they cause. So what did the Prime Minister do in the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001? He removed the very power that I had given police to take alcohol away
    212
    from kids. Fortunately, that power was given back to the police on 18 September—and about time too. We need a consistent approach on this matter, but that is not what this failed Government have delivered.
    What can be done now? We can show the kids more respect, and give them more in the way of facilities. We can give the police more resources—and the Opposition have promised 40,000 more police officers. We can try to keep police stations open so people have greater access to them. We can cut bureaucracy, introduce new technology, and ensure that the police involve parents in their children's behaviour. We can try to deliver more treatment for drug addiction.
    We must put an end to gimmicky Government initiatives and get down to introducing simple, tough and consistent laws and to enforcing them with rigour. Finally, we must ensure that local police are truly accountable to local people.
    6.24 pm
    Dr. Nick Palmer: As we know, there is widespread concern about crime and antisocial behaviour. The thoughtful new Liberal Democrat spokesman asked why that is, given that there has been a steady fall in crime in recent years according to all the seriously accepted statistics. That started in 1995, when mass unemployment began to fall, as it has continued to do under the Labour Government. The Home Secretary put his finger on it when he said that people constantly read in the media about the most horrific crimes and see intensifying antisocial behaviour locally. They extrapolate from the latter to the former. If they see youths being disrespectful to the police and seemingly out of control and read about horrific murders, they think that the two are linked and that there are more horrific murders. Antisocial behaviour is a serious issue in that it engenders fear of more serious crime. That is one reason why we need to take it so seriously.
    Increasingly, people understand the complexity of the issue. As has been said, we have had something of an auction in the number of additional police that we want to put on the beat. People realise that we have more police, but that they have not solved the problem of antisocial behaviour. Gradually, they are perceiving that the issue is complex. We are talking about the number of police, their role—exactly what they do, what they are allowed to do and how they are deployed by chief constables—and the number of support staff.
    In this political auction, we tend to talk about the number of police officers as opposed to the number of civilian staff. There is a danger of undervaluing the role of support staff—as happened in the national health service—in enabling existing police officers to get out on to the beat. I accept the point that everyone makes, which is that certain types of paperwork could be avoided. Few people would say that we should not be reacting to many of the initiatives that the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) listed, such as the Climbié inquiry. It is much easier to say that there is too much paperwork than to identify specific papers that do not need to be filled out. In many cases, it may be possible to reduce the paperwork, but we may also need more civilian staff to take that burden off the police. One constituent recently had a lengthy statement taken down in longhand by a police sergeant. That does not

    213
    make sense. The Conservatives attempted almost to demonise support staff in the health service by saying that 20 per cent. of them ought to be sacked. I hope that we will not do the same with policing, as we may well need more support staff more urgently than we need more police.
    People are also looking at police powers and the willingness to use them, which the Prime Minister raised recently, as well as at the role of the courts and sentencing. I want a simple, practical change to transparent sentencing. The sentence announced should be the 50 per cent. tariff that we know will result in incarceration, rather than the 100 per cent. that could theoretically be applied. That would be a sensible change, and one that people would understand.
    The Conservative party has complained in the past week or so that the media have been concentrating exclusively on the Leader of the Opposition's secretarial arrangements at the expense of examining the Opposition's policies. I have some sympathy with that complaint. The way in which the media work in Britain is dispiriting. I therefore wish to take the remaining five minutes of my speech to consider quickly the concrete policies that the Opposition propose.
    I am second to none in my admiration for the courtesy and honesty of the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin). We have met in various Committees and it is always a pleasure to debate with him. One of his characteristics is that he does not try to conceal vagueness, as we saw on the issue of the island to which several Members have referred. He had obviously been pressed by his leader to come up with something, so he said that we ought to put all asylum seekers on an island. When he was asked which island, he did not say, as perhaps most of us would have said—I certainly think that I would have—"We have a number of islands in mind, we are weighing things up but it would not be right to disclose it at this time." Instead, with characteristic honesty, he said, "I haven't a clue." I admire him for that. We have to accept that that element of his policy is currently shrouded in considerable vagueness.
    We find the same vagueness in the motion, which urges us to have more local policing that is more accountable to local people—words that have no discernible meaning, or which, if they have a meaning, it is a meaning to which we can all subscribe. Why not have more local policing and local accountability? It sounds good.
    In the right hon. Gentleman's speech, he tried to fill the gap. He advocated greater decentralisation. On that point, he uncharacteristically allowed himself to stray into vagueness. Decentralisation can be a good thing but it can also be a formula for postcode policing. Nottinghamshire, part of which I represent, offers an example. We have an unusually low detection rate, for reasons that we could debate, but there is no ambition in the county to set up a protectionist barrier against the use of best practice from elsewhere. We would like to achieve in Nottinghamshire the successful detection rates that we see elsewhere, and if that meant a centralist initiative, it would be just fine with most people. There is a danger that if we chop the country into too many
    214
    little bits, there will be bits where policing works well and bits where it does not. With respect, that policy is half-baked.
    Mr. Letwin: The hon. Gentleman is making a serious speech and we accept that an inevitable consequence of a serious-minded localist approach is that there will be differences between places. Some will be better at some things and some will be bad at others. That is why we place our faith in local democracy. It is our impression that when people see that something is being better done somewhere else, they will want to apply pressure through their local democratically elected police authorities for the place where they live to do it better.
    Dr. Palmer: I accept that the right hon. Gentleman's intentions are good, but that intervention brings us to the dog that did not bark in his speech—sheriffs. He did not mention them once. We are all aware of the dangers of elected sheriffs—
    Mr. Letwin rose—
    Dr. Palmer: I am sorry that I cannot give way again; I want to conclude, so that the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) can speak.
    The risk in having elected sheriffs is simple, and we should be open about it. The election of mayors has produced many charmingly eccentric people, but in the emotive matter of crime there is a danger that election could produce British National party or extremist sheriffs. With the complete operational independence that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to give chief constables, the likely outcome would be a state of permanent confrontation between populist, tub-thumping sheriffs with no real power, setting wholly unrealistic targets, and chief constables who ignored them and did their own thing. There is a genuine hole at the heart of the right hon. Gentleman's strategy.
    As I want to allow the hon. Member for Upminster to speak, I shall not pursue the matter further. With respect, however, if the right hon. Gentleman wants that Conservative policy to be taken seriously, it requires considerably more detail.
    6.34 pm
    Angela Watkinson: In view of the lateness of the hour, the House will be pleased to learn that I have abandoned my speech, although I am sure that hon. Members would have enjoyed it. Instead, I intend to make three brief points.
    My first point relates to the 40,000 extra police officers proposed in the Conservative policy. Some hon. Members have referred to that as though it were an extravagant or even unnecessary number, but I understand that 8,000 of the 40,000 might be allocated to the Metropolitan police and, as there are 32 London boroughs, Havering is likely to receive about 160 of those 40,000 police officers. With absences through sickness, holidays, courses, and officers being off duty and other abstractions, 150 officers might be left. Shared out over three shifts, 50 officers are not even enough to have two additional officers in each ward, so by no means is the figure over-generous; it is perfectly reasonable, and no more than is necessary in the prevailing circumstances.

    215
    My second point relates to a particular problem in the London borough of Havering. My constituency is one of the three component constituencies of Havering. Romford is one of the others. Rom ford town centre has the largest concentration of late-night entertainment centres and nightclubs outside the west end of London, which places enormous demands on Havering police. Those demands should be enough to make Havering a special case, but that is consistently ignored in the Metropolitan police resource allocation formula. We live in hope every year, but so far those hopes have been dashed.
    On Thursday, Friday and Saturday evenings, 10,000 additional people come into Romford—that is a conservative figure; it has been put as high as 13,000—to avail themselves of the delights of those nightclubs. The on-duty police officers quite rightly concentrate the lion's share of their resources on Romford town centre at that time. It is a public order issue, and the divisional commander is right to do that, but the effect is that there is no neighbourhood policing in the rest of the borough.
    I have been out on night duty with Havering police, and they have one car to use to react to radio messages relating to incidents the length and breadth of what is a very large borough. They get there too late every time. The incident is over; the culprits have escaped. The police then hear of another incident at the far end of the borough, and the car chases after that. In effect, the borough is not policed, with the exception of Romford town centre, when those nightclubs are in operation. I add another plea—I make no apology for doing so again for additional police in Havering because of the special demands placed on it by Romford town centre.
    My third point relates to the criminal justice system, which does not always give the police the support that it should or could. I should like to give just one example of co-operative working between my local council and the local police in dealing with what we all recognise as a neighbours-from-hell situation. I have received a long list of complaints from some residents who live in some flats over a small block of shops. When I visited them, it became obvious in conversation that all the problems emanate from one flat: there was abusive behaviour, drug taking and drug paraphernalia left in the stairwells, drunkenness and loud music night: after night. One of the gentlemen who complained was a newsagent in one of the shops below, who had to gel up very early in the morning.
    It was council property, and the council looked very carefully at the tenancy and worked with the police, but the council decided that withdrawing the tenancy was the right course of action, as a last resort after it had tried everything else available to it. However, the outcome was that the court listened to the case, which had taken many man-hours of preparation and a lot of council tax payers' money and funding, but the court decided to give those neighbours from hell another chance. So they are back in the flat, and all their previous behaviour is being repeated. That is just one of many cases where the system lets the police down. If we ask the police to provide neighbourhood policing, which is what local residents want, it does not matter how
    216
    many additional police we have—if the 40,000 were available tomorrow, it would have no effect—unless the criminal justice system plays its part and backs them up.
    6.39 pm
    Mr. James Paice: This has been a short but important debate, and it has become clear that there is a remarkable degree of consensus about the solution in principle to part of our problems in our neighbourhoods—a substantial increase and improvement in the concept of neighbourhood policing. The only exception to that consensus was the contribution of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), but he is used to being in a minority on many of these issues.
    What is also clear, however, is that neighbourhood policing must involve all local agencies. It is not something that can be achieved by any one police officer, police force, local authority or anybody else. The crime and disorder reduction partnerships—introduced by this Government, as I am happy to recognise—are a step forward. Like all partnerships, however, they lack the direct accountability that I believe is essential if we are to achieve the step change that we want.
    Let us look for a moment at the difficulties faced by effective neighbourhood policing. First, there is the issue of what I call the reassurance mindset. The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) touched on it by suggesting, I think, that there was some sort of conflict between the reassurance role of neighbourhood policing and getting on with policing real, major crime. I do not see it that way. Reassurance is the inevitable consequence of people feeling safer in their streets and neighbourhoods and of the reduction of the fear of crime or of being victims of crime. To that extent, neighbourhood policing has a major role, not just in dealing, as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) described, with disorder issues such as louts, foul language and the other things about which Members have spoken, but in gaining low-level intelligence.
    It is a fact that three-quarters of all people who receive a custodial sentence receive their first such sentence before they are 24. There are plenty of statistics to demonstrate that virtually every major criminal started life as a minor criminal, doing the sorts of things about which we have all been complaining, so there is a vital role for neighbourhood policing to help to nip the problem in the bud, to use an old phrase. If it can reduce by only a relatively small proportion the number of people who go on to become ever more major criminals, the purpose of neighbourhood policing will have been achieved.
    Neighbourhood policing also faces the problems of abstractions about which we have talked: the frequent changes of personnel as officers move on and are promoted, so that there is no continuity; the problems of bureaucracy, to which I will return; and the problems of the judicial system, a precise example of which has just been described by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) whereby police officers feel let down by the system of which they are part. We also have abysmal levels of rehabilitation among young people in our young offenders institutions, with the result that many go back to the same locality and continue their previous life.

    217
    There is no simple, single answer. All those problems have to be put right, and in many cases the Home Secretary agrees, certainly on the basis of some of his comments today and especially in relation to issues of reassurance and the judicial process. I am not sure whether he is having any more joy with the new Lord Chancellor than he had with the previous one in getting the changes that he wants in that regard. He recognises the importance of police numbers; otherwise, he would not keep on talking about the numbers that he has already provided. He also talks about the importance of bureaucracy and local accountability. Over a year ago, in May 2002, he said:
    "we have deluded ourselves if we believed we could simply deliver from the centre."
    In the Edith Kahn memorial lecture, he floated the idea of direct elections to police authorities. In almost the next sentence, however, he showed why he is part of the problem and not part of the solution: he started talking about more plans, this time at basic command unit level, and more annual reports.
    What is it that people really want? They want a society in which they can go about their daily lives free from the fear of abuse, assault or intimidation and in which their children can play safely, free of the risks from burnt-out cars, used needles, vomit, foul language and all the other things that beset parts of our communities. None of those things can be achieved from a police car or from a council office, let alone from Whitehall or in national plans. The only way such problems can be cleared up is if we have real police officers actively involved and responsible to the community.
    Dr. Palmer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Paice: I am sorry, but I cannot give way.
    We need someone to provide leadership to the local agencies and partnerships: the council, the housing authority, the Benefits Agency, environmental health and all the others involved. We may even need changes to legislation such as that on data protection. However, I am convinced that that leadership must come from a neighbourhood officer, and that role should be a distinct career path within the police and not a penance to be done and to be fitted in as and when other duties allow. I have seen examples of that happening, but they happen despite the system, not because of it.
    The Home Secretary is deluding himself if he believes that there is not a problem with the burden of paperwork. Of course, he is not responsible for every single form in the country; nobody pretends that he is. However, we still do not have the computerised custody system that we have been promised ever since he has been in office. There are still 25 forms for every arrest. I have seen them, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) referred to them.
    The Home Secretary talks about direct elections to police authorities, and we advocate them. However, who would stand for election to an authority whose role is now so diminished? That is why true accountability through direct elections will work only if it goes hand in hand with an ability to make a difference. That means local control over total budgets and local targets and setting local priorities.
    218
    I turn to some of the issues that the Home Secretary raised about our proposals in what was a travesty of a description and analysis of our policies. We are talking about police authorities directly elected by the population of each of the 43 forces that we have at present. The number is not 180, 8,000 or whatever other figure is bandied about. We are talking about a true locally elected police authority with real powers to control a block budget and to decide how to spend the money. We are talking about enhancing the role of the Association of Chief Police Officers so that information dissemination, best practice and consistency across all forces is achieved through the professional body, not imposed by the Home Office. Those are important changes, and they are the right way forward.
    Over the past few years, there is no doubt that there has been increasing disjunction between the police and the public whom they serve. There is, I am afraid, so much public disillusionment that crimes are reported only if an incident number is necessary for an insurance claim. More and more people think that the police will not come and that, if they do, they will not do anything and that, if they do something, the criminal will get away with a smack on the wrist or even less, as my hon. Friends have described.
    Is it entirely a coincidence that that has happened simultaneously with the ever-increasing centralisation that we have witnessed over the past few years? How can chief officers and commanders respond to local needs when they have to respond to Whitehall? Some brave officers have railed against the trend and have developed strong local forums. Even those local forums are relatively toothless; they have no real means of accountability back to the people whom they serve or for control over the force.
    Did the Home Secretary really mean it when he said to the Police Federation:
    "I want the reduction in bureaucracy to be the fuel for freeing people to do the job sensibly"?
    If he did, he had better start soon. There must be no more warm words and wishful thinking about reducing the number of forms and no more blaming others for creating the forms. We need an actual reduction.
    In short, if we are to have the neighbourhood policing that the whole House now largely believes is an essential development, we need to give power back to people on the ground. We need to allow police authorities to be directly elected and given the freedom to respond to local needs. After all, that is democracy—surely the Home Secretary is not afraid of that.
    6.50 pm
    The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing, and Community Safety (Ms Hazel Blears): I am delighted to respond to the debate, but before I get into the meat of my speech I welcome the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) to his post. I am delighted that he finds the time to go out in Winchester on a Friday night but surprised that he is shocked that antisocial behaviour occurs on the streets on Friday and Saturday nights because most of us who live in such cities see such behaviour far too regularly. I advise him to get in touch with Manchester City Centre Safe, which has a fantastic programme to make the city centre a safe, vibrant and lively place where people may have a good night out. I

    219
    also hope that he listened carefully to contributions to the debate about antisocial behaviour. I hope that he will take a fresh look at his party's stance on the Antisocial Behaviour Bill so that it reflects that of the vast majority of people in this country, who want us to take tough enforcement action on antisocial behaviour and the police to be given powers to make a difference.
    We have had a good debate and I shall respond to hon. Members' comments. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) expressed his concerns about antisocial behaviour in his community and gave us worrying examples of what happens. I know that the Merseyside police are absolutely committed to making their neighbourhood policing work. They now have about 90 public access points throughout Merseyside, which is more than ever. They are trying to ensure that the inspectors in localities know the need to attack all the issues on the ground. I entirely accept that good work is going on but that there is much more to do. The points that my hon. Friend raised should be taken seriously by the local police and I hope that the campaign on tackling antisocial behaviour that we launched yesterday will help to address those important issues in Merseyside and throughout the country on behalf of constituents.
    The hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) talked about bureaucracy. We have abolished 2,800 forms, although I am perfectly happy to acknowledge that we need to do more. I was worried that he described the need to introduce diversity in the police force and to deal with child protection as bureaucracy. Such measures are central to ensuring that the police reflect important factors in our communities, so I would not class them as bureaucracy.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell) made a good speech in which he talked about antisocial behaviour in his community. I hope that he realises that the new powers that will be introduced next year under the Antisocial Behaviour Bill, such as nationwide fixed penalty notices, training and support for the antisocial behaviour academy and the action line, will help tremendously. He mentioned bail. I would ask his police superintendent to examine the possibility of obtaining interim antisocial behaviour orders because 66 were recently made in Leeds. When the powers of an interim order bite, they are an effective way of ensuring that conditions are enforced.
    My hon. Friend also mentioned alcohol. He knows that we are preparing a national alcohol strategy and that we have introduced measures on under-age drinking and the confiscation of alcohol from youngsters drinking on the streets.
    Bob Spink: We did that.
    Ms Blears: My hon. Friend's idea about lottery machines is interesting and I shall find out whether we could take it further.
    The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink), who is very keen to claim credit for his work, talked about the important need for a twin-track approach on antisocial behaviour: support for those who want it and provisions for families and young people twinned with tough
    220
    enforcement and giving people the knowledge that consequences will follow from their actions. I am delighted that he supports the Government on every single point of our policy in this area and welcome his support.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) made a thoughtful contribution that was typically useful and to the point. He exposed the emptiness of the Opposition's policy, although he was rather kind to call it vague and half-baked—I might have used more robust words.
    The hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) talked about the Conservative party's pledge of 40,000 extra officers. I am sorry to disappoint Conservative Members because the shadow Home Secretary made an admission today in a typically honest and straightforward fashion. He said that the pledge is only for the first four years and that he could not predict whether there would be a second-term Tory Government—heaven knows whether there will even be a first-term Tory Government—and, as a result, he could promise only 20,000 extra officers because he had no idea how the other 20,000 would be funded. He then acknowledged that 5,000 of the 20,000 would be appointed by us. So the pledge has gone from 40,000 to 20,000 to 15,000. It is decreasing by the hour, as we speak. I am sorry but the hon. Lady will be disappointed in the policy of her Front-Bench spokesmen.
    Let me address the heart of the motion. Localism has become a bandwagon for the Tories to jump on. The right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) prides himself on being a bit of a thinker. I am told that it has taken him two years to develop his ideas on devolution and localism. It is disappointing that after two years of deliberation, he has concluded that there is nothing the Government can do to change the lives of people for the better. His recipe for localism, which is about removing all support from the centre—no national standards or national framework—would return us to the chaos and anarchy of laissez-faire politics so beloved of the Tories 100 years ago. That political approach left people to fend for themselves. Money and privilege determined a person's success in life. There was no role for Government. Politics could not make a difference. Nothing was done to create opportunities and drive up standards, especially for the poorest.
    The right hon. Gentleman sets a dangerous agenda. Behind his façade of local accountability lies the sad admission that, in his view, Government and politics cannot make a difference. I understand why he, as a member of the Tory party, thinks that things are hopeless, but I cannot accept—
    Mr. Paice: It says here.
    Ms Blears: I have written every word of this myself and I am enjoying it.
    I cannot accept that abrogating responsibility at the centre by giving up influence to shape and develop a system is a responsible attitude for any political party in a modern democracy. The Tories recently issued two consultation papers, although people might have seen only the one produced at conference. The first mentions 139 forces, with populations ranging from 2,000 on the Isles of Scilly to 1.3 million in Essex. There would be a

    221
    directly elected mayor, a multi-person single-purpose police authority and a directly elected single sheriff to run this, that and the other. It is gobbledegook. The second document—the revised system issued two weeks later—says, "We don't really want to get into structures, so rather than be distracted by force reorganisation, we have no plans to change the current structure of police forces." That is a complete change in the space of two weeks. That is how well the Conservatives have developed their policy over those two years.
    Our policies for developing community engagement are about involving local people. The Home Secretary's Edith Kahn lecture earlier this year set out an ambitious programme for communities to involve them in shaping and directing our policies from the inside. My pamphlet entitled "Communities in Control", available for £6.95 from the Fabian Society, sets out our commitment. I challenge the shadow Home Secretary: instead of simply having elected police authorities at local authority level, what about underpinning communities at neighbourhood level? People are interested in their street, their neighbourhood, the park where their children play, the shopping precinct and the bus and tube stops where they live. His plans focus on police authority areas. They are structural and relate to existing political boundaries. The real challenge is to gel, into neighbourhoods below the basic command unit level without the 139 forces and the chaos and anarchy proposed by the Tories. That requires—
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
    Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
    Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
    The House divided: Ayes 183. Noes 319.

    Division No. 325]

    [6:59 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Butterfill, John

    Allan, Richard

    Calton, Mrs Patsy

    Amess, David

    Cameron, David

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

    Bacon, Richard

    Carmichael, Alistair

    Baker, Norman

    Cash, William

    Baldry, Tony

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

    Barker, Gregory

    Barnet)

    Baron, John (Billericay)

    Chidgey, David

    Beith, rh A. J.

    Chope, Christopher

    Bellingham, Henry

    Clappison, James

    Bercow, John

    Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Blunt, Crispin

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Boswell, Tim

    Collins, Tim

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW

    Cotter, Brian

    Surrey)

    Cran, James (Beverley)

    Brady, Graham

    Curry, rh David

    Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Brazier, Julian

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

    Breed, Colin

    Stamford)

    Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

    Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Howden)

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Djanogly, Jonathan

    Burnett, John

    Dorrell, rh Stephen

    Burns, Simon

    Doughty, Sue

    Burt, Alistair

    Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

    222

    Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

    Paterson, Owen

    Evans, Nigel

    Pickles, Eric

    Fabricant, Michael

    Portillo, rh Michael

    Fallon, Michael

    Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

    Flight, Howard

    Flook, Adrian

    Pugh, Dr. John

    Forth, rh Eric

    Randall, John

    Fox, Dr. Liam

    Redwood, rh John

    Francois, Mark

    Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

    Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

    Rendel, David

    Garnier, Edward

    Robathan, Andrew

    George, Andrew (St. Ives)

    Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

    Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

    Goodman, Paul

    Gray, James (N Wilts)

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Greenway John

    Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

    Grieve, Dominic

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Gummer, rh John

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Hague, rh William

    Rosindell, Andrew

    Hammond, Philip

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Hancock, Mike

    Harvey, Nick

    Sanders, Adrian

    Hawkins, Nick

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Hayes, John (S Holland)

    Selous, Andrew

    Heath, David

    Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

    Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

    Shepherd, Richard

    Hendry, Charles

    Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

    Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

    Hogg, rh Douglas

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

    Holmes, Paul

    Horam, John (Orpington)

    Soames, Nicholas

    Howard, rh Michael

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Spring, Richard

    Jack, rh Michael

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Stanley, rh Sir John

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Steen, Anthony

    Johnson, Boris (Henley)

    Streeter, Gary

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Stunell, Andrew

    Keetch, Paul

    Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

    Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

    Syms, Robert

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Key, Robert (Salisbury)

    Lait, Mrs M Jacqui,

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Lamb, Norman

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Lansley, Andrew

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Laws, David (Yeovil)

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Leigh, Edward

    Teather, Sarah

    Letwin, rh Oliver

    Thurso, John

    Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

    Tonge, Dr. Jenny

    Liddell-Grainger, Ian

    Lidington, David

    Trend, Michael

    Lilley, rh Peter

    Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

    Loughton, Tim

    Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

    Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Maclean, rh David

    Viggers, Peter

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Walter, Robert

    Malins, Humfrey

    Waterson, Nigel

    Maples, John

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

    Webb, Steve (Northavon)

    Whittingdale, John

    Maude, rh Francis

    Wiggin, Bill

    Mercer, Patrick

    Willetts, David

    Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

    Williams, Roger (Brecon)

    Wilshire, David

    Moore, Michael

    Moss, Malcolm

    Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

    Norman, Archie

    Winterton, Sir Nicholas(Macclesfield)

    Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

    Öpik, Lembit

    Young, rh Sir George

    Osborne, George (Tatton)

    Ottaway, Richard

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Page, Richard

    Angela Watkinson and

    Paice, James

    Mr. Mark Field

    223

    NOES

    Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

    Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Dawson, Hilton

    Allen, Graham

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

    Denham, rh John

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Darwen)

    Dismore, Andrew

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Dobson, rh Frank

    Bailey, Adrian

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Baird, Vera

    Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

    Banks, Tony

    Drew, David (Stroud)

    Barnes, Harry

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Battle, John

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Edwards, Huw

    Beard, Nigel

    Efford, Clive

    Benn, Hilary

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Bennett, Andrew

    Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

    Benton, Joe (Bootle)

    Farrelly, Paul

    Berry, Roger

    Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

    Best, Harold

    Fisher, Mark

    Betts, Clive

    Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

    Blackman, Liz

    Foster, rh Derek

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Blizzard, Bob

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings &

    Blunkett, rh David

    Rye)

    Borrow, David

    Foulkes, rh George

    Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

    Francis, Dr. Hywel

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

    Bradshaw, Ben

    George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

    Brennan, Kevin

    Gerrard, Neil

    Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

    Gilroy, Linda

    Wallsend)

    Godsiff, Roger

    Bryant, Chris

    Goggins, Paul

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Burden, Richard

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Burgon, Colin

    Grogan, John

    Burnham, Andy

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Byers, rh Stephen

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Cairns, David

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Hanson, David

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Harman, rh Ms Harriet

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

    Caplin, Ivor

    Rhymney)

    Casale, Roger

    Healey, John

    Caton, Martin

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Challen, Colin

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Hendrick, Mark

    Chaytor, David

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Clapham, Michael

    Heppell, John

    Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

    Hermon, Lady

    Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

    Hesford, Stephen

    Pentlands)

    Heyes, David

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

    Hodge, Margaret

    Chryston)

    Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Hoon, rh Geoffrey

    Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

    Hope, Phil (Corby)

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Cohen, Harry

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

    Coleman, Iain

    Sefton E)

    Colman, Tony

    Howells, Dr. Kim

    Cooper, Yvette

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

    Cousins, Jim

    Urmston)

    Cranston, Ross

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Crausby, David

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

    Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

    Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

    Hutton, rh John

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Iddon, Dr. Brian

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Ilisley, Eric

    Darling, rh Alistair

    Ingram, rh Adam

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Irranca-Davies, Huw

    David, Wayne

    Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead &

    Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

    Highgate)

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Jamieson, David

    224

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

    Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Naysmith, Dr. Doug

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    O'Hara, Edward

    Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

    Olner, Bill

    Kaufman, rh Gerald

    O'Neill, Martin

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Organ, Diana

    Keen, Alan (Feltham)

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Keen, Ann (Brentford)

    Owen, Albert

    Kemp, Fraser

    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 &

    Plaskitt, James

    Bow)

    Pollard, Kerry

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    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

    Prescott, rh John

    Lepper, David

    Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

    Leslie, Christopher

    Dinefwr)

    Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

    Primarolo, rh Dawn

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Linton, Martin

    Purnell, James

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Quinn, Lawrie

    LIwyd, Elfyn

    Rammell, Bill

    Love, Andrew

    Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

    Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

    Raynsford, rh Nick

    Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

    Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

    Robertson, John (Glasgow

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Anniesland)

    McCabe, Stephen

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

    McCafferty, Chris

    NW)

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    MacDonald, Calum

    Rooney, Terry

    McDonnell, John

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    McFall, John

    Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

    Mclsaac, Shona

    Ruane, Chris

    McKechin, Ann

    Ruddock, Joan

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Russell, Ms Christine (City of

    McNulty, Tony

    Chester)

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Salter, Martin

    McWalter, Tony

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    McWilliam, John

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Sawford, Phil

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Mallaber, Judy

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

    Sheridan, Jim

    Marris, Rob (Wo/verh'ton SW)

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

    Marshall, David (Glasgow

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Shettleston)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

    Martlew, Eric

    Finsbury)

    Meacher, rh Michael

    Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

    Merron, Gillian

    Lunesdale)

    Michael, rh Alun

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Milburn, rh Alan

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Miliband, David

    Soley, Clive

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Spellar, rh John

    Moffatt, Laura

    Squire, Rachel

    Mole, Chris

    Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

    Moonie, Dr. Lewis

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Moran, Margaret

    Stevenson, George

    Morgan, Julie

    Stewart, David (Inverness E &

    Mountford, Kali

    Lochaber)

    Mudie, George

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Mullin,. Chris

    Stoate, Dr. Howard

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Straw, rh Jack

    225

    Stringer, Graham

    Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Watts, David

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Whitehead, Dr. Alan

    Taylor, Dan (Stockton S)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

    Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

    Williams, Betty (Convey)

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Wills, Michael

    Tipping, Paddy

    Winnick, David

    Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

    Wood, Mike (Batley)

    Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

    Woodward, Shaun

    Woolas, Phil

    Trickett, Jon

    Worthington, Tony

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

    Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

    Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Wright Tony (Cannock)

    Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

    Vis, Dr. Rudi

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Mr. Nick Ainger and

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Vernon Coaker

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
    The House divided: Ayes 306, Noes 182.

    Division No. 326]

    [7:14 pm

    AYES

    Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Caplin, Ivor

    Allen, Graham

    Casale, Roger

    Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

    Caton, Martin

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

    Challen, Colin

    Darwen)

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Chaytor, David

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Clapham, Michael

    Bailey, Adrian

    Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

    Baird, Vera

    Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

    Banks, Tony

    Pentlands)

    Barnes, Harry

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Battle, John

    Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

    Bayley, Hugh

    Chryston)

    Beard, Nigel

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Benn, Hilary

    Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

    Bennett, Andrew

    Coaker, Vernon

    Benton, Joe (Bootle)

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Berry, Roger

    Cohen, Harry

    Best, Harold

    Colman, Tony

    Betts, Clive

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Blackman, Liz

    Cooper, Yvette

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Cousins, Jim

    Blizzard, Bob

    Cranston, Ross

    Blunkett, rh David

    Crausby, David

    Borrow, David

    Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

    Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

    Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Brennan, Kevin

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Brown, rh Gordon (Dunfermline

    David, Wayne

    E)

    Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

    Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Wallsend)

    Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

    Bryant, Chris

    Dawson, Hilton

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Burden, Richard

    Denham, rh John

    Burgon, Colin

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Burnham, Andy

    Dismore, Andrew

    Byers, rh Stephen

    Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

    Cairns, David

    Dobson, rh Frank

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

    226

    Drew, David (Stroud)

    Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Lammy, David

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Edwards, Huw

    Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

    Efford, Clive

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Lepper, David

    Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

    Leslie, Christopher

    Farrelly, Paul

    Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

    Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Fisher, Mark

    Linton, Martin

    Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Foster, rh Derek

    Love, Andrew

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings &

    Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

    Rye)

    Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

    Foulkes, rh George

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Francis, Dr. Hywel

    McCabe, Stephen

    George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

    McCafferty, Chris

    Gerrard, Neil

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Gilroy, Linda

    MacDonald, Calum

    Godsiff, Roger

    McDonnell, John

    Goggins, Paul

    McFall, John

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Mclsaac, Shona

    Grogan, John

    McKechin, Ann

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    McNulty, Tony

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Hanson, David

    McWalter, Tony

    Harman, rh Ms Harriet

    McWilliam, John

    Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Rhymney)

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Healey, John

    Mallaber, Judy

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Hendrick, Mark

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Marshall, David (Glasgow

    Hermon, Lady

    Shettleston)

    Hesford, Stephen

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Heyes, David

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Martlew, Eric

    Hinchliffe, David

    Meacher, rh Michael

    Hodge, Margaret

    Merron, Gillian

    Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

    Michael, rh Alun

    Hoon, rh Geoffrey

    Milburn, rh Alan

    Hope, Phil (Corby)

    Miliband, David

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

    Moffatt, Laura

    Sefton E)

    Mole, Chris

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

    Moonie, Dr. Lewis

    Urmston)

    Moran, Margaret

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Morgan, Julie

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Mountford, Kali

    Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

    Mudie, George

    Iddon, Dr. Brian

    Mullin, Chris

    Illsley, Eric

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Ingram, rh Adam

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Irranca-Davies, Huw

    Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

    Jamieson, David

    Naysmith, Dr. Doug

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

    Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    O'Hara, Edward

    Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Diner, Bill

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

    Organ, Diana

    Kaufman, rh Gerald

    Owen, Albert

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Palmer, Dr. Nick

    Keen, Alan (Feltham)

    Pearson, Ian

    Keen, Ann (Brentford)

    Perham, Linda

    Kemp, Fraser

    Picking, Anne

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Pickthall, Colin

    Kidney, David

    Plaskitt, James

    King, Andy (Rugby)

    Pollard, Kerry

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

    Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

    Bow)

    Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

    Knight Jim (S Dorset)

    Pound, Stephen

    227

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

    Stevenson, George

    E)

    Stewart, David (Inverness E &

    Prescott, rh John

    Lochaber)

    Primarolo, rh Dawn

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Stoate, Dr. Howard

    Purnell, James

    Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Straw, rh Jack

    Rammell, Bill

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Raynsford, rh Nick

    Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Robertson, John (Glasgow

    Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

    Anniesland)

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

    Tipping, Paddy

    NW)

    Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Touhig, Don (IsIwyn)

    Rooney, Terry

    Trickett, Jon

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

    Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

    Kemptown)

    Ruane, Chris

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Russell, Ms Christine (City of

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Chester)

    Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

    Salter, Martin

    Vis, Dr. Rudi

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Sawford, Phil

    Wareing, Robert N

    Sedgemore Brian

    Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Watts, David

    Sheridan Jim

    Whitehead, Dr. Alan

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Williams, Betty (Convey)

    Simon, Skin (B'ham Erdington)

    Wills, Michael

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Winnick, David

    Skinner, Dennis

    Wood, Mike (Batley)

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Woodward, Shaun

    Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

    Woolas, Phil

    Finsbury)

    Worthington, Tony

    Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Yarmouth)

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Soley, Clive

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Spellar, rh John

    Squire, Rachel

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

    Mr. Nick Ainger and

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Mr. John Heppell

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Cameron, David

    Allan, Richard

    Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

    Amess, David

    Carmichael, Alistair

    Ancram, rh Michael

    Cash, William

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

    Bacon, Richard

    Barnet)

    Baker, Norman

    Chidgey, David

    Baldry, Tony

    Chope, Christopher

    Barker, Gregory

    Clappison, James

    Baron, John (Billericay)

    Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Beith, rh A. J.

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Bellingham, Henry

    Collins, Tim

    Bercow, John

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Blunt, Crispin

    Cotter, Brian

    Boswell, Tim

    Cran, James (Beverley)

    Brady, Graham

    Curry, rh David

    Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Brazier, Julian

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

    Breed, Colin

    Stamford)

    Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

    Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Howden)

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Djanogly, Jonathan

    Burnett, John

    Dorrell, rh Stephen

    Burns, Simon

    Doughty, Sue

    Burt, Alistair

    Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

    Butterfill, John

    Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

    Calton, Mrs Patsy

    Fabricant, Michael

    228

    Flight, Howard

    Paice, James

    Hook, Adrian

    Paterson, Owen

    Forth, rh Eric

    Pickles, Eric

    Fox, Dr. Liam

    Portillo, rh Michael

    Francois, Mark

    Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

    Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

    Dinefwr)

    Garnier, Edward

    Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

    George, Andrew (St. Ives)

    Pugh, Dr. John

    Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

    Randall, John

    Goodman, Paul

    Redwood, rh John

    Gray, James (N Wilts)

    Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

    Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

    Rendel, David

    Greenway, John

    Robathan, Andrew

    Grieve, Dominic

    Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

    Gummer, rh John

    M-Kent)

    Hammond, Philip

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Hancock, Mike

    Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

    Harvey, Nick

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Hawkins, Nick

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Hayes, John (S Holland)

    Rosindell, Andrew

    Heath, David

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

    Sanders, Adrian

    Hendry, Charles

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

    Selous, Andrew

    Hogg, rh Douglas

    Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

    Holmes, Paul

    Shepherd, Richard

    Horam, John (Orpington)

    Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

    Howard, rh Michael

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

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Kincardine)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Soames, Nicholas

    Hunter, Andrew

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Jack, rh Michael

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Spring, Richard

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Stanley, rh Sir John

    Keetch, Paul

    Steen, Anthony

    Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

    Streeter, Gary

    Inverness)

    Stunell, Andrew

    Key, Robert (Salisbury)

    Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Syms, Robert

    Lamb, Norman

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Lansley, Andrew

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Laws, David (Yeovil)

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Leigh, Edward

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Letwin, rh Oliver

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

    Teather, Sarah

    Liddell-Grainger, Ian

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Lidington, David

    Thurso, John

    Lilley, rh Peter

    Tonge, Dr. Jenny

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Trend, Michael

    Loughton, Tim

    Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

    Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

    Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

    Maclean, rh David

    Tyrie, Andrew

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Viggers, Peter

    Malins, Humfrey

    Walter, Robert

    Maples, John

    Waterson, Nigel

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury &

    Webb, Steve (Northavon)

    Atcham)

    Whittingdale, John

    Maude, rh Francis

    Wiggin, Bill

    Mercer, Patrick

    Willetts, David

    Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

    Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

    Coldfield)

    Williams, Roger (Brecon)

    Moore, Michael

    Wilshire, David

    Moss, Malcolm

    Winterton, Sir Nicholas

    Norman, Archie

    (Macclesfield)

    Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

    Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Young, rh Sir George

    Opik, Lembit

    Osborne, George (Tatton)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Ottaway, Richard

    Angela Watkinson and

    Page, Richard

    Mr. Mark Field

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House welcomes the Government's investment in policing which has resulted in 136,386 officers by the end of August 2003, an increase of more than 4,000 since December 2002 and the highest level ever; notes that there are now more than 1900 Community Support Officers and record numbers of police staff assisting police officers in their work; further notes the priority given by the Government to reducing bureaucracy to enable officers to concentrate on frontline duties; and welcomes the Government's commitment to further reform to improve accountability and engagement between the police and the communities they serve.

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I propose to put together the Questions on the two motions relating to Northern Ireland.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION

      NORTHERN IRELAND
      That the draft Partnerships etc. (Removal of Twenty Member Limit) Northern Ireland Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 7th July, be approved.
      That the draft Employment (Northern Ireland) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 8th September, be approved.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
      Question agreed to.

    RECOVERY PLAN FOR COD AND THE RECOVERY OF THE NORTHERN HAKE STOCK
    Motion made,
    That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 9081/03, draft Council Regulation establishing measures for the recovery of cod stocks, and No. 10980/03, draft Council Regulation establishing measures for the recovery of the Northern hake stock; welcomes the Government's support of the adoption of recovery plans for cod and hake in which effort control and
    230
    other measures can play a part, and also supports the Government's intention to ensure a close dialogue with the fishing industry in developing these plans.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.
    Hon. Members: No.
    Division deferred till Wednesday 22 October, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002].

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    Ordered,
    That the following Statutory Instruments be referred to Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation: the Commission for Health Improvement (Functions) Regulations 2003 (S.I., 2003, No. 1587), the Strategic Health Authorities (Consultation on Changes) Regulations 2003 (S.I., 2003, No. 1617), the Patients' Forums (Membership and Procedure) Regulations 2003 (S.I., 2003, No. 2123) and the Patients' Forums (Functions) Regulations 2003 (S.I., 2003. No. 2124).— [Ms Bridget Prentice.]

    DRAFT GAMBLING BILL (JOINT COMMITTEE) (POWER TO TRAVEL OUTSIDE THE UNITED KINGDOM)
    Motion made,
    That the Order of the House of 10th July 2003 appointing a Select Committee to join with a Committee of the Lords to consider and report on any Clauses of a draft Gambling Bill presented to both Houses by a Minister of the Crown be amended by leaving out the words 'within the United Kingdom'.— [Ms Bridget Prentice.]
    Hon. Members: Object.

    JOINT COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS
    Ordered,
    That Standing Order No. 152B (Human rights (joint committee)) be amended, in paragraph (5), by leaving out the words 'shall be three, except that for the purposes of taking evidence, the quorum'.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]

  Sussex Police (Child Abduction Schemes)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
  7.26 pm
  Tim Loughton: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the important subject of the child rescue alert scheme that was operating in Sussex. The Minister knows of my very close involvement with child rescue alert since the summer of 2002. I initiated two early-day motions in this House on the subject and I have submitted a number of written questions. I have corresponded with the Minister's colleague, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), and had conversations with the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins). That followed an undertaking by the Minister's former Home Office colleague, the right hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn)—he is now at the Department for International Development—who, in response to my question at Home Office questions of 2 December, wished the scheme well and undertook to monitor carefully its success. He said:
  "I should be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and officers from the Sussex force when the pilot period is over so that we can consider how to spread that good idea elsewhere."—[Official Report, 2 December 2002; Vol. 395, c. 605.]
  I have been trying for the past five months to get that meeting with Home Office Ministers and to take a delegation, because of problems that have since occurred with the scheme. Numerous calls from my office have met with no result. Despite promises from three Home Office Ministers—the two Members whom I have already mentioned and Baroness Scotland—the undertaking given by the right hon. Member for Leeds, Central has not been met. Nothing happened until, mysteriously, this afternoon, when a call from the office of the hon. Member for Salford offered a meeting, some six months late. I am delighted about that offer, but it has of course been prompted by this evening's Adjournment debate.
  This debate really should not be necessary. Importantly, a scheme that started with great promise last year, and which was aimed at offering effective solutions to dealing with the problem of child abductions, has been largely sidelined. It has been a victim of Home Office internal politics. The company that developed the major part of that scheme has been peremptorily sacked, its reputation damaged by highly misleading statements from senior Sussex police officers with no retraction or apology forthcoming.
  It could all have been so different. By now we could have had a nationwide child rescue alert scheme with millions of members of the public signed up to media broadcasts, text messaging and traffic signs, for example, alerting them to missing children, particularly in the crucial early hours after a child has been abducted.
  Let me provide some of the background. It starts with the tragic case of Sarah Payne who, as hon. Member will know, was abducted and murdered some years agc in West Sussex. Many people then struggled to come with a solution that could provide an effective counter to child abductions in the future. It is estimated that in
  232
  Sussex alone, there were 32 child abductions last year—fortunately, not all ending in the tragic circumstances of Sarah Payne.
  Experience in the United States was examined. A scheme called Amber Alert operates in 13 different states and has successfully saved the lives of many abducted children by breaking into media broadcasts to give details of suspected abducted children and by flashing up messages on highway signs alerting drivers to keep an eye out. Largely helped by Councillor Mike Mendosa from Adur, who is a radio presenter, that scheme gained considerable publicity in national and local newspapers last summer. Partly as a result, officers in the child protection unit of Sussex police looked into setting up a pilot scheme across Sussex based on Amber Alert in the US.
  Using highway signs as a means of raising alerts is not practical in a county such as Sussex because it requires freeway dot matrix boards, of which there is only one in the whole county. However, all the local media, led by companies such as Meridian Television and Southern FM, were quickly signed up to the scheme so that when an alert was triggered, broadcasts could be broken into in short order to give listeners details of a suspected abduction.
  The criteria used to trigger such an alert were, first, that the child should be under 16 and missing; and, secondly, that a police officer of at least the rank of superintendent felt that the child might suffer serious harm or death. Thirdly, the child must have been kidnapped or be suspected of having been so; and, fourthly, the case must have sufficient descriptive details of the victim or offender to justify launching an alert.
  Phase one of the scheme—the media phase—was successfully launched in Brighton on 14 November 2002. It was realised quite quickly, however, that it had its limitations and early in the summer a Sussex company called Community Alerts approached Sussex police after spending more than a year developing a system that could dramatically expand the messaging service to include many hundreds of thousands more people in Sussex—and, potentially, nationwide—by the use of text messaging and other innovations. A leaflet and poster campaign was launched.
  When an alert was triggered, subscribers to the scheme would receive a text message with information on their mobile phones. The scheme envisaged signing up members of the public, teachers, pubs, employees of West and East Sussex and Brighton and Hove councils, post offices, neighbourhood watch co-ordinators, taxi drivers, British Telecom and other utility company engineers. It envisaged a potential audience in Sussex alone of some 300,000 people—a powerful tool for dispensing information to deal with child abductions at a crucial stage.
  Further developments were envisaged, including sending out photographs of children to people on the network by mobile phones, receiving such information via e-mail and in-car and in-cab computers, as well as passing on relevant information to delivery lorries and so forth. The scheme also envisaged setting up a hotline with thousands of telephone lines for the public to ring in with information. All messages were to be provided free of charge by Vodafone and the expertise of the company Multimap was also included. It could have

  233
  satisfied virtually any requirement or concern and had applications for fighting crime well beyond just child abductions. It was also useful for providing information about potential flood warnings, so the Environment Agency was interested. It was crucial that a company independent of the police keep the register of subscribers in order to allay any fears about civil liberty implications, which could deter people from registering in the first place.
  The second phase of child rescue alert was hailed by chief inspector Martin Underhill, then responsible for the scheme, as
  "possibly one of the most innovative threads of the scheme"
  and "absolutely fantastic". Community Alerts was asked to drop its own schemes of development and work exclusively with Sussex police on developing the child rescue alert scheme. Community Alerts agreed to give Sussex police all the credit for setting up the service because it was deemed to be in the public interest. To this day, the company has neither received nor sought a penny from Sussex police or the Home Office, despite spending tens of thousands of pounds developing the project and bringing in big players such as Vodaphone and Multimap.
  Everything went smoothly. The technology was put in place quickly and could rapidly have been extended to all police forces nationwide, though chief constables inquiring about the scheme were told by the Association of Chief Police Officers that the police technology unit was working on its own service, so they were discouraged from signing up.
  The launch of phase two took place on 6 March this year with great gusto and 300,000 leaflets and posters were ready to be distributed to registered members of the scheme. Everyone agreed that it was a brilliant, world-beating idea. All the technology to achieve it was in place, and worked. But it soon became clear that, for some reason, Sussex police were cooling towards the scheme. Literature was not properly distributed. Public service workers, including the police, were not being properly signed up. It later became clear, as confirmed in written answers to me, that the budget for such a big scheme was less than £20,000 and only one full-time person was employed by the police to work on it. Subsequently, only some 6,000 people were initially registered. Most people did not know much about it.
  In April, Community Alerts was suddenly told that its services were no longer required after its contract expired at the beginning of June—not that the company had been paid anything for that contract. Coincidentally, a few weeks after the contract expired, on 7 July, a six-year-old from Brighton, Summer Haipule, went missing. It was the first time that the criteria were met to trigger the child rescue alert scheme, and it was duly triggered. Media broadcasts were interrupted, but no text messaging service was available because the company had been sacked. Happily, 14 and a half hours later, Summer was found safe and well asleep under a baby's cot in a neighbours' house. The neighbours were oblivious to the missing child, having not heard the television and radio broadcasts, although they did have mobile phones.
  Newspapers reporting on the case said that the text messaging system did not work properly, and that view was expressed by chief superintendent Paul Curtis. Of
  234
  course it did not work properly: it had been terminated. However, Sussex police desperately called Community Alerts in the middle of the night when the suspected abduction took place, to try to get the system reactivated—unsuccessfully. Sussex police have not apologised or sought to put the record straight.
  Community Alerts is a small company that developed a service, in good faith, with Sussex police. It provided the service free of charge, allowed the police to take the credit for the service, and then saw its reputation tarnished by the people whom it had tried to work with. Community Alerts has lost contracts in other areas of messaging because of the erroneous bad publicity, and Vodafone, which was crucial to the project, has also distanced itself. Sussex police, the Police Information Technology Organisation—PITO—and the Home Office have not returned Community Alerts' calls to explain why the company was dropped. Most importantly, the whole child rescue alert scheme has been left in a state of limbo when it should be expanding nationwide.
  In a parliamentary written answer from the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety on 16 September, I was told that the findings of the pilot scheme in Sussex would not be published, but that they have informed the setting up of a national text messaging service by PITO that can be used to alert the public quickly in the event of child abductions. Can the Minister tell me why the results of that pilot scheme will not be published? I fear that the scheme has been nobbled by the Home Office and parts of the police, even though they are miles away from coming up with a viable alternative, leaving a yawning gap in child protection measures. If the scheme is to be taken over by the police exclusively, it will not work because it needs to be at arm's length from police records. A previous PITO-led scheme, called "Bullseye" flopped for just such reasons. I gather that the current proposed schemes are based on the priority alert scheme that has been run by the Met for some years, and that is aimed at counter-terrorism measures. That scheme charges subscribers to a pager system £15 a month and has just 2,000 subscribers.
  While all this happened, confusion reigned. ACPO has written to chief constables to warn them off entering into any contracts with companies offering messaging alert services, according to a written answer of 16 September. Deputy assistant commissioner Richard Bryan, the ACPO lead on missing persons, has made contact with Community Alerts this week, spurred on—it would seem—by the prospect of this debate. In a letter from the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety dated 26 June, she said:
  "Sussex Police and PITO are committed to starting registration for a new scheme as quickly as possible."
  When? How much longer will the gap continue? Over recent weeks, Community Alerts has spoken to people supposedly involved in formulating a new version of the child rescue alert scheme on a national basis. Most had been blissfully unaware of the solid and pioneering work that Community Alerts had already done with Sussex police, and were very interested to hear about what had been achieved. Will the Minister deal with the obviously unjust treatment of Community Alerts—a company funded by Paul Kent for the specific purpose of providing a not-for-profit messaging service in the event of a child being abducted?

  235
  More importantly, I urge the Minister and her Department to get everyone together to implement a system as soon as possible to plug the gap that currently exists nationwide—before more children go missing, with tragic consequences, in the absence of a scheme that could save them. I encourage her to ensure that a new system is developed, based on the expertise and success achieved by the Sussex police pilot, but which keeps the data registration at arm's length from the police. The system must be free to the public, to maximise the potential number of subscribers.
  Despite the horrible experience that I have described, Community Alerts remains committed to the cause. It owns the intellectual property rights to the service, and it has the knowledge to set it up nationally. It could announce a national system in a few weeks time, on 14 November, the anniversary of the pilot, and that is what the organisation has offered to do. The police and the Home Office could utilise Community Alerts as they would any other media. They could send a message, and let the organisation broadcast it. In that way, the Home Office could work with the biggest companies in Europe to give every police force a child rescue alert service, and start a national campaign to get the public to register their telephones. Surely we all want to achieve that.
  I urge the Minister to cut through the internal politics that appears to have put the kybosh on a very successful scheme. She should get the scheme up and running nationwide as soon as possible, as everyone involved in the pilot envisaged. She should use the expertise that has already been put in place and proven by the Sussex-based organisation Community Alerts. She should publish the results of the pilot, so that we can all see where it went wrong, if that is what happened. The strengths of the scheme could then be taken up and used to everyone's advantage. Surely that would be to the good of all, and especially of the children who every day are abducted. What I have set out is a practical solution that could help to prevent those abductions.
  7.41 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Fiona Mactaggart): I thank the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for raising this very important issue. As he pointed out, he has been an assiduous advocate of the work of Community Alerts, and of the work on the child rescue alert scheme done by Sussex police.
  The hon. Gentleman gave an account of the response to the scheme of my colleagues that was to some degree partial, but I can understand that. I have much sympathy for the frustration that he felt at the difficulty in obtaining a meeting that he pointed out had been promised earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn). However, he did not remind the House that my hon. Friend the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing, and Community Safety asked him in June whether he wanted a meeting. I am glad that that meeting has now been organised, as it is important that the Government should be accountable to hon. Members who pursue a matter with such assiduity. We must provide them with opportunities to raise such matters, and I am glad that such an opportunity has been arranged for the hon. Gentleman.
  236
  We all agree that protecting children is a top priority. It is a very serious challenge for the police and their partner agencies, and they must respond sensitively and effectively. There has been a worrying increase in the number of child abductions of all types, with the 2001–02 figure of 584 rising to 846 in 2002–03. That rise concerns the Government greatly.
  I have put in hand some detailed analysis to determine which types of abductions have increased, and why. That information is important when it comes to providing an appropriate response to such cases. For example, we need to identify the proportion of abductions carried out by parents, known family members or friends outside the immediate family circle, and that carried out by strangers. We need to know how many incidents are reported and subsequently resolved when the missing child is located soon after. The hon. Gentleman referred to the case in his area involving a child who was quite safe in a neighbour's house, even though no one knew that was the case. We need to know the real frequency of abductions that lead to more serious and sometimes fatal consequences. I expect to have some initial findings next month. That sort of information will feed into how the Government respond.
  Against that background, the Government were pleased to see the initiative taken by Sussex police earlier this year with the child rescue scheme pilot, which the hon. Gentleman described in detail. It is a good example of innovative policing, even if the experiences of those involved have sometimes been frustrating. He communicated that frustration to the House well.
  The scheme makes creative use of available technology and local partnerships. It has the potential to he a powerful tool in combating child abductions. However, every care has to be taken in judging whether to use it for a particular abduction and at what stage. One of the key aspects in handling child abductions is to act so as to avoid unintended effects. When deciding to trigger an alert, the police must have every confidence in both the underlying technology and the operational procedures that follow from its use.
  That is why the Association of Chief Police Officers has tasked its working group on missing persons to draw ogether best practice on police handling of child abductions. It is doing so not because it is trying to delay matters, but because the example that the hon. Gentleman cited from Sussex is one of a series of pieces of work that need to be drawn together—how to respond, how to marshal resources, how to co-operate with partner agencies and how to communicate, as well as how to use technology such as the child alert system ihat he described.
  There is a great wealth of experience, for example, in he police national missing persons bureau, based in New Scotland Yard. Sussex has much to offer from its experience of setting up and running the pilot. Indeed, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, ACPO's missing persons working group is meeting Sussex police next week. I do not believe that that meeting is a consequence of this debate. It is part of the work that ACPO is pulling together and in which it is playing the lead, with the Home Office actively assisting, in planning a national scheme to decide the best way forward, with Sussex being a key contributor.

  237
  I undertake to try to ensure that the points of view of the company that has been involved in the scheme, as well as that of Sussex police—if there is a possibility of a gap between the two, as he suggests—are also fed into the work of the ACPO committee. It is important that, in its work to develop a code of best practice, which it has undertaken should be available by April 2004, the best evidence and experience is brought to bear. The aim is to phase in the implementation of the code of best practice, to give all forces the benefit of those with the most experience in this area and those that have learned from new approaches and innovations, such as what happened in Sussex.
  I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern that the pilot report has not been published, but to maintain the greatest frankness about how the system works, Sussex police did not say that they would publish it in the first place. The lessons that can be learned from such a pilot are best learned if the report is used to inform police practice. To do so, it needs to be very frank. I am not sure that his constituents' best interests are protected by publishing the pilot; they will be protected by ensuring that the experience feeds properly into the work that ACPO is taking forward.
  I undertake to ensure that all the points of view of those involved in the pilot—not only the report that might be in the ownership of the Sussex police, but also the company that contributed to it—
  Tim Loughton: I have not disagreed with anything that the Minister has said. I do not think that there is a problem with the code of conduct. It worked quite clearly. The question mark is about whether we should involve a company that has been a good partner to Sussex police and has technology that no one else has. Does she think that it is a good way to treat a company that has worked in partnership with Sussex police to say, "Thanks very much and goodbye"? Does she also agree with me and with that company that the best way forward is an arm's-length approach to gathering subscribers to the scheme? As previous experience has shown, if everything is controlled by the police, the scheme will not work.
  Fiona Mactaggart: I agree that the question about the arm's-length approach must be addressed, although I do not know the answer. The hon. Gentleman's case has merit but we need a clear examination of the pros and cons of the process, which is why I undertook to ensure that the views and perspective of Community Alerts can be fed into the work of the ACPO missing persons working group, which is taking the process forward. The group will act as a gatekeeper until the code of practice is published and has promised to resource 24/7 contact to any police force that has to respond to a child abduction. All forces will have immediate recourse to best practice to suit the particular situation that they face.
  238
  The child alert initiative requires robust and secure technology, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out. The police need to be able to extend alerts and searches across the area covered by one force to another. The process must be able to deal with such issues so that individuals, businesses and so on can participate as effectively as possible.
  One possible way forward, and the one that is being most closely examined, is to use some of the infrastructure provided by the police message board system, which has been developed by the Police Information Technology Organisation, and is a secure part of the police website. The results of an end-to-end stress test of the new message board will be received shortly.
  The Sussex pilot has shown that engagement with local media and key agencies is enhanced through a child alert facility. After we have learned the lessons from that, further consideration should be given to how best to engage individual members of the public. That may be through the text messaging service on mobile phones. Intensive publicity campaigns might not always recruit the largest number of public subscribers.
  How best to use available technology in response to child abduction will be taken forward in tandem with best practice procedures. Technology and best practice will work together. The ACPO missing persons group will again lead and co-ordinate. Its chair, Richard Brian, is meeting Sussex police early next week and I have undertaken to inform the hon. Gentleman of the views of the pilot process formed by the company involved.
  The Government are concerned to see that every avenue is explored to help make our country a safer place for children. We are pleased to recognise and encourage local enterprise in public services, such as that shown by the Sussex police with their child alert pilot. We also believe that local successes should be available to every police force and child protection agency as soon as practicable. Where technology can be leveraged to achieve that, it is all to the good. To achieve the best with any new system, it must be properly planned to deliver real benefits and the Sussex pilot has shown what can be achieved. The ACPO missing persons group will drive the whole process forward to ensure that best practice is married to appropriate technology and that the experience of forces, through pilots such as the one in Sussex, means that we achieve a safer environment for our most vulnerable citizens.
  I am glad that my colleague has agreed to meet the hon. Gentleman and his police colleagues. I have undertaken to ensure that the point of view of the company involved in the pilot will properly be communicated to ACPO, which is rightly providing the national lead. I hope that those two actions will deliver the end that he seeks.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Eight o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. FRANK COOK in the Chair]

Biofuels
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.— [Mr. Bradshaw]
9.30 am
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I am delighted to have the chance to raise this important issue. As can be seen by the attendance here today in the Chamber, there is strong interest from all parties.
I shall make the case that the Government should seriously consider increasing their support for a sustainable biofuels policy on economic and environmental grounds, and for fuel security. In the past few months, the number of questions to Ministers, contributions to debates and early-day motions, together with the work being done by the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, of which there are several members present, have shown that there is extensive support for increased measures to encourage the development of a biofuels industry in the United Kingdom.
In Norfolk, we practise what I am preaching today. After our disappointment over the amount of support given to biofuels in the Budget, we formed an all-party group in. Norfolk. I am delighted to see colleagues from all parties here in support. MEPs also support us, as do all the local authorities in Norfolk, the university of East Anglia, the Institute of Food Research, British Sugar, the road haulage industry, fuel and petroleum companies, the Royal Norfolk Agricultural Association, the National Farmers Union, the Country Land and Business Association, and the East of England Development Agency. We have had substantial and very welcome support from all our local media. Now that I have secured this debate, for which I am very grateful, our group's next step is to bring a delegation to meet relevant Ministers.
Outside Norfolk, there is strong support for further measures to help biofuels from the CBI, major manufacturers, the Road Haulage Association, Friends of the Earth, and the British Chambers of Commerce, which will make a strong submission to the Chancellor on the Budget. This is an interesting and diverse line-up of supporters, and the Government would be well advised to take notice of them.
The collective view from inside and outside the House is that, although the Government's duty reduction of 20p a litre for biofuels, which was announced in the last Budget, was very welcome, it is not enough to stimulate further development of the industry. If the Government really mean what they say, a further duty reduction and/or other measures are necessary. It is just as necessary that there be a clear cross-departmental Government strategy to achieve the Government's stated objections—I am sorry: objectives, although they may have objections—in this policy area.
70WH
The Government is short neither of advice for the case nor of externally set targets. They have not been short of pronouncements either. Like everyone else, they must know that the public want access to environmentally friendly fuels without the expense of switching to hybrid vehicles or to vehicles that have to be adapted. They should be as shocked as everyone else by the fact that rape seed is exported from the UK by road and sea to Germany, where it is made into biodiesel and then imported back into this country by road and sea to be retailed here as environmentally friendly fuel. That speaks for itself.
The Government constantly repeat their commitment to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and carbon dioxide emissions. Research commissioned by the Government from Sheffield Hallam university shows that the reduction in CO2 emissions from conventionally produced bioethanol would be more than 60 per cent. British Sugar says that, with its efficient means of production, it could increase that reduction to 70 per cent. However, the duty reduction of 20p per litre promised for January 2005 will not be enough to encourage investment in the development of the industry. The great fear is that it will do nothing more than encourage imports.
The Government have stated their intention of meeting the renewables targets by 2020, and the requirements of the EU biofuel directive by 2005.
Gregory Barker:I am listening carefully to what my right hon. Friend has to say. Would she agree that although their moves are welcome, unless the Government go all the way and lower the tax hurdle to the trigger point at which capital will flow from the private sector to develop the industry, they may as well not bother? Missing by an inch is the same as missing by a mile.
Mrs. Shephard:My hon. Friend makes the point well. We hope that the Minister will clarify matters, but the simple fact is that neither of those targets can possibly be met with the UK biofuels industry in its current state, as our production of biodiesel is less than 10,000 tonnes per annum and we produce no bioethanol for road use. What real measures are being planned by the Government?
The Government are not short of stated aspirations. The report of the policy commission on the future of food and farming—the Curry report—states:
"England needs a long-term strategy for creating and exploiting opportunities in non-food crops, including starch and oils. This area should be a high priority for the research and technology transfers we have outlined. We recommend that the Government should reduce duty on biofuels to that charged on other clean fuels. We believe this will help processors to drive the market forward."
Yes, and many others believe that to be so, but what is being done?
The Government are committed to reducing greenhouse gas and carbon dioxide emissions. They are persuaded of the need for fuel security. They are aware that they must meet renewables targets by 2020, and the requirements of the EU biofuels directive by 2005. They have made a start, which is welcome, but it is not enough. Are other countries doing better? The answer is yes, much better. I shall not say more about that, Mr.

71WH
Deputy Speaker, because many other hon. Members wish to speak, but the facts may emerge during questions or interventions. Most European countries are doing a great deal better than we are, as are the United States and Brazil.
It has been difficult to discover whether the Government have a cross-departmental strategy. It has also been difficult to persuade Ministers to reveal the reasons that led to the decision to make the 20p reduction in duty that was announced in the Budget. We have also had a problem trying to discover the rationale for the liquefied petroleum gas rate of 41 p on offer. Was it based on the carbon dioxide reduction of 12 per cent. that it offers, which is a great deal less than that offered by bioethanol, or on air quality benefits, which are similar to those derived from bioethanol? Apparently, we are not to be told.
The external targets loom, and environmentally conscious fuel users seem more aware than the Government of the present hazards. I have been sent a copy of a letter from Mr. Peter Howe, a constituent of the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who runs a successful cruiser business on the Norfolk broads. In a letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, dated 6 October, he wrote:
"There are, however, significant barriers to the use of the fuel being extended throughout the Broads, particularly because the price of the material is so much greater than conventional fossil fuel. While we are, at present, prepared to pay a premium because of our belief that the fuel is so much better for the environment, other businesses may not be in a position to take the same view."
Thanks to Mr. Howe, and thanks also to the work done by the hon. Member for North Norfolk, a loophole has been discovered. However, if the Government mean what they say, it should not be up to others to find loopholes in their attempts to keep the environment clean, especially on the broads.
Mr. Dennis Thouless runs a biodiesel production business in Norfolk and Suffolk that is based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson). Mr. Thouless reprocesses used cooking oil, but he has studied and is enthusiastic about the possibilities of using oil seed rape. However, Ruth Rawling of Cargill plc told the Select Committee:
"There is an extremely small cottage industry … at the moment in the UK producing biodiesel, but in order to have an industry which would really make a difference in terms of environmental benefits, in terms of our farmers or indeed in terms of being able to go into a petrol station and buy something which contained biodiesel, we do not yet have an industry and the reason is very similar; we do not think that the duty derogation is large enough to make the investment worthwhile. We have argued consistently for the last three years that we need a duty derogation around 28 pence per litre … and we still have not got there. We have only got 20 pence and that is why we do not have a biodiesel industry of any size."
Mr. Thouless concurs. Fortunately for him, the forward-looking Breckland district council in Norfolk has just given him permission to expand his business. As Councillor Kemp said at the relevant meeting:
"This man is doing a fantastic job for the environment. We should remove the conditions and let him carry on."
I wish that the Government took the same view.
The same point is made about bioethanol in the excellent study produced by the East of England Development Agency, which was published in July.
72WH
What response have the Government collectively made to the conclusions of the report, and what action is to be taken as a consequence? The most interesting feature of the report is that it was a Government agency, and not the Government, that saw the need for a proper economic, environmental and cross-departmental examination of the potential of biofuels. The report will have been seen by many hon. Members present who are interested in the issue. I will not go into detail, but it proposes a selection of options—I have the details, but I do not want to bore the Chamber or you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which would lead to a fate worse than death, I know. Some propose a further cut in fuel duty, some infrastructure improvements and some grants for other options for the Government to consider. We hope that the Minister will give his view on those options.
In taking evidence for its report on biofuels, the Select Committee has made it its business to ask those giving evidence to sign up behind such options. As far as I could ascertain, there was such an agreement across the board. Obviously I cannot pre-empt the report, which will be produced in good time for the Chancellor's pre-Budget review. However, I will go so far as to tell the Minister that I think that it would be difficult for the Government this time to argue that there is no agreed view across the interests concerned. It would be nice if we were able to say the same for the Departments involved.
There are five Departments involved in the issue. No doubt as many as that are needed if we are to believe that the Government are as serious as they say they are about meeting their environmental and fuel security targets. The only problem is that no one Department is in charge of the policy. That emerged from the as yet uncorrected oral public evidence given to the Committee by Lord Whitty, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, on 15 September. The Minister was asked which Department was in charge of the Government's policy on biofuels. He replied:
"We have an overall committee in Government following up the Energy White Paper and also as far as the transport side is concerned on low costs fuels, within that different departments have different responsibilities: Defra is responsible for the agriculture environmental dimension, air quality and climate change, et cetera and agricultural production and agricultural markets; broadly speaking the DTI is responsible for the technology and the capital investment and the DfT is responsible for the vehicle fuel dimension, although they do act very closely with Defra … at the end of the day the Treasury is responsible for all the fiscal side."
The Minister was then asked if the Committee would be right in inferring from his answer that no one Department was in charge of the Government's policy on biofuels. He replied, "Yes, you would." He was then asked whether there was a group of Ministers who met to co-ordinate policy. He replied that there was, and that it met
"Not very often, maybe once a quarter."
On the substance of the debate, the Minister said categorically that the 20p concession granted so far was not stimulating the needed investment to deliver the outcomes in the UK, and that what was needed was either incentive for investment, a greater duty cut or a combination of the two.
Does the Minister agree with the view of Lord Whitty, as stated to the Select Committee in public? Those points were put to the Economic Secretary to the

73WH
Treasury at the Select Committee's public oral evidence meeting on 17 September. One might ask why these questions are not being put by one Minister to another, rather than through the intermediary of the Select Committee, but there we are.
Dr. Ian Gibson: The right hon. Lady talks about interaction between Departments, but does she see any possibility of interaction between the Departments' policies, such as on transport or trade and industry? Can any of the political aims of the different Departments be linked up?
Mrs. Shephard:The hon. Gentleman is referring to a useful meeting that Norfolk Members had yesterday on transport issues, at which that idea was raised. It is extraordinarily brilliant. It issued from the mouth of the hon. Gentleman, so one would expect that.
Mr. Keith Simpson: That is enough.
Mrs. Shephard:My hon. Friend says that that is enough, so we will pursue the idea at a Norfolk level. Although one could say that that is our job, there are people who are paid to do it—they are called Ministers—and we are often told that we live in an age of joined-up government.
In the Economic Secretary's reply on the as yet uncorrected oral public evidence he rejected his ministerial colleague's view. He said:
"As a government we are not convinced that the 20p cut will not produce the developments that we are looking for."
No doubt the Economic Secretary will one day convey that view to the Minister responsible for agriculture, but meanwhile what is the Government's view? I want this Minister to tell us at the end of the debate.
Mr. Michael Jack: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to examine the further supplementary evidence sent by Lord Whitty at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to the Select Committee during its biofuels inquiry? It illustrates considerable environmental and employment gains for agriculture, and discusses qualitative issues about biofuels made from rapeseed and other agricultural products. That is in stark contrast to a Treasury policy that continues to promote an industry that is in effect based on recycled cooking oil.
Mrs. Shephard: I have had an opportunity to study that evidence, and I hope that DEFRA sent a copy to the Treasury. To be fair to the Economic Secretary, he made it clear that the Government are considering a range of options.
I should like this Minister to throw light on another interesting point that his colleague made. On the European biofuels directive, he said that he does not accept that
"the indicative numbers set by the European directive are necessarily appropriate and the best thing for the UK."
I thought that the Government had signed up to that measure, but perhaps the Minister will throw light on that.
There we have it. We have a Government who rightly preach their commitment to the environment. They make claims about their intention to observe their
74WH
European and international obligations and their desire to establish and encourage manufacturing development, especially in areas where there is little. They have even been heard to say, though not loudly, that something might be done to help farmers, who have seen their annual incomes drop by 50 per cent. in successive years under this Government. However, in the one policy area of biofuels, they have the chance to demonstrate all those commitments to the environment—
Mr. David Drew: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Shephard: No, I am concluding my remarks. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make his own contribution.
The Government have a chance to demonstrate their commitment to the environment, to Europe, to the international community, to the development of indigenous manufacturing industry and to the maintenance of rural prosperity—all in one policy area. The Minister must tell the House this morning how he sees these vital questions being taken forward by the Government.
9.48 am
Paddy Tipping: I am delighted to follow the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard). I reinforce her initial comments that the biofuels campaign has support across the parties and across the country—within and outside Parliament. I am delighted that this debate is taking place. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, who takes a close interest in this matter, will listen to the voices and talk to his colleagues across Government.
The Government support biofuels, but I shall argue that the support needs to be converted into action. Unless priorities, policies and an action plan are produced, the United Kingdom will be put at a competitive disadvantage. The Government's position is clearly set out in the energy White Paper published earlier this year. I need not quote all that the White Paper says about biofuels, but suffice it to say that it recognises their value. Paragraph 5.21 comments:
"Drawing on the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership and other expert knowledge, we will over the next year produce an assessment of the overall energy implications of both a hydrogen economy, and of large-scale use of biomass-based fuels".
That is a clear commitment to produce an action plan within a year. The White Paper was published in February, and it is now six months on. When will the action plan be published? Action has already been taken. It has been made clear that, following the 20p reduction for biodiesel, a similar reduction in duty on bioethanol will be introduced from 1 January 2005. The essential argument is whether that policy is sufficient to enable proper production in the UK. We need to consider the players in the field, particularly Cargill and British Sugar, which, in their submissions to DEFRA and the Treasury, made it clear that the 20p reduction will not create an indigenous production base.
Mr. John Horam: May I reinforce the point that we need to develop a clear implementation plan for the energy White Paper? The hon. Gentleman

75WH
told us that the Government have not yet said when that will be forthcoming. Could the Minister make it clear what the Government have in mind? It must be something more than what is on the table already.
Paddy Tipping: The hon. Gentleman, who has a good deal of knowledge of, and a long commitment to, these issues, will know that the essential, broader criticism of the energy White Paper is that the mechanism to implement it is extremely weak. A sustainability panel reporting to two Secretaries of State will not effect the radical changes set out in the White Paper. Part of the problem, as the right hon. Lady said, is that different Departments are involved in the discussion about biofuels. No single Department is taking ownership of it. The situation is worse than she outlined, because Ministers are making contradictory statements.
Lord Whitty, a Minister at DEFRA, told the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that the EU biofuels directive targets would be met. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who has already featured in this debate, made it clear to members that those were indicative targets, and that it was important to get the trajectory right. There is a difference of opinion between two Ministers.
The DEFRA Minister also told the Select Committee that he wanted to see UK-based production, as he thought that there would be benefits to that. By contrast, the Economic Secretary underplayed that, saying that it was unnecessary, but that it was necessary to accrue environmental gains, and that the best gains could be achieved by importing biofuels. It is essential that the Government speak with one voice, because the clock is ticking and the EU biofuels directive has now been published. The Government must produce proposals by next summer on how to meet those targets. I understand that there will be consultation in February to April next year, so it will probably not be concluded until after next year's Budget. Those who produce crops that could be used in the development of biofuels have a planting cycle of 15 months. We need clear and consistent policy statements now from all Departments if we are to meet European targets.
The difficulty is that the Treasury has an environmental model to assess rate reductions. It has already been said that the duty rate reductions on road fuel gases are way in excess of those available for biofuels. It is important to test the Treasury's model. Why is the duty reduction on road fuel gases equivalent to 40p per litre, whereas biofuels are being offered 20p per litre? In previous discussions, the Economic Secretary argued that the environmental benefit from biofuels is only 2.7p per litre.
I do not pretend to understand the methodology, but it is clear that we all need to know why there are such large variations in duty reduction. I draw the Minister's attention to a parliamentary written answer given on 8 September on the question of road gases versus biofuels. The Economic Secretary said:
"It would not, however, be appropriate to compare the duty incentive for biofuels with those for road fuel gases."—[Official Report, 8 September 2003; Vol. 410, c. 102W.]
To put it bluntly, why not? After all, that is what the argument is about. I put it gently to the Minister that many people throughout the country feel strongly about
76WH
biofuels, which have great environmental and economic benefits, especially for rural areas. I understand the Treasury's concern about not sucking in imports from the big players such as Spain and Brazil. However, the Government need to act by defining their policies and priorities and by producing an action plan that has a clear timetable. If they do not do so, the consequences are as likely as night following day. The United Kingdom will be dependent on income from abroad. That makes no sense for the economy, the environment or society.
Several hon. Membersrose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The convention in these 90-minute Adjournment debates is that we commence the winding-up speeches 30 minutes before the end. Six hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. The two Opposition spokesmen suggested that they should curtail their remarks a little to ensure that other hon. Members can take part in the debate. However, I suggest to those hon. Members that they should bear that generosity in mind when making their contributions and when accepting and responding to interventions.
9.58 am
Mr. Keith Simpson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall bear your comments in mind. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) on initiating the debate. She has led the initiative on biofuels in Norfolk, and is a senior member of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Again, we see that there is a cross-party, cross-country approach to this issue.
Like the hon. Member for Sherwood and my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk, I reinforce the point about joined-up government. It is absolutely crucial when developing Government policy to know which Department is taking the lead; is it DEFRA, the Department for Transport, the Department of Trade and Industry, Customs and Excise or the Treasury? We all want to discover not only what the Government's policy is, but which Department is in charge. Will a Cabinet Committee be set up to co-ordinate Government policy on biofuels? Many old Whitehall hands would argue that that would be better than government by sofa, which we have seen lately in other areas.
I raised the issue of biofuels in a debate on farming in Norfolk in Westminster Hall almost a year ago. I will not repeat the arguments that I made then, but I want to put several questions and observations to the Minister, some of which have been covered by the hon. Member for Sherwood and my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk.
What research are the Government undertaking on the utilisation of biofuels in the UK? Sheffield Hallam university is working directly for the Government, but my right hon. Friend pointed out that the main work seems to have been done by a Government agency. Does the Minister's Department believe that an increase in the cultivation of biofuels will assist farming and benefit the

77WH
environment—the two linked aspects? Does he know whether the Treasury is willing to zero rate biofuels to give UK industry a real boost? Would the action highlighted by the hon. Member for Sherwood lead to the UK market being flooded with European biofuels?
What will the impact be on the UK of the new European Union directive that will oblige Governments to support the production of biofuels, particularly from environmentally friendly fuels made from crops such as oilseed rape and sugar beet? The EU directive must be signed into national law by December 2004, and the EU insists that Governments set targets for increasing the production of biofuels over the next decade. The directive suggests a benchmark that biofuels should account for around 2 per cent. of an EU state's fuel market by 2005, and 5.75 per cent. by 2010. Is that target achievable or is it merely, as the hon. Member for Sherwood said, a trajectory or an ambition?
I understand that the Minister's Department supports biofuels and the EU directive. How can the Minister convince other Departments, particularly the Treasury, that they must comply with the directive, and how will it work on the ground? Biofuels could have a major impact on the environment, farming and transport in Norfolk and East Anglia. There is no doubt that they are cleaner and more efficient, and could offer a lifeline to the farming community. Will the Minister confirm that Franz Fischler, the EU Agriculture Commissioner, is a convert to the idea of using set-aside land to grow biofuels?
Farmers are conscious that they cannot argue the case for biofuels purely on the benefits to the farming industry. At a recent meeting in Norfolk, there was a wail of despair from a farmer who heard people discussing every aspect of biofuels except the benefits that they would bring to farmers. It is important to emphasis in the presence of a DEFRA Minister that biofuels will benefit farming. Despite the early proposal that farming should be omitted from the title of DEFRA when it was established, the Minister, having now been in his post, will understand the important contribution farmers make to food production and the environment.
East Anglia, with its long experience of arable farming, has the potential to become the UK centre for biofuel production by growing the raw materials for the new industry. Many factors need to be brought together, such as science and technology, which I am sure the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) wants to speak about, farming, environmental criteria and the requirements of transport. However—this is the reason for today's debate—the most significant role can be played by the Government. Unless the Government seize the initiative, as the hon. Member for Sherwood said, and make what Churchill would have called "action this day", the initiative will he with our European partners and other countries. There will be a biofuel market in the UK, but it will be supported by France, Germany, Spain, Brazil and others.
Mr. Drew: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Simpson: I am just about to finish. However, the hon. Gentleman is always the bridesmaid and never the blushing bride, so I will let him in.
Mr. Drew: We learned from the DEFRA trip to Brazil that its industry was kick-started by direct intervention,
78WH
when its fuel producers were set a target to include a certain amount of bioethanol. Why are we not considering such a step in this country?
Mr. Simpson: I will pass that on to the Minister, as it was a good point well made. As the hon. Gentleman said, and as I was concluding, this all comes back to Government policy. The Minister may not be able to give one today, but we need a clear Government policy statement on biofuels that contains a clear agreement on the lead Department and, most importantly, has the active support of the Treasury. Lord Healy always said that the Treasury knew the cost of everything and the value of nothing. I hope that on this issue he will be proved wrong.
0.6 am
Dr. Alan Whitehead: I, too, have spoken in this Chamber and elsewhere about the importance of biofuels to the future transport strategy of this country. I will try not to repeat too many of my comments. However, the debate is crucial to how we sort out our future transport strategy. Undoubtedly, we will have to move substantially away from a petrol-based fuel strategy for transport, and if we do not grasp that in the near future, as other hon. Members have said, we will be left far behind.
In grasping a strategy,
"there is a 'chicken and egg' problem whereby vehicle manufacturers will not deploy new technologies if there is no refuelling infrastructure, whereas energy supply companies are reluctant to invest while there is no significant demand; and with a range of vested interests competing for future markets and the constraint on public policy not to pick winners`, there is a danger that the pathway dilemma` will persist making actors hesitate to back any one technology decisively."
They are not my words, but those of the Government energy review published last year. That seems to sum up the dilemma exactly.
The point to remember is that, although bioethanol is a pathway fuel, it is also a long-term fuel for a hydrogen economy. The production of hydrogen has to be done by finding the fuel to create the hydrogen, and if that fuel is a mineral fuel, the problem of CO2 is simply shifted one stage up the process. Hydrogen can be created by using bioethanol, which provides a zero emission fuel right up the line. As hon. Members have pointed out, bioethanol can be used as a fuel in its own right, and, with the strategy in mind, the question is how one does that.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) pointed out, one problem in picking winners and alternative fuels has been infrastructure. Do we have to set up new pumps to distribute the fuel around the country? The investment process is about not just the production of the new alternative fuel, but its distribution and sale.
In my view, the simplest and most straightforward way of kick-starting an industry in this country and ensuring that it has a secure future is to put the stuff in our petrol now. That would prevent imports from being sucked in because of the trajectory of increasing use of the fuel, and allow a domestic industry to get going. That is not a brand new idea. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said, 20 to 25 per cent. of petrol in

79WH
Brazil is ethanol, up to 10 per cent. in Canada, Peru and Australia, up to 5 per cent. in India and 3 per cent. in Japan.
Other countries do it, so we could, too. Would it wreck car engines? No. Petrol with less than 10 per cent. ethanol probably does not require any adjustments, while petrol with 5 per cent. ethanol certainly does not. I am afraid that I must mention the word "escalator" now, because my suggestion is that we have an ethanol escalator policy. The idea is quite simple, quite straightforward: 1 per cent. more ethanol in petrol for the next five years.
Dr. Gibson: Is my hon. Friend aware that several cars in the Le Mans 24-hour race this year used a petrol-bioethanol mix?
Dr. Whitehead: I was not aware of that, but I am sure that they did very well.
Dr. Gibson: Yes, they did.
Dr. Whitehead: That is useful information.
The calculations on a 5 per cent. ethanol mix in petrol are quite simple. Getting the escalator to the top of the process would cut 1 per cent. of CO2 emissions, which would be a substantial contribution on climate change and emissions saving in its own right.
The final question is whether we would have to import bioethanol, as hon. Members have suggested. The answer as far as I can see is that we would not necessarily have to do so. I am interested to hear the results of the Norfolk initiative. Bioethanol can be made relatively straightforwardly from crops, as other hon. Members have said. There is land available, and British Sugar is actively considering the idea. A Canadian company with which I was recently in discussions would like to put a European pilot plant in the UK, together with a production plant later. That bioethanol company can make bioethanol from straw, which is almost 100 per cent. CO2 restitution capable and therefore very environmentally efficient indeed.
The establishment of a policy structure requires a combination of lateral thinking, discussion between Departments and a determined effort both to pull and to push the market forward, but the rewards are enormous. This important debate points the way and shows why we should move forward successfully on such an urgent task.
10.12 am
Norman Lamb: I congratulate the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) on securing this debate and on all the work that she has done in leading such an incredibly important campaign to change the Government's policy and to secure a new, environmentally friendly industry.
I want to say a few words about the gap between the widespread acceptance of the case for developing a significant biofuels industry and the extent to which we have developed the means to do so. The Government are willing the end but not yet providing the means to
80WH
achieve the end. It is remarkable how much opinion on the subject has shifted just in the past two years. I can remember bringing down a group of Norfolk farmers to see Lord Whitty at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I talked then to the Energy Savings Trust, which was sceptical about the case for biofuels, but the right hon. Lady has referred to the diverse range of interest groups that now support the case for biofuels, above all else the environmental case.
Mrs. Shephard: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that some of the work in Norfolk has directly contributed to that development? Norfolk chamber of commerce is so convinced of the case that it has persuaded the British Chambers of Commerce to include a strong submission for more help for infrastructure for biofuels in its Budget case to the Chancellor.
Norman Lamb: I very much agree with that and always love to see Norfolk leading the way. The discussions that we had two years ago led to the East of England Development Agency producing its study on the impact on the rural economy. I was fascinated to see that, in 2001, a European Commission report highlighted the fact that, if the UK could develop a biofuels industry, we could benefit to the tune of 20,000 to 30,000 new jobs, mostly in rural areas,. The EEDA study reinforces that view.
I recognise that any Government, of whatever political complexion, will be anxious about the loss of duty. However, I am sure that the Minister will be aware of a recent German study that highlighted the fact that 73 per cent. to 83 per cent. of the duty lost is recovered by way of increased economic activity, through more people earning incomes in rural areas and paying taxes. Therefore, the loss to the Exchequer is much less significant than might at first appear to be the case.
I will now say something about the environmental case, which is the most important issue. It runs in parallel with the case for helping the rural economy and tackling our over-reliance on fossil fuels and our concerns about fuel security. Achieving the targets set in the Kyoto protocol presents a massive challenge not just to the UK, but to the rest of the world. The Governments are funding a great deal of research on what the developed and developing worlds need to do to tackle the massive problem of global warming.
In the UK, the situation has worsened. The transport sector produces 22 per cent. of greenhouse gas emissions but, between 1990 and 2001, there was a 5 per cent. increase in those emissions. That should concern the Government, as well as the rest of us, and they need to find a way of tackling that problem.
There appears to be confusion in Government policy. We have heard other right hon. and hon. Members talk about the EU directive on biofuels. Comments made by Ministers on that issue appear to be contradictory. I hope that, in the Minister's response today, he will desrcibe a clear programme of action for implementing the UK's obligations under the biofuels directive. I know that the targets in the directive are indicative but, if we are to meet our Kyoto targets, it is essential that we implement that directive in the spirit in which it is intended. It is clear that the UK lags far behind many

81WH
other European countries in developing a biofuels industry and in addressing the environmental imperative of tackling global warming.
The UK has failed to achieve the means to the end. A 20p duty reduction has been introduced for biodiesel and, in this year's Budget, it was confirmed that there will be a similar duty reduction for bioethanol from 2005. Is it not bizarre that the duty reduction for LPG—a fossil fuel—is double that amount? How can that contradiction in policy be justified?
we must introduce a significant enough duty reduction, or other measures, to kick-start the biofuels industry. The evidence that we need to do that is already there. A biodiesel industry has already been developed, based on the use of waste cooking oil. However, with the current duty reduction in place, no similar industry has been developed to use oilseed rape as a raw material. That has not happened because it is not considered to be commercially viable—producers need more help to get that started. The same is true of bioethanol. As other hon. Members have said, if we do not produce the catalyst to get the bioethanol industry under way, biofuels will be imported into the UK, and we will lose the great opportunity of securing all those extra jobs in rural Britain.
Dr. Gibson: How would the hon. Gentleman feel if it were discovered that a plant that had been genetically modified at one of the institutes in Norfolk produced a better, purer type of oil, that would help to reduce carbon dioxide even more? Does he think that some of the antipathy towards GM crops would die away in the pursuit of scientific excellence?
Norman Lamb: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that challenging question. I have always made it clear that I have an open mind on GM. The judgment that we reach must be science-based and not based on any emotional anxiety. We need to look at the actual impact of GM crops, but we must work on a precautionary basis in developing that policy.
The Government are not doing enough to develop the technology. Something must happen. Time is of the essence. If we delay much longer, the technology will be based on imports and we will not meet our objectives under the biofuels directive. Most important, we will not reach the Kyoto targets—something that we need to do to save the planet from the serious consequences of global warming.
10.21 am
Mr. Anthony D. Wright: I congratulate the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) on securing the debate, which is one of many in which all Norfolk Members have achieved unanimity. I support calls for an extension of support for biofuels, but I also welcome the measures that the Government have already announced.
In a speech on sustainable development in February the Prime Minister set out several pledges that will fundamentally alter the course of energy production. He set out his ambition to double the amount of energy supplied by renewables. An essential part of that commitment will be the rapid development of a strong biofuels sector. I want to talk about biofuels in
82WH
transport. Alternative forms of transport fuel need to be developed rapidly to meet the environmental requirement to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions, improving urban air quality and providing sustainable development.
Biofuel production has been encouraged and promoted for use as an alternative transport fuel through Government policies and incentives in Austria, France, Germany and Italy, among others. In such instances, national Government support is frequently also justified by the broader benefits of savings on imported oil, greater national fuel security, fuel diversification and reorientation, farming innovation and rural economic development.
It is essential that the UK Government provide the necessary financial support to get the industry off the ground. That support must, however, ensure that the production of biofuels proceeds on the basis of their relative worth and their positive effect on the environment. The Government have made a commitment to reducing greenhouse gases to 12.5 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2008–12 and, further, to reduce CO2 to 20 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010. In addition to those targets, the Government are committed to the production of 10 per cent. of the UK's electricity from renew, ables by 2010.
In addition, the recent energy report produced for the Government by the performance and innovation unit called for a target of 20 per cent. of energy provision from renewables by 2020. What I am desrcibing shows the Government's commitment to the royal commission's target of a 60 per cent. reduction in emissions by 2050. The Government are working hard, and must continue to work hard, to reach agreement on that commitment with other EU members.
I welcome the fact that on 1 January 2005 the Government will introduce a new rate of duty for bioethanol, 20p per litre below the rate for sulphur-free petrol. We need to go further. The European Parliament wanted 2 per cent. of all petrol and diesel for transport purposes placed on its markets by 31 December 2005 to be produced from biofuels, with the figure increasing to 5.75 per cent. by 2010. However, the biofuels sector of the industry is the least well developed, largely as a result of the current price of fossil fuels. That means that further development of the sector is uneconomical. It is essential to do as much as we can to reverse the situation and there are several ways in which we could do more to promote the industry.
In transport, we must ensure that biofuels are supplied as quickly and effectively as possible for a market where there is sufficient demand for them. I sound a cautionary note, however: that is provided that the necessary research is undertaken to ensure that individual biofuels are viable in terms of their environmental impact and the net environment gain for large-scale production of such fuels. However, their potential benefits could be significant.
The use of bioethanol and biodiesels as fuels for road vehicles could have a large-scale impact on reducing carbon emissions and greenhouse gases in the UK. Compared with other fossil fuels, the Ca2 amounts produced by bioethanol are at least 50 per cent. lower. In the case of conventionally modified biodiesel from oil seed rape the figures, according to the Sheffield Hallam

83WH
study, show 72 to 86 per cent. net savings in carbon dioxide emissions and 56 to 80 per cent. net savings in greenhouse gas emissions in comparison with ultra low sulphur diesel.
The Government are clearly committed to reducing CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5 per cent. by 2008–12, with a target of reducing CO2 by 20 per cent. in that time. To meet those targets, significant and quick action must be taken as we face several difficulties. The transport sector contributes nearly a quarter of the UK's emissions of CO2. It is imperative that we set up a reducing emissions strategy, which includes a much greater focus on the potential of biofuels, to counter a growth in emissions of 5 per cent. from 1990. Although other sectors will probably see a stabilisation or reduction in emissions in the future, emissions in the transport sector will continue to increase until we take aggressive action.
The Government's 1997 national air quality strategy acknowledged that without further action periods of poor air quality will persist in the UK, mainly because of the continuous increase in road traffic, a major source of air pollution. Therefore, a new strategy setting measurable air quality objectives was outlined, to be met by 2005. At the time it was believed that existing programmes that control pollution from industrial plant and Europe-wide policies to improve vehicle fuel and emissions standards would go a long way to meeting those targets. A Government review of the targets the following year led to the conclusion that the date for achieving some of the target objectives should be accelerated, showing a genuine Government commitment to improving air quality in the UK. The aggressive pursuit of stricter and more rigorous standards would be made far easier and correlate to a large degree with the adoption of greater incentives for the wider use and larger production of biofuels. That would, in time, lead to a significant decrease in air pollution in the UK.
Another key environmental benefit regarding the wholesale adoption of biofuels in the UK is the accompanying sustainable development benefits that it would have. As part of a greater use of biofuels the UK would naturally move towards a reduction in the use of fossil fuels, which would provide the UK with more choice and leverage. The UK would be able to choose between maintaining the current rate of depletion of North sea oil and reducing the demands on our North sea oil reserves by using them over a longer period of time. It would also place the UK in a stronger position when negotiating oil imports in the future. That would, in turn, contribute to the reduction of the EU energy deficit through the provision of energy from renewable resources, similar to other EU members. The benefit of securing a renewable fuel from domestically produced sustainable crops would also have significant national fuel security implications. Such fuel diversification could lead to the development of a new industry with the consequent increased economic activity, job creation, and associated socio-economic benefits dependent on the sector's cultivation.
The 20p per litre excise reduction for bioethanol that the Chancellor announced in the Budget, to be introduced in 2005, is welcome. However, he needs to go
84WH
much further to make it more applicable. Other incentives, for example a capital grant, would also greatly help to stimulate the growth of the biofuels industry.
I finish by asking the Government to consider carefully the cross-party support for this debate by Norfolk MPs and other hon. Members. The Government should find new incentives for the growth of the industry, benefiting the environment as a whole, developing and diversifying in the farming sector, and bringing many associated benefits.
10.29 am
Mr. Richard Bacon: I join other hon. Members in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) on securing a debate on this very important subject which, as the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) said, has all-party support.
I very much agree with the points that have been made about the need for any coherent transport strategy to take account of biofuels and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) said, for joined-up government on this important issue. I am particularly persuaded by the environmental arguments. We would all like to hear the Minister try to justify why liquefied petroleum gas, which is a fossil fuel, has a higher tax break than biofuels. No sensible person believes that that is justifiable. I am also powerfully impressed by the economic case. Such a strategy would be a huge benefit to farmers in my constituency, which has significant rural economic deprivation.
I want to expand slightly on the subject of fuel security, which has been touched on, and to ask the Minister some questions. Our notion of energy security presupposes more than one source, even for one type of energy supply. For example, we should not be dependent on imported oil only from the middle east and countries such as Iraq, Iran or Saudi Arabia. We should also be able to depend on imports from Latin America, Russia, Alaska and so on.
Energy security also requires diversity of types of supply, not just oil or natural gas, but sources such as wind and solar power. Why would anyone not want to add biofuels to that list? Does the Minister believe that a biofuels industry is necessary, not just desirable, in the United Kingdom? If the answer is yes, do the Government recognise that they have a responsibility to introduce policies to help to start such an industry, either by fiscal means, such as the escalator suggested by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) or through other tax breaks? Which would be better?
Are the Government satisfied with the rather bizarre situation desrcibed by my right hon. Friend in which rape seed produced in Norfolk and elsewhere is exported to Germany to be turned into biofuels, only to be imported back into this country with the concomitant extra CO2 emissions that that causes, never mind the lack of benefit that could be accruing to an industry in this country and, as the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) said, the extra jobs that would go with it, including in my constituency? If the Government are not satisfied with that bizarre situation and believe that a biofuels industry in the United Kingdom is necessary

85WH
rather than just desirable, and that they have a responsibility to promote such an industry, will the Minister stand up and tell us what they intend to do about it?
10.30 am
Andrew George: I congratulate the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) on securing this important debate. She set an appropriate tone, given the fact that there is much cross-party consensus, and explained the need for ministerial assertiveness on the issue. The debate has shown that there is a lack of cross-departmental co-ordination, or at least insufficient evidence that any Department has put pressure on the Treasury, and has been assertive enough to make the necessary policy decisions to provide the kick-start that the industry needs, the case for which hon. Members have made today.
The right hon. Lady drew attention to the disappointing Government response that she and others, including myself, have received in replies to parliamentary questions. A cross-departmental policy is necessary. The hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) referred to the bizarre situation in which we export crops and import fuel, using fossil fuel to prop up that exchange. He clearly identified a number of arguments that were taken up by other hon. Members.
The hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) pointed out in a telling speech the need for an adequate lead-in time—at least two years is required for preparation—and the need to give the industry the necessary incentives to plan for the improvements that will be required. The hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) also identified the need for a clear plan.
The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) read a passage from the Government's energy strategy, which clearly identified the Government's ambivalence. We know that civil servants like to be on the cusp of a dilemma, but Ministers need to push them off it and to adopt clear policy positions. The hon. Gentleman also identified the need to set targets for the blending of ethanol with other fossil fuels.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) emphasised the environmental case. I agree that pursuing this policy would make a major contribution to a reduction in greenhouse gases. He also appropriately identified, as did others, the need to establish parity in Government policy on LPG.
The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) emphasised the need for a strategic review in the light of the predicted fall-off in North sea oil production, which the Government should take into account when considering their position.
We are aware of the low level of biofuel usage in this country. The Treasury has said that the reduction in fuel duty on biofuels has stimulated the production of biodiesel from waste cooking oil or animal derivatives, but that is based on sales of 400,000 litres of biodiesel a month and a proposed £10 million investment in a plant in Motherwell. Those figures should be considered in the context of the huge amount of road fuels used in the UK. The figure of 400,000 litres is only 0.01 per cent. of the UK's monthly road transport fuel requirement. The £10 million Argent plant in Motherwell promises to produce 45,000 tonnes-50 million litres—per annum,
86WH
which is encouraging. However, the UK uses 37 million tonnes of road fuels a year, of which 45,000 tonnes is only 0.16 per cent. More action is needed on that front.
Clear co-ordination and cross-departmental effort are required. The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk identified the need for Ministers to meet and to get off the fence to set a clear policy. They should give a clear lead and encourage civil servants to stop enjoying the intellectual pleasure of being on the cusp of a dilemma. They should establish a clear policy, which includes a further cut in duty and the provision of grants or allowances.
There has been a debate about whether a cut in duty would result in imports flooding into this country. The Central Science Laboratory recently studied the transport costs of fuels and the fiscal regime in the UK. It concluded that it was unlikely that there would be a flood of imports, but we cannot take that risk. The Government should review the situation intelligently to ensure that the balance is right. There needs to be parity with LPG, and the hon. Member for Southampton, Test is right to encourage the Government to set a target for increased blending.
The debate is timely. The Government can no longer faff around—if I may use that expression—but must set clear targets. We need a decisive view, a clear lead, co-ordination and a strong resolve to follow policy through.
10.32 am
Mr. John Hayes: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) on securing the debate. It is indicative of her mix of diligence and insight that she drew the Chamber's attention to this important matter. She will be mindful of the impact that it will have on her constituents, as will other hon. Members. It will also have a beneficial impact on my Lincolnshire constituents, as we are her near neighbours.
It might also be beneficial, not for this well-informed Chamber but for a wider audience, to remind the House what biofuels are. Biodiesel made from a vegetable or animal oil mixed with a small amount of methanol is non-toxic and biodegradable, and bioethanol is a simple alcohol produced by the fermentation of plant co-products such as straw, wheat and potatoes. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), with his scientific mind, is probably srcutinising my every word, so I hope I have that right.
In that context, it is important to rehearse the principal environmental benefits of biofuels, which several hon. Members have highlighted. The main benefit is expected to be the reduction in CO, emissions by about 50 to 60 per cent. compared with emissions from fossil fuels. Some of the emissions are absorbed during the growth process. With biofuels there are fewer greenhouse gases and fewer air pollutants, and there is the possibility of recycling waste oils. Given the state of agriculture in the past few years, biocrops would give farmers the real and much-needed option of going into a new product area that provides additional business opportunities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) said.
Mr. Drew: Surely, the problem for farmers is that the structure of the EU predicates against that, because they

87WH
are asked to sign long-term contracts. Commissioner Fischler should ensure that contracts reward farmers over an acceptable period, rather than their being front or end-loaded.
Mr. Hayes: That is an extremely good point. The hon. Gentleman is a keen contributor to debates on matters that affect agriculture. He is right; there needs to be a clearly defined strategy. We cannot expect growers to plan ahead unless there is clarity of direction both from the EU and the Government. At present, such clarity does not exist at either level. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that that is a necessary component of what I was desrcibing.
Against a background of the accepted environmental benefits of biofuels, the EU is proposing a series of targets for this country and other EU members. Although we are familiar with those targets, it is worth rehearsing them. In essence, the EU directive set out a target for the use of biofuels and other renewable fuels at a rate of 2 per cent. by 2005 and 5.75 per cent. by 2010. Member states will have until 31 December 2004 to develop a strategy to meet the targets. The EU proposes that we should replace 5 per cent. of the total automotive fuel market with alternative fuels by 2020.
As my right hon. Friend said, the Government's response has been to talk a lot: about aspirations. However, the only action taken to meet the targets was to reduce the duty on bioethanol by 20p per litre and it is widely acknowledged that that is insufficient to kick-start the industry. As hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, the judgment is that that simply has not done the job. I will not linger too long on that, but it is worth taking into account the remarks of the president of the National Farmers Union, who said:
"the Chancellor's decision to reduce the duty on bio-ethanol by 20 pence per litre merely brings the duty on this green fuel into line with that of bio-diesel, which is insufficient to provide any impetus to developing the bio-fuel industry."
Peter Clery, Chairman of the British Association for Biofuels and Oils, was also disappointed with the scale and timing of that change. Biodiesel accounted for 0.1 per cent. of UK road transport diesel consumption in 2002. Other countries are racing ahead of us—not only France and Germany, but, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, Spain and Sweden. Furthermore, the issue extends well beyond Europe, and Britain is being left behind.
For brevity and clarity I shall restrict my further remarks to a series of questions. I know that the Minister will have all the facts readily to hand, so answering them in the time available will not be difficult. On the off-chance that he does not have the information, he can drop me a note at his convenience.
The questions are simple. How will the Government meet the EU targets? What are the proposals to meet higher thresholds, which are likely to come later, and what time scales does the Minister envisage for meeting such targets? Will he estimate the level of biofuel that we import from, in particular, Germany and France? What was the Government's estimate of the likely effect of the reduction to 20p? What measurements have they made of the subsequent effect on the industry? What is the
88WH
Government's estimate of the capacity to grow bio crops—if we can call them that—and what discussions has the Minister had with the farming industry about opportunities for hard-pressed growers? How much palm oil do we import to feed the biofuel industry? I said that the Minister might want to write to me, and if he does not know the figure off the top of his head I am sure he will be able to find it.
Which Department is responsible for co-ordinating the strategy? The hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) was absolutely right, and my right hon. Friend also raised the point when mentioning the evidence given to the Select Committee. There is an extraordinary lack of clarity about who in the Government is pulling policy together. What discussions are taking place? Who is co-ordinating policy? Which officials are dealing with it? Which Department has authority over it?
What proportion of biofuel sales comes from recycled cooking oil? I hope that the Minister will enlighten us on that subject, which has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members and is essential to the debate. Ultimately, what is the Government's strategy? It is one thing to have aspirations, and we know that there are targets, like it or not. However we are not sure, as the hon. Member for Sherwood said, whether the Government speak with one voice. In fact, it is increasingly clear that they speak with many voices or, in answer to some of these questions, with no voice at all.
There must be a strategy, because uncertainty and lack of clarity is causing us to suffer a competitiveness disadvantage, which is likely to grow considerably. There cannot be further delay. We need a clear Government position, not only to allow the industry to grow and develop, but to support growers in their long-term planning—they have to plan two or three years ahead, as the Minister knows.
As I have said to the Minister on other subjects and in other contexts, we have a Minister with a new opportunity. He is a fresh man with fresh ideas coming to the subject for the first time. [Laughter.]
Mrs. Shephard: Why are hon. Members laughing?
Mr. Hayes: It is friendly laughing; they are laughing with the Minister, not at him. With that fresh approach, new energy and helpful zeal, we hope that he will do what hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber have been calling for. I pay tribute to them for championing the issue. Their efforts did not start today, but some time ago. I hope that the Minister will meet those expectations, rise to the challenge and do what is in the interests of the environment, farmers and growers and, I think we would all agree, what is in the nation's interest.
10.50 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): It gives me great pleasure to respond to the debate, especially given the constructive and consensual nature of the contributions, although at times the Government have not been given enough credit for what they have done so far, but I shall address that. The debate has also given me a chance to take a tour round my home county of Norfolk.
Dr. Gibson: Come back.
Mr. Bradshaw: I was not aware there was a vacancy.

89WH
It is pleasing to hear so many Norfolk MPs talking with one voice. I do not intend to make a long speech on the background to this issue, because the opinions expressed in the debate have been fairly united. We all agree that biofuels are a good thing and should be promoted and encouraged. However, I will say a little about the background, because the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) has, as always, generated a great deal of work for my officials. That is his prerogative and a very good thing, too. I promise to write to him if I do not answer all his questions, and to other hon. Members if they do not feel that their points have been addressed.
Biofuels can provide significant life-cycle reductions in carbon dioxide emissions compared with conventional fossil fuels. Bioethanol and biodiesel from virgin crops can reduce such emissions by about half over conventional fuels. In the case of biodiesel from waste vegetable oil, the life-cycle benefits can be even higher. However, as several hon. Members said, environmental considerations are not the only issue. Establishing new markets for agricultural produce and maintaining and increasing rural job opportunities is important for farmers and policy makers alike. That point was well made by the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson).
The reform of the common agricultural policy is potentially very positive for biofuels. Reduced production of sugar beet, cereals and potatoes could make available more land for the growing of biofuel feedstocks, in addition to the existing set-aside land. Under the agreement for reform, biofuel feedstocks can continue to be grown on set-aside land, and they will receive payments under the new single payment scheme. Feedstocks grown on non-set-aside land will receive payments under the new single payment scheme plus the new €45 per hectare energy crops payment.
The Government have supported the production of biofuels through cuts in the duty rate. In 2000, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer launched the green fuels challenge to produce proposals for environmentally friendly fuels. As a result, biodiesel was awarded a duty cut of 20p per litre compared with ultra-low sulphur diesel. The cut was implemented in July 2002 and has resulted in some useful production. About 500,000 litres a month—not 400,000 litres, as the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) suggested—are sold from more than 130 filling stations in the UK. That biodiesel is mostly from recycled vegetable oils—I will write to the hon. Gentleman to give him the exact proportion—so it provides additional waste reduction benefits over and above the benefits from reduced carbon dioxide emissions. He highlighted an example of progress when he drew attention to the Argent plant in Motherwell, which will produce biodiesel from animal fat, including tallow. That shows what can be done under the existing regime of the 20p duty cut and capital support from the regional development agency.
90WH
Support is also planned for bioethanol. In the 2003 Budget, the Chancellor announced that a new duty rate would be set at 20p below the rate for ultra-low sulphur petrol, with effect from January 2005.
Mr. Bacon: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Bradshaw: Of course, but I am about to come to the 20p reduction and the questions that the hon. Gentleman asked.
Mr. Bacon: Does the Minister accept that if all the cooking oil in the United Kingdom were recycled and turned into biofuels, the total contribution would be relatively small, not to say almost negligible?
Mr. Bradshaw: I do not accept that; the contribution made by recycling cooking oil should not be underestimated.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) asked how the 20p duty reduction was calculated. I understand that the reduction takes into account the environmental benefits of biofuels. The calculation shows that, given the social costs of carbon emission, the environmental benefits can be valued at between 3p and 5p out of the 20p. The 20p reduction recognises the environmental, agricultural and industrial benefits delivered by biofuels.
The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) asked why more support is given to LPG than to biofuels. Several other hon. Members raised that issue. The duty rates for road fuel gases were set to reflect the benefits that they deliver to local air quality rather than the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Road fuel gases face significant market barriers, and require a dedicated and separate refuelling infrastructure. Vehicles must be converted or have a dedicated design to use gaseous fuels, so the difference in reduction in duty reflects the extra capital costs that using those fuels requires. The right hon. Lady argued that the duty cuts in the UK did not compare favourably with those in other EU countries. She may be right in one or two cases, but taken across the board the UK duty cuts compare favourably. For example, we are one of the few countries to be committed to offering duty incentives for biodiesel and bioethanol.
Mrs. Shephard: The Minister has four minutes left. Will he use them to tell the House whether he agrees with his noble Friend, Lord Whitty, the DEFRA Minister, that more help is needed than a 20p duty cut? As all hon. Members present have asked, will he also explain the Government's cross-departmental structure? Is it designed to bring about that change, and will there be extra help?
Mr. Bradshaw:I shall endeavour to deal with as many points as possible, and I could get through more if right hon. and hon. Members did not intervene. If they do, I shall have to write to them. I am going through the right hon. Lady's questions one by one, as she will notice.
The right hon. Lady complained about material being exported to Germany and imported back into this country. She will know that the German situation is a particular one dating from reunification when, because

91WH
of the economic and agricultural inheritance of the former East Germany, the German Government took a strategic decision to invest a great deal of money in the East German industry and biofuels. I do not want to go into details, but I will be happy to expand on that in writing.
The hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) asked whether the Government believe that biofuels are necessary. We believe that they are necessary as part of a package of renewable energy to help the UK to meet its targets. We recognise the need to provide support to kick-start the industry, and that may well include reconsidering the levels of duty and one or two of the other issues that have been raised.
We shall consider the following possible options: further duty cuts; enhanced capital grants; enhanced capital allowances; and mandatory blending. I agree that it is helpful for Governments to speak with one voice. It would not be the first time that Ministers in different Departments have emphasised different areas; that happens all the time in all Governments and I am sure that the right hon. Lady experienced that in her many ministerial roles. If my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood is right to say that Ministers have been flatly contradicting one another, I will try to iron out such differences. I would be surprised if that were the case, but I shall certainly speak to the Minister in my Department who leads on this issue, Lord Whitty, and shall ensure that in future the Government speak with the same voice on the matter.
The right hon. Lady asked how the Government would respond to the East of England Development Agency report. We believe that it was an excellent analysis of the potential development of the bioethanol industry. We contributed to that exercise and have drawn on the data that it produced. The process has helped and has informed the Government's analysis, and we shall keep the duty rates under constant review.
The hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk asked what research was being undertaken. Considerable research has been undertaken, not only at Sheffield Hallam university, to which he referred. We have also worked with the EEDA on its study, and our Central Science Laboratory has produced detailed assessments on the potential for an impact—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must turn our attention to the next topic for consideration today.

Affordable Housing (Torbay)
11 am
Mr. Adrian SandersIn approaching this subject, we must first understand what we mean by "affordable". For many of my constituents, affordable means a ratio of wages to house prices of close to four times, rather than the ratio of nearly seven times that exists today. From my constituents' point of view, housing is less affordable now. Secondly, we must define the term "housing". By housing, I mean decent, secure housing, whether for purchase, rent, part-purchase or part-rent.
Affordable housing is in short supply in my constituency. Until the sale of council houses, there were more than 6,000 units but now fewer than 3,000 of those units remain as rentable accommodation. They were not replaced as fast as they were sold. There is a scarcity of social housing, either housing association or local authority housing, which comprises about 7 per cent. of the total housing stock in Torbay, as compared with 14 per cent. in the south-west region and 21 per cent. nationally. For a town of its size, Torbay has one of the smallest percentages of social housing anywhere in the country.
The main problem is the level of wages in relation to house prices. Torbay is the 20th worst area according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation' report entitled, "an work—can' buy" I believe that that position has worsened as a consequence of large-scale redundancies in the area in the high-technology industry. Some 4,300 jobs have been lost. The unemployment rate has increased only a little. People are now working in lower-paid jobs, often not full-time, which means that average incomes have fallen rather than risen in the past three years.
We also have a problem with second homes. I do not want to say that it is a great problem in Torbay—it is far greater in other parts of the south-west—and we are grateful that the Government are considering allowing councils to reduce the discount available to second homes. However, there is concern in the west country, particularly outside my constituency, that district councils with a housing function that collect council tax will have to pass 87 per cent. of that discount to the county councils that do not have a housing function. Torbay has a housing function and is a collecting authority, so it ought to be all right, but colleagues around my constituency are still concerned about the issue.
According to the latest figures published following parliamentary questions and available in the Library, the average wage in Torbay is now around £20,000 a year. Many people in my constituency will wince and say, " don't earn £20,000—that's an astronomic sum," but that is the average wage according to the statistics. According to the figures from the latest quarter, the average house sale is £134,537. The average wage is the 147th lowest in the table of 150 areas, and the average house price is in the highest quartile of house prices in the United Kingdom. One does not need to be a rocket scientist to see that a salary nearly seven times the average is needed to borrow enough money to pay the average house price in the constituency. That means that many people not only cannot now, but probably will never be able to afford to buy.

93WH
The big change for my constituents in the past 20 years has been that larger numbers of people, in jobs that 10 or 15 years ago would have enabled them to get their foot on the housing ladder, now cannot purchase. One must question where, in future, gardeners, street cleaners, dustbin men, chambermaids, barmaids, nursing assistants, care workers, nurses and junior teachers—all the essential workers—will live. We have heard the argument about London. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the problems in Torbay are closer to those of a London borough than to those of the south-west region.
As at 31 July, there were 1,451 households on the council's housing register and 2,153 on the Riviera housing trust list. That includes the council's 1.451 and a further 702 with no local connection. There were 331 lettings in 2002–03, of which 304 were local authority nominations, and 60 per cent. of those went to homeless households. Torbay council's housing needs survey, which was conducted by Fordham Research, determined the net need for new affordable housing to be 1,816 units a year for the next three years. The provision in the local plan is for just 135 a year, which relies on windfall sales and has not yet been achieved.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation report by Steve Wilcox, published in 2003, compared household income and property prices. Torbay was fourth outside the south-east, and was less affordable than several London boroughs. The report concluded, as I have said, that for working households the south-west is less affordable than the south-east.
Why, then, does the Government's sustainable communities plan pump new money into the south-east and midlands, giving no real additional funding to the south-west in 2004–05 or 2005–06, when there is clearly a need and demand there? Torbay's allocation from the Housing Corporation for 2003–04 was £2.9 million, which will provide 68 units. That is somewhat short of the 1,816 that are needed.
Many things can be done. The Government need to provide help in several areas, not just resources and money. The section 106 agreement needs to be amended. It does not work consistently across the country and it is clear that not all councils are getting as much out of it as they might. The Government need to examine that state of affairs and find out why some authorities are getting good deals out of section 106 and others are not. If it is a question of putting in training and support, that should be considered.
Planning policy guidance 3 needs some reform. It should clarify the definition of affordable housing. Under the current definition, many of those who cannot get on the housing ladder cannot get access to the affordable housing that the Government say needs to be made available. It is very important for my constituency that PPG3 should apply to sites of less than half a hectare. Torbay is an urban constituency in an urban borough. It is protected by hills that mean that there is a clear barrier between it and the hinterland. In the other direction, of course, is the sea. We cannot build in the sea and we are restricted as to how far back we can go into our hinterland.
There are, however, a large number of small—below half a hectare—brownfield sites, dotted across the constituency, on which only private housing will be
94WH
developed, because the council has no power to say to developers that they should build affordable housing. The Government could easily assist authorities such as Torbay, including those in both urban areas and rural communities—villages that perhaps have small plots of land—to ensure that affordable housing is secured for their communities. It is bizarre that, at present, the Sunday newspapers contain advertisements for executive-style homes in the south-west region, promoting a lifestyle to people throughout the UK and beyond, while we do not have the power to meet our own local housing needs.
Torbay and other parts of Devon should be included in the sustainable communities plan. It is clear from the Government's statistics, and from more than one independent research study, that our problems are akin to those of some of the areas that will be provided with support.
Our biggest challenge, however, is the weak economy in Torbay, which has been devastated by the loss of 4,300 jobs in the opto-electronic industry. At the turn of 2000, for the first time in our history, manufacturing overtook tourism as the biggest generator of income in our economy, but that is no longer the case with the loss of those jobs. The reason that those jobs were lost was well beyond the control of Torbay, or the Government—it was due to the downturn in the global economy and in that industry.
Sadly, some people who are desperate for work have returned to jobs that they did before working in the fibre electronic industry, but on lower pay and under worse conditions—there are many examples of that. There is therefore less money circulating in the economy, and it has become evident that our economy is over-dependent on tourism. That is not to say that tourism will not play a leading role in helping us to improve our weak economy—it must. However, we must also diversify from our dependence on that one industry.
The council and the community recognise those problems and have got together. We are influencing regional bodies, such as the regional development agency and the regional assembly, and our Members of the European Parliament and anyone else who will listen. We say that we know what our problems are and that we have plans to tackle them. However, the Government could assist us in our plans to tackle some of those problems by tweaking the current legislation and by ensuring that available resources are pumped in. At present, they are not doing so.
My friend and neighbour, the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), and I met local housing associations and other housing providers to discuss those issues, and I know that he has a particular point that he may wish to raise.
Mr. Anthony Steen: May I make the point a little later?
Mr. Sanders: The problem for the hon. Gentleman is that I have timed my speech at 15 minutes, and I do not wish the time for him to make his point to run out. The issue that he wishes to raise is important.
Torbay's housing problem is not new—it has persisted for many years. It is due to the fact that, for generations, we have not provided enough social

95WH
housing. The problem is now becoming acute, because of the right-to-buy policy, the fact that the houses bought are not replaced and the rise in house prices.
We also have a problem in the private rented sector. Some 85 per cent. of the private sector landlords in Torbay are not members of the South Devon Residential Landlords Association. I wish that they were, because the SDRLA does a fantastic job in ensuring that we have caring landlords who draw up proper tenancy agreements that are enforced, and ensure that tenants are not a nuisance to their neighbours. However, 85 per cent. are not members, and many of those 85 per cent. are absentee landlords, who live not just in other parts of Torbay but out of the county or even the country. We have seen a growth in people with social problems who exhibit antisocial behaviour accessing some of that private sector rented accommodation. If people want to find the drug dealers and users and unruly children, they will find them not on the council estates or in housing association accommodation, but in private sector rented accommodation.
The Government have rightly tightened up some of the rules relating to the allocation of affordable housing. A housing association may decide that a family have made themselves intentionally homeless and then not allocate a house or allow them on to the waiting list. That family will then move to the private rented sector. Indeed, families are moving into our area having been evicted from social housing in other areas. A wide variety of private sector rented accommodation is available, so they are able to secure accommodation.
If we were able to provide more social housing, we would reduce the level of private sector accommodation. That is a vital problem, which is recognised by the police, social services, education system and the local authority in general. Like many coastal communities, our area suffers from a high turnover of people. The Fothergill report by researchers at Sheffield Hallam university, which was published a few months ago, identified 43 coastal resorts as having potential problems with employment and sustainable economic development and noted that they attracted people who were economically less active than migrants moving to the south-east and other boom areas.
It is an interesting study. It shows that people want to move to coastal resorts and identifies them as people close to retirement who are winding down economically, retired people who are not economically active and benefit dependants. There is no reason for them not to move to the coast, but the trend has an impact, which the study did not identify. It places extreme burdens on health, education and social services, which is not reflected in the way in which the Government view such coastal communities. Although the report identified the factors, it reached the wrong conclusion in saying that migration to an area is of itself a good thing. It is important to identify who is moving in and whether the areas can cope.
Schools in my constituency have extreme problems with the high turnover of pupils, partly because of the high level of private sector rented accommodation. That has implications not only for the kids of the people who are moving, but for the classroom as a whole. Those
96WH
factors are not being picked up by the Government when they decide how to distribute grants to areas with social deprivation. 1 hope that the Minister will take that point on board.
I am moving towards my conclusion, but I know that the hon. Member for Totnes wants to make an important point, so I shall give way to him.
Mr. Steen: First, I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the quality of his contribution and for securing this important debate.
I want to raise the problem of land value. Land within the local plan is worth a lot more than that outside the local plan. If someone has planning permission within the local plan, they may get £300,000 an acre but, if it is outside the local plan, the land may be worth only £3,000 an acre. Affordable housing cannot be built inside the local plan unless there is Government subsidy. It can be built outside the local plan only by housing associations, and landowners can sell to housing associations. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if affordable housing is to be built and the Government are not going to subsidise housing inside the local plan, either they must subsidise land outside the local plan, or farmers and landowners must be prepared to sell land outside the local plan and accept less money for it?
Land will be sold for less outside the local plan. A covenant must be included to prevent an owner of affordable housing who wants to sell it on from making that housing no longer affordable for the next purchaser.
Mr. Sanders rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I draw the Chamber's attention to the fact that we are almost 21 minutes into this 30-minute debate and the Minister has yet to reply.
Mr. Sanders: I shall be brief.
I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Totnes that the subject deserves an Adjournment debate in its own right, as does the whole subject of taxation of land.
I have made my points. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply and whether she can give some help to the many homeless families and people in inadequate and poor accommodation who desperately want to access decent, affordable housing in my constituency.
11.21 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Yvette Cooper): I congratulate the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) on securing this debate, and on bringing this issue to the Chamber again. It is just a few weeks since my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning responded to a debate on affordable housing in the south-west that my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) had introduced. I know that many hon. Members are concerned about this matter.
The south-west is grappling with rapid house price inflation, which has occurred in a relatively short time in many places in the region. The situation is exacerbated by the fact that the south-west suffers the double impact of significantly higher-than-average house prices and

97WH
lower-than-average incomes. The hon. Gentleman desrcibed the impact of that on his constituents. Torbay is a desirable part of the country in which to live and many people are attracted by its quality of life, but it also suffers significant deprivation in some areas with the highest unemployment rate in the south-west and is among the 100 most deprived districts in the country. The average earned income is £18,000 compared with a national average of £23,000 and a regional average of £21,000, and the impact of that can be seen. House prices in Torbay have risen by more than 58 per cent. in just three years, which is in line with rises in the south-west. Throughout the south-west, the average house price stands at £164,036, which is the highest outside London and the south-east. With rising prices and lower-than-average incomes, it is clear that affordability for people wishing to own a home has become complex.
The factors at play in Torbay are seen elsewhere in the south-west, where rapid growth in house prices is a product of increasing population and economic growth in an attractive region. It has the fastest growing population, as the hon. Gentleman said, which has been more than double the national average.
Even within the south-west region there are wide variations in the figures, such as those for gross domestic product in Swindon compared with Cornwall and average house prices in Cotswold compared with Plymouth. Overall, the regional figures for homelessness show an increase of 23 per cent. between 1990 and 2000. with the third highest proportion of homeless people in England.
The Government are fully aware of the challenges and difficulties facing many places in the south-west, including Torbay. We are increasing our investment in affordable housing, including no less than a 30 per cent. increase in funding in 2003ndash;04 under the main approved development programme for social housing. That represents an extra £20 million for housing in the south-west, bringing the total to £81 million, which will deliver about 2,000 new affordable homes for the region in 2003–04.
The hon. Member for Torbay raised another key issue, which is related to planning. Under the proposals for the reform of the PPG3, we want to concentrate development in towns and cities as a priority, promote well-designed housing developments that do not waste land, and have a more sustainable approach to housing. We recognise the need to consult on changes to PPG3. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning announced on 17 July that we would consult on changes to PPG3 in order to widen the range of housing in terms of size, type and affordability. I will ensure that the points raised by the hon. Member for Torbay are fed into that consultation process. We must do whatever we can with the planning and housing systems to ensure that we deliver more affordable housing while improving overall housing numbers and better matching communities' housing needs with supply.
98WH
The hon. Member for Torbay also discussed section 106, and the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) raised issues about planning gain and the impact of the approach to land value. Again, the Government are alive to those issues, and discussions are under way on section 106 and what more we could do. We recognise that complex issues are involved and that various approaches are being advanced.
The Government also want very much to support greater regional debate, because many decisions about housing allocation and housing support are better taken at the regional level. That is why we set up the regional housing boards. Each region has had the opportunity to identify its key housing priorities and to create its own response within a coherent national framework. One size cannot fit all; we cannot decide in London what the approach should be in every region. The south-west housing body has just prepared its first housing strategy for the region, and we shall be responding formally to that document. I am pleased that the south-west housing body has promoted a debate on the future of housing in that region with an impressive range of stakeholders across the south-west.
The hon. Member for Torbay raised his concern about the private rented sector. We also have some concerns about the nature of that important sector. We want to promote its growth in many areas of the country. However, we must deal with problems such as absentee landlords—they may even be out of the country—not enforcing tenancy agreements, particularly in areas with antisocial behaviour.
We have put proposals for the selective licensing of private landlords in the draft housing Bill. Under that legislation, landlords would need to meet particular standards for housing management and dealing with antisocial behaviour. If they are not licensed but continue to rent out property in a licensed area they will be liable to a penalty of up to £20,000. We believe that private landlords need to recognise their responsibilities. As the hon. Member for Torbay rightly said, many organisations and landlords across the country are keen to do that, but some are not. The issue needs to be addressed.
It is important that regional needs are recognised, and that every area sets its own priorities. We also need to consider the overall position of housing supply and the nature of the housing market across the country. That is one area being considered by the Barker review, which will report on the housing market across the country. Following that review, we will need to consider the regional consequences.
Again, I congratulate the hon. Member for Torbay on raising those important issues.
11.29 am
Sitting suspended until 2 o'clock.

Tenancy Deposit Scheme
2 pm
Mr. Andrew LoveA viable national tenancy deposit scheme is critical for the one in 10 of all households—accounting for approximately 2.2 million people—that are in the private rented sector, which is characterised by relatively poor conditions. The most recent survey shows that in one in five houses in multiple occupation people are living in dire circumstances, and many of those are young people under the age of 30. The sector is also characterised by an appallingly low standard of management and highly fragmented ownership of properties, with most landlords owning no more than a couple of properties and very few belonging to the professional associations that can help to drive up standards.
Comprehensive action is needed to deal with the problems in the sector, and that must include a tenancy deposit scheme. Research shows that 70 per cent. of all private tenants pay a deposit to secure a home, and for assured shorthold tenants that figure rises to more than 80 per cent. The deposit is usually around one month's rent, and the national average is just over £500. However, according to the survey of English housing, one in five tenants whose tenancies ended in recent years were unhappy that their deposit was unreasonably withheld. Half of all tenants whose deposit was withheld were not given a satisfactory reason.
That is a significant problem and must be addressed. It is compounded by the fact that research also shows that it impacts disproportionately on the less well off. The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux carried out research and believes that about half of private tenants believe that they have had a deposit unreasonably withheld. Of those, around two thirds lose either all or part of the deposit, which many of them simply cannot afford to lose.
According to Shelter,
"Tens of thousands of people lose out to this scam or rent rip off and are often forced into crippling debt to pay the next deposit. A few face the even more extreme outcome of becoming homeless".
Work by organisations such as Shelter suggest that many of those who have difficulties, face homelessness and lose their deposit find that if they try to regain that deposit through the available legal remedies, proceedings in the small claims court are expensive, take time and are often subject to delay. They also often prove unsatisfactory. Middlesex university wrote to me about tenancy deposits and the experience of its students, as follows:
"It is daunting, time consuming and expensive to those on a low income. Every penny counts for a student and so the idea of spending money to try and get their entitlements back is very off-putting."
Mrs. Anne CampbellI congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. More than 7,000 students at Anglia Polytechnic university, in my area, seek accommodation in the private sector each year, and I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that unreturned deposits are a real problem for students, who are often about to start off on their careers with
100WH
little money, and do not wish to hang around after they have finished their courses. It is particularly difficult for students to fight when deposits are not returned.
Mr. Love:That is undoubtedly the case. Students, many of whom live on low incomes, are particularly badly affected by the loss of a deposit because it makes life so much more difficult when they move on to further accommodation.
As a result of the experiences of students and others in the private rented sector, the Government introduced a voluntary tenancy deposit scheme in 2000. I congratulate them on that. The scheme was primarily aimed at dealing with two issues. First, it was intended to ensure that deposits were held safely and were distributed to the tenant or the landlord, depending on the circumstances. Secondly, the scheme was intended to set up some form of independent arbitration machinery that would decide whether the deposit should be returned to the tenant or to the landlord.
Mr. Kelvin HopkinsIs it not the case that the well behaved landlords have participated in the voluntary scheme and the bad landlords have avoided it?
Mr. Love: There is some evidence to suggest that—but the real problem is that most landlords have not taken part. Only a small section of landlords have been involved. I suspect that my hon. Friend is right and that that section already comply with good practice.
Mr. Eric Pickles: Is the hon. Gentleman as disappointed as I am to learn that only a quarter of letting agents belong to professional bodies? Having considered the pilot scheme, he expressed his disappointment at the relatively small number of organisations that have joined. How long does he feel the pilot scheme should continue before a definitive decision is taken on whether to develop it nationally?
Mr. Love: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the pilot scheme was adapted to make it more attractive. That is especially true of the insurance option. Moneys that should have been due were not taken, and bureaucracy was reduced to a minimum. Even with those additional features, the scheme did not manage to attract many outside the organisations of landlords and agents to join. One of the lessons is that in such a fragmented market, it is extremely difficult to reach out with a voluntary scheme. That is one of the reasons why many people present believe that we need to move to a statutory base and ensure that all landlords come into the system in some way or another.
Ms Oona King: I have received many representations from constituents on this point, which is why I strongly support the introduction of a statutory scheme for the tenancy deposit. Does my hon. Friend agree that, given the urgency of the issue and the scarcity of parliamentary time, the draft Housing Bill that is to come before Parliament soon would present the Government with the best and swiftest way of dealing with the problem?
Mr. Love: I agree with my hon. Friend. I will deal with that point in detail later.

101WH
The aim of the pilot scheme was to test two things: first, whether a voluntary scheme could be self-financing, and, secondly, whether legislation was necessary to ensure the compliance of everyone involved in the private rented sector. Sadly, the response of agents and landlords proved disappointing. Even when we made the scheme more attractive to them and less onerous in terms of bureaucracy, there was a slow take-up. As a result of that—and, I suspect of some frustration—the Minister with responsibility at the time, the present Lord Chancellor, said in February 2002 that there wass
"a strong case for legislation".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 February 2002; Vol. 631, c. 1090.]
Let us consider the experience in other countries, including Commonwealth countries such as Canada and Australia. Admittedly, circumstances are different from those in this country, but experience shows that a statutory tenancy deposit scheme can deliver fairness between landlord and tenant at a reasonable cost and can be self-financing. That is what the Government intended to happen.
What of the case for such a scheme in the United Kingdom? The evaluation of the pilot scheme drew several conclusions. First, it suggested that the fear of the deposit being withheld was much greater than the abuse of the system. I was mystified as to how it reached that conclusion, given the experiences in my constituency.
One of my constituents, Mrs. X, a lone parent with two children, was an assured shorthold tenant who paid £1,600 to her landlord, £800 in advance rent and £800 as a deposit. The landlord started possession proceedings in August 2002. During the court proceedings to evict her, she mentioned that she was concerned about the fate of her deposit, and the local council contacted the landlord to ask him when he was likely to return it.
Following a further intervention in January this year, the landlord would not confirm how much of the deposit he was willing to return. In February, he had still failed to return anything, and the local council pursued him on behalf of the tenant and suggested that she take up legal remedies. In June she started proceedings in the small claims division because she was so unhappy and wanted to get her money back. Today she is still waiting, and nothing has been done to return her deposit. Such experiences lead independent advocacy services, voluntary housing groups and local authorities to believe that we need the statutory backing of a national tenancy deposit scheme to ensure that there is justice and fairness not only for the tenant but, in certain circumstances, for the landlord.
The evaluation's second recommendation stated that the consultation was evenly balanced. Tenants were strongly in favour of a national statutory scheme while landlords, who felt that the present system worked reasonably well, were not minded to support one. Examined superficially, that seems all right—as far as it goes. A more careful examination, however, reveals that the scheme's opponents were overwhelmingly from the landlord sector and that other organisations did not oppose it. Indeed, most of the organisations that submitted views—the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, the National Consumer Council, Shelter and other housing organisations, and local
102WH
authorities, which are all involved with the issue—overwhelmingly supported such a scheme. I must therefore ask the Minister this question: should the landlords, who appear to be the only sector opposed to a scheme, be able to veto its introduction?
It has been suggested that such a scheme would not be good value for money. In June 2002, the winding up of the voluntary scheme was announced in a ministerial statement, which suggested that the scheme's benefits in deposits returned to tenants would be about £20 million, while its estimated costs would be £19 million. The wording of the evaluation was finely balanced, and although almost everyone accepts that the estimate of the rent that would be returned to tenants was fairly accurate, the estimate of the cost of the adjudication system was based on a flawed assumption. The evaluation calculated that the 127,000 tenants who expressed a grievance would all have gone to appeal, but we know from the experience of the systems that are already up and running in Australia and Canada that only 2 to 3 per cent. of completed tenancies end up at the appeal stage. Indeed, only 1.5 per cent. of completed tenancies in the pilot ended up on appeal. It is not credible to assume that the 20 per cent. who complained would all end up going to appeal.Furthermore, no estimate has been made of the savings that would arise from not using the small claims court for that purpose.
Importantly, evidence from abroad suggests that a tenancy deposit scheme deters people from bad practice in the private rented sector. That is a strong feature, and would make a significant difference. As a result, the £19 million figure is undoubtedly inaccurate and should be much lower.
Additionally, with a custodial scheme in which deposits were handled independently, the interest from the £790 million to £800 million in deposits held nationally at any time, which would amount to about £30 million, would pay for a self-financing scheme. I was pleased to read that, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was reviewing the cost element, and I ask the Minister to update us on how far it has got in estimating the benefits and costs of introducing such a scheme.
It was recently suggested that a tenancy deposit scheme would more appropriately be dealt with as part of the Lord Chancellor's review of tenure reform. I disagree with that for several reasons. I am not a lawyer and I do not know the intricacies of tenure reform, but one concern is that compulsory written tenancy agreements do not, and cannot, ensure fairness and equity for the tenant. The agreements do not address how the tenant's money should be held, give them confidence that it will be returned, or address how disputes should be resolved. Under the scheme, taking court action would remain the only remedy.
The present barriers to small claims court action would continue to exist in the future. Those barriers are the costs, especially for people on very low incomes, the delays, which are inherent in the system, and the doubt about whether the agreement could be adequately enforced to the satisfaction of the person who had lost their deposit.
As has been said, there is likely to be a lengthy consultation on tenure reform, with no guarantee that at the end of consultatic n, parliamentary time will be made available. We know from past experience that waiting for time to become available can cause significant delay.

103WH
By way of contrast, as several Members have stated, the draft Housing Bill has already been discussed in Parliament. The Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning and Local Government comprehensively examined the Bill and made several recommendations, which included its support for the inclusion of a tenancy deposit scheme. It is also important to tap into the experience that we have gained from the voluntary scheme. It has several features which, if taken into account, would make a national scheme so much better.
If we were to include the tenancy deposit scheme in the new Housing Bill, which we hope will be introduced in the next Session, the Bill would be more comprehensive. It would be ready for immediate enactment, so people in the private renting sector would not face further delays, problems, complications and difficulties. The scheme would fit in with the other provisions in the Bill to address all the problems faced in that sector.
There would be no need for further consultation, although I accept that there could be pre-legislative srcutiny. When the Leader of the House came before the Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning and Local Government, he said that that might be the case. The scheme would not only protect tenants from the worst conditions, but protect their money, so that they would get a fair deal on their tenancy deposits. Overall, that would promote better value for money and more affordable accommodation. One of the greatest difficulties faced by my constituents is that without a deposit, they can access only the worst of the private rented sector. If they can protect their deposit, they are likely to get better quality accommodation.
I hope that the Housing Bill will encourage and stimulate more institutional investment in the private rented sector, which is the most important factor for the future. That would do two things. First, it would reverse the decline in the private rented sector. During the last 50 or 100 years it has decreased from accounting for more than half of all dwellings in this country to covering only 10 per cent. today. Secondly, and more importantly, at a time when we know that there is not enough social housing on the market to address our problems, it may be able to make a significant contribution to the supply of accommodation at reasonably affordable costs. We should be looking towards that, but if we are going to achieve that institutional investment, a tenancy deposit scheme along the lines that have been outlined many times by many people—is absolutely essential to give trust and confidence to the tenant and the reputable landlord, and to the institutional investors that will make such a difference in the sector.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. It may be advantageous if I remind all ho n. Members that it is customary to commence the winding-up speeches 30 minutes before the conclusion of the debate. I see that, although only two hon. Members have given prior
104WH
notice of their intention to intervene, four are seeking to catch my eye now. I appeal to all hon. Members present, when making their contributions or accepting or responding to interventions, to bear in mind the fact that we need to move to the winding-up speeches at 3 o'clock.
2.21 pm
Vera Baird: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) on securing a debate on this issue, which is of the highest importance to a relatively poor and excluded sector of society, and finds strong echoes in Redcar and Cleveland, where my constituency is located. There are about 3,500 privately rented tenancies there, and deposits and bonds are anywhere between £50 for a bedsitter and about £400 for a house. Although he accepts that landlords have to safeguard their properties from damage and obtain recompense if it occurs, it is the view of the Teesside Homeless Action Group's organiser Francis Owens that deposits have now become a "perk" for unsrcupulous landlords. He desrcibes the problem of non-return of deposits in Redcar and Cleveland as pretty bad, and he hears of cases of deposits and bonds being withheld almost weekly.
Typically, a person is asked to leave a property because housing benefit is not paid on time and the deposit is held to replace the lost rent, but when the benefit is made up, it is rarely returned to the tenant. The landlord will claim damage has been done to the property or furnishings, despite protests from the tenant. Often the damage was there, although not necessarily noted by the tenant, when the tenant moved in. People moving in and out of substandard property will often be paying out of their bond or deposit for "damage" that has been paid for by several previous tenants in exactly the same way.
If people are evicted or asked to leave before their tenancy is up, landlords frequently keep the deposit as compensation for their trouble. Some landlords simply do not return it. Francis Owens told me of one person he is chasing—and has been chasing for several weeks—who will not return a deposit to a couple who are now homeless. That person will not even reply to letters.
It is quite clear that, exactly as my hon. Friend has said, most people who lose their deposits just give up. The local authority, although it has power to act in cases of illegal eviction and has some protective powers to deal with cases of harassment by landlords, has very limited powers to intervene over the loss of deposits, so tenants have recourse only to the courts, and they frequently do not want to go to the small claims court.
We are talking about relatively poor people, whose first language is often not English, and who will not necessarily know how to go to law, or have any confidence in doing so. There is much research that shows that it is the relatively socially excluded who do not enforce their rights, but that is obviously going to be the case. I can say, as many cannot quite say quite so strongly, that the image of the justice system—full of middle-class people with funny clothes talking in-crowd language and using procedure that immobilises those not in the know—is not a friendly, welcoming, sympathetic one to people who feel that they have been wronged.

105WH
Let us be practical: the small claims court costs money. It costs at least £50 to recover a deposit. If the landlord does not respond, the process becomes wearisome. If he does answer and appears, that involves a daunting face-to-face experience—and if people get a judgment they have to pay even more to enforce it if the landlord does not pay up. Mostly, tenants just give up. That is a pity, is it not?
That example demonstrates the wickedness of stealing from the poor. It is not only that they cannot afford to enforce their rights, which is partly our fault as legislators, but they adjust more and more to going without things that they need for their well-being. Such situations disempower the already disempowered, so that they become even more like inert sitting ducks for the next exploiter or, as Francis Owens, with his feet more on the ground, puts it more specifically, they become used to being pushed around by landlords and just give up.
At present there is no tenant deposit scheme in Redcar and Cleveland, although an organisation called Junction was involved with a bond guarantee scheme until last spring. By guaranteeing a deposit, the scheme allowed landlords to let dwellings without charging one. It cost some £30,000 a year. It checked out tenants and supported them in being good tenants, so that the landlord rarely had a legitimate claim for holding the deposit back. It is believed that that scheme helped hundreds of vulnerable people find somewhere to live.
The housing strategy manager at Redcar and Cleveland, Roger Kay, to whom I am indebted, tells me that the termination of shorthold tenancies in the private sector is the third most common cause of homelessness in my local authority area, and accounted for 11 per cent. of cases last year. He feels that for many of those households, the requirement for deposits acts as a barrier to accessing further private rental accommodation. The local voluntary scheme, like the national one, struggled to attract private landlords. Partly because of a shortage of funds, it was wound up, reflecting very much the experience of the Government's national tenancy deposit scheme.
I support what has been suggested. It is likely that landlords who voluntarily join such schemes are those with higher management standards anyway. It is plain from my local experience and from the Government's national experience that there is every argument for a national scheme of that kind, which should be mandatory.
Such a scheme would be multi-faceted. There would have to be an independent deposit holder to protect tenants against landlord abuse. Shelter says that £790 million of tenants' money is held by landlords nationwide. As has already been said, between 30 and 50 per cent. of tenants experience difficulty in getting their money back. The scheme would also guarantee landlords' rights. It would have to have a mediation arm to deal with disputes, thereby taking them out of the courts. That would be better for poorer, disempowered people. It is also part of the aim of the new Department for Constitutional Affairs to take disputes out of the courts.
The second facet is that such a scheme would be part of a homelessness strategy. It would provide a guarantee to a landlord for those who do not have deposit moneys
106WH
and would be able to assist in the prevention of homelessness by enabling those on low incomes to get into private rented accommodation.
It seems that the Government have seen the potential benefits of the scheme, because they have had a voluntary one. They have also seen the prospects for righting those wrongs, and have seen such a scheme as part of their policy for wider social inclusion of relatively powerless groups that are now exploited. However, the national voluntary scheme has not worked, and it seems that the voluntary scheme in Redcar and Cleveland is not capable of working, either. Frankly, it is hard to come up with disinterested arguments for not having a mandatory scheme and for not adding it to the next Housing Bill. I, too, suggest that delay while tenure is reformed is not justifiable; that is almost beside the point, and the issue is critical for many people.
The question of cost has been rehearsed. I would hope that deposits earning interest subject to a liquidity ratio could cover many of the revenue costs once such a scheme is established.' congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton on raising the issue, and on behalf of private tenants and those who are trying to tackle homelessness in Redcar and Cleveland, I urge the Government to add a scheme to the next Housing Bill.
2.29 pm
Geraint Davies: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love), on raising this important issue. I thank the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and Shelter for pushing the issue forward. I have a long-standing interest in tenancy deposit schemes. Before becoming an MP, I was leader of Croydon council and at one point chaired the London boroughs housing committee. I also thank Lord Falconer for keeping the pilot scheme going and for saying that there is a strong case for legislation.
We have had a voluntary scheme but, predictably, it has not been very successful because the people who have volunteered to be in it are the good landlords, not the rogue landlords who are ripping off something like one in five tenants in Britain. This is a massive issue. There are 2.2 million tenants, of whom 70 per cent. pay deposits, and it is estimated that between one fifth and half of those people are ripped off. If the deposits being held total something like £790 million, that money, placed in a separate bank account at the current Bank of England base rate, would generate some £32 million— far in excess of anyone's estimate, even the Government's overestimate, of the costs of running such a scheme.
We are talking about protecting the weakest and poorest, often the fast-moving tenants who can be exploited by powerful landlords who simply sit on their hands and avoid the legal system and small claims court, which is already massively overburdened and clogged up with people taking up disputes. Many people give up, for reasons that have already been outlined, so landlords are in a strong position. The Government must live up to their pledge of five years ago and act.
The scheme that we are discussing would be cost-effective. The Government have suggested that the costs and benefits are evenly balanced but in fact they are not.

107WH
They assume that the costs would be in the order of £19 million, but that presupposes that all disputes—namely, the 20 per cent. that are known of—would go to an adjudicator and each adjudication would cost about £150. In fact, where we have seen tenancy deposit schemes working in real life, particularly in Australia and New Zealand, the take-up rate of disputes is between 2 and 3 per cent., so the estimated cost would be more like £2.4 million—against, as 1 have said, a revenue stream of more than £30 million. Other benefits have already been estimated by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: £20 million in savings from court costs. and so on. The scheme would be an opportunity for fundraising to provide extra services to make the quality of the private sector market better for landlords and tenants. It would not be an opportunity for losing money, unless there were gross mismanagement.
Looking at the legislative timing, I would suggest, as have others, that we should take advantage of the forthcoming Housing Bill, partly because it is at the tail end of the pilot and largely because the whole aim of that Bill is to raise standards in the private sector, so it is uniquely appropriate. It has already been made clear by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in his interviews with the Select Committee that the inclusion of such a scheme in the Housing Bill would not jeopardise that Bill. I therefore urge the Minister to consider including it.
The alternative being considered, which I think would cause uncertainty and prevarication, is to introduce the scheme in the Law Commission's report, which is refocused on something quite different: simplicity and transparency. The consultation on the Law Commission's report already runs to two volumes and 300 proposals. This important scheme could be lost in all that. We need to grasp the nettle and get on with the job of protecting the millions of people who are under threat.
The consultation that has taken place was said to be evenly balanced, but if we take out the groups with a vested interest—those who let, landlords and others who make a profit—the overwhelming impact of the consultation is that there should be a statutory scheme and that we should make progress on that. The Government should take decisive action now to protect weak consumers in an imperfect market and to improve the market, rather than prevaricating, which would lead to the abuse of thousands more people by unsrcupulous landlords. This Government are best when they are boldest, and they said five years ago that they would deal with the problem of tenants being ripped off. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to advance in that spirit.
2.35 pm
Ross Cranston: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) on having initiated this debate on a national problem. It is acute in certain parts of the country, and bears particularly on those on low incomes. The presence of a significant number of my hon. Friends shows the weight of support for a compulsory measure, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will report that.
My hon. Friends have already desrcibed the problem that we face, and I shall not go over it again. I have not had a huge number of constituency cases, but there has
108WH
been a trickle, some of them involving students who are going to other parts of the country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) said, those people will not stay in London, but will return to the west midlands and will not bring cases before the small claims courts.
I want to raise three issues. The first is that of access to justice. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) referred to the problems, delays and disincentives associated with bringing a case in the small claims courts. People have to know that that is an avenue. In Dudley, there has until recently been a problem with housing. There is no law centre, and people have not had housing advice. There is access to advice about welfare, law and family matters, but the regional office of the Legal Services Commission has identified a gap in relation to housing. People have to get advice before they can bring a case. The citizens advice bureau does sterling work in Dudley, but people have to and it in order to access its advice.
Then there is the problem of bringing a case before the small claims court. To those of us who have some association with the law, that might seem to be relatively easy, but for the ordinary person it is far too complicated. In addition, a fee has to be paid. It might be recoverable— the district judge can order that the fee is recovered if he finds in a person's favour—but, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member said, even if someone is successful, they have to pay another fee for enforcement. That is why there is a problem; tenants who are ripped off do not pursue their legal remedies.
The second point I would make about the need for the scheme touches on the argument put by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies). He pointed out that one has to take into account the change in behaviour that the introduction of a compulsory scheme would bring about. The Government's calculations of cost were made on the basis that there would be no change in behaviour; and that there would still be the same number of disputes about deposits in future. That is not so. When new systems are introduced, people change their behaviour. The evidence—my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton referred to the issue in the Australian context—is that disputes run at 2 to 3 per cent. of tenancies. Therefore, there will be far fewer disputes than there are now.
There is also the possibility of raising income on the basis of the amounts deposited. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central argued very effectively for that. That used to be done in other parts of the world, and it is unfortunate that we never took that path in this country with respect to funding legal aid. In other jurisdictions, the client accounts of solicitors are used to generate money for legal aid schemes. However, what I am desrcibing is a parallel system enabling the use of deposited money to generate income to support the administration of the scheme.
Experience in other jurisdictions, such as New South Wales, is that the amount generated from the deposited moneys is sufficient not only to cover the administration of the scheme but to provide effective housing advice services: the surplus can be used to assist tenants in other ways. I am not persuaded by the Government figures that have been presented in the past. I understand that they are to be reworked.

109WH
My third point is that we should consider not only the operation of the pilot scheme but experience elsewhere. My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton talked about the pilot scheme and I will not go over that ground. However, the experience in Canada, New Zealand and the Australian states shows that such schemes can run.
Interestingly, some years ago the Department collected information on the operation of schemes elsewhere. Some jurisdictions set an obligation for the return of deposits. However, we are not talking about that. In some jurisdictions, the tenants' deposits must be put into separate trust schemes. However, we are talking about a centralised scheme. In places with centralised schemes, such as New South Wales, the number of disputes declines. Landlords compromise in disputes, even when tenants complain to the boards, and there is widespread—almost universal—support for the scheme. Landlords come on side; the good ones see that there are advantages to them and some of the bad ones are driven out.
Mrs. Campbell: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that, because of the fear and suspicion surrounding many tenancy agreements, tenants often withhold the last month of their rent before they leave, because they are concerned that the landlord may not return their deposit? That may mean that landlords do not receive the money that they need to make good the damage and to repair the property. The schemes are in everyone's interest, to increase confidence in the system.
Ross Cranston: My hon. Friend is right. Such schemes have advantages for everyone. Landlords benefit in the long run. As I mentioned, in other jurisdictions such as Australia and the one Canadian province with a compulsory custodial scheme, real estate agencies and landlords' associations widely accept the need for these schemes. In New South Wales, the scheme has led to a valuable introduction of new technology, giving landlords the opportunity for direct viewing of the rental bond records for properties managed by their agency. My hon. Friend the Minister might want to take note of that, with reference to advancing e-government.
I wholeheartedly support the introduction of a compulsory centralised scheme. I acknowledge the problems of drawing analogies with much smaller jurisdictions such as New South Wales, New Zealand or the Canadian provinces. We have a much larger jurisdiction and many more properties to cover. Perhaps the scheme will have to be introduced on a regional basis, and it may have to be phased. If that were the case, I would want the west midlands to be considered at the top of the tree for the introduction of a compulsory scheme.
2.44 pm
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) on securing this important debate. I agree with what he has said, and with the additional supportive comments made by other hon. Members. I will try to make some different points about the landlord-tenant relationship, which historically has been fraught.
In the past, bad landlords were, as we all know, the scourge of many poor families. It was necessary for Governments to intervene to regulate the market and to
110WH
provide alternative housing to overcome the problem. That was perhaps a contributory factor to the formation of our own party. We have a duty to ensure that the poorest people, who often live in private rented property, continue to be protected and supported.
There have been different waves of liberalisation and regulation in housing as political fashions have changed and Governments from different political parties have come and gone. In the 1950s—perhaps that is a little before most people's time, but I certainly remember it—there was a period when the Conservative Government liberalised renting, after the stricter controls of the war and post-war eras. That led directly to what became known as Rachmanism and the terrorising of tenants by bad landlords. Subsequently, the 1960s Labour Government introduced legislation to regulate private renting, and tenants had more protection.
We have to remember that Governments have a duty to protect tenants from exploitation. Even though the problem is perhaps riot as big as in the past, it is still significant. Unfortunately, liberalisation gives the whip hand to landlords. The relationship between landlord and tenant will always be difficult, because there is a direct and sharp conflict of interests, and that is often very personal.
The Government have apparently prayed in aid the idea that there is not sufficient parliamentary time for such legislation. I am afraid that I have heard that excuse so often in the past on so many issues that I think it is rather thin, especially when a simple section could be added to a current Bill to overcome the problem. Indeed, a short new Bill could be introduced. I do not think that it would be difficult, and it might even have support among Opposition parties.
Resistance to regulation has unfortunately become the modern zeitgeist: the ideological spirit of our times. We are at a turning point. The ideology of deregulation and liberalisation is wearing thin. People are looking for a more interventionist approach by Government. I welcome that as a traditional democratic socialist; I think that Government's role is to intervene in a market, to ensure that it does not have damaging effects on the less well-off in particular.
Unfortunately some people hold to the 19th-century dogma that laissez faire—leaving the economy to itself as far as one can—benefits people, and that interfering with the market will distort it and reduce the benefits it can bring. I think that that is mistaken and wrong and so do many others, particularly when it comes to essential areas of life such as housing. Not long ago, John Kenneth Galbraith said, as others have said before, that at least a third of the population of developed societies needs Government intervention to ensure that those people have decent housing conditions. The market will not provide for them; either they should have houses provided for them or the market should be strictly regulated to ensure that they have decent housing conditions and are fairly treated by landlords, whoever they may be.
In the past our party in particular, and other parties too, built millions of council houses. Many millions of families have had decent lives only because of the building of council houses. We need legislation on the issue, and we need it now. It is vital, and voluntarism clearly still does not work.

111WH
The reality of many private landlords is that they too are poor. They are not wealthy exploiters, but poor people who perhaps have only one or two houses and, to a large extent, live on that income. They might be elderly people whose modest pensions are supplemented by rent from a private property. They are concerned about such sums of money, which may be significant to them, although they appear small to some people. Some poor landlords may be hard pressed to hold on to deposits and may spend them as part of their income. When it comes to paying them back, they may not have them to hand. That is the real world. We are not talking about big companies, but about poor people who perhaps have one house to rent that they may have inherited from a relative. That is a factor to bear in mind: we want to help those landlords as well as their tenants.
I have read the briefings from the CAB and Shelter, and the costs are usually tiny sums of money, which many local authorities would not even blink at. The difference between cost and income might be £1 million across the whole economy. The sums are infinitesimal in relation to our total economy, so the cost argument is not great. If a small cost were incurred by the landlord, no doubt he or she might increase the rent slightly to cover that cost. That will not be a big disincentive to the landlord or the tenant, as it would only be a small sum. If the new regulation were a disincentive to some landlords, we should look beyond that to try to ensure that their property stays in housing use in the rented sector, or is bought and municipalised by the local authority and used to house tenants on the long waiting lists in constituencies such as my own.
I was an enthusiastic supporter of municipalisation in the 1970s, which was something of a golden age in house building. Millions of houses were built in that era, including some by my local authority. I only wish that we could build as many houses now as we did then and municipalise some, particularly those that are in bad condition because their poor, private landlords have not kept them up to srcatch, and have not repaired or renovated them. When houses are municipalised, the local authority can bring them up to standard. They are often good sound houses with a long life ahead of them if they are looked after, which local authorities should be in a good position to do. Some might suggest that housing associations should do that, but I believe that local authorities should do so, as they are democratically accountable.
Many issues arise from this debate. Housing is obviously still in desperately short supply. We want to encourage as much housing as possible to be presented to the market for rent by less well-off people. Supporting poor landlords with a bit more regulation and support, or perhaps through local authority involvement, would help them and their tenants. I strongly commend the proposals made today by my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton, and I hope that the Government will act soon.
2.53 pm
Matthew Green: I congratulate the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) on securing the debate. With the possible exception of the Minister, I expect that everyone will be singing from the same songsheet.
112WH
It is clearly a national problem, which will not go despite the introduction of some voluntary schemes. It affects all constituencies, both urban and rural, particularly those with students. Every constituency in the country will have tenants who have been ripped off—to put it simply—due to the way in which the deposit system works.
I do not want to go over the same ground, but we have heard about the scale of the problem five times: there are some 2.2 million tenancies, and some £790 million held in deposits. Why do such problems arise? Often there are disputes—genuine or not—over cleaning costs and whether deterioration can be attributed to reasonable wear and tear. There are cases in which the deposit is withheld at the end of the tenancy without a reason being given, or where cheques are issued and then stopped. We heard about the difficulty of pursuing a landlord in the small claims court. Sometimes the landlord simply never pays, or gives no indication that he will pay or that he believes that he should pay, and the tenant fails to get any answer out of him. These problems are commonly experienced and are regularly reported to MPs, to the CABs and to organisations such as Shelter.
Hon. Members have spoken today about the Government's reasons why the scheme should not be included in the Housing Bill. We have heard excellent explanations of why all their arguments are deeply flawed. I hope that the Minister will not repeat those arguments. Roughly surmised, they are that the tenancy deposit scheme should not be included in the Housing Bill because it will not be cost-effective. Some very strong arguments have been advanced about why that is completely fallacious. I welcome the fact that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is considering the possibility of reworking its costings, given that they have been so clearly shown to be inaccurate.
Another Government argument is that the scheme lacks sufficient support. I believe there to be widespread support for it from members of all parties. There is certainly support for it among any organisations dealing with tenants. As we heard, some 50 per cent. of organisations representing landlords support it. It is only the other 50 per cent. of organisations representing landlords that have not supported the idea of a national scheme. Far from a lack of support for the scheme, there is a lack of support for not implementing it.
It has also been argued that there is insufficient parliamentary time, but only a couple of clauses would be needed to include the scheme in the Housing Bill. I hope to serve on the Committee that will consider the Bill, and I assure the Minister that we will seek to move through our deliberations at some pace to ensure that time can be made to accommodate any extra new clauses. I hope that the Conservative spokesman agrees so that we can deal with it in the Bill. The argument that there is insufficient parliamentary time is incorrect.
The final Government argument is that the protection of tenancy deposits is better addressed by the Law Commission's forthcoming proposals on tenure reform. The worrying word is "forthcoming", because the legislation that might result from the Law Commission's work could be a very long way off and tenants will lose out in the interim. It may be that the end of the commission's deliberations, the Bills that it proposes are

113WH
not even suitable vehicles for dealing with the issue. That is an argument for saying, "Let's put it on the shelf and hope that it goes away."
The hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) and the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) touched on the fact that the scheme is in the interests of landlords. There are two reasons for that. First, as has already been explained, landlords often find that tenants, especially those who are a little more clued up than others, simply withhold their last month's rent. Consequently, if damage has been done, the landlord seeks to chase the tenant to recover the money through the small claims court, which they fail to do. The landlord is therefore the loser.
Secondly, some tenants have so little expectation of their deposit being returned that they do not look after the property as well as they might if they believed that they might get the deposit back. That may affect student areas more, but certainly I know of cases where that has happened. The deposit ceases to have any effect because they assume that they are not going to get it back, so they might as well not look after the property. Greater damage is therefore done to the property than would otherwise be the case, so a national scheme would work in the interests of landlords, not just tenants.
I shall be intrigued to listen to Minister; perhaps she will show a welcome change of heart and give an announcement that the proposal will be in the Bill after all. I struggle to see how the Minister can justify not including the idea in the housing Bill, but if she does not do so, we shall bring forward the appropriate clauses. That way, the Minister will have to justify in debates on the Bill why the scheme should not be introduced.
3 pm
Mr. Eric Pickles: I congratulate the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) on his success in raising this important issue. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins), because for one dreadful moment I thought that I was in consensus hell. No one had said anything that I disagreed with, so I am pleased that the Chamber has at least retained some degree of normality.
The hon. Member for Edmonton was right to say that the problem relates to a relatively small number of landlords, particularly those with a relatively small number of properties. I, like many others, am disturbed and disappointed to learn of the number of tenants who hand over their keys at the end of their tenancies to find their damage deposits withheld for no real reason.
Hon. Members have picked their favourite state in Australia to show how the proposed system runs, but I shall leave New South Wales to one side and commend to the Chamber the system that operates in Queensland, which has a very small number of disputes and seems to function within a light regulatory framework.
It behoves the House to recognise that the report that the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and Shelter issued and the figures that it contains are a matter of dispute, particularly as no one has said anything to the contrary. In order to understand the problem fully, we cannot ignore the Small Landlords Association, the secretary of which suggests that the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux's report is misleading and verges on the irresponsible. The
114WH
association cites a recently conducted professional survey that shows that only 5 per cent. of private tenants said that the relationship with their landlord was bad. Moreover, that example concerned only a particular type of tenant, so the incidence of dissatisfaction seemed very high.
The association made the point, which we would do well to listen to, that a massive, unwieldy quango would be necessary to administer such deposits, where there is only a minor problem. Therefore, before we take a decision to move further on to something, we must be clear that it will not create another problem.
Almost in contradiction to that point, however, I note that the chairman of the Small Landlords Association, a Mr. David Salusbury, has proposed some degree of regulation in a letter to a number of periodicals. He suggested to the Government that
"provision for redress could be included in tenancy agreements whereby aggrieved tenants could pursue a claim against their landlord with an independent adjudicator. Such a body would have the authority to require the landlord to lodge an appropriate sum pending resolution c f the dispute."
I suspect that that would work extremely well for reasonable landlords. We must bear in mind that those entering into such agreements will not necessarily be on an equal level; they may not be in a position to negotiate a tenancy agreement or to have a clause inserted stating a particular amount. However, it is precisely that kind of tenant whom we seek to protect.
Deposits are required for several reasons. They are necessary to assess the, financial standing of prospective tenants, and to ensure that tenants understand the value and importance of the property. They are necessary because the landlord needs protection against tenants doing damage beyond fair wear and tear. Lastly, they are necessary to cover possible arrears of rent.
The Small Landlords' Association has taken great pains to say that deposits are to cover only damage that goes beyond normal wear and tear at the end of a tenancy; it says that it is important that tenants should know that such deductions would be the norm. The association says that it is relatively easy for a tenant to make a claim against a landlord through the small claims court, but I thought that the arguments put by the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) were very persuasive. I may not have had experience of the small claims court, but I understand the system, and I know that those who have pursued cases through the small claims court, as many of my constituents have done, know just how hard it is to get a judgment. Indeed, many such people do not have the necessary financial resources to put a case together.
I appreciate and understand the Government's reluctance to introduce further regulation. Much depends on the facts And on the size of the problem, so I hope that the Minister will be in a position to put it right—and I intend to ensure that she has adequate time to respond to the debate.
We are concerned about the Shelter report, which suggested that a fifth of private tenants believe that a part of their deposits had been unreasonably withheld. Particularly worrying, given the strains on student finance, is the fact that as many as 35,000 students face that problem at the end of term. My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), the shadow Deputy Prime Minister, said on the publication of the report

115WH
"Shelter's report shows that some abuses are little more than legalised theft. Conservatives will consider any intelligent and light regulatory regime and will examine Shelter's report in detail. We would want to ensure that the majority of landlords and letting agents who are doing the right thing are not burdened with red-tape."
As I suggested in an intervention on the hon. Member for Edmonton, we know that the pilot schemes have been anything but a success. It was inevitable that those landlords who are good and reasonable, and who, as my right hon. Friend said, wanted to do the right thing, have had no problem in joining the scheme. However, the landlords who have not joined the scheme are those whom we wanted to change their attitude and their practice.
Common practice in other jurisdictions is different, most notably in Germany. There, deposits cannot equal more than three months' rent, they must be held in special accounts and generally returned with interest within one year after the end of the tenancy. Similar regulations apply in France, where deposits are limited to between two and three months' rent and are returned within two months of the tenant handing back the keys. A rather different approach is taken in Belgium, with an end-of-tenancy cost being guaranteed by the country—landlords are not allow to hold deposits. We have heard also of schemes in Canada and Australia, and I am very taken by the Queensland model, which lays down a clear way of dealing with disputes.
Mr. Love: Given that the pilot scheme clearly showed that the vast majority of landlords were reluctant to be involved in a voluntary scheme, and given the significant abuse of tenants' deposits, despite the publicity raised by the voluntary scheme, is there any alternative to a national statutory scheme that would work for landlord and tenant?
Mr. Pickles: If such a scheme exists, I am not aware of it. However, we are beginning to move down that path. The hon. Gentleman may understand the reluctance of the Conservative party to commit itself to further regulation. However, Members on the Opposition Front Bench will doubtless be aware of such cases in their constituencies. In truth, they are not entirely unaware of such cases in relation to those whom we employ. The nature of this place and working for a political party means that young people tend to be here at the beginning of their career, and I am aware of a number of cases where a lot of effort and intellectual muscle had to be put into getting their deposits returned.
Geraint Davies: For clarity and for the record, will the hon. Gentleman make clear whether he is in favour of a mandatory national tenancy deposit scheme, to be applied through the Housing Bill?
Mr. Pickles:I was dancing delicately on the end of a skewer.
Geraint Davies: That is what I thought.
Mr. Pickles: I realise that the hon. Gentleman wanted to give the skewer a thorough jerk in order to see me well and truly impaled. I hope that he will allow me to dance a little longer.
116WH
My party is in the process of looking into the detail. I was about to mention some of our research. However, to be frank, we are moving close to the hon. Gentleman's position. We want to ensure that the Government do not introduce a regulatory regime that will use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. We want the regime to be light and reasonable; we want it to be timely and we want it to ensure that it has no detrimental effects on the amount of property that is available in the private rented sector. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not push me.
Mr. Love: We on the Government side of the House sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's dilemma. The Government tried the voluntary scheme approach to avoid the concerns that he expresses, but if he is concerned about the national deposit scheme it would help if he indicated where those concerns lie—and what alternatives might be available that would act in a similar way but without the onerous bureaucratic burden that concerns him.
Mr. Pickles: I suppose that I should refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave earlier. If there are other schemes available, I am not aware of them.
I do not think that I shall give details of the Queensland system, because I want the Minister to have time to reply to the debate.[Interruption.]The hon. Gentleman would miss a rare treat.
It behoves the Government to give us a clear indication of what they believe the true figures are. I shall be interested in what the Minister has to say. If the Government say that it is a question of parliamentary time, I can understand that, but who controls parliamentary time? The Government control it. The Government lay down the guillotines. If they want to include the matter in the Housing Bill, the official Opposition have no objection.
3.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Yvette Cooper): I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) on securing the debate and choosing to discuss the tenancy deposit scheme. This debate follows from a debate that took place on 4 December last year, and concerns an issue that many hon. Members feel strongly about.
Hon. Members have set out the difficulties that many of their constituents have faced. Those constituents have been exploited and ripped off, or have had frustrating experiences with deposits going missing or being unfairly withheld. My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton desrcibed the experiences of Mrs. X in his constituency, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) referred to the difficulties experienced by students. My hon. and learned Friends the Members for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) and for Redcar (Vera Baird) pointed out clearly that often the most vulnerable tenants are highly unlikely to pursue their claims in court and, no matter how great the injustice done to them. are unlikely to get the remedy to which they are entitled.
There are different estimates of the extent of the problem. Previously, in the consultation documents, we used the figure of 20 per cent. of tenants being involved

117WH
in disputes over deposits. It is clear that this is not simply a problem for tenants. It is also a problem for the private rented sector as a whole and for landlords, as the hon. Members for Ludlow (Matthew Green) and for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) pointed out. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) was right to argue that we need proper safeguards for tenants, and we also need to consider the wider relationship between tenants and landlords. However, I disagree with his claim that the interests of landlords and tenants will always be in tension. Both landlords and tenants have a long-term interest in the future of the private rented sector and in having a proper, professional, reputable private rented sector, so they would have interests in common.
This issue tarnishes the image of the private rented sector at a time when it is widely recognised that the sector may have a much bigger role to play in achieving housing targets, providing housing and addressing problems of homelessness, particularly in high-demand areas. That idea was raised as part of the London housing strategy, which was published just a couple of months ago. The sector provides needed flexibility in the housing market. For example, it responds to the needs of the growing student population, those who need to be mobile and those who are not in a position to buy their own homes. The sector is increasingly seen as an important resource by local authorities dealing with the needs of the homeless. Resolving the issue and addressing concerns about unfairly withheld tenant deposits is in the interests of tenants and landlords across the country and has wider repercussions affecting our ability to tackle homelessness and housing demand.
As hon. Members have said, we have tried voluntary pilots, alongside considerable research and information gathering. The pilots were set up in March 2000 and were managed by the independent housing ombudsman with Government funding for their costs. The pilots had the two elements that my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton identified. First, they needed a way to keep the deposit safe. Two ways were tried: a custodial and an insured option. Secondly, there was independent adjudication, in this case by the independent housing ombudsman.
The scheme told us some useful things about mechanisms by which deposits can be safeguarded and ways to deal with disputes. However, it also showed that, even with all the costs being met by the Government, only a minority of the most professional landlords were likely to participate. The pilot clearly offered no prospect of a national scheme that was voluntary and self-financing. We should be clear about that. The failure of the pilot schemes powerfully makes the case that legislation is needed.
Last year, we launched a consultation paper on options for the way forward, including looking at the Australian and Belgian schemes and a series of other models. There was a wide range of responses to that consultation. Some opposed action altogether. We will publish the results in due course. Many hon. Members have mentioned the different costs and benefits. There have been different views on the costs and benefits of such a programme, and we are looking at that further. The cost and benefit analysis produced for the consultation showed quite a close balance between the
118WH
costs and the benefits. Hon. Members have raised concerns about that, as have other organisations. We are looking further at those issues.
The Select Committee has now recommended that the measure be included in the Housing Bill. Many hon. Members have made that point, including my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies). My right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning will respond to the Select Committee shortly. We have said that we want to consider the scheme as part of the Law Commission's review of tenancy. My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton raised some concerns about that approach, so I shall explain a little further why we think that it would be valuable.
The Law Commission is due to publish proposals later this month, particularly on written tenancy agreements. My hon. Friend rightly said that written tenancy agreements do not themselves solve tenancy deposit problems. That is clear, but we think that it would be helpful to examine the issues together. The problem of written tenancy agreements is significant. Many tenancies have no written agreement; there is nothing more than the rent book to establish entitlement. There is a strong case for compulsory written tenancy agreements. The Law Commission is expected to recommend that tenants' rights, including security and rights of repair, should by law be contained in the agreement in compulsory terms.
If we go down that route, which the Law Commission is expected to recommend, it may be possible to consider the tenancy deposit scheme in parallel. One approach that we have been exploring in the Department is the possible introduction of compulsory terms in the written agreements to say that any deposit must be held in a scheme. That could allow all kinds of different schemes, provided by different organisations, perhaps on the condition that they are Government-accredited or approved, and that they address the two issues that my hon. Friend raised—safeguarding the deposit for the tenant and allowing independent adjudication in disputes. Again, the use of the independent housing ombudsman might be one approach. That would link the structure of the scheme quite closely with the written tenancy agreement, so we have been keen to explore those issues together to see if that is a workable way forward. Obviously, with such an approach, a series of matters would have to be explored and discussed with stakeholders.
I recognise that all Members are interested in including provisions in the draft Housing Bill. They will know that the Government always have to take into account a range of considerations, including how quickly we can develop good, effective legislation, and issues of parliamentary time. I noticed the suggestion of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar regarding Government control of parliamentary time—but my experience is that the length of time we spend debating particular issues often has an awful lot to do with the decisions of Her Majesty's Opposition, so obviously it would be helpful to know his view on the issues, and the length of time he thinks is needed to discuss them.
I should also say that we have seen Shelter's proposed draft clauses on the mai ter. Shelter has campaigned on the issue, and drafted clauses relating to it. We are looking carefully at the matter, but there are some

119WH
difficulties with the approach taken in the draft clauses proposed by Shelter that we will consider further. The hon. Member for Ludlow suggested that we would only need a couple of clauses, but I would be very cautious about such a claim; in fact, those proposals would mean putting an immense amount into secondary legislation.
Very often in Parliament we discuss concerns about how much is put in secondary legislation and the effect of that on the opportunities for proper parliamentary srcutiny. We have to be careful about the balance of what is in primary legislation and what is in secondary legislation. srcutiny in this area is very important. As a result, I would caution hon. Members about the logistics of achieving immediate legislation that is also good legislation.
I take very seriously the points that hon. Members have made. We will respond to the Select Committee and its recommendations shortly, and we are also looking forward to considering the Law Commission's relatively imminent proposals. As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North pointed out, it will be important to consider that in the context of the wider relationship between tenant and landlord. I was interested in the point made by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar about the recognition by many landlords' groups of the importance of the issue.
Mr. Love: Will my hon. Friend also take into account the consensus that seems to be developing throughout the House, and the good will that exists towards finding a way forward that suits both landlord and tenant?
Yvette Cooper: I certainly will. I have listened very carefully to the points made by hon. Members from all parties today, which I take very seriously indeed. I want
120WH
to assure hon. Members of the Government's concern about the issue, and our recognition of the important points that have been made this afternoon.
Geraint Davies: Is my hon. Friend reassured by the unanimity in this Room that the discussions on the Housing Bill will be rapid and effective so that we can move forward quickly, even given the points that she made about the Law Commission? There is a real opportunity to get a result quickly.
Yvette Cooper: As I have said, I recognise the wide range of support on this issue, and we all agree that there is a problem that must be resolved. We also agree that a voluntary approach does not work.
Matthew Green: Will the Minister confirm that the Law Commission is unlikely to report in time for any proposed legislation emerging from that to be announced in the next Queen's Speech? Conceivably, then, we are looking at the legislative year following that. Any Bill following that report may become law in about two years' time, whereas the draft Housing Bill offers an opportunity to deal with the issue in a matter of months.
Yvette Cooper: I recognise hon. Members' concern about that. The Law Commission will make proposals this month. Detailed legislation will then be drawn up, which does take further time. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that I cannot make commitments about the Queen's Speech in any respect; that is the way in which the parliamentary system works. I would again caution Members who think that the matter can be dealt with swiftly. We shall of course consider all the points made by hon. Members and respond carefully to the Select Committee. I assure hon. Members that we are concerned about the issue. The failure of the pilots has shown a strong need for legislation, but we must ensure that we get it right and that it is effective. That is not always possible within as swift a timetable as we would all like.

Consumer Protection (Unsolicited Mail)
3.30 pm
Mr. Ben Chapman: I am delighted to have secured this debate this afternoon and to have the opportunity of raising an issue of considerable concern to my constituents and others. Members of Parliament receive a phenomenal volume of mail, both junk and other, which we effectively solicit because of the nature of our work. As well as being a Member of Parliament, I am also a consumer and private citizen and in that context I receive my share of the 21 billion pieces of unsolicited mail that are sent to British citizens every year and the 14.5 billion spam e-mails that are sent every day, apart from countless telephone calls and text messages. Those constant intrusions have become part of our everyday life.
When picking up the post in the morning or checking our e-mails, we are accustomed to filtering out countless unsolicited adverts and offers. I have with me just one unsolicited offer that I received this morning telling me that I have reached the third and final stage of a £130,000 prize draw and that all I have to do to claim my winnings is to send the form back and do the necessary. We have become used to filtering out paper mail, but that applies less to e-mails and text messages. The barrage of junk correspondence constantly arriving in our homes constitutes an invasion of privacy. Now that text messaging has fallen prey to the same misuse, unsolicited messages and interruptions are sent not only to our homes but to our person.
People shy at the thought of their names, addresses, employment details and retail patterns being sold between companies and find that abhorrent. The sheer volume of unsolicited mail that is delivered in the post should not be underestimated. Last year, more than 78,000 tonnes of such mail ended up in landfill sites throughout the country. Most of it was probably never read. The industry is based on the premise of extreme over-production and if one in 1,000 recipients takes note of the mailing, the exercise is probably worth while. Mr. Colman may have made his money from the mustard that was left on the side of the plate, but wastage from ill-targeted junk mailing is uneconomic and poses an environmental hazard. With due regard to environmental concerns in 21st Britain, I do not believe that it is sensible or sustainable for the cycle of self-serving over-production and waste to continue.
There is a difference between direct mail and junk mail. Many UK charities use direct mail to generate much-needed awareness and to raise funds. The umbrella term "direct mail" incorporates many an enterprise of great substance and moment. As a sales medium, direct mail accounts for an estimated £25 billion of goods and services purchased by British consumers each year. That is why it is on the increase. Many reputable banks and businesses operate a direct mail system on entirely legitimate terms. Clearly, direct mail has a valid role to play, but it is the prevalence of junk mail that obscures its worth and blurs the lines of recognition for consumers.
Greater targeting of direct mail is necessary, as are improved measures to eliminate junk mail. Eliminating junk mail is relatively complex, as one man's—or woman's—junk mail is another person's important bit
122WH
of correspondence. Direct mailers do not aim to send junk mail. It is, however, in the nature of the industry that marketing pitches are based on speculation, so although targeting is positive, wastage will always occur.
Apart from the industrial waste and hassle that unsolicited mail can cause, numerous other consumer protection issues arise from it. Misleading advertising, offers and prize draws are often delivered through direct mail. The Office of Fair Trading has issued warnings regarding unsolicited promises of cash and prizes, but its substantive involvement is relatively rare. The standard scam involves sending letters, texts or e-mail containing announcements of cash prizes to individuals, often the vulnerable. They are always personalised in a way that gives them a pseudo-legitimacy. They are, for example, addressed to the individual at their home address and make references to the area in which they live.
One becomes familiar with such scams and quickly learns to put them in the waste bin. With newer forms of communication, however, that familiarity is not yet established. Even direct mailers need to cater for the people who are vulnerable to these scams. People are often urged to send a small processing fee so that their good fortune can be realised. Of course, it is not good fortune but the opposite. Individuals who respond are not only fleeced of their money but are put on hit lists of the gullible so that they can be targeted again, no doubt with promises of bigger prizes or free gifts.
A variation on the scam is that the recipient must ring a premium line phone number to claim their prize. They are put on hold while they listen to various announcements, perhaps answer one or two questions and, I imagine, listen to music while they are waiting. They are on the line for minutes at a time and the cost soars. The person responding often does not know that they are incurring costs as they do so. They are certainly unaware of the level of those costs. Some scams even have people signing up to hospital insurance plans or transferring money to Nigerian bank accounts. Others simply require them to fill in a form to claim their winnings. I received one such form this morning.
The stop now orders, which came into force in June 2001, facilitate EU-wide action against the problem. However, misleading mail emanating from outside the Union is still almost impossible to act on. The Consumer Protection,(Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 provide for protection of the consumer when involved in transactions that do not involve face-to-face contact. However, individuals rarely pursue the offending companies via this mechanism, perhaps because of the size of the losses or embarrassment at their foolishness.
Credit cards are another favourite of direct marketers. Although much of this trade is legitimate, there have been numerous cases o f companies duping consumers into taking on an account without knowing about the various strong repayment clauses that are hidden in the small print. The Department of Trade and Industry has recognised the problem, as have industry leaders, and the Association for Payment Clearing Services is co-ordinating work on behalf of the industry on transparency initiatives such as the new honesty, or summary, box.

123WH
All this serves to highlight the problems inherent in distance selling, which can be exploited by anyone wanting to make a quick buck. The issue of companies sending unsolicited credit ca rd cheque books to consumers remains, and I appreciate the fact that the Minister acknowledged the problem in the House. We await moves by the credit industry to address the issue.
British consumers currently owe £48 billion in outstanding debts to credit card companies. That is twice the public sector bcrrowing requirement. Consumer credit also feeds into the problem. There are currently 215,000 licences for traders to lend money under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, although I understand that the legislation is under review.
Household debt is an increasingly huge problem in the UK and across the developed world. Currently, hundreds of debt collection businesses are operating in the UK. It is perhaps unsurprising, therefore, that one of the most common services advertised in junk mail is personal loans. In my constituency it is not uncommon to receive leaflets advertising loans at an APR of 445.7 per cent. The concept of payday lending, to bridge the gap to the end of the month, is newly revamped. There was a time in my life when I needed such things, although, thankfully, I do not so much now. However, there are people who fall prey to the scam, and phenomenal rates of interest are involved.
The organisations concerned sidestep consumer credit regulations and their actions are controlled only by codes of conduct. Going down the path of debt, as many junk mailings would have us do, can lead to a person's being tarred with a bad credit rating—something that can stick for life. They then enter the murky world of the credit agency, of which I have had some experience, although I assure hon. Members that it was for no bad reason. If one has been given a black mark, it is very difficult to find cut why. Sometimes it is given erroneously and unjustly, but correcting it is a difficult job.
In my opinion, junk mail is responsible for a multitude of sins. It provides daily access to a wilderness of rip-off loans, scams and extortion, most of which people could well manage without. Consumer protection from those dangers provided through, for example, the OFT, the Financial Services Authority and the Advertising Standards Authority, but often scams are engineered—as they would be—to meet all legal criteria, and the consumer is left without recourse.
Encouragingly, there has been a great deal of action on direct mail in recent months. New measures derived from article 13 of the EC directive on processing of personal data and protection of personal privacy in the electronic communications sector, on which the DTI consulted early this year, will come into force in December. That will require senders of advertisements via e-mail and text to have the prior consent of the recipient. Without that, offenders will be liable to a fine of £5,000. However, it will remain legal to send unsolicited mail unless the material is obscene or threatening. No legislation exists that can protect a householder from receiving it. Nor, to my knowledge, are there plans to develop such legislation.
124WH
The only option for besieged consumers is to register with the Mailing Preference Service, which is an effective and very worthwhile initiative. I urge people to join the 1.1 million people who are already registered. Its scope should be broadened. At present the MPS deals only with those who are responsible—srcupulous companies that want to subsrcibe. Why should not direct mail companies be placed under an obligation to subsrcibe? It will always be difficult to prevent unsolicited mail from abroad from reaching consumers here, but we can at least act to protect those consumers who do not want to be targeted from the advances of companies in the UK.
A major publicity initiative has just been launched by the environmental pressure group Planet Ark, in conjunction with the Direct Marketing Association, and with the support of the Government. It concentrates on cutting down junk mail through increased awareness of the MPS and increased emphasis on recycling. The MPS operates a strict code of practice and is essentially good for business, in that it allows companies to target only those people who want the mail.
Firmer action is required, in my view. A positive example is set by the new regulations on e-mails and text messages. Could not such a system apply to unsolicited postal mail as well? The plan of a default customer opt-out would put the responsibility in consumers' hands to opt into mailings that they wanted. Enforcement could be carried out on an EU basis. There is an EU-wide agreement on the prevention of obscene or misleading advertisements and the pursuit of those who send them. The next step might be to introduce an EU-wide version of the MPS, covering all EU direct mailing firms.
I call for more responsibility and more power to be placed in the hands of consumers. The new agreement on producer responsibility is very welcome, but consumer choice and control should come first. Companies' ability to write to individuals without their prior consent constitutes an invasion of privacy, a hassle, an environmental threat and, sometimes, just plain fraud. It should be tackled and narrowed. I call on my good friend the Minister to address the problem as forcefully as he can in the interests of my constituents and the wider public.
3.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) on his success in obtaining a debate on a matter about which I share many of his concerns, not only as the Minister with responsibility for consumers but as a constituency MP with a mailbag similar to the one that he mentioned. I am pleased that he dealt with the breadth of the issues that consumers face.
Direct marketing is a legitimate and valuable method for companies to promote products, services and special offers, but it can be regarded as a nuisance. For that reason, the Direct Marketing Association operates the Mailing Preference Service, which provides a means whereby consumers can have their names removed from the lists of legitimate marketers.
Consumers can also reduce the volume of unaddressed mail such as leaflets by registering with the Royal Mail "Door to Door" service. In addition, the

125WH
draft code of practice launched by the DMA in May requires its members to have in place a structure to enable every effort to be made to respect a householder's wish not to receive unaddressed items.
A national campaign launched by the DMA this month aims to promote the recycling of direct mail and the MPS as the means for consumers who view all direct mail as junk to exercise their choice not to receive it. The MPS cannot function as it should if consumers are not aware of its existence. Consumer awareness of the MPS is not as high as it should be. I commend the DMA's initiative.
The DMA code of practice makes registration with the MPS obligatory for its members. It is also a condition of the British code of advertising, sales promotion and direct marketing, which is administered by the Advertising Standards Authority. Nearly all such suppliers are DMA members and, if marketing companies act on a supplier's behalf, they will use the MPS because it is an efficient way of approaching customers.
The DMA has global links and the MPS operates globally. The latter is regularly accessed by overseas companies, either directly or via their local trade associations. There is wide compliance with the MPS. Nevertheless, the DMA regularly researches consumers' views on the service. According to the most recent survey, consumers appear to be satisfied with it. The DMA continues to monitor their views regularly.
Of course, new communications technology means that unsolicited mail now appears in other forms, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South said. Regulations implementing the EU directive on privacy and electronic communications regulations will give individuals more control over the marketing that they receive through electronic communications networks such as e-mail or text messages.
However, to some extent, the new measures reflect the particular nature of the new marketing media. In a competitive market, the contact data used—e-mail addresses and mobile phone numbers—change very quickly. That is generally not the case with postal addresses. There needs to be a fair balance between the interests of consumers and the interests of business in this as in other areas. As my hon. Friend pointed out, consumers spend £25 billion per annum via the new media. The MPS, in conjunction with the Data Protection Act 1998, which ensures that consumers are able to prevent their details being passed on to other companies, provides the balance at present.
The real risk to consumers comes from mail, frequently from abroad, which aims to persuade them to part with their money through misleading claims or promises. Unfortunately, once a consumer replies to such an approach, contact details are passed among scam operators and more mailings follow.
Scam mailings can present particular problems because most are sent from outside the UK. However, we have started to address that—we are not powerless. The Office of Fair Trading European enforcement team investigates scam mailings from outside the UK. The OFT can now pursue injunctive actions in other EU member states against scams based there by ultimately seeking enforcement orders under the Enterprise Act 2002.
126WH
The OFT currently has under review more than 420 different mailings from overseas and is gathering intelligence on each deceptive mailing in order to trace the originators and pursue those responsible. It has taken a lead in Europe in using the new powers. That has been acknowledged by the European Commission and even featured in a report by the European Consumer Centre. The OFT also works with the European branch of the International Consumer Protection Enforcement Network. ICPEN-Europe co-ordinates Europe-wide action against cross-border scams and supports fast and effective communication between enforcers.
My hon. Friend touched on mailings that originate from countries outside the EU, which represent a more difficult problem. However, the OFT also works with ICPEN-Main, which supports communication and enforcement in the same way as ICPEN-Europe, but on a global scale. Member countries include the US, Canada, Australia and Japan. Complaints from UK consumers are regularly sent to ICPEN for investigation. For example, the Canadian authorities have initiated several successful civil and criminal investigations and the OFT continues to assist with the preparation of evidence to ensure that it can act against the perpetrators.
The Advertising Standards Authority also investigates misleading mailings, and when they originate outside the UK, it liaises with overseas regulatory bodies via the European Advertising Standards Alliance. The Royal Mail cannot intercept or open mail that quotes or is addressed to a UK post-office box. It can, however, withdraw individual UK PO box contracts when complaints are upheld and mailings are not corrected. The ASA and the Royal Mail work together closely on that.
This week, the Chairman of the OFT and I are announcing new arrangements to strengthen international co-operation between consumer law enforcers. We have concluded two memorandums of understanding, one with Canada and one with Australia and New Zealand. They follow arrangements that we have already implemented with the United States. The memorandums provide practical frameworks for day-to-day enforcement, liaison and information exchange. That reflects a shared determination to tackle global abuses that harm consumers.
This summer, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development announced the publication of new guidelines for international co-operation to combat international scams and internet fraud. The guidelines seek to ensure that every country has the necessary authority and powers to take action in cross-border cases. They also set the stage for future work on consumer redress.
The European Commission has proposed more formal co-operation between member states. We are currently negotiating a regulation on consumer protection co-operation to strengthen the ability of EU enforcers to share information and co-operate effectively to challenge cross-border scams. We hope that the regulation will reach the statute book in the next couple of years.
My hon. Friend made some serious points about the use of credit cards. Some 30 years ago, one credit card was available, but now there are 1,300. The industry has

127WH
grown tremendously, which has created some attendant problems. He will be aware of the work of the Select Committee on the Treasury. Hopefully the consumer credit White Paper, which is the result of a lot of work, will appear in the next few days.
I welcome moves by the credit industry to address credit cards. I commend the Association of Payment Clearing Services on its best practice guidelines, which it recently issued to its members. The guidelines cover the responsible assessment of a consumer's ability to handle new credit and improving the information on charges, costs and other important features.
I hope that that action sorts out the current problems, but I stress that enforcement authorities stand ready to intervene when the industry does not adopt the necessary high standards. For example, the OFT recently acted promptly to stop Marks and Spencer from mailing unsolicited credit cards to store card holders. The OFT took the view that that clearly breached section 51 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, and Marks and Spencer has agreed to stop such marketing methods.
Legislation and enforcement are important in combating rogue trading practices of all kinds, but they are only part of the answer. Legislation may create loopholes, which the unscrupulous can exploit. Enforcement action can be taken only when bad practices have come to the attention of the authorities, by which time consumers may have suffered detriment. The most effective weapon against bad trading practices of all kinds is greater awareness on the part of consumers. The Government's objective is to place informed and protected consumers at the heart of an effective competition regime.
My predecessor, now the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), launched a public awareness campaign on postal scams last summer that aimed to raise consumer awareness of the risks and warning signs associated with scam mailings; help consumers to avoid becoming scam victims by ignoring bogus promises and claims, and encourage consumers to send suspect
128WH
mailings to the OFT for investigation. That campaign received wide media coverage. The campaign posters and leaflets are much in demand, and the OFT is investigating substantially more suspect mailings.
Public awareness is vital to putting the scam merchants and rogue traders out of business, and I want the work of increasing that awareness to continue. Like my predecessor, I want consumers to be informed and empowered. My Department will work closely with the OFT and other authorities to achieve that objective. It is important for us, as Members of Parliament, if we are aware of scams, to make sure that the OFT knows about them and to work with the other agencies involved.
Tackling mail scams in the form of unsolicited approaches, in a variety of forms and via a variety of media, is a challenging task. However, the level of detriment suffered by consumers necessitates an appropriate response. The OFT estimates that UK consumers lose about £100 million a year to postal scams alone. Legislation and effective enforcement play an important part in tackling the scam operators. Close co-operation with overseas authorities to form effective cross-border partnerships and tackle the scam operators is also vital and will continue.
For the measures to achieve optimum affect, we must have informed and empowered consumers. I am grateful that my hon. Friend has brought the issue to the attention of the Chamber today and that he and other hon. Members are working to make sure that we put the right mechanisms in place to prevent people from being exposed to scams. We must ensure that consumers have the confidence of knowing where to go to complain. As has been said, it is usually the vulnerable, particularly the elderly, who are the targets of unsolicited mail and who are tempted to respond. Once they have responded, they are hit with many more scams and end up worse off. In many cases, they feel so embarrassed that they do not report the matter.
I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and other hon. Members to ensure that we put a stop to such exploitation.
3.57 pm
Sitting suspended.

Dartmoor National Park (Military Exercises)
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We come to the final topic for our consideration today.
4 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
4.17 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Anthony Steen: I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise the matter of environmental damage to Dartmoor national park from military exercises, and I should also like to highlight the damage from military litter.
My credentials as a champion of Dartmoor national park are, I hope, well known in the House. Dartmoor is one of the last great wildernesses remaining in the United Kingdom and fortunately part of it lies within my constituency. I piloted the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985 through the Commons, which was a watershed for environmentalists and farmers, as well as for walkers and riders. It gave them a statutory right to walk and ride over all the national park, and set up the commoners council to administer, manage and enforce against those commoners who exploit and overuse common land.
Although the national park authority, in conjunction with the commoners council and the Dartmoor Preservation Association, has done a sterling job in preserving and conserving the landscape, flora and fauna, the military's record is not quite as impressive, certainly if the activities of recent months are anything to go by. In 1991, the Duchy of Cornwall gave the Ministry of Defence a 21-year lease with no break clauses, unlike all previous leases. Although I realise that the importance of the defence of the realm was uppermost in people's minds, I suggest that they were also extremely conscious of the sizeable sums that the Government pay annually for the use of the moor by the military, although the Government have not disclosed the amount to date.
The Government and I are both fervent supporters of the right to roam, and we believe in the importance of an unbroken footpath along the length and breadth of the west country coastline. Despite that fervour, the Government remain silent on why they permit one of Great Britain's 13 national parks to be closed for at least eight months a year while live firing and military exercises take preference over walkers, ramblers and others who seek to enjoy the national park. It is as if the Government are suffering from amnesia over the reasons why national parks were established in the first place: to provide places of peace, solitude and recreation for the public, especially urban dwellers. There are only 13 in the whole country.
This debate is about not live firing, however, but dry training and the damage done by the most recent military exercise on Dartmoor, which took place in July, when 600 commandos and 18 BV206 tracked vehicles caused extensive damage to the moor. It is also about the disregard by the military command of basic rules. That cries out not only for an explanation but for recognition that it must not happen again.
Let me make matters plain. I am as patriotic as the next man and as committed and loyal to our forces as anyone. I recognise the important job that they do and the immense
130WH
debt of gratitude that we owe them. I realise the importance of training, but I have some difficulty in squaring the objectives of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 with the military objectives of live firing.
Heaven knows why exercises cannot take place off the moor. Bodmin moor is nearby and is not a national park; Dartmoor is. I realise that exercises cannot be moved to Scotland or Ascension Island and that the south-west must have its own training ground.
Mr. John Burnett: Does the hon. Gentleman concede that, rightly in my view, the cornerstone of this country's defence policy is the ability to conduct expeditionary operations, which invariably means amphibious operations? Does he understand that it is essential for the Royal Marines and other troops to be near the fleet? Those commando troops must train under realistic conditions, including live firing, or their lives will be put in jeopardy. We owe them no less than the opportunity to undertake their training. If they cannot train on Dartmoor, where else can they go?
Mr. Steen: The answer is that they can go to Bodmin moor. We have a national park in Dartmoor—one of the 13 in Great Britain. There are no other national parks in the whole European Union where military exercises are allowed. This debate, however, is about not live firing but military exercises. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that there is a distinction between military exercises that can take place outside the national park, on Bodmin moor just down the road, and live firing.
The hon. Gentleman ought to recognise that the Ministry of Defence recently told campers that they should not dig their tents too deeply or build latrines because they may blow themselves up. Again, that is a live firing issue, but there are serious implications if we have a national park where campers cannot dig tents and latrines. That is a serious issue, but my point is that Dartmoor is not a national military park—or perhaps it should be renamed. Bodmin moor is not a national park, and exercises could be conducted there. On one occasion, Bodmin moor was partly used; I am suggesting that it should have been completely used. I digress. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's interest and I do not disagree with him, except to say that that should not happen on Dartmoor.
I do not object to dry training, even though it is a little disconcerting for those picnicking on the moor to get mixed up in training programmes, especially when smoke mortars are fired and dozens of commandos appear out of puffs of smoke. As one is enjoying one's thermos of hot tea, one suddenly finds 200 commandos coming down—the Assyrians coming down like a wolf on the fold. That can be disconcerting, but I am not complaining about that. What I am talking about is that, at the end of June this year, a two-week military exercise ordered on the higher moor above the 1,400 ft contour. As part of that exercise, it is understood that the training area commandant authorised the movement of 18 BV206 tracked vehicles between the Okehampton range and Ringmoor on southern Dartmoor. Those vehicles are permitted under the terms of the Duchy of Cornwall licence to conduct military training on its land. The national park authority had no prior notice of the nature of the exercise.
When the general use of such vehicles was proposed six years ago, the authority expressed serious reservations and said that they should not be permitted to travel off hard

131WH
tracks. It is fair to say that, in the interim, despite some use of the vehicles, the ranger service of the Dartmoor national park authority reported only one incident involving a BV206. The scale of the most recent exercise and the manner in which the BV206 was deployed have clearly had a major visible impact and have serious ramifications for Dartmoor national park.
The new tracks in the Hare tor and Lynch tor areas were inspected on 8 August 2003. I might mention that they are high tors, well over 1,400 ft. They are dramatic tors, and are often used by ramblers and walkers. In some areas, several tracks run across the same general area, but in others there are only single tracks. The number of BV206s that used individual tracks varied: there have been single passes as well as passes by as many as 18 vehicles.
As expected, damage to vegetation has tended to be greater in areas of blanket bog and heather, and less in areas of purple moor grass. A combination of the vegetation and the number of vehicle passes has determined the damage that has been caused on individual tracks. A noticeable additional factor is the number of sharp turns made on slopes. Those invariably produce bare patches of ground where the vehicle tracks lock and twist.
In areas of blanket bog and mire, the tracks tend to cut into the peat in short sections only. That may take several years to recover, although it is heavily dependant on future track use. Young heather plants are not damaged, but wherever the growth is old enough to include woody stems they have been abraded. That has led to desiccation, which is likely to cause the death of many plants. Recovery in those areas will be slow, dependent on seedling regeneration, and perhaps the re-growth of plants that have not been too badly damaged.
The greatest number of tracks around Hare and Lynch tors were on purple moor grass. The vegetation in those tracks is likely to recover provided that the tracks are not used further. The new tracks are mainly in areas of lightly grazed vegetation through which it is difficult to move. There are signs that many of the tracks produced by the BV206s have subsequently been used by people for walking, stock grazing and for some stock movements, and by other vehicles such as Land Rovers and quad bikes. That factor is of most concern, as it is likely to determine the length of recovery, and it could lead to permanent tracks and paths being established in some areas. Many of the tracks are still highly visible across wide sweeps of the most beautiful open landscape.
The areas most notably affected are those south of the existing Dinger tor hard track, thro ugh the Brim brook up to the western side of Great Kneeset, west of Little Kneeset, the east and south flanks of Great Amicombe, the western side of Fur tor, which is nearly 2,000 ft high, over the meads, north-east and south of Lynch tor, west of Cocks hill, and parts of Langstone moor towards Roos tor. Other tracks from the Willsworthy camp, on the west of the moor, exist around Hare, Sharp, Doe and Chat tors and through the Rattle brook below Deadlake Foot. The head ranger of Dartmoor national park has recorded the general extent of those tracks, and photographic illustrations have been presented to the national park authority.
The authority's ecologist has visited a number of locations in the company of an ecologist from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs' rural development service. Initial reports of the damage were received from
132WH
DEFRA in connection with the forest of Dartmoor's recent entry into the environmentally sensitive area scheme and the accommodation of military use within the scheme's objectives and achievements. Although recovery is expected, its speed and permanence is heavily dependent on deterring all potential moor travellers, walkers, commoners, military personnel and others from following the tracks created, which is no mean task given the temptation and convenience that they now provide.
Since the Duchy of Cornwall renewed the licence for military training on the estate in 1991, some very positive MOD conservation activities have benefited both the historic environment and the wildlife. The general standards of care and range maintenance have improved. That damaging incident is, therefore, all the more regrettable.
The Dartmoor national park authority has expressed concerns that a new contract recently awarded to Landmarc to deliver various aspects of range maintenance and operations may be affecting standards and may have been a contributory factor in that instance. Whether the impact of the BV206 exercise is long term or not, the complaints and dismay expressed in various quarters are sufficient to justify an investigation, this debate and whatever action is needed to avoid any repetition of the incident. The Dartmoor national park authority has made robust representations to the MOD, the Duchy of Cornwall and the Dartmoor steering group.
Will the Minister confirm that the use of BV206 vehicles away from hard tracks will now be prohibited? Will the MOD monitor recovery and carry out at the Government's expense any restoration agreed necessary by DEFRA and the authority's ecologists? Will the MOD bear responsibility for discouraging commoners, the public and service personnel from following the routes created until recovery is complete? Finally, will he confirm that standards will not be diminished by the engagement of Landmarc?
As a life member of the Dartmoor Preservation Association, I cannot allow this opportunity to pass without raising the matter of military litter. In a letter, the splendid chief executive of the association, John Bainbridge, told me of an ex-soldier who, on 4 September, led a walk around Gutter tor mire and Ditsworthy farmhouse and encountered untold rubbish, probably 90 per cent. of which was military.
There were more than 50 spent 5.56 mm cartridge cases, 11 empty cardboard cartridge boxes, which hold 25 rounds each, six used smoke canisters, untold ration pack wrappings and one damaged Hexi stove. While looking around Ditsworthy farmhouse, green twine, which looks like wool, was found but it was strongly tied against the walls to keep the public out. That illustrates a lackadaisical approach in the military, which is new; it has not been seen before.
It is difficult to sustain the untamed wilds of Dartmoor while permitting hundreds and sometimes thousands of military personnel to use it for training. I have always advocated Bodmin moor as the right place for training. Therefore, while the Dartmoor national park authority watches powerless from the sidelines and the Dartmoor Preservation Association howls in anguish, in reality, nothing can halt the destructive forces and preserve for the nation that unique environment, unless the Minister is minded to intervene, and intervene he should to protect from destruction the last great wilderness in Britain.
4.33 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin): I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on securing the debate and giving me the opportunity to talk about the work of the Ministry of Defence on Dartmoor.
The hon. Gentleman has raised concerns about environmental damage to Dartmoor national park arising from military exercises. He has exchanged correspondence with my Department about military activities in the past, and I hope that my remarks will assure him of our recognition and appreciation of Dartmoor's special qualities. The MOD takes its responsibilities to the environment very seriously, and I intend to say more about that.
We are very aware of Dartmoor's place in people's affections. It is held in special regard by all branches of the armed forces, whose first recorded use of it was for training during the Napoleonic and Crimean wars. Okehampton camp, south of Okehampton, was built during 1892, and 4,050 hectares of land were rented from the Duchy of Cornwall for training artillery. That use continued until the second world war, when virtually the whole of the moor was used in preparation for the D-day landings invasion. A reduced area of Dartmoor has continued in such use ever since, playing a valuable role in preparations for the Falklands conflict in 1982 and again more recently for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The terrain and climate of Dartmoor provide conditions that challenge the recreational user and armed forces alike. Walkers and riders enjoy Dartmoor for much the same reasons that it provides an ideal training area for the military: challenging walks, strenuous climbing, unpredictable weather, featureless navigation, and remoteness. Those special qualities allow the military to develop character through resource, self-reliance and leadership skills—qualities that are called on wherever the armed forces are deployed.
Of course, simulation has much to offer these days with advances in technology and we are already exploiting that wherever possible, but simulation cannot replicate all the tests of character and skill provided by the natural environment.
Mr. Burnett: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Caplin: No. I am sorry.
As well as the regular forces from all three services, not just those based in the south-west who use the moor, locally based Territorial Army units and cadets depend on Dartmoor to provide them with an area to practise tactics and to maintain their weapon skills. In fact, 50 members of the local TA are about to deploy to Afghanistan on operations—[Interruption.] I hope that that is not them calling. I am sure that the Chamber will wish to join me in thanking them for their continuing commitment and dedication, and wish them well.
The hon. Member for Totnes asked me about 45 Commando's training exercise on Dartmoor at the end of June. He was right to say that there was a recent occurrence of surface damage caused by the cross-country vehicle known as BV206. That is a matter of the greatest regret to me and to my Department. It was
134WH
recognised that some damage might occur as a result of the Commando exercise, but with a return to Afghanistan imminent, it was considered that the operational imperative outweighed the argument for not proceeding with the training. In some ways we are the victims of our own success, as the damage is much more noticeable because of the damage-free record in recent times. I am pleased to inform the hon. Gentleman and the Chamber that the repair work was quickly started and, with the help of the Dartmoor national park and English Nature, efforts are being made to minimise any long-term impact. That incident should be considered against the background of a good and improving record of conservation, not just on Dartmoor but throughout the defence estate. In particular, I want to reassure the hon. Gentleman that we have agreed with the Dartmoor national park authority to discourage users from walking or riding along the tracks caused by the BV206. The Ramblers Association and the Dartmoor Preservation Association have also recommended avoidance, and I hope that that will be significant in allowing the rehabilitation of that area of Dartmoor as speedily as possible.
Mr. Steen: I have walked over Dartmoor for the past 40 years so I know it well. The Minister is right to say that the Ministry's record is pretty good. The recent incident is a departure and there is concern about Landmarc. Will he say something about the BV206 in the future, because that is the concern? The exercise also took place on Bodmin moor, so could not the Dartmoor national park, one of Britain's 13 national parks, be avoided if at all possible? The terrain on Bodmin is very similar to that on Dartmoor.
Mr. Caplin: We shall take those views into account, but, because of the operational nature of the training, only Dartmoor was suitable, not Bodmin. However, I shall certainly reflect on the hon. Gentleman's comments.
The Ministry of Defence has been set the challenging target of having 95 per cent. of MOD-managed SSSI sites in favourable or recovering condition by 2010. The Army training estate is responsible for many of them, and current information suggests that it is ahead of the national average with 53 per cent. in the favourable or recovering status. We still have a long way to go, but the chief executive of English Nature tells me that this is indeed a promising start.
It is also worth pointing out that for the third successive year the Army training estate has won the coveted Silver Otter conservation award. This is an award made annually to the best project by a conservation group on MOD land. This year's award went to Foxglove Covert in Yorkshire, where we have developed an ultramodern field centre on a local nature reserve. I cite those as some of the examples of the MOD's environmental and conservation work.
I am pleased that Dartmoor was one of the first areas to introduce an integrated land management plan, which brought together all interests to inform its management and development. With the introduction of an environmental management system to the wider MOD, Dartmoor is again leading the way, with valuable contributions coming from statutory bodies

135WH
such as English Nature and English Heritage, as well as the volunteers who make up the local conservation groups.
In addition, those essential programmes are supported by the rural element of the estate strategy funding programme, which sees £2 million annually ring-fenced across the Army training estate in support of our statutory obligations. Dartmoor is part of that programme. Contrary to the opinion of some, it simply is not in our interests to cause environmental damage, but it is in our interests to protect and conserve our training areas. Let me add that not all military training impacts are adverse; some are positively beneficial to the environment. For example, land used for military training often prevents intensive agricultural practices.
Mr. Steen: The most beautiful part of Dartmoor national park is the northern part—the highest part. It is closed to the public for the best part of eight months a year. It is a contradiction to have a national park that one cannot actually get to. It is true that the conservation and environmental record of the MOD is very good. People cannot access the land because the Army is firing on it and the public are cleared from it: if one closes the land, the corollary is that the environment will be improved. However, that is not the point of the national parks; the point is to get people to visit them, not to prevent them from going.
Mr. Caplin: I was about to come on to access, so the hon. Gentleman's intervention is timely. I know that public access is a matter dear to his heart and to the hearts of his constituents and many other Dartmoor users, including those who visit the moor regularly.
Unless live firing is taking place, the whole training area is open to the public. I am aware that the hon. Gentleman takes a close interest in the opportunities available to his constituents as well as visitors to the area, but I can assure him and the Chamber that the ranges are operational for only the minimum time consistent with our troops achieving their training objectives. When those objectives are achieved more quickly than expected, or when the unpredictable weather I have already referred to closes in, the ranges are opened. In those areas not used for live firing, there are no closures and people are free to walk and ride while training takes place.
I deal now with the hon. Gentleman's point about military litter. Units are instructed not to leave litter on the moor at any time, but it does happen occasionally. I can assure him that range staff rectify the problem as quickly as possible, as soon as it is brought to their attention.
I accept that the paraphernalia of military activity such as flags, poles and lookouts are an intrusion on the landscape, but with the safety of the public paramount
136WH
they are necessary. It is regrettable that a small minority of members of the public fail to accept their responsibility to avoid entering the danger area during published live firing periods. I also accept that there are some visitors who find the presence of troops disturbing. There are also, however, those who enjoy watching their activities, and who appreciate both the contact with them and the economic benefit brought to the south-west by their presence. It also helps to create an essential understanding between the public and the services through increased exposure to the role of the military.
I shall deal briefly with the issue of why military training has to take place in a national park and not elsewhere. Ideally, the military would not choose to exercise in such an area. However, alternative sites of similar size and scope, especially those without an environmental designation, are difficult to come by in the United Kingdom. With the exception of the newly created Scottish national parks, there are military training areas in all national park areas. They predate the creation of the parks. Their military use has meant that there has been no urbanisation, and no use of intensive agricultural practices; that has led to sites strong in landscape and conservation value—hence their designation. The MOD occupies less than 3 per cent. of the area of national parks, but that represents about 30 per cent. of the Army training estate.
At a recent debate convened by the Dartmoor Society to consider the military use of Dartmoor, the Ministry of Defence made a significant contribution to the discussion, and our presence there was warmly welcomed. However, we are not complacent about our use of the Dartmoor national park, or indeed of other national parks. I am aware that some people fervently believe that the military have no place in areas of special beauty and wilderness, and that such activities are inconsistent with the objectives of a national park. I am also aware of an issue with the licence for the use of Duchy of Cornwall land, which will fall due in 2012. We and the Duchy will consider how the renewal will be dealt with closer to the time, and I would not wish to second-guess anyone's views. For my own part, I am keeping an open mind.
In conclusion, it is worth reminding ourselves that in order to maintain our freedoms, and those of others, it is necessary not only to persuade potential foes of our political will and military capability to respond to threats, but to persuade them that our forces are effective and capable of preventing future adversaries from achieving their objectives. It is therefore essential to have a highly trained, well-motivated force that is operationally ready.
It being thirteen minutes to Five o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

PRIME MINISTER

  Arcturus House
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to Arcturus House in Totnes. [132037]

  The Prime Minister
  I have no current plans to do so.

  Departmental Hospitality
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Prime Minister how much was spent on food by his office 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. [129375]

  The Prime Minister
  Expenditure on food in the Prime Minister's Office is limited to official entertainment. For the total cost to my office for all official entertainment at 10 Downing Street and Chequers, I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on 28 February 2002,Official Report, columns 1444–48W, and the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on 27 January 2003, Official Report, column 564W. Information on the total cost for 2002–03 is not yet available.

  Information on the proportion of food by value produced in the UK is not held and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has provided guidance for Government Departments and their agencies on local sourcing and how to remove obstacles to tendering faced by local and UK suppliers. The Government has a policy of achieving value for money in public procurement and ensuring that under European Commission rules, public procurement is fair, transparent and non-discriminatory.

  Iraq
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 18 September,Official Report, column 870W, on Iraq, whether the (a) chairman and (b) members of the (i) Intelligence and Security Committee, (ii) Defence and (iii) Foreign Affairs Select Committees were invited to comment on the content of the Iraq dossier before it was published. [131915]

  The Prime Minister
  As I said in my reply to my hon. Friend on 18 September, all three chairmen were briefed on the content of the Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction dossier by the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee on 19 September 2002, shortly before it was published.
  234W
  In addition, I invited Ann Taylor to see it in advance of the briefing to the whole Intelligence and Security Committee and to pass comment if she wished.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about the advice which he received before the conflict on the impact of a military offensive against Iraq on the incidence of terrorism. [131993]

  The Prime Minister
  The assessment I received was that the greatest terrorist threat to Western interests came from al-Qaeda and related groups, and that this threat would be heightened by military action against Iraq. This assessment informed the Ministry of Defence's planning for military action, as well as the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's consular planning and in the published 'Travel Advice.

  When I took the decision that military action would be required to ensure that Iraq complied with United Nations Security Council Resolutions, I had to weigh all the factors, including the possible short term risk of increased terrorism, against the longer term risks of rogue states developing weapons of mass destruction.

  Syria
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment the Government have made of whether Syria(a) possesses and (b) is developing weapons of mass destruction. [131973]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government are concerned by persistent reports that Syria is pursuing a programme for the development of weapons of mass destruction and believes that the best way to pursue those concerns is in a frank and critical dialogue with the Syrian Government.

  We regularly urge all states to sign and ratify all the treaties and conventions covering the development of such weapons.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Patented Medicines
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on the implementation of the World Track Organisation's agreement on TRIPS and public health. [132044]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The agreement reached at the WTO will enable poor countries with no, or insufficient pharmaceutical manufacturing capacity to import copies of patented medicines. The agreement is a very significant step which should help to reduce the price it poor countries of patented medicines that come onto the market after 2005.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans he has to visit Freetown in 2003 to discuss progress on the Department's aid programmes in Sierra Leone. [132045]
  235W
  Hilary Benn
  Due to commitments arising from my new responsibilities, I have, with regret, had to postpone a visit to Sierra Leone planned for November. I remain closely in touch with developments in Sierra Leone and the progress on our substantial programme there, and discussed the progress being made with President Kabbah when he visited the UK in July.

  Iraq
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on his Department's contribution to the post-conflict reconstruction of Iraq. [132046]

  Hilary Benn
  In my Written Statement to the House yesterday, I announced a total UK commitment towards Iraq's reconstruction of £544 million for the three years from April 2003, including our share of proposed European Community spending. £296 million of this commitment will be for the period from now until March 2006. It will not result in any reduction in DFID's planned expenditure for low income countries.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on the post-conflict reconstruction of Iraq. [132047]

  Hilary Benn
  In my written statement to the House yesterday, I announced a total UK commitment towards Iraq's reconstruction of £544 million for the three years from April 2003, including our share of proposed European Community spending. £296 million of this commitment will be for the period from now until March 2006. It will not result in any reduction in DFID's planned expenditure for low income countries.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on his Department's support for projects in Iraq. [132323]

  Hilary Benn
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written ministerial statement I made yesterday, 14 October 2003,Official Report, column 9WS and the documents I placed in the Library after my Ministerial Statement of 3 July. The latest information on DFID's work in Iraq can also be found on our website at www.dfid.gov.uk.

  India
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on British aid programmes in India. [132048]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID provided £161 million of bilateral development assistance to India in 2002–03. In the New Delhi Declaration of January 2002 the Prime Minister looked forward to expenditure of over £300 million. We are making progress towards the budget and expect to be able to disburse some £200 million in 2003–04.

  Our programme helps government deliver pro-poor policies and services. We are working closely with four focus states committed to poverty reduction, including on their programmes of fiscal and public sector reform increasing access to basic health, education, and urban
  236W
  services for the poor and empowerment of the marginalised. We also support the efforts of the Union Government and civil society in these areas nationwide.

  Our priorities for this year are to:
  agree, in consultation with Government of India, a new Country Assistance Plan, confirming the strategic partnership and outlining DFID's programme of support to the 10th National Development Plan;
  help focus state governments develop social sector investment plans and innovative approaches to livelihoods and empowerment for poor people and women;
  help improve governance, especially through public sector reform, civil service reform, increased access to justice, and anti-corruption initiatives;
  further strengthen our links with key multilateral partners.

  Global Fund (AIDS, TB and Malaria)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent contributions his Department has made to the global fund to fight AIDS, TB and malaria. [132050]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  Since the Global Fund (GFATM) was set up in 2001 the UK has committed US$200 million. The UK has recently pledged a further US$80 million, extending our current commitment to a total of US$280 million up to 2008.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what measures arc in place to reduce the production of heroin in Afghanistan. [132051]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The Afghan Transitional Administration have produced the Afghan National Drug Control Strategy and the UK Government arc working in support of that strategy. The UK has committed to provide £70 million over the next three years to target opium poppy cultivation and heroin production. This funding will be used for lay enforcement, alternative livelihoods, institution building and research. DFID are providing funding for a range of alternative livelihoods activities designed to provide those involved in opium poppy cultivation with other ways of earning a living.

  World Trade Organisation (Cancun)
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on the impact on developing countries of the outcome o the fifth ministerial round of the World Trade Organisation meeting at Cancun. [132052]

  Hilary Benn
  The failure of the WTO ministerial talks it Cancun was a setback for the Doha Development Agenda and a blow to developing and developed countries alike. I believe that this failure will disadvantage the world's poorest countries most. Developing countries stand to get a better deal through multilateral negotiations in the WTO—where developing countries make up two thirds of the membership—than through multitude of regional and bilateral agreements with bigger economic players.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Arts Council
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the membership of the Steering Group for the Arts Council of Northern Ireland's research project on the Arts of Irish and Ulster-Scots includes equal representation from both cultural communities. [100446]

  Angela Smith
  In setting up the Steering Group the Arts Council of Northern Ireland invited nominations from Foras na Gaeilge, Iontaobhas Ultach/Ultach Trust and Tha Boord o Ulster Scotch. These are the bodies partnering with the Arts Council in funding the research. A nomination was also invited from the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure as the Arts Council's sponsoring Department.

  The Steering Group consists of seven members: three nominees of the Arts Council of Northern Ireland and one nominee from each of the above organisations. The single criterion for appointing members of the Steering Group was status as a funding partner. In this context, ensuring numerically equal representation from both cultural communities has not been a consideration for the Arts Council.

  Cross-departmental Policies
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what cross-departmental policies are in place to tackle(a) sex and (b) racial inequality in Northern Ireland. [131522]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave on 9 September 2003,Official Report, column 298W.

  Pre-school Education
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Pre-school Education Advisory Group places have been allocated to each nursery school and playgroup in Newtownards for 2003–04, broken down by electoral ward pupils live in who have been allocated a Pre-school Education Advisory Group place. [129898]

  Jane Kennedy
  I understand from the Chief Executive of the South Eastern Education & Library Board that the playgroups in Newtownards have received the following allocations of PEAG places for 2003–04.

  Ward

  Provider

  Places allocated 2003–04

  Glen

  Bees Nees Early Years Centre

  18

  Loughries/Carrowdore

  Chuckles Playgroup

  19

  Scrabo

  Little Doves Community Playgroup

  15

  Movilla

  Movilla Abbey Playgroup

  26

  Movilla

  Play-a-Way Childcare Centre

  20

  Central Ards

  St. Finian's Playgroup

  18

  Scrabo/Loughries

  The Playcentre at Manor Court

  24

  Total

  140

  The final enrolment in voluntary and private sector pre-school centres is still subject to changes as allocated
  238W
  places are sometimes not taken up and have to be reallocated. I will write to the hon. Member once the information on final allocations is available. Details of the electoral wards in which the children live are not currently available but will be collected and included in my reply when the information on final allocations is available.

  Only voluntary and private sector pre-school centres are eligible for PEAG places. Statutory nursery schools and units have a standard complement of 26 pupils per class. The four statutory settings have the following capacities:

  School name

  Total capacity

  Abbey Primary School

  52

  Glenbrook Nursery School

  78

  Newtownards Nursery School

  78

  West Winds Primary School

  26

  Total

  234

TRANSPORT

  Grosvenor Square (Street Closure)
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what application he made for a street closure order in relation to the event at Grosvenor Square on 11 September 2003; and for what period the street closure was requested. [131410]

  Mr. McNulty
  None. I understand that the road closure was made under Metropolitan Police powers.

  Cycling Safety
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what steps his Department is taking to promote the wearing of helmets by cyclists; [132082]

  (2) what representations he has received about making the wearing of helmets by cyclists compulsory; if he will make it his policy to introduce such legislation; and if he will make a statement; [132083]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the benefits of cyclists wearing helmets; and if he will make a statement. [132084]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We have a large body of material on cycle safety aimed at younger children promoting the use of cycle helmets as well as other cycle safety messages. We have also developed a Cycle Sense campaign, aimed at teenagers, that was launched on 21 May this year. The campaign encourages teenagers to wear cycle helmets and consists of posters and a new cycle sense website.

  A study commissioned by the Department to look into the effectiveness of cycle helmets, published in November last year, found that overall, the evidence suggests that cycle helmets are effective at reducing the severity of brain and upper facial injuries for all ages, and especially children. This reinforces our view that helmets should be worn by children.
  239W
  We have had correspondence from members of the public asking for helmets to be made compulsory, as well as The Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust and Headway, the brain injury association.

  When considering compulsion, we have to take wearing rates into consideration. A survey undertaken by the Transport Research Laboratory measuring wearing rate in 2002 found that the rate for all cyclists on built-up major roads was 25 per cent. The wearing rate is continuing to increase, but at this level, making helmets compulsory could cause enforcement difficulties, and without greater public acceptance, could have an effect on levels of cycling. We will continue to monitor wearing rates and review the option of compulsory wearing from time to time.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what recent assessment he has made of the benefits of wearing a bicycle helmet for the prevention of injuries; [132258]

  (2) what plans he has to introduce legislation enforcing the wearing of bicycle helmets for those under 16; and if he will make a statement. [132259]

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

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

  Rail Services (Merseyside)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the stations in Merseyside(a) which will receive improvements through the Strategic Rail Authority's MFAS programme and (b) which are expecting improvements via the Local Transport Plan on the Merseytravel Passenger Transport Authority and Executive; and what the nature and cost of the improvements are. [132334]

  Mr. McNulty
  Merseyside Stations which will receive improvements through the MFAS programme are: Aintree, Aughton Park, Bebington, Birkenhead Central, Bootle New Strand, Bootle Oriel Road, Bromborough, Formby, Freshfield, Green Lane., Hightown, Hillside, Hooton, Moreton, Old Roan, Orrell Park, Sandhills, Spital, Town Green, Waterloo and West Kirby. The improvements are now waiting rooms and Customer Information Systems (CIS) costing £7 million.
  240W
  At the moment, 40 of the 80 stations are fully accessible. Under the current LTP programme there are plans to upgrade up to 25 more stations, making them fully accessible to all wheelchair users and all other travellers. The plan is then to finish the remaining 15 in the next LTP round. The amount spent on each station depends on the work needed.

  Road Deaths
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 15 January 2003,Official Report, column 625W, on road deaths, if he will make a statement on (a) the progress in monitoring the experiments in the Netherlands to reduce road deaths and (b) his Department's work with United Kingdom local authorities. [132140]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The new traffic arrangements at the various sites in north Holland were not, principally, introduced as casualty reduction schemes. The information that has been provided by the Dutch shows that casualty figures at all the revised sites are at the level of one or none per year. We are happy that, in the context that they are being used in Holland, these ideas do not result in increases in casualties.

  The Department for Transport is aware of two authorities in this country that have been considering applying some of the measures used in north Holland, but as redevelopment rather than accident reduction measures. From informal discussions with the authorities, it is understood they are now considering more familiar techniques such as 20 mph speed limit zones. We have not been approached by any authorities planning to remove traffic signals.

  Strategic Rail Authority
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether additional funding will be made available to the Strategic Rail Authority to support any increase in funding for Network Rail determined by the Rail Regulator. [131362]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Regulator is due to conclude his Interim Review of Network Rail's track access charges in December 2003. This, along with work that the SRA and my Department are doing on rail financing and output will be considered as part of the Spending Review, the outcome of which will be announced next year.

  Transport Infrastructure (Crosby)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much money was spent improving the transport infrastructure in Crosby(a) since 1997 and (b) from 1992 to 1997. [132335]

  Mr. McNulty
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 11 September 2003,Official Report, column 374W.

  I understand Sefton Borough Council are in the process of compiling this information and will supply it to my hon. Friend as soon as it becomes available.

  Walking
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action the Government are taking to promote the benefits of walking. [132419]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 14 October 2003, (PQ references 132357, 132358, 132359, 132360).

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Voice of the Women of Iraq Conference
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister for Women what follow-up action has taken place in the United Kingdom following the Voice of the Women of Iraq conference on 9 July. [132148]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 14 October 2003]Since the Voice of Women of Iraq conference that I attended in July, the Government have seconded two gender experts to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad and Basra. They will take forward the work started in May by the secondee from my Women and Equality Unit, in supporting Iraqi women and to help determine a national policy for women. I continue to meet with a group of Iraqi women to listen to their concerns and experiences, as well as discuss ways to support Iraqi women during this critical phase. I have continued to stress the need to ensure substantial women's representation in all strands of the rapidly evolving political and reconstruction process at the highest level.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister for Women if she will make available the recommendations of the conference Voice of the Women of Iraq, which she attended on 9 July. [132253]

  Ms Hewitt
  I will make the recommendations of the conference Voice of the Women of Iraq available in the Libraries of the House.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Combined Heat and Power
  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the benefits of excess combined heat and power being exported between company sites. [131971]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 14 October 2003]The export of excess good quality combined heat and power between company sites provides benefits to security of supply, carbon emission savings and costs. In 2002, the export of CHP to companies within the same group and to other companies is estimated to have saved up to 1 million tonnes of carbon. The financial benefit provided by exemption from the climate change levy of power outputs for those good quality CHP exports was up to £15 million in 2002.

  Pollution
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many applications for pollution prevention and control permits were received by the Environment Agency in each year from 1996 to date; what the average time taken to determine applications was in each such year; and if she will make a statement. [129350]

  Margaret Beckett
  The following table gives the number of permit applications made to the Environment Agency since 2000 and the average time taken for them to be issued. No applications were received before that date because the Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000 ('the PPC Regulations') were not then in force.

  Permit applications made to the environment agency

  Calendar year

  Number of applications received

  Number of permits issued

  Average time to determine permits issued in year1 (months)

  2000

  36

  0

  n/a

  2001

  285

  54

  26.4

  2002

  167

  166

  10.3

  2003

  183

  141

  12.5

  Total

  671

  361

  1 Total time from receipt until permit issue. No allowance has been made for periods waiting for further information required by Schedule 4 Notices.

  2 The 2001 data is not representative because it shows only permits issued in 2001 when the regime was first introduced.

  There has been a slight increase to the average determination time in 2003. The process of PPC is complex, and applications have often lacked necessary information which can create substantial delays if further information is sought from the applicant. In such cases a notice is issued to the operator by the regulator and the determination of the application is effectively suspended until such time as further information is received.

  The Environment Agency is aiming to reduce delays to permitting; measures include centrally managed "Strategic Permitting Groups" that have been established to focus resources on the effective determination of applications, and the reviewing and simplifying of the regulatory tools that are used to determine applications.

  Renewables
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what contribution renewable energy made to energy consumption in England in the last year for which figures are available; and what the levels were in other EU countries. [131081]

  Mr. Timms
  I have been asked to reply.

  The available information is shown in the table and covers renewable energy as a share of total primary energy supply in the United Kingdom and in each of the other EU member states.
  243W

  Renewable energy as a share of total primary energy supply, 2001

  Total primary energy supply (Mtoe)

  Of which renewables (Mtoe)

  Share of renewables Percentage

  France

  265.6

  18.6

  7.0

  Sweden

  51.1

  15.0

  29.4

  Italy

  172.0

  9.6

  5.6

  Germany

  351.1

  9.2

  2.6

  Spain

  127.4

  8.2

  6.5

  Finland

  33.8

  7.6

  22.4

  Austria

  30.7

  6.6

  21.5

  Portugal

  24.7

  3.4

  13.7

  United Kingdom

  235.2

  2.5

  1.1

  Denmark

  19.8

  2.1

  10.4

  Greece

  28.7

  1.3

  4.6

  Netherlands

  77.2

  1.1

  1.4

  Belgium

  59.0

  0.6

  1.0

  Ireland

  15.0

  0.3

  1.7

  Luxembourg

  3.8

  0.1

  1.6

  Source

  International Energy Agency

  The UK percentage is lower than other renewables percentages published for the United Kingdom because it is expressed in primary energy supply terms and includes energy used for heat as well as for electricity in both the denominator and the numerator. The percentage of UK electricity sales in 2001 that was accounted for by renewable sources eligible for the Renewables Obligation was 1.5 per cent. rising to 1.7 per cent. in 2002.

  Whaling
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps the Government are taking to encourage Iceland to stop whaling; and if she will make a statement. [131940]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  While it is certainly most regrettable, Iceland's decision to undertake a programme of lethal scientific research on whales is perfectly legal and our only recourse is thus to diplomatic protest. I met the Icelandic ambassador to London in September and left him in no doubt as to the UK Government's views on Iceland's unjustified and unnecessary plan to kill 38 minke whales this year; (the actual take turned out to be 36). On 10 September the UK Government, represented by the UK ambassador to Iceland, led a demarche of 23 countries urging the Icelandic Government to reconsider its decision to proceed with so-called "scientific" whaling. A demarche on this scale is significant, and I hope that the Icelandic Government will reflect on it before deciding how to take matters forward for next year.

DEFENCE

  Iraq
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his written Ministerial Statement of 7 July 2003,Official Report, column 41–42WS, on Iraq, whether the full report on operations in Iraq to which he referred will include estimates of the numbers of British and Iraqi military and civilian casualties resulting from recent military operations in Iraq. [125285]
  244W
  Mr. Hoon
  The full report on operations in Iraq will contain details of British fatal casualties only. We have no viable means of ascertaining the numbers of Iraqis killed or injured during the conflict. As of 10 October, 50 United Kingdom armed forces personnel and one member of the Defence Fire Service had died since the start of coalition military operations against Iraq. 12 of these deaths were non-battle fatalities.

  Mr. Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps were taken during the recent conflict in Iraq to encourage mutiny amongst Iraqi armed service personnel. [132291]

  Mr. Ingram
  In an attempt to keep the conflict short and minimise casualties on both sides, the Coalition encouraged surrender and desertion, though not mutiny, within the Iraqi armed forces. Throughout the conflict daily broadcasts were made and leaflets dropped, peaking on 21–23 March with Iraqi ex-military commanders and clerics making appeals to the Iraqi forces to surrender or desert.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the results of the investigations into the cause of Marine Maddison's death in Iraq on 30 March; and if he will make a statement. [125986]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Service Police investigation into the death of Marine Maddison is continuing. No conclusions have yet been drawn and it would be inappropriate to comment further at this stage.

  Nuclear Submarines
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what procedures are in place to ensure safety systems are followed at HM naval bases where private enterprise is involved in the maintenance and repair of nuclear submarines. [131551]

  Mr. Ingram
  Standards of safety in the maintenance and repair of nuclear submarines are ensured by the appointment of Radiation Protection Supervisors as defined by the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1999 (IRRs99). These Radiation Protection Supervisors ensure that the legally mandated local rules, written by the MOD or site operator as appropriate, are adhered to. The Naval Base Commanders employ Radiation Protection Advisers and Radiation Safety Officers to provide assurance and advice that these safety systems are being observed. In addition, MOD's internal regulatory body provides assurance on nuclear safety to senior functional safety boards and the independent Defence Nuclear Safety Committee. The Health and Safety Executive's Nuclear Installation Inspectorate (NII) also regulates MOD activities under IRRs99.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether personal monitors of the IPM7 type are mandatory for all nuclear submarine radiation workers; [131547]

  (2) what plans he has to improve the safety of workers on nuclear submarines; [131548]

  (3) when the equipment used to monitor personnel leaving reactor compartments of nuclear submarines was last updated; and if he will make a statement. [131549]
  245W
  Mr. Ingram
  IPM-7 type detectors are not suitable for use onboard submarines due to space constraints. Alternative procedures are therefore in place to ensure all personnel are thoroughly monitored for contamination on completion of their work before going ashore.

  The safety regime for workers on nuclear submarines complies fully with legal requirements. Safety arrangements are regularly audited and inspected by naval base assurance personnel and regulated by both MOD's internal nuclear propulsion programme regulator and the Health and Safety Executive's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII). As a responsible employer the MOD acts immediately on any advice or findings from these audits and inspections. The Department strives to adopt best industry practice and continues to invest in improvements in all forms of personal radiation monitoring equipment in order to ensure that all workers exposures are kept as low as is reasonably practicable.

  A programme to replace the existing equipment used to monitor personnel leaving reactor compartments of nuclear submarines is currently under way. It is planned to start issuing the new equipment to submarines from October this year. This adds to the modern monitoring equipment that was introduced by the naval bases during the 1990s.

  Qualifications
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what qualifications are required of(a) civilian and (b) Navy radiation safety personnel working on nuclear submarines. [131550]

  Mr. Ingram
  Both civilian and Royal Navy radiation safety personnel are required to be qualified to at least City and Guilds Stage 1 in Radiation Safety Practice, which is recognised as the required standard by the UK nuclear industry.

  Personal Injury Claims
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what sums have been made in settlement of personal injury claims filed concerning Army personnel in each year since 1990. [132178]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Ministry of Defence does not generally record the details of the settlements of personal injury cases brought by members of HM forces by individual service. This information could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost. However, the information sought in relation to members of HM forces since 1990 is shown as follows. The increase in compensation payments reflects the fact that prior to May 1987, service personnel were prevented from pursuing claims for compensation from the MOD by section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. The increase in the value of settlements in recent years is mainly attributable to changes in the level of general damages recommended to the courts by the Judicial Studies Board and a change in the multiplier used to calculate future losses as directed by the Lord Chancellor and set out in the Damages Act 1996.
  246W

  Value of settlement (£ million)

  1990–91

  1.67

  1991–92

  2.39

  1992–93

  6.52

  1993–94

  8.29

  1994–95

  12.0

  1995–96

  12.6

  1996–97

  16.2

  1997–98

  26.8

  1998–99

  26.7

  1999–2000

  31.0

  2000–01

  36.6

  2001–02

  32.3

  2002–03

  40.0

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Academies
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills for each school which was a city technology college or city college for the technology of the arts on 1 September 2002, whether(a) he has agreed under section 68 of the Education Act 2002 that the institution shall be known as an academy, (b) an application has been made to him that the school be known as an academy and (c) no application has been made to him for the school to be known as an academy; and in the case of (a), when the decision takes effect. [131226]

  Mr. Miliband
  Section 68 of the Education Act 2002 allows a city technology college (CTC) or city college for the Technology of the Arts (CCTA) to convert into an academy, where the governors agree that the college should take on the characteristics of an academy. To date one CTC, Djanogly in Nottingham, has converted into an academy with effect from August 2003. The Department has also received an expression of interest from Haberdashers CTC in Lewisham to convert into an academy with effect from September 2005. Other CTCs are involved in the academies nine programmes as sponsors or in federation with academies, but have not formally expressed an interest in conversion.

  Asbestos
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much has been spent by his Department and its agencies on(a) asbestos surveys and (b) the management and removal of asbestos since 1st January 2001; and what budget is available to (i) commission asbestos surveys and (ii) manage and remove asbestos from buildings in (A) 2003 and (B) 2004. [130913]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  My Department has spent an estimated £40,000 on asbestos surveys since January 2001.Costs for the management and removal of asbestos are not available. There is no set budget for future surveys, asbestos management or associated works. However, any remedial and control activities identified in the future as a requirement under the existing and new Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations will be undertaken. As I have said previously in replies to questions on asbestos from the hon. Gentleman,
  247W
  measures in place already and planned, will result in my Department fully complying with the new regulations by May 2004.

  Free School Meals
  Mr. Mike Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) boys and (b) girls receiving free school meals reached the required standards in (i) English and (ii) maths at key stage (A) 1, (B) 2, (C) 3 and (D) 4 in each year since 1997, broken down by local education authority. [131466]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  The tables show, for each local education authority, the number and percentage of boys and girls by free school meals eligibility who reached the expected level in English and Maths in each year available since 1997. The figures shown are based on:

  Lead organisation name

  Project title

  Grant bid (£)

  Parents and pupils strand

  Kids Southeast

  The Same Difference

  25,000

  Autism Initiatives

  Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) Steps to inclusion for pupils, parents and providers

  30,000

  AiMP and the North East Regional Partnership

  AiMP (Amicus interactive Music Project)

  30,000

  Carousel

  MacKeith Unit After Schools Club

  25,997

  Contact a Family

  Contact a Family, SKILL and network 81 Parent information project

  26,686

  The Deaf@x Trust

  Training deaf pupils and their parents on the use of communications aid technologies

  30,000

  East Midlands Regional Partnership

  Provision of support to parents/carers of pupils with SLD/complex needs who live in geographically/socially isolated locations within the East Midlands

  27,100

  Harry's Hydro

  North Somerset Hydrotherapy and multi-sensory centre

  30,000

  The Learning Disabilities Federation

  Family and supporter for pupils and parents of children with Autism/Autistic Spectrum and SEN/SSEN

  19,400

  Leonard Cheshire South West

  Exeter LIVE-Living with Independence, Vocation and Education

  30,000

  Liverpool Institute for Performing Arts

  Crossing the Threshold

  18,500

  Manchester Council for Community Relations

  Parents and Inclusive Education

  30,000

  The National Children's Bureau

  Why listen to me? A Peer Support and Parenting Project

  23,900

  NSPCC

  Attention Difficulties: Developing evidence based practice

  23,700

  NCH Penhurst School

  Development of a pre-verbal communication curriculum for children with profound, multiple learning difficulties

  25,000

  North Liverpool Parent Support Group

  Removing Barriers to Positive Participation

  30,000

  Pre-School Learning Alliance

  Promoting inclusion for pre-school children with SEN

  29,925

  Orchestra of the Age Enlightenment

  Where the Green Grass Grows

  9,000

  RNIB

  Developing social and emotional support strategies for visually impaired children

  30,000

  Selective Mutism Information and Research Association (SMIRA)

  Video on selective mutism in childcare

  30,000

  Shaftesbury Homes and Arethusa

  Improving outcomes

  25,000

  Shaw Trust

  East Lincolnshire Curriculum Project

  30,000

  St. Aidans Trust Sheffield

  StAR provision

  30,000

  South Central Regional Inclusion Partnership

  Developing partnerships with the independent and non-maintained sector

  30,000

  SEN Regional Partnership (SW)

  South West Peninsula ASD Project

  30,000

  Stockton Autism Support Group

  Learning for life—the Stockton ASD Learning Partnership

  30,000

  Dyslexia Institute

  Preston Rd Dyslexia Project

  30,000

  The National Autistic Society

  A multi-agency inclusive network

  29,700

  The Space Project

  PROPP

  30,000

  The Trident Trust

  Preparation and support for SEN students on work experience and work related learning

  30,000

  Workforce Charitable Trust

  Achievement Plus

  30,0000

  Autism Bedfordshire

  LOAF Project

  15,658

  Child Brain Injury Trust

  Things can get better

  28,650

  NW SEN Regional Partnership

  Bringing our Children Back Home

  29,850

  North West Regional SEN Partnership

  A model for the implementation of a regional advocacy service for disabled children

  29,963

  North West Regional SEN Partnership

  A model for effective emotional and social inclusion at Key Stages 3 and 4

  30,000

  248W

  Pupils achieving level 2 or above at Key Stage 1

  Pupils achieving level 4 or above at Key Stage 2

  Pupils achieving level 5 or above at Key Stage 3

  Pupils achieving grades A*-G) at GCSE

  Special Educational Needs (Small Programmes Fund)
  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which organisations received funding from the two new streams under the SEN Small Programmes Fund 2002–03; and what sums each organisation received. [132203]

  Mr. Miliband
  The SEN Small Programmes Fund is a small pot of money which we use to fund projects taken forward by voluntary bodies working in the field of SEN.

  The following organisations received funding from the two streams of the SEN Small Programmes Fund in 2002–03:
  249W

  Lead organisation name

  Project title

  Grant bid (£)

  Teachers and Training Strand

  ACE Centre Advisory Trust

  Cornwall Alternative and Augmentative Communication Team

  27,300

  ACE Centre-North

  Communication Aid System Picker and Enabling Resources (CASPER)

  27,041

  Association for Science Education (ASE)

  Developing and Inclusive Science Resource

  30,000

  Barnados

  Darlington inclusion alliance inclusive schools award project

  26,958

  Barnados

  Continuing education of excluded pupils in Sunderland (CEEPS)

  30,000

  BILD (British Institute for Learning Disabilities)

  Supporting transition from school to adulthood for pupils with autistic spectrum disorders (ASD)

  30,000

  BILD (British Institute for Learning Disabilities)

  An inclusive whole school approach to challenging behaviour in primary schools

  30,000

  BILD (British Institute for Learning Disabilities)

  Removing barriers to support inclusion in making provision for pupils with SEN within Birmingham's Catholic Partnership

  28,000

  Chicken Shed Theatre Company

  National Inclusive Training and Development Programme—Tower Hamlets Initiative

  26,642

  CSV for Citizenship

  Disseminating Inclusive and innovative approaches to active citizenship and life skills

  25,000

  Council for Disabled Children

  Making it Work

  26,900

  Down's Syndrome Association

  Specialised training pack for teaching staff of pupils with Down's syndrome in special schools

  28,130

  English Federation of Disability Sport—East Midlands

  Breakthrough-Derby and Derbyshire

  30,000

  Express Link-Up Children's Charity

  Digital Brain Education Site Training programme for hospital and home tuition teachers in England

  23,000

  Fairplay

  Inclusion-The Way Forward

  29,594

  Heads, Teachers in Industry

  Removing the Boundaries

  30,000

  ICAN

  Laying the foundations for inclusion of pupils with speech, language and communication difficulties

  30,000

  Inaura

  Managing the transfer of pupils between places of education to maintain a zero exclusion zone in Slough

  30,000

  INCLUDE

  The Model Reintegration Project

  30,000

  London Sports Forum for Disabled People

  Breakthrough

  29,175

  Mencap

  Trans Dynamic

  30,000

  Merseyside SEN Partnership

  Development of a strategic policy and framework for monitoring, review, evaluation, and planning of educational inclusion across Greater Merseyside

  30,000

  The National Deaf Children's Society

  Inclusion Toolkit: Deaf Children in Mainstream schools

  22,168

  NoRSACA

  Combined joint approaches to develop training packages to support the inclusion of children with ASD in maintain settings

  21,621

  RNIB

  The physical and sensory environment for children with visual impairment and additional disabilities. The development of audit and training materials

  29,000

  RNIB

  Development of resources for children who are blind with additional learning difficulties who use Moon

  25,540

  Swindon Dyslexia Association

  Dyslexia Friendly Schools

  7,500

  The Duke of Edinburgh's Award

  Duke of Edinburgh's award SEN Co-ordinator and Materials

  30,000

  The Dyslexia Institute

  Development of effective strategies to meet specific needs of pupils with SpLD/Dyslexia in the classroom

  27,200

  The Mental Health Foundation

  Whole Child, whole school, whole school career

  30,000

  The Total Learning Challenge

  Increasing access for teachers and support staff to training in therapeutic group work

  29,877

  Youth Sport Trust

  Inclusion training in PE and sport

  26,000

  Within Reach (Sheffield)

  Active Futures

  18,840

  Young Minds

  Development and implementation of a training strategy to meet the emotional, behavioural or mental health needs of children in public care

  30,000

  Wigan and District Dyslexia Association

  Development of a Structured Language Programme at Key Stage 3

  29,750

  Stockton Autism Group

  Skills for the development of learning for life

  30,000

  Gifted Pupils
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 16 September,Official Report, column 686W, on gifted pupils, how many (a) pupils that took part in the 2003 summer schools and (b) pupils with Academy membership are from schools in the West Sussex area. [131956]

  Mr. Miliband
  There are currently 23 members of the National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth from schools in the county of West Sussex. Of those, three went to academy summer schools in 2003, another five 250W
  took part in an Academy Outreach Course in 2002–03 and one is participating in an e-learning maths course. A further three members are from schools in Brighton and Hove.

  Key Stage Science Assessments
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of children who attained level 4 in science Key Stage 2 assessment in 1998 achieved level 5 or above in science Key Stage 3 assessment in 2001; and what proportion of children
  251W
  who attained level 5 in science Key Stage 2 assessment in 1998 achieved level 6 or above in science Key Stage 3 assessment in 2001. [131225]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The information requested is as follows:

  Of those pupils who achieved level 4 or above in the 1998 Key Stage 2 Science tests, the proportion who went on to achieve level 5 or above in the 2001 Key Stage 3 Science tests was 85.3 per cent.

  Of these pupils who achieved level 5 or above in the 1998 Key Stage 2 Science tests, the proportion who went on to achieve level 6 or above in the 2001 Key Stage 3 Science tests was 85.1 per cent.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of British undergraduate students used student loan facilities while they have capital sums invested elsewhere in the last year for which figures are available; and what the annual cost is of the interest subsidy on these loans. [129987]

  Alan Johnson
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to the Answer of 17 September, reference 129731 what credit is given to the Student Loan Company for delays in transmission of repayments by the Inland Revenue; and what plans he has to minimise such delays. [131572]

  Alan Johnson
  The Student Loans Company (SLC) manages student loan accounts. However, the loans are funded by and repaid to DfES, once Inland Revenue has collected and accounted for the loan repayments. The flow of loan repayments monies does not affect SLC's financial position in any way. Therefore, the question of credit to SLC for any delays in transmission of loan repayments does not arise.

  As mentioned in written answer 129731, recovered loan amounts are accounted for annually in arrears (by analogy with tax collections) and there is little scope for current change. However, from 2005/06, Inland Revenue will require electronic deductions records (in respect of 2004/05) from large employers. These developments should enable earlier transmission of repayments in due course.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the value was of student loans outstanding and attributable to persons who had dropped out from their higher education courses in each of the past three years. [131722]

  Alan Johnson
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Cadet Training Courses
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidelines his Department issues to schools on the release of pupils in full-time education for training courses offered by(a) Sea Cadets, (b) Army Cadets and (c) the Air Training Corps. [131811]
  252W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We recognise the positive impact of participation in training courses offered by the Sea Cadets, Army Cadets, Air Training Corps and other out of school activities on pupils' leadership skills, self esteem and motivation. They also significantly reduce the risk of vulnerable young people drifting into crime as well as improving their school attendance, as I observed when I visited Project Outreach run by the Army Cadet Force Association in February.

  It is for schools to consider requests to attend such activities. Requests should be considered on an individual basis taking into account the impact on the continuity of the pupil's learning and the guidance in annex A of the Department for Education and Skills' circular 10/99, School Inclusion: Pupil Support.

  University Admissions
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what appeal or complaint procedures there are for students refused placements at the University of the West of England on the joint distance learning programme MA in planning; [132138]

  (2) what his policy is on whether the administrators of a university registering a student for a joint qualification course may override the decisions of the management board representing all participating universities. [132139]

  Alan Johnson
  The administration of joint programmes and internal appeals or complaints procedures at universities are matters for the individual institutions, although they should have regard to the Quality Assurance Agency's Code of Practice on these issues. The Secretary of State has no powers to intervene in the internal affairs of higher education institutions.

  As both of these questions essentially concern the internal affairs of the University of West of England, I have written to the Vice-Chancellor, Mr. Alfred Morris, asking for a response. I shall send you a copy of his reply and arrange for a copy to be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Andrew Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he will reply to the questions of the hon. Member for Edmonton, Refs(a) 120769, (b) 120770, (C) 120771, (d) 120772 and (e) 120773, tabled on 19 June. [125007]

  Stephen Twigg
  Replies were issued on(a) 23 September, (b) 7 July, (c) 14 July, (d) 14 July and (e) 30 September.

  Teenage Pregnancy
  Mr. Andrew Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action is being taken to tackle teenage pregnancy in deprived areas; and if he will make a statement. [120773]

  Stephen Twigg
  The similar geography of teenage pregnancy and deprivation suggests that whilst there is still much work to do, the encouraging 10 per cent. decline in England's under 18 conception rate from 1998
  253W
  to 2001 has been largely achieved through targeted work in deprived localities with high numbers of conceptions by:
  the allocation of funding to Teenage Pregnancy Partnerships based on teenage pregnancy rates;
  the use of research and toolkits to address the needs of vulnerable groups. For example, Teenage Pregnancy and Neighbourhood Renewal: Learning from New Deal for Communities which details good practice in New Deal for Community areas and shares the main learning points from that practice;
  New Deal for Communities and other Neighbourhood Renewal pathfinder programmes are given support and guidance in tackling teenage pregnancy as an issue through learning events and written guidance;
  encouraging local strategies to target wards with a high number of teenage conceptions; and
  the development of a programme of work to improve our understanding of the relationship between teenage pregnancy and socio-economic factors.

  The association between deprivation and teenage pregnancy is well established and reflected in the under 18 conception rates for local authorities across England. To achieve its national targets of halving the under 18 conception rate and reducing the inequality in rates between wards by at least 25 per cent. by 2010, the Teenage Pregnancy Strategy must focus its work on deprived areas with high conception rates.

  Student Visas
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which universities have the largest number of students studying on international student visas. [129426]

  Alan Johnson
  Information on the number of non-European Union students studying at higher education institutions in England for 2001–02 shows that the largest number of these students are studying at the universities listed in the table below. Information is not collected on the visa status of these students.

  Institution

  Number

  London School of Economics and Political Science

  3,425

  Middlesex University

  3,348

  The University of Oxford

  3,265

  The University of Cambridge

  3,065

  The University of Nottingham

  3,042

  The University of Warwick

  3,038

  University College London

  2,933

  The University of Leeds

  2,855

  The University of Birmingham

  2,827

  The Victoria University of Manchester

  2,795

  The University of Sheffield

  2,440

  The London Institute

  2,105

  The University of Westminster

  2,104

  Imperial College of Science, Technology & Medicine

  2,014

  City University

  1,872

  King's College London

  1,869

  University of Luton

  1,759

  The University of Leicester

  1,710

  Oxford Brookes University

  1,679

  The University of North London

  1,677

  Skills Base
  Mr. Barry Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment his Department has made of the effect on the UK skills base of those on low incomes choosing not to seek new employment because of concerns over short term cash flow problems. [129862]

  Mr Ivan Lewis
  This Department has not made an assessment of the effect on the skills base if those on low incomes choose not to seek new employment. The recent Skills Strategy White Paper sets out a number of measures aimed at ensuring individuals have the skills they need to be employable, and work productively in a flexible labour market. In addition, the Department for Work and Pensions is committed to making work pay for all those who are able to work, and to supporting households, including low-income households, in sustaining employment.

  The Department for Work and Pensions believe that most people moving from one job to another will be able to manage until they receive payment from their new job, as wages are paid in arrears. For those in receipt of Working Tax Credit, continuity of payment is maintained when people move from one job to another, as long as the gap between jobs is no more than 7 days. The new Working Tax Credit has been extended to people aged 25 and over without children. If people receive the Child Tax Credit, this continues to be paid direct to the main carer throughout any changes in employment. People in low paid employment may also be entitled to Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.

  People who are unable to manage whilst waiting for payment of wages, leading to a serious risk to their own health or safety or that of their family, may be able to get an interest free Crisis Loan. Repayment of a Crisis Loan does not start until the period of crisis is over and the rate of repayment takes account of a person's income and other commitments to avoid hardship.

  University Drop-out Rate
  Mr. David Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the drop-out rate was at universities in England and Wales in each year since 1997. [130377]

  Alan Johnson
  The latest available figures giving non-completion rates for students starting full-time first degree courses in England and in Wales are as follows:

  Non-completion for students starting full-time first degree courses in England and Wales

  Students starting courses in:

  Non completion rate(%)1

  England

  Wales

  1999–2000

  16

  15

  1998–99

  16

  14

  1997–98

  16

  16

  Source:

  HEFCE Performance Indicators

  1 Non-completion is regarded as those who do not gain a qualification from their original course or from any other course and do not transfer to another institution.
  255W
  Figures published in 2003 by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) show that the UK as a whole has one of the lowest non-completion rates among OECD countries.

  University Places
  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of A-level students from(a) the Chesham and Amersham constituency and (b) Buckinghamshire secured a place at university in the last year for which figures are available. [129889]

  Alan Johnson
  The available information shows that, in 2002, the proportion of 18 year olds resident in Buckinghamshire who obtained two or more A-levels and who were accepted onto a full-time or sandwich undergraduate course in the UK via the Universities and Colleges Admission Service (UCAS) was 65 per cent., compared to the national average of 61 per cent.

  Figures are not available at constituency level.

  Students (Tynemouth)
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people resident in Tynemouth constituency are(a) further and (b) higher education students. [130387]

  Alan Johnson
  Figures are not available at constituency level. The available figures cover North Tyneside LEA.

  In 2001–02, 16,445 people resident in North Tyneside LEA attended Further Education (FE) sector colleges.

  In 2002–03, 856 people resident in North Tyneside LEA were accepted through the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) onto full-time undergraduate courses.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people beginning higher education courses in 2002 had previously attended a fee paying school. [130382]

  Alan Johnson
  The available information is from the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) and covers full-time undergraduate entrants. Figures are in the table.

  Accepted applicants through UCAS to undergraduate courses by previous educational establishment, 2002 entry

  Previous Educational Establishment

  Numbers

  Percentage of known

  Maintained school

  121,911

  46

  Independent school

  30,293

  11

  FE colleges

  110,083

  42

  Other

  1,480

  1

  Total known

  263,767

  100

  Unknown

  67,958

  —

  Total

  331,725

  —

  Source:

  UCAS

  Further and Higher Education
  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people in(a) Chesham & Amersham and (b) Buckinghamshire are (i) further and (ii) higher education students. [129891]

  Alan Johnson
  Figures are not available at constituency level. The available figures cover Buckinghamshire LEA.

  In 2001–02, 19,396 people resident in Buckinghamshire LEA attended Further Education (FE) sector colleges.

  In 2002–03, 3,316 people resident in Buckinghamshire were accepted through the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) onto full-time undergraduate courses.

  Literacy and Numeracy
  Mr. Phil Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the contractual penalties incurred by contractors responsible for the delivery of primary(a) literacy and (b) numeracy strategies for failure to meet targets set by the strategies in the last three years. [131342]

  Stephen Twigg
  The responsibility for the achievement of the primary literacy and numeracy national targets lies solely with the Department for Education and Skills. The contractor responsible for the delivery of the primary literacy and numeracy strategies, CfBT Education Services, provides educational and operational support under the strategic direction of the Department.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Child Protection
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many specialist child protection officers have been employed in each county police force in each of the last five years. [129333]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 11 September 2003]Specific information relating to the compliance of police forces with the recommendations of the Victoria Climbie Inquiry Report has been analysed by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, and a summary report of their findings, together with those of Health and Social Services Inspectorates, will be published in October.

  Information about the numbers of specialist child protection officers will not be available from this report. The allocation of resources within a force is decided locally by the Chief Constable or, in the case of the Metropolitan Police Service, the Commissioner. Under the National Policing Plan all forces and authorities are expected to review their force policy and local service plans to ensure that child protection is given the appropriate priority.

  Communications Data
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prescribed officers will be able to authorise access to communications data under
  257W
  (a) Schedule 1, columns 1 and 2 and (b) Schedule 2, columns 1 and 2 of the draft Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Communications Data) Order 2003, broken down by organisations authorised to provide access. [131710]

  Caroline Flint
  This information is not held centrally.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether a single authorised request for access to communications data can involve all individuals who have contacted an organisation identified in the Schedules of the draft Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Communications Data) Order 2003; and what estimate he has made of the number of people whose communications data will be accessed in a single year. [131712]

  Caroline Flint
  Under Part I Chapter II of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, any authorisation granted or notice given requiring the disclosure of communications data must be necessary for a purpose set out in section 22(2). Obtaining the data must also be proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by that taking into account the extent of the intrusiveness of what is proposed and the operational need for that. The imposition of a regulatory framework will enable a clearer assessment of how many people lawful acquisition of communications data impacts upon.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff the Interception of Communications Commissioner will have to supervise those who are authorised to gain access to Communications Data under the draft Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Communications Data) Order 2003; and if he will make a statement on the current staffing levels of the Commissioner. [131709]

  Caroline Flint
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Bob Ainsworth) on 26 March 2003,Official Report, column 264W.

  The Interception of Communications Commissioner is considering the number of staff he will require to undertake his statutory duty and how he might additionally undertake some form of third party prior approval of certain requirements for disclosure of communications data. This was proposed in the consultation paper "Access to communications data—respecting privacy and protecting the public from crime", a summary of responses to which has been published1.

  The Commissioner is satisfied that the staffing level in his office is sufficient to meet his current responsibilities. 1http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs2/access_comms_data.html

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many authorised requests for access to communications data he has estimated each organisation identified in the Schedules of the draft Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Communications Data) Order 2003 will make in a year. [131711]

  Caroline Flint
  In the consultation paper 'Access to communications data—respecting privacy and protecting the public from crime' the Government estimated public authorities have approximately half a258W
  million requirements For disclosure of communications data annually and, where kept, gave figures for specific public authorities. The imposition of a regulatory regime for acquisition of communications data will require proper record keeping by each public authority exercising powers under Part I Chapter II of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the police, having gained access to communications data, have the powers to disclose such data to the Inland Revenue for the purposes of collection of tax or duty; and what plans he has to withdraw the draft Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Communications Data) Order 2003 to make specific reference to section 22(2)(f) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. [131713]

  Caroline Flint
  The draft Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Communications Data) Order 2003 makes specific reference to section 22(2)(f) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. It provides that only the Commissioners of Customs and Excise and the Commissioners of Inland Revenue may grant an authorisation or give a notice requiring disclosure of communications data for the purpose of assessing or collecting any tax, duty, levy or other imposition, contribution or charge payable to a Government Department. The police having obtained communications data for another purpose have no power to disclose that data to the Inland Revenue for the purposes of collecting tax or to Customs and Excise for the purposes of collecting duty.

  Criminal Cases Review Commission
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the CCRC is taking to(a) ensure clear communication and (b) promote awareness and understanding among its stakeholders. [128884]

  Paul Goggins
  The Commission's communications strategy concentrates on promoting awareness and understanding among its stakeholders. It disseminates widely an information pack and other materials that clarify its role and powers. These include press releases and feature articles, an audiotape and videotape ("Open to Question", which has received an international award). It also operates the website http://www.ccrc.gov.uk and a 24-hour media inquiry service. Commission staff frequently give lectures and presentations on the Commission, and visit other agencies in the criminal justice system. A second workshop for selected stakeholders was held in July 2003.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what pieces of new legislation have been stimulated by the CCRC's casework. [128848]

  Paul Goggins
  To 31 March 2003, the Commission's casework has stimulated only one piece of new legislation: the Criminal Cases Review (Insanity) Act 1999.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken by the CCRC to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the case review process. [128850]
  259W
  Paul Goggins
  Efforts are continually being mad by the Commission to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the case review process, without compromising its commitment to reviewing each case thoroughly. For case review, as for any of its processes, the Commission's goals must satisfy five distinct criteria. They must be:specific, i.e. define a precise process modification to be made, or numerical performance standard to be reached;
  payoff-oriented, i.e. be defined to achieve improvements in effectiveness, efficiency and/or economy;
  intrinsically rewarding, otherwise staff will not be motivated to achieve them; realistic, otherwise staff are likely to be demotivated by them; and
  observable, i.e. it must be possible to determine unambiguously whether or not they have been achieved.

  These are stringent requirements, and imply that the necessary planning, resource allocation and monitoring processes are implemented to achieve and observe them. Much of the Commission's routine managerial effort is directed to continuous improvement of its processes by the definition and implementation of process goals. Whenever special process review seems appropriate, the Chairman convenes an internal Process Improvement Group (PIG), which may then set up specific Process Improvement Projects (PIPs).

  Criminal Justice and Public Order Act
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many stops and searches have been carried out by each police force under section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 in each year since 1998–99, broken down by ethnic origin of those stopped and searched; and how many of these involved the searching of vehicles. [131587]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested on stop and searches of persons under Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 that has been published in "Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System" is given in the tables for each financial year from 1998–99 to 2001–02 inclusive. Also included in the tables which have been placed in the Library, is information on the number of vehicles searched. This information is not routinely published. Data are not yet available for the 2002–03 financial year.

  Dr. Ali Dizaei
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons Section 8 warrants were applied for in relation to Dr Ali Dizaei. [131365]

  Ms Blears
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that the reasons for the 12 warrants applied for and issued under Section 8 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 on 15 January 2001 were to allow officers to search for documents and correspondence which may have shown a criminal relationship between Ali Dizaei and two named individuals and computer and electronic storage devices on which such documents and correspondence may have been created and stored.

  The section 8 warrant applied for and issued on 20 January 2001 was to allow officers to search for documents and correspondence.

  Forensic Science Laboratory (Chorley)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which police forces in England and Wales contract work to the Forensic Science Laboratory in Chorley; how many staff are employed at the Chorley site; and what representations he has received in response to his statement of 17 July 2003,Official Report, column 61WS, from (a) the workforces, (b) trade unions, (c) police forces, (d) hon. Members and (e) other bodies. [131497]

  Ms Blears
  Chorley Forensic Science Laboratory provides services to the police forces in its North West region, which are Cumbria, Lancashire, Merseyside, Greater Manchester, Cheshire, and North Wales. The Laboratory also provides services to police forces in Nottinghamshire and Staffordshire.

  These services are based on Service Level Agreements and not legally binding contracts.

  At 31 August, there were 228 individuals employed at Chorley Forensic Laboratory.

  To date, representations in response to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's statement of 17 July about the future of the Forensic Science Service have been received from (a) two FSS employees, (b) two trade unions, Prospect and PCS, and from Brendan Barber, General Secretary of the TUC, (c) no police forces or police authorities, (d) 89 hon. Members and (e) no other bodies.

  Jamaican Prisoners
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce alternatives to prosecutions for drugs mules from Jamaica. [132416]

  John Healey
  I have been asked to reply.

  None. All those detected attempting to smuggle drugs into the UK should expect to face prosecution in the UK. However, HM Customs and Excise has seen a 75 per cent. reduction in the number of cocaine couriers from Jamaica arrested in the UK since they began to provide support to the Jamaican authorities in June 2002 to intercept couriers prior to boarding planes in Jamaica.

  Terrorism Act
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions police officers used powers provided by the Terrorism Act 2000 during protests at(a) RAF Fairford and (b) the Mining Bomb Store at Welford, Berkshire. [130344]

  Ms Blears
  Gloucestershire Police inform me that, during the period 6 March to 27 April 2003, the stop and search powers conferred by authorisations under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 were used on a total of 2,132 occasions in the vicinity of RAF Fairford. The police also used their powers under section 45(2) to seize articles from 28 of those who were stopped. One arrest was made under section 41 of the Act. I understand that none of the other powers in Part V of the Act were used.
  261W
  Thames Valley Police inform me that during the period 1 March to 22 April 2003, the stop and search powers conferred by authorisations under section 44 of the Act were used on 41 occasions in the vicinity of the Mining Bomb Store at Welford, Berkshire. One arrest was made under section 41 of the Act. I understand that none of the other powers in Part V of the Act were used.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many notices under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 he has signed this year relating to(a) London and (b) the rest of England; and if he will make a statement. [131300]

  Mr. Blunkett
  So far this year the use of section 44 powers has been confirmed on 20 occasions within London. The power has been confirmed on 125 occasions for the rest of England.

  This is an important power and the Government are adamant it must be used appropriately and proportionately.

  National Probation Directorate
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons(a) are employed and (b) act as consultants for the National Probation Directorate. [131165]

  Paul Goggins
  The information requested is as follows:

  Collected Staff in Post figures indicate that as of August 2003 there were 430 staff in post within the National Probation Directorate.

  Year

  Total managed expenditure (TME) £ billion

  Money GDP £ billion

  UK public spend on police functions £ billion

  Spend on police as a proportion of TME Percentage

  Spend on police as a proportion of money GDP Percentage

  1998–99

  333.3

  868.6

  8.9

  2.7

  1.0

  1999–2000

  343.6

  918.2

  9.2

  2.7

  1.0

  2000–01

  366.8

  962.6

  9.7

  2.6

  1.0

  2001–02

  389.6

  1,005.0

  11.2

  2.9

  1.1

  2002–03

  421.0

  1,056.2

  112.1

  2.9

  1.1

  2003–04

  455.7

  1,108.4

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1 Estimated outturn

  Sources:

  Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2003 and Treasury.

  Prison Population
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his projection is for the prison population for mid-year 2006; and what the(a) highest and (b) lowest estimated figures are. [124854]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 10 July 2003]The most recent projections of the prison population are presented in the April 2003 Prison Population Monthly Brief issued in September 2003. These present four scenarios (scenarios a—d) for the short term projection (up to March 2005) and two scenarios (central scenarios b and c) for the long term projection (up to 2009). There are no new higher and lower scenarios for these most recent long term projections.

  The projections cover a range of possible trends in sentencing and court workloads and include estimates for policy initiatives.
  262W
  Of these staff currently, there are 42 consultants in post.

  Police Identification
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the statutory basis is for the requirement that police officers must display an identifying number on their uniform. [131655]

  Ms Blears
  There is no statutory requirement for police officers to display an identifying number on their uniform.

  Police Internal Investigations
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers are subject to(a) internal investigations and (b) disciplinary proceedings. [131766]

  Ms Blears
  Information concerning the numbers of police officers subject to(a) internal investigations and (b) disciplinary proceedings is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Policing
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what(a) proportion and (b) total amount of (i) total Government spending and (ii) gross domestic product was spent on policing in each of the last five years; and what the projected proportion of total Government spending is in the next two years. [121967]

  Ms Blears
  The information available for the United Kingdom is set out in the table.

  The two central scenarios would lead to prison populations of between 87,200 and 88,000 by mid-year 2006.

  Probation Services
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the completion rates were for offenders commencing Probation Service accredited programmes in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03, broken down by programme type. [131167]

  Paul Goggins
  In 2001–02 the percentage of offenders completing Probation Service accredited programmes, as a proportion of starts, was 37 per cent. This figure reached 48 per cent. in 2002–03. The proportion of starts to completions, as a percentage, per programme type is
  263W
  shown in the final two columns of the table. These are national figures and are subject to variation from area to area.

  It should be noted that the nature of programmes and the delivery structure means that offenders who start a programme in a given year do not necessarily complete the programme in that year. 2001 was the first year of implementation of programmes, and the rollout of programmes is continuing through 2003–04.

  Accredited programme completion rates 2001–02 and 2002–03

  Programme

  Percentage completions/ starts (2001–02)

  Percentage completions/ starts (2002–03)

  Think First

  39

  55

  Enhanced Thinking Skills (ETS)

  33

  55

  Reasoning & Rehabilitation (R&R)

  29

  33

  Priestly 1:1

  32

  39

  Addressing Substance Related Offending (ASRO)

  33

  32

  Programme for Addressing Substance Misuse (PRISM)1

  100

  8

  Sex Offender Group Programme (SOGP)

  110

  23

  Aggression Replacement Training (ART)

  0

  30

  Drink/Drive

  17

  43

  Domestic Violence

  2

  55

  Focus on Violence for Males (FOVM)

  58

  78

  Focus on Violence for Females (FOVF)1

  89

  89

  Real Women1

  n/a

  43

  Cognitive Skills Booster1

  n/a

  133

  All

  37

  48

  1 The numbers starting these programmes are very small. Real Women and Cognitive Skills Booster are still at the pilot stage.

  Project Reflex
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) arrests and (b) convictions have resulted from the work of Project Reflex in each month since its inception. [131763]

  £

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Publishing

  Home Office

  —

  3,290,000

  2,786,000

  2,496,000

  5,431,000

  9,237,000

  7,603,000

  7,017,000

  NDPBs

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  CDF

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  CRE

  595,000

  738,000

  527,000

  539,000

  942,000

  715,000

  885,000

  642,000

  CCRC

  —

  —

  95,000

  108,000

  89,000

  69,000

  67,000

  71,000

  CICA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  CICAP

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1MB

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9,000

  11,000

  PB

  —

  —

  —

  33,000

  67,000

  45,000

  45,000

  121,000

  PCA

  160,000

  98,000

  95,000

  53,000

  74,000

  77,000

  79,000

  163,000

  YJB

  —

  —

  —

  —

  108,000

  303,000

  336,000

  340,000

  Centrex1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  268,000

  OISC1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  176,000

  298,000

  310,000

  NCIS1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  585,000

  NCS1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  739,000

  Total

  755,000

  836,000

  717,000

  733,000

  1,280,000

  1,385,000

  1,719,000

  3,250,000

  Agencies

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Prison Service1

  407,000

  480,000

  772,000

  925,000

  966,000

  1,331,000

  2,206,000

  264W
  Beverley Hughes
  Between April 2001 and April 2002, Reflex launched 82 operations and disrupted 14 organised crime groups. 67 facilitators were arrested, resulting in 21 convictions. Between June 2002 and April 2003, there were 98 arrests. The total number of convictions to date is not yet available, as some cases are continuing.

  Arrests and convictions in this Reflex year, since April 2003, are as follows.

  Arrests

  Convictions to date

  April

  4

  1

  May

  5

  0

  June

  16

  3

  July

  22

  20

  August

  10

  3

  September

  —

  —

  October

  10

  —

  Total

  67

  27

  Note

  Arrests and convictions are not necessarily related to each other.

  In addition, under the first phase of Maxim, a joint operation between the Metropolitan police and Immigration Services, there were 47 arrests including possessing false documents. In the second phase of Maxim, there were 23 arrests, including those holding false documents.

  Publicity and Advertising
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much(a) his Department and (b) each agency and non-departmental public body sponsored by his Department spent on (i) publicity and (ii) advertising in each year from 1995–96 to 2002–03 (estimated); and if he will make a statement. [92228]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  Home Office expenditure, and expenditure by its sponsored bodies on advertising and publicity is made in accordance with departmental guidance.

  Details of expenditure are set out in the table.
  265W

  £

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  UKPA1

  260,000

  198,000

  66,000

  103,000

  1,264,000

  337,000

  549,000

  737,000

  CRB1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  822,000

  590,000

  Total

  260,000

  605,000

  546,000

  875,000

  2,189,000

  1,303,000

  2,702,000

  3,533,000

  Grand Total

  1,015,000

  4,731,000

  4,049,000

  4,104,000

  8,900,000

  11,925,000

  12,024,000

  13,800,000

  1 NDPBs and agencies with combined advertising and publishing costs.

  £

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Advertising

  Home Office

  —

  348,000

  199,000

  3,760

  —

  180,000

  1,105

  463,000

  NDPBs

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  CDF

  310

  395

  46

  100

  369

  274

  318

  338

  CRE

  246,000

  305,000

  218,000

  223,000

  291,000

  244,000

  258,000

  146,000

  CCRC

  —

  —

  145,000

  80,000

  67,000

  160,000

  142,000

  64,000

  CICA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  CICAP

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 MB

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,000

  10,000

  PB

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  500

  500

  500

  PCA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  YJB

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Centrex1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  OISC1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  NCIS1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  NCS1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  246,310

  305,395

  363,046

  303,100

  358,369

  404,774

  403,818

  220,838

  Agencies

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–00

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Prison Service1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  UKPA1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  CRB1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  246,310

  653,395

  562,046

  306,860

  358,369

  584,774

  404,923

  683,838

  1 NDPBs and agencies with combined advertising and publishing costs.

  Under-age Drinkers
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what advice has been given to the police regarding the confiscation of unopened containers of alcohol from underage drinkers following the reintroduction of regulations under the Licensing Act 2003; [131561]

  (2) how police should dispose of unopened containers of alcohol confiscated from underage drinkers, following re-introduction of regulations under the Licensing Act 2003. [131691]

  Ms Blears
  Section 155 of the Licensing Act 2003 came into force on 10 September 2003. It extended existing police powers relating to the confiscation of alcohol from people who are drinking and causing nuisance in public places, allowing for the confiscation of sealed containers in addition to opened containers, in defined circumstances.

  Home Office Circular 45/2003 issued to police forces on 10 September 2003 sets out the details of how they should apply the new powers. The Circular updates Home Office Circular 38/1997 which explains that a constable can dispose of any alcoholic drink
  266W
  surrendered to him in such a manner as he considers appropriate. In most instances, this is likely to involve immediately pouring the drink away. In some cases it may be more appropriate to remove the drink from the scene and dispose of it later.

  Home Office Circulars can currently be obtained from the website: http://www.knowledgenetwork.gov.uk/ho/circular.nsf/ViewTemplate%20For%20HOCirculars Web?OpenForm

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Iraq
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his Answer of 20 January 2003,Official Report, column 85W, on Iraq, what the outcome has been of the vigorous investigations into United Kingdom companies named in Iraq's declaration to the United Nations; and if he will make a statement. [131698]

  Mr. MacShane
  The analysis of the Iraqi declaration showed that there was no new information on British companies that merited action being taken against
  267W
  them. All the British companies that were named in the declaration were already known to the relevant authorities, and their activities had already been investigated. Where appropriate, legal proceedings were pursued at the time.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library copies of each memorandum he sent to the Prime Minister, on the situation in respect of Iraq, between 16 and 19 March this year. [131109]

  Mr. Rammell
  Any such material is withheld in accordance with the Code of Practice on access to Government Information, Part II paragraphs 1(a), 1(b) and 2.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Iraq. [131803]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has no plans to visit Iraq at present, but will keep the situation under review.

  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy on the role of the United Nations in Iraq. [132237]

  Mr. Rammell
  UNSCR 1483 unanimously adopted on 22 May welcomes the appointment of the UN Special Representative on Iraq and resolves that the United Nations should play a vital role in humanitarian relief, the reconstruction of Iraq and the restoration and establishment of national and local institutions for representative governance.

  The Government would support an increased UN role and the Security Council is currently considering a draft resolution which would encourage further participation by the UN and the international community including in the political processes leading to the formation of a representative government.

  Conflict Prevention
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many copies have been printed of the booklet entitled, "A joint UK Government approach to reducing conflict"; and what the costs were of its production and printing. [131870]

  Mr. Rammell
  10,000 copies of this booklet on the Global Conflict Prevention Pool (GCPP) have been printed. Each booklet cost approximately £2.45 to produce (production and printing).

  It is important to publicise the Global Pool, particularly to NGOs, international organisations and others who might act as project deliverers, or with whom we might be able to join forces in this important field. Copies have been sent to all UK Embassies and High Commissions overseas for this purpose. Members of the public have also shown an interest in conflict prevention issues, and HMG has a duty to inform the public on how we are using public funds to improve UK efforts on conflict prevention.

  The booklet has been well received since its launch on 9 September, and the Conflict Prevention Unit has received significant new interest in the GCPP since this time.
  268W
  A copy of the booklet has been placed on the FCO website (www.fco.gov.uk) accessible under Global Issues-International Organisations-UN-Conflict Prevention, which should help minimise the requirement for hard copies.

  Bribery
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library the guidance issued by his Department to the diplomatic posts with regard to what action they should take if they suspect bribery by a UK company to be taking place, or receive an allegation that such bribery is taking place; and what measures they should take to prevent bribery by UK companies. [132368]

  Mr. MacShane
  The FCO issued internal guidance on this issue to all posts shortly before the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act (ATCSA) came into force and this has been regularly refreshed. The guidance includes advice to posts about their responsibilities under the Act and instructions on how to report bribery allegations. Posts have also been asked to circulate the guidance to representatives of other government departments within their region.

  Guidance on reporting bribery allegations is included in training courses for all Commercial Officers going on overseas postings. The FCO has also provided speakers to reinforce the message at seminars for British businesses in the UK and overseas. An information leaflet produced in conjunction with the Home Office and the Department of Trade and Industry is distributed at these events. Copies of this leaflet will be deposited in the Library of the House.

  This specific guidance following the passage of the ATCSA complements that provided to all Crown Servants in the "Giving Evidence or Information about Suspected Crimes—A Guide for Crown Servants". This report was placed in the Library of the House on 20 March 1997 under reference dep/3/4876. It can also be accessed at website http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/../../central/2001/crownser.pdf

  Departmental Budget
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of his Department's budget for the current financial year is spent on(a) information technology systems, (b) its estate and (c) staff salaries and allowances; and what the percentage was in 2000–01. [131093]

  Mr. Rammell
  During the year 2000–01, the FCO spent the following proportion of its budget on information technology systems, the estate and staff salaries and allowances:

  Percentage

  IT systems

  2.9

  Estate (capital)

  7.0

  Staff salaries and allowances

  31.0

  Including costs for locally engaged staff in overseas posts
  269W
  For 2003–04, the FCO has allocated the following proportions of its budget to the same areas of expenditure:

  Percentage

  IT Systems

  2.2

  Estate (capital)

  4.0

  Staff salaries and allowances

  24.0

  The figures for estate comprise capital spending only. Responsibility for non-capital maintenance spending on the overseas estate is devolved to posts. Details of the proportion of post budgets allocated to estate maintenance are not held centrally. Gathering this information from all 230 posts could only be done with considerable effort. Total expenditure can only be determined once the financial year is over and post budget information is consolidated with other FCO expenditure.

  Guinea-Bissau
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the coup in Guinea-Bissau on 14 September; what recent discussions representatives of the UK have had with representatives of(a) the former regime and (b) the new regime; and if he will make a statement. [131532]

  Mr. Mullin
  We condemn any assumption of power by unconstitutional means, and support a swift return to constitutional rule in Guinea-Bissau. We welcomed the quick and peaceful handover of power to the Transitional Council, and the positive role played by the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) in this process. There are plans to hold legislative elections by March 2004, and presidential elections by the following year. It will be important to address Guinea-Bissau's deep economic and social problems as part of wider effort to restore stability.

  We have held discussions with EU and UN partners, the UNSG's Special Representative and ECOWAS about the coup. We have had no recent discussions with representatives of either the old or new regimes in Guinea-Bissau.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions(a) he and (b) members of his Department have had with representatives of (i) the Government of Portugal, (ii) the Governments of other EU member states, (iii) the US Government, (iv) the Government of South Africa, (v) the United Nations and (vi) the Organisation of West African States since 14 September concerning developments in Guinea-Bissau. [131533]

  Mr. Mullin
  Following the 14 September coup in Guinea Bissau, officials held discussions with the Portuguese, with other EU partners, and with Security Council partners and other United Nations officials. We supported the statements issued by the UN Security Council on 15 September and by the EU on 18 September. Neither my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary nor officials have held separate talks on Guinea Bissau with the US Government or with the South 270W
  African Government. Officials have been briefed on developments by the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS).

  Immigration and Asylum
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent consultation he has had with the new EU states about immigration and asylum. [132238]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary (who has lead responsibility for asylum and immigration matters), and other Government Ministers have regular discussions with their counterparts in the new member states on issues of asylum and immigration. These discussions take place within formal bilaterals as well as in the margins of other meetings.

  Sri Lanka
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many UK citizens are residing in Sri Lanka. [131834]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There are currently 856 British Citizens and their families registered with the British High Commission in Colombo as resident in Sri Lanka.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans were implemented by his Department since 1997 to resolve the conflict in Sri Lanka through negotiations between the Government of Sri Lanka and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam; and if he will make a statement. [131889]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We support the Sri Lankan peace process both politically and practically, and welcome the remarkable progress that has been made since February 2002 when the current ceasefire came into effect.

  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office, DFID and MOD work together to promote peace under a "Peace Building and Reconciliation Strategy", which aims to strengthen the incentives for peace and reconciliation through an integrated programme of activities by all three departments. Funding for this strategy is in part provided from the Global Conflict Prevention Pool (jointly administered by FCO/DFID/MOD).

  While we do not have a formal role in the peace process, we are working with the Tokyo Donors' Conference co-chairs Japan, Norway, EU and US) to implement the conference's recommendations. The peace process is first and foremost an internal affair for the Sri Lankan people to resolve. We hope that the LTTE will shortly be tabling proposals that will enable all parties to return to the negotiating table.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when representatives of his Department raised the conflict in Sri Lanka in(a) the EU Council of Ministers and (b) the United Nations since 1997; what the outcome of discussions was; and if he will make a statement. [131890]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  At the November 2002 meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC—the foreign affairs sub-council of the EU
  271W
  Council), the Council reiterated its support for the Sri Lankan peace process and said that any EU engagement would be closely co-ordinated with other international efforts. In June, the EU co-chaired the Tokyo Conference on Reconstruction and Development in Sri Lanka.

  Foreign and Commonwealth Officials meet regularly with the Heads of the UN agencies and their representatives. Most recently the Head of DFID Colombo met with the UN Acting Resident Co-ordinator on 6 October in Colombo.

  UN Bodies (Membership)
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the countries that have in the past 30 years been voted out of(a) the United Nations Economic and Social Council's Human Rights Commission and (b) the UN Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions; and if he will make a statement. [131628]

  Mr. Rammell
  The membership of these UN bodies is decided on the basis of regular elections that are contested by member states. States serve for three years and must stand in elections if they wish to be reappointed. There is no procedure to vote countries out.

  Over the last 30 years, many member states have been unsuccessful in their bids for election or re-election to UN bodies. I would refer the hon. Member to a list of member states' tenures on the Commission on Human Rights and on the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions over the past 30 years copies of which will be deposited in the Library of the House.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Competitive Sports
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proportion of schoolchildren undertake competitive sports. [132301]

  Mr. Caborn
  Data collected from School Sport Co-ordinator partnerships during the autumn term 2002 indicated that one pupil in five in their schools was involved in inter-school competitions and events and one pupil in two in intra-school competitions and events.

  Lottery Funds
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on(a) the action she is taking to ensure the equitable allocation of good cause Lottery money and (b) the use of Lottery funds for sport-related activities. [131939]

  Estelle Morris
  The Government are keen to see all areas and groups receive a fair share of Lottery money. Reforms introduced under the 1998 National Lottery Act, the revised policy directions issued to distributors in the same year, and the introduction of targeted programmes such as the Fair Share initiative were designed to help ensure the equitable allocation of Lottery funding. The National Lottery Funding 272W
  Decision Document, published in July of this year, contained further proposals to make it easier for communities to access funding.

  Lottery investment in sport aims both to foster World Class achievers and promote physical activity at all levels. It does so by providing funds directly to elite athletes and to Sports Governing bodies, and also by giving funding for equipment, coaching and facilities infrastructure in communities across the UK.

HEALTH

  Cancer Patients (Fertility Services)
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what services are available to newly diagnosed cancer patients of reproductive age to preserve their reproductive options, with particular reference to(a) advice and information, (b) sperm storage and (c) egg storage, in each cancer network in England and Wales; [126963]

  (2) what fertility services are provided to patients of reproductive age suffering from fertility problems following treatment for cancer in each primary care trust; [126964]

  (3) what funding arrangement he makes to provide fertility services for cancer patients; [126965]

  (4) what plans he has to develop guidelines for newly diagnosed cancer patients of reproductive age to preserve their reproductive options. [126966]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Information on the provision of infertility services and treatments to national health service patients by primary care trusts (PCTs) is not held centrally. It is for PCTs, in partnership with strategic health authorities, to determine how best to use their funds to meet national and local priorities. The Government's overall approach is to devolve greater freedom to frontline staff and organisations to give them the freedom to innovate and improve care for patients, based on local needs and circumstances.

  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) is expecting to issue clinical guidelines on NHS fertility treatment services in February 2004. NICE has also been asked to produce service guidance on cancers affecting children and adolescents. The scope of this guidance includes specialist follow-up for late effects of treatment including fertility. NICE is expected to consult on the first draft of this guidance in summer 2004. It is anticipated that this guidance will inform decisions about adults who may experience infertility through treatment for cancer.

  Cervical Screening
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients in Hull and the East Riding in(a) 2002 and (b) 2003 have had smear tests; and for how long they waited. [132397]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Coverage of the target age group, aged 25–64, for cervical screening in the East Riding was 85.2 per cent. in 2001–02. Figures for 2002–03 have not yet been published.
  273W
  Across the whole of the Northern and Yorkshire region, 48 per cent. of women received the results of their test within six weeks in 2001–02.

  Non-smoking Areas
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of(a) public houses and (b) restaurants (i) are smoking free and (ii) have an area set aside for non-smokers. [132212]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  This information is not held centrally.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Carer's Allowance
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in Milton Keynes are in receipt of carer's allowance. [131427]

  Maria Eagle
  The numbers of people entitled to Carers Allowance in Milton Keynes are set out in the table. Figures have been given for all people with an entitlement to Carers Allowance and for people with Carers Allowance in payment. Those with entitlement only, are not in receipt of payment because of overlapping benefit rules.

  Carers Allowance recipients in Milton Keynes

  Parliamentary Constituencies as at May 2003

  Total with entitlement

  Those in payment

  Milton Keynes North East

  635

  495

  Milton Keynes South West

  830

  495

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 100 per cent. sample

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre, 100 per cent. sample

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the reasons for(a) taking into consideration tax credit payments for absent parents and (b) not taking into consideration tax credit payments to the parents with care when assessing maintenance payments through the Child Support Agency. [131409]

  Mr. Pond
  The Government has sought, as far as possible, for the rules providing for the treatment of tax credits in child support to be consistent, simple to understand and to operate fairly for(a) non-resident parents (b) parents with care. The arrangements carried forward into the new child support scheme in relation to new tax credits continue the principles first introduced under Family Credit.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will phase in assessments under the new Child Support Agency system for those who have closed cases with continuing payment obligations under the old system. [131425]

  Mr. Pond
  No. The phasing arrangements apply to cases which are converted directly from the old scheme to the new scheme. They do not apply to outstanding 274W
  payments from cases which have previously been closed. Where a fresh application is made and there are such outstanding payments, the Child Support Agency is willing to discuss how the arrears are to be paid.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the(a) cost and (b) number of beneficiaries of increasing the upper age limit on claiming disability living allowance to (i) 70, (ii) 75 and (iii) 80 years; and what take-up assumptions are made in this calculation. [132377]

  Maria Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Helen Clark) on 15 May 2003,Official Report, column 407–08W. The figures cannot reliably be broken down further by age groups because of the increased uncertainty of modelling entitlement from smaller sample sizes in the available survey data.

  Motability Scheme
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the need for people disabled after their 65th birthday to benefit from the Motability scheme. [132374]

  Maria Eagle
  The Motability scheme helps severely disabled people who are physically unable, or virtually unable, to walk to obtain vehicles on favourable terms by using their payments of the Disability Living Allowance higher rate mobility component, or a War Pensioners Mobility Supplement paid by the Veterans Agency of the Ministry of Defence, to service a leasing or hire-purchase agreement.

  The vast majority of people can expect to have some restrictions on their mobility as they get older and it is reasonable to expect them to make provision for this. However, disability is more financially disruptive, in terms of lost opportunity to earn and save, for people who have the very considerable disadvantage of being severely disabled relatively early in life. This is why the Disability Living Allowance mobility component is available only to severely disabled people who claim help with their disability-related extra costs before age 65.

  The Government believe that these arrangements are fair and sensible and, in particular, that it is right to give the most help to those who are severely disabled early in life and who may face limited opportunities to work and save. We therefore have no plans to change the upper age limit for claims to Disability Living Allowance.

  Specialised Vehicles Fund
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions(a) how many grants and (b) how much grant was given to people aged (i) under 65 years and (ii) 65 years and over from the Specialised Disability Fund in the last 12 months; and what plans he has to enable people disabled after the age of 65 years to receive money under the fund. [132375]
  275W
  Maria Eagle
  There is no Specialised Disability Fund. However, the Department for Work and Pensions sponsors the Specialised Vehicles Funds and the Independent Living Funds.

  The charity Motability administers the Specialised Vehicles Funds on behalf of the Department. The funds provide grants towards the cost of specially adapted vehicles for disabled people who are eligible to apply to the Motability Scheme. The information requested is in Table 1.

  The two Independent Living Funds make cash payments directly to severely disabled people for the purchase of personal assistance or help with domestic duties to enable them to continue to live in the community. The Extension Fund is a closed fund. However, the 1993 Fund, which applies to all new claims made since April 1993, makes payments to people aged 65 or under at the date of claim. The information requested is in Table 2.

  There are no plans to extend any of the funds beyond their current provision.

  Specialised vehicles funds—1 October 2002 to 30 September 2003

  Table 1

  £ million

  Aged under 65 years

  Aged 65 years and over

  Number of grants

  1,110

  76

  Total amount of grants1

  9.0

  0.4

  1 Rounded to the nearest £100,000

  Table 2

  £ million

  Aged under 65 years

  Aged 65 years and over1

  Number of clients receiving grants

  15,387

  1,868

  Total amount of grants2

  164

  15

  1 Over age 65 calculated as at date of payment

  2 Rounded to the nearest £ million

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Affordable Housing
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what measures he is taking to ensure that affordable housing made available through planning gain is family-sized accommodation. [132086]

  Keith Hill
  Planning policies for affordable housing are set out in Planning Policy Guidance note 3, "Housing", and in Circular 6/98, "Planning and Affordable Housing". This sets out how local authorities should plan to meet the housing requirements of the whole community, including those in need of affordable housing and family-sized accommodation. These requirements can be met through several routes, including planning obligations.

  On 17 July, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister published for consultation "Influencing the size, type and affordability of housing", which set out proposed changes to the current policies on planning for affordable housing. The aim of these updates is to
  276W
  improve the match between the housing planned and the needs of the community. The consultation period closes on 31 October.

  Draw-down Funding
  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when his Department will advise Medway Council about the arrangements for drawing down the funding which he announced on 30 July. [132205]

  Keith Hill
  Officials from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister wrote to the Chief Executive of Medway Council, on 7 October setting out detailed arrangements on the next steps for implementing the programme of projects agreed in principle on 30 July.

  English Partnerships
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what estimate he has made of the impact of English Partnerships decision to focus their resources on housing renewal pathfinder areas and large strategic projects on the regeneration of Luneside East, Lancaster; [131622]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the impact on the Government's regeneration and anti-poverty strategies of English Partnership's decision to focus their resources on house renewal pathfinder areas and large strategic projects; [131623]

  (3) what discussions he has had with English Partnerships about their decision to focus their resources on housing renewal pathfinder areas and large strategic projects. [131624]

  Keith Hill
  I understand that my Hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre recently met the Chief Executive of English Partnerships, along with representatives of Lancaster City Council and the North West Development Agency, to discuss regeneration needs in both Lancaster and Morecambe. English Partnerships is committed to helping the Council secure the regeneration of the most deprived parts of the City. At the Luneside site, the public sector partners will now be working together to draw up revised plans encompassing the acquisition and remediation of the site, and considering at the same time how private sector developers can be drawn into the equation, so that the development strategy can take their aspirations into account. In addition, EP has agreed to fund an initial study focussed on the needs of the West End of Morecambe. It would also be prepared in principle to work with the City Council in supporting a local management team whose aim would be to renew the area through the demolition or upgrading of derelict and vacant housing.

  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what criteria were used to allocate the recent Neighbourhood Renewal Fund monies to local authorities with high levels of deprivation. [131221]

  Yvette Cooper
  The residual Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (NRF) resources of £175 million will be allocated to 26 of the existing 88 local authority areas currently receiving NRF resources. These 26 areas have been
  277W
  selected because they are ranked in the lowest 10 areas against two or more indicators that act as a proxy for the achievement of key national floor targets, i.e. they have the furthest distance to travel in order to meet these floor targets. The eligible areas are listed as follows with their allocations for 2004–05 and 2005–06.

  Allocations of residual neighbourhood renewal fund (NRF) resources for 2004–05 and 2005–06

  £

  Current NRF recipients also eligible for residual NRF

  2004–05 Allocation

  2005–06 Allocation

  Bolsover

  417,624

  1,044,060

  Bristol, City of

  1,013,689

  2,534,224

  Camden

  1,199,468

  2,998,670

  Derwentside

  421,456

  1,053,639

  Easington

  1,260,484

  3,151,209

  Greenwich

  1,103,589

  2,758,972

  Hackney

  3,345,184

  8,362,959

  Halton

  1,116,940

  2,792,350

  Haringey

  1,516,814

  3,792,035

  Hartlepool

  892,071

  2,230,177

  Islington

  1,782,715

  4,456,788

  Kingston upon Hull, City of

  2,134,495

  5,336,238

  Knowsley

  2,101,419

  5,253,547

  Lambeth

  688,542

  1,721,356

  Liverpool

  5,724,205

  14,310,513

  Manchester

  5,855,669

  14,639,173

  Middlesbrough

  1,492,501

  3,731,252

  Newham

  3,790,592

  9,476,480

  Nottingham

  2,628,822

  6,572,056

  Salford

  1,546,952

  3,867,381

  Sandwell

  2,288,967

  5,722,418

  South Tyneside

  1,530,285

  3,825,713

  Southwark

  2,249,671

  5,624,176

  Tower Hamlets

  3,020,552

  7,551,380

  Wansbeck

  392,176

  980,441

  Wear Valley

  485,117

  1,212,793

  Total

  50,000,000

  125,000,000

  Project

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Single Regeneration Budget

  8,424

  12,786

  15,480

  12,692

  13,500

  2,271

  848

  Community Empowerment Fund

  0

  0

  0

  0

  261

  261

  261

  Community Chest

  0

  0

  0

  0

  332

  499

  917

  Community Learning Chest

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  133

  199

  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund

  0

  0

  0

  0

  10,100

  15,100

  20,134

  Neighbourhood Wardens

  0

  0

  0

  57

  127

  457

  451

  Estates Renewal Challenge Fund

  3,800

  7,78

  23,828

  17,960

  0

  0

  0

  ERDF

  42,502

  31,396

  65,406

  0

  24,080

  29,678

  0

  New Deal for Communities

  0

  50

  200

  1,062

  4,171

  5,668

  5,014

  Housing Action Trust

  20,800

  25,000

  21,500

  17,800

  20,600

  33,310

  33,150

  Note:

  European Regional Development Fund, the funding allocation is calculated by calendar year, figures for 2003–04 are not available.

  Liverpool has also benefited during this period from City Challenge as well as the Estate Action and Merseyside Development Corporation programmes. It has not been possible to obtain information for these programmes in the available time.

  Social Housing
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps the Government is taking to assist in increasing the provision of social housing in Leeds North West. [132232]
  278W
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister by what criteria the Borough of Redcar and Cleveland was excluded from the new allocation of monies from the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund. [131222]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Borough of Redcar and Cleveland is not among those 26 of the existing 88 Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (NRF) areas that will receive allocations from the residual NRF resources of £175 million for 2004–05 and 2005–06. This is because Redcar and Cleveland is not ranked in the lowest 10 areas against two or more indicators that act as a proxy for the achievement of key national floor targets, i.e. the Borough is not one of the 26 areas that have the furthest distance to travel to meet these floor targets and tackle multiple deprivation.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when there will next be an allocation of funds from the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund to local authorities with high levels of deprivation. [131223]

  Yvette Cooper
  The £175 million of residual Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (NRF) resources announced on 16 September 2003 is the final part of the £975 million provided for by Spending Review 2002 (SR2002) for 2004–05 and 2005–06.

  The provision of any new funding will be a matter for consideration as part of Spending Review 2004 (SR2004).

  Regeneration (Liverpool)
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much funding was allocated for regeneration in Liverpool in each of the last six years; and how much funding he expects will be allocated in the 2003–04 financial year. [131295]

  Yvette Cooper
  Liverpool has received funding allocations from the following regeneration programmes (all sums rounded to £000).

  Keith Hill
  The Sustainable Communities plan, published earlier this year, set out our plans for increasing investment in housing up to 2005–06. It also identified the actions that we will take to improve the availability and quality of social housing, including the establishment of Regional Housing Boards with responsibility for the production of Regional Housing Strategies and to advise Ministers on the allocation of resources to meet regional priorities.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is currently considering the Regional Housing Strategy for Yorkshire and the Humber, and its accompanying

  279W
  Investment Framework, and hope to make an announcement later this month. The provision of sufficient new homes, creating mixed income and sustainable communities is one of its objectives. This is reflected in the Investment Framework, which in addition to meeting Housing Corporation commitments and pre-allocations, propose; commissioning a £51 million two-year programme from the Housing Corporation, in which one of the priorities is affordable housing in the 'Golden Triangle' of Leeds, Harrogate and York. There is also a further £10 million for the board to commission 'transformational proposals' relating to all the strategy priorities in 2005–06 from sub-regional partnerships.

  Teacher Salaries
  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he last assessed the level of teacher salaries paid by local authorities; and if he will make a statement. [131369]

  Mr. Miliband
  I have been asked to reply.

  The salaries of school teachers, including those of unattached teachers, are set in the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document, following the recommendations of the independent School Teachers' Review Body (STRB). It is for LEAs to determine which provisions of the document should apply to unattached teachers. The STRB is currently considering a range of evidence on unattached teachers.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to reduce regulatory burdens on small businesses. [131298]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 14 October 2003]The number of regulations passed by Parliament has fallen by nearly 800, we have cut form-filling and red tape for 700,000 small businesses with the new flat rate VAT scheme; we have abolished automatic penalties for late filing of VAT and we now have the best VAT threshold in Europe for business.

  The recent OECD review of EU countries shows the UK has almost the lowest administration cost and few regulations for entrepreneurs than any other EU country.

  We are seeking further improvements through Regulatory Impact Assessments. 'Think Small First' and Small Business Europe which promotes better regulation.

  Alsthom
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has made to the(a) French authorities and (b) European Commission on French state aids in the case of Alsthom. [131968]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 14 October 2003]None. The European Commission has announced that it is launching a formal investigation into France's280W
  proposals. The Commission will in due course provide member states arid third parties with an opportunity to comment. We will consider the position further when the Commission has published full details.

  Coal-fired Power Stations
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry at what load factor each coal-fired power station operated in each year from 1997 to 2003. [132403]

  Mr. Timms
  Information for each power station is not readily available. In total coal fired power stations in the United Kingdom owned by major power producers together operated at the following load factors:

  Percentage

  1997

  48.8

  1998

  50.6

  1999

  43.8

  2000

  50.8

  2001

  55.9

  2002

  55.9

  Source:

  Calculated from figures given in the Digest of UK Energy Statistics 2003

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much money has been recovered by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise over the last six years for the costs associated with seizing and storing imported goods for inspection(a) from importers subsequently found to be legitimately importing genuine goods and (b) from businesses which are subsequently found to be importing counterfeit and illegal goods. [129387]

  John Healey
  I have been asked to reply. Customs have not recovered any money in either case. However, the relevant port authorities may levy such charges.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much debt owing to the UK has been written-off by the Export Credits Guarantee Department in the last five years; and if she will list the countries for which the written-off debt was due, and the amounts written off for each country. [130912]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  During the period from 1 April 1998 to 31 August 2003, ECGD has written off a total of £848 million debt. The amounts written off are broken down by financial year and by market in the following table.
  281W

  Amounts written off by ECGD last five financial years plus current financial year to 31 August 2003

  Market

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Total

  Bolivia

  6,160,137

  0

  0

  11,671,383

  0

  0

  17,831,520

  Bosnia and Herzegovina

  3,021,121

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3,021,121

  Burkina Faso

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1,851,737

  0

  1,851,737

  Cameroon

  5,189,345

  6,046,275

  7,387,463

  8,761,599

  8,202,179

  3,542,446

  39,129,307

  Central African Republic

  172,072

  28,157

  27,651

  13,429

  0

  0

  241,309

  Cote d'Ivoire

  2,445,306

  0

  0

  0

  9,873,984

  553,721

  12,873,011

  Democratic Republic of Congo

  0

  0

  0

  0

  113,037,774

  947,807

  113,985,581

  Ethiopia

  0

  287,854

  532,481

  213,245

  125,638

  66,185

  1,225,403

  Ghana

  0

  0

  0

  0

  27,496,319

  3,703,403

  31,199,722

  Guinea

  0

  0

  707,668

  1,106,413

  772,224

  255,998

  2,842,303

  Guyana

  0

  11,915,740

  0

  0

  0

  0

  11,915,740

  Madagascar

  0

  0

  523,114

  1,254,431

  1,126,626

  219,756

  3,123,927

  Malawi

  0

  0

  0

  90,920

  84,559

  40,543

  216,022

  Mali

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4,215,974

  0

  4,215,974

  Mauritania

  54,307

  763,553

  545,964

  523,831

  5,305,546

  0

  7,193,201

  Mozambique

  5,692,529

  13,484,210

  0

  71,538,564

  0

  0

  90,715,303

  Nicaragua

  0

  0

  0

  156,212

  105,515

  23,812

  285,539

  Niger

  386,665

  192,552

  1,170,852

  1,203,292

  1,084,263

  532,403

  4,570,027

  Senegal

  1,528,862

  0

  26,253

  39,523

  48,681

  28,049

  1,671,368

  Serbia and Montenegro

  0

  0

  0

  270,067,645

  0

  0

  270,067,645

  Sierra Leone

  0

  0

  0

  225,022

  44,805

  6,275

  276,102

  Tanzania

  5,126,063

  4,477,751

  17,525,512

  92,700,686

  19,167

  0

  119,849,179

  Togo

  81,421

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  81,421

  Uganda

  0

  0

  5,724,537

  0

  0

  0

  5,724,537

  Zambia

  0

  21,863,232

  16,790,093

  28,654,900

  27,384,399

  9,518,120

  104,210,744

  Totals

  29,857,828

  59,059,324

  50,961,588

  488,221,095

  200,779,390

  19,438,518

  848,317,743

  All of the recipients of the debt reduction, with the exception of Serbia and Montenegro, have received the debt relief under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative.

  Everything But Arms Agreement
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 25 September 2003, question ref 130694, what plans she has to make an assessment of the impact of the Everything But Arms agreement on the number of people who have lived or are predicted to live on $1 a day between 1990 and 2015 in sub-Saharan Africa. [132282]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Since the Everything But Arms (EBA) agreement came into effect in February 2001, there has been a rise in exports from countries in sub-Saharan Africa. This increase in export opportunities should help the growth of these countries and lead to a reduction in poverty. It is however, difficult to quantify the actual effect EBA will have on poverty, given the many factors that can influence changes in poverty levels.

  Modern Languages
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 25 September 2003, question number 130710, what her plans are to commission specific research on the commercial effects of the decline in uptake of modern languages; and what representations she has received on this subject from United Kingdom businesses with foreign market interests. [132283]

  Ms Hewitt
  The DTI do not at present have any plans to commission specific research on the commercial effects of a decline in the uptake of modern languages; and we have received no formal representations from 282W
  business on this matter. The DfES are working with a range of partners, including ourselves, the Sector Skills Development Agency and the Learning Skills Council to monitor this issue and to develop strategies to deal with it should it appear to become a significant problem.

TREASURY

  Census 2001
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions the Office for National Statistics has had with(a) the local authority and (b) the Primary Care Trust in Milton Keynes on the reliability of the 2001 Census results for Milton Keynes. [132172]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Dr. Phyllis Starkey, dated 15 October 2003:

  As National Statistician and Registrar General for England and Wales, I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking about what discussions the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has had with (a) the local authority and (b) the Primary Care Trust in Milton Keynes on the reliability of the 2001 Census results for Milton Keynes. (132172)

  To date we have not had any face to face discussions with Milton Keynes Council or the Primary Care Trust concerning the results for Milton Keynes, but during the period 9 May to 16 September there has been extensive correspondence with these organisations. We have also corresponded with the Thames Valley Strategic Health Authority.

  In our detailed responses we have covered all the points raised and we have also explained that a further analysis suggested by Milton Keynes local authority would be considered in the work that ONS is planning to take forward following the review report "A demographic statistics service for the 21st Century" published on 9 July.
  283W
  ONS are willing to meet representatives from Milton Keynes Council and the Primary Care Trust to discuss their concerns and explain the One Number Census methodology to aid their understanding of how their Census estimates were derived.

  Cigarettes
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of(a) the scale of tobacco smuggling into Britain and (b) the success of the law enforcement agencies in tackling it; what plans he has for further measures to tackle tobacco smuggling; and if he will make a statement. [132137]

  John Healey
  Estimates of the scale of tobacco smuggling into the UK, and details of the successful strategy being applied to combat it are contained in "Tackling Tobacco Smuggling" (March 2000), "Tackling Indirect Tax Fraud" (November 2001) and "Protecting Indirect Tax Fraud" (November 2002), copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Details of progress in 2002–03 will be reported around the time of the pre Budget Report.

  Employment Statistics
  David Davis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people were unemployed in Haltemprice and Howden in(a) the last month for which figures are available and (b) each of the preceding 12 months. [132327]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to David Davis, dated 15 October 2003:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question regarding the number of people who were unemployed in Haltemprice and Howden in the last month for which figures are available and each or the preceding 12 months. (132327)

  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) compiles statistics of unemployment from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) following the internationally standard International Labour Organisation definition. However the survey sample size is too small to provide estimates for the Haltemprice & Howden Parliamentary Constituency. ONS also compiles statistics of those claiming Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) for Parliamentary Constituencies.

  Attached is a table which gives the n umber of JSA claimants in the Haltemprice and Howden Parliamentary Constituency for the period August 2002 to August 2003. The data are not seasonally adjusted. Claimant count statistics for September 2003 will be released on the 15th October 2003.

  Number of JSA claimants in Haltemprice & Howden Parliamentary Constituency

  Number

  2002

  August

  796

  September

  768

  October

  757

  November

  753

  December

  740

  2003

  January

  799

  February

  797

  March

  784

  April

  745

  284W

  Number of JSA claimants in Haltemprice & Howden Parliamentary Constituency

  Number

  May

  751

  June

  741

  July

  755

  August

  754

  Firearms
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 14 July 2003,Official Report, column 133W, how many firearms were detected by HM customs officers in the possession of passengers disembarking from aircraft at Farnborough, Hampshire (a) in 1999, (b) in November 1999 and (c) on 30 November 1999. [132184]

  John Healey
  There were no attempts to smuggle firearms detected by Customs at Farnborough Airport in 1999. In the same year Customs controlled four importations of firearms which were properly declared. In respect of these I refer the hon. Gentleman to my earlier answer.

  Inland Revenue Officers
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the destination offices were of Inland Revenue officers posted from International Division, Business Tax Group, in the year ended 31 March 2001. [132185]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Between 1 April 2000 and 31 March 2001, 11 Inland Revenue employees were transferred from International Division to a variety of other business units, including other Head Office Divisions and local offices.

  Investment Fund
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the implications of the Futurebuilders Investment Fund for voluntary organisations. [131355]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 14 October 2003]The Futurebuilders Fund will provide resources for voluntary and community organisations and social enterprises in England, to increase the scale and scope of their delivery of public services. It will enable individual organisations to invest for the future, through modernising their operations and undertaking research and development. Most importantly, it will lead to improved services for users and show how that success can be replicated.

  Ministerial Visits
  David Davis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the(a) foreign and (b) UK visits made by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury since 1 April 2003; what the cost was to public funds of each trip; who he met; and what gifts were received. [126887]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government publish the overall costs of all Ministerial overseas travel and a list of all visits overseas by Cabinet Ministers costing in excess of £500 on an annual basis. For the period up to 31 March
  285W
  2003 I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington on 16 July 2003, Official Report, column 327W. The next list, for the period 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004, will be published at the end of the financial year.

  In respect of gifts received, I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given by the Prime Minister on 17 July 2003, Official Report, column 445W.

  In the UK: the Chief Secretary visited Oxford University in April at no cost; the Baptist Assembly, Cardiff in May at no cost; Social Services, Cambridge in May at no cost; Cambridge University in May at no cost; ICSB World Conference, Northern Ireland in June at a cost of £262.30; CPYU Ministerial Listening Tour, Bristol in June at a cost of £145.00; Festival of Science, Leicester in June at no cost; Sieff Conference, Windsor in September at no cost; Council Congress Dinner, Brighton in September at a cost of £21.10; and the Pensions and Savings Summit, Edinburgh in September at a cost of £318.90.

  All ministerial travel is undertaken in accordance with the Ministerial Code and Travel by Ministers, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Motability Scheme
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many cars receive road tax exemption through the Motability scheme; how much this exemption costs; what the financial value is of this exemption; how many of the exempted cars are registered to people aged 65 years and over; what plans he has to extend the exemptions to adapted cars brought by people disabled after their 65th birthday; and if he will estimate the cost of extending the exemptions. [132373]

  John Healey
  This exemption cost the Exchequer an estimated £111 million in 2001–02.

  At the end of September 2003 there were 371,000 agreements for Motability cars (either contract hire or hire purchase). 26 per cent. of these were in the 65 + age group.

  The Chancellor keeps all taxation policy under review and any changes are announced in the context of his Budget statement after considering relevant economic, social and environmental factors.

  Pricing and Dissemination Policies
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assessment he has made of the extent to which the recommendations of the Cross-Cutting Review of the Knowledge Economy published in December 2000 have been implemented; and if he will make a statement; [132168]

  (2) what steps he has taken to implement Recommendation 15 of the Cross-Cutting Review of the Knowledge Economy published in December 2000; and if he will make a statement; [132169]

  (3) what representations he has received on the economics of information pricing within the public sector. [132170]

  John Healey
  Recommendations relating to the pricing and dissemination policies of Government Departments, agencies and trading funds have been implemented via the application of the following new policy guidance from HM Treasury to public bodies:Selling into Wider Markets: A Policy Note for Public Bodies, December 2002; and
  Charging for Information: When and How—Guidance for Government Departments and other Crown bodies, July 2001.

  Recommendations relating to the development of a new class licence for facilitating the re-use of Crown copyright material with the minimum of administration have been implemented and the Click-Use Licence was launched in April 2001. The Government consulted on an enhanced role for Her Majesty's Stationery Office as the regulatory authority for Government information, working closely with the private sector, and subsequently a new Information Fair Trader Scheme was launched last year. The first accreditation of a trading fund member of the Scheme was announced in May 2003.

  The new Advisory Panel on Crown Copyright, a non-departmental public body, was established on 14 April 2003 by the Cabinet Office. Its role is:
  to advise Ministers on how to encourage and create opportunities in the information industry for greater re-use of Government information;
  to advise the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office about changes and opportunities in the information industry, so that the licensing of Crown copyright information is aligned with current and emerging developments; and
  to advise on the impact of the complaints procedures under the Information Fair Trader Scheme.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, before business begins, may I take the opportunity to inform the House that I shall be undertaking a ministerial visit to Leicester on Friday 17th October? Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

Zimbabwe: Food Aid
2.36 p.m.
Lord Watson of Richmondasked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps are being taken to ensure that food relief to the people of Zimbabwe will not come under the control of ZANU-PF.
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, the UN, EU and other donors have made it clear to the Zimbabwean Government that they will not tolerate political interference in the distribution of food aid. The World Food Programme and others distributing international food aid all have monitoring systems in place. Humanitarian support is entering its third year and we remain confident that the systems are in place to ensure that no humanitarian relief provided by the UK and our donor partners can come under ZANU-PF control.
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but I confess that I am not entirely reassured. The United Nations estimates that by January of next year, as many as 5.5 million Zimbabweans will be dependent on food distribution. That gives Mr Mugabe and ZANU-PF the opportunity quite literally to hold the nation by its throat. What assurance can the Minister really give us that, compared with the ineffectiveness of sanctions and actions taken to date, real pressure will be brought to bear by Her Majesty's Government and by the international community on Mr Mugabe and his regime?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, there are two parts to the question of the noble Lord. With regard to the second half of the question, which is about wider political pressure, the noble Lord will know that we continue to work within the EU and the Commonwealth and with our partners in the UN and southern Africa to try to bring a resolution to the situation. Some discussions
932
have been ongoing between the Zimbabwean and the South African Governments. I know that there is a great deal of impatience in this House that nothing appears to have been delivered, but we are continuing to make strenuous efforts.
In response to the noble Lord's first point, perhaps I may try to reassure him that we do have monitoring mechanisms in place. It took the World Food Programme a long time to sign an MoU with the Government of Zimbabwe because they were seeking to take control of food aid and we will continue to be very robust on that.
Lord Acton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in July the United Nations launched an appeal for 530 million dollars of humanitarian aid for six southern African countries, much of it for 4 million hungry Zimbabweans? Is she aware that the results so far have been most disappointing and that only about one-fifth of the money has been forthcoming? While I appreciate that Britain has been very generous in feeding Zimbabweans, will her Majesty's Government do their very best to encourage other friendly governments to give money to that UN appeal, thereby averting yet further Zimbabwean tragedy?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. There is a gap in food aid resources. The WFP pipeline is only 31 per cent resourced. We will be making an additional £5 million available to the WFP next week. Regarding my noble friend's point about putting pressure on other donors, we will continue to work with other donors, but the fact that the Government of Zimbabwe tried to put in place mechanisms that would see them control food aid has meant that other donors are somewhat sceptical.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right. There is a great deal of impatience, both in this House and outside. Would she agree that no news from Zimbabwe is not good news and that we are still seeing the unending violations of human rights and the crushing of liberties? The economy is in tatters and people are now living on roots and berries. It has been called "the land of the empty plate", which is what it has become.
Does she recall the Foreign Affairs Select Committee report from another place in May? It made a string of positive recommendations—there were eight of them—which sought direct government action of a practical kind now, including the production of a dossier on human rights abuses and a wider examination of the whole food relief distribution system. When will the Government implement any of those eight proposals and possibly relieve some of understandable impatience that we all feel that not enough is being done?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, is quite right. The situation has not improved and, in some cases, it is getting worse. We have seen the closure of the Daily News and I learnt this morning that the inflation rate has now reached

933
some 450 per cent. The country has run out not just of foreign currency, but also of local currency. One can imagine what effect that is having on the population in Zimbabwe.
On the Foreign Affairs Select Committee report, I gave evidence to that committee myself. I remember the recommendation of a dossier on human rights abuses. I pointed out to the committee that a number of NGOs and other organisations are compiling that information. We should be cautious about who owns that information. The noble Lord will know that the British Government's relationship to the Zimbabwean Government is such that what we say is very often not taken seriously, but the underlying point of making sure that that information is publicly available is absolutely right.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I welcome the contribution from the United Kingdom, announced by the noble Baroness, and the 6 million dollars granted by SIDA, the Swedish agency. Will she agree that the 70 per cent shortfall in the World Food Programme's appeal, which she mentioned, is due to donors' fears that despite the memorandum of understanding, when it comes to the crunch ZANU-PF will find means of diverting aid from the people who need it most? How can assurances be given to donors, other than from the MoU?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that that is exactly the concern of donors. They are also concerned that as there has been no shift in the political situation, the position will not improve. The monitoring mechanisms that the World Food Programme and donors have put in place are robust and we need to persuade our donor colleagues of that.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, is it not the case that while the situation in Zimbabwe deteriorates daily, it is important that Members in this House and people elsewhere make it clear that we abhor entirely what ZANU-PF and President Mugabe are doing? Will she undertake to continue the pressure, advice and dialogue especially with President Mbeki of South Africa who still believes that the softly, softly approach will work? Will she tell him that many of us believe that it will not work and that the southern African countries need to be much stronger in their dealings with Zimbabwe?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that we need to put at the centre of our concerns relieving the suffering of the people of Zimbabwe and that has always driven our policy. With respect to our work with our southern African partners, there have been disagreements about tactics and the best way of taking the position forward. But, ultimately, Zimbabwe's neighbours will make a real difference. I
934
have been assured on many occasions that the conversations that they have in private are most robust.

Building Regulations: New Homes
2.45 p.m.
Lord Bestasked Her Majesty's Government:
When they will undertake a review of Part M of the building regulations, as revised in 1999, concerning the accessibility of all new homes.
The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): My Lords, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has recently commissioned research to evaluate the impact of the changes to Part M of the building regulations, which concerns the accessibility of all new homes and was introduced in 1999. The work is expected to begin before Christmas and to report in about two years’ time.
Lord Best: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer and for the positive confirmation that a review of the regulations will be taking place. Will he ensure that in the review consideration is given to the problem of some house builders failing to comply with the regulations, which now stipulate, for example, that all new homes must have level front entrances for the benefit of disabled or elderly people? Will he also in that review look to the future and add a few more measures to those regulations in order to make more homes fully accessible to people with any kind of disability, continuing the good work that was done with their earlier revision?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, we will look further. The review is being undertaken in order to see what has happened to Part M. It concerned only the provision for people to visit new dwelling houses and to use the principal storey. That is not the same as designing a building for lifetime experience. It is true that some of the builders are ignoring it. The public end up subsidising the building industry by way of the disabled facilities grant which last year was £175 million. That is the overall effect. If we can install facilities when homes are built in the first place, we will not only save money but improve people's quality of life.
Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the enormous hidden costs caused by the scarcity of accessible housing? I have in mind the huge additional burdens on care services and the costs in unemployment and loss of employment. Is he aware that that affects not only people who are permanently disabled, but those who are temporarily so—such as from breaking a leg? I declare an interest on both counts. Have the Government made an assessment of the potential savings of ensuring that lifetime home standards are adhered to in all new housing developments?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, no, not in the way the noble Baroness puts it, but it will be covered by part of

935
our review. The regulations have been in place for four years. There is a cost and there will be others. I am not saying that the £175 million disabled facilities grant will be wiped out completely, but there is a large hidden cost in failing to ensure that our homes are designed properly. Furthermore, there is a good deal of ignorance among house builders about the needs of disabled people.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, will the Minister reassure us on another point? He will know that there is a perception among some builders of a conflict between planning policy guideline 3, which tries to increase density, and Part M of the regulations? Density is also increased in the sustainable communities plan. Will the Minister reassure us that the Government will look seriously at that issue so that many of the homes built under the sustainable communities plan will not ultimately be inaccessible?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I absolutely refute that building to a higher density means building to a lower quality. That includes the facilities for people with disabilities and Part M. It is an excuse made by builders and those who want to continue building at low densities, wasting the valuable asset of our land.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, how can the Government encourage more flexible lifetime housing, which he mentioned; for example, the kind of houses that are being constructed in The Netherlands? In those, only the outer shell of the house is fixed and the inner walls are easy to move around so that as one goes through the life the house will adapt to suit one's needs rather than the other way around.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, yes, I have heard about some of the work that is going on in The Netherlands. As I say, we will seriously review the regulations because there is a good case for designing properties for lifetime use. That means flexibility. That still means that we are dealing only with new buildings while there are 25 million existing dwellings in the country to deal with. We must not ignore the fact that we shall still have a large programme of adaptations.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, although the Government are to be commended on commencing a review of the regulations in relation to residential housing, the fact is that they have just completed a review of non-residential buildings. I may have a peculiar sense of priorities: while access to non-residential buildings for disabled people is very important, access to residential buildings is absolutely essential, fundamental and vital. Can the Minister explain how the Government managed to get their priorities the wrong way round?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not believe that we did get them the wrong way round. Where practical, all buildings, whether old or new, should be available for use by all citizens, particularly if they are public buildings where access is required by the public. It does
936
not matter what they are for. We have already brought in Part M of the building regulations to deal with that matter. I accept that that happened only in 1999 and that therefore they have been in place for only four years. There is a good deal of ignorance about the regulations, even among some builders and, I regret to say, probably among some architects. I pay tribute to the work of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in that respect—it is very important. However, I do not accept what the noble Lord said about our priorities. We are operating on both fronts—in relation to both domestic dwellings and commercial public buildings.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Best for all that he does with regard to housing for disabled people. I want to say how important that is. Will the Minister encourage greater accessibility to old as well as new buildings? Is he aware that I am going to dinner tonight in Westminster Gardens and that my block of flats, on one side of the building, is accessible because I live there? However, I am going to dinner on the other side, where there is a four-inch step. It is so easy to install ramps in those buildings. Will he encourage the use of such aids?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, of course. That follows on from what I said in answer to the previous questions. We have an overall policy—it is a public policy shared by everyone—to ensure that, where practical, all buildings are accessible by all people.

Guantanamo Bay: Judicial Procedures
2.52 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosbyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that the current plans for judicial procedures at Guantanamo Bay will permit fair trials of those detained there.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, no. That is why, over the past few months, my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General has vigorously expressed to the United States Administration our strong reservations about the military commission's procedures. Our objective has been to ensure that if any British nationals are detained at Guantanamo Bay and prosecuted, a fair trial takes place in accordance with generally recognised principles. Discussions continue.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, and I know of the great efforts that are being made. However, I remind the House that the detainees have now been in small mesh cells for nearly two years, that they have no access to families, friends or defence lawyers, and that, by any international standards of human rights, this has become a totally unacceptable scandal.

937
In view of the strong statements made by the Attorney-General to the International Bar Association in which he pointed out—I thought very eloquently—that one objective of terrorists was to undermine democratic governments’ commitments to the rule of law and human rights, can the noble Baroness suggest at the very highest level of government, by which I mean the Prime Minister, that representations should be made to the President of the United States that this is no example of the way that democracies should treat even the poorest and most disadvantaged of our country's citizens?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her acknowledgement of the great efforts that have been made. Indeed, there have been five rounds of talks on the issue of trying to secure a fair trial. I hope that the noble Baroness will also acknowledge that there have been six visits from officials at the Foreign Office to the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. I assure her that, in addition to those contacts, numerous contacts have been made between British and United States officials on this matter.
I am sure the noble Baroness will remember that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister raised these issues with the President of the United States. Therefore, these matters have already been put on the agenda as matters of concern at the highest levels in both governments.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, in the event that a fair trial is secured and it leads to an acquittal, can my noble friend confirm that the prisoners will be immediately released?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I find myself in some difficulty and I am sure that my noble friend will understand the point that I am about to make. The discussions and negotiations are continuing. On 22nd July, following his initial round of talks with the United States, my noble and learned friend issued a statement in which he made a number of points about progress thus far. However, in relation to the specific point raised by my noble friend, at present so much is under discussion that nothing can be agreed in addition to the position on 22nd July until everything is agreed. But I assure him that his point is also very much in our minds.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for, to my knowledge, the very strenuous efforts that he has made to do his best in extremely difficult circumstances. Is there a process—and, if so, can the noble Baroness say what it is—to distinguish between a terrorist and a prisoner of war?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his acknowledgement of the strenuous efforts being made by my noble and learned friend. He is, indeed, being robust, energetic and

938
vigorous in pursuing these discussions. The noble Lord asked about a process to distinguish between the two cases that he cited. The position regarding the detainees at Guantanamo Bay is virtually unprecedented and very difficult, apart from the obvious parameters of international law and what amounts to a fair trial in international law.
The noble Lord goes back to questions raised in your Lordships’ House on previous occasions about defining a "terrorist". I believe we can all readily acknowledge that the types of issue being discussed in relation to the detainees—not only the British detainees but also all detainees at Guantanamo Bay— are enormously serious. They relate not only to terrorism but to the activities associated with terrorism. Those issues must be taken seriously, but that point in no way undermines the fundamental point about securing a fair trial.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, is not the problem that the rules published by the United States Government for trial by military commission are so plainly incompatible with international human rights law that either they must be disapplied and a special arrangement made for trial by proper courts in the United States or the detainees must be repatriated and tried here? Perhaps I may give the Minister a couple of examples of the ways in which those rules are incompatible.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I shall do so with the leave of the House. They involve secret trials. They are entirely under the control of the President of the United States and there is no effective remedy—
Baroness Amos: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord to put his question.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, does the Minister agree that those are the kinds of ingredients that make the rules entirely incompatible with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the other conventions and covenants?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord was very kind to try to help the House with his examples. But, of course, it was because of those examples and others that I answered the Question of the noble Baroness, his Leader, in the way that I did by saying that the United Kingdom Government do not consider that the current plans will permit fair trials. That is why my noble and learned friend has spent so much time trying to negotiate to a point where a fair trial might be possible.
I say to the noble Lord that there is an ambiguity in the noble Baroness's Question because it relates to current plans for judicial procedures. Those current plans might have referred to the initial proposals for

939
the trial but, to a certain extent, they have been superseded by the statement that my noble and learned friend issued on 22nd July, which indicated that he had already made progress in eight important respects. That is not sufficient and therefore my answer to the fundamental point would still have been "no", otherwise my noble and learned friend would not be pursuing the discussions so vigorously.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I join the acknowledgement of the very robust position that the British Government have taken. I am well aware that they find this issue as difficult as we all do. In the various points being negotiated with the United States Government, has the question of independent observers at these trials been raised?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords, that has been raised, as has the possible access to public scrutiny by the press and media. Indeed, all those matters are under discussion. The question of access by the press and media was dealt with by my noble and learned friend in his statement on 22nd July in which he stated that, subject to any necessary security restrictions, the trials of the first two individuals who have been designated will be open and the media present.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, is not the right answer to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway that the American officials have given a new status or label to the prisoners at Guantanamo; namely, that they are not prisoners of war or suspected criminals but illegal combatants? That is the label they thought up to reflect the new nature of the war on terrorism which, as the noble Baroness rightly said, is an "unprecedented" situation.
Is not the message that we should be giving to our American friends that this status should be given official form and speedily? While we all accept that lawyers in every country tend to move very slowly, is it not the two years in limbo in which these people have been left which really is intolerable, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said? That must now be ended and the new status defined if we are in a new situation.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords; I have a great deal of sympathy with that view. The question of the legal limbo in which all these detainees have been left was pinpointed by the International Red Cross in its criticisms. The noble Lord talks of a new status. Moving towards an internationally recognised new status would be enormously helped if there were an internationally recognised fair trial that went with such status. It is rather difficult to argue for one without the other.

Policing Targets
3.1 p.m.
Lord Dholakiaasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to review the performance targets of the police in the light of comments made by the Deputy Metropolitan Police Commissioner on 10th October.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, we welcome last week's constructive speech by the deputy commissioner. On performance our clear position is that there are certain standards of policing, which should be delivered to all communities, the framework for which is set out in the National Policing Plan. We have no immediate plans to revise the PSA targets, but we shall shortly publish the National Policing Plan for 2004–07, which will encourage forces to engage with their communities about local priorities within the framework for delivering key national standards.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but there still seems to be a gap between police expectation, Home Office requirements and police performance. Does the Minister agree with the Deputy Metropolitan Police Commissioner, who stated:
"We have to insist that the interest in police numbers is diminished, that the concentration in crime numbers and judicial disposals is not removed but balanced with a measurement of locally agreed targets of police visibility and … public satisfaction"?
Would not outcomes based on locally agreed priorities rather than performance targets imposed centrally by the Home Office be a better way of organising our future police force?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as I indicated, we welcome much that was said in that speech. It was constructive and very much in tune with what the Government seek to do. The relationship between local and national targets is clear. We have said—ACPO members have supported this—that it is important to have a national standard for minimum standards to be delivered across the country. It is also important to ensure that the needs of local people are met.
Lord Condon: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the speeches made at the Future of Policing Conference last week by a number of police chiefs show that the police service has willingly embraced an agenda for reform and civil renewal? However, in order to play its full part in that programme it seeks some relief from the rather tight straitjacket of centrally imposed performance criteria so that it can respond more effectively to the compelling policing priorities set by local communities.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, first, it gives me great pleasure to acknowledge the support and assistance that we have had right across the country

941
from our most senior police officers who have engaged in this new agenda. Secondly, the PSA targets are not a straitjacket. Noble Lords will know that we have negotiated a new policing plan. We have honed the targets and limited them. We have listened carefully to what the police have said in this regard. We believe that the new plan meets with general acclamation. That gives us a great deal of pleasure.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, do the Government accept that one of the major drawbacks of centrally imposed targets is that, as the noble Lord has just said, they distract from the attainment of local objectives and local priorities, which are all important to local communities to whom the police should be and, indeed, would wish to be, accountable? How will the new national plan, to be announced, cope with the defective situation that exists at present?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, first, I do not accept that the current system is defective. Neither do I accept that the national criteria which have been set detract from local delivery. I acknowledge the debate about national targets. However, as I have tried to say, our bottom line is that there are certain standards of policing which all communities should expect to enjoy. We are very committed to raising the performance of all our forces. We have made clear in the National Policing Plan that we are responsive to the needs of local people and local forces.
So far the focus on performance management in forces has been successful and shows results. Merseyside, West Midlands and Staffordshire, for example, are forces with a clear focus on performance management. They are performing well in tackling the targets on crimes of burglary, vehicle crime and robbery. Crucially, we are seeing increased public satisfaction with those forces. We believe we are on the right track and applaud those police officers who are working hard to deliver high quality policing to the people they serve.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, is there any possibility that the officers who are trying to achieve such performance targets might be hindered by those monitoring their performance targets?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, no.

Schools in Disadvantaged Areas
3.7 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildfordasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will put forward new ideas for helping schools in disadvantaged areas.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, with Excellence in Cities, the Leadership Incentive Grant, the Behaviour Improvement Programme and the London
942
Challenge we have very effective policies in place for helping schools in disadvantaged areas. We are developing and evaluating these programmes to focus even more intensively where the need is greatest.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that long list of initiatives. Is he aware that only last week Ofsted issued reports on Excellence in Cities, education action zones and the City Learning Centres and found that for all the good they were doing, nevertheless they were not consistently focused on their main objective of improving achievement?
Given that the average spend per pupil at a school such as Lillian Bayliss in Lambeth of £4,674 per annum in the past financial year is still only half that of an independent school such as some people think appropriate for their children, does he not consider that there is room for future initiatives?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Ofsted report contained some criticism and stated how these programmes could be made more effective. The Government have taken that to heart. However, it also reported on the excellent work that was being done. The noble Baroness referred to the Lillian Bayliss School, which has been in the news in the past few days. She is right; there is an enormous gap between the amount of resources available to the Lillian Bayliss School compared to many schools in the private sector. However, before reference is made to the problems of such a school it should be recognised that in terms of value-added and of improving the educational level of children who come to that school, the school is substantially improving. In all fairness, that should have been recognised.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that the biggest single factor which would improve conditions in disadvantaged areas is much smaller class sizes? To do that there would need to be more teachers. Can he confirm, as was reported in the Guardian today, that there are thousands fewer teachers now than a year or two ago? As regards the main Question, surely the Government should make financial provision to the appropriate LEAs to employ many more teachers in such areas.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that is an issue of resources invested in teachers. Let me emphasise that last year the Government put £2.7 million extra into education, and that we have a vastly greater number of teachers—40,000—in the state system than we had when we came to office. I might also add that part of the problem schools found last year with regard to funding was because there has been a substantial enhancement of teachers' pay scales, investment in teachers and the quality of teachers. That surely is exactly the right priority to adopt.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the latest proposal we understand being developed to send children from care homes to schools

943
such as Eton—our top public schools—is not very different from the assisted places scheme, against which the Government showed their opposition?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Government's policy is to seek to give extra resources to children most in need. The problem with the assisted places scheme, as every noble Lord will recognise, is that many people who were by no means from disadvantaged homes were able to take advantage of it.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, does the Minister agree that hill and upland areas could be classified as disadvantaged areas? Schools situated in these areas are out of touch with broadband. By being giving extra grants, would they have access to it in order to assist them to compensate for their isolation?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that is an important and interesting question. Certainly, we recognise the importance of modern access to technology for all involved in education in our schools. I should indicate to the noble Lord that we have sought to extend the concept of "disadvantage" well beyond the inner city to the development of cluster programmes in recognising that there are other areas of real need. We seek to direct resources to those areas.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, having been responsible for introducing the assisted places scheme, does the Minister accept that that scheme provided educational opportunities for many people in inner-city areas, which they otherwise would not have had?
Lord Davies of Oldham: Well, my Lords, this concept featured in the general election debate of 1997, in which the noble Lord and his party put their view and value on the assisted places scheme and we put ours on the basis that we intended to abolish it. We did abolish the scheme.
Baroness Billingham: My Lords, have the Government considered taking away the charitable status from independent schools, ring-fencing that money and giving it to the Lillian Bayliss School, and others of that ilk, in order to make a much fairer contribution to education as a whole?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we are eager to search for any resources that could be made available to disadvantaged schools. I think my noble friend would recognise that the issue of the charitable status of private education has been the subject of a great deal of examination over several decades. There are many problems attendant upon it. So, although it looks like a straightforward, and, let me say, a just solution, it is not an easy one to achieve.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that schools in disadvantaged areas, which this Question is about, have a disproportionate share of disturbed and difficult children whose disturbance and
944
difficulty is aggravated by their academic failure? In view of that, will he look again at the level of support given to voluntary agencies such as Schools Outreach, which achieve astonishingly good results in getting these children productively into mainstream education?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. It is the case that, however we provide education through public sources, those who are motivated through private concern, charitable action and voluntary action, often light upon solutions to problems and produce better strategies than we are able to do through our normal bureaucracies. We should take account of and be receptive to that. I take on board the point the noble Lord made.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that new ideas are not necessarily the prerogative of Her Majesty's Government? Much could be learned from looking at some of the best practice in schools in disadvantaged areas. Could I commend him to consider having a look at how Towneley High School in Burnley has turned itself round? With tremendous support from staff, parents and pupils alike, it has turned into a success story in a very deprived and disadvantaged area.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. He has highlighted achievement which should be recognised in areas of considerable disadvantage. But, as I indicated in my previous answer, we are aware that there can be illustrations of successful good practice which emerge in a whole range of devolved parts of our education system where we need to take those ideas on board and translate them into general practice.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, would accept that we support very much the point he has just made and want to be associated with it. How do the Government defend assisting young people from deprived circumstances being awarded places at schools such as Eton and top public schools?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I never expected to be asked that question by the Opposition. I understand that the Opposition support that position. We were opposed to a situation where subsidies for private education were given to those who were not necessarily from deprived backgrounds. We are in a partnership in those areas where we can actually identify students with very special needs, where the state system does not have the flexibility in every case to deal with people with such special needs, and we intend through partnerships to take advantage of that situation.

Criminal Justice Bill
3.16 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, in view of the debate we had at about 11 o'clock last night, may I ask the Chief Whip what time he intends that the House shall rise tonight? I quote from Chapter 3, subparagraph 3.01 of the Companion, which states:
"It is a firm convention that the House normally rises by about 10 p.m. on Mondays to Wednesdays".
It has been normal for the House to rise much later than that in recent weeks.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Countess for giving me some notice that she was going to raise this question. The short answer is that, given a fair wind, you always have to keep several fingers crossed. The intention is that we shall finish the Committee stage of the Criminal Justice Bill in order to rise around 10 o'clock tonight. I need to complete the quotation from the Companion, because beyond the passage that the noble Countess quoted it states:
"The time of meeting of the House can be varied to meet the convenience of the House".
That obviously is a factor which is regularly debated among the usual channels. I keep my fingers crossed. There are around 43 groups of amendments, which I know sounds horrendous, but of those 17 have already been debated—which is music to my ears, even as I say it—and a substantial number of the rest are, I am reliably informed, technical amendments introduced by the Government. So I hope that my wish becomes a fact.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Government Chief Whip have any indication of how many staff were in the House to service the 22 Members who were here and who kept the Committee going?
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I cannot give an answer to that question. I am in total sympathy with the motivation behind the question of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, which is a calculation we need to make, not just about late sittings, but about the demands that the workload of this House, which we recognise is considerable, makes on the staff who look after us so well and so effectively, and, I might say, even at 1.30 in the morning—this morning—so uncomplainingly.
Lord Elton: My Lords, can the Chief Whip confirm that 50 per cent of yesterday's amendments were government amendments and that two-thirds of the amendments today will be government amendments? Can he tell us, in relation to the growing burden of work in this House, what proportion of those relate to
946
clauses which were never discussed in the House of Commons and what reflection that has on the burden that we have to carry?
Lord Grocott: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, knows, the vast majority of government amendments—this certainly applied to yesterday's debate—meet the approval of the House and are indeed there precisely to respond to questions raised during the passage of the Bill. All that I can say is that the vast majority of them were accepted with wide agreement across the House. The majority of government amendments—certainly at this stage in our proceedings—are introduced to try to reach agreement and consensus. Believe me, I work very hard to try to achieve just that.
As for the work of the other place, it is not a bad rule—I say this with some diffidence—to say that the approach is precisely the same there. We have different methods and different procedures in the two Houses. At our best, we work complementarily; I shall do my best to ensure that we do so.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept two things? First, it is a gross abuse of procedure that a Bill as important as the Criminal Justice Bill should arrive in this House not having been discussed fully in another place. The real work of scrutiny is done by this place; that is the value of this House and the way that it does its work. Secondly, most of the government amendments moved yesterday were indeed accepted by the whole House, but they had little to do with responding to points made by opposition Members of the Committee. They were mostly additions to the Bill. In response to my noble friend Lord Elton, many of them related to clauses that had received no discussion whatever in another place.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I fear that if we start comparing the procedural methods of the two Houses, we shall rapidly lose our audience. The noble Baroness well knows that when it is discussing timetabling arrangements, the other place does so with the full involvement of the opposition parties. There are often arguments about the length of time that should be available, but it is then up to the Opposition to decide how they should time their contributions—frequently to have key debates taking place at key times in the proceedings. But, honestly, we shall become a House of anoraks if we start comparing procedural devices and methods in the two Houses to try to decide which is the best.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, can my noble friend explain why the Bill was not taken upstairs in Committee? Was it blocked?
Lord Grocott: My Lords, once again I find myself in complete agreement with the import behind that question, which is to emphasise that in the judgment of my noble friend—which I must say I share—there is far more effective, detailed scrutiny of legislation when it is performed in the atmosphere of a Committee. In

947
Committee, the Minister, who frequently has to respond to extremely difficult questions, has the advantage, among other things, of having Civil Service support right alongside. If we could avoid the system whereby difficult questions are responded to by people running up and down carrying notes, that would be to the advantage of all of us.
The question asked was when we will finish tonight. My estimate of when we may conclude has now fallen by six minutes.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the noble Lord the Chief Whip has a silver tongue, but the truth is that we are now suffering the consequences of the House of Commons having turned itself into a part-time Chamber and guillotining every Bill, with the result that Bill after Bill is coming here having been insufficiently considered in the other place. Until that is put right, we shall never be able to meet the wishes of the Chief Whip and the House that we should rise at, say, 10 o'clock in the evening.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, a number of us have form on this business. I have never before been accused of having a silver tongue, but I am grateful for that, if it was a compliment. Can the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, and I agree to have a draw on this one? If I were to check the number of times he voted for guillotine Motions in the other place when he was in government and he were to check the number of times I voted for guillotine Motions when we were in government—
Lord Waddington: My Lords, it is not the same.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, when in government the noble Lord frequently voted for guillotine Motions. Shall we declare it a no-score draw?
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, there is no possibility of declaring a draw on this argument when the Government win again and again both here and in another place. What worries me is that the noble Lord and the Government as a whole tend to find it so easy to identify the convenience of the House with that of the Government.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I can only say to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, that if the sole objective of the House has been to respond to the convenience of the Government, that has escaped me in my present role.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Government, instead of thinking things out well in advance of a Bill going to another place—or this House, if it comes here first—have developed the custom or habit of thinking up further things later on? We have been asked to accept amendments that will add 30 or 40 pages to an enormous Bill, which was 374 pages long when it reached us. Will the noble Lord
948
bear in mind that in future the Government should get their thoughts and intentions well matured before presenting a Bill to either House?
Lord Grocott: Yes, my Lords, it is clearly in everyone's interest that any Bill should be in as good a shape as possible when it is introduced to the House. I do not detract from that for a minute, but any legislative system ought also to be able to deal with issues as and when they arise during what can be a lengthy passage between being introduced to one House and concluded in the other. It is a duty of governments to respond to public need and issues that arise, even when that is during the course of a Bill's passage.
Even if it sounds a little immodest, a government who managed in 1997 to be elected with a majority of more than 150 and who managed to repeat that operation in 2001 cannot be entirely out of tune in legislating in a way that is acceptable to the public.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, may I say how grateful I am to the noble Lord for trying to pour oil on troubled waters? However, I respectfully point out to him—I know that time is going by, but this has been an important debate—that the usual channels are not the whole House. There has been much restless feeling on the Back Benches about the length of sittings. We would all very much appreciate it if something could be done to control the time at which the House rises.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I am totally in sympathy with the thrust of the question of the noble Countess, Lady Mar. I should love the House to be able to complete its business earlier. As for the rights of Back-Benchers, I wholeheartedly agree with her, not least from the knowledge of having been a Back-Bencher for a large proportion of my life and knowing that, given the inevitable way in which these things operate, one day I shall be a Back-Bencher again. So I agree.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 230ZA:
After Clause 283, insert the following new clause—
"DUTY OF PROBATION OFFICERS TO CONSULT WITH MAGISTRATES
It shall be the duty of the chief officer of each probation area—

(a) to establish consultation arrangements with local magistrates' courts committees and local communities,

(b)to assist the probation service in the performance of its duties of reducing offending, and

(c) to supervise offenders in the community."

The noble Baroness said: I have never had the privilege of moving an amendment twice in one day, but today is the day. I moved the amendment at 1.30 this morning. It is an unusual position. Those who have already caught up with Hansard have given me

949
the benefit of the doubt and told me that they thought I pulled a marvellous coup this morning, and that I carried out some sort of ambush to count the Government out. Would that it were so. I was one of the Front-Bench Members who agreed that we should continue until the amendment had been completed. It had not occurred to me that there were not sufficient Peers in the Committee to see the business through. I thought, therefore, that I had disposed of it in the proper manner last night. I have spoken to the Government this morning, and we hope very briefly to dispose of the matter in very much the proper manner today.
The amendment was tabled after we received representation from the Magistrates' Association. It was debated in full earlier this morning, so I will not go into detail, nor will I invite any other Members of the Committee to respond. All that could be said was said earlier today. The clause would quite simply re-establish local consultation between the probation service and magistrates. That statutory consultation was killed off following the introduction of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000. The Magistrates' Association made the point that, despite the well-meaning attempts of the Government to provide alternative means of ensuring that there was liaison, that has not worked in its eyes. It wants the re-establishment of statutory provision.
In that case, I seek to repeat the same process, but perhaps with a rather different result at this stage. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I have listened very carefully this morning—although I confess that I was rather surprised at the outcome—to what the noble Baroness said about the Magistrates' Association's view. I share her concern that the association must have confidence in the arrangements. My honourable friend the Minister responsible for prisons and probation, Paul Goggins, has discussed those issues with the association already. I can certainly undertake that the National Probation Service will follow the issues up as a matter of priority. I know, for instance, that it is setting up a communication forum. I shall write to the noble Baroness with details before Report. I ask her not to repeat the process of last night and to allow us to move on more swiftly to other business.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I explained to the Minister's office this morning that I had been in contact with the chairman of the Magistrates' Association and that we wish to press ahead. We accept the Government's good efforts in talking. I understand that that will proceed regardless. It is considered important, and, since I have a duty to the association, I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
3.32 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 230ZA) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 145; Not-Contents, 110.

Division No 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Alderdice, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

LangofMonkton, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Lester of Herne Hill. L.

Ampthill, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Arran, E.

Luke, L.

Ashcroft, L.

Lyell, L.

Astor, V.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Attlee, E.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Avebury, L.

Maddock, B.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Marsh, L.

Biffen, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Blatch, B.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Bradshaw, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Montrose, D.

Buscombe, B.

Moser, L.

Byford, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Caithness, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Newcastle, Bp.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Noakes, B.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Northesk. E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Northover. B.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Carrington, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Chan, L.

Palmer, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Cobbold, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Condon, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Crathorne, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Plumb, L.

Dholakia, L.

Rawlings, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Reay, L.

Dundee, E.

Redesdale, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Rees. L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Renton, L.

Elton, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Erroll, E.

Roberts of Conwy. L.

Ezra, L.

Rogan, L.

Fookes, B.

Roper, L.

Garel- Jones, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Geddes, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Geraint, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Goodhart, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Hayhoe, L.

Selborne, E.

Henley, L.

Selsdon, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Sharpies, B.

Hooper, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Hooson, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Slim, V.

Howe, E.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Strange, B.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hylton, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Tordoff, L.

Kimball, L.

Trefgame, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Trumpington, B.

951

Ullswater.V.

Warnock.B.

Waddington, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Wade of Chorlton.L.

Weatherill, L.

Wigoder, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Williams'of Crosby, B.

Walmsley. B.

Williamson of Horton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Ahmed, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Amos, B. (Lord President)

Islwyn, L.

Andrews, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Jones, L.

Bach, L.

Jordan, L.

Barnett, L.

Judd, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Billingham, B.

Layard, L.

Blackstone, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Boothroyd, B.

Lipsey, L.

Borrie, L.

Lockwood, B.

Brookman, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Carter L.

Mclntosh of Hudnall, B.

Christopher, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Morgan, L.

Crawley B

Morns of Aberavon, L.

David B

Morris of Manchester, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Nicol, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.[Teller]

Patel, L.

Dixon, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Dormand of Easington.L

Pendry, L.

Dubs, ,L.

Pitkeathley, ,B.

Evans of Parkside, ,L.

Plant of Highfield.L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, ,L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, ,L.

Evans of Watford, ,L.

Prys-Davies, ,L.

Puttnam, ,L.

Falconer of Thoroton, ,L.(Lord Chancellor)

Radice, ,L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, ,B.

Falkender, B.

Rea, ,L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Richard L

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Rooker L

Filkin, ,L.

Sawyer, ,L.

Fitt, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Gale, B.

Sheldon, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Simon V

Golding, B.

Symons of Vemham Dean, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Gregson, L.

Turnberg, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Turner of Camden, B.

Harrison, L.

Warner, L.

Haskel, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Haskins, L.

Whitaker, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Whitty, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Wilkins, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
3.43 p.m.
Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 230A.
952
Before Clause 284, insert the following new clause—
"PRESERVED POWERS OF ARREST: NORTHERN IRELAND
In Schedule 2 to the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, at the end there shall be inserted—
"Section 103(1) to (3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) as amended by section 49( 1) of the Police Reform Act 2002 (c. 30).""
The noble Lord said: I discovered some time ago on a visit to Northern Ireland that the police there had no powers to arrest disqualified drivers. I found that a most surprising and disturbing bit of information, because there is a high accident rate in Northern Ireland. There are relatively more road deaths in Northern Ireland than here on the mainland. The police in England, Wales and Scotland do have those powers. My amendment would give the police in Northern Ireland the powers to arrest disqualified motorists.
From the soundings that I have taken, my proposition is well supported. Indeed, I understand that the police in Northern Ireland would welcome a change in the law giving them more powers. The Government are very sympathetic, as are the opposition parties. The only possible opponents are the disqualified drivers themselves. If ever there were an amendment to the Bill that would command universal assent, I have produced it here and now. The only issue is whether this amendment has been appropriately worded—I understand the argument about amendments being technically defective.
Perhaps the more important argument is whether this Bill is the right vehicle for such an amendment. If there is a different solution I am sure that my noble friend on the Front Bench will indicate what it is. I hope that she will give the proposition and the wish to give the police these powers her full support. It would then be just a matter of whether this Bill or another one is the best place for the provision and how quickly the matter can be resolved. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: I rise to commend the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, on having identified this loophole. He will know from my noble friend Lord Glentoran that we strongly support him and now look to the Government to deal with this problem.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I hope that I will be able to give a modicum of pleasure to my noble friend Lord Dubs, and I would like to thank him for bringing the anomaly before the House. The Government are aware of concerns on this matter and fully agree with my noble friend that the police service in Northern Ireland should be provided with the power of arrest without warrant for the offence of driving while disqualified, notwithstanding the displeasure that that will cause disqualified drivers.
As my noble friend has already acknowledged, however, the amendment is technically defective. Although the Government agree in principle that this is an oversight in the law of Northern Ireland that must be corrected, we do not believe that the Criminal Justice Bill is the most appropriate vehicle in which to correct it.

953
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is committed to introducing, at the next available legislative opportunity, a provision to give the police the necessary power. With that assurance, I hope that my noble friend will feel content.
Lord Dubs: I thank my noble friend. Of course, I would rather my noble friend had accepted the amendment or said that she would introduce one on Report, but I think that we have the next best thing. I welcome the commitment and hope that it will not be too long before she is successful in seeing such legislation through the House. I am grateful to her for her support and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 284 [Limit on period of detention without charge of suspected terrorists]
Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 230B:
Page 163, line 15, leave out "fourteen" and insert "ten"
The noble Lord said: We now turn to terrorism provisions and to the period of time during which the police are able to hold terrorist suspects without charge. Initially, the period that was thought proper for such detention to take place was 48 hours, with a possible extension of two days, following a report for which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, was responsible. We debated the matter during proceedings for the Terrorism Act 2000, when it was decided that the time could be extended to seven days from four days. Now, only two or three years later, we are told that that is inadequate and that the Government seek to detain suspected terrorists for periods of up to 14 days without charge.
In any event, last year, suspects were held for the full seven days on only 16 occasions. We on these Benches would like to know what evidence there is for the necessity to gain further evidence within a matter of days so that such people could be charged. Did the authorities investigating the offences think that seven, eight, nine or 10 days was necessary? Absolutely no evidence has been produced to justify that. It is said that investigations these days must take into account devices of mass destruction—nuclear, biological and chemical devices—and that the investigation of computer hard disks takes time. Such things could be part of an investigation that would justify holding people without charge.
We should be very wary about holding people for any length of time at all without charging them with a criminal offence. We are prepared to concede that the seven days could be extended to 10 days, but we require justification for the further extension to 14 days. I beg to move.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: I am glad to follow my former pupil—a status of which I often remind him. I agree with everything that he said, except that I would
954
go further and say that the clause should not stand part of the Bill. The suggested increase from seven to 10 days suffers from the same vice as the Government's proposal.
As the noble Lord said, Clause 284 will extend from seven to 14 days the period during which a terrorist can be held without charge. I will start by thanking the Minister for her great courtesy in writing to me, when she saw the point that I sought to make, and for letting me see the evidence on which the clause was based.
The obligation on the police to charge or release a suspect is one of the cornerstones of the liberty of the subject. I hope that that does not sound too pompous. The length of detention has always, necessarily, been a matter of compromise between, on the one hand, the understandable need of the police to gather as much evidence as they can before charging the suspect and, on the other hand, the insistent demands of human rights. I remind the Committee, as I have often done before, that human rights were not invented at the time of the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998; judges have enforced human rights since the beginning of the common law.
In 1984, when the Police and Criminal Evidence Act was passed, there was an intense debate in Parliament about the appropriate period of detention. It was eventually settled that the suspect could be detained for 36 hours, with a further extension, if authorised by a magistrate, not exceeding four days in all. That is the maximum currently allowed for even the most serious crimes such as conspiracy to import class A drugs, for example. That crime often involves difficult and detailed inquiries here and abroad.
When I wrote my terrorism report in 1996, I received much evidence from the Metropolitan Police, backed up by case studies and detailed figures, that, in terrorist cases, four days were not long enough. The facts and figures that were put before me are set out in paragraph 9.10 of my report. I was persuaded that, in terrorist cases, the existing limit of seven days was justified, even though a period of seven days greatly exceeded the period allowed under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and, more importantly, the four days allowed under Article 5.3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as indicated in the case of Brogan. The fact that the period went beyond what was permissible under the convention did not matter. We had already derogated from the convention on the ground that, in Northern Ireland, we were, so it was said, facing a crisis that threatened the life of the nation.
When the Terrorism Act 2000 was passed, Parliament accepted that seven days was the correct compromise and ought to be sufficient to enable the police to carry out their inquiries. Now, scarcely three years later, we are asked to double the limit. We should do so only if the Government can make a very good case for it.
The extension is justified on three grounds. The first is that police inquiries may involve analysis of chemical substances and that the analysis of such substances takes time. The second is that there is a

955
need to extract information from computers. The third relates to the problem of translation from foreign languages. Those are the three grounds specifically relied on by the Minister in her letter to me dated 23rd July, 2003.
There is nothing new in any of those grounds. They all existed in 2000, and they all existed when I wrote my report in 1996. Moreover, there is nothing unique about terrorism in respect of those three grounds. The grounds are common to other crimes and, in particular, to the importation of class A drugs, which, as I said, frequently involves international aspects, including the translation of documents, and the extraction of information from computers. On their own, the three grounds do not justify the increase that we are asked to make.
Then, it is said that terrorism is different from other serious crimes. It is, it is said, a "uniquely serious" crime, words that became familiar to us yesterday when we discussed earlier parts of the Bill. I question whether terrorism is, in any real sense,, uniquely serious. The harm so far done by terrorism in this country, at any rate, is far less than the harm done by, for example, the spread of class A drugs.
Will the Minister remind us when the last serious terrorist incident occurred in this country? She will say that terrorist incidents in this country have been so few because of the success of the anti-terrorist squad. I am glad to concede that point, and I have nothing but admiration for David Veness, who helped me greatly when I wrote my report, and for the anti-terrorist squad in general. However, if the Minister says that, so far, the system has worked, she will undermine her main point: if a seven-day limit has been sufficient to keep us safe, why do we suddenly need more time now?
The police will always ask for more time. I do not criticise them for that, but they are not the only judges of what is acceptable in a free society. Our job, in Parliament, is to make sure that they are not asking for too much. I have seen the evidence that the police put before the Minister to justify the increase. Obviously, I cannot comment on the extent or detail of the evidence, but I can say that there is nothing new in it and nothing that begins to justify an increase from seven to 14 days or the more modest increase for which the Liberal Democrats ask. I am not persuaded that 10 days is right, and I am even less satisfied by the proposal by the main opposition party that the matter could be resolved by having a sunset clause. Although we are all rightly concerned by the threat of terrorism—none more so than I—the liberty of the subject still counts for something.
4 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: I shall speak to Amendment No. 252BA. I share the concerns raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. I agree with the noble and learned Lord that the number of attacks, fortunately, has been comparatively few. I, too, join the tribute to the outstanding police officer, David Veness. On looking back over terrorist attacks, one
956
must take into account not only the number of attacks but also their severity and their impact. Otherwise, I am very much in agreement with the points raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, who rightly referred to this amendment as being the sunset clause.
We share the Government's resolve to deal with the threat of terrorism. That is why we do not completely oppose the clause, but it appears to be overtly draconian. I hope that the Minister may give additional information along the lines requested by the noble and learned Lord. It is well recognised that we face a serious terrorist threat. Presumably, that is why the Government are suggesting such an unprecedented period of detention—namely, keeping a person for 14 days without charge. As has been pointed out, that is a very serious matter indeed.
However, as requested by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, the Government should provide examples from past investigations where the police thought that the seven-day rule was not sufficient and that a longer period of detention was necessary to secure evidence and to carry out chemical or biological tests. I believe that the request was made in the other place. As yet, no such information has been forthcoming, but I hope that it will be introduced by the noble Baroness in this debate.
As we understand it, the statistics in the 10th Annual Report of the Independent Commissioner for Northern Ireland, published in 2003, show that out of a total of 236 suspected terrorists in Northern Ireland, only two were detained for more than five days. That does not demonstrate an urgent need for doubling the detention period without charge from seven to 14 days.
Another point is the anxiety that the noble and learned Lord mentioned about evidence and the Human Rights Act. The longer a person is detained, surely, the more worrying the weight and reliability of any evidence obtained from that person. For example, if a confession were to be obtained on the thirteenth day of being held without charge, would that evidence risk being excluded as unsafe? That is why we have proposed a sunset amendment to Clause 284, to which I now speak, which would give the Government three years' grace. That period could be utilised to monitor how effective the power is and whether it is necessary. On that basis, I shall move the amendment at the appropriate time.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: I declare an interest in this matter as the statutory independent reviewer of the Terrorism Act 2000. I believe that it is right never to vote on issues relating to the Terrorism Act and the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, Part 4. However, before this amendment was laid in another place, I was asked to consider what was proposed and I have spent considerable time doing so.
It may be helpful if I give Members of the Committee an insight from my viewpoint as independent reviewer which may inform the debate. Like everyone here who has met him, I, too, have great admiration for Commander David Veness. However,

957
most of the information that I obtained about this has come from others. Although I have spoken to Mr Veness, most of my information has come from officers in Scotland.
I acknowledge the eminence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, in relation to legislation on terrorism, particularly as, with great respect, I am about to disagree with him. His report of 1996 provided the template—indeed, most of the detail— upon which the Terrorism Act 2000 was founded. As the independent reviewer of the Terrorism Act 2000, I have to provide reports on the operation of the Act as a whole. I do so by travelling the country, by reading material that is provided and by speaking to various interest and pressure groups, political parties in Northern Ireland and the police, notably Special Branch. As regards the operation of the whole of the Terrorism Act 2000, my next report will be published around the turn of the year.
As my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and others said, it is extremely rare for detention without charge of as much as seven days to take place. There are controls upon the exercise of detention for longer periods permitted under existing legislation. I have reviewed those controls. For what it is worth, in my opinion, those controls are exercised very carefully by those in charge of them. Certainly, in the period that I have been the reviewer, I have not received complaints that those controls are being exercised in anything other than a proper way.
Therefore, are seven days sufficient for the purpose of the legislation? Is the seven-day period fit for the purpose, having regard to what has been happening in recent times? I say to the noble and learned Lord that there is room for argument. It is justified to say that there has been a change in the character of terrorism. Certainly, there has been a change in the character of the terrorism upon which investigation is strongly focused during the past three years.
In summary, the police are involved now in the investigation of terrorism in which the suspects, as compared with the suspects from the island of Ireland, are people about whom we know far less and who are far more difficult to investigate over a short period. There are very few cases in which the seven-day period may not be sufficient. If there are any such cases, they are at the extremely serious end of the spectrum. They are likely to be the most serious cases.
Perhaps I may give the reasons, which are slightly more in number than those described by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, following his review of evidence provided by the Minister and by the Home Office. First—this is derived from the experience of an operation that was founded in Scotland recently—it can be the case that a substantial number of suspects have to be interviewed during the course of their detention. If the operation requires very tight security—many of these operations depend upon intelligence material provided by the intelligence services to the police—it is absolutely necessary that
958
the loop of knowledge is very small. As a result, it is not possible to have a very large squad of officers involved in arrests and interviewing in such cases.
Secondly, in order to identify suspects who have been arrested, it is important to know who they are, where they have come from and what they have been doing recently. If the suspect has lived in the United Kingdom or in the Republic of Ireland, we are bound to know a great deal about that person at the time of their arrest. However, the real experience of the police in relation to recent events is that they have on occasion arrested people about whom they know nothing, not even their names. In some cases, these people entered the United Kingdom illegally and have never come into official contact with any kind of authority. They may have arrived in the back of a lorry, or by some other secret means, and have been dispersed into the community. They first become known at all to the authorities, let alone the police, on their arrest. So it can be a tortuous process involving inquiry across Europe and the rest of the world to find out who they are.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Will the noble Lord give way? Would it not be more satisfactory if this matter were reviewed by a judge so that he could give leave for an extended period?
Lord Carlile of Berriew: There are controls of a judicial kind and that does take place. Further, a dedicated group of district judges (criminal) does exactly that. Some months ago I spoke to the district judge in charge of that operation and I am certainly satisfied that they are very rigorous about it. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, can be reassured on that point.

I turn to the next important issue. An operation was carried out in Scotland called Operation Scotia, which crossed the Border. However, it is a matter of which substantial parts are still sub judice, so it is difficult to talk about it in any detail. The operation resulted in the forensic science procedure in certain premises taking three days—just the search process, not the analysis. In any case where, for example, the presence of poisonous material is suspected, the police have no option but to exercise the most extreme and—using the word literally—minute care in—I hope that I will be forgiven for the use of a rather ugly word now in common use—forensicating the premises. Sometimes it is not realistic to interview suspects who were on those premises unless the process of forensication has been completed and without some kind of report being made, even if it is only preliminary, about what has been found.
I turn to the question of interpretation facilities. The police have had difficulties with interpretation in some parts of the country—not by any means are all terrorist suspects found in London. In certain areas it can be extremely difficult to locate enough interpreters with the skill and the time to play their full part in the interview process, bearing in mind that the defence lawyers also need to use interpreters. Those people must be drawn from a small pool and great skill is required.

959
We have already heard mention of computer hard drives. Anyone involved in criminal cases concerning matters such as fraud, for example, knows how difficult it is to find experts who are not already fully occupied to analyse computer hard drives. It can take a long time.
Time must be made available for legal advice. In many of these cases, it so happens that a very small number of legal firms advise most of the suspects. Those lawyers have to be given time to do so, including making an allowance for interpretation as already mentioned.
There are the personal needs of the suspects to consider. Many of those arrested recently are Muslims. Their prayer rights and wishes have to be and are respected, as are their meal arrangements. They must also be allowed sufficient visits by their families as well as their lawyers. All this takes a considerable amount of time.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He has listed a number of points, all of which would apply equally to other forms of crime, in particular to the importation of serious drugs.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: With great respect to the noble and learned Lord, cases involving the importation of class A drugs very rarely involve people of the kind I have described; that is, those who have never been identified, who have extreme language difficulties of the kind already mentioned and with the forensication requirements which may involve public safety issues of an immediate kind.
Where the noble and learned Lord and I would probably have to disagree about this matter is that I would say that there are special features here. I do not refer only to the trauma of a potential terrorist act, but to the special features of the arrest situation which mark out serious suspected terrorist offences from other forms of crime, including international dealing in class A drugs.
The final matter I wish to mention—it is the eighth point—is one which leads me to the conclusion that this proposed measure ought to be available. We hope that the police would carry out very carefully collated and thought-out interviews in cases of this kind. They will be given only one chance and it is in the interests of both the public and the defendants, if they become defendants, that the interviews should be well researched and conducted in a proper way, without undue prolixity. Having spoken to many police officers about this, my view is that there will be cases where the issue of interviews, taken in conjunction with the other points I have mentioned, means that— only occasionally, but in very important cases—seven days may not provide enough time.
Reluctantly, therefore, and on balance, on the grounds that the protections which are already in place do work to protect the interests of suspects, the advice
960
I would give in this debate is that this power is appropriate, although it will probably be used only on extremely rare occasions.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I come back to the point which I raised in my intervention. It is highly dangerous for the extension to 14 days to be exercised without judicial approval, which would have to be very specific. I noticed that, in the course of his remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, did not refer to this.
I pay tribute to the noble Lord's work and I think that it is invaluable. However, we have to be conscious of the rights of ordinary people—which includes terrorists. We may not like them, but so far as the law is concerned, they are entitled to protection. I think, therefore, that the burden of proof for which this extension is being sought should rest firmly on my noble friend. There can be no equivocation about that; it is a very serious matter indeed. For all I know, my noble friend may be able to convince the Committee that an extension of this kind is required, but I would be surprised if she were able to do so.
The noble Lord also said something about a change in the character of terrorism. He may be right about that, but in my view we should be very slow to dismiss altogether the claims of those who purport to present a view about civil rights, which is most important. All I ask is that this issue should be considered impartially—perhaps in secret, I do not know by a judge. The trouble I see ahead is that, slowly but surely, a rule will develop to the effect that prospective defendants on this kind of charge will be held for 14 days willy-nilly, and it will not matter whether it is justified; that will be the case. Have defending lawyers and defendants asked for a change of this kind to be made?
In my view—I may be wrong- the burden of proof cannot be properly discharged in such circumstances. The gravamen of the noble Lord's intervention is that the change foreseen in this proposal is justified, but nothing that he said in his powerful speech would enable the Committee to come to that conclusion.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, perhaps I may express my concerns. I support what the noble and learned Lord said about the obligation to charge or release being the cornerstone of the liberty of the subject, although he said it with some hesitation and apologised that it might sound pompous. Let me say immediately that there is absolutely nothing pompous or wrong in reminding the Chamber, and the nation, of the importance of liberty and how easy it is to cede its precious principles.
In saying that, I am not suggesting for a moment that we roll over in the face of terrorism. The work carried out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, in relation to this subject was crucial and he has incredible experience of the balancing that has to take place. The problem with the trade-off between civil liberties and security, which we all entertain when referring to terrorism, is that we always imagine that it is not us who will be making the trade. We always

961
believe that someone else's liberty will be affected when in fact liberty cannot be separated out in that way. In the end, the "them" always means us. It is our liberty inside our system that is affected. It is important that we hold on to that idea because it is those precious principles of our democracy that terrorism assaults. So let there be no apologies for explaining why this matters and why this subject is so important.
I am concerned, however, that this seems very much like an administrative convenience. When investigating crime, it is always difficult to get things done within the set parameters. So you always think that if you were given more time, that would be the answer to the problem. It is in that way that a kind of "creep" takes place which erodes liberty.
I should say to my friend and colleague at the Bar, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that when you spend too much time with people on the investigative side you hear only about the problems they feel they are facing—how they would like more time; how they would like to have interpreters at the ready; how they would like more computer experts, and so on. But, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, said, none of these problems are new. They are not very different from what they were three years ago when the Terrorism Act 2000 was enacted, and they are not very different from those experienced in the many terrorism cases in which I have been involved, which now run into double figures. Not all of them were to do with Ireland. Many cases involved people who had language difficulties—they were from the Middle East and from the Indian sub-continent—and they needed interpreters, and so on.
By enlarging the amount of time in which people are kept in custody—people who are in fear; people who know the seriousness of what is being alleged against them—we run the risk that people may end up making confessions against their own interests and which may lead to miscarriages of justice.
This brings me back to the principle that liberty matters. We do not want people kept in custody without good reason. They should be brought before the courts and charged at the earliest possible opportunity. Fourteen days is too long. Nothing has changed to justify such an extension.
My noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis inquired whether anyone had spoken about this to anyone on the defence side. I can assure him that the answer will be in the negative because, if anyone had inquired, they would have been told that this is an outrage. We should remind ourselves of why protecting liberty is so important. We need better justification for this incredible change than we have heard so far.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I agree with my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, that liberty is the cornerstone of our democracy—but liberty for all, not only for those who wish to perpetrate crimes of terror against us. It is a question of balance. We have to
962
balance the liberty of those being investigated with the liberty of those who will be the subject of terror. It is a difficult balance.
I part company with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, when he says that there is no distinction between terrorism and drug trafficking; that there is nothing unique about it. I do not share his view for the following reasons. I absolutely accept that trafficking in class A drugs is pernicious; I absolutely accept that it visits terror of a long and enduring nature upon those who take and abuse drugs. But there is a significant difference. Those who take drugs have an element of choice. Sometimes they are vulnerable and pressured, but they can choose to take the drug or to say no. There is no element of choice when it comes to terror. Terror is visited upon us whether we like it or not. There is no consent; there is no agreement; and there is nothing that those who are subjected to terror can do to avoid it. No one asks our permission; no one asks for our consent. So while I accept what the noble and learned Lord says in relation to investigation, we should be frank in accepting the nature of terror.
We also need to accept that things have changed. We may not like the fact that things have changed, but they really have changed. Why? Because in the past those involved in nefarious practices—if I may speak colloquially—usually had form. What happens now? More and more of the people who engage in terror appear to have no record of involvement in crime, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, said.
Tragically, there is a new feature: those who perpetrate terror have no feeling of self, and dying is not an issue for many of them. That is a tragedy because previously we could rely on the fact that most bombers who perpetrated offences—I refer to the terror visited on us by the Real IRA and others in the terrible bombings to which we were subjected—wished to escape; they did not wish to be subject to the death they visited on others. Tragically for us, that situation has changed and we are living in a new environment where the risks to our people are more acute than ever before.
How do we respond? I take up the point made by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis in relation to the courts. What will be the courts involvement? Let me put it into context, although I know that not all Members of the Committee are totally familiar with the provisions.
Clause 284 amends Part 3 of Schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000 which governs the detention of persons detained under Section 41 of that Act. Section 41 gives a constable the power to arrest a person without a warrant whom he reasonably suspects to be a terrorist. An individual detained under Section 41 may only be held by the police for a maximum of 48 hours unless an application has been made asking a court to issue or extend a warrant of further detention. I echo what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew—the judges who are tasked with performing this function are rigorous in the way in which they apply it.

963
Under Schedule 8 as it stands, a court may extend the period of detention for up to seven days if the conditions set out in the legislation are met. Clause 284 will allow such detention to be incrementally extended by the court for up to 14 days. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, who said that this will be used sparingly and not frequently. But there appears to be a need to use it.
These provisions come to us from the police and are considered to be essential to them. I add my voice to those of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Carlisle, and others who have rightly complimented Commander David Veness on his work and the work done by all those officers who have been so successful in trying to keep us safe in recent days. I add my voice because the police are simply asking for unmerited extensions—they have persuaded us that these extensions count.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: The Committee will be very grateful to the Minister for explaining the way in which this works. Has she had any discussions with those judges and retired judges who are performing the function she has explained and would have a better view on this than almost any of us, as to whether this extension is justified?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I can certainly undertake to write to noble Lords about that matter. The pressure that the seven days has caused on certain of the more sensitive operations has been understood by the judiciary who have had to deal with these matters. On the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, I do not think we have ever had any dissociation from their understanding about how difficult this is and the benefits that there may be from extensions. If we have had any formal consultation with them, I will certainly write to the noble and learned Lord to indicate that.
Lord Clinton-Davis: It may be that the dialogue ought to be extended, particularly in light of this debate. Will my noble friend agree to that?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I hope this matter does not come back on Report, but if it were to do so, I would happily see what we have and come back to the Committee on the next occasion.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Notwithstanding what may happen on Report, does the Minister not think that it is desirable for there to be a dialogue between the Government and those other people at this stage?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: It is difficult for me to answer because I believe that there may already have been such a dialogue. The noble Lord will know that a very limited number of judges deal with these matters; they are intensely involved in the way in which we develop these issues. I am quite confident that if the judiciary, seized of this matter, felt that it was unnecessary and we were quite happily dealing with
964
matters within the ambit of that which we had, they would have told us about that very forcefully. But I am very happy to check it and to have some confirmation, and I am sure that if the officials in the Box have such information, I will probably have it by the time I sit down because I have a feeling I will be here for a while. Well, I am told that they have not had specific conversations but they will certainly do so.
It follows that for some limited and very specific circumstances under which the current seven days may be insufficient to enable the police fully to investigate the offences in respect of which the individuals have been detained, the proportion of cases to which this applies is small but significant. I obviously cannot go into individual cases or give any information that might be useful to those to whom the legislation might apply, but I am able to say that of the 212 persons detained from 1 st January 2002 to 31 st March 2003,16 cases went into the sixth day as a result of extensions.
I will also give examples of the types of circumstances which might lead the police to need more time. While I cannot refer to actual operations, the examples I am about to give are not hypothetical but are extrapolated from actual occurrences. I hope that noble Lords will understand that I cannot identify them more specifically than that.
Increasingly frequently, there may be occasions when it is necessary to examine substances that are thought to be dangerous—all the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, bite on these matters— which are found on or with the detained individuals, to establish whether they are chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear materials. Such substances have to be retrieved in accordance with forensic procedures. Moreover, very detailed health and safety provisions exist to protect the experts doing that work. This is a time-consuming process which needs to be carried out with painstaking attention to clinical procedures and often in stages, with one stage needing to be complete before the subsequent stage can be started. In one significant case, it has even been necessary to bring equipment from the United States to perform the analysis.
A further layer of complexity that technological development has added is that investigations increasingly involve the requisition and analysis of hard drives of PCs and the subsequent search of suspects' work or home premises after an arrest has been made. It is therefore a matter of days, not hours, before any material from a hard drive is available to be used in the questioning of a suspect. This can be further exacerbated when the hard drives or PCs obtained from a number of individuals have to be cross-referenced to each other to establish patterns of communication and even movement.
There is another difficulty in investigating terrorism. When one is undertaking a sting, if 1 may call it that, in relation to drugs operations, usually it is possible to do much of the preparatory investigative work before one goes in to arrest. Quite often in terrorism cases, one simply does not have that luxury. So the level of preparation on cases can vary because

965
things can turn very quickly. You find yourself having to investigate an issue earlier than you would otherwise have preferred. I regret to tell noble Lords that terrorists are not very compliant with one's timetabling.
A similar situation arises with mobile phone use and the swapping techniques of whole phones and phone parts, such as SIM cards, designed to make it more difficult for the police to track the owner and the pattern of use. Establishment of identity, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, mentioned, is increasingly a feature of re-questioning and pre-questioning activity with the police, often having to work through the use of false identities or multiple false identities. The unravelling of the false identities involves extensive national and frequently international inquiries and cross-checking. It would be unusual to reach a successful outcome easily and speedily. The same applies to bank accounts, for which up to five individuals have used the same identity to access and move funds. For the analysis of documents and possibly video material found on premises, and in the questioning of suspects, translators and interpreters frequently need to be used, possibly for rather remote languages. Those persons have to be used for interviews at all stages during the period of detention.
Moreover, and I believe significantly, it is unusual for there to be only one set of the above or similar circumstances contributing to delay in the investigation. More frequently, there is a combination of factors, each of which involve detailed and time-consuming but vital research, which impacts on the time available to the police for questioning.
The modus operandi available to terrorists is clearly growing in sophistication and breadth. In such combined cases as I have mentioned, the police investigation will need to be correspondingly more sophisticated in order to analyse and cross-reference the available evidence. That is what creates a different investigative playing field and justifies the need for allowing the police an extended period to put the information together.
However, I hope that the Committee understands that it is not proposed that the court be given a power to issue a warrant authorising 14 days' detention on the first occasion that a warrant for detention is sought. On the contrary, there is a significant number of safeguards within Schedule 8 that will continue to apply, and we have built further safeguard provisions into the amendment. Thus a court will be able to extend the period in the warrant for more than seven days only if the warrant already authorises detention for the maximum seven days currently permitted.
The provision will be incremental, and it is perfectly possible for the court to say, "I will give you 48 hours, but on this investigation I am not going to give you any further extension". So the court will have the control that it needs to supervise and incentivise—a horrible word that is used more and more—the people undertaking the investigation to go as quickly as possible.
966
I wish to emphasise the fact that there is a real imperative in undertaking such investigations to work as speedily as possible. Once the perpetrators are aware that one of their number has been identified, the evidence will evaporate quickly. The important thing is to have the scope; everyone knows that time is absolutely the essence in such cases. I know that there are those who will say, "You don't need it", but the tragedy is that we do. There are cases in which, even if we work as fast as we can, we may not be able, tragically, to stop them. We have had examples of that in our history.
Schedule 8 has a brake, which can be applied by the court. The court will be able to extend the period in the warrant for more than seven days only if the warrant has already been authorised. The police can detain for 48 hours; if the conditions of the investigation meet the criteria stipulated in the Act, the police may apply to a court for an extension of that 48 hours. The maximum that the court could allow at that point is five days, in theory. Usual practice is for the court to grant smaller extensions of 24 hours or 48 hours and for the police to have to return to the court to request and justify further extensions. Only if the police had already obtained a warrant extending detention to the full seven days would they be able to make a further request under the provisions in the amendment to go into the post-seven-day period.
The application and use of the power in Clause 284 will be subject to annual review by the independent reviewer of the Terrorism Act 2000; that is, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, who has spoken in the debate and has been fully briefed on the formulation of the amendment and the reasons for it. I am grateful to him for having participated.
Noble Lords will have to make a balanced judgment. Detaining people, whatever they are suspected of, is, as my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, said, a very serious matter for any democracy. It is right that such a measure should receive very careful scrutiny. However, it is for noble Lords to judge whether on balance the limitation of liberty being proposed is proportionate and justified in a very small number of cases, in relation to the potential damage that the actions of suspected terrorists would have on society.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, asked about the most recent incidents—the terrorist attacks by the Real IRA, which are well known to us all and which caused a huge amount of mayhem, disruption and distress in our country. We can rejoice that the same officers who seek a greater extension have been able to keep us safe so far. However, it would be foolish for me not to emphasise to the Chamber how difficult that has been. There have been occasions when, had there been more opportunity to investigate matters, we might have been able to do that which we eventually did more quickly, limiting the risk to which we put our nation. It will be no comfort, if we have a slip between cup and lip, to be told that the consequences of that slip could

967
be justified to the people subjected to it by virtue of the fact that there is no difference between terror and drug trafficking.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Our amendment, Amendment No. 230B, which aimed at a compromise period for the length of a detention, is clearly weak and inadequate. In the light of the debate that we have heard this afternoon with my friends and colleagues, not to mention tutors, it is clear to me that there is no basis in principle for the compromise that our amendment contains. Therefore, I do not propose to press it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, pointed to the clash between civil liberties and the security and safety of the state. If a defendant is kept without charge for an undue time, civil liberties are clearly violated. I admire the statements of principle made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and the noble Baroness. On the other hand, a lengthy investigation and interrogation before charge, about which my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew spoke, may be necessary for security. How does one achieve the balance?
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, pointed us in the right direction when he emphasised the necessity to consider the degree of judicial control. It is in the intensity of judicial control where an investigation takes place over a lengthy period. It is in that where we may ultimately find a solution and safeguard. Because of the noble Lord's intervention, I was delighted to hear from the Minister that she proposes to have a formal consultation with the district judges, who exercise that control at the moment.
By Report stage—the matter will certainly be returned to on Report—I should like to have light thrown on the problem from that quarter. I should like to know how often the suspect is seen. Is there only an application made to a judge, who takes no further interest in the welfare of the person detained after that application has been made? To what degree are the suspect's physical and psychological health supervised? What reports are brought back to the judicial authority on the progress of the investigation?
I do not accept some of the justifications for the Government's position. In my experience—in the cases that I have dealt with—it is quite impossible to analyse a hard disk within 14 days of seizure. I do not think that a period of seven, 14 or 21 days would make much difference at all in that regard.
However, I take heart from the statistics that the noble Baroness gave; namely, that in the past 15 months or so for which figures are available, only 16 out of 212 suspects were held into the sixth day. Therefore, it does not appear at the moment to be a huge problem which is preventing the proper investigation of these cases.

I have already thrown a huge amount of cold water on my own amendment and the Committee will not be surprised if I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 284 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: I do not wish to add anything to what I have already said. I take note of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, did not even put it stronger than saying that very occasionally seven days may not be enough. In my belief that is not good enough to justify the amendment. However, it seems to me that some consultation with those who have had experience of dealing with these applications would be of great help. If that can be done before Report I should be happy not to press my objection now.
Clause 284 agreed to.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 231:
After Clause 284, insert the following new clause—
"Enforcement of regulations implementing Community legislation on endangered species
(1) In this section—
"the 1972 Act" means the European Communities Act 1972 (c. 68);
"relevant Community instrument" means—

(a) Council Regulation 338/97/EC on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating the trade therein, and

(b) Commission Regulation 1808/01/EC on the implementation of the Council Regulation mentioned in paragraph (a).

(2) Regulations made under section 2(2) of the 1972 Act for the purpose of implementing any relevant Community instrument may, notwithstanding paragraph 1(1 )(d) of Schedule 2 to the 1972 Act, create offences punishable on conviction on indictment with imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
(3) In relation to Scotland and Northern Ireland, regulations made under section 2(2) of the 1972 Act for the purpose of implementing any relevant Community instrument may, notwithstanding paragraph 1(1)(d) of Schedule 2 to the 1972 Act, create offences punishable on summary conviction with imprisonment for a term not. exceeding six months.
(4) In Scotland, a constable may arrest without a warrant a person—

(a) who has committed or attempted to commit an offence under regulations made under section 2(2) of the 1972 Act for the purpose of implementing any relevant Community instrument, or

(b) whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to have committed or to have attempted to commit such an offence.

(5) Until the coming into force of paragraph 3 of Schedule 23 (which amends paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to the 1972 Act), subsection (3) has effect—

(a) with the omission of the words "in relation to Scotland and Northern Ireland", and

(b) as if, in relation to England and Wales, the definition of "relevant Community instrument" also included Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora as amended by the Act of Accession to the European Union of Austria, Finland and Sweden and by Council Directive 97/62/EC.

(6) Any reference in this section to a Community instrument is to be read—

(a) as a reference to that instrument as amended from time to time, and

969

(b) where any provision of that instrument has been repealed, as including a reference to any instrument that re-enacts the repealed provision (with or without amendment)."

The noble Baroness said: I hope that this amendment will be widely welcomed. The purpose of Amendments Nos. 231, 250, 251, 252 and 253 is to increase the maximum penalty for endangered species trade offences occurring within the United Kingdom from two to five years' imprisonment. Those offences will also become arrestable. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: The amendment is widely welcomed but remarkably late. It might assist the Committee if the noble Baroness explained why it has taken so long to bring forward this amendment and its accompanying consequentials. I have in mind particularly the exchange that occurred in the other place on 20th May when Mr Blunkett appeared to be unaware that an undertaking had been given to amend the Bill in the way described by the noble Baroness. An undertaking had been sought in particular by my honourable friends in the other place, including the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent. He agreed to withdraw his Private Member's Bill in return for an undertaking that was given by the Minister for Rural Affairs and Urban Quality of Life on 21st March. On 20th May the Home Secretary appeared to be unaware of that undertaking, but promised that effect would be given to it as quickly as possible.
I do not seek to make much of that except to say that there have been a number of other instances where Ministers have made promises to bring forward amendments and changes to this Bill but, in some cases, we still await those amendments and changes. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to secure a system within the Home Office whereby every pledge and every promise that is made by a Minister, in particular by the Home Secretary, is carefully recorded and implemented as soon as possible.
I suppose that I take rather an old-fashioned view of Report stage in that I believe that it is the stage when a Bill is reported to this place with or without amendments. It is not the stage at which completely new amendments should be introduced. I very much hope that the noble Baroness agrees with me. In the circumstance that we still await certain amendments, I have a distinct foreboding that we shall see a number of government amendments on Report and, indeed, at Third Reading. That would echo the very effective intervention of the noble Countess, Lady Mar, earlier today when she said that Bills must receive greater scrutiny before they are introduced and that pledges and commitments that are given should be very carefully thought through and introduced at a much earlier stage. But having said all that, I warmly welcome the introduction of these measures.
Lord Renton: Although I support what my noble friend Lord Hunt said, I feel bound to add that it seems
970
to me very extraordinary that we should have the proposed new clause at all. Subsection (1) of Clause 306 points out very clearly:
"Subject to the following provisions of this section, this Act extends to England and Wales only".
The Bill is concerned with criminal justice in a broad sense. However, for us to add the rare application of some "regulations implementing Community legislation" simply on endangered species seems to me to be right outside the themes of this Bill. One could imagine other occasions when the measure might be implemented. Indeed, it would not surprise me if it were technically feasible to do so by regulation instead of by amending the statute. The Bill is so lengthy anyway. I wonder whether the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, would be so good as to consider whether it would be better not to add this minor addition to the Bill.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, the amendment is widely welcomed. It was brought forward by the Government in response to an amendment tabled in the other place. The Government gave an undertaking to do that as swiftly as possible. The Committee will be aware of the arrangements in the other place in relation to tabling amendments. The amendments were not tabled in the other place because some key policy provisions, such as sentencing principles for murder, were brought into the Bill on Report in the Commons. The Government said then that they would table these amendments in the Lords. They have been tabled as quickly as was reasonably practicable.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, would wish the Government to continue to consider very carefully each and every suggestion made by Her Majesty's loyal Opposition together with the other parties before considering the final position at which they rest. We have done that and we have responded. I had hoped in moving the amendment to give the Committee a little pleasure and respite. I apologise if that is not the case. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that there is indeed a system in the Home Office whereby commitments made by Ministers are monitored. In each and every Bill to which I have been party we have without exception tried to honour those matters.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clauses 285 to 289 agreed to.
5 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton moved Amendment No. 232:
After Clause 289, insert the following new clause—
"JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY FOR SERIOUS INJURY OR DEATH OF A CHILD
(1) When a child aged under sixteen suffers serious harm or death deriving from ill-treatment, whilst it is with two or more people, at least one of whom has responsibility for it, and the death or injury must have been caused by one or more than one of those people, all of those people shall be guilty of an offence of failing to protect the child and shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.

971
(2) Serious harm deriving from ill-treatment will be established where the child is the victim of an offence of—

(a) murder;

(b) manslaughter;

(c) assault under section 18 or 20 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 (c. 100);

(d) rape; or

(e) indecent assault.

(3) It is a defence to a charge under subsection (1) if a defendant shows that he did all that it was reasonably practical to do, in the circumstances, at the time of the serious harm deriving from ill- treatment.
(4) In a trial for an offence under subsection (1), any decision whether or not there is a case for any defendant to answer shall not be taken by the judge before the end of the defence case."
The noble Baroness said: The amendment is tabled in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker. It calls for joint liability for harming children. It is a very important amendment to which I hope the Government will respond favourably.
Proposed new subsection (1) defines the problem and proposes that there be joint liability when more than one person might be involved in an offence of failing to protect a child. It also imposes a maximum sentence of 14 years. Proposed new subsection (2) defines serious harm. Proposed new subsection (3) identifies a positive defence, and proposed new subsection (4) clarifies that a judge should not take any decision, whether or not there is a case for the defendant to answer, before the end of the defence case.
I move the amendment with some trepidation as a layperson and having had nothing to do with the law in the past. However, 1 am concerned that there should be a change to our criminal proceedings, to ensure that those who harm children cannot use a loophole in the law that prevents them being prosecuted. I appreciate that the amendment deals with an extremely complex and difficult aspect of the law, which is presumably why action has not already been taken. It is purely a probing amendment at this stage.
During the debate in the other place, my right honourable friend Hilary Benn identified that:
"It is wholly wrong that those who abuse children, and particularly those implicated in their killing, should be able to play the system and get away with such crimes simply because it cannot be established beyond reasonable doubt which part each individual played".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee B, 4/3/03; col. 1268].
I am very pleased that the Law Commission's report last month said exactly the same thing—that there was a need to change the law. It said that it was time to stop parents who killed children getting away with murder.
That report arose from a joint working group with the NSPCC chaired by Judge Isobel Plumstead. I make no apology for going into some detail on the findings of that working group, because they need to be placed on record.
Research evidence from 43 police forces throughout England and Wales showed that, during the three years covered by the survey, no fewer than three children a week under 10 years old were killed or suffered serious injury by suffocation or violence. Of
972
those children, a little more than half were under six months old, and 83 per cent were under two years old. Shockingly, 61 per cent of investigations that reached a conclusion resulted in no prosecution. Of the 27 per cent of cases that resulted in a conviction, only a small proportion led to conviction for either homicide or causing grievous bodily harm.
Of 366 cases of death or serious injury to children analysed by the NSPCC, 99 cases resulted in a conviction, 21 in acquittal and 21 in the case being dismissed. No further action was taken in 225 cases. They were not even brought to court. That only slightly more than a quarter of those terrible cases resulted in a successful prosecution is a real indictment of our legal system.
The report of the working group identifies the present difficulties in getting a prosecution—that the fatal injury may have been suffered when the child is in the care of both his or her parents, one parent and a new partner, relatives, foster carers or adoptive parents. The child is unable to tell. Even when an assault is not fatal, an infant or very young child is unable to say who caused the harm. Nor are the carers compelled to account for the period when the injury was inflicted. When interviewed by the police, they can make no reply, not say who did something or blame each other. Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights has strengthened the common law privilege against self-incrimination.
The position is further exacerbated by the 1987 Lane v Lane case, when the Court of Appeal ruled that in the absence of evidence that indicated which of the two parents had inflicted the assault that led to the child's death, or of evidence that they had acted in concert to assault the child, neither parent could be convicted of murder or manslaughter. In some circumstances, however, there might be a conviction for cruelty or neglect to a child. The consequence is that the Crown can show only that the child was seriously injured or killed when A and B were present. It cannot show that A and B acted together. It cannot determine who was responsible. At the same time, it has to ensure that the person who was not responsible is acquitted. As a result, no conviction follows.
Many cases illustrate the effect of the Lane v Lane judgment, and I shall briefly cite three. In Aston v Mason in 1991, both carers were prosecuted for the murder of a 16 month-old child. There was a conviction for manslaughter at trial, but that was quashed because there was no clear evidence of which parent was present when the fatal injury was inflicted. Applying Lane v Lane, that meant that there was no case to answer.
In Strudwick v Merry in 1994, both parents were convicted of manslaughter but the convictions were quashed. However, the Court of Appeal upheld convictions in that case for long-term cruelty based on other evidence, but the parents evaded conviction on the more serious offence. More recently, in S v C an 18 month-old child suffered a series of assaults over three months and a number of serious and horrifying injuries during a period of 19 hours. Convictions at

973
trial for grievous bodily harm and child cruelty were quashed by applying Lane v Lane. Those cases clearly establish that a conviction for murder, manslaughter, wounding or assault is currently impossible if the prosecution cannot establish which of the child's parents was present when the injuries were inflicted.
It might be argued that a higher sentence, as in the amendment, will not act as a deterrent. That is an imponderable. However, it is important for society to send the message that people who commit such crimes must be detected and will face severe penalty if convicted.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I do not know what stage the noble Baroness has reached in her argument, but I am a little troubled by proposed new subsection (4). Does she propose to address it?
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: Actually, I do not. Part of the reason is that I am not certain whether I have the wording of the amendment absolutely correct. I am really trying to establish the principle behind what change is necessary. If there is advice that the wording is not correct, I am happy to take it.
My final point is about the clear cross-reference between domestic violence and violence against children. A review of 105 children in 1996 by Brandon and Lewis showed that domestic violence had taken place in almost half the families. When the proposals on the consultation paper on domestic violence are made into law, as I hope they will be, I hope that there will be a further opportunity to press for the change.
The public need to know that the penalty for such horrific cases involving serious injury or death to a child will be treated with the greatest gravity. All the evidence shows that our criminal justice system is failing one of the most vulnerable and defenceless groups in our society. Children suffer serious injury or die in the care of adults who should protect them, yet the number of convictions is minimal. The crimes go unpunished and the offenders remain at liberty, perhaps to offend again. As the Law Commission says, we must improve the law. I hope to hear from my noble friend that urgent action will be taken in line with the recommendations of the Law Commission. I beg to move.
Lord Waddington: I would very much like to give my general support to the noble Baroness. I shall not try to support every word of the amendment, but she is dealing with a very real problem that is thought by many people to be a real injustice in our law. To many people it seems odd and unjust that, if a person must have died at the hands of one of two people but the evidence does not point unambiguously to one rather than the other having committed the crime, in the absence of evidence of a joint enterprise neither can be convicted. That is the inevitable consequence of it being up to the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
974
That does not mean that there may not be a case for creating new offences which catch those who ought to be convicted of some offence. That is what the noble Baroness, with great ingenuity, is seeking to do. If one were to direct one's attention to that problem, one would find, not only in the case of maltreatment of children but also in other areas of law, that one could create new offences which would prevent obviously guilty people getting away with not being convicted of any offence whatever.
There is nothing unjust in condemning someone who has the opportunity to protect a child from ill treatment and has failed to take it. There is nothing unjust in making that person guilty of an offence and subjecting them to punishment. I therefore hope that the Minister will take the matter away and think carefully about how we might deal with an area of law that has always worried me and many others.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I, too, support my noble friend Lady Gould, but I am rather worried about subsection (4) in her new clause. Frankly, it does not make a lot of sense. However, since she has said that she would be prepared to consider the issue, I recognise that what both she and the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, have said makes a lot of sense. Rather than weary the Committee, I shall merely offer her my support.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I am full of admiration for my noble friend Lord Waddington and I have great respect for the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. I fully understand what is behind the noble Baroness's intentions in proposing the new clause. However, I come to a different conclusion from that of my noble friend Lord Waddington or of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. I hope that the Government will make it clear that to introduce a new offence of that kind is not a serious, practical proposition.
One realises and understands, as the noble Baroness has said, the distress and anger that greets one when one hears that a child has been injured or killed, but that since the prosecution is unable to say which of two people have committed the offence, neither of them can be convicted and both are acquitted. One understands that position, but as I understand the clause, it provides that anyone who is responsible for that child or is one of those people with the child when the child is killed, although that person may be in no way responsible for its death, he shall nevertheless be guilty of an offence of failing to protect the child.
What does that mean? If a father, stepfather—as is often the case—or a stranger kills a child by shaking him or her to death, is one really to say that his or her mother, who may have had nothing to do with his or her death, is nevertheless in some way guilty of an offence, deserving of 14 years' imprisonment? That surely cannot be right.
Although one is then left with the challenge of looking at the evidence to try to prove which individual caused the death of the child, it is not a solution to say that someone else who happened to be

975
present must be assumed, by virtue merely of their presence, to be guilty of an offence in failing to protect the child.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Waddington: Surely, if a person is present at the time when a child is killed, it is reasonable to assume, until the contrary is shown, that that person, as he or she was present, could have taken some steps to try and prevent the child being killed. If, therefore, the person were charged with failing to protect the child, it would then be open to that person, having entered the witness box, to show that he or she had no opportunity to protect the child. In those circumstances, that person would not be guilty of an offence, but at least the matter would be resolved, because the person would have had to have shown what actually happened.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I do not accept my noble friend's argument. I am not sure what the phrase "whilst it is with two or more people" means. Does it mean that those people have to be present? How does one show that they were present at the moment when the act was committed? In those tragic cases where children are shaken—that is what normally happens— in order to cause injury or death, the act is usually carried out by one person, with nobody else in the room or in the presence of the child. To reverse the burden of proof and say to the other parent, "You must prove that you did everything to protect the child" is not the answer to the problem.
Although I sympathise with and understand the point that the noble Baroness has made, I hope, with great respect, that the Government will not accept her approach.
Baroness Whitaker: I support the amendment for all the reasons that my noble friend Lady Gould so eloquently gave, but in addition, I should like to say that when I sat regularly as a magistrate, which I did for more than 15 years, it became increasingly clear to me that what people expected of the justice system was, first and foremost, the full attribution of responsibility for criminal and illegal acts, and after that, of course, the right sentence.
The attribution of responsibility for crimes seems to me to be at the heart of justice. It is what marks the transition of a society from primitive theories of the causation of evil acts to a system based on reason and the rule of law.
Yet in one of the most heinous crimes of all— injuries to or even the murder of children—our law, in its present state, prevents the attribution of responsibility through the trial process when there are two or more adults who must have been involved in the assault, but when it cannot be established beyond reasonable doubt who did what. Those are adults who are in a unique position to safeguard the child or to account for any injuries, but they cannot be brought to book. The law remains impotent in the face of a clearly acknowledged, most serious crime.
976
The amendment seeks to right that injustice. It does it through modest extensions of the criminal law which were first proposed by the Law Commission and have been endorsed, as my noble friend said, in its most recent report on the subject last month. To adopt this amendment would show real compliance with the spirit of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and it would ensure that we had brought justice closer to the important sphere of brutal violence within the family.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: While for various reasons I need not go into I cannot accept the working of the amendment, I see that it undoubtedly addresses a problem. The one-off attack on a child when there are two people living in the house is not too difficult to solve. It is usually obvious which of the two people committed the offence. However, the trouble is that in case after case of this type there is a long history of a child being battered and of non-accidental injury. In case after case that is brought before the court, there are the hospital records, the doctors' records and the social services records from which one can follow and trace the various injuries as they occur. In the usual position, it is difficult to attribute blame precisely to one or the other if the process of battering ends in death.
There is a considerable danger—and I speak from experience—of the wrong party being convicted and the person who carried out the final fatal attack not being charged. Again, speaking from experience, there is a considerable danger that a jury faced with the history of a battered child will convict both people. I have read and heard about people being acquitted because the jury cannot decide who carried out the act, although I have no experience of that. But far more often, the jury convicts both partners in the house. There are considerable dangers in the judicial process and in trying to identify who did it.
Therefore, such a provision carries a great deal of merit. Perhaps not in this Bill but in a future Bill, the matter should be truly addressed and dealt with.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: The Committee is grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, for moving the amendment and to the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for having reminded us of the need to ensure that we answer the concerns raised outside the House and her wish to see the full attribution of responsibility.
I benefited greatly from the contributions of my two noble friends Lord Waddington and Lord Carlisle of Bucklow. I agree with them both. It may seem curious that I am in agreement with them when they disagree with each other, but here we have a serious problem. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, identified that and I agree with the context in which he put it.
Some high profile cases are crying out for a solution. However, as my noble friend Lord Carlisle said, there are some serious problems. I have seen cases in which one person stands by and does nothing while an abuser is committing criminal acts which can amount to murder and manslaughter. There is sometimes a

977
reason for that. In cases I have seen, the partner of a defendant is often abused and is frequently powerless to stop what is happening.
The clause offers such people a defence, but the burden is put on them to show that they were suffering from abuse at the time. I know from my own practice that many battered women do not admit, even in open court, that they are so treated. Therefore, there is the danger that they will be punished twice.
Furthermore, as I am sure my noble friend had in mind, there have been circumstances in which the partner did not suffer abuse but simply was completely unaware that the abuse was taking place. A whole range of situations must be carefully considered, which is why the matter has received such excellent scrutiny from the Law Commission.
I return to my support for my noble friend Lord Waddington. He rightly says that there is nothing unjust in penalising someone who is just standing by when the crime is committed. That is why I agree with both my noble friends and now look to the Government, with all their resources, to do what Mr Hilary Benn said would be done: to find a solution.
I warmly congratulate the noble Baronesses on providing the Committee with this important debate and I now look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I, too, congratulate my noble friend on moving the amendment. I totally take into account the fact that she does not propose to pursue it or to suggest that it has anything other than a number of fundamental flaws. She has moved the amendment to enable us to have a debate and I thank her for doing so.
Any death of a child is obviously a sad and terrible matter, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, made plain. We are all concerned to ensure that prosecution in cases of non-accidental death is not hampered by the perceived loophole in the present law. It is not acceptable that those guilty of killing a child in their family should escape because the law cannot determine who struck the fatal blow. A number of agencies have examined the problem, most recently the NSPCC and, very helpfully, the Law Commission.
I regret to tell the Committee that I have experienced cases in which the jury could not decide which person committed the act. Mainly, those were cases in which neither defendant gave evidence. One of the problems we have is that it is difficult in that situation for the court—for the jury—to make a determination as to guilt. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is right in saying that in many such cases often the woman, regrettably, has been brutalised and subjugated to such an extent that not only has she not been able to protect her child but she has become unwilling or unable to give evidence against her partner and as a result justice cannot be done. I understand all those problems and they are difficult to solve—not least because if they were easy to solve, governments in the past 100 years would have done so.
978
But we believe that we may be edging our way towards a solution. We have previously made clear our determination to act. We are wholly committed to legislation in order to resolve this problem. But we need to get this right and to legislate on a complete set of measures to achieve our goal. There are some tricky issues for us to balance. I do not believe that the amendment gets it right, but I entirely understand the thrust of what my noble friend is seeking to achieve. We therefore had, and continue to have, detailed discussions with the Law Commission and others on their proposals in this area.
We have also been working on our own measures in discussion with other government departments, the police, the NSPCC, the working group and other professional people. We have a duty to secure an effective investigation and adjudicative process to protect the rights of children and, indeed, of other vulnerable people. It has been my pleasure to expend a not inconsiderable amount of my time trying to help craft the solution.
We believe that part of the solution lies in changes in procedure and part lies in the creation of a new offence, to which the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, made reference. However, the two need to work together to provide the answer that we need. The amendment before us acknowledges that. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that there is much merit in what the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, said in relation to caution, and there is much in the passionately expressed opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, that we must get on and try to do something.
As I said, the two need to work together, but the present Bill is not the right vehicle for a new offence. We believe that, although the Law Commission has taken this whole issue much further than has previously been the case, there may be a little further to go before we are sure that we have the right answer. It must be compatible with the ECHR, the Human Rights Act and all the other matters with which we shall have to deal.
I want to commend my noble friend Lady Gould, who tabled the amendment. It is right to keep this issue in the public eye and, if I may respectfully say so, to keep up the pressure up on the Government, which I feel. The voice of others has been very helpful in ensuring that that happens. I particularly commend my noble friend Lady Whitaker for her ceaseless efforts in this regard. We intend to see that the desire expressed in Committee today is fulfilled. Children have every right to place their trust in their carers and not to discover, to their cost, that it is sadly misplaced and that justice is thwarted. We need to ensure that their killers are brought to justice and that those who stand idly by are also brought to account where that is justified.

979
With that reassurance, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel content. We shall continue to pursue this issue with a great deal of energy and we hope to find an early opportunity to return to the House when we have an appropriate legislative slot.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: I thank my noble friend very much for her remarks. I also thank everyone who has spoken in what I believe has been a very important and interesting debate. I said at the start that I have no legal training, and therefore 1 tabled the amendment with some trepidation. It was a probing amendment because I felt sure that the wording would not be as it should. I accept that without a doubt. However, I am very pleased that many noble Lords have spoken in support of the principle of the amendment.
I am pleased, in particular, that my noble friend said that the solution is under serious consideration and discussion. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I look to the Government to arrive at a solution and to bring before the House another Bill that will stop this appalling situation. It has gone on long enough, and those who commit such terrible crimes must be brought to justice. However, at present, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 232A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 232AA:
After Clause 289, insert the following new clause—
"EXTENSION OF INVESTIGATIONS BY CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW COMMISSION IN ENGLAND AND WALES
(1) Section 23 A of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (c. 19) (power to order investigations by Criminal Cases Review Commission) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) after "conviction" there is inserted "or an application Tor leave to appeal against conviction,".
(3) In paragraph (a) of that subsection—

(a) at the beginning there is inserted "in the case of an appeal,", and

(b) for "case", in both places where it occurs, there is substituted "appeal".

(4) After paragraph (a) of that subsection there is inserted— "(aa) in the case of an application for leave to appeal, the matter is relevant to the determination of the application and ought, if possible, to be resolved before the application is determined;".
(5) After that subsection there is inserted— "(1 A) A direction under subsection (1) above may not be given by a single judge, notwithstanding that, in the case of an application for leave to appeal, the application may be determined by a single judge as provided for by section 31 of this Act."
(6) After subsection (4) there is inserted—
"(5) In this section "respondent" includes a person who will be a respondent if leave to appeal is granted.""
The noble Baroness said: The Government's proposed new clause in Amendment No. 232AA amends the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 to allow the
980
Court of Appeal to direct the commission to investigate a report on any matter on an application for leave to appeal against conviction, as well as on an appeal against conviction. The proposed new clause in government Amendment No. 232AB makes equivalent provisions for Northern Ireland. There are related minor and consequential amendments to Schedule 30 and Clause 306. Unless noble Lords wish me to do so, I do not propose to go into greater detail.
The Court of Appeal has expressed concern that, on occasions, its consideration of an application for leave to appeal against conviction has been fettered by the lack of a power to have certain issues investigated by the Criminal Cases Review Commission and that it has therefore been unable to consider whether leave should be granted. In the amendments we have sought to address the concerns properly raised with us by the judiciary, and I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: I welcome these new clauses. If I recall correctly, it was not only the judiciary that expressed some concern. Sir Robin Auld—the Minister nods—also criticised the inability of the Court of Appeal to direct the commission to investigate and report to it on any matter in an application for leave to appeal, as distinct from an appeal itself. 1 recall the noble Baroness explaining in a letter that there may, indeed, be instances where the court might require the assistance of the commission at the application stage and, without it, it might even be forced or obliged to deny leave. Therefore, the amendments are welcome and I support them from these Benches.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 232AB:
After Clause 289, insert the following new clause—
"EXTENSION OF INVESTIGATIONS BY CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW COMMISSION IN NORTHERN IRELAND
(1) Section 25A of the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980 (c. 47) (power to order investigations by Criminal Cases Review Commission) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) after "conviction" there is inserted "or an application for leave to appeal against conviction,"
(3) In paragraph (a) of that subsection—

(a) at the beginning there is inserted "in the case of an appeal,", and

(b) for "case", in both places where it occurs, there is substituted "appeal".

(4) After paragraph (a) of that subsection there is inserted— "(aa) in the case of an application for leave to appeal, the matter is relevant to the determination of the application and ought, if possible, to be resolved before the application is determined;".
(5) After that subsection there is inserted— "(1A) A direction under subsection (1) above may not be given by a single judge, notwithstanding that, in the case of an application for leave to appeal, the application may be determined by a single judge as provided for by section 45 below."
(6) After subsection (4) there is inserted—
"(5) In this section "respondent" includes a person who will be a respondent if leave to appeal is granted.""

981
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 232AC:
After Clause 289, insert the following new clause—
"APPEALS FOLLOWING REFERENCE BY CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW COMMISSION
(1) Section 14 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 (c. 35) (further provision about references by Criminal Cases Review Commission) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (4) there is inserted— "(4A) Subject to subsection (4B), where a reference under section 9 or 10 is treated as an appeal against any conviction, verdict, finding or sentence, the appeal may not be on any ground which is not related to any reason given by the Commission for making the reference.
(4B) The Court of Appeal may give leave for an appeal mentioned in subsection (4A) to be on a ground relating to the conviction, verdict, finding or sentence which is not related to any reason given by the Commission for making the reference."
(3) In subsection (5) for "any of sections 9 to" there is substituted "section 11 or"."
The noble Baroness said: These amendments concern appellants referred to the Court of Appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. At present, an appellant of this kind can add additional grounds of appeal, whether or not they are related to any reason given by the commission for making the reference. An unlimited number of grounds may be added in this way.
During the passage of the Courts Bill earlier this year we discussed this issue—I see that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is smiling and nodding. I was unpersuaded then but I know that I am about to give him considerable satisfaction. I see him beaming that satisfaction at me across the Dispatch Box. We were unable to agree the change on that occasion but have since had the opportunity to consider matters more thoroughly and are now persuaded of the merits of the change.
I am afraid that, not for the first time, the decisive factor is the evidence of the extent to which some appellants are abusing the present regime. Any time wasted by the Court of Appeal in considering manifestly unmeritorious grounds of appeal can serve only to delay other meritorious appeals that anxiously need a determination. I should stress that, in making the change, we are mindful of the special nature of appellants referred to the Court of Appeal by the CCRC. We are well aware that these are potential miscarriage-of-justice cases and would obviously not propose any change that might raise the possibility of a miscarriage of justice going uncorrected.
We are satisfied, however, that the proposals contain the necessary safeguards. We are not limiting appeals in these cases to grounds identified by the CCRC. Under the amendments, appellants will still be able to add further grounds, unrelated to the commission's reasons for making the reference, provided they have the leave of the Court of Appeal to do so. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: As I entered the Chamber, a noble Lord said to me that he hoped the noble
982
Baroness would apologise to me. I have a warm recollection of our exchange. On that occasion, the noble Baroness criticised me for having gone on at too great a length in seeking to explain the amendment. Indeed, she said that I had entertained the House— here she used a very rude phrase—to an exhaustive exposition, which can be translated as my having been exceedingly boring.
However, I had only set out the view, expressed very clearly by the judiciary, that there was a need to move in this direction. Therefore, I do not look for an apology; I merely now look for the Government to accept that what we said from these Benches was correct, even though we may have done it at considerable length. I shall certainly not make the same mistake this time. I warmly support these clauses.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 232AD:
After Clause 289, insert the following new clause— "Power to substitute conviction of alternative offence on appeal in England and Wales
(1) TheCriminal Appeal Act 1968 (c. 19) is amended as follows.
(2) In section 3 (power to substitute conviction of alternative offence) in subsection (1) after "an offence" there is inserted "to which he did not plead guilty".
(3) After section 3 there is inserted—
"3A POWER TO SUBSTITUTE CONVICTION OF ALTERNATIVE OFFENCE AFTER GUILTY PLEA

(1) This section applies on an appeal against conviction where—

(a) an appellant has been convicted of an offence to which he pleaded guilty,

(b) if he had not so pleaded, he could on the indictment have pleaded, or been found, guilty of some other offence, and

(c) it appears to the Court of Appeal that the plea of guilty indicates an admission by the appellant of facts which prove him guilty of the other offence.

(2) The Court of Appeal may, instead of allowing or dismissing the appeal, substitute for the appellant's plea of guilty a plea of guilty of the other offence and pass such sentence in substitution for the sentence passed at the trial as may be authorised by law for the other offence, not being a sentence of greater severity.""
The noble Baroness said: This is another amendment which has been designed to rectify a gap in the criminal appeals legislation. Where the Court of Appeal is hearing an appeal against conviction, after a finding by the jury where the appellant did not plead guilty, it has the power to substitute a conviction of an alternative offence if it is satisfied that the facts established by the jury's finding would also make up the alternative offence.
However, there is no equivalent power in the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 for the Court of Appeal to substitute an alternative conviction following a guilty plea. As I hope noble Lords will understand, an appeal against conviction after a guilty plea is rather unusual. It is perhaps for that reason that the situation is not covered in the legislation.
However, there have been two recent cases in which the gap has caused difficulty; namely, the cases of Horsman and Duggan, to which I referred in my letter

983
to Her Majesty's loyal Opposition Front Bench anticipating these amendments. In both cases the court was dealing with a conviction following a guilty plea and in both cases the court might have substituted an alternative conviction had it had the power we are introducing here.
One might imagine that the power will be generally used under circumstances where the appellant consents to the substitution and, indeed, may even have requested it. However, the amendments allow the Court of Appeal the discretion to impose an alternative conviction on the same facts, even where an appellant does not consent. There may be the occasional case, therefore, for example, where an appellant seeks to withdraw a guilty plea on conviction but the court considered that there is no good reason for him to do so, especially as the appellant will have already admitted to the relevant facts.
That is subject to safeguards, as any conviction imposed in the exercise of this discretion will of course have to accord with the court's obligations under the Human Rights Act. Moreover, I hope that it will be noted that this is only a power to substitute in relation to an equal or less than severe sentence.
Finally, in cases where the court is unsure of the facts, which have been admitted, it will be able to order a re-trial. The amendments are designed to give the Court of Appeal as much flexibility as possible and will fill an unjustifiable gap in the law identified by the court. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 232AE:
After Clause 289, insert the following new clause—
"POWER TO SUBSTITUTE CONVICTION OF ALTERNATIVE OFFENCE ON APPEAL IN NORTHERN IRELAND

(1) The Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980 (c. 47) is amended as follows.
(2) In section 3 (power to substitute conviction of alternative offence) in subsection (1) after "an offence" there is inserted "to which he did not plead guilty".
(3) After section 3 there is inserted—

"3A POWER TO SUBSTITUTE CONVICTION OF ALTERNATIVE OFFENCE AFTER GUILTY PLEA

(1) This section applies where—

(a) an appellant has been convicted of an offence to which he pleaded guilty,

(b) if he had not so pleaded, he could on the indictment have pleaded, or been found, guilty of some other offence, and

(c) it appears to the Court of Appeal that the plea of guilty indicates an admission by the appellant of facts which prove him guilty of that other offence.

(2) The Court may, instead of allowing or dismissing the appeal, substitute for the appellant's plea of guilty a plea of guilty of that other offence and pass such sentence in substitution for the sentence passed at the trial as may be warranted in law by the plea so substituted.""
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 232AF:
After Clause 289, insert the following new clause—
"SUBSTITUTION OF CONVICTION ON DIFFERENT CHARGE ON APPEAL FROM COURT-MARTIAL

(1) The Courts-Martial (Appeals) Act 1968 (c. 20) is amended as follows.
(2) In section 14 (substitution of conviction on different charge) in subsection (1) after "an offence" there is inserted "to which he did not plead guilty".
(3) After section 14 there is inserted—
"14A SUBSTITUTION OF CONVICTION ON DIFFERENT CHARGE AFTER GUILTY PLEA

(1) This section applies where—

(a) an appellant has been convicted of an offence to which he pleaded guilty,

(b) if he had not so pleaded, he could lawfully have pleaded, or been found, guilty of some other offence, and

(c) it appears to the Appeal Court on an appeal against conviction that the plea of guilty indicates an admission by the appellant of facts which prove him guilty of that other offence.

(2) The Appeal Court may, instead of allowing or dismissing the appeal, substitute for the appellant's plea of guilty a plea of guilty of the other offence, and may pass on the appellant, in substitution for the sentence passed on him by the court-martial, such sentence as they think proper, being a sentence warranted by the relevant Service Act for that other offence, but not a sentence of greater severity.""

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 232AG:
After Clause 289, insert the following new clause—
"APPEALS AGAINST SENTENCES IN ENGLAND AND WALES
(1)The Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (c. 19) is amended as follows.
(2) In section 10 (appeal against sentence in certain cases) for subsection (3) there is substituted—
"(3) An offender dealt with for an offence before the Crown Court in a proceeding to which subsection (2) of this section applies may appeal to the Court of Appeal against any sentence passed on him for the offence by the Crown Court."
(3) In section 11 (supplementary provisions as to appeal against sentence) after subsection (6) there is inserted—
"(7) For the purposes of this section, any two or more sentences are to be treated as passed in the same proceeding if—

(a) they are passed on the same day; or

(b) they are passed on different days but the court in passing any one of them states that it is treating that one together with the other or others as substantially one sentence.""

The noble Baroness said: This group of amendments will simplify the operation of Section 10 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. Section 10 grants a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal against a sentence of the Crown Court where the defendant has been committed by the magistrates' court to the Crown Court for sentence, and under certain other circumstances where the defendant is dealt with in the Crown Court, having previously been dealt with in a magistrates' court.
Generally speaking, the right of appeal is only attracted where a defendant is sentenced on committal to six months' imprisonment, or more. Where the defendant is sentenced to less than six months, there is no right of appeal against the Crown Court's sentence.

985
It would appear that the reason for the limitation is that the magistrates' court has power to impose a sentence of up to six months' imprisonment. Therefore, the thinking seems to be that if the magistrates' court committed the defendant for sentence, it must have thought that a sentence of more than six months was desirable. Accordingly, if the Crown Court imposes a sentence of less than six months, the Crown Court's sentencing decision has acted as a kind of de facto appeal, and the defendant has received a sentence lower than the magistrates' court originally intended. Therefore, the reasoning seems to be that no right of appeal against the Crown Court's sentence is necessary.
As I pointed out in my letter to Her Majesty's loyal Opposition Front Bench, however, the limitation gives rise to the anomaly that if a defendant is convicted on indictment and sentenced by the Crown Court to less than six months' imprisonment, an appeal against sentence lies to the Court of Appeal. If the defendant is convicted in the magistrates' court, committed to the Crown Court for sentence and receives the identical sentence, there is no right of appeal to the Court of Appeal. That cannot be right.
The operation of Section 10 is subject to a further complication. Where the Crown Court imposes any of the sentences listed in Section 10(3)(c) or (cc) of the 1968 Act, a right of appeal lies to the Court of Appeal, regardless of the length of any prison term imposed, and even if no term of imprisonment is imposed at all. Section 10(3)(c) currently includes, for example, orders banning a person from holding or obtaining a driving licence, and football restriction orders.
These exceptions to the general rule under Section 10 give rise to further anomalies. The senior judiciary are of the opinion, and we agree, that the section is in need of simplification. Under our amendments a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal will be available, subject to the usual leave requirement in any case to which Section 10(2) of the 1968 Act applies. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clauses 290 and 291 agreed to.
5.45 p.m.
Schedule 27 [Jury service]:
Lord Hunt of Wirral moved Amendment No. 232B:
Page 331, line 36, leave out "and"
The noble Lord said: We now move to Schedule 27, which sets out a number of provisions on jury service. We welcome the contents of Schedule 27. However, I seek clarification from the Minister as to the effect of some of the provisions. First, I stress that we warmly welcome the change to an inclusionary approach to juries as currently there are some 4 million people who are excluded, which is an unacceptable figure.
In order for juries to be effective and representative, they must be drawn from society at large and at random. For that reason we are also pleased to note that the abolition of an easy opt out is being tackled in
986
this schedule. For too long people have said that they are too important, too busy or cannot be spared from their jobs to serve on a jury. But I must point out that it seems ironic that the Bill seeks to include in the jury those who are closely involved with the administration of justice. I should like to explore that aspect with the Minister.
Certainly, under the present provisions there is a risk that particular individuals, such as a retired judge or a serving police officer, could well be called to jury service. There is a danger that they would disproportionately influence that jury. It is a danger about which I am sure the Minister will reassure us. That is the purpose of these amendments. There is a concern that a jury would naturally tend to defer to such an individual's view as that person would be seen as having the most experience in the field of justice. In many cases such people might well assert their views as experts and could even persuade the jury to support their decision on the case. Even if they did not identify themselves as connected with the administration of justice, it might be obvious from the way in which they discuss the evidence and talk about the case during deliberations that they know more than most and even through inadvertence could affect the outcome of the trial.
It would be hard to hide one's identity from the rest of the jurors were the juror in question to be the Lord Chief Justice or a member of the high-profile judiciary. Those closely connected with the administration of criminal justice will also know the reasons why juries are sometimes excluded from the court room while a judge makes a ruling on a piece of evidence, a confession, an allegation of bad character, or whatever. It will be hard for those with that kind of knowledge to put it completely from their mind and to try the case on the evidence before them when they will suspect, or indeed may even know from signs that they would understand, that there is more evidence of a controversial nature.
On a more practical note, the schedule seems to have been ill thought through in one or two other respects. I take, for example, the situation of a district judge called to serve on a jury. It would be reasonable to assume that he would not be asked to travel a large distance to carry out his duty and so would probably report to his local court—most likely his own. There he would know the court staff and might even know a few of the defendants.
While such a person, male or female, is listening to the case, they might ask many questions. That is an absolute right of a member of the jury, but that kind of questioning might well disrupt the trial and distract the other jury members. In summing-up or in advising the jury on the law, the trial judge may make a mistake that the judge serving on the jury notices. I wonder what would happen in those circumstances. Would the individual be allowed to point out the error or would the trial be allowed to carry on until there is an appeal?
The solution to these problems is to be found in this group of amendments. They would not grant a blanket exemption for those connected with the

987
administration of justice; rather they would exempt them if, in the opinion of the appropriate officer, other jurors might give their views undue weight. The amendments would insert a new subsection into the 1974 Act to ensure that a person who wished to challenge the appropriate officer's decision either way could have the issue resolved by the Crown Court. They would also enable the appropriate officer to obtain the court's guidance, where necessary.
I hope I have explained my reason for moving the amendment. I need some reassurance. It might well be helpful to the Committee if the Minister were to explain how she sees this particular side of jury service developing. I stress again how warmly I welcome the Government's extension to an inclusive system. I beg to move.
Viscount Colville of Culross: This point needs a certain amount of consideration. It is not so much the issues upon which a judge has to decide as a matter of discretion—for instance, those under Section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act—because those matters will not be left to the jury. I have in mind, particularly in relation to Amendment No. 232E, the situation where there is a question of inferences from silence.
I cannot believe that juries are not surprised that on occasion a defendant says nothing about a particular matter. I remember one case—and I am sure many other noble Lords with experience of this issue will remember similar things—in which one defendant out of a group did not give evidence because he had a bad record and consequently would be cross-examined by one of his co-defendants. One then has the problem of what to say to a jury about inferences from his failure to give any evidence. I can readily see that that someone on a jury who knew about these things would carry an undue influence. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, could help us greatly in describing how she sees this kind of situation being resolved.
The issue would have to be resolved at the selection stage of a jury. These things do not necessarily arise at an early stage in a trial; they turn up as it goes along. One does not want to have a jury member, who has obviously been acquainted with the other members of the jury in the course of the proceedings, suddenly being discharged because something arises about which he or she is bound to know more than would be good for anyone to be told about during a jury's deliberations. There are great practical difficulties on this issue. I shall be very interested to hear what the noble Baroness has to say about it.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I should declare an interest because I am in the unusual position of having actually served on a jury. I concluded my degree aged 20, but did not join the Middle Temple until shortly after my 21st birthday. In the interim I was called to jury service. I must confess that to your Lordships because I did not disclose my knowledge to the jury. So, I was perfectly aware that the defendant had convictions when they were not put in; I was also
988
perfectly aware that the basis upon which the judge retired was to hear something on the voir dire; and I understood perfectly the issue. I must say that I hope it did not impinge on my ability to do justice, but I did not tell anyone who I was.
So I understand the anxiety about the issues raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. We believe—and I welcome the warmth given to these provisions by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—that widening the ambit of people who can give assistance as jury members is very important and that we need to have that inclusion clearly faced.
The proposal will take two stages. There will undoubtedly be circumstances in which it would not be appropriate for, say, a police officer, a judge, or a lawyer to serve on a jury. A number of safeguards exist to ensure that people whose presence on a jury might threaten, or even appear to threaten, the fairness of a trial will not so serve. These will be adequately covered in the new arrangements.
The screening process is to have two stages. At the first stage, the jury summoning form, which will need to be amended to reflect the new arrangements, invites anyone who thinks they have a "good reason"' to defer or be excused from jury service to state that reason. One such reason would be that it is very likely that the person will know, or be known to, someone involved in the conduct of the trial. The guidance to be issued by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will also make this clear.
A number of noble Lords know about the situations of which I speak. There are members of the judiciary who have been in an area for a very long time. There will be no one in that locality who does not recognise either their face, their name or sometimes, just as importantly, their voice. There will be police officers who have worked in an area for a very long time. It may be that in another district, in another area but within the same jury catchment, it would be perfectly proper for them to so serve. So we would—
Lord Hunt of Wirral: I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, as will be the Committee, for her careful exposition of these matters. But she is clearly reading from some guidance or draft guidance. It perhaps might be useful to the Committee for her to share her detailed notes on this issue. Rather than take up the Committee's time in going through the guidance, it might be very helpful before Report for noble Lords to have sight of the document to which she refers.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I regret to tell the noble Lord that there is no document: I seem to have developed the ability to read and think at the same time—I know that that is somewhat testing. If it would be more helpful, we could certainly set out in a written document the sort of ideas that we have about how it

989
will work. They are not set in stone, because they are just our thinking, but I want to reassure the House that we entirely take on board the issues raised by both the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. We shall have to make proper arrangements. I should be happy to do that.
6 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: The Minister mentioned people who have been detained at some stage, especially under Part 2, in relation to disqualified persons. There is a small group of people—immigration detainees—who may subsequently find themselves legally qualified to remain in the United Kingdom. Will they have to wait for 10 years before they can serve on a jury, or will the fact that they have been found to be legally entitled to stay in this country entitle them to jury service?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The noble Lord raises an interesting point. It will date from the time that they are declared to be lawfully in the country. I do not know whether we have resolved that difficulty. Usually, the time starts to run from the moment that lawful presence or residence is acknowledged. I do not know the precise answer; I shall certainly write to the noble Lord, because he has raised an interesting point.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, for his intervention. Like him, I can see some great practical difficulties here, but the Minister has done much to reassure us. Without wanting to curtail matters, I am grateful to her for having agreed to share with us in more detail some of the anticipated guidance. I am pleased that it is in draft form, so that we have a real opportunity to influence it before it is finalised.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I should make clear that I do not have guidance; I have our outline thinking on the matter. I am certainly happy to place the outline that I have just described in written form, but it would be wrong if the Committee were to think that we yet have the guidance, because we have not. I can do my best to provide that outline.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: I was referring to guidance with a small "g". I was warmly welcoming the guidance that the noble Baroness will give us. That will give us the opportunity to think through some situations; we are very much with her on how vital is the inclusive nature of a jury. Against that background, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 232C to 232E not moved.]
Schedule 27 agreed to.
Clauses 292 to 294 agreed to.
Baroness Walmsley moved Amendment No. 233:
After Clause 294, insert the following new clause—
"PRINCIPLES OF THE YOUTH JUSTICE SYSTEM

For section 37(2) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37) (aim of the youth justice system) there is substituted—
"(2) The youth justice system shall also have regard to the following principles—

(a) the welfare of the child shall be the paramount consideration;

(b) deprivation of liberty should only be used as a measure of last resort and for the shortest possible time;

(c) any decisions must be made in the best interests of the child.

(3) In addition to any other duty to which they are subject, it shall be the duty of all persons and bodies carrying out functions in relation to the youth justice system to have regard to the aim and principles.""
The noble Baroness said: The amendment stands in my name and in that of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen. Unfortunately, the noble Baroness has been detained from your Lordships' House this afternoon through other responsibilities, but she supports the amendment.
The purpose of the new clause is to establish a clear legal framework for the youth justice system to be guided by child-centred principles that meet the UK's obligations under international and domestic law and to ensure that all those working in the youth justice system, including the Prison Service, courts and youth offending teams are guided by those principles.
I shall make a few general comments before I move to the three principles in the amendment. We feel that the new clause is necessary because the Bill contains proposals that will significantly reform the criminal justice system in the UK. In attempting such a broad revision of the system, the Government fail to give adequate attention to the particular need to protect children and young people from the full force of the criminal law and to ensure that their welfare and best interests are at the forefront, in line with our domestic law and international obligations. A group of children's charities and justice organisations is urging the Government to amend the Bill to ensure that the welfare and best interests of children are at the heart of the youth justice system.
I shall now outline the specific reasons why we feel the need for a statement of principles in the Bill. That is because the youth justice system has been the subject of criticism from the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child and successive reports from Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons. The recent report from the chief inspector, Safeguarding Children, found that:
"the welfare needs of children and young people who commit offences were not being addressed adequately by those responsible for their welfare".
The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has also expressed serious concerns about the UK's treatment of children in trouble with the law—in particular, our failure to establish a system of juvenile justice that fully integrates the convention. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child commits the UK to separating the system for children

991
in trouble with the law from that for adults—in Article 40—to ensuring that the best interest of the child are a primary consideration in all decisions about them—in Article 3—and to ensuring that custody is used only as a measure of last resort—in Article 37.
The amendment sets out clearly a framework for the youth justice system that would meet all those obligations and requirements and clarify the necessary safeguards for children while—this is crucial— retaining the primary overall aim of the youth justice system as set out in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which is the prevention of reoffending. That Act contains no statement of principles to guide those working in the system.
The other relevant provision is Section 44 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, which requires all courts to have regard to the child's welfare. Although important and valuable, that provision is often neglected and is in need of clarification and strengthening. It applies only to courts, not to the whole of the youth justice system. That is why we feel that the amendment is necessary.
It would also bring the legislation in England and Wales in line with that in Northern Ireland, where the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 sets out a framework for the youth justice system there that establishes that all persons and bodies exercising functions relating to youth justice must have regard to the welfare of children.
First, I address the new clause's provision for the welfare of the child. The Children Act 1989 states that in all matters relating to the upbringing of a child the court must have the child's welfare as its paramount consideration. That is generally regarded as setting the marker and standard for the treatment of children and young people in England and Wales. However, the welfare principle contained in the Act is not clearly applied to proceedings other than family proceedings. There are signs that the welfare of the child is not being given adequate consideration in the youth justice system, where greater emphasis is placed on punishment delivered by strictly offending-related assessments and programmes of intervention.
The recent joint report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors, Safeguarding Children, found that the welfare needs of young people who commit offences were not being adequately addressed by those services responsible for their welfare. In particular, the work of the youth offending teams was found to be focused exclusively on the offending behaviour of young people and there was little evidence of welfare needs being addressed or considered. The report further found that the YOTs were detached from other services and not fully addressing children's needs for protection and safeguarding.
Although, as the Howard League judgment of November 2002 by Mr Justice Munby in the High Court, established, the Children Act 1989 applies to children in prison, it does not apply to the Prison Service, which means that, unlike authorities, it does not have a clear statutory duty to safeguard the welfare of children. In the light of that judgment, the Joint
992
Committee on Human Rights recently recommended that an amendment to the Children Act 1989 be sought at the earliest opportunity to place a statutory duty to safeguard the welfare of children on the Prison Service and local authorities. The amendment would go a long way towards achieving that aim.
The second point of principle is custody as a last resort. The current population of the juvenile secure estate in England and Wales is more than 3,000, which is significantly high, when compared to the majority of western Europe. Recent Home Office figures confirm that the UK now has the highest overall prison population rate among countries of the European Union. Since the early 1990s, successive legislation has increased the availability of custodial measures for remand and sentence for children as young as 12. That has reversed the trend established in the 1980s away from custody. It has resulted in year-on-year increases in the numbers of children in custody. That is another reason why we need the statement of principle.
In October 2002, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child published its response to the UK Government's implementation of the UNCRC. The committee was extremely critical of the UK Government with respect to the youth justice system in England and Wales. It expressed particular concern about the increase in use of custody for children, especially young children, and their treatment in custody. Article 37 of the UN convention states that the imprisonment of a child shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest possible time. The UN committee states:
"It is the concern of the committee that deprivation of liberty is not being used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time, in violation of article 37(b) of the [convention]".
It is a very clear direction regarding the use of custody, to which the Government should pay attention.
In particular, the committee expresses concern that the detention and training order has been introduced, allowing children aged 12 to 14 to be deprived of their liberty. Implementation of Section 130 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, which relaxed the criteria for making court-ordered secure remands, has also increased the numbers of children in custody. The Youth Justice Board has stated that the piloting of Section 130 has had a "significant impact" on the size of the juvenile custodial remand population. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, chairman of the Youth Justice Board, has described the measures as "unsensible"
The third principle is the best interests of the child. In its 2002 report, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child made its most comprehensive and severe criticism of the UK's administration of juvenile justice. In particular, the committee recommended,
"that the State party establish throughout the State party the best interests of the child as a paramount consideration in all legislation and policy affecting children, notably within the juvenile justice system".
Although the Children Act 1989 establishes that decisions taken by the court must be taken in the child's best interests through the establishment of the

993
welfare checklist and the need for the court to take all matters into account, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 has eroded that principle in dealing with children who offend by stressing the primary aim of preventing offending above all other considerations. That is another reason why we feel that a restatement of the principle of best interests is needed in the Bill.
I am aware that the Green Paper Every Child Matters and the Next Steps document that accompanies it set out some possible changes to the youth justice system, some of which are very welcome. However, the document covers only sentencing issues. It fails to address the problems across the whole youth justice system and the difficulties caused by a system that is not fully separate from the adult criminal justice system.
I hope that the Minister will be inclined favourably towards our amendment since it would retain the Government's overall aim for the youth justice system—the prevention of offending by children— while reinforcing and clarifying the necessary safeguards for children and better complying with the UK's children's rights obligations. I beg to move.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My noble friend Lady Massey could not be present, but I wish to take the opportunity to support the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness for the wonderful way in which she champions in this House the rights of children. I support the amendment. I wish to reinforce the three principles to which the noble Baroness has spoken.
I was involved in the launch, in July 2003, of Scope, an umbrella group of most of the children's charities, including the National Children's Bureau, Barnardo's, the NSPCC and others. The real concern of those organisations in coming together was to address the very issues that the amendment highlights. The concern is that we are not living up to our international obligations. We are talking about the human rights of children. We should see the distinction between children and adults. I would have thought that it was very much in keeping with the Government's thinking.
The Green Paper published recently is a very positive document welcomed by many of us concerned with children's rights. Clearly, it still has some way to go, but that such work is being done on so many fronts is a welcome innovation. I hope that the Government will listen to the principles in the amendment, that they will take the amendment to heart and include it in the Bill.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Hylton: The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has made a very powerful case in setting out the amendment. It forces us to think about the numbers and the position of children under 18 who are still held in adult prisons. That has been the subject of at least one report by the Howard League, chaired by, I believe, my noble friend Lady Masham of Ilton. It has been discussed in your Lordships' House on several
994
occasions. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, how many children under 18 are held in adult prisons? If they are still there, are they at least held in wings separate from adult prisoners? It is regrettable that relatively little progress has been made on the issue. I hope that the noble Lord will have some good news for us today.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for moving this very constructive amendment. I suspect that, ultimately, there is not much difference between our objectives and views. I am sure that the noble Baroness will wish to join me in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Warner, for his important work as chair of the Youth Justice Board before he moved on to his current ministerial responsibilities. The work of the Youth Justice Board has enabled us to make progress in how children and young people are treated and regarded in the criminal justice process. It has perhaps broadened perspectives on how the criminal justice process works in the interests, and supervises the interests, of children and young people caught up in the criminal justice system.
I echo the tribute that the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, paid to the important work carried out by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, in that field. I recognise the vigour with which the noble Baronesses have argued and advanced their case.
We established in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 that the principal aim of the youth justice system is to prevent offending by children and young people. That has proved to be of great value, acting as a focus for previously disparate agencies and services and enabling us to face up in a pragmatic, non-judgmental way to the problems that crime causes to society. By focusing on offending behaviour by children and young people, we are acting in their interests because we are trying to get behind the issues relating to that pattern of offending.
The welfare of young offenders has long been a very important issue in the criminal justice system and has a long history. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, referred to legislation going back to 1933—the Children and Young Person's Act 1933—which obliged those involved in government and the provision of services to have regard to the welfare of juveniles when sentencing them. Welfare considerations are therefore firmly rooted in legislation.
Let us also be clear, however, that child welfare is not the only consideration in the justice system and cannot be the main consideration. The justice system exists to tackle crime; welfare issues arise as a consequence of the need to tackle crime. We must also have proper regard to the needs and interests of victims and the wider community. We have a duty to ensure that justice is delivered and that the needs and interests of victims are not lost in the process. It is also our view that preventing offending is, as I said earlier, in the best interest of the child or young person and does not undermine the interests of the victim and the wider public.

995
Praise has already been heaped on the Green Paper, Youth Justice—The Next Steps, and the main children Green Paper Every Child Matters, both of which were published on 8th September. In those documents we propose a single main sentencing purpose of preventing offending. Currently, the sentencing of young people is subject to several different statutory aims and principles—a point that was underlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, in her contribution to the debate. As such, the relationship between and the relative strength of preventing offending, taking account of welfare and ensuring just desserts is not entirely clear.
We propose a single main sentencing purpose of preventing offending to put the main priority beyond doubt. We propose that that main purpose would be supported by requirements for sentencers to take into account the extent to which punishment is needed; whether, and if so how, there needs to be public protection because of the seriousness or persistence of the offending; the individual's age and vulnerability; whether there should be a restorative or reparative approach or obligations on the young person; and what particular interventions have been tried if the person has been sentenced before and what would be appropriate now or in the future. It is a holistic approach that takes on board many of the concerns raised in this debate.
With regard to welfare, what we are proposing through this formula is a more up-to-date, pragmatic equivalent of age and vulnerability, which is less value-ridden and focuses on the actual issues that can require special protection for a young person. It is selective and highlights the practical points. We propose that other sentencing considerations, along with their cost and evidence of their effectiveness, will be set out by the Sentencing Guidelines Council.
We should welcome views on this proposal, and, indeed, on all the other proposals outlined in the consultation document. Those views should be forwarded by 1st December. We do not consider it sensible to make changes in law to the principles of juvenile sentencing in advance of that consultation process. That would be approaching it from the wrong end. That brings me to the remaining part of the noble Baroness's amendment to this Bill—minimising deprivation of liberty. Such a measure should, of course, be used only as a last resort in respect of all individuals and should not be taken lightly. It is particularly important that children and young people do not get sent to custody or other secure accommodation by the courts if there is a more appropriate alternative sentence.
In Youth Justice—The Next Steps, we have put forward proposals on introducing more intensive sentences as the main response to the serious and persistent offending of juveniles. Intensive supervision and surveillance—a highly supervised community programme involving close attention from supervising officers, full-time daytime programmes and electronic monitoring—is currently being expanded to 4,200 places in England and Wales by January 2004, three-quarters for sentenced juveniles and a quarter for
996
bailees. However, custody would still need to be available when the offence or offences are so serious that only a physical restriction of liberty can be justified. It is finally for the courts, and rightly so, to use their judgment when choosing the most appropriate sentence for an individual young offender.
We are happy to undertake to look seriously at building the thinking behind this remaining element into future strategic sentencing purposes for youth justice. However, it is not our intention to tinker now. We have fallen into that trap too often in the past. We want to stimulate and hear a full debate on the proposed general purposes and put together a properly integrated formula for new legislation. Our minds are therefore open on the issue and we are delighted to have stimulated debate on it, of which this discussion is an important part. Tinkering with the process of sentencing at this stage, however, would be wrong and inappropriate.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked about the numbers of juveniles in custody in adult institutions. My figures suggest that, at the end of August 2003, there were 2,760 juveniles held in secure facilities of which 2,270 were held by the Prison Service. Only around 100 of those juveniles mix with over-18s when there are genuine reasons and in strictly controlled conditions. I am sure the noble Lord will be aware that the Prison Service has a distinct estate for 15 to 17 year-old boys. They are in 13 juvenile-only establishments on their own sites or on sites shared with, but separate from, young offender institutions for 18 to 20 year-olds. I hope that that provides some context.
We are beginning to witness a reduction in the number of young people held in custody. The numbers peaked in October 2002 at some 3,175. Since then, they have fallen back to 2,760 in August this year. That is a decrease of just over 13 per cent. I am sure that that reduction after a period of increase will be welcomed by all. I hope that that answers the statistical point raised by the noble Lord earlier. Following my comments, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Dholakia: My noble friend Lady Walmsley made an important point about the judgment given a year ago on an application for judicial review by the Howard League to which the Minister failed to reply. My noble friend mentioned the distinction between what the court decided about the welfare of the child and the responsibility of the agency to provide that welfare. This amendment misses that particular obligation. Nowhere in the Minister's explanations does he give any indication whether the judgment was considered by the Home Office and whether there is likely to be any appropriate legislation in the near future. If there is not, is it not right in this day and age that we have legislation that covers the duty and obligation of the agency, not just the welfare of the child?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I apologise if I missed that point. I thought that I was making the general point throughout my reply. Of course, the welfare of the

997
child is extremely important. It is at the core of our thinking and forms a part of the consultation documents that were published recently. I cannot comment specifically on whether the Home Office directly reflected its thinking on the particular case mentioned by the noble Lord when constructing the consultation documents, although I am sure that it will have done because that case clearly has an important bearing on the way in which these policy issues will develop in the future.
If there are particular points that I have missed, I would be happy to follow them up, perhaps in correspondence, which I would be happy to share with other noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and related debates.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Walmsley: I thank the Minister for that response. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and my noble friend Lord Dholakia for their report. I am delighted to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, is in her place and that her other responsibilities have allowed her to be present for the Minister's response. I add my warm compliments to the noble Lord, Lord Warner, who is now a health Minister in your Lordships' House, on the sterling work that he did when he was chairman of the Youth Justice Board. It was at that time that he made the comments that I quoted.
The Minister said that he felt that we had the same objectives: I agree. However, he said the objective was to prevent offending and reoffending by children. He said that that should be the primary objective of the youth justice system, not the welfare of the child. Offending behaviour often occurs because the child's welfare has been compromised. Addressing the child's welfare would help to meet the Government's objectives for the youth justice system. I pointed out the shortcomings of existing law in that regard. I am not satisfied that the Minister has given an explanation that covers the reasons why we feel that the new clause is required.
I add my praise to that for the Green Paper Every Child Matters. It has the potential to make many improvements to the life chances of children in this country. I look forward to giving my response to it in the fulness of time. However, as I said, its weakness is that it covers only the sentencing system, not the whole system. With due respect, I do not believe that the Minister covered that point.
I was delighted to hear the Minister's restatement of the principle that custody should be the last resort for young people and for all offenders. However, the fact remains that numbers in custody are rising. Nobody is suggesting that custody should never be available for those who need to be taken away from the public because they are a danger. The fact that the number of young people in custody is rising must be recognised, and something must be done about it. I welcome the indication that the Minister gave that the principle is
998
likely to be built into future legislation more clearly than it is at the moment. I look forward to seeing the Bill—I presume that that is what the Minister meant— that will follow the Green Paper in the fulness of time during the next Session of Parliament. We will have many conversations on the subject in the next 12 months.
I shall read with great care what the Minister said. On behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, and myself, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dholakia moved Amendment No. 233A:
After Clause 294, insert the following new clause—
"OVERCROWDED PRISON ESTABLISHMENTS
No prison shall hold more prisoners than is provided for in its certified normal level of accommodation without Parliament being informed and then only when it is deemed safe to do so by the responsible authority."
The noble Lord said: One area of concern that was repeatedly reflected in the House, particularly at Second Reading and in several amendments, is the substantial increase in the prison population that will result from the Bill. We have an unacceptably high prison population. In many cases, it exceeds the CNA—the certified normal level of accommodation. Almost all disturbances in prisons are a direct result of overcrowding. In almost all cases of treatment or rehabilitation, we fail because of the unacceptably high prison population. Over 60 per cent of people reoffend within two years of discharge because the size of the prison population is not conducive to a rehabilitation or resettlement programme.
I do not wish to sound alarmist, but it is clear that there is a serious danger that control and discipline in our penal institutions will be a matter of serious concern, if we do not control the prison population. The purpose of our amendment is to prevent overcrowding in prisons.
Custodial sentencing is carried out with no regard to the facilities available to accommodate prisoners. It leads to the overcrowding of facilities, with serious consequences for the ability of the Prison Service to provide regimes of a sufficient standard. It also means that the activities of prisoners are reduced and that it becomes less possible to accommodate prisoners safely and humanely. In turn, those factors limit the capacity of the prison system to reduce the risk that prisoners will reoffend on release.
By legislating to prevent capacity in prisons being exceeded without parliamentary oversight and to allow it only when the Prison Service deems it to be safe, we will help to focus attention on the need to reduce unnecessary custodial sentencing. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, has raised an important matter, but it is not a new one. We must go back many years—to 1940. During World War II, no more prisons were built, and the Home Secretary—a Labour Home Secretary, I think—gave a

999
ruling to those responsible for looking after the prisons that there should be three prisoners to a cell, not two, if more than one prisoner were admitted. That was a sound principle. It prevented homosexuality and has worked pretty smoothly.
In the years since, more prisons, especially open prisons, have been built, and the prison population has remained high. If the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, were made and the principle behind it put strictly into operation, some problem or other might arise. However, the noble Lord has made it easy for the matter to be dealt with by asking merely that Parliament should be informed. It is a matter that we should have in mind, and the Government should welcome the requirement to inform Parliament as a moderate solution to the problem.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: I support my noble friend Lord Renton and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. My noble friend is right to say that it is an important matter. He speaks from the position of having had a distinguished career as a Minister, particularly at the Home Office. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, speaks with the authority of the chairman of the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders. He has served on the councils for nearly 20 years and has been chairman since 1998. We have had an important discussion about a pressing issue, and I shall add my own concerns about the situation.
The Prison Reform Trust study, which was based on the Prison Service's data for England and Wales, was published recently—in July, I think. It showed that a serious situation was developing. For instance, the rate of positive drug tests rose to 11.7 per cent last year. The trust made it clear that that was happening in a range of areas as the system struggles to cope against a background of overcrowded gaols, leading to poor performance.
In 2002–03, we saw the highest number of suicides on record, with 105 gaol inmates taking their lives. Prisons in England and Wales also failed to meet their overcrowding target, with 20.4 per cent of the average population doubling up in single cells, against a Prison Service target of 18 per cent. In Shrewsbury, the most overcrowded gaol in England and Wales, there was an average of 91.1 per cent of prisoners doubling up. That situation cannot be allowed to continue, nor can it be allowed to deteriorate.
The report reveals a Prison Service in which performance is very seriously hampered by a record prison population. Far too many prisons are overcrowded, provide inadequate levels of purposeful activity and experience high levels of recorded drug use. The only way to improve the situation is to reduce the prison population and to extend facilities immediately. The noble Lord cleverly highlighted the problem by proposing that if a prison must be overcrowded, Parliament should be informed. We must have a safe environment in our prisons. I support my honourable friend and the noble Lord.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I, too, heap praise upon the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for his selfless work in
1000
relation to NACRO, over many years. I know that this is an issue dear to his heart, and rightly so. The new clause, after Clause 294, requires the Secretary of State to inform both Houses of Parliament whenever—that is the issue—a prison is to hold more prisoners than its certified normal accommodation, which is the uncrowded capacity, and that a responsible authority had considered it safe to do so.
I understand the import of what the noble Lord seeks to do, but it is unnecessary. It is important, but existing procedures already ensure that the conditions under which prisoners are held are humane and decent and that a responsible authority exists to ensure that prisoners are held safely.
As noble Lords will concede, certified normal accommodation is a measure of the uncrowded capacity. It represents the good, decent standard of accommodation that it is aspired to provide to all prisoners. The degree by which an establishment can exceed its CNA is known as the "operational capacity", which is determined by operational managers on the basis of their operational judgment and experience, taking into account control, security and the proper operation of the planned regime. Notwithstanding these considerations, all accommodation must be certified in accordance with Section 14 of the Prison Act 1952 and Rule 26 of the Prison Rules 1999.
Details of changes to individual prison capacity are already made available on a monthly basis. Any requirement to inform Parliament before a change occurs would be difficult to deliver practically. Every week, several prisons may adjust their capacity for operational reasons—such as, refurbishment or opening new capacity—sometimes outside parliamentary business hours.
I hear what noble Lords have said about overcrowding and pressure in prisons. To reinforce what we said earlier, we wish prison to be the port of last resort. We have invested greatly in this area. The Government are already investing £1.3 billion in extra capacity in 2005ߝ06. The Prison Service will increase capacity by nearly 3,500 places in existing prisons by 2006. A further 1,290 places will be provided through the new prisons currently under construction at Ashford, near Heathrow, and at Peterborough. The Prison Service continues to investigate options for providing further increases in capacity over the coming years.
Longer-term planning is being taken forward within the correctional services review, which is looking at the future direction of correctional services as a whole. Noble Lords know all that we are doing in respect of home detention curfew, intermediate sentences, conditions and reformation and the way in which we are able to take advantage of opportunities to release people safely into the community slightly earlier than we would otherwise. We take on board the noble Lord's concerns. I assure him that we are addressing them. The procedures are there to ensure that there is proper accountability.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply. In the light of what she said, I shall look at the amendment again. However, I suspect that I shall continue to support what both noble Lords said. There is very serious concern about our prison population. No amount of tinkering or building more prisons will help because, put simply, they will be filled up.
My approach is simple. Ultimately, if Parliament is not informed about exceeding normal capacity, the only alternative is to raise repeated debate on the subject, which we have done in the past. It will be helpful to examine what the Minister said and perhaps return to the matter on Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 28 [Parenting orders and referral orders]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 234:

Page 338, leave out lines 4 and 5 and insert—
"(2) A parenting order is an order which requires the parent—

(a) to comply, for a period not exceeding twelve months, with such requirements as are specified in the order, and

(b) subject to sub-paragraph (3A) below, to attend, for a concurrent period not exceeding three months, such counselling or guidance programme as may be specified in directions given by the responsible officer."

The noble Baroness said: Amendments Nos. 234 to 239 are necessary because of amendments made in the Anti-social Behaviour Bill to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998—the legislation dealing with parenting orders. The changes made in the Anti-social Behaviour Bill allow greater flexibility in the delivery of parenting programmes. They allow a programme to consist of, or to include, a residential course, provided that the court is satisfied that this is likely to be more effective than a non-residential course and that any interference with family life is proportionate.
The amendments deal with changes to the numbering of the Crime and Disorder Act and also ensure that, where a parenting order is imposed following a parent's failure to attend a youth offending panel meeting, the parenting order can include a requirement to attend a residential course in the same way as other parenting orders.
Residential parenting support will be appropriate only in exceptional cases for families in serious crisis, where the court is satisfied that this is likely to be more effective than a non-residential programme. The residential approach would enable parents to be taken out of their home to a setting that is structured so that more sustained counselling and guidance work can be carried out. Proper arrangements for the care of children will be crucial. Courses would be tailored to meet specific circumstances. Therefore, children might attend residential courses on a voluntary basis, thus enabling work to take place involving the family.
Intensive work involving the whole family can be very effective. It can be carried out at a residential centre to supplement work being carried out with parents and their children separately. In some other
1002
circumstances, a short period away from their children is exactly what parents need in order to concentrate and benefit from structured counselling and guidance.
I have sought to outline these amendments more fully because I know that a number of noble Lords not present in the Chamber today are anxious about such provisions. I thought it right to put them on record. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendments Nos. 235 to 237:

Page 338, line 6, leave out from "under" to "are" in line 7 and insert "sub-paragraph (2)(a) above"
Page 338, line 9, at end insert—
"(3A) A parenting order under this paragraph may, but need not, include a requirement mentioned in subsection (2)(b) above in any case where a parenting order under this paragraph or any other enactment has been made in respect of the parent on a previous occasion.
(3B) A counselling or guidance programme which a parent is required to attend by virtue of subsection (2)(b) above may be or include a residential course but only if the court is satisfied—

(a) that the attendance of the parent at a residential course is likely to be more effective than his attendance at a non-residential course in preventing the commission of any further offence by the offender, and

(b) that any interference with family life which is likely to result from the attendance of the parent at a residential course is proportionate in all the circumstances."

Page 338, line 14, leave out ", (5)"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 28, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 295 [Arrangements for assessing etc risks posed by certain offenders]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 238:

Page 169, line 5, at end insert— "( ) every local education authority any part of whose area falls within the relevant area,"
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 238 and 239 respond to an undertaking made by the Government in Committee in the Commons to consider, in light of a proposed amendment, whether to include local education authorities in the list of agencies on whom a duty to co-operate with the police, probation and prison services—the "responsible authority"—in the establishment of arrangements to assess and manage the risks posed by sexual and violent offenders will be placed.
These arrangements, commonly referred to as the multi-agency public protection arrangements, the MAPPA, were originally introduced by the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2001. The Criminal Justice Bill strengthens them by requiring other agencies to co-operate with the responsible authority in each area to the extent compatible with their existing statutory responsibilities.
In practical terms, including local education authorities in the "duty to co-operate" provisions will help the responsible authority to take fuller consideration of any risks that a particular offender

1003
may pose to children for whom the LEA has a statutory duty. It will also enable LEAs to draw to the attention of the responsible authority, and to the other duty to co-operate bodies, concerns that they may have about the vulnerability of a particular child to the risks posed by an offender.
Such a strengthening of the MAPPA will therefore improve inter-agency liaison and joint working to which the report of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, into the tragic death of Victoria Climbié drew attention. We have sought to respond here to concerns that were raised on this issue. I hope that these amendments will find support among noble Lords. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 239:

Page 169, line 24, at end insert— ""local education authority" has the same meaning as in the Education Act 1996 (c. 56);"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 239ZA had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 295, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 296 and 297 agreed to.
Clause 298 [Criminal record certificates: amendments of Part 5 of Police Act 1997]:
On Question, Whether Clause 298 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Although this clause consists of only one line and looks rather inoffensive, it conceals what is an absolute scandal in relation to the Criminal Records Bureau.
In June of this year the Criminal Records Bureau was in a dire state when figures on its performance were published. The bureau had set a target for 95 per cent of standard checks to be completed in one week. By March 2003 only 19.4 per cent of those cases met the target. The target for enhanced checks was 90 per cent to be completed within three weeks. In practice, the target was achieved in only 52.4 per cent of cases. On valid applications a target of 98 per cent was set to be achieved by March 2003, but it was achieved by only 6.5 per cent. So the bureau was in a complete mess, under-resourced and a bureaucratic nightmare.
The solution opted for by the bureau was to double the criminal record check fees on 1st July of this year from £12 to £24. Even after that was done, the bureau's books will not be balanced until 2007, losing £12 on every check carried out.
The record checks in question are those carried out for people in sensitive occupations, and it is against that background that Clause 298 has been introduced into the Bill, together with Schedule 29. That schedule contains clauses introduced as amendments by the Home Secretary, seeking powers to allow the staff of private companies to have access to the police and criminal records of applicants to positions in teaching and social and voluntary work. Such information is extremely sensitive, but it is to be made available to a
1004
private company. It will be accessed by staff who are not properly vetted and not aware of data protection issues and confidentiality. This is a short-term solution to address the total failure of the Criminal Records Bureau to process the volume of work it receives accurately and in a speedy fashion.
Instead of tackling directly the problems faced by the Criminal Records Bureau, this proposal is a short-term effort to bring in private companies to carry out functions which should properly be confidential and controlled by government. We oppose the clause and we shall oppose the schedule when it is put forward.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 239A. This amendment has been tabled following anxieties expressed to me by the Civil Service unions, in particular by the PCS, the Public and Commercial Services union. I seek the removal of paragraph 10 of Schedule 29 because I could not think of any other way of raising the questions that I want to put to my noble friend on the Front Bench.
This new addition to Part 5 of the Police Act 1997 allows the Secretary of State to delegate what are described as, "relevant functions" to,
"such parties as he may determine".
It is that wording which worries both myself and the PCS union. To say the least, the wording is very loose. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has already pointed out, it refers to an area which concerns sensitive information and where the need for confidentiality is paramount. What are the "relevant functions" and who are the persons to be determined by the Secretary of State? Surely these should be spelt out in the schedule.
The paragraph raises a number of other issues. First, I understand that the idea for this proposal came from an independent review team, chaired by Patrick Carter, which reported almost a year ago, in December 2002. The PCS believes that things have moved on and that the proposals may no longer be needed. Perhaps my noble friend could comment on that.
Secondly, if the proposals are needed, the PCS believes that they could blur the line between the public and private sectors and those who work in them—a danger already indicated by the noble Lord. In terms of the public services, obviously the PCS is keen to ensure that public sector responsibilities are adhered to and that confidentiality in centres of information is protected and preserved.
Thirdly, I understand that some areas of Home Office work are already being outsourced by the Capita group to India. It would be extremely worrying if this area was likely to be outsourced. I believe that measures are needed to ensure that this important work is carefully protected, preferably by writing into the schedule the appropriate safeguards.
Finally, I refer to the implementation of this part of the schedule. Would its enactment be subjected to the affirmative resolution procedure; that is, will any proposals for enactment be presented to Parliament before they are put into effect? If not, that would leave

1005
the Secretary of State with a great deal of power in a very delicate area. I hope that my noble friend can set my mind at rest on these issues.
7 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin): In rising to respond to the debate—
Viscount Colville of Culross: The amendment has not been moved.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am speaking to Clause 298 standing part of the Bill. It is coupled with the amendment to which the noble Baroness referred a moment ago.
Lord Filkin: That is how I understood the position. I am responding to the clause stand part debate, which is not an amendment but a discussion on the clause itself.
In doing so, as the Committee would expect, I do not intend to claim for a second that the establishment of the Criminal Records Bureau has been one of the Government's finest processes of implementation. It has been bedevilled by problems and it has been a very difficult challenge to get it right.
Having said that, let me explain why these measures will be a part of the continuing process of improvement to ensure that the Criminal Records Bureau is able to fulfil its extremely important function of ensuring that no one is employed by public or other bodies in situations where, because of their past records, they might put the vulnerable public at risk.
Clause 298 and Schedule 29 make a number of amendments to Part 5 of the Police Act 1997, which sets out the statutory framework under which the Criminal Records Bureau operates. The Committee will be aware of the difficulties faced by the CRB in its first few months. As a result of these difficulties, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, as pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson of Market Rasen, appointed an independent review team, led by Patrick Carter, to take a fundamental look at the operations of the CRB. The provisions in Schedule 29 flow directly from the review team's recommendations. Their aim is to further improve the performance of the CRB so that it is well placed to meet future challenges as demand for disclosure services continues to grow.
The recommendations should be viewed against the backdrop of a sustained improvement in the CRB's performance since last autumn. The bureau is now issuing on average 40,000 disclosures a week compared with 24,500 in August 2002. It is also now meeting its service standards for turnaround times, with more than 90 per cent of standard and enhanced disclosures being issued within two and four weeks respectively. However, the Home Office is not complacent. We need to build on these improvements in performance and
1006
ensure that the CRB has the necessary capacity to meet all the demands for its services, particularly in relation to higher level disclosures.
This is where the review team's recommendations and these amendments to the Police Act come in. The CRB is a vital element of the Government's programme to improve the protection of children and vulnerable adults from those who might wish to harm them. To meet this objective, the CRB must be placed on a sounder footing.
The amendments to the 1997 Act give effect to four of the review team's recommendations. First, they recognise and upgrade the critical role of registered bodies. The CRB is too remote from an applicant for a disclosure to carry out the identity validation process effectively. This role ought properly to fall to the registered body which countersigns the application, but with scope to delegate the function to the employer or other agent in appropriate cases. To ensure that registered bodies discharge their responsibilities effectively, the amendments enable the CRB to attach conditions to a registration and to suspend or cancel a registration where such conditions are breached.
The second issue addressed by the amendments concerns the electronic submission of applications. Recent consultation carried out by the Home Office with registered bodies suggests that there is strong support for an electronic channel. Many registered bodies will wish to adopt such a channel as their preferred means of submitting disclosure applications. The migration to the electronic route will not happen overnight, but there may come a point where there will be a diminishing case on efficiency grounds for maintaining the existing telephone and paper channels. A facility to mandate the electronic channel could therefore in the future be useful, although at this point in time there is no intention to move to that forthwith.
The third area covered by the amendments is the criteria for determining who qualifies for a standard disclosure and who should get an enhanced disclosure. A standard disclosure simply includes details of any criminal convictions. An enhanced disclosure also includes any relevant local police intelligence. Because applications for enhanced disclosures need to be referred to local police forces, they are necessarily more costly and time consuming. It is important therefore that we do not tie up resources producing enhanced disclosures in situations where they are not appropriate. To this end, the amendments establish a flexible mechanism to set the criteria for determining who qualifies for an enhanced disclosure and then provide the CRB with the means to ensure that such criteria are properly observed. The CRB will want to rely on education and support for registered bodies in the first instance and will exercise this new power only as a last resort.
Finally, the amendments to the 1997 Act will facilitate the more flexible deployment of Civil Service and private sector staff working together under the umbrella of the CRB. I should emphasise that the power to delegate functions is discretionary. There

1007
have been some concerns about the possibility that non-civil servants will be given access to conviction information on the police national computer. No decision has been taken to delegate the PNC matching function but, were we to decide to do so, I can assure the Committee that the delegation will be subject to all appropriate safeguards, which I will spell out in more detail later.
Having set out the purpose of the amendments to Part 5, let me explain the effect of removing Schedule 29 from the Bill. First, we would lose the ability to set and enforce performance standards for registered bodies. This would mean the continuation of a lack of rigour exercised by a minority of registered bodies in confirming the identity of a disclosure applicant—it is of course fundamental to the system working that you verify the identity of the person about whom the check is being made—which could open up the possibility that a known paedophile might gain access to children.
There would also be a continuation of the high error rate in applications forms. Some one in four forms have to be returned to registered bodies for the correction of errors or for the supply of missing information. We would also lose our ability to better define the criteria for eligibility for enhanced disclosures, as I indicated previously.
There would also be no power to mandate the use of an electronic application channel—which is most likely to come on stream at some point in the future, if not immediately—and, finally, there would continue to be artificial barriers between the functions that can be carried out by civil servants and those that can be carried out by the CRB.
Let me turn to the issues raised by the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson. She asked, first, whether these powers are still necessary. The answer is yes, they are. Following the conclusions of the high level review carried out by Patrick Carter, with the active involvement of the Permanent Secretary of the Home Office, senior civil servants in the department are firmly of the view that these powers are needed.
As I indicated, the intention behind the provision is to facilitate more effective business processes—a ghastly term—from beginning to end to ensure that the relationship between the CRB and Capita, which carries out many of the operational functions, is effectively integrated, albeit subject to appropriate checks. In other words, it is to optimise the efficiency of the CRB by rationalising management responsibilities and the respective roles in an end-to-end chain of the CRB and Capita. The current system creates artificial barriers in the way of efficient end-to-end processes. However, I emphasise that this power is discretionary. In the event that we decide to go down this route, the delegation will be subject to appropriate safeguards to protect sensitive information.
I shall list those safeguards because they go to the heart of the question of whether there is risk involved in this. I apologise for speaking at length but there are concerns about these issues. The safeguards are as follows. All staff with access to the PNC would be vetted to a level equivalent to an enhanced disclosure.
1008
Paragraph 11 of Schedule 29 to the Bill contains a specific new offence of unauthorised disclosure of information obtained in connection with a delegated function which would apply if a member of Capita's staff passed on, without proper authority, information obtained from the PNC.
Next, all bodies gaining access to the PNC for the first time are checked by the Police Information Technology Organisation—PITO—which is responsible for managing the PNC and sets strict security safeguards. All users have unique ID and a password system operates. They are required to operate in accordance with security operating procedures—I will not go into detail. Access to the PNC is auditable by the CRB itself, by PITO and by the police.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: The Minister is going rather fast. Why do you have to employ a private company to sort out the Criminal Records Bureau? Why do you not just get it to work properly?
Lord Filkin: The noble Lord knows that from the establishment of the system, Capita was contracted by the Home Office as part of the operation of the Criminal Records Bureau service. The Criminal Records Bureau agency had employed Capita as part of the system from the beginning; it is not bringing in Capita now to sort out the system, but trying to improve the way in which the agency and Capita work so that the functions for which the CRB is responsible are effectively carried out. They have been there from the beginning.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Are they still there after the complete failure of the system? I would be grateful for some help.
Lord Filkin: Yes, they are still there. These amendments and powers are, in part, intended to deal with these issues to ensure that there are mechanisms in place and more effective working between the Criminal Records Bureau and Capita in fulfilment of their contractual obligations to the Home Office.
Earl Russell: I believe I am right in understanding that the discipline of the private sector is competition. Where does Capita face any competition?
Lord Filkin: I was not involved in that process in any detail—I am looking for any signs of life in the Box. There would undoubtedly have been a public procurement process. I would have expected that more

1009
than one tender was submitted as a result of that public procurement. I am assured that there was competition -there was a competitive process.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: How many fingers?
Lord Filkin: I could not see how many fingers there were.
Earl Russell: I beg the Minister's pardon for coming back. Clearly there must have been competition in the appointment process, but did it continue after Capita was awarded the contract?
Lord Filkin: The short answer is no. After someone has won a competition on very large procurements— I am speaking in generalities—there is usually a fairly complex negotiation to go from the competition into a final contract. When that contract is let, its terms apply for the period of the contract as it runs. There are always, in such cases, processes for revision and alteration to the contract.
I have been in danger of going on at length but I felt it was important that I set out why this is necessary. Let me turn to some of the other questions that have been raised.
I was asked if the delegation of power is subject to any parliamentary procedure. The straight answer is no: the power to delegate the Secretary of State's functions under Part 5 of the Police Act 1997 is not subject to parliamentary procedure. No objection to this was raised by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform.
In response to an implied question by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the contract was for 10 years, after which time it will be retendered.
In short—perhaps in long—those are the main issues to which I have sought to respond. I have sought to explain why these powers are necessary and why we believe they will help to improve the service to the bodies that require it, therefore improving public protection, which is, of course, what this is all about.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: I had not intended to intervene, but I am driven to do so by having considered the debate in the other place. I recall an earlier exchange in this House in which my noble friend Lady Blatch pointed out the problems that this House has when clauses and schedules are not debated properly in the other place. I was enjoying listening to the Minister when he was reading out his speaking note, because it followed, almost exactly, the speech made on 20th May in the other place by Mr Paul Goggins, except that the Minister was able to complete his remarks. Mr Goggins was rudely interrupted by his own guillotine Motion. He had started:
"The amendments to the 1997 Act give effect to four of the review team's recommendations … This role—"[Official Report, Commons, 20/5/03; col. 955.]
1010
Nothing more was heard by the other place. A guillotine Motion deprived the other place of debating this at all. Fortunately we have now had the conclusion—or, indeed, the substantial part of what Mr Goggins intended to say.
I am concerned about the way in which the focus has been on blaming individuals who have tried to do what the Government have asked them to do when I believe the real blame is with the Government themselves. I would like to put that on the record. It is very easy to do so, because all I have to do is quote the present Lord Chancellor, now the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, from a speech made on 11th March in a debate with the very erudite and efficient Winifred Robinson on the 'Today" programme. He said:
"We tried to do too much too early. We should have introduced the checks on a gradual basis. …The consequence of trying to do everything too early was we ended up in a situation where the CRB wasn't able to cope".
He continued:3
"We've now stabilised what the CRB does".
However, the problems continue. We constantly hear press reports about how employees have been forced to wait months before starting new jobs.
I felt I had to put the record straight. I believe that the Government made a series of errors in setting up and demanding that the CRB should carry out these functions. I just hope that the Government will have an efficiency scrutiny of their activity in demanding the impossible as the review team now seeks to see its recommendations implemented. There is a lot to learn from this mess, and I hope the Government will learn the lessons.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Filkin: I hope that I was clear when I introduced my remarks by indicating that not for one second did the Government seek to claim that they did not have responsibilities for how this process unrolled, even though others may have had responsibility as well. It does us no credit to pretend that we are not at fault.
As to lessons learnt, I recollect from the time when I was in the Home Office—not so long ago—that both Ministers and officials were seriously aware that they had learnt a lot about how to handle major projects of this sort so that they reduced the likelihood of such problems happening in the future.
Having said that, I think the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is slightly uncharitable; the situation is nothing like as bad as it was a year ago. It certainly should not be as bad as it was a year ago because that was unacceptable. Substantial progress has been made and it is very important that we continue to sustain that rate of progress, which is why we believe these powers are necessary.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: It seems to me that it just shows that parliamentary accountability does not work. This has been a mess. The civil servants are unsure about their position, as the noble Baroness,

1011
Lady Gibson, told us. The other place had an explanation that was cut short by a guillotine. We come here today, in a small Committee, to discuss this issue in the way that we have. It is really is not very satisfactory, and I will come back to this issue on Report.
Clause 298 agreed to.
Lord Hunt of Wirral moved Amendment No. 239ZB:
After Clause 298, insert the following new clause—
"EXCLUDING CIVIL LIABILITY OF VICTIMS OF CRIME

(1) A person who has been convicted of a criminal offence before a relevant court shall have no civil action for damages in respect of personal injury caused by the victim of the offence for which that person has been convicted unless the court considers that it is in the interests of justice that such action can be brought.
(2) Subsection (1) shall only apply to personal injuries caused during the circumstances of the offence for which the person was convicted.
(3) For the purpose of subsection (1) "victim" is defined as any person natural or corporate—

(a) whose interests were affected or threatened by the relevant offender, or

(b) who believed on reasonable grounds that their interests were affected or threatened by the relevant offender, or

(c) who was, at the time of the offence, a servant or agent of any person falling within paragraph (a) or (b) and who either knew or reasonably believed that the person's interest were so affected or threatened by the relevant offender.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (3) "interests" includes—

(a) any proprietary interest;

(b) a personal interest in avoiding physical injury.

(5) For the purpose of subsection (1) "damages in respect of personal injury" shall be defined to include all consequential loss suffered by the offender."
The noble Lord said: Earlier in this evening's proceedings, we received an assurance from the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, that a unit within her department was monitoring carefully every commitment made by a Minister to ensure that it was then implemented. I would be greatly reassured by her comments were it not for the fact that I am now being forced to introduce a new clause to exclude civil liability of victims of crime when last February the Home Secretary had a discussion with my right honourable friend Oliver Letwin, on the "Today" programme. In recognising the importance of the points being made by Mr Letwin, Mr Blunkett said that he would find a solution. The Home Office did not appear to have found a solution in May, even though it was said that a new clause would be put forward in this place. We are now on the final day of the Committee stage—sadly, because there is so much that we should have debated, and we have not had time properly to consider the Bill. We move towards Report stage on further days, and we have not had a new clause from the Government, which is why I am moving this new clause.
There has been public outrage about the fact that there appeared to be a situation in the legal system whereby a burglar could sue his or her victim and
1012
recover damages with the benefit of legal aid. It is probably a euphemism to use the phrase "public outrage". That marvellous campaigning newspaper, the Daily Mail, has highlighted it on many occasions, as have the BBC and others.
The new clause raises the issue of civil proceedings brought by criminals against their victims after their conviction and arising out of the circumstances in which they committed the offence. The clause would wholly deprive anyone convicted of a crime of the right to sue or bring civil proceedings against their victim on the basis of the circumstances in which they committed the offence. In many ways, we on these Benches are seeking to turn the Home Secretary's words into action, given the lack of any response from the Government in moving a new clause, as was originally promised.
We are all aware of the extent to which the current system has given rise to that serious public disquiet. There have been a number of high profile cases, the most notable of which is probably that of Mr Tony Martin. I do not want to make a comparison with that case, because it is certainly not acceptable in any way to use excessive force. However, there are provisions in the existing system, in the criminal law, to deal with the situation.
The public, and many noble Lords, feel most strongly about the issue of compensation, for several reasons. First, if a criminal commences civil litigation, public money is often put at his disposal—a fact that is widely reported by the press. Secondly, the present system does not allow many victims of crime to receive compensation. Obviously, if they suffer injury, they are entitled to go to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. However, very often there are material losses to the victims—usually the poorest, who are often uninsured. It is often hard or even impossible for them to recover from those losses.
The law as regards self-defence, which should also be considered with regard to the new clause, is also unsatisfactory. What constitutes reasonable force, with which one is legally allowed to defend oneself, one's family and one's home, is decided in accordance with the facts of each case. However, from the way in which cases are reported in the press, it is now unclear to most people in the country whether they can defend their homes or themselves without problems or the fear of being sued. That is surely an untenable situation.
I hope that the Government respond positively to the new clause and enable law-abiding people to feel that they can defend their homes without the fear that they may be punished twice. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: We on these Benches support the new clause. It is very important that the victims of crime receive proper compensation. I know that the Minister will give us an assurance that the level of compensation paid under the compensation scheme will continue as it is now. Victims should not carry the

1013
burden of legal proceedings being brought against them on top of what they have suffered personally and physically. We support the new clause.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: In supporting the amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Hunt, I repeat the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. My noble friend referred to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. Is any review taking place at the moment of the scope of the board? If so, what are its terms and when will we know its outcome?
Lord Filkin: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for tabling this important amendment. I make it clear that the Home Secretary does not intend to resile in any way from the commitments that he gave. I shall explain in the course of my comments why there has been some delay.
The amendment would prevent any person who has been convicted of a criminal offence from pursuing a civil action in damages for any personal injury caused by a range of people falling within the definition of a "victim" of the offence, unless the court considered that it was in the interests of justice for the action to be brought.
The Government are sympathetic to the concerns raised by the Opposition in this area, and recognise the need for people to have confidence in the justice system. It is important that victims of crime are not subject to unjustified claims for damages when they have acted reasonably and proportionately in defending themselves or their property. We recognise that there may occasionally be cases that raise public disquiet and understand the concerns that can be raised by even one case. The Government have indicated that we shall take action.
We are thinking along the same lines as this amendment, but we consider that some aspects of it need to be improved. For example, it is unclear how and when a claim should proceed and what mechanisms would enable it to do so. The amendment would give a very wide discretion to the courts as to whether the claim should proceed, which could operate to reduce its effectiveness. It would cover corporate bodies and the proprietary interests of the victim, which we believe may not be the best approach, but would not protect from civil action a third party such as a police officer who had intervened to defend the victim. It also does not make clear that other defences currently available to the victim would continue to be available, such as the doctrine of ex turpi causa non oritur actio, which can operate to deny an action arising from a base cause.
We therefore intend to bring forward a government amendment which is clearer and more focused, and which will genuinely strengthen courts' powers to reject unmeritorious claims. This is a complex area of the law, and any amendment could have implications for a number of related areas, including the common law on self-defence; the law on negligence and contributory negligence; and the application by the
1014
courts of certain common law doctrines such as ex turpi causa. We are giving those implications very careful consideration.
We have also been considering the concerns raised by the public about the granting of legal aid to fund the type of case that we are discussing. Public funding is intended to help the least well off in society with the cost of legal advice, and it is open to anyone who wishes to bring or defend proceedings in the English or Welsh courts to apply through a solicitor to the Legal Services Commission for funding. The criteria for the grant and withdrawal of public funding are laid down by Parliament. The Legal Services Commission cannot differentiate between applicants on the grounds that a decision to grant funding may be unpopular. Decisions are made solely according to whether an application meets the statutory criteria. Funding applications are assessed according to a means and merit test. Only those applicants who satisfy both statutory tests will qualify.
Reference was made to Mr Fearon, who was granted some limited legal aid funding under the Legal Aid Act 1988. A more stringent merit test was introduced under the Access to Justice Act 1999. The Lord Chancellor has directed the Legal Services Commission to include the current criteria for funding personal injury cases in its consultation about changes to the scope of Community Legal Service funding and the funding code later in the year, with a view to tightening the rules in that area, so that any future claim, such as that of Brendon Fearon, would be excluded from the normal scope of the Community Legal Service.
An application for public funding under the exceptional funding powers under Section 6(8)(b) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 would be possible for any excluded service. However, an application would be less likely to meet the additional criteria set for exceptional funding.
I hope that by outlining the measures that we are taking forward on both the civil law and legal aid, the Government have made clear their intention to address concerns that have been raised. However, as I indicated, this is a complex area of civil law and it is important to produce a clear, strong and effective amendment that does not have any damaging effects on the wider law. Unfortunately, it has not been possible to finalise matters in time to put forward an amendment at this stage of the Bill. However, we aim to bring forward an amendment on Report. I hope that on that basis the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on behalf of the noble Baroness, will not press the amendment. We are trying—
7.30 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: It may assist the noble Lord if I remind him of the point raised by my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, which was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. Is there a review going on into the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board? My noble friend Lord Carlisle

1015
is a former distinguished chairman. Could we have more details and an answer to the questions that he raised?
Lord Filkin: As is sometimes the case, in another five seconds I would have found the relevant information, but I have it now. As has been said, there have been press reports on the matter the noble Lord mentioned. We are certainly trying to improve the focus and efficiency of the criminal injuries compensation scheme and to draw in additional resources to achieve better support for victims and witnesses. I can therefore say clearly that we hope to publish a consultation paper on this matter in a couple of months or so to set out how we intend to move forward on the issue with thorough consultation.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Are the Government intending to give victims more money?
Lord Filkin: That is one of the issues that the consultation paper will set out. It will consider how the criminal injuries compensation scheme should be developed and improved for the benefit of victims and witnesses. I cannot prejudge the detail of the document or the outcome of the consultation.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Will victims be pleased at the outcome of the review?
Lord Filkin: With the greatest respect, one will have to wait to see how the process of consultation rolls out on an intent by government to improve the operation of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme. Any other comment would clearly be premature.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I do not wish to prejudge what may be in the report, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, appears to be doing, but will it deal with the scope of the scheme and those who will come within it in future? What will be its limitations?
Viscount Colville of Culross: Before the noble Lord replies to that, I have not followed what is to happen. As I understand it, we are not going to have an amendment on this particular matter on Report. We are going to have a report as a result of the Law Commission's consultations and various other considerations and that will come forward in legislation at some time in the future—goodness knows when, given the Government's programme. I happen to come from the part of the country where Mr Tony Martin and Mr Fearon had their conflict. It is a very lively issue there. It would be helpful to know what will happen and have some indication when it is going to happen. We need to know that.
Lord Filkin: I may have missed the point but I sought to be explicitly clear on the matter. In short, the Government will fulfil the commitment given by the Home Secretary in this respect. I have indicated that we are broadly sympathetic to the amendment tabled by the Opposition Front Bench. We shall bring
1016
forward a considered and careful government amendment on Report to seek to put beyond danger the concerns that the public quite rightly and understandably have in this respect. It would have been good if we had that amendment before us tonight but it will be with the House on Report with a very earnest endeavour to close this loophole.
I have also been asked about the review of the criminal injuries compensation scheme. I have stated very clearly that there will be a consultation paper on that. We are not in a position to say any more at this point about its scope and depth, but in a sense it is self-evident that it will consider how the criminal injuries compensation scheme should be developed to give better justice to victims and witnesses. But any further than that no government can at this stage go.
Viscount Colville of Culross: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, for what he said, but we do not have a lot of time. This is a very complicated issue. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, would probably agree with me that a number of issues, both criminal and civil, are involved which need to be carefully considered. We have something in the order of a fortnight. When will the amendment, or a draft of it, be produced so that people can take advice on it? I really do not think that it is any use supposing that we can come to a satisfactory conclusion upon this matter if the amendment is put down about two days before the Report stage is started in this House. Can the noble Lord give us any indication about when we shall get the text?
Lord Filkin: It will be tabled in time for the Report stage of this Bill. If it is possible to table it earlier to give as much notice as possible to noble Lords who are interested in the matter, that will be done. However, I can say no more than that apart from giving the commitment that the amendment will be tabled for Report, as I believe I have now said three or perhaps four times.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: I speak for a number of Members of the Committee when I say that it may be the repetition which is causing us some concern. Here we are right at the eleventh hour with a matter of days to go before the consideration on the proceedings of this Bill will be concluded. We have a statement that the amendment which I had the opportunity of moving this evening is substantially what the Government would like to see but that they would like to make certain changes to it. Therefore, it is not clear to me why the Government do not accept the amendment and seek to improve it on Report. At least we would then have a basis on which we could work. As the noble Viscount pointed out, it may well be that the Minister already has a draft, in which case it would be very helpful indeed if he published it.
The only other point I make concerns my serious disquiet about the review of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. I believe that we read about it in the press but I was not aware until this evening that the Government had confirmed that there was such a

1017
review. That causes considerable concern as in my experience of government the Treasury's hand will be somewhere within this. If I am wrong, let the Minister say that the Treasury is not at all involved in this matter. The Treasury will be looking for better value for money from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. The review is bad news for victims. I regret the fact that it just slipped out during the Minister's speech. I hope that the Minister will indicate whether he has a draft amendment and why he will not accept our amendment as a basis on which improvements could be made. I think that everyone is a little bewildered about why we cannot make progress.
Lord Filkin: I believe that I signalled at length why we thought that the amendment had merit in principle. However, considerable areas of difficulty arise regarding specific legal points on the intersection with other areas of civil law. Therefore, it would mislead the Committee to accept the amendment at this point. The best process is to bring forward an amendment as soon as possible which meets exactly the same issue that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, wishes to achieve, but does it in a way that we consider is right and sound. We shall do that as early as we possibly can but it is important that we bring forward a sound amendment. I am advised that we shall try to table the amendments one week before they are due to be debated, if we possibly can. I think that is an improvement on what I said previously.
To be short about the criminal injuries compensation, there was a leak. I gave a straightforward response as a result of that leak. We make it clear that we will have a consultation paper which we will put out for proper consultation as soon as we can. There has been no breach of parliamentary procedure whatever on that; clearly, there has been a breach of some other codes in terms of divulging confidential government information. I hope that there will be general rejoicing at the serious intent to come forward with a consultation paper on criminal injuries, and we very much hope that Members of the Committee will participate in and respond to that.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: The Minister says that the consultation paper may be out in two months. Do I take it from that that there is no intention of having any parliamentary proceedings prior to that, such as orders that deal with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board?
Lord Filkin: I have no knowledge of that whatever. However, if I can supply any information on that, I shall be pleased to write. Within two months or so, the intent is to bring forward a consultation paper, as I have indicated.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I should declare an interest as someone who resigned from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board last time the funding to it was cut.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: The situation is most unsatisfactory. If there is to be a review of the Criminal
1018
Injuries Compensation Board, the Government should make a proper statement setting out exactly what it is and how much the review will cover.
Lord Filkin: The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, has done some excellent work on the amendment and bringing the issue forward, but that last comment is unworthy of him. We have made it quite clear that there has been a leak of government work in progress before we are in a position to make an announcement. Governments are not usually blamed for leaks being seen as a breach of faith of process.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: I was, on many occasions in the other place by the opposition in my time as a Minister. When there was a leak, a certain Mr Cook unfortunately seemed to be the beneficiary of a number of brown paper envelopes. However, I shall not go over that, except to say that we immediately made the situation on leaks open and clear in a Statement to Parliament. That is what I rather regret is not happening. The Government may well have been caught by surprise, but something has leaked. Perhaps there should be a more detailed explanation, but that is for another time and place.
I am also very disappointed about the lack of any new clause or amendment so far, but heartened that it will be with us at least one week before we debate the issue again. I am comforted by that, and in those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I beg to move that the House do now resume. I suggest that the Bill be considered further in Committee no later than 8.43 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

African Development Strategies
7. 43 p.m.
Lord Lea of Crondallrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made on African development strategies.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a somewhat ambitious topic for dealing with in a dinner debate, but I am encouraged by the number of noble Lords who intend to contribute, albeit for three minutes each. Many of them have long experience of business, public administration or NGO work in Africa, and all will add real value to my main theme. In one respect, that theme is very simple. It is that a huge cultural change is needed for the African economy to grow to its full potential, but we have a golden opportunity to bring it about, with NePAD linked to a positive North/ South agenda.
On 1st November, Ghana, nearly 50 years after its independence, will be the first country to be peer-reviewed under the procedure of the New Partnership

1019
for Africa's Development, and although President Nkrumah may be turning in his grave, it is indeed a red-letter day. It puts economics, and above all the totally inadequate levels of investment, into the proper context of the wider problems of peace and war, corruption and the gross misuse of power. It leads to a question for the developed world: how can we go further to incentivise NePAD by budgetary support in rewarding delivery?
A survey was published a week ago by Transparency International showing that many parts of Africa have a culture of deeply embedded corruption—bribing the taxman not to collect taxes, gross diversion of funds, and so on. Let us not beat about the bush: all that adds up to a guarantee that, if matters carry on like this, those economies will remain stagnant for a very long time indeed. To make the change requires a veritable cultural revolution.
So far as we in Europe are concerned—there are at least half a dozen countries with a major colonial legacy, warts and all—we must answer those who say that we should hand over more cash without strings or, as the term has it, without prescriptive policies. The contention is that prescriptive policies often ignore local conditions and have no local ownership, and so on. They and we together have to remove layers and layers of doublespeak from this whole question.
Here in the UK as part of the European Union, we too are at the receiving end, if you want to put it that way, of prescriptive policies in terms of human rights, obviously in terms of budget deficits, and in terms of environment, company mergers and framework conditions for employment. Indeed, it is true of nearly every department in Whitehall. However, African countries know that that is the sort of set-up to which they now aspire. Mr Amaoko, executive director of the UN Economic Commission for Africa, said at a meeting of the All-Party Group on Africa last month that,
"unless these governance and corruption issues are tackled more aggressively in Africa there is no chance of meeting the minimum development targets—notably on poverty—and the 7 per cent economic growth"—
per annum—
"which that logically entails by 2015".
My one reservation about the otherwise excellent update of the UK action plan is that it tends to pull its punches on that key issue of corruption.
One of the great values of NePAD is that it has focused our minds in a remarkable way on three interrelated levels of mutual accountability. The first level is within each African country, the second between African countries, and the third between Africa and first-world countries. That means that each of those partners has to put something on the table. It can mean benchmarks of performance or frameworks of governance. Of course, it can mean reform of the rules of international trade and investment, both North/South and within Africa.
I also hope that my noble friend will agree that the strengthening interface between NePAD in Johannesburg and the African Union in Addis Ababa
1020
augurs well for a new type of AU/EU interface on Africa, albeit with some leading countries in Africa pushing the programme forward as regional champions. Likewise in the EU, I take Britain and France as the exemplars that should drive forward the EU agenda and bring in other countries with long-standing interest in Africa.
In that connection, some confusion seems to have arisen post-Cancun on the semantics of bilateralism versus multilateralism. There are in fact at least two quite different usages for the terms, and that can be quite off-putting in such formulations as,
"the poorest in Africa will suffer the most from any move from Multilateralism to bilateralism".
Of course that is true if it means picking off African countries one by one. It is feared that the big economic powers could stand in the position of a lion negotiating with a mouse. There is an immanent danger of that and we must not allow it to happen.
On the contrary, however, it is certainly not true of AU/EU relations. The idea of regional groupings is one whose time has come. Such types of jointly designed initiatives are essential for Africa if it is to get the investment needed to get anywhere near meeting the development goals. Essential as aid is—I salute the work of all those agencies at every level involved— being totally aid-dependent is certainly no answer. The fact is that there is a dearth of profitable private investment.
A very timely report published this summer by a semi-official US-led group, entitled The Commission on Capital Flows to Africa—A 10-year Strategy, notes that the continent today attracts less than 1 per cent of global capital flows and accounts for less than 1 per cent of world trade. Africa has 10 per cent of the world's population—800 million or so—with only 1 per cent of the world's capital flows. One does not have to be Einstein to see Africa falling further behind the rest of the world on that basis.
The US study calls for the US to complete a free trade agreement with Africa in 10 years; that is, a bilateral arrangement with America, set out in a treaty. America would support investment through cheap credit in sensitive areas such as textiles and apparel, electronics and agribusiness.
Although inadequate capital flows are in part a proxy for economic viability, relying largely on the accumulation of domestic capital, they offer a revealing way of analysing the broader issue. It would be helpful to have a high-level EU study and recommendations for action to complement that carried out by the Americans. The OECD is also sponsoring work in that area.
The straight-up business agenda produces a sharp dilemma for many African countries wanting to attract investment. They see the conditions set by business as a very mixed blessing. However, there is no alternative to some agreed framework, not just dictated by business, but agreed with governments and trade unions. I am pleased to note that the latter have now been invited to join the umbrella consultative committee for NePAD for precisely those reasons.

1021
That is the key to unravelling the "Catch 22" of very little private investment and a poor public sector tax base. Those must go hand in hand if we are to find work for the reserve army of unemployed—or unproductively employed—who make up a rapidly rising number in the urban areas.
On HIV/AIDS, I am not competent to comment, but simply note how poignant it was to hear a development worker say that if 300 US dollars spent on a retroviral drug gave an African expert in Malawi one more year of life, it would be worth it. That gives the dismal science of economics a whole new dimension. Fifty per cent of the staff of the National Audit Office of Zambia have died of AIDS. That too is devastating for the economy. The AIDS pandemic is a deterrent to private investment.
I turn finally to inter-ethnic questions. Those too are very much part of the economic equation. The past 50 years show that if one had to write one golden commandment for Africa, it would be, "Thou shalt not stir up ethnic resentments". Zimbabwe is not the only example that springs to mind. The good news is that some otherwise unpromising countries have succeeded economically, having earlier been written off as hopeless, precisely because they learnt that lesson.
The little island of Mauritius was written off by British experts a generation ago as having no natural resources, but it has achieved remarkable success. That success was not automatic, just because it has wonderful beaches. Through hard work and a cunningly constructed, inclusive electoral system, involving four-member constituencies, everybody has seen the necessity of entrenching peace between the mix of Creoles—people of African descent; Indians, of Hindu, Moslem and Buddhist backgrounds; British and French; Arabs and Chinese and one or two more besides.
As Ministers there told us a year ago,
"When African leaders come here to Mauritius, they all ask, 'What is your secret'? We answer, 'That is our secret'".
Inter-ethnic conflict is at the heart of many problems. At their worst, as we see from Amin in Uganda onwards, such conflicts lead to open warfare and savagery.
So there is hope or despair. Our purpose is to show our understanding and our determination that nothing will be allowed to stand in the way of helping Africa to make the huge cultural leap, because the people of Africa deserve no less.
I look forward to the debate and I know that I speak for all noble Lords in saying how encouraged we are by the fact that my noble friend the Leader of the House will maintain an active interest in this portfolio and continue to bring her own considerable standing to bear.
7.54 p.m.
Lord Freeman: My Lords, I shall complement the excellent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lea, by
1022
concentrating briefly on Sierra Leone. That country is at the bottom of the UN world index of human development. That is after 11 years of civil war.
Sierra Leone is a special responsibility for the United Kingdom. How we help Sierra Leone deal with poverty is a touchstone of our overseas development assistance. A 10-year plan to reduce poverty was agreed by Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Sierra Leone in February. We all hope that a full strategy will be agreed for implementation by the middle of next year.
The £30 million of direct aid from the UK Government is significant. Clare Short is to be congratulated, as is the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, for supporting that programme. There are two key ways in which that aid should be used. We should realise that 60 per cent of the budget of Sierra Leone is provided by donor assistance. The two key elements are standards of governance and democracy, and economic development. Democracy and development go hand in hand. One cannot have one without the other.
I turn briefly to governance. President Kabbah has made an impressive start and we should support him, as I do. The special court should come to a speedy, sensible and clear conclusion; corruption must be put down and local government should be developed. We should also ensure the independence of the media.
A delegation will travel from this Parliament to Sierra Leone in November, which I hope to join. In terms of governance, the continued interest of this Parliament in the Government of Sierra Leone and its Parliament will help.
I turn finally to economic development. One priority about which I feel strongly is agribusiness. The transport costs of moving goods even from countries that are not landlocked—Sierra Leone has an excellent port—are great. We need investment in roads to help people up-country to move their products.
The noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, referred to the drop in private sector investment in developing nations. It has fallen sharply since 1997. More could be done in the United Kingdom to encourage UK investment in Sierra Leone. The problem is that the perception of many British businessmen lags behind the reality. That reality is a turn-around in governance and the beginnings of real development in Sierra Leone. I am pleased that trade missions have restarted and I hope that the noble Baroness can reassure the House that Sierra Leone remains a continued high priority for the Government.
7.58 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, for the debate and shall follow the line of the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, in confining my remarks to the position of what was the Belgian Congo and is now the Democratic Republic of Congo, whence I returned at the weekend, having been part of a five-person—four MPs and myself—parliamentary delegation that went there last week at the invitation of the government. I have never

1023
returned from anywhere in such a state of both despair and zeal. I felt despair because the country was in a condition which would take me an hour merely to sketch. It is in a state of degradation and collapse that beggars description. However, I felt a sense of zeal because, although the country is not and has never been part of the specifically British connection, it is at the very heart of Africa, with nine bordering states, many of them with their own enormous problems: Burundi, Rwanda, Uganda—one could go on and on. It is a country the size of Europe, with 60 million people, and it is in what one would call the last-chance saloon.
The Congo has been bedevilled by a history that has seen no light—Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness might be the title of a book about the Congo today— save the fact that there has been one miracle in the past year, which is the creation of a transitional national government. That comprises all the warring factions in the Congo, which as recently as July of this year inaugurated a combined and united government with Joseph Kabila as president and four vice-presidents. We spent more than an hour in the company of all of them and were, on the whole, greatly impressed by them. For the first time there is the beginning of demobilisation and disarmament.
However, with all that—the programmes and commissions they have set up and the work they are doing, especially via the United Nations "MONUC" with 13,000 men operating now under Chapter 7 so that they can actively intervene in the north-east where lighting still continues—the Congo needs at least one more great miracle. It needs to hold elections by the end of 2005 in a situation in which it has no electoral roll; where the cost of transport exhausts one-third of the UN budget in that country; where there is no road or rail network; and where corruption, fear and lawlessness are endemic.
I suggest to the House and to the Government that although we have been generous and increased our aid—this year we will be giving £28 million in bilateral aid and perhaps another £5 million in multilateral aid—with all the other contending demands the UK should take the lead in bringing together the OAS and the EU to draw up a special plan that is especially needed at this unique time. The Congo needs to get through the transition period and two years beyond. My time is up and I am grateful for the opportunity to make these few and inadequate comments.
8.1 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, few politicians have worked harder on the issues at the heart of this challenging debate than my noble friend the Leader of the House in recent years. When she comes to reply, I hope that she will feel able to reassure us on the following concerns: the food crisis of southern Africa and the particular vulnerability of Zimbabwe, Angola and Lesotho.
In the case of Zimbabwe, it is imperative on no account to let the grave political situation divert us from a determination to find effective ways to assist
1024
the people in their desperate plight. It seems to me significant that Save the Children Fund, for one, believes that it can still implement programmes there without endangering the humanitarian principles which govern all its work.
On NePAD, as Christian Aid powerfully argues, it is important to balance any "Marshall Plan" approach by both a genuine commitment to bottom-up development work and a determination to listen to civil society in the region—Churches, trade unions, NGOs and the rest—and to respond to validity in their analysis.
There must be support for an indigenous private sector and a realisation that level playing fields in world trade are not enough. Nations have to reach a level of fitness in order to be able to play. There must also be an honest appraisal of how far orthodox liberal economic theory alone, not to say dogma, can provide the social infrastructure essential for decent life and development. As my noble friend has argued, we must look at the role of social mores, ethics and a stand against corruption.
In general, we must all have at the top of our concern a refusal to allow resources to be diverted from Africa to Iraq and Afghanistan, where additionally must be the order of the day, and a recognition of the inescapability of our own responsibilities in the so-called developed world.
Oxfam and others—I declare an interest as an Oxfam Association member—repeatedly emphasised these responsibilities as follows. On trade, urgent action is needed to deal with the immense damage being done by subsidies that rich western countries pay to their farm sectors to produce a glut of cheap food and cotton, much of which is dumped on world markets, undercutting African and other farmers and robbing millions of their potential livelihoods. The CAP is a major culprit.
On aid, there is a necessity for the G8 to deliver the extra 6 billion dollars per year it has promised to Africa and to agree a timetable for reaching the 25 to 35 billion dollars a year which the UN estimates will be required for Africa to meet the millennium development goals.
On debt, the G8 really must stop the prevarication and cancel the debts of African countries struggling to make repayments at the expense of their health and education systems.
It is totally unacceptable that the world's poorest people, in their punishing struggle to survive let alone progress, should be crippled by debts accumulated in previous decades by undemocratic and corrupt leaders and their regimes.
8.4 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lea, for giving us the opportunity to focus on this important matter. The Church of England fully supports the Millennium Development Goals. However, based on current trends, it is concerned that most of the goals will not

1025
be reached in southern Africa by 2015. It is upon this region that I want to concentrate in this short contribution.
The UN Economic Commission for Africa has estimated that countries in southern Africa require a minimum sustained growth rate of 6.2 per cent per year to reach the income poverty target in 2015. Only Mozambique has grown more than 6 per cent in the past few years. During the 1990s, the average growth rate in Zambia has been 1.6 per cent and in conflict and war-ridden Angola, 0.5 per cent has been the rate. The Zimbabwean economy is the fastest contracting in the world today, with GDP shrinking by 17 per cent in 2002.
Six out of the eight MDGs certainly will not be reached if the international community fails to prevent the continuing rapid spread in the prevalence of HIV/ AIDS in southern Africa. The loss of assets and income, the reduced ability of caregivers, usually women, to work and mounting medical fees and funeral expenses are pushing already poor households deeper into poverty across the region.
HIV/AIDS has been a major contributing factor to increasing child mortality, as increasing numbers of children are being born infected with the virus, dramatically reducing their life expectancy. In the absence of HIV/AIDS, southern African countries would have been well on their way to halting the incidence of malaria and tuberculosis by 2015. As it is, these targets are almost out of reach.
What can be done? First, an increase in bilateral overseas development aid is needed. To this end, the Churches welcome and support the Chancellor's proposal for an international finance faculty intended to double the amount of development aid from OECD countries by 2015.
Secondly, in the wake of the Cancun disappointments, fresh efforts need to be made to open up markets to African producers. It was good to hear the reflection of the noble Baroness the Leader of the House on that in Monday's debate.
Thirdly, the cancellation of bilateral and multilateral debt is the essential component in any attempts to get within striking distance of MDG targets. Meanwhile, the Church remains a fully committed partner in every country in Africa and in a supporting role here in Britain.
Across the river today in another palace, some dozen African archbishops have been meeting fellow primates from around the world under the leadership of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. Important though their agenda may be, arguably the agenda in your Lordships' House this evening is of far more relevance to the people of Africa, for our agenda is literally a matter of life or death.
8.8 p.m.
Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, it is impossible to do justice to this important debate in our allotted three
1026
minutes, but I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, for again giving us the opportunity to debate African development strategies.
There have been a number of major success stories in Africa this year—in particular, the removal of Charles Taylor from Liberia and, just last week, the breakthrough in Burundi, laying the foundations for a formula for a democratic government in that country. Of course, not only did the brief visit of President Bush reaffirm the United States' commitment to conflict resolution in Africa; it was also backed by a commitment in terms of promises of billions of dollars for tackling HIV/AIDS and assisting reform-minded governments.
On the other hand, there have been some concerns: the Great Lakes conflict is still unresolved; the situation in Zimbabwe continues to deteriorate; and, as we debated just last week, the unsuccessful outcome of the Cancun meeting of the World Trade Organisation was disappointing.
So quo vadis the African development strategies? While we all support the need, objectives and principles of NePAD, the reality is that, despite the high expectations, NePAD has not made great progress in the past year. Of course, there are the exceptions of Senegal and Kenya, where great progress has been made. NePAD's credibility has certainly been harmed by the inability of African leaders to expedite the resolution of the Zimbabwe crisis.
Having said that, just a few months ago I was fortunate enough to have a one-on-one meeting with President Thabo Mbeki in which he reaffirmed his confidence that a breakthrough in Zimbabwe is imminent and that there will be a change to the Zimbabwe constitution, reintroducing the position of a Prime Minister and giving President Robert Mugabe merely ceremonial powers, paving the way for a government of national unity. Well, the jury is out. We wait in expectation.
It is also encouraging, as the noble Lord, Lord Lea, mentioned, that 16 states have signed up for the NePAD Peer Review, which will, in all likelihood, commence in January or February next year. While there is clearly a full commitment by the G8 partners to assist in tackling the many economic, social and political challenges in Africa, all too often meaningful projects are hampered and paralysed by the lack of capacity, red tape and bureaucracy in low-income target countries. The African Union summit in Mozambique was also rather a disappointment. Many commitments were not followed through, and there certainly needs to be far more urgency in establishing the peace and security council and the roll-out of the African peacekeeping force.
My allotted three minutes are almost up. Her Majesty's Government have played a pivotal role in conflict resolution and post-conflict reconstruction in Africa, together with our humanitarian relief efforts. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, mentioned the successes in Sierra Leone. The roadmap for Africa will be a bumpy one, but it is important that African issues keep centre stage in your Lordships' House.
8.11 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, Kofi Annan said last week that it was more important to support people than governments. It is hard to resist the conclusion that some governments are less the mainstay of their people than the cause of their downfall.
The major forces for African development are still trade, aid and debt, but export subsidies have depressed prices in Africa, and African countries made a powerful and almost unanswerable case against them in Cancun. No wonder that trade talks have stalled because the EU is so unclear and such injustice is allowed to continue. How can African countries develop under the weight of such an albatross? Aid flows are just not increasing enough to finance the millennium development goals, and the likelihood of meeting those goals is fast receding, even in education.
Much hope is placed on the IFF, but countries will have to continue to open up their markets indiscriminately as a condition for accessing more resources. Half of all aid is still going to middle-income countries. Debt relief is the most efficient form of finance, as it will directly free up funding for poverty reduction. As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, that requires nothing less than the full cancellation of external debt to countries such as Mozambique, Zambia and Tanzania.
There have been problems with the HIPC programme, even in flagship countries like Uganda and Mozambique. Any instruments such as HIPC must be consistent with the millennium development goals, but that is not happening. The concept of debt sustainability falls down when one knows how precariously it is based on exports. It depends on coffee prices, which have lost Uganda millions in export revenue, and on foreign exchange, which has skewed Mozambique's exports in the form of one major aluminium plant.
With the collapse of commodity prices, countries that have been through the HIPC initiative are still in a position of unsustainable debt. In that case, what measures have been taken by the OECD countries to top up the HIPC initiative and compensate the countries affected? In the mean time, does the Minister agree that within the Africa Action Plan a more realistic debt sustainability analysis must be applied?
NePAD is an important initiative, which will have more success in a development than a political context, but unfortunately it advocates a single national model of economic governance and does not allow space for local initiative or people-based development. A poverty reduction strategy must address local realities. That may be why NePAD is still perceived by African civil society as a vehicle for donor conditionality and fundraising rather than the promised African renaissance.
However, the African Union, at its meeting in Maputo in July set up an economic and social council to engage civil society groups and that may be a positive way forward, although only in a highly controlled environment.
8.14 p.m.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, the erosion of both grand and petty corruption is, indeed, one of the keys to development in Africa. I declare an interest as a member of Transparency International UK's advisory council and note the publication of a strong report by the Zambian chapter while I was there. DfID is funding the new Zambian anti-corruption commission, concentrating on high level corruption with co-operation from our own Serious Fraud Office. This seems to be having a knock-on effect on the petty corruption which so undermines people's confidence in a democracy and the rule of law. Half of those surveyed thought petty corruption had decreased, and all of the people I talked to, at various levels, thought so too.
Corruption has probably been most damaging in the extractive industries and I hope my noble friend can give us an update on the Prime Minister's Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative as well as the EU legislation on transparency and the UN Convention Against Corruption.
Most Northern European oil companies broadly support the transparency initiative, but there is an obstacle to full transparency. Host governments tend to insert a clause obliging the agreement of all parties before disclosure can be made.
Not all local joint venture partners, for instance, state oil companies, are into the transparency culture. So, in these cases only the western oil extractor's payments will be published, and then it is difficult to call the Government to account for their expenditure of all the oil revenues. Mr George Soros has thrown his weight behind the linked unofficial "Publish What You Pay" campaign, and I understand has just written to the World Bank and the IMF asking for extractive industry transparency to be made a condition for World Bank and IMF loans and for its inclusion in poverty reduction strategies—I hope not too late for Chad. May I ask my noble friend what the Government's reaction is? 1 hope my right honourable friend the Chancellor will support the requests.
Meanwhile, extreme poverty remains. I saw remarkable UNICEF projects to hold vulnerable communities together in Zambia—I declare an interest as a trustee—supporting community schools, emergency feeding and the care of AIDS orphans. These give people hope but what gives them power is the ability to earn a living. Formal employment touches only 20 per cent of the population, so other routes to economic survival must be created. That is where microfinance comes in. I declare an interest as an associate of Opportunity International.
In Zambia, their microcredit provides a lifeline into trading and eventually into more capital-intensive ventures. It is how school fees and medical emergencies are paid for. It will be playing a part in Zambian diversification from mining to agriculture. I hope that my noble friend can tell us something about DfID's support for microfinance.
8.18 p.m.
Lord Chan: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Lea, for securing this debate. My focus tonight will be on strategies to develop the skills of African health professionals to care for Africa's young children. This approach covers the prevention of infections, the maintenance of health and treatment of ill children based on real partnership between Africans and others in African settings.
The Government's emphasis on helping the poorest countries of sub-Saharan Africa, one of the Millennium Development Goals, is essential for improving the prospects for children. The effectiveness of this policy can be improved by establishing sustainable services to secure better survival and health for young African children.
In the 1990s new medical schools established in southern African universities began educating and training local students to become doctors. This development, assisted by medical teachers from Britain, has resulted in African doctors remaining to practise in their home countries. One outstanding success has been in Malawi, where locally trained doctors provide much needed services in towns and rural areas. In the past Malawian doctors have continued to work in Europe and America where they were trained rather than return home.
The next step asked for by Africans is to develop doctors to become specialists, particularly paediatricians who care for sick children and teach undergraduate students. In order to achieve this without requiring African-trained doctors to spend many years in Britain or America, a partnership has recently been established between the Mandela Rhodes Foundation and the Rhodes Trust with our Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. I declare my interest as a Fellow of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and as a patron of the college's international group.
This partnership discussed paediatric education for capacity building in developing countries, particularly in southern Africa, at a seminar at Magdalen College, Oxford, a fortnight ago. Lessons learned from experiences in developing countries were discussed and an action plan for southern Africa drafted.
The success of this partnership will be guaranteed if government, through DfID, were involved. As more African doctors, nurses and other health professionals take responsibility for childcare, we can look forward to better infant and child survival in sub-Saharan African countries.
The principle of capacity building the skills of Africans to promote and maintain the health of their children in Africa is also being developed against malaria. Here the investment by DfID is now being further developed by a new charity, the Malaria Consortium, of which I am chairman, to strengthen and train more African health professionals in two centres in Ghana and in Uganda to implement policies and practices to protect young children and pregnant mothers from malaria, which kills one million every year.
1030
Knowing how committed the Leader of the House is to development in Africa, I look forward to her views on capacity building through skills transfer in African countries and the Government's plans for involvement in this essential activity.
8.21 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Lea of Crondall for initiating this debate. Its wording is carefully chosen because it does not imply that any particular organisations or countries are responsible. But, in asking Her Majesty's Government about progress, I think that supporters of the resolution are implying that the Government should be involved in Africa's development, especially in supporting initiatives led by African countries through the arrangements of NePAD.
Some of those initiatives are supported by governments, United Nations agencies and African and international non-governmental organisations. We should acknowledge that the Government, through DfID are looking into and supporting these contributions to development strategy and projects. I declare an interest as chairman of ACOPS.
I shall take this opportunity to report on positive developments taking place in Africa in the sphere of environmental improvement and sustainable development—an aspect highlighted by African leaders and our Prime Minister at the Johannesburg summit in 2002. During the debate in this Chamber on 21st May, I explained how NePAD's environment initiative is led by President Wade of Senegal. One of the eight elements of the initiative concerns the coastal and marine issues of vital concern to Africa. About 50 per cent of Africa's population and about 30 per cent of its economic activity is based in these areas.
However, their future sustainability is in doubt because of the many damaging influences caused by actions of the developed world. These need to be addressed urgently, starting with the rapacious fishing by ships from Europe and Asia, restrictive trade practices, emigration of experts and climate change effects. Those issues were highlighted by experts from Africa and the UK and by Ministers from Senegal, Kenya and the Seychelles at a meeting held in London in May. My noble friend Lord Evans spoke on behalf of the Government.
Several positive developments, however, were presented, such as the effective policing by some countries of these foreign fishing fleets, new measures to ensure that tourism is beneficial ecologically, economically and, as one might hope, culturally, the establishment of marine protected areas, and most importantly, the involvement of many African communities in genuine sustainable development projects.
The encouraging news this month is that the first NePAD operation has now been set up—the Coastal and Marine Co-ordinating Unit—under the auspices of the Minister for the environment in the Government of Kenya, Dr Kulundu. President Kibaki of Kenya has

1031
given his full support to this initiative, which will help to reverse the trend of marine environmental degradation and to help reduce poverty in these areas.
I look forward to hearing from my noble friend the Lord president of the Council on how sustainable development is an integral part of the Government's strategy for Africa.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, I agree with the thinking of the noble Lord, Lord Lea, that regionalism—by which I mean shared responsibilities; shared resources—is in great part the answer.
Together with Chief Anyaoku, recent Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, and with the patronage of the Ooni of Ife, the Emir of Kano and the Igwe of Achalla, I jointly chair a consultative process whose primary objective is to recapture and sustain the traditional links between Nigeria and the United Kingdom, drawing together through the private sector and civil society.
We identified 19 different sectors—ranging from civil society, education, health and environment to financial services, small to medium-sized enterprises, security and defence to agriculture—that are deemed to make up the bilateral relationship. Two substantive and complete documents authored by professionals covering a wide spectrum have been produced including identifying a range of implementable projects. Far-ranging activities have been undertaken to increase the capacity of civil society in its activities to support the democratic process, respect for human rights, eradication of poverty and good commercial and political practices, mindful of the role which good relations between faith communities in both countries can play to assist.
In the education sector, a detailed symposium on education illustrated the parlous state of the sector and identified where the United Kingdom can assist in "education for all" initiatives. Time does not allow me to list the three distinct strategic ways forward that have been identified—although, if requested, they can of course be provided to the Government. Future focus will be to motivate the SMEs of both countries to work in partnership, each bringing a mixture of local knowledge and expertise to the table; and, secondly, the agricultural sector.
In addition, our process has been, in discussion, to control theft and loss from security breakdown in the delta oil-producing region, which represents a loss to the economy of 3 billion US dollars a year. President Obasanjo has said that a long-term solution must be found. The UK is uniquely positioned to advise and assist in the exclusive economic zone command and control management. Will the Lord President urgently review government guidelines in the context of the benefits to British industry and of assisting an ally?
The letting of federal contracts for expediency without budgets being in place often presents nightmare commercial scenarios—a barrier to investors. Competition in the construction industry is also urgently required as main contractors have hitherto been charging up to double a fair price for essential infrastructure projects.
1032
Although I have belaboured the endeavours of our process—and in so doing publicly thank all those people who have contributed—advances are being made and although we attempt not to supersede but to complement other effective initiatives, the Nigeria-British consultative process is able to offer guidelines for NePAD and for the future evaluation of bilateral relations.
In conclusion, the era of good intentions must now end. The doing is all. NePAD spearheads the drive for a resurgent Africa, but it is with the private sector, through equitable generation of trade and creating the conditions for such, that real solutions lie.
8.28 p.m.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Lea, for raising this important issue, especially when so many eyes are on Iraq. On Monday, we discussed the breakdown of the World Trade Organisation talks in Cancun. That breakdown was bad news for the poorest countries. African countries, in particular, need trade protection and for their industries not to be decimated by cheap, subsidised imports. It is through economic growth and trade, rather than aid, that real progress is likely to come. Those talks must therefore get back on track, focussing on development and the relief of poverty.
Under the Millennium Development Goals, the aim is to reduce by half the proportion of people living in extreme poverty by 2015. What stands in the way of that in Africa? First, as we have heard, there is conflict, not only destroying lives and prosperity in one country, but affecting neighbouring countries. We have heard about the Democratic Republic of Congo and its key moment from my noble friend Lord Phillips. In Zimbabwe, it has been estimated that it will take seven years to put right each year of economic catastrophe. What action is being taken to address those conflicts? What is being done to check the sale of small arms across the continent?
Then there is the crisis of HIV/AIDS in Africa, to which noble Lords have referred. In some southern African areas, HIV/AIDS affects over one third of the population, largely those who should have been in their most economically productive years. In Zambia, 11 per cent of children are AIDS orphans. The effects of the epidemic will be seen for decades to come. Can the Minister tell us how far the agreement to provide drugs in the poorest countries really will assist, or whether the agreements are so ringed around that few will benefit?
Education has been undermined by the AIDS epidemic. Teachers have died, and pupils are kept from school to care for relatives, yet education is the key to the future of the continent. Does the noble Baroness agree that reductions in debt should be targeted to enable countries to spend more on education and training? The noble Lord, Lord Lea, stressed the importance of NePAD. How optimistic is the noble Baroness about the role that NePAD might play in promoting democracy, human rights and economic progress?

1033
It is bizarre to try to cover a continent in three minutes. But it is a reflection of the interest in the House of Lords that we are subject to such a guillotine. That there is such a level of interest is surely very encouraging.
8.31 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lea, on sponsoring this important debate. It is not surprising that it has attracted speakers from all corners of the House with widespread experience of Africa. In congratulating the noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council on her appointment, I also agree with the welcome expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lea, that the noble Baroness will continue to speak on international development matters in the House.
The combination of debt relief and encouraging free trade can act as a catalyst to securing economic regeneration throughout Africa. Free trade is vital and should be at the very core of development strategy. Yet, recently, Vijay Makhan, the African Union's Commissioner for Trade, Industry and Economic Affairs, said:
"African countries should consider quitting the WTO if it does not deliver".
What discussions have the Government had with African leaders, and what are they doing to persuade African nations to remain in the WTO?
The World Bank estimates that eliminating all barriers to trade would generate 250 to 520 billion dollars extra in global income. With almost 50 per cent of that income going to developing countries, that could lift more than 144 million people out of poverty by 2015. Noble Lords on these Benches have always stressed that point. We must be prepared to be bold and to make the first move in restoring the political impetus into those critical issues relating to multilateral trade.
Those issues are played out alongside the continuing scourge of HIV/AIDS, which many noble Lords have mentioned. HIV/AIDS is not merely a health issue; it is also a development issue. In sub-Saharan Africa, in particular, entire workforces are being eliminated. The situation is compounded by the fact that poor countries are losing workers to developed nations. There are an estimated 13 million AIDS orphans in Africa alone. By 2010, the total number is expected to be 25 million. What are the Government doing to help African AIDS orphans?
In Kenya, it is estimated that a person dies every minute from AIDS. Noble Lords are well aware of the cultural factors contributing to the crisis and the lack of education regarding the spread of HIV/AIDS. In Uganda, through a system of education and health programmes, the tide has started to turn and new infections are in decline. What discussions are the Government having with African leaders about education and treatment for those affected?
1034
It really is time to get beyond rhetoric. What counts now for the people of Africa are the actions of countries such as the United Kingdom. We urge the Government seriously to push forward with their development work in Africa and to deliver on the promises made by the Chancellor three years ago.
Baroness Amos: I begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Lea of Crondall for introducing this important debate. It will stretch all my skills because I have eight minutes to respond to the points that have been made, so I will write to noble Lords if I am not able to respond to specific points.
I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark that some African countries will fail to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. That is true, and it will delay development in Africa for millions of people. Africa's problems are complex and inter-connected. We need to work jointly within the G8, the EU, the UN, the African Union and African governments themselves to address the range of issues on which concerted progress is needed. There are four underlying problems.
First, as the noble Baroness, Lady Northover mentioned, is conflict in key countries and regions, which overrides any attempts to prioritise human development objectives. We must support African efforts to resolve armed conflicts. We have been instrumental in supporting the resolution of conflicts in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, gave a graphic description of what is happening there. We have agreed an initial programme, but I am concerned that, because there is a transitional government, other donors will walk away. We have to prevent that.
We have also helped in Sudan, Burundi, Angola and west Africa. Some of those countries are on the road to peace and need the assurance of long-term support. We need to provide assistance so that African countries and regional and sub-regional organisations are able to engage more effectively to prevent and resolve conflicts.
The noble Baroness, Lady Northover mentioned the elimination of illegal weapons. We have pledged more than £20 million to combat the global proliferation of small arms. The noble Lord, Lord Freeman, mentioned Sierra Leone in particular. I can say that we will continue our commitment to and engagement with Sierra Leone. We have pledged £120 million over the next three years. We agreed a 10-year memorandum in November last year. There are a number of priorities, but tackling corruption and strengthening democratic institutions were areas raised by the noble Lord in his speech.
Governance remains a fundamental issue for Africa's development. My noble friend Lord Lea raised the issue of corruption. The noble Lord, Lord Freeman, raised the issue in relation to Sierra Leone and my noble friend also talked about governance. Effective institutions, representative democracy and accountable government are essential conditions for private sector investment, growth and

1035
poverty reduction in Africa. We support the strengthening of capacity-building programmes that focus on economic and corporate governance, such as the African Capacity Building Foundation. We are working on anti-corruption in Malawi, Uganda and Nigeria and are also working in Zambia and Mozambique.
My noble friend Lady Whitaker talked about the extractive industry transparency initiative. We are encouraging countries dependent on oil, gas and mining to pilot this new approach, companies to make their payments to governments clear, and governments to publish what they receive so that their citizens can hold them accountable. We are examining the George Soros proposals mentioned by my noble friend with respect to the World Bank and the IMF.
My noble friends Lord Lea and Lord Judd, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich and the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, all talked about trade, as did other noble Lords. There is no doubt that the terms of trade have deteriorated and commodity prices have declined. The result has been low investment and economic growth, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. That means that insufficient jobs and incomes are being created for the poor and too few resources are generated for health and education—key areas for development. Progress on trade policy issues will be essential for Africa to become competitive, but most countries lack capacity for trade policy analysis, negotiation and implementation and for ensuring that trade reform leads to poverty reduction.
We should be in no doubt that the current system does not work for the least developed countries. Africa's share of world trade halved between 1980 and 1999, so I am truly disappointed at the failure of the WTO talks in Cancun. It is most damaging to the world's poorest countries. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, that we are in constant discussions with our African partners on the issue. I met many of them at Cancun. We feel that Africa stands to get a better deal through multilateral negotiations in the WTO, in which developing countries make up two thirds of the membership, rather than in a multitude of regional and bilateral agreements with bigger economic players.
We are committed to securing progress in the negotiations most crucial to African countries: agricultural market access; reduction in trade-distorting subsidies; and specific and differential treatment provisions for poorer countries, which were a particular concern of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich.
My noble friends Lord Lea of Crondall and Lord Judd and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark raised the subject of economic growth. Increased aid is important, and we are committed to trying to double the amount spent on aid through the international finance facility under the leadership of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We are committed to putting 0.4 per cent of our gross national income into development by
1036
2005–06 and to providing £1 billion for Africa by the same date. That commitment remains, despite the commitments that we have made on Iraq.
Economic growth is essential to poverty reduction and development in Africa. We continue to argue that the interests of developing countries must be taken into account in international economic and trade discussions. We want to promote the responsible private investment and business activity that are the key to economic growth.
The right reverend Prelate, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and other noble Lords raised the issue of HIV/AIDS, and the noble Lord, Lord Chan, spoke about health and child mortality. We have made a significant contribution in those areas. The noble Lord, Lord Chan, asked specifically about capacity building. I will write to the noble Lord with details of what we are doing.
My noble friend Lord Judd raised the issue of the food shortage in southern Africa. We continue our humanitarian support. There is a shortage in the World Food Programme appeal, and we have just agreed a further £5 million for Zimbabwe.
With regard to HIV/AIDS, we are the second-largest donors. We invested over £270 million in programmes world-wide in 2002–03.
We remain committed to the implementation of HIPC. I assure noble Lords who raised the question that we are pressing for improvements to the initiative to help to strengthen debt sustainability.
I am running out of time. We continue to support NePAD and African efforts to develop the continent. We see the peer review mechanism as an important tool for African leaders for learning lessons. The noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, referred to Zimbabwe. That situation must be resolved, but we do not see Zimbabwe as a test case for peer review.
I must answer two specific questions from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, on sustainable development. Our policy is to integrate environmental issues into broader support for government financial and planning systems in developing countries. The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, spoke about Nigeria. We agree that progress in Nigeria is key to development in Africa. We work closely with the Government, particularly the new economic team. We have just reviewed our overall strategy, and we support the Education for All initiative.
We will continue our efforts to work closely and collaboratively within the international system. I hope that, when the UK takes over the presidency of the G8 in 2005, we will be in a position to report considerable progress.
8.44 p.m.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that comprehensive update, albeit in a very short space of time. I thank all noble Lords for their well informed contributions.

Criminal Justice Bill
8.45 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Schedule 29 [Criminal record certificates: amendments of Part 5 of Police Act 997]:
[Amendment No. 239A not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 239AA:
Page 343, line 14, at end insert—
"(5) In relation to an offence committed before the commencement of section 266(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the reference in subsection (4) to 51 weeks is to be read as a reference to 6 months."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 29, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 299 [Orders and rules]:
[Amendment No. 239B not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 239BZA:
Page 171, line 26, leave out "order" and insert "instrument"
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting improvement substituting the word "instrument" for "order" to reflect the range of instruments to which the subsection is relevant. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 239BA:
Page 171, leave out line 31.
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: Since we debated my amendment the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, has added her name. I welcome that and we now look forward to leaving out line 31.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 239C and 239D not moved.]
Clause 299, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 300 agreed to.
Schedule 30 [Further minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 240:
Page 344, line 9, at end insert—
"(da) as respects the references in paragraph 9AB of Part 1 of this Schedule, bail granted before the coming into force of that paragraph;"
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 240 is consequential on an earlier government amendment to Clause 15.I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 241 not moved.]
Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendments Nos. 241A to 241E:
1038
Page 355, line 23, at end insert—
"86A In section 31(1) (powers of Court of Appeal exercisable by single judge) after paragraph (a) there is inserted—
"(aa) the power to give leave under section 14(4B) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995;".
86B In section 31A (powers of Court of Appeal exercisable by registrar) after subsection (4) there is inserted—
"(5) In this section "respondent" includes a person who will be a respondent if leave to appeal is granted.""
Page 355, line 24, leave out "45(1)" and insert "45"
Page 355, line 24, after "Appeal)" insert—
"(a) in subsection (1),"
Page 355, line 25, at end insert—
"(b) in subsection (2) after "sections" there is inserted "23A,"."
Page 357, line 8, at end insert—
"92A In section 45 (powers of Court of Appeal exercisable by single judge) after subsection (3B) there is inserted—
"(3C) Subject to section 44(4) above, the power of the Court of Appeal to give leave under section 14(4B) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 may be exercised by a single judge of the Court."
Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c. 33)
92B In section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (reviews of sentencing)—

(a) in subsection (3), for "10" there is substituted "11",

(b) in subsection (9)(b), for "10 and 35(1)" there is substituted "11 and 35(1)".

Criminal Appeal Act 1995 (c. 35)
92C In section 15(2)(a) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 (investigations by Criminal Cases Review Commission for Court of Appeal) for "case", in both places where it occurs, there is substituted "appeal or application for leave to appeal"."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 30, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 301 agreed to.
Schedule 31 [Repeals]:
[Amendment No. 242 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendments Nos. 242A to 245:
Page 361, line 2, column 2, at beginning insert—
"In section 82(4A), paragraph (e) and the word "or" immediately preceding it."
Page 361, leave out line 11. Page 361, line 26, at end insert—
"Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 (c.9)
In section 10(l)(a), sub-paragraph (i) and the succeeding "or"."
Page 361, line 33, column 2, at end insert—
"In Schedule 1, paragraph 15(5)."
Page 361, line 33, column 2, at end insert—
"In Schedule 2, paragraphs 2 and 3."
Page 361, line 34, leave out "12(1)" and insert", 10(1), 12(1), 13"
Page 361, line 40, column 2, leave out "to 82" and insert "and 81"
Page 361, line 43, column 2, at end insert—

1039
"In section 121(12), the words from the beginning to "paragraphs 56 to 60 of Schedule 8 to this Act;".
Page 361, line 45, column 2, after "13(2)," insert "56, 58, 59"
Page 361, line 46, column 2, leave out "and 132" and insert "132 and 135(3) and (4)"
Page 361, line 46, at end insert—
"Criminal Justice (Children) (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (S.I. 1998/1504 (N.I. 9))
In Schedule 5, paragraph 28(b)."
Page 362, line 26, column 2, at end insert—
"Section 106(2) and (3)."
Page 362, line 32, column 2, leave out "subsection (2)" and insert "subsection (3)"
Page 362, column 2, leave out lines 54 and 55 and insert—
"(d) In subsection (5), in paragraph (a) the words from "or paragraph 7" to the end, and in paragraph (b) the words from "42(2E)" to the end."
Page 363, column 2, leave out line 26 and insert—
"In section 168—

(a) in subsection (1), the words "to subsection (2) below and",
and

(b) subsections (2) and (3)."

Page 363, line 32, column 2, after "90(2)," insert "94,"
Page 363, line 32, after "90(2)," insert "102,"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 245A had been re-tabled as Amendment No. 244G.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 246 to 246C:
Page 363, line 34, after "187(2)" insert ", (3) and (5)"
Page 363, line 35, column 2, after "and (3)," insert "186(3) and (4),"
Page 364, line 8, at end insert—
"Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984 (c. 47)
In section 2(4)(b)(i), the words "or 29(1)"
Section 3(9).
Paragraph 3 of the Schedule."
Page 364, line 9, column 2, at end insert—
"Section 31(4).'"
Page 364, line 10, column 2, at end insert—
"In section 34(3), the words from the beginning to "advocate; and"."
Page 364, line 10, at end insert—
"Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Act 1997 (c. 48)
In Schedule 1, paragraph 10(3).
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37)
In Schedule 8, paragraphs 57 and 60."
Page 368, line 28, at end insert— "Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c. 43)
In section 84(3), the words—

(a) "imprisonment for a term not exceeding 4 months or", and

(b) "to both".

Page 368, leave out lines 35 to 38.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 247 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 247A had been re-tabled as Amendment No. 244B.]
[Amendment No. 247B had been re-tabled as Amendment No. 244C]
Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment Nos. 247C and 247CA:
Page 372, line 17, at end insert—
"PART 9A REPEALS RELATING TO AMENDMENTS OF PART 5 OF POLICE ACT 1997
Short title and chapter
Extent of repeal
Police Act 1997 (c. 50)
In section 115, subsections (3) to (5) and subsections (6C) to (6E).
Section 120(3).
In section 125, subsection (3) and, in subsection (4), the words "to which subsection (3) does not apply".
Care Standards Act 2000
(c. 14)
Section 104(3)(a).
In Schedule 4, paragraph 25(2)(a). Private Security Industry Act 2001 (c. 12)

Section 21.
Section 26(3)(a).
Health and Social Care Act 2001 (c. 15)
Section 19.
Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (c. 16)
Section 134(3) and (4).
National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002 (c. 17)
Section 42(7).
In Schedule 2, paragraph 64.
Education Act 2002 (c. 32)
In Schedule 12, paragraph 15(2).
In Schedule 13, paragraph 8(2).
Licensing Act 2003 (c. 17)
In Schedule 6, paragraph 116."
Page 372, line 21, column 2, at beginning insert—
"Section 10(4).
In section 11(2), the words from "(which expression" to "purposes of section 10)"."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 31, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 302 agreed to.
Schedule 32 [Transitory, transitional and saving provisions]:
9 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 247D:
Page 373, line 13, leave out "to 82" and insert "and 81"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 247E:

1041
Page 373, line 19, at end insert—
"2A (1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2), the repeal by this Act of section 81 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37) does not affect the operation of subsection (4) of that section in relation to any notification received by the Panel under subsection (2) of that section, or proposal made by the Panel under subsection (3) of that section, before the commencement of the repeal.
(2) In its application by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) after the commencement of that repeal, section 81(4) of that Act is to have effect as if any reference to "the Court" were a reference to the Sentencing Guidelines Council.
(3) In this paragraph "the Panel" means the Sentencing Advisory Panel."
The noble Lord said: I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 247F. These are consequential amendments. They ensure that the Sentencing Advisory Panel gives advice to the Sentencing Guidelines Council when the latter is established. Amendment No. 247F ensures that the correct Mental Health (Scotland) Act applies to transferred community orders and suspended sentence orders. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 247F:
Page 374, line 34, at end insert—
"Transfer of community orders and transfer of suspended sentence orders
6(1) Until the coming into force of the repeal by the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 (c. 36), in the provisions mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) the reference to the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 has effect as a reference to the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 (c. 36).
(2) Those provisions are—

(a) paragraph 2(4) of Schedule 8 (transfer of community orders to Scotland or Northern Ireland), and

(b) paragraph 4 of Schedule (Transfer of suspended sentence orders to Scotland or Northern Ireland) (transfer of suspended sentence orders to Scotland or Northern Ireland)."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 32, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 303 [Provision for Northern Ireland]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 248:
Page 173, line 6, leave out "Part 9 or 11 of this Act" and insert "any provision of this Act specified in subsection (1 A)"
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 248, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 249, 255 and 258. The first two amendments extend certain clauses from Part 1 and the whole of Part 8 to Northern Ireland. Amendment No. 255 extends reporting restrictions for Part 6 to Scotland and Northern Ireland, while Amendment No. 258 ensures that Schedule 3 repeals have the same extent as the enactments amended or repealed. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 249:
1042
Page 173, line 11, at end insert—
"(1A) The provisions are—

(a) in Part 1, sections 1, 3, 5 to 8, 10 and 11 and paragraphs 1, 2, 5 to 10 and 20 of Schedule 1, and

(b) Parts 8, 9 and 11."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 303, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 304 agreed to.
Clause 305 [Commencement]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 250:
Page 173, line 36, at end insert—
"section (Enforcement of regulations implementing Community legislation on endangered species),"
The noble Baroness said: Amendments Nos. 250C, 252ZZA and 252AB ensure that certain provisions are commenced upon Royal Assent or, in the case of the last of them, two weeks after that. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendments Nos. 250A to 250C:
Page 173, line 36, at end insert—
"section 161(1) and (2),"
Page 173, line 36, at end insert—
"section 176(8),"
Page 173, leave out line 38 and insert—
"section 302(1) to (5),
sections 303 and 304"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 251 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendments Nos. 252 and 252ZZA:
Page 173, line 39, at end insert—
"the repeal in Part 8 of Schedule 31 of section 81(2) and (3) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (c. 37) (and section 301 so far as relating to that repeal)."
Page 173, line 39, at end insert "and
paragraphs 1 and 5 of Schedule 32 (and section 302(6) so far as relating to those paragraphs)"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 252ZA and 252A not moved.]
[Amendment No. 252AA had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 252AB:
Page 174, line 1, leave out "paragraph" and insert "paragraphs 39C, 39D(3), 58A, 68(1) to (3), 68A and"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hunt of Wirral moved Amendment No. 252B:
Page 174, line 5, at beginning insert "Subject to section (Commencement of Part 12: certification of sufficient resources),.
The noble Lord said: The amendment paves the way for Amendment No. 252C, which would insert the new clause. It relates to the commencement of Part 12 of the Bill, which, as Members of the Committee will

1043
recall, makes some of the most sweeping changes to sentencing practice in England and Wales in many years.
The amendment would require that, before any element of Part 12 was brought into force, the Secretary of State would have to certify to your Lordships and to the other place that sufficient resources were provided in order to give the provisions adequate practical effect.
The issue of adequate resources is a crucial one if Part 12 is to make the difference that the Government hope it will. We have already debated the fact that the Prison Service, the police and the probation service are all overstretched as it is, and Part 12 will bring additional heavy burdens. The Explanatory Notes state that by 2008–09 the probation service will require nearly £200 million in extra funding each year as a result of Part 12.
We debated the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, on the prison population. There is considerable concern about prison populations in relation to the new sentencing provisions in the Bill. Currently there are approximately 72,000 people in prison. That figure has risen from 64,770 in 1999. Even in 1999, England and Wales had the second highest prison population in western Europe—worse than China. We now have the highest prison population in western Europe; and higher per capita than Libya, Malaysia and Burma.
There has been much controversy over prisons and their rising populations. As I mentioned earlier, the Prison Reform Trust has suggested that longer custodial sentences rather than rising crime rates are driving up the prison population. The trust went on to criticise the Home Office for encouraging judges to impose harsher sentences with slogans such as, "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime", without providing the extra capacity that harsher sentences require.
The BBC reported that the total prison capacity would be around 78,700 by 2006, but that the Home Office has stated that,
"between 8,000 and 22,000 extra places will be needed on top of this".
It would be helpful to be given some explanation of where those figures come from and where the extra capacity will be found. It is against that background that the sentencing provisions will be implemented. The Government state that custody plus and custody minus will reduce the prison population. However, I think that most informed commentators, including most of your Lordships, believe that this Bill will initially push up the prison population markedly because custody plus and custody minus cannot be implemented until the Treasury finds enough funds to expand the probation service sufficiently to carry the extra load.
Last year in a Written Answer Mr Hilary Benn stated that it was estimated that an additional £19 million, £70 million, £136 million, £175 million, £186 million and £194 million would be required for the financial years 2003–04 through to 2008–09.
It would greatly assist the Committee if the Government could give some idea of where all this money is to come from and if they indicated that they certainly will not implement any of the provisions in this Bill until there are sufficient funds to cover any resources needed.
I have set out the Government's estimates. However, they have been questioned by no less a figure than the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice. The noble and learned Lord had this to say at paragraph 59 of his memorandum about what is in the Home Office's explanatory notes on the cost implications of the new statutory provision on minimum terms for murder that are contained in Part 12:
"That is a totally erroneous assessment of the consequences of the change and indicate that those consequences have not been fully appreciated. What has been looked at is merely that those who are to be sentenced under the new tariff will be in prison longer than would otherwise be the case and so as they would not in any event be released for 10 years the effect of the increases will be postponed for 10 years. The distorting effect that the new minimum periods will have on other sentences has been ignored".
The noble and learned Lord then concluded his memorandum at paragraph 70 in what Members of the Committee may consider very stark terms indeed. He stated:
"I have already indicated that the costs implications of the proposals as to minimum periods for life sentences have been seriously underestimated. It is my belief that the costs of the impact of the proposals on the Court of Appeal have also been underestimated. In addition, the complicated nature of some of the provisions will inevitably prolong proceedings … There will also be 'knock-on' costs arising from the requirement for additional judges, their staff and the accommodation to house them".
Will the noble Baroness respond to those very serious criticisms of the Government's costings, because I know how seriously she would take the words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice? In particular, will she tell us the cost of the ratcheting-up effect on sentences for crimes other than murder, to which he referred?
Furthermore, will the noble Baroness explain the statement in paragraph 791 of the Explanatory Notes that:
"The costs will be subject to final decisions about the timing of implementation"?
Assuming that the Bill is enacted, when will those final decisions be made? Have they already been made on a provisional basis? Will she shed a little light on the thinking in the Home Office about when the various elements in Part 12 will be implemented, and on whether funding has been secured from the Treasury to ensure that it can be implemented effectively on whatever schedule it has?
I hope that the Minister will be able to give from the Dispatch Box the assurance about the provision of adequate resources to those working in the criminal justice system that is sought by the amendment, so that Part 12 can then be implemented properly and public protection enhanced. I am sure that that is what the Government and the whole Committee would wish. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: We on these Benches fully support the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, asked from where the money was coming to have extra prison places and so on. Will the noble Baroness give an assurance from the Dispatch Box that the money to be saved on the criminal injuries compensation scheme will go into building more prisons? That way, if victims of crime get less money, they will at least have the satisfaction of knowing that the people who beat them up will spend longer in prison.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: We come towards the end of the Committee. I hope that many feel, as I do, that the issues that we have raised have often crossed party lines. I am bound to say that many of the sentencing provisions of the Bill are not proposals that I would wish to see. I do not believe that the Government have thought out their effect on resources, as my noble friend Lord Hunt has said.
The minimum requirements on the length of murder sentences that judges should hand down, which are double the present standard, will increase the prison population. The proposal on dangerous offenders is bound to increase the number of indeterminate sentences, as well as life sentences. All of that will put enormous pressure on the Prison Service. Prisons are overcrowded and do not have the capacity to meet the new intentions of the Bill.
I realise that the Government are trying—although they are making a poor fist of it—to counteract overcrowding by changing the rules for those serving more than four years and by dispensing with parole and releasing prisoners automatically, but without admitting to the public that that is what they are proposing to do. Imposing supervision on sentences of less than 12 months will create greater demands on the resources of the probation service. That will inevitably lead to a larger number of people going to prison for a breach of those conditions.
Therefore, I share the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Hunt. I do not wish to make a party political point. I just do not believe that the Government have thought through the effect on their resources of that which they are doing in that area. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and myself would align ourselves in attacking other matters elsewhere in the Bill—that is for another day—but we are discussing only the matter of sentencing. On that issue, the Government have not taken account of the drain on resources that their proposals will cause.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I hope that I will be able to reassure noble Lords that the amendment is not necessary. I note the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, about our failure to take those matters into account. However, that would do the Government a disservice. We have thought about those matters carefully. We are seeking to put in place
1046
a regime that is able to meet the needs of the victims, the witnesses and those who perpetrate crime to enable us to reduce its incidence.
However, I understand the concerns that have been expressed this evening and I assure noble Lords that we are alert to them. It is in not in the Government's interest to implement any of the provisions in a way in which they could not be delivered effectively.
Assurance has been given in another place that we will need to ensure that the new sentencing structure is properly resourced. Final decisions about implementation have not been made. However, we shall phase the introduction of the provisions to ensure both that they are fully affordable and that the necessary additional resources can be deployed to ensure that the provisions are delivered effectively.
I have already outlined the extensive increase in money commitments for prisons and I shall not repeat them. However, I hope that that further reassurance will assist noble Lords.
A number of noble Lords raised the issue of the probation service and the amount of financial commitment that it will need.
The Home Office is committed to ensuring that the probation service is resourced to deliver successful interventions in the community, to reduce re-offending and to protect the public. Funding for the service has increased by more than 50 per cent since 1998. The probation service will in particular need to be well resourced to deal with custody plus. Staging implementation will enable the probation service to reach the capacity needed in order to implement the reforms effectively.
We earlier discussed the provisions we are seeking to introduce in relation to home detention curfew and the success we have had with that so far. That is an opportunity that will increasingly be available to us. The costs will be met from within departmental settlements. However, we will keep a careful eye on phased implementation to make it work.
There is already much that we have done. For instance, we hope that the Sentencing Guidelines Council will be set up relatively rapidly. We are looking to set up the council as soon as possible. The first tranche of guidelines should come out around April to support implementation of the Sexual Offences Bill. We have intermittent custody pilots—40 male and 40 female places will be available to use either in the week or at the week-end in two purpose-built prisons in Kirkham and Morton Hall. By the end of 2004 it should be possible to implement the generic community sentence, the structural changes, the sentences over 12 months and the new sentences for dangerous offenders. The target is for 2005 in relation to custody minus.
Members of the Committee will already know about the pilots we have already sought to implement. We will analyse the results, hone the system and ensure that we discover the wrinkles, if I may put it colloquially, before we implement across the piece. We anticipate that in 2006 and 2007 we will be able to be

1047
more forceful about custody plus. Currently, we are considering whether we can bring it forward to the 2006–07 financial year.
The exact timing of these measures will depend on the build-up of resources. Training is taking place even now and we are greatly helped by the massive investment that the Government have made; I believe that it is £1.6 billion in CJIT. Members of the Committee will know that having an IT connection between all the criminal justice services should enable us to make some real savings and progress.
Contrary to what has been said, the Government have looked carefully at the issue of resources and have that much in mind. We will bring forward the introduction and implementation of these procedures when the resources are available to ensure that they are fully and properly implemented.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: Before the Minister sits down— I caught her in mid air before she sat down— she omitted to deal with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and his description of her calculations as being "totally erroneous". I await her response.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I had actually sat down, but I appreciate that that makes little difference on these occasions. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice set out his views very comprehensively in that letter. I have said on a number of occasions that we are not as pessimistic as the noble and learned Lord in relation to those issues. We do not believe that the ratcheting up to which he refers will occur. We have examined the history of the way in which sentencing in relation to murder and other generic sentences takes place, I hope that Members of the Committee will accept that one does not tend to pollute the other. Therefore, the racheting up that is described is not evidenced by the empirical data that we have at present.
In relation to the other matters, I have made it absolutely clear that mitigating and aggravating features will be considered within the discretion of the judge. The judge will have the opportunity to look at those matters and determine how justice can best be done. The judge will now have a much greater palette from which to choose than ever before and we believe that for the first time the sentences will be able to address offending behaviour as opposed simply to the individual offence.
The accumulation of all those matters leads us to the informed view that on this occasion perhaps the noble and learned Lord does not have as comprehensive a view of the system as do we. We beg to differ with him.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: The Minister has given a response at the Dispatch Box to some of the criticism of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice. No doubt with the co-operation of his judicial colleagues, the noble and learned Lord has, very carefully, submitted a detailed and analytical memorandum. It may well be that the Minister and her ministerial colleagues have already responded in detail
1048
to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice. If she has so responded, would it be possible for a copy of her submission to be placed in the Library of the House? If she has not yet responded, I hope she will do the courtesy to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice of treating a response to his memorandum as necessary, in particular in dealing with the very detailed points that he raised.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The noble Lord will know that, when the noble and learned Lord made his speech in this Chamber, he said that he accepted that the answers to the details given in his letter would be dealt with as we went through our deliberations on the Bill. The noble Lord will know that, throughout Committee, noble Lords have raised the intricate details of the statement of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice. I believe there is not one iota, one dot, or one tittle of that letter that we have not discussed at some stage in Committee. After 11 or 12 days in Committee, I say to noble Lords with humility—though is it 11 days?
Noble Lords: Nine and a half.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Noble Lords give me joy: nine-and-a-half days in Committee. I invite noble Lords to take the whole of the Hansard report of the Committee stage as my answer to the questions raised by the noble and learned Lord.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
9.32 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 252B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 39; Not-Contents, 66.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Attlee, E.

Blatch, B.

Roper, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Rotherwick, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Carlik of Berriew.L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Courtown, E.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Crathorne, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Dundee, E.

Slynn of Hadley, L.

Flather, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Fookes B.

Thomas of Gwydir.L.

Glenarthur, L.

Hamwee, B.

Tordoff.L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Ullswater V

Luke, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Wakeham, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Walmsley, B.

Northesk, E.

Norton of Louth, L.

Wilcox, B.

1049

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Amos, B. (LordPresident)

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Andrews, B.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Bach, L.

Judd, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Borrie, L.

Mclntosh of Hudnall, B.

Carter, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Chandos, V.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Mar, C.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Morgan, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Pendry, L.

Crawley, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Dixon, L.

Rea, L.

Dubs, L.

Rooker.L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Sewel, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Simon, V.

Filkin, L.

Slim, V.

Gale, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Symons of Vemham Dean, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Thornton, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Turnberg, L.

Grenfell, L.

Warner, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Hayman, B.

Whitaker, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Whitty, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Wilkins, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.43 p.m.
[Amendment No. 252BA not moved.]
Clause 305, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 252C not moved.]
Clause 306 [Extent]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendments Nos. 252CA to 256C:
Page 174, line 14, at end insert—
"section (Transfer of custody plus orders and intermittent custody orders to Scotland or Northern Ireland) and Schedule (Transfer of custody plus orders and intermittent custody orders to Scotland or Northern Ireland);"
Page 174, line 15, leave out from "10" to end of line 16.
Page 174, line 16, at end insert—
"section (Enforcement of regulations implementing Community legislation on endangered species);"
Page 174, line 16, at end insert— "section 284;"
Page 174, line 16, at end insert—
"section (Transfer of suspended sentence orders to Scotland or Northern Ireland) and Schedule (Transfer of suspended sentence orders to Scotland or Northern Ireland);"
1050
Page 174, line 19, leave out "paragraph 19" and insert "paragraphs 19, 46 and 47"
Page 174, line 20, at end insert— "paragraphs 6 to 8 of Schedule 25."
Page 174, line 22, at end insert—
"section (Increase in penalties for offences under section 174 of the Road Traffic Act 1988);"
Page 174, line 25, leave out from "19" to end of line 26.
Page 174, line 27, at end insert— "paragraph 6 of Schedule 32."
Page 174, line 34, at end insert—
"section (Appeals following reference by Criminal Cases Review Commission);"
On Question, amendments agreed to
[Amendments Nos. 257 and 257A not moved.]
Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendments No. 257B to 257CA:
Page 174, line 36, leave out "Section 303(4) extends" and insert "The following provisions extend"
Page 174, line 36, at end insert—
"sections (Duration of directions under Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 in relation to offenders) and (Access to Sentence Review Commissioners and Life Sentence Review Commissioners for certain Northern Ireland patients);
section 303(4)." Page 174, line 36, at end insert—
"section (Extension of investigations by Criminal Cases Review Commission in Northern Ireland);
section (Power to substitute conviction of alternative offence on appeal in Northern Ireland);"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 257 D had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 257DA:
Page 175, line 2, leave out from "of" to end of line 8 and insert "Chapter 7 of Part 12 so far as relating to sentences passed by a court-martial"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 257 E had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendments Nos. 258 to 259A:
Page 175. line 12, at end insert—
"( ) Part 2 of Schedule 3,"
Page 175, line 13, leave out from "26" to end of line
Page 175, line 13. at end insert—
"(da) section (Substitution of conviction on different charge on appeal from court-martiaf),"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 260 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 261:
Page 175, line 15, leave out paragraph (f) and insert—
"(f) Parts 1 to 7, 9 and 10 of Schedule 31,"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 306, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 307 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Crime (International Co-operation) Bill [H.L.]
Bill returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; it was ordered that the Commons amendments be printed.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes before ten o'clock.

  House of Lords: Thursday Sittings
  House of Lords: Thursday Sittings
  Immigration Controls
  Immigration Controls
  Warship Support Agency: Key Targets 2003–04
  Warship Support Agency: Key Targets 2003–04
  Oil and Pipelines Agency: Quinquennial Review
  Oil and Pipelines Agency: Quinquennial Review
  Code of Practice on Access to Government Information: Monitoring Report 2002
  Code of Practice on Access to Government Information: Monitoring Report 2002
  Private Foreign Language Schools
  Private Foreign Language Schools
  Universities: Admissions
  Universities: Admissions
  Camelids
  Camelids
  Scenes of Crime: Roads and Railways
  Scenes of Crime: Roads and Railways
  Railways: Cumbria
  Railways: Cumbria
  Goods Vehicles
  Goods Vehicles