Sitting of 21 October 2003

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  TRANSAS GROUP BILL
  Read the Third time, and passed.

  MERSEY TUNNELS BILL (By Order)
  Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
  To be further considered on Wednesday 29 October.

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

    Royal Mail (Rail Transport)
    Alan Simpson: If he will make a statement on discussions with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about the Royal Mail's decision to end mail transport by rail. [132959]
    The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Dr. Kim Howells): Royal Mail's distribution operations are a matter for the company, not something in which the Government would seek to intervene, however much my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or I may regret that loss of business for the rail freight sector.
    Alan Simpson: My hon. Friend will know that on 18 September the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Lord Whitty, wrote to the RMT union, saying:
    "I personally and this Department also have grave concerns about the Royal Mail decision, which seems to be heading in the opposite direction from the aim of a more balanced, environmentally friendly and integrated transport system."
    If the Government continue to remain committed, as I am sure we are, to a process that transfers increasing amounts of freight from road to rail, which is the policy of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs as well as the Department for Transport, how do we ensure that joined-up government works in relation to a company in which we are the principal shareholder?
    Dr. Howells: Royal Mail came at this issue from a very interesting and new angle—that its new strategy would be more environmentally friendly than its old one.
    490
    Indeed, it has made out a case that, overall, the new transport network will use about 2,000 fewer road vehicles and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 30 per cent. I assume that DEFRA is looking at that—we are certainly looking very carefully at it—but Royal Mail has to be a company that operates commercially and delivers value for money. That is why it has taken its decision to switch from rail to road.
    John Thurso: Has any financial assessment been made of the implications for the railways of Royal Mail's decision? For example, is it likely to cause other freight users to consider withdrawal from the railways, particularly while there is uncertainty over the £8 billion demanded by the rail regulator?
    Dr. Howells: First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on taking up his new position. It is always a pleasure to see him.
    We certainly look very carefully at all the schemes that are proposed to try to help shift whatever we can from the most congested roads on to the railways, and we will continue to do so. That is the Government's policy. Of course, we are looking at the recommendations made by the rail regulator and, indeed, at his interim report.

    Ramsbottom to Manchester Rail Link
    Mr. David Chaytor: If he will make a statement on the Ramsbottom to Manchester rail link. [132960]
    The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Dr. Kim Howells): Ramsbottom is part of the East Lancashire Railway, a privately run operation on a preserved line between Rawtenstall and Bury Bolton Street. I am not aware of any plan to link it to the national rail network.
    Mr. Chaytor: My hon. Friend is right to say that there is no Ramsbottom to Manchester rail link, but there was a Manchester to Ramsbottom rail link before Dr. Beeching came along. There could be, and there should be, a Ramsbottom to Manchester rail link. It would be of enormous benefit to the thousands of commuters in my constituency and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson) and for Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dobbin). My hon. Friend the Minister is not accurate in saying that there are no such plans. Plans are on the table and there are two alternatives for establishing a Ramsbottom to Manchester rail link, so will he speak as a matter of urgency to the Greater Manchester passenger transport executive and Network Rail to advance at least one of those two alternatives?
    Dr. Howells: I would be only too glad to speak to both those agencies, although I have to tell my hon. Friend that I can promise nothing.

    Bus Companies (Regulation)
    Jim Dobbin: What plans he has for improved regulation of bus companies. [132961]
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): The current statutory framework is set out in the Transport Act 2000. As with all other legislation, we keep the situation under review.
    Jim Dobbin: The Secretary of State will be aware that I have raised this issue on a number of occasions. The Greater Manchester passenger transport authority—I spoke to the chairman about this last night—other transport authorities throughout the United Kingdom and the Local Government Association are urging my right hon. Friend to regulate the bus network so that we can improve services for the travelling public. I can tell him that my constituents are not at all happy at present with the service that they are getting from FirstBus. I simply ask him whether he will look at this matter again.
    Mr. Darling: In relation to regulation, most people accept that to return to the situation that prevailed prior to 1985 would be a mistake. Let us face it—while some bus services worked well prior to that time, others did not. Since 1985, there have been substantial increases in bus patronage: in Brighton, more than 50 per cent.; in Nottingham, 14 per cent.; and in Cambridge, 20 per cent. Those are all examples of good local authorities working with bus companies. I am aware, however, that problems exist in Greater Manchester, especially with competition or, sometimes, lack of it. That is why I have said to my hon. Friend that I will continue to keep the situation under review. I honestly do not think that going back to pre-1985 is the answer. However, I do think that some changes may be necessary to improve bus patronage.
    Mr. David Watts: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there has been a 70 per cent. increase in bus tender prices over the past four years in Merseyside, and a 25 per cent. drop in passenger numbers since 1997? Does not that demonstrate that bus deregulation is not working? Will he meet a small delegation who can perhaps convince him to change his policy?
    Mr. Darling: On bus deregulation, I do not think that I can add anything to what I said a few moments ago—it is too early to change the policy that I set out just a minute ago. On Merseyside, my hon. Friend is right that there has been an increase in car ownership in Merseyside, which is a result of increasing prosperity in the area, much of it thanks to the things that we have done over the past few years.
    In the issue of buses, tender prices have been going up, not least because the cost of operating buses has increased, as has the cost of employing bus staff and so on. Of course, the Department and my colleagues will be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss these matters. I repeat, however, that when bus patronage has gone up it is because a local authority has had the courage to put in place sometimes difficult and controversial measures
    492
    to encourage bus use, as well as having a bus company that has some flair and initiative. Both those things are absolutely essential.
    Mr. George Mudie: The Secretary of State is well respected, but he must conduct a review with seriousness; the matter is now past a joke. Whole communities in Leeds are being cut off, the elderly cannot go shopping, people cannot get to hospitals on public transport at weekends, and even the local hospice cannot be visited by public transport on weekends and evenings. That is clearly a ridiculous situation and public transport is becoming a joke. The bus companies are in it only for money, there is no public service and no public interest, and we are sitting on the sidelines looking like fools.
    Mr. Darling: In Leeds, about which my hon. Friend knows a great deal from the time that he led the council there, bus patronage has increased. He is right to draw attention to the fact that some bus services late in the evening, in areas that are more difficult to reach, are not of the standard that they should be, but nor were they prior to deregulation in 1985. From the end of this year, we are extending the availability of the bus service grant to provide better, more bespoke services for areas without bus services, especially when there is thinner patronage than would justify a conventional route being run. Many innovative steps can be taken that will encourage bus use in areas that have not done well historically, either before or after deregulation. As I said previously, I am keeping the situation under review. I know that there are difficulties, which we want to sort out.

    West to East Midlands Modal Study
    Mr. Mark Todd: What assessment he has made of the conclusions of the West to East Midlands Multi-Modal Study. [132962]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): The study to which my hon. Friend refers reported at the end of July 2003, and we are now awaiting views from the respective regional assemblies, which are likely to be given in November this year. We will then consider those, as well as the views of other interested parties, alongside the study recommendations, and we will make an announcement in due course.
    Mr. Todd: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but must tell him that the initial assessment from the residents of South Derbyshire, which is in the heart of the study area, was one of disappointment that rail schemes that have been proposed to improve access to the rail network in the area, such as the national forest line, have been sidelined completely, and that others, such as the opening of the Donnington loop, have been put at a distant point. Some schemes, such as one to provide proper access to East Midlands airport, have been completely ignored. Will he ask his Department to look further at such matters when he considers the study in more detail?
    Mr. McNulty: We shall look further as and when we receive the assessment and views of the respective

    493
    regional assemblies and others. I say to my hon. Friend that the package included the introduction of a new bus service along much of the national forest line, which was done precisely because the benefit-cost ratio of running rail on the line was not justified.
    David Taylor: I attended the launch of the multi-modal study to which the Minister referred in Derby in late July, and the sense of disappointment among those present was palpable, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) suggested. Will the Minister confirm that he or his Department will take submissions from east midlands Members so that the balance may be re-established in favour of greater investment in public transport, which is far more likely to produce sustainable solutions to the chronic congestion that affects east midlands roads than other measures?
    Mr. McNulty: As I have said, the regional assemblies should report by mid-November. I am certain that between now and then, further submissions from interested hon. Members, not least my hon. Friends, will be welcomed by the Department and assessed in due course with the assemblies' views.
    Mr. Christopher Chope: Does the Minister find it embarrassing that the conclusion of the study—and that of so many other studies—is that the best way to reduce congestion on the roads is to increase capacity? Is it not the case that if the study's recommendations on the A42–M42 corridor were implemented, there could be a 30 per cent. reduction in journey times and the benefit-to-cost ratio would be 3.5:1? Why do the Government not invest more in roads?
    Mr. McNulty: The hon. Gentleman was clearly out of the country when we announced £7 billion of roads expenditure only a few months ago. I say to him, in all kindness, that the only embarrassing thing thus far this morning has been his fake hysteria.

    Airports White Paper
    Mr. John Taylor: When he expects to publish his White Paper on airports. [132964]
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): We plan to publish the White Paper before the end of the year.
    Mr. Taylor: Will the Secretary of State hasten the relief from blight that has afflicted people in the east of my constituency by virtue of uncertainty and hasten the day on which I may reassure them that there will be no second runway at Birmingham airport?
    Mr. Darling: I can only repeat what I said: we intend to publish the White Paper before the end of the year. I appreciate that hon. Members on both sides of the House want the Government's views as quickly as
    494
    possible. The consultation has been completed, we are evaluating the responses and, as I said, we shall publish our conclusions.
    Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is considerable enthusiasm for expanding Luton, which contrasts with resistance to expanding other airports, especially those in the south-east. I am sure that he knows that there is the possibility of developing a rail link between Luton and Heathrow—I call it the Luton-Heathrow flyer service—which would mean that Luton could become a satellite feeder airport for Heathrow and take some pressure off it. Will he take that into account when making decisions about future airports in the south-east?
    Mr. Darling: I indeed know that there is enthusiasm in Luton to extend the airport. I am also aware of the plan to build the rail link—it is one of many in different parts of the country. However, hon. Members will have to wait until we publish our conclusions, which we intend to do before the end of the year. Of course, the conclusions will cover Luton as well as other airports.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: I warmly endorse what has just been said about Luton. Will the Secretary of State assure me that my 11,500 constituents who wrote to him to protest about Halfpenny Green becoming an international airport and the 12,500 letters on the same subject that have been forwarded to him by my parliamentary colleagues will all be taken most carefully into account?
    Mr. Darling: Yes, all the views will be taken into account.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: When my right hon. Friend considers the White Paper on future airport provision, will he give serious consideration to the contribution that regional airports can make? Local companies are investing substantial sums in them to improve services. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that those regional airports can make a valuable contribution to air transport across the United Kingdom and will extend services to areas around the world. We should consider further the development and work of regional airports. Will he assure the House that that will be part of the White Paper?
    Mr. Darling: The importance of regional airports will figure prominently in the White Paper. It is not just low-cost flights that have experienced an increase in patronage at local airports. About 7 million people travelled on low-cost airlines in 1998; this year, the figure will be 45 million. That has contributed to much of the growth in regional airports, with more direct flights. Regional airports will not, however, provide the network that can be found at a hub airport such as Heathrow. Although regional airports can and will play

    495
    a part not just in the development of air travel but in economic development in the areas they serve, they will not be the whole answer.
    Mr. John Randall: The consultation on the White Paper mentions sustainable aviation. What does the Secretary of State understand sustainable aviation to mean?
    Mr. Darling: That will be spelt out in the White Paper, which we will publish later in the year.
    John Robertson: Will there be anything in my right hon. Friend's aviation report on the monopoly of large airports and the variation in landing fees?
    Mr. Darling: All matters raised with us, and they have been many and varied, will be dealt with in the White Paper. I understand hon. Members' anxiety and their enthusiasm for getting me to anticipate what will be in the White Paper, but as its publication is in the not-too-distant future, I can only provide a general assurance that it will deal with all the points raised.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Before the Secretary of State publishes the White Paper, will he find time in his very busy diary to see for himself all those blighted communities near airports where the runways may be expanded as a result of his proposals, which have invited him and his ministerial team to visit, as my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) has done with my humble support? Will he also assure the House that he will publish in full all responses to the consultation before he publishes the White Paper?
    Mr. Darling: On the latter point, no. The logic is that the White Paper should be published and, at the same time, the report on the consultation exercise will also be made available, as we made clear. That is what has happened before.
    I have visited a large number of airport sites over the past few months. To repeat what I said earlier, it will not be long before the Government publish their conclusions, which will set out a framework for development over the next 30 years.

    Road Congestion
    Mr. David Cameron: What recent representations he has received about congestion on the A34 and A40 in Oxfordshire; and if he will make a statement. [132965]
    The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Dr. Kim Howells): The Highways Agency and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), who is responsible for roads, have received a number of representations about congestion on the A34 in Oxfordshire, including letters from the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) about the junction of the
    496
    A34 with the M40.The A40 in Oxfordshire is, as the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) knows, the responsibility of Oxfordshire county council.
    Mr. Cameron: I thank the Minister for that reply, but is he aware that although there will not be a full multi-modal study of the A34, a review is going ahead? Can he assure me that that review will also consider the A40 between Whitney and Oxford? It has some of the worst congestion in south-east England and it takes many of my constituents who travel to work in Oxford more than an hour to cover 12 miles. It is a foot on the windpipe of the local economy. Does he share my view that the longterm answer is dualling that road?
    Dr. Howells: I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that I will speak to the Highways Agency to find out if its remit extends that far. I understand that there were long-standing proposals to dual that part of the A40, but for some reason—I certainly do not know the details—they were cancelled by the Conservative Government in 1994.
    Mr. Martin Salter: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) is concerned about road congestion in Oxfordshire, he would be well advised to put pressure on his Conservative colleagues on the county council to cooperate more fully with councillors in Reading and Berkshire to advance plans for a third Thames bridge linking the two counties?
    Dr. Howells: I am sure that that is excellent advice from my hon. Friend. I am sure that the hon. Member for Witney will do everything that he can to bring that pressure to bear on his Conservative colleagues.
    Sir Michael Spicer: The Minister is right to say that the A40 problem has been going on for 20 years. For a short time, I had ministerial responsibility for roads—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Well, perhaps I should have spent longer as Minister for roads. However, it is now 20 years on and the Minister has been in government for a long time. What is he going to do? He really must do something about that piece of road in Oxfordshire, which is a desperately serious problem for travellers.
    Dr. Howells: As I said, I will certainly ask the Highways Agency if its study on the A34 includes that road. I quite agree that it has been an appalling stretch of road for as long as I can remember. It is one of my routes home from London, so I can fully imagine the frustration felt by the hon. Gentleman.

    Rail Services (North-West)
    Andy Burnham: What assessment he has made of the need to increase rail services and stations in the north-west. [132966]
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): Some service frequencies will increase under the new TransPennine Express franchise. Bidders for the

    497
    new Northern franchise have been asked to consider matching services better to demand. However, there are no specific proposals for new stations.
    Andy Burnham: Can I share with my right hon. Friend and the House the analysis of a local railway enthusiast in my constituency? Leigh is the largest town not just in Britain but in Europe without a railway station. While Dr. Beeching has made it difficult to bring one back, it is vital that the Northern franchise brings one to nearby Golborne. Will my right hon. Friend give me and the 40 pupils from Lowton West primary school—a mere stone's throw from the proposed station—who are visiting today, an assurance that he will do all that he can to bring a new rail station to Golborne?
    Mr. Darling: As I said a moment ago, the bidders for the new Northern franchise have submitted their bids, which are currently being evaluated. All of us want to ensure that we have a better and more reliable railway, but we will have to see what is possible. I am quite sure that if my hon. Friend wished to do so, it would be possible for him to discuss the matter with my Minister of State.
    Mrs. Patsy Calton: While the Secretary of State is considering Leigh, will he also consider Cheadle district centre in my constituency, which has long needed a railway station and, indeed, has space for one?
    Mr. Darling: I never cease to marvel at the Liberals' capacity to demand more spending without supporting a way of dealing with the problem—[Interruption.] The difference is that my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) supports everything that the Government are doing, including the funding of the railways. Our objective is to improve services within Stockport and the Greater Manchester area. I remind the hon. Lady that there is substantial investment in the west coast main line which, of course, benefits Stockport. On Cheadle, I cannot make any promises, but of course we will keep the matter under review.
    Mr. Graham Stringer: My right hon. Friend will be aware that approximately £750 million is spent on local rail services in Greater Manchester in north-west England. Does he think that the way in which that money is spent should be determined locally, not nationally? We would get better solutions to local transport problems, partly caused by bus deregulation, if that money was spent locally.
    Mr. Darling: It was Manchester that came to the Government asking for additional funding for light rail. If it was proposing to fund it all itself, my hon. Friend might have a point. All of us are concerned that the prices now being quoted for light rail schemes have increased quite dramatically and unreasonably. If there is to be more light rail, it is important that the costs for those projects come down. They have increased to a large extent because, frankly, many of the people interested in this have decided to quote prices which I do not think that even they believe are realistic.
    I want to see more light rail—the Manchester scheme has been an outstanding success—but it is essential to control costs. People who are bidding for such schemes
    498
    should be aware that the Government do not take the view that we provide light rail, or anything else, at any price—prices must be controlled.

    Trains (Overcrowding)
    Jane Griffiths: What plans he has to require the train operating companies to tackle overcrowding on trains during the rush hour. [132967]
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): The importance of dealing with overcrowding has been recognised in the directions that I gave to the Strategic Rail Authority. New trains and improved reliability of services will help to reduce overcrowding, as will increased capacity on some lines.
    Jane Griffiths: I welcome that reply. Will my right hon. Friend, in the course of the franchise renewal process—I am thinking particularly of the renewal of the First Great Western franchise that is due in 2006—introduce a provision whereby overcrowding must be tackled as a condition of that process?
    Mr. Darling: Tackling overcrowding is an essential part of the franchising process, although, as I said earlier, the new trains will help. It is worth reminding the House that almost a third of all rolling stock is being replaced within a five-year period, half of which will go on to London commuter lines. That will increase capacity very significantly. The other measures that will help are better timetabling, better management and increased frequency of trains—those, too, relieve overcrowding. Two factors are absolutely essential: first, that we maintain the level of investment in the railways; and secondly, that they are managed more effectively—and the SRA is dealing with that.
    Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: The hon. Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) mentioned the problem of overcrowding, but is not that merely part of the picture of missed deadlines, toilets and other facilities that do not work, and miserable passengers—frankly, a system that is creaking at the seams, as proven by this week's report?
    Mr. Darling: Before the hon. Gentleman gets too excited, I remind him that the system was established under the prime ministership of his predecessor in the seat that he represents. Over the past few years, we have been trying to put right some of the mistakes that were made in carrying out that botched privatisation. The railways fundamental problem is that for decades insufficient money was invested in them. We have put that right by doubling that expenditure over a four-year period. We are also ensuring that there is more sensible management. The hon. Gentleman has to face the fact that his prescription of spending less on the railways is hardly likely to deal with overcrowding, let alone passenger comfort or satisfaction.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that services on the Cambridge to London line are desperately overcrowded during rush hour periods? The local train operating company, West Anglia Great Northern—WAGN—has told me that it

    499
    cannot increase the length of the trains because intermediate stations have insufficiently long platforms. Will he take that up with the Strategic Rail Authority?
    Mr. Darling: I am aware of the problem. Naturally, if trains are lengthened, all the platforms along the route have to be lengthened at the same time. It comes back to the same point: we are trying to make up for decades of underinvestment by spending very substantial sums on the railways. It will not be possible to do everything that we should all like to do. The one thing that I am clear about, however, is that reducing expenditure on the railways would exacerbate the current problems. It is essential that we maintain investment while improving management, both of which are Government priorities.
    Mr. Tim Collins: Given that overcrowding on trains during the rush hour is particularly acute on the London tube, does the Secretary of State understand the natural concern about recent incidents there? Will he join me, however, in issuing a clear statement to Londoners that the tube remains by far the safest way of getting around the capital city, and in condemning the Mayor of London, who has given the opposite impression?
    Mr. Darling: I agree that the tube has an extremely good safety record. Clearly, the incidents at Hammersmith and Camden Town are a matter of deep concern, and safety must be of paramount importance not just on the tube, but on the surface railway. The underground is publicly owned and accountable to the Mayor, who retains responsibility for the safety of the tube. London Underground has told us that the maintenance regime on the tube has not changed since the company took it over in July. Indeed, London Underground controls the maintenance regime, and changes can be made and implemented only with its agreement. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that most people accept that the tube is safe. What happened is a matter of substantial concern.
    It is patently obvious that many of the problems affecting the tube, like those affecting the surface railway, have come about as a result of years of under-investment. The partnership that we put in place will allow £16 billion of investment to go into the tube over the next 15 years. I know that the disruption at the weekend is continuing to cause people concern, but we will work with Transport for London and London Underground to find out what happened and learn the lessons of that very quickly.
    Mr. Collins: Although I welcome that reply, I point out to the Secretary of State that overcrowding on trains in the rush hour on other tube lines will be worse for some days as a result of the incident on the Northern line. In light of that, was it wise for London Underground to change its daily track inspection procedures to track inspections every two or three days—a change that, I understand, was made while the right hon. Gentleman was still responsible for London Underground, and immediately prior to its transfer to Transport for London?
    Mr. Darling: At present, we do not know the cause of the accident. We know that a cracked rail is one of the factors being considered in relation to the Hammersmith incident. It is not yet clear what caused the Camden incident. I agree that we need to find out what happened and learn the lessons from it. People travelling on the tube expect London Underground to do everything possible to make sure that journeys are both safe and reliable. On the hon. Gentleman's general point about overcrowding, the additional investment will improve the quality of trains, track and signalling, and allow for additional capacity. He needs to face the fact that, unless he is prepared to sign up to that sustained investment over years, the problems in London Underground will simply recur.

    Abandoned Vehicles
    Huw Irranca-Davies: What proposals he has to increase powers of local authorities in relation to untaxed and abandoned vehicles. [132968]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): Since April 2002, all local authorities can apply to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency for powers to wheel-clamp and remove untaxed vehicles. As a result, 13 local authorities have taken these powers, four are being trained and a further 20 are in discussion with the DVLA. Regulations aimed at speeding up the removal of vehicles abandoned on the highway by reducing the notice period also came into force in April 2002. In addition, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs issued a consultation paper in July 2003 proposing to reduce the notice period from 15 days to five working days for vehicles abandoned on private land.
    Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank my hon. Friend for that full reply, and draw his attention to the blight caused to many communities in the south Wales valleys in terms of quality of life and tourism development. As one wanders across the top of the Bwlch mountain, one comes across abandoned vehicles in what seemed a remote area. I applaud the changes to vehicle licensing from 1 January 2004, which will aid the identification of owners who dump their vehicles illegally in that way, but will my hon. Friend ensure that there is a good information campaign so that owners are not caught out inadvertently by the new, much more stringent and welcome powers?
    Mr. McNulty: My hon. Friend is right. More stringent powers must be accompanied by greater awareness and an education process to allow people to know what is going on. I am pleased that at least three Welsh authorities—Rhondda, Swansea and Pembroke—are discussing that with the DVLA, and I commend the new powers to the rest of the Welsh authorities.

    Rail Franchises
    Mrs. Ann Cryer: What the criteria are for awarding railway franchises; and what plans he has to allow the Strategic Rail Authority to run franchises under section 212 (30) of the Transport Act 2000. [132969]
    The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Dr. Kim Howells): Our directions and guidance to the Strategic Rail Authority list the factors that it should take into account when assessing bids. A copy is available in the Library of the House of Commons. Ultimately, the authority is looking to secure the best value for money for passengers and taxpayers. Apart from the interim arrangements necessitated by the termination of the Connex South Eastern franchise, we do not currently anticipate any other circumstances in which section 30 will apply.
    Mrs. Cryer: What future circumstances may prompt the Department to use section 212(30) to invite the Strategic Rail Authority to take over a franchise on a more permanent basis? After all, I understand that even Mr. Gladstone believed that the nation's railways were better run through public ownership. He must not have sat on the fence.
    Dr. Howells: I am not sitting on the fence, either—I do not believe that we should nationalise the railways.
    We cannot predict all future events and the use of section 30 will depend on the merits of specific circumstances. However, the SRA has made it clear that it intends to run the franchise that I have mentioned for as long as it takes to re-tender it to the private sector.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: In welcoming the late arrival of the all-Wales and Borders franchise this week, I ask the Minister to confirm that the criteria for it include the long-awaited projects, which have been in the pipeline for more than two years, of the link to Cardiff Wales international airport, the hourly service on the Cambrian line and the new service to Ebbw Vale. Will he confirm that the new franchisees will work on those new services for Wales?
    Dr. Howells: I expect that the new franchisees will consider a range of projects that various people throughout the Principality favour. I have such a project: part of the busiest railway line in Wales, from the central valleys to Cardiff, is in my constituency. I am glad that many improvements have been made to it. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will draw improvements to the service on the important central Wales line to the attention of Arriva Trains when it takes over the franchise.
    Ian Lucas: Does my hon. Friend agree that safety is one of the most important criteria for the railways? Safety in stations is an important issue in north Wales and Arriva should consider that seriously when determining its allocation of resources in the next few months.
    Dr. Howells: Yes, safety in railway stations is extremely important. If we are to persuade more people
    502
    to use the railways—last year, they carried more passengers than in any year since 1947, and we want to improve on that again—and companies want to win new business, they must all take safety and security at railway stations seriously.
    Alistair Burt: When the Minister offers advice to the SRA about franchises, will he ask it to pay special attention to the way in which it intends to deal with increased pressure from commuters from the hundreds of thousands of new houses that are being forced on the south of England, thus putting more pressure on rail capacity that is already at its maximum? Evidence of delays on the sadly misnamed Thameslink 2000 project means that hard-pressed commuters on both sides of Bedfordshire are finding that they have only hope and expectation instead of genuine delivery of proper improvements to services. That can only get worse, with many new commuters adding to the pressures on the current inadequate infrastructure.
    Dr. Howells: I know the hon. Gentleman well and I respect his views, but I am sure that he agrees that the new communities are not being forced on south-east England in a Stalinist way. Many people want to live there. He knows as well as me that London could do with an equivalent of Queens in New York where its teachers, public service workers and many others who run the capital can afford housing. Such people also want to know how they will get in and out of London, and we must try to ensure that they make those trips easily.
    I am sure that the hon. Gentleman also agrees that the new communities should be sustainable. We must ensure that jobs exist there. We have a duty not only to haul tens of thousands of new householders back and forth to London but to ensure that there are jobs in the communities so that not everybody has to make those journeys. That partly answers the earlier question of how we define sustainable transport and communities.

    Rail Network (Maintenance)
    Kevin Brennan: If he will make a statement on future contracts for maintenance of the rail network. [132970]
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): Network Rail has already announced plans to bring railway maintenance activities in the Reading, east midlands and Wessex contract areas in-house. Network Rail has also announced that it will take Jarvis's three contract areas back as well. The Government welcome these plans for better management because they will lead to tighter control over the quality, cost and effectiveness of the maintenance regime.
    Kevin Brennan: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Has not the fragmentation of maintenance following privatisation proved an unmitigated disaster? Is it not common sense that, where public safety is involved in relation to maintenance, the best thing to do is directly to employ the people responsible for the

    503
    maintenance, check that they do it and sack them if they do not? Is it not now time for Network Rail to take all maintenance in-house?
    Mr. Darling: When Network Rail took back the contracts concerned, it found very substantial concerns about the costs, about the quality of work, and about whether the work had been done. All those matters reinforced the view that it was right to take those maintenance contracts back in-house. It is too soon to evaluate what it has found in relation to the Jarvis contracts, but I am in no doubt—I have made this clear on a number of occasions—that it is essential that maintenance should be done effectively and that costs should be driven down. Costs were far too high as a result of the privatisation that the last Conservative Government left. In relation to safety, it is essential that people know what work is required, make sure that it is done and then check that it is operating safely. All those things will be improved as a result of what Network Rail has already announced.
    Chris Grayling: Does the Secretary of State expect that, before too long, all the rail network will be maintained by Network Rail, and that the other private sector operators will, step by step, hand their contracts back to Network Rail as well?
    Mr. Darling: That is something that Network Rail will no doubt want to consider. One reason that the costs of maintaining the network had risen so dramatically was that there was no proper control over what the private contractors were doing. Network Rail has to consider what is best in terms of the running and operating of the network, but it will no doubt look at what it has found so far when considering what the next step ought to be.
    Chris Ruane: When future maintenance contracts are considered, will specific mention be made of the north Wales railway stations, which have had massive under-investment in recent years? Will funding be put in place so that our stations no longer smell of urine, closed-circuit television can be installed and safe, secure car parks can be established?
    Mr. Darling: Network Rail is looking at the entire network, both track and stations, to see what improvements can be made and when they ought to be made. As my hon. Friend will know, and as I pointed out earlier, we are already spending very substantial sums on the railway. Before anyone can consider asking people to put their hands into their pockets for more money, we must ensure that the money is being properly spent in the first place. As I said a few moments ago, the evidence in relation to the contracts that have been taken back in-house is that those contracts at least will be more effectively run by Network Rail. What it decides to do in relation to the others is, of course, entirely a matter for Network Rail.

    Speed Cameras (Accidents)
    Paul Flynn: What changes have been recorded in the number of fatal accidents on roads where speed cameras have been deployed in the past two years. [132972]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): The two-year trial of the cost recovery system for speed and red light cameras found a 35 per cent. reduction in killed or seriously injured casualties at camera sites, equating to around 280 people.
    Paul Flynn: The answer to a previous question that I put to the Department suggested that the number of lives saved could be up to 500 a year. That is the answer to those websites and other irresponsible organs that advocate the vandalising of speed cameras. Should it not be made clear to those people that their actions in destroying speed cameras are leading to the deaths of hundreds of fellow road users?
    Mr. McNulty: I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend says. More than 1,000 people are killed on our roads each year as a result of excessive and inappropriate speed. Cameras are highly effective in addressing excessive speed and those who would vandalise them are to be truly and utterly condemned.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Overall, this country has a fairly good record on road accidents, although, of course, we must not be complacent. One area in which we have a particularly bad record is child deaths. Have the Government any plans to act on the advice from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents about the changing of the clocks in this country? ROSPA has said that if we did not put the clocks forward, there would be a substantial reduction in the number of child deaths. Will the Government consider that?
    Mr. McNulty: The hon. Gentleman will know that, whatever else I have responsibility for in the Department for Transport, I am not responsible for clocks and time, but I will ensure that the ROSPA report is taken on board with all due seriousness, as it should be. Colleagues in Scotland and elsewhere may disagree with him, but his point about child deaths on our roads is well made. That problem is another reason why the entire House should condemn those who try capriciously to remove speed cameras for whatever purpose.

  The Minister for the Cabinet Office was asked—
  CABINET OFFICE

    Public Appointments
    Mr. Mark Hendrick: What age restrictions there are on public appointments. [132951]
    Mr. David Borrow: What age restrictions apply to public appointments. [132952]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander): Generally, there are no age restrictions for public appointments. However, certain legal appointments, for example those made by the Lord Chancellor to the magistracy, have some restrictions.
    Mr. Hendrick: My hon. Friend will be aware that one in 33 public appointments are of people under the age of 35. When will he get to grips with this problem and make public appointments more representative of the population at large, especially given that he was elected to the House when he was under 35?
    Mr. Alexander: I take my hon. Friend's point, not least because of the remark with which he concluded his question. It is fair to say that we want our public appointments to reflect the society that public bodies serve. Younger people have a significant contribution to make to those public bodies. That is why a great deal of work is being done within government and in a range of agencies to ensure that there is better representation not just of younger people, but of all sections of the community that we seek to serve.
    Mr. Borrow: If we are to have a more representative age profile of public appointments in Lancashire, we must ensure that some of the barriers that prevent working people from taking up such posts are removed. In my hon. Friend's capacity as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, what can he do to ensure that public sector employers give maximum support to their employees in taking up public appointments? What does he intend to do about the private sector, which is where most of the problems lie?
    Mr. Alexander: My hon. Friend makes an important point. In my capacity as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, I follow the precedents set by the Department for Constitutional Affairs on magistracy appointments, but I also hold responsibility for public bodies within Government, and I have already had conversations with the relevant Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that, if there are barriers to people assuming public body positions, those discussions can be taken forward in Government and conclusions reached. A strain of work has been carried out in the Cabinet Office under one of my predecessors on how to deal with any significant barriers that stand in the way of people taking their places on public bodies. Those conversations continue within Government.
    Mr. John Bercow: In light of the hon. Gentleman's welcome opposition to age discrimination, will he tell the House what proportion of applicants for public appointments are above pensionable age, and for what proportion of the totality of appointments they account? By the way, if he is so strongly opposed to age discrimination, why do the hon. Members for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) sit on the Back Benches and not on the Front Benches?
    Mr. Alexander: I willingly assume responsibility for many things, but as the phrase has it, that is way above
    506
    my pay grade. The substantive point that the hon. Gentleman made about the contribution of older citizens to public bodies is a serious one, and it deserves a serious response. The latest figures provided by the Commissioner for Public Appointments show that 8 per cent. of the appointments that fell within her remit are held by people over the age of 66. I do not have the information on applications in front of me. A range of statistics is provided by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be kind enough to allow me to write to him.
    Mr. Philip Hammond: The Minister mentioned certain appointments made by the Lord Chancellor that are subject to age limits. Will the Government be forced by forthcoming legislation on age discrimination to drop all reference to age limits in such public appointments? If so, would it not be better for them to lead by example, and scrap the age limits now?
    Mr. Alexander: Conversations are taking place with the Department for Constitutional Affairs, but I shall be happy to raise the hon. Gentleman's point with the relevant Secretary of State.
    Rob Marris: Can my hon. Friend assure me that he will take particular account of age restrictions affecting younger people—that he will consider, for instance, the age at which a young person might become a school governor—to encourage their participation in our body politic?
    Mr. Alexander: That is an important point. Evidence relating to an increase in the proportion of public appointments taken by women reveals that many people who started out as school governors have moved on to other public appointments. The kind of local appointment that my hon. Friend describes strikes me as an ideal starting point, and there is a lesson to be drawn in that regard in the case of younger people as well.

    Digital Services
    David Cairns: What steps the Government have taken on inequalities in access to digital services. [132953]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander): The Government are committed to providing internet access for all who want it by 2005. Fifty-six per cent. of the population are now regular users and 48 per cent. of UK homes now have internet access—five times the number of homes connected in 1998.
    We recognise that some groups, such as the elderly and those on low incomes, are less likely to be online. The Government are working hard to engage those groups through initiatives such as the "Get Started" campaign.
    David Cairns: I know that my hon. Friend shares my view that, in the long term, digital television will be a key delivery mechanism for providing everyone with digital services. Is he aware that, as well as a digital divide, we still have—in 2003—an analogue divide in parts of the

    507
    country? Constituents of mine in Inverkip cannot even obtain an analogue television signal, let alone a digital signal. Will my hon. Friend lend his support to my campaign for the insertion in the new BBC charter of a simple principle, namely that those who pay their licence fees should be able to get a TV signal irrespective of any other cost involved?
    Mr. Alexander: I know of the tireless efforts of my good friend and constituency neighbour on behalf of his constituents in Inverkip in particular, where I understand from conversations with him that there are still difficulties with the analogue signal. I also know that he has already discussed the matter with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I will happily pass on his concerns to the relevant Secretary of State.
    Mr. Richard Allan: Does the Minister agree with the conclusion of the recent survey by the Oxford internet institute that the group of "can't surfs" who have no physical access to the internet is now very small compared with the group of "won't surfs" who see no value in its use? When can we expect to see a replacement for the Government's portal, which in its present UK Online form is not attractive and certainly does not encourage people to go online? Can he indicate when his long-awaited plan will come to fruition?
    Mr. Alexander: In regard to the Oxford internet institute study, the hon. Gentleman makes a valid point about cultural barriers. The "Get Started" campaign focused on targeting groups that are hard to reach, especially the elderly, because we must address not just a lack of technology but a lack of the skills and experience needed to gain access to the technology.
    I assure the hon. Gentleman that only yesterday I dealt with a submission relating to his second point. I believe that we shall be able to make speedy progress in the new year.

    Strategy Unit
    Bob Spink: If he will make a statement on the recent work of the strategy unit. [132954]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander): The strategy unit's role is to conduct long-term strategic and cross-cutting studies of major policy areas, and to
    508
    promote strategic thinking across Whitehall. Current projects include the misuse of alcohol and the UK fisheries project. A sponsor Minister in the relevant Department provides ministerial leadership for the projects.
    Bob Spink: Will the unit add to its list of recent longterm strategic reviews an analytical cross-cutting review of pensions policy, to highlight the iniquity and indignity of the mass means-testing of pensioners that results from the Government's policy?
    Mr. Alexander: Policies relating to the strategy unit's areas of work are determined by the strategy unit board. I assure the hon. Gentleman that a wide range of policy issues are considered. As for his substantive point about pensions, in my experience as a constituency Member, many people have welcomed a change that has seen a real and significant rise in household incomes for pensioners in communities throughout the country.
    Mr. Andy Reed: The strategy unit should look seriously at obesity—it is not a problem for some Members of this House, and although I shall not name names, many are trying to do their bit—which is increasingly being discovered among young children in particular. That serious problem is building up and will be a danger to us all. The strategy unit needs to bring together all the different Departments, but in the light of answers to questions that I have asked in this House, there seems to be no cross-cutting initiative. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Department of Health, the Department for Education and Skills and the Home Office need to come together to tackle this problem, but I get no sense that that is happening. Will my hon. Friend look at that issue?
    Mr. Alexander: My hon. Friend raises an important point that, intriguingly, was echoed on television last Thursday by the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo). I had not previously realised that the right hon. Gentleman was interested in the substantive and important issue of childhood obesity, which needs to be addressed. I will discuss with the Secretary of State for Health the cross-cutting work that is taking place across Government, and I will ask that the Department write to my hon. Friend directly. As he points out, this issue requires the work of more than a single Department and such work must take into account the recreational pursuits and sport necessary for younger people. On that basis, I am happy to ensure that correspondence is forthcoming.

Points of Order
12.31 pm
Pete Wishart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you received any explanation as to why it is so cold in this place?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is a Scotsman, like myself. We do not feel the cold.
Mr. William Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are about to embark on Second Reading of the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill, but before doing so I want to mention one important matter. Lord Bethell retired as a Conservative Member of the European Parliament on 30 September. The Government should have nominated the next Conservative on the list to replace him, but that has not yet happened, despite the fact that representations have been made. An element of disenfranchisement is therefore taking place, so could the Government, through your good offices, Mr. Speaker, be encouraged to ensure that the next person on the list is nominated as soon as possible?
Mr. Speaker: I have no powers in these matters, except to say that I wish Lord Bethell well in his retirement.
Mr. John Bercow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for me to point out that Lord Bethell is a constituent of mine, and that he has been a first-class public servant over many decades?
Mr. Speaker: Lord Bethell is a very fortunate man to have the hon. Gentleman as his MP.

Orders of the Day

  European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  12.33 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill's purpose is to allow continuation of the Government's successful programme of piloting innovative electoral processes—including all-postal voting, electronic voting and other electoral innovations—at the forthcoming European elections and, where they are held, at local elections next year. Piloting new voting mechanisms is not done for its own sake. It is innovation for a purpose: to engage the maximum number of voters in the elections, and to make their participation more easy and convenient.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Leslie: It is very early on in my speech, but I shall of course give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to the Minister. I accept that it is early on in his speech, but I want to ask whether he intends to give an explanation for motion 4 on the Order Paper, which allows for the Bill to be carried over. In making provision for carry-over and explaining it to the House, the former Leader of the House set down certain criteria. Will the Minister tell us during his contribution what criteria he is using for this carry-over?
  Mr. Leslie: The motion is very simple, and relates to the Bill's importance and to ensuring that it gets on to the statute book. That is why the motion appears as it does on the Order Paper.
  The measures in the Bill form only one part of the Government's wider programme of reform, and of improving the country's democratic processes. We must always aim to reinforce the faith that the public have in our democracy and strive as best as possible to re-engage their trust in the institutions that work on their behalf.
  Let me place these measures in context. The elections pilots programme began following the passing of the Representation of the People Act 2000, which has enabled local authorities to apply to trial different ways of voting at local government elections, in order to see which kinds of innovative electoral techniques make it easier for people to vote. It also allowed for the piloting of different approaches to counting, and measures aimed at improving administrative efficiency.
  I know that the whole House is aware of the apparent reluctance of a sizeable number of the public to engage with democratic institutions, whether at the local, national or European levels. That is clearly demonstrated by the low turnouts at recent elections. We saw a 59 per cent. turnout at the general election of 2001; a 24 per cent. turnout—5.1 million fewer votes

  511
  compared with a decade earlier—at the European elections of 1999; and only about a third of the electorate cast their vote at this year's local elections.
  Mr. Robert Syms: When we changed to the list system of elections, I remember the Foreign Secretary assuring us that that would lead to a higher turnout, but it has not. Is not the solution to go back to first-past-the-post, which we all love and cherish in the House?
  Mr. Leslie: That is an interesting comment, but I suspect that it is a debate for another day.
  I was about to say that the reasons for falling voter turnout are, of course, complicated. There are many and varied theories about the reasons for the fall—and we have just heard one such theory—including a declining sense of social identification, changes to social structure, voter awareness and so forth.
  We politicians must share at least some of the responsibility for voter disengagement. Some people argue that it is the confrontational nature of party politics that is putting off voters. Others say that we need more confrontation in politics to whip up some interest and excite people into voting. Whatever the reality, I hope that there is no need for confrontation today.
  Chris Grayling: Does the Minister accept that one of the problems of the current system is that although the strength of the individual—including how good someone is at representing a particular area—can be an important factor in encouraging people to come out and vote for that person, the European system does not allow people to vote for a particular individual. That arrangement means that a key part of the tools that would otherwise be available to rebuild turnout at elections is lost.
  Mr. Leslie: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point because the abilities of an elected representative to connect with the views and wishes of the electorate is obviously important, but it is not for me to judge whether Members of the European Parliament, local councillors or, indeed, other Members of Parliament are particularly good at that. The hon. Gentleman has his own views on that matter.
  The Government have already introduced many significant measures to improve participation in the democratic process, including the devolution of decision making, the development of regional and city government and the modernisation of local government. Although making voting more convenient is not a panacea designed to increase the vital element of democratic participation, there is certainly much evidence that it can help. It must, anyway, be right to explore as thoroughly as we can how to make the voting experience fit better with the way people now live their lives. After all, there have been a great many changes since the fundamentally important introduction in the Ballot Act 1872 of our traditional method of voting in secret via the ballot box.
  Mr. John Bercow: Not for the first time, the Minister's position can best be described as studiously opaque. On the one hand, he tells my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) that he has made a good point and expressed himself forcefully, but, on the other hand, he fails to tell us whether he agrees that the removal of the link between the individual Member and the constituency is regressive. What is the Minister's view? Will he explain himself?
  Mr. Leslie: I am not sure that the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) made such a good point—the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) was the more eloquent—but I believe that having a relationship between a constituency and an elected representative is important. That continues at a European level, just as it does at national and local level, because we still have European parliamentary constituencies—although the Opposition do not seem to have noticed that.
  Mr. Ian Davidson: Is it not time for the Government and the Minister to be bold? Given the discussion that has taken place about different electoral systems, it would be the essence of boldness to conduct first-past-the-post elections to the European Parliament in one region and in other regions to operate a system of proportional representation. I would be willing to volunteer Scotland as the area that should have first-past-the-post elections.
  Mr. Leslie: That is probably not a good idea, and I am afraid that I cannot help my hon. Friend in that regard.
  It may be helpful if I outline briefly, in very broad terms, how all-postal pilots and electronic voting pilots work, based on the experience gained so far. The key element of an all-postal election is that every person registered as an elector in that election receives a ballot paper through their front door, or wherever they have registered to receive their ballot paper. That means that the election is instantly accessible. Everyone who is registered to vote is given the means to vote without having to do anything at all, except fill in the ballot paper and return it.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: What steps will be taken to protect residents in houses in multiple occupation?
  Mr. Leslie: The Royal Mail has to deal with that matter frequently when delivering post to persons who live in such houses. We always need to ensure that we have the most effective delivery systems. I have confidence in the Royal Mail's ability to cope in such circumstances, and we already have much experience from the all-postal elections that have already taken place.
  At all-postal elections, the ballot papers are delivered no later than one week before the close of poll, and usually between two and three weeks in advance. An elector may then choose to do one of two things. Votes can be completed at the voter's convenience, and then cast simply by posting the completed ballot to the returning officer. Alternatively, votes may be delivered

  513
  by hand to any place designated for the delivery of ballot papers by electors. Such places are staffed delivery points where trained election officials are on hand to assist electors with any queries they may have or to provide replacement ballot papers. They also contain a secure area where ballot papers may be completed in an environment similar to a polling station.
  I shall now explain how an electronically enabled—or e-enabled—region's voting pilot would work. At any e-enabled electoral pilot we would provide—in addition to postal voting—opportunities for voters to cast their ballot via the internet or by telephone. In any e-enabled pilot area, each registered elector would receive a postal ballot paper in the same way as for an all-postal election. However, at the same time as the ballot paper was sent out, details would be given about how to vote using the electronic means on offer. That would include a unique personal identification number to allow the elector to access the voting website or telephone system in order to cast their vote. Typically, a remote electronic voting channel would be open for use a full seven days before the close of poll. When a vote had been received, whether by post or by an electronic channel, the voter would be marked as having voted on the register of electors, and no further votes from that person would be accepted.
  Mr. Richard Allan: Can the Minister give the House some assurances about the audit trails for the electronic system he proposes? He may be aware of the heated debate that is raging, especially in the United States, about the companies that supply the technology, and whether voters can verify that their votes were cast as they intended. Those debates have not been resolved and I would be extremely concerned if we were to adopt that approach in a large public election until and unless those questions have been answered.
  Mr. Leslie: That precisely why we are extending the next step in the piloting process and why the Electoral Commission will oversee such matters. The Bill contains provisions to allow the commission to scrutinise and monitor the process. It can report back, and consequential changes and improvements can then be made. In this country, there has been the most widespread use of electronic voting so far. In the view of the Electoral Commission, there are no grounds for worry about fraud or security.
  All-postal voting and e-voting have both undergone widespread trials at a local level and a great deal of history and experience has already been gained in the electoral pilots programme so far. The Government remain keen, therefore, to ensure that piloting can continue, and expand, next year.
  The pilots programme began at the May 2000 local elections. At those elections, the convenience of having available for the first time early and all-postal voting, and small-scale electronic pilots, was welcomed by voters.
  Chris Grayling: Given the size of the areas covered by the European elections, will the Minister assure the House that any decisions to mix the various alternative methods of voting will not encourage turnout disproportionately among different elements of the
  514
  population? For example, will he confirm that there will also be all-postal voting when an e-pilot is taking place? People of different age groups in society clearly respond to technology differently. An election could be distorted if one approach was adopted, and not another.
  Mr. Leslie: We have considered that point very carefully. We have concluded that, if and when an electronically enabled pilot is held in a region, we must also offer people in that region the simultaneous opportunity to vote by post by means of an all-postal ballot. The task is to open up new channels and avenues for people to cast their votes. What we are discussing is the next step in piloting new voting mechanisms.
  David Hamilton: Will not local elections take place in England in the same period, and might not that be confusing? In light of that, may I suggest that, as no elections are scheduled in Scotland, that would be an ideal place for such an experiment?
  Mr. Leslie: That is like seeing the first swallow of spring: I have just received the first bid for a region—and nation—to hold a pilot. We must wait for the Electoral Commission's recommendations as to which regions or nations should be eligible for the pilots.
  The programme of local piloting continued in the 2002 local elections, with 30 local authorities holding pilots. That included 13 pilots running all-postal schemes and nine involving electronic, including telephone, voting. Around 2.7 million people were eligible to vote in those 30 pilot areas—that is, 7.4 per cent. of the English electorate. Surveys by the independent Electoral Commission, which has a statutory duty to evaluate each pilot scheme, and by the local authorities running the schemes showed that people again found the new methods of voting easier, more convenient and quicker to use. Postal voting was popular, securing significant increases in turnout in some areas. The substantial number of e-pilots provided a vital building block in establishing public confidence in e-voting. In all the e-pilots, the hardware and software performed successfully without any significant problems.
  Rob Marris: In connection with the question about software asked by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), there are considerable concerns in the US that the companies providing the software are all closely aligned with the Republican party, yet no one is allowed to see the software. Does the UK Electoral Commission have the in-house expertise—or access to external expertise that could be bought in—to examine the software to ensure that it works accurately?
  Mr. Bercow: It is all a conspiracy.
  Mr. Leslie: I have full confidence in the Electoral Commission's ability to monitor and scrutinise the veracity and validity of electronic voting software and the means by which e-piloting can take place. I have no evidence to suggest that any problems have been encountered so far, but we obviously keep all such

  515
  matters under review. I have great faith in this country's electoral processes, and in our returning officers who operate most of them.
  Mr. David Drew: My authority was one of those that undertook trials of both e-voting and the wider use of postal voting. After holding pilots, we need to analyse what happens when we return to traditional voting methods and I should welcome my hon. Friend's views on that. Given that, for good or bad, my region, the south-west, will include Gibraltar, we are likely to be excluded from future pilots under the Bill. As several local authorities in the south-west volunteered to take part in earlier pilots, is it fair that we should have to go backwards? What are the implications of that?
  Mr. Leslie: I hear what my hon. Friend says. However, we now need to scale up pilots from the local authority level to a wider area and the European parliamentary constituency basis—the regional and national basis—provides that opportunity. In a moment, I shall talk about the consequences of that and about which regions might be eligible. I hope to touch on some of those points in more detail later in my speech.
  Sir Robert Smith: May I test the Minister's confidence in the transparency and openness of the new systems of election? Traditionally, our electoral system has been self-policing; in effect, the participants in an election keep an eye on each other and on the electoral process. The new systems are far less open to the scrutiny of the participants, so where does the Minister find his confidence that there will be the same degree of scrutiny?
  Mr. Leslie: A massive body of work and evaluation has already been undertaken by the Electoral Commission on the local pilots that have taken place. Obviously, we want to make sure that scrutineers from political parties can also have confidence in the process. That is an important issue to which we might return and examine further.
  At the local elections in May 2003, there was widespread use of electronic or postal voting, which proved most successful. Sixty-one local authorities, with about 6.5 million potential voters, held electoral pilot schemes. There were 17 e-voting pilots and 33 all-postal schemes. In the 17 e-voting areas more than a quarter of all votes were cast electronically. The all-postal pilots were also a great success. In the all-postal areas turnout was impressive, averaging more than 49 per cent. The average turnout in the same local authority areas for previous comparable elections was about 33 per cent.
  Mr. Peter Duncan: Does the Minister agree that one important way for the participants to self-scrutinise the process is to check on turnout during a normal polling day? Does he agree that key to that is the provision of a marked register during the period when ballot papers are out in the wider electorate? Could not he resolve the concerns by undertaking that a marked register should be available after each day on which ballot papers could be returned?
  Mr. Leslie: The Electoral Commission has reported on that issue and the Government will be responding to its recommendations on marked registers. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman examines the commission's report, which will interest all those in the Chamber who are aficionados of the electoral process; they will want to study carefully the commission's proposals on marked registers.
  Angus Robertson: Many people's minds would be put at rest if one of the central ways in which political parties and citizens could check that the electoral process was above board was through a marked register, so does the Minister concede that we should ensure that marked-up registers are available after postal and electronic elections and that we should introduce such a measure now rather than after holding pilots?
  Mr. Leslie: Any changes that we make to the marked register arrangements will be considered separately from whether we should hold all-postal or e-voting pilots in some regions during the combined European and local elections next year. We need to examine that principle separately from the fundamental issue set out in the Bill.
  Given the success of the pilot programmes so far, both in making voting more convenient and, as a consequence, in raising turnout, we are keen to see piloting continue next year and to extend its scope.
  Mr. Allan: I observed the pilot in my Sheffield constituency this year. For much of the day anyone in my constituency could have voted twice—in person at the polling station and electronically—because the hardware and software for checking the two systems failed and there were technical problems for most of the day. Fortunately, the result was clearcut with a large majority, but had the result been close I am confident that the losing party would have mounted a challenge. What I am not so confident about is whether we could have resolved the problem; we would still be trying to sort it out because the systems were too opaque.
  Mr. Leslie: The Electoral Commission has looked particularly into the experience in Sheffield. As has already been pointed out, we rely in this country on the public to abide by electoral law and to realise that duplicate voting and so forth are offences. It is important to compare conventional voting mechanisms with new ones. There is a certain level of security and we need to ensure that people are aware of offences that take place. We hope to provide the same degree of security and prevention of fraudulent activity in the new voting mechanisms.
  Mr. Miller: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend: our country's record is superb. Even allowing for the conspiracy theories suggested by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), there is no reason to suspect that modern systems would result in an increase in fraud. However, proper checking mechanisms are important so that the public can be confident. Is not there an argument for strengthening the powers of

  517
  returning officers to enable them—for example, in the postal voting circumstances that I described earlier—to ensure that distribution was properly carried out?
  Mr. Leslie: I have no doubt that the security and safety of the voting arrangements under the new mechanisms will be a feature of our debate. Two clauses specifically relating to tightening up security arrangements for all-postal balloting were inserted to reflect some of the concern that we anticipate, although I reiterate that the Electoral Commission has indicated that it sees no greater opportunity for fraud in all-postal balloting or electronic voting than in conventional mechanisms. We rely on the commission's professional advice, which is for the whole House and not just for the Government; it is an independent organisation.
  The eventual aim is to hold a general election at which voting is available in a number of ways, using both conventional and new technologies. We have said that our aim is to achieve that some time after 2006, which means that the next general election, whenever it may be, will not be run in that way. It is only right, however, that we should prove the success of new voting methods and electoral procedures consistently on a larger scale before we take that step. That is why we are legislating now—to take the next step forward for larger-scale voting pilots.
  As the House is already aware, following a consultation exercise and with the passing of the Local Government Act 2003, next year's local and European elections are to be combined in England. Combining those two elections is another important measure aimed at encouraging more people to take part in the democratic process, making voting more convenient by avoiding electors having to vote on two separate occasions within a matter of weeks.
  Piloting at next year's elections will be a useful and significant step along the path to a general election that will offer voters the chance to choose from a range of new voting methods. The Bill is necessary to allow that to happen; currently, there is no legislative provision for piloting innovative voting at European parliamentary elections and the Bill is intended to fill that gap.
  Clause 1 provides a power for the Secretary of State to make an order that will specify which region or regions are to pilot innovative voting procedures in combined European and local elections. After consulting the Electoral Commission, the Secretary of State may make an order setting out the region or regions in which piloting is to take place. That order will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure so as to give proper opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny—a concern that often arises during debates. We hope to outline in December what the order will contain. Any order made by the Secretary of State will also apply to any local elections combined with the European poll that takes place in the region or regions chosen.
  Chris Grayling: I have two questions for the Minister. First, why does the Bill exclude London? Secondly, what consultations will the Government carry out with returning officers in the areas that may be covered by pilot schemes to ensure that they also support the
  518
  concept of the pilot scheme and that they do not suggest significant operational reasons why the pilot scheme should not take place in that region?
  Mr. Leslie: Two forms of consultation are already being undertaken: the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is consulting local authorities on the piloting procedures and practices and information will be gathered in that way, and the Electoral Commission has already commenced a consultation process to consider the selection of which regions might be recommended to the Secretary of State. I have forgotten the hon. Gentleman's other point.
  Chris Grayling: London.
  Mr. Leslie: I shall refer to London in a moment because a specific clause deals with excluded regions, and I should like to bring out certain issues in a little more detail.
  Under clause 2, a further order will set out the details of the precise manner in which the elections in pilot areas may differ from the way in which they would be run normally. The Secretary of State will be required to send copies of that order to the local authorities involved in the pilot, the Electoral Commission and the relevant regional returning officers. Local authorities must then publish the order in their area in such manner as they think fit.
  In a consultation exercise running until 19 November, the Government are seeking the views of local authorities and other interested parties on the proposed arrangements for piloting. I mentioned that consultation a moment ago. A draft of the order will be given to the Electoral Commission for it to consider and discuss before it is finalised. To expedite arrangements for any possible pilot schemes, the Government have already asked the Electoral Commission to recommend up to three regions that might be suitable for holding all-postal pilots, one of which might be also suitable for including internet and telephone voting options. The commission has already started a public consultation exercise to assist it in making recommendations.
  On the specific question asked by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, to minimise complexity and retain clarity for the electorate, London will be ruled out from consideration as a pilot region. In London, elections will be taking place for the London Assembly and the Mayor, which will add greater complexity and complication to the work of regional returning officers and others who are implementing the elections.
  Questions must also be asked about what lessons could usefully be learned in the rest of the UK from pilot schemes run using atypical electoral systems. Such considerations also apply to Northern Ireland, which is outside the scope of the Bill, and to the European parliamentary region to be combined with Gibraltar under section 11 of the European Parliament (Representation) Act 2003—the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). The Electoral Commission recommend that that should be the south-west region in England, and it is hoped that a statutory instrument to that effect will be laid before Parliament before Christmas.
  Mr. Drew: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way to me again. I am intrigued to know whether there is a mechanism to allow the pilot scheme to take place in the south-west if it includes Gibraltar, because of the different system of elections in Gibraltar; or has that recommendation come from the great and the good, making it easier not to include that region if Gibraltar is within it?
  Mr. Leslie: We felt that that matter was so important that we wanted to consult the Electoral Commission, so in no way was there a sense that the Government were simply deeming a certain region to be chosen for combination with voters from Gibraltar. The commission has recommended the south-west, and we shall accept its recommendation. I would not want to pre-empt the statutory instrument that Parliament will consider, but it is fair to say that we do not want to run pilot schemes in regions with an added layer of complexity. We simply need the pilot schemes to run in some regions, not in others, so that we can examine the differential effect of all-postal piloting at regional level.
  Avoidance of additional complexity is also why there is provision in the Bill to prevent Westminster by-elections, by-elections for the National Assembly for Wales and mayoral referendums, elections and by-elections from taking place in a pilot region on the day of next year's European parliamentary election, or at any time within three weeks before or three weeks after that date.
  With respect to local government by-elections in England and Wales, however, the returning officer can choose to combine them and hold them on the same day, so that they can be treated in the same way as the ordinary local Government elections. If the returning officer chooses not to combine the elections then, the local by-election cannot be held at any time within four weeks before or three weeks after the date of the European parliamentary election, again, to avoid over-complexity. Leaving the decision on whether to combine local government by-elections in England and Wales to the discretion of the returning officer allows those elections to be treated the same as all other local authority elections. That will not add insurmountable complexity, compared with the complexity of including parliamentary by-elections.
  Clause 3 will disapply section 10 of the Representation of the People Act 2000, so local authorities will not be able to apply to run separate local pilot schemes under that Act on the same day as next year's European and combined elections. That will help not only to contain costs, but to retain other elections as a control with which pilot results can be compared. It is also important to ensure consistency throughout European parliamentary constituencies and to avoid confusing electors with different voting arrangements in the two different ballots.
  Mr. Syms: I thank the Minister for giving way; he has been very generous. If a postal strike took place in one of the cities in a large region with a postal voting pilot scheme, inevitably causing problems in part of the area, what emergency provisions does the Bill contain to get the ballot papers to the electorate? Clearly, if regional quotas were set and thousands of ballot papers were caught in Manchester, for example, that could skewer
  520
  the quota system for the whole region. Would the election be put back? Would the returning officer have the power to get hold of those ballot papers? Some trade unions might be tempted to use that as a bargaining chip. What provision has the Minister made for that?
  Mr. Leslie: In the wider sense of what contingency measures are available, the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Ever since postal voting arose, people have had concerns about what would happen if the postal system were unable to cope. For some time, we have had discussions with Royal Mail and had confidence in its ability to conduct postal voting. It prioritises postal voting and the delivery of postal votes in its work, and we will, of course, ensure that we work with regional returning officers to put in place proper and robust contingency plans to cope with all the different scenarios that the hon. Gentleman mentions.
  John Robertson: I wonder whether my hon. Friend could clarify something that I did not quite understand. Is he saying that no local experiment can be carried out in a European region if a postal ballot takes place there?
  Mr. Leslie: That is right. The point of scaling up piloting to regional level is to achieve consistency in European parliamentary constituencies. It would not be right if a certain corner of a European parliamentary constituency had all-postal voting and another did not, because ballot papers and so on would be available in different formats to people in a similar constituency. Clearly, we need to ensure fairness in each European parliamentary constituency at that level.
  John Robertson: Would people vote using a ballot box for local elections in that area, while still having a postal vote for European elections; or would the postal method be used for both local and European elections in the area?
  Mr. Leslie: The latter is indeed the case. We would ensure that all elections took place using an all-postal pilot scheme if that European parliamentary region were chosen for piloting.
  Mr. David Heath: May I return the hon. Gentleman to the point that he was making before previous interventions when he spoke about the robustness of the process if the post were disrupted by local industrial action? Will he confirm that during the 2001 borough council elections in Stockport, when there was an experiment with an all-postal ballot, several hundred people in that borough were disfranchised by a postal delivery strike?
  Mr. Leslie: I am afraid that I do not have the details of the Stockport arrangements to hand. I hope that the House will forgive me for that omission at present, but I will certainly look again at that matter. I am sure, however, that the Electoral Commission will be fully appraised of the situation that the hon. Gentleman reports from Stockport and about experiences elsewhere. This is a learning process, which is why we are having pilots. If we do not have pilots and gradually increase awareness and capability, we will not be able to

  521
  move towards the target of a general election with different means of voting after 2006. Of course, lessons are there to be learned from each pilot as it takes place.
  Provision is being made in the Bill requiring the Electoral Commission to evaluate any pilots at the European and combined elections in 2004, in the same way as it is now required to evaluate local election pilots. Any such evaluation will be important in helping to formulate the way forward for future piloting and the development of a strategy for innovative voting.
  Mr. Davidson: On the point about evaluation of fraud, the Minister has been confident that there has been no fraud in previous experiments. Can I ask him how he knows that? Does it not indicate merely that fraud has not been discovered? Has the Electoral Commission gone back to check whether the votes that were cast were cast by the people to whom they were attributed, especially given that, for electronic voting, it seems that only the number is needed in order to vote? If those numbers were collected by person or persons unknown they could easily cast multiple votes, and I am not sure how that fraud would be discovered.
  Mr. Leslie: Let me say that this is a significant point, and it would help if I were to make absolutely clear the Government's view. The Electoral Commission, in the many evaluations that it has undertaken into electoral pilots so far, has found no evidence of any greater exposure to fraud, nor did it feel that the opportunity for fraud was enhanced or that the security of the poll was undermined. I recognise, however, that this is a real concern for many, and for that reason, as an initial response to the Electoral Commission's recommendations aimed at further enhancing security and improving public confidence, we propose the introduction of two amendments to electoral law, but only at this stage for next year's pilots.
  First, at present, the existing powers of arrest without a warrant are restricted to arrest in relation to personation at polling stations. "Personation" is the name given to the offence committed, under section 60 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, when someone votes as someone else but without their consent. Clause 6 of this Bill extends that power beyond the polling station, which is clearly helpful where remote voting is widely in use. Secondly, clause 7 provides that the magistrates court is given a power to allow in exceptional circumstances, on application from the police or a prosecutor, an extension of time for a prosecution to be commenced, up to a maximum of 24 months after the date of the offence. The current legislation allows only 12 months in England, Wales and Scotland.
  Taken together, I believe that those two additional anti-fraud steps will improve the security of postal voting and create a more confident environment for the pilots to succeed in the region or regions eventually selected. In the longer term, if those measures are shown to be helpful, we would look to apply them more widely. In addition, other security measures not requiring primary legislation, such as watermarked ballot papers, may be employed for next year's pilots where necessary.
  Members from both sides of the House are agreed on the need to reverse the decline in participation in the political process and to ensure that people's experience
  522
  of politics and their interaction with Government institutions remains relevant to modern lifestyles. Each one of us here has a personal as well as a wider interest in ensuring democratic legitimacy. Since 2000, the Government, with partners including local authorities and the Electoral Commission, have promoted a successful programme of piloting innovative voting schemes. Those have offered ways of voting that are more in step with the way that people today live their lives, and in many cases have raised the percentage of people voting at elections, which is surely vital if those holding elected office and democratic institutions themselves are to hold and retain public confidence.
  While increasing civic engagement is about more than offering updated ways of voting, that is one crucial part of it. The European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill is simply intended to allow the electoral pilots programme to continue next year and to scale up its size to bring closer the day when new ways of voting will become available to all of the electorate. That is in all our interests, and I commend the Bill to the House.
  1.15 pm
  Mr. William Cash: The Minister's claims that the Government want to improve our democratic system and improve faith in the political process are indicated by the presentation of this Bill, which is a symbol of the present crisis of confidence in the democratic process in this country, which has been created and worsened by this Government.
  With serious reservations, one could say that considerable advantage is to be gained from more postal voting in particular, provided that the system is rigorously monitored and that opportunities for fraud and undue influence are eliminated. There are two main questions to be addressed. First, why is the turnout in elections, and particularly in European elections, so dangerously low? In the last general election, in 2001, the turnout was a mere a 59.4 per cent. averaged across the country. That represented a massive 12 per cent. fall from 1997, when this Government came to power. Between 1955 and 1997, the turnout was consistently above 70 per cent. In the last European elections in 1999, again under this Government, the turnout across the country was a mere 23 per cent. compared with 36 per cent. in 1994.
  The Opposition believe that the decline in turnout for the European elections is partly because of the introduction of party lists under the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999, which abolished first-past-the-post. It is also because of the centralising, remote and bureaucratic process of further and deeper European integration, now culminating in the disastrous European constitution, which has been agreed to in principle by this Government. That constitution will further undermine the trust and respect in the political system and a referendum on it is now

  523
  essential. Indeed, the shadow Foreign Secretary and I went to No. 10 Downing street this morning to demand a referendum from the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that this Bill is about elections, not referendums, and certainly not about the matters that he is currently discussing.
  Mr. Cash: I will of course accept your injunction, Mr. Speaker. I will also simply say, however, that voting is about elections and referendums, but I take your point up to the limit that I can.
  Mr. Russell Brown rose—
  Mr. Cash: Having said that, first-past-the-post should be introduced for European elections. Indeed, you may be interested to know, Mr. Speaker, that only last year the European Scrutiny Committee, chaired by the indomitable hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), urged the House to reintroduce first-past-the-post for European elections. First-past-the-post is the only system that maintains the immediate link between a representative and his constituency. That is particularly important when we have enormous European regions of up to 6 million voters. Why do the Government not amend the Bill to ensure that first-past-the-post applies?
  There is evidence that postal voting can increase voter turnout. For example, in the local elections in Chorley in Lancashire, all-postal ballots increased turnout from 31 per cent. in 1998 to 61 per cent. in 2002—turnout nearly doubled. The same applied in Stevenage. When postal voting was used in Greenwich, however, the turnout dropped by 0.4 per cent. between the same two local elections. In Hackney, the turnout dropped by 3 per cent., so the results were bizarre and mixed. However, the fact that postal voting has been so beneficial in the areas in which it has worked is encouraging, providing we know that the system operates properly and without fraud. The doubling of turnout is beneficial but we must ask why there are such curious and bizarre results in different parts of the country.
  Before I talk about fraud and arrangements for adapting the offence of personation under clause 6, I must refer to a remarkable inquiry on election fraud in Birmingham. It reported last November and its findings include important lessons. There was deep concern in Birmingham about the way in which postal voting, personation and intimidation at polling stations had emerged. Birmingham is the heartland of modern democracy in many ways because in the 19th century it was represented by John Bright, the archetypal democrat. His campaign for democracy culminated in its acceptance by the Conservative Government under Disraeli in the Reform Act 1867.
  John Alden, a Conservative city councillor, led the investigation in Birmingham. Hon. Members should bear it in mind that Birmingham is a Labour council. The council was determined to get to the bottom of the matter, so it appointed a distinguished Conservative city councillor to lead the investigation. The Birmingham
  524
  Post quoted John Alden as saying that until he completed his investigation, he had not realised how serious the perversion of democracy had become. He said that matters had become so bad that we needed to apply the rules that exist in Northern Ireland to voting arrangements and postal voting. However, the Bill will not extend to Northern Ireland, so the threshold of the law will be set at a lower level in England, Scotland and Wales than in Northern Ireland.
  Councillor Alden urged the council to insist on changes to the outdated electoral law. A senior police officer told a committee that existing election law, which was based on trust and the Representation of the People Act 1983—the Act to which the Minister referred—was insufficient to bring prosecutions against offenders. Of course, we bear it in mind that clause 6 will apply the provisions of the 1983 Act on the law of personation without amendment. Detective Chief Superintendent Dave Churchill, the head of the West Midlands police major fraud unit, said that the postal voting system had few major checks or controls to ensure that the true identity of the voter was known, and added that the 1983 Act inadequately coped with the misuse of postal votes and personation.
  Rob Marris: I put it to the hon. Gentleman that the 1983 Act is not always hopeless in the west midlands. An individual was convicted and, I think, jailed for personation in the constituency next to mine in Wolverhampton. That individual was a Conservative councillor.
  Mr. Cash: I am always extremely interested in any objective information of that kind but I am making a more general point about how the Government have reacted to personation in recent inquiries and, especially, the inquiry by the Select Committee on Home Affairs on personation and electoral fraud.
  There is an even deeper problem: low turnout is a reflection of a cynical view of politics and politicians and a lack of respect for the political system. The Government stand condemned for bringing our democratic system of government and trust in the people into such grave decline that it is well said that no one believes a word that the Prime Minister says. Indeed, the fact that he has refused to grant a referendum on the European constitution to which he has agreed in principle is yet another indication of the contempt that he has for the British people. Whatever the merits of trying to increase turnout using postal voting, which I have said should be encouraged along with proper safeguards and changes to the law, that of itself will not remedy the crisis that faces the British electoral system or the lack of faith and trust to which I referred and to which the Minister referred in his opening remarks. I appreciate that he understands that there is a serious problem.
  Mr. Russell Brown: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way because he has returned to a point on which I wanted to intervene earlier. He talks about the UK situation but surely, as an intelligent hon. Gentleman, he realises that falling turnout is not only a UK or European problem, but a worldwide problem that must

  525
  be addressed. He is critical of the fact that the general public are sceptical of politicians but the public throughout the globe are sceptical of politicians.
  Mr. Cash: There is truth in what the hon. Gentleman says but we need to improve the situation. My observations, comments and the evidence that I have adduced show that the Government are not dealing with the problem properly at a deeper level in the way in which they should.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that cynicism is keeping people away from the ballot boxes, how does he explain the fact that wherever postal voting pilots have been held, turnout has increased and, in most cases, doubled? In the Chester North ward council by-election that was held using postal voting in my constituency two weeks ago, the turnout was 64 per cent.
  Mr. Cash: I can only say that that must prove the hon. Gentleman's enormous influence in his constituency. Having said that, I am bound to point out that although the average turnout in the past general election was 59.4 per cent., the turnout in my constituency was 67 per cent. There is a relationship between the activities of local Members and the outcome of a given election.
  Mr. Bercow: Surely an ignorance of the functions of the European Parliament explains, at least in part, people's reluctance to participate in European elections. Would my hon. Friend care to speculate on the proportion of the electorate who could adequately describe the European Parliament's remit? Does he agree that on the whole, whether fairly or unfairly, most voters regard the European Parliament at best as an irrelevance and at worst as a pestilential nuisance?
  Mr. Cash: There is no doubt that that view is frequently held and I understand why. However, the fact remains that the incredibly low turnout in European Parliament elections is more a reflection of what people think than of what my hon. Friend, other hon. Members or I might think. The important thing is the way in which people react to what they see in the political arena. The average turnout in the last European elections was 23 per cent., but I think that it was only 9 per cent. in one constituency. My hon. Friend's comment is a reflection of not only what some hon. Members think but what the people think, which is the key point.
  Whatever the merits of trying to achieve increased turnout, we must still address the crisis that faces the British electoral system. Conservative Members do not believe that e-voting should be piloted throughout an entire region because the jury is still out on its reliability and security. To be positive about aspects of the Bill, let us consider the differences between all-postal areas and others in the last few elections. The average turnout in all-postal areas was 48 per cent. in 2002, 15 per cent. higher than the average 33 per cent. turnout across England. Average all-postal turnout in the 2003 pilots was 49 per cent. compared to 35 per cent. across England as a whole. There are clear advantages if the system is run properly.
  526
  The Electoral Commission recommends that all-postal voting becomes the norm for local elections, subject to legislation to tighten fraud. It maintains that there should be a statutory presumption that all local elections be run as all-postal ballots unless there are compelling reasons why an all-postal ballot would be inappropriate or disadvantageous for a group or groups of electors. Given that all-postal ballots clearly increase turnout, the Conservatives are not necessarily opposed to their more frequent use in elections. However, practical considerations have to be addressed. Against the background of what I am about to say, I invite the House to think seriously about the Birmingham examples, which are hard, factual and raise difficult questions.
  There are concerns about ballot security. Checks and investigations into previous postal voting have been piecemeal and inadequate. What reliable evidence there is suggests that the scope for abuse is wider than the Government might care to admit. I have dealt with improved anti-fraud measures. There is also the problem of voter confidentiality. Concerns have been raised about compromising voter secrecy in all-postal pilots. There was a serious problem with the declaration of identity in all-postal schemes. It was attached to the ballot paper and only detached at the count. It would be better to retain the traditional method of placing the ballot paper in a sealed envelope, separate from the declaration of identity. That would help to reassure voters that their ballot would remain confidential during the delivery, handling and counting processes. Those are practical considerations that have little to do with party politics. It is a matter of getting the system as good as it can be.
  There should also be more delivery points. Given that the Bill will impose all-postal pilots on local authorities that may not wish to participate, it is important that there are delivery points in each local government ward to allow electors to drop off their ballot envelope by hand to a nearby secure location. Indeed, in light of strike action by Post Office workers in parts of the country, as mentioned by hon. Members, there are genuine concerns about the reliability of the postal service in an all-postal election. Moreover, the postal system has become even more unreliable under this Government. An average of 1,500 items of mail are lost every week across every parliamentary constituency according to Postwatch on 31 January 2001.
  A delivery point in each local ward established by the local authority would act as a measure of last resort in the event of industrial action. It would also reassure voters who did not trust the postal service, so increasing turnout. Large rural areas may need to have more than one delivery point per ward. Greater clarification would be needed for voters of their opening times so that the points could be used up to the close of poll.
  Proper central funding is needed. Although the Government have promised to fund the cost of the pilot schemes, we want a firmer guarantee in the Bill that all extra costs will be met by central Government. One crucial reason why council tax bills have soared by 60 per cent. on band D bills since 1997 under this Government is the succession of underfunded burdens and regulations that Whitehall has passed on.

  527
  Accessibility for the elderly and the disabled also needs to be considered. Although all-postal voting can facilitate voting for those who are less mobile, it is important that pilot schemes recognise the special needs of those with more severe disabilities or impairments. That should include accessible copies of the ballot paper or envelope and of voter information.
  There is also the issue of updated marked-up registers. During the pilot schemes, some local authorities provided marked registers at various stages before the final deadline for the return of ballot papers. That helped to increase turnout by allowing local political parties to remind those who had not yet voted of the election. Those who had voted were spared being bothered by political parties. We want that practical, simple and useful practice established in law. Without a statutory obligation, some local authorities will go slow and fail to provide the information. Political parties are facing problems with rolling registration, with some council electoral registration departments failing to provide updated electoral registers on time.
  Angus Robertson: I take on board the hon. Gentleman's point about an updated marked-up register, but does he agree that the problem is more fundamental in that there needs to be a marked-up register in the first place? Does he agree that it is disappointing that the Minister said that the issue is going to be "considered separately"? Surely it should be considered now because there should be a marked-up register in those regions with pilot projects.
  Mr. Cash: I have great respect for what the hon. Gentleman says on many things, although I do not agree with him politically. I agree with what he proposes and it will have to be pursued in Committee.
  Chris Grayling: The Minister said that there will be a uniform approach to voting across regions, but does my hon. Friend accept that local authorities in some areas that have adopted one of the new means of voting, such as all-postal ballots, may have to change their systems back again if their region is not deemed eligible for an entirely postal-based experiment? The impact of the measures could be increased as a result.
  Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend also makes a valuable point. I hope the Minister takes it on board the fact that we are making a serious and useful contribution.
  E-voting in the 2004 elections could entail remote voting by telephone, text messaging, SMS, digital TV and internet. As the region adopting e-voting will also be an all-postal system, voting electronically in a polling station will not be relevant. We are not convinced of the merits of conducting an e-voting pilot across a whole region as opposed to holding e-pilots in local authorities that have volunteered. The Government have a target to offer e-voting at the general election after next—2009–10—but if e-voting is rushed and bungled in the 2004 elections, the method will lose credibility and create a Florida-style "hanging chad" system, resulting in a debacle in the High Court. We have to be careful because we do not want that situation to arise in the UK.
  528
  Electronic voting has not had a significant effect on turnout in past schemes. The Electoral Commission's evaluation of the 2002 pilots noted that the findings suggest that the advent of new technology did not inspire the electorate to vote in significantly greater numbers than would otherwise have been the case and that there is no strong pattern of improved turnout. The Electoral Reform Society observed that it merely increased the convenience of voting rather than making people more likely to vote.
  On security concerns, we believe that more local trials are necessary before the widespread adoption of e-voting. Dr. Ben Fairweather, a research fellow at De Montfort university's centre for computing and social responsibility, and the Foundation for Information Policy Research have carried out useful research. The Government will know of it and I hope that they are taking on board their useful and objective advice.
  The ERS said that e-voting does not raise turnout in any significant way. The Local Government Association said that it had concerns about e-voting on a regional basis, particularly in the short space of time between now and the next elections. Similarly, an IT journalist, Bill Thompson, said that it was not possible to design an e-voting system that could be guaranteed secure against a concerted and well-funded attack. That is serious stuff from people who understand the nature of these modern systems.
  The problem that we face is not confined to the issues that I have raised, as there are also difficulties relating to Scotland and Wales, which I shall summarise. There are significant reasons for opposing an all-postal ballot in Scotland. In particular, there are many rural and island communities there, and we are concerned that it is simply not practical for an individual to deliver a last-minute postal ballot to the returning officer. To ensure that that does not happen, in many areas receptacles for last-minute votes would have to be in the same places as polling stations to ensure equality of opportunity for last-minute voters, which would greatly increase the costs of an all-postal ballot for Scotland. Indeed, in previous all-postal ballots, a marked register has not always been available, and the democratic legitimacy of an election is undermined if political parties do not have the opportunity to view the full marked register after the election. Likewise, to ensure transparency for the electorate, political parties are allowed to monitor turnout throughout polling day. It therefore follows that all political parties should be furnished with a daily marked register from the first returns of postal ballots until 10 June if they so request.
  Sir Robert Smith: As someone who has participated in elections, I understand how useful it is to encourage people to vote. However, how will our constituents feel about certain information being available to participants in an election? They may wish to abstain, but there is scope for someone to come round and badger them to vote. The hon. Gentleman was worried about the fairness of a postal election. If people make a conscious choice not to participate in an election, that will be in the public domain for a full four weeks.
  Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman may recall that I specifically referred to the problems that I anticipate with regard to undue influence. The fact is that unless

  529
  the Bill is amended to deal with such questions, there will be problems. Assuming that the Bill completes its Second Reading, the Committee and Report stages will be particularly important because serious questions pertaining to the hon. Gentleman's concerns will arise.
  There are problems in rural areas in Wales. Given concerns about postal services, postal votes may not be received or sent in time. Indeed, people in Wales have voiced similar concerns about personation, and adjustments to the electoral laws are required. The bottom line is that there is a serious problem in the way in which this country's democratic system operates. It is not merely a question of increasing postal votes, important as that is if it is done properly. The way in which we conduct our business in the House is also affected—that is a much bigger question to which we must all pay attention. As the Conservative spokesman on constitutional affairs, I assure the House that Conservatives, and myself in particular, are giving a lot of attention to those questions. It is no good our talking to our constituents or making speeches about the desirability of increasing turnout if we do not address the problems inherent in the way in which we conduct our business in the House. Notwithstanding my determination not to strain the limits of debate to cover the European issue, that, too, is a serious problem. The Prime Minister's refusal to hold a referendum on the European constitution demonstrates the need to take the measure seriously. I shall await the outcome of this afternoon's speeches before a decision is made about what we will do about the Bill. It does have some merits, but the question has yet to be weighed in the balance.
  1.45 pm
  Joyce Quin: Unlike the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), I will not be tempted to say anything about the EU constitution. I should like to begin by welcoming the Bill and putting my cards on the table by urging the Minister, on the basis of our beneficial experience of postal voting in the north-east of England, to include the north-east in the pilot regions for an all-postal ballot in the elections.
  To support that, I simply refer to the marked increase in turnout in my constituency, which includes parts of Gateshead and the City of Sunderland local government areas. For example, turnout increased in the Leam ward in the Gateshead part of my constituency from 21 per cent. in 2000 to 53 per cent. in 2002. In the Felling ward, it increased from 24 per cent. in 2000 to 53 per cent. in 2003. Last year, the City of Sunderland had an all-postal ballot, and the turnout in one of my wards there went up from 17.51 per cent. to 42.77 per cent., and in the other from 18.73 per cent. to 42.66 per cent. That shows a spectacularly successful increase in turnout. I have deliberately chosen as examples wards with no new political or local controversy that might have explained a sudden increase in turnout. None of the wards that I have mentioned could in any sense be described as marginal, so the only explanation for the marked increase in turnout was the switch to postal voting.
  Some areas of Gateshead borough have had all-postal elections for three years running. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) made the point that once people get used to that kind of voting it will in practice be difficult to turn the clock back. I should like to tell the Minister that if my area is not one of the pilot
  530
  areas there will be huge disappointment among voters who, for a period of more than three years, have grown used to all-postal voting and believe that it suits them. They would be disappointed to go back to a method of voting that they consider old-fashioned. Indeed, many aspects of our voting system are old-fashioned. For a long time, polling day has traditionally been Thursday, but I am not at all convinced that that fits in with people's lifestyles today.
  People in Gateshead who welcome the postal system have repeatedly told me on the doorstep that it fits in with their lifestyle much better than the traditional polling on a Thursday. In a typical household, there may be two working partners, perhaps with different work patterns, who are unable to spend much time together. When they come home in the evening they will be tired after a day's work. If the weather is inclement and if they do not live in a marginal area, they may not feel a burning desire to vote in person, given all those constraints. However, they find the postal system, in which they can vote over a period of time, much more voter and democracy-friendly.
  Mr. Peter Duncan: I am following the right hon. Lady's argument carefully, but surely it is an argument for optional postal voting, not for compulsion and not for all-postal ballots. Although I remain to be convinced, it may well be that people will only vote if they are presented with a postal ballot paper, but they can still apply for that, as they could in the past.
  Joyce Quin: Of course, it is true that people can apply for a postal vote. Sometimes they do not apply, perhaps because they have not got round to doing so. People told me on the doorstep that they very much appreciate the new system. They feel it works well. It means that the postal vote is delivered to them automatically and they find that it fits in with their lifestyle.
  The increase in turnout has been particularly gratifying in the north-east, which traditionally, sadly, has been a low-turnout area, on average turning out some 5 per cent. less than the national average. Seeing the increase has heartened many of us. In a telling intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) referred to the results in his area. What I am reporting from my local authorities in Gateshead and Sunderland is true of many other parts of the north-east.
  I draw to the Minister's attention the fact that in 2003, of the 39 authorities that piloted all-postal voting, no fewer than 13 were in the north-east of England. That was the highest number in any region, and it was the only region in which a majority of the voters involved voted by post. Again, that shows that the north-east would be a suitable region to show the success of a pilot in the coming elections.
  I note from the Electoral Commission's report that all-postal voting pilots seem to have been more successful than the other pilots, but I welcome the Government's continued willingness to innovate and find new ways of attracting people to vote. In some ways, it seems ironic that we are worried about turnout. Most television programmes that one sees these days seem to involve polls of one kind or another, with people being urged to vote and a large number of them taking

  531
  part in such votes. The Government are right to analyse such experiences and find ways of increasing turnout. On the evidence so far, the all-postal system seems to have most attracted voters. For that reason, I strongly believe that we should build on it.
  I recognise the concerns that hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed about fraud. However, I welcome the fact that the Bill tightens up procedures, and I welcome clause 6. As the explanatory notes state,
  "this clause is included in order to address security concerns surrounding innovative voting methods in general."
  I am glad that the Government are responding to those concerns. On the basis of the experience in my local area, I can say that there have not been problems of fraud. I am glad the systems that we have used have been given a clean bill of health.
  In conclusion, I would like all elections from now on to become routinely all-postal. I am sorry that it looks as though it will not be possible to conduct the next general election in that way, but in the meantime I am happy to support the Bill, and the Minister's words in moving it.
  1.54 pm
  Mr. David Heath: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin). I listened carefully to her remarks. It is also a pleasure to spend two consecutive days dealing with Department for Constitutional Affairs legislation, which is always a joy. I was worried that yesterday we would be beset by lawyers, and that today it might be the turn of the psephological anoraks among hon. Members, but obviously that is not the case. The debate is already proving to be interesting and useful.
  I understand the Government's wish to pursue innovation in our electoral practice in order to increase turnout. It should concern everybody in this country, not just politicians, if our democracy is allowed to be eroded by low participation rates. If there are simple ways—I suspect that none of the answers is simple—in which we can improve voter participation, we should implement them.
  I was interested to see in my constituency that in last year's district council elections, one of the district councils, South Somerset, had a trial for postal voting and e-ballots. Comparing and contrasting what happened in South Somerset with what happened in Mendip, the other part of my constituency, was of great interest. Anecdotally, on the basis of the experience of my constituency, there appeared to be a marginally increased turnout in South Somerset with the postal ballot, which corroborates the views of the right hon. Lady about her area.
  By far the biggest contribution that we can make to higher voter participation is to give people the feeling that their votes count, and that they are voting in a real contest in which there is a likelihood of somebody winning and somebody losing by a reasonably small margin. Again, I have experience of that in my constituency. I fought a tight election last time. My majority was 130 in the 1997 election, which happily quintupled at the last general election to 668. One of the
  532
  factors involved was that we had one of the top turnout levels in the country—we were in the top 10, because every voter in my election knew that their vote counted.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: My hon. Friend, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) can demonstrate why it is so important that we should identify the relationship between the impact of a vote and turnout, rather than some of the tinkering measures in the Bill. For example, in 1974 the perceptive voters of Bodmin knew that the election would be close. I ended up with a majority of nine and the turnout was 83 per cent. In 2001, unfortunately from that point of view, my majority rose to almost 10,000 and the turnout was reduced to 63 per cent. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester demonstrates even more dramatically the importance of a close result. In the preceding general election he had a majority of only two, but could claim a rather larger majority in the subsequent contest.
  Mr. Heath: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It looks as though I have assembled colleagues in order to illustrate a point, whereas that was not by prior arrangement.
  I repeat that making votes count and having a real issue to vote on is the best predictor of voter behaviour. One of the problems with local authority elections is, sadly, that people do not feel that changing the council will make any difference to the vast majority of council services, because so much control is exercised at national level, including the determination of the level of the council tax, which people probably have at the forefront of their minds when deciding which way to vote in local elections.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: The evidence from the pilots that have taken place in the north-east runs completely contrary to what the hon. Gentleman suggests. In Chester-le-Street, which had a pilot this year, turnout went up, on average, from 29 per cent. to 50 per cent. It is a Liberal Democrat-free zone, and some wards are far from marginal, but people still turned out to vote.
  Mr. Heath: As I said, the pilots have had a marginally beneficial effect; but if the hon. Gentleman believes that bringing turnout up to 50 per cent. is a triumph for democracy, I have to disagree.
  Mr. Jones: It is.
  Mr. Heath: I am not convinced. The hon. Gentleman has brought it up to slightly below the national average: well done. We should aspire to higher than that.
  Local government elections often do not attract high turnouts because people do not feel that their vote makes a real difference to the way that they live. That is doubly the case in European parliamentary elections, where people find it difficult to connect their voting to what happens in the European Parliament or the effect that it may have on their lives. That is partly a result of the absurd closed list system that the Government brought in, against our advice.
  Although I am well disposed to the view that it is important to experiment, I am not that well disposed to the Bill—in fact, I have deep reservations about it. As

  533
  the Minister will know, prior to its introduction some debate took place about the moving of the local authority election date to coincide with that of elections to the European Parliament. All those who took part in that debate understood that it was not in anybody's interest to synchronise the local elections with a full-scale pilot of a novel form of voting for the European elections. Clearly, the Government have changed their mind. They are entitled to do so, and to introduce legislation as a result, but we are at least entitled to ask why.
  Principled arguments are important here. The Government propose pilot schemes within the context of a national—indeed, international—election. That is very different from electing an entire local authority on a new voting system. People in different parts of the United Kingdom will be elected on different voting systems. The counter-argument is that that already happens in Northern Ireland. That is a valid point: Northern Ireland uses the single transferable vote system, while the rest of the country does not yet have that benefit. Even so, I find it difficult to accept that some parts of England will have one voting system, while other parts have another, for the same election for membership of the same Parliament.
  Angus Robertson: What about Scotland and Wales?
  Mr. Heath: Scotland is a single region for the purpose of the European Parliament elections, as is Wales. That being the case, there is no such separation within Scotland and Wales; that is why I did not use them as an illustration.
  Angus Robertson: If, in their infinite wisdom, the Government decide that pilots should take place in Scotland and Wales, there will not be different electoral systems in England.
  Mr. Heath: That is precisely why I phrased my comments to exclude Scotland and Wales. The hon. Gentleman is making my point for me.
  A fundamental objection to having two different systems for the same election arises in terms not only of the outcome, but of the campaign. Unless the parties entirely change their views on how they fight such elections, we are talking about national campaigning. Therefore, people in different parts of the country will vote at different points in the campaign—those who are in a postal ballot region will vote before its completion.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman is very persistent. I am happy to take another intervention from him, but I do not want to turn it into a dialogue.
  Mr. Jones: Perish the thought. Is it not the case that if one applies for a postal vote now, one votes at a different time from someone who votes on election day?
  Mr. Heath: But that is not the general case: it is for a specific reason of incapacity or absence. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I accept the hon. Gentleman's point.
  534
  The closed list system is problematic. Liberal Democrat Members have long argued that if we are to have a list system, it should at least be an open list. A closed list closes down the options of individual electors, who effectively vote on a party ticket, as parties have complete control over who their candidates will be and in which order they will be elected. That exacerbates, not ameliorates, the problem.
  Practical issues are involved, too. We have already had a brief discussion about security of delivery during which the subject of houses in multiple occupation was raised. I was recently involved in campaigning in north-west London, where there were many houses in multiple occupation, some of which had a single letterbox. That means that an unscrupulous individual could scoop up any number of ballot forms and use them for nefarious purposes. It is extremely important to have a better method of verification for the postal ballot. We cannot be complacent. Judging by his earlier comments, the Minister seems to have a faith-based system whereby because he believes that the situation is all right, it is. I do not accept that. Much better safeguards are required for verification of identity—an authorised signature, for example. I accept what the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) said about maintaining the secrecy of the ballot, but the two things are not incompatible.
  Mr. Tom Harris: I understand the hon. Gentleman's reservations about the postal voting system and the need for security measures. Why, therefore, cannot he bring himself to agree with the Government's proposal of a pilot scheme in order to find out what the pitfalls may be?
  Mr. Heath: Pilot schemes for local elections are beneficial because they involve the whole electorate for the given local authority area, not just part of the electorate on an experimental basis. That is not the right way to do it.
  Mr. Leslie: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if we are eventually to move to nationwide new and innovative voting channels—which he may believe to be worth while—we need gradually to scale up the piloting, testing and trialling of those techniques? If he accepts that that is the best way in which to proceed, how on earth are we supposed to do so without piloting at a regional level?
  Mr. Heath: There are several ways, and the Minister restricts his approach unnecessarily. For example, it would be possible to hold the entire municipal elections for a year on the basis of a postal ballot. That would provide experience of a nationwide ballot in an election other than a general election. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) says from a sedentary position that that is not a ballot.
  Mr. Davidson: I said that it would not be a pilot.
  Mr. Heath: I am sorry that I misheard him, but of course it is a pilot if it does not apply to a general election but is conducted on a sufficiently wide scale to satisfy those who need to consider the matter. The Bill describes precisely that process when it refers to three regions of the United Kingdom holding a national election. I have suggested a more satisfactory approach.

  535
  We need a better system of verification. There is also a case for a receipt system for postal ballots to advise those who have voted that their vote has reached the returning officer. If those people know that they have not voted, they have the opportunity to make an early application for investigation. A receipt system is a way round the problem.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) said that we needed some sort of sustainable audit of the e-vote system. Clearly, that is a deficiency in the American system, to which several hon. Members referred. There are even more deficiencies in the Tallahassee method but I would be worried if a form of audit could not be established.
  We also need a system that allows for a recount. There is currently no effective method for that and I shall revert to the subject shortly. I agree with hon. Members who said that we need a marked register that is statutorily available on a clear basis so that political parties know what is happening.
  I do not discount the comments of the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West about experience in her constituency. However, there are many instances of malpractice or alleged malpractice, albeit minor. All parties throughout the country have made complaints.
  Mr. Peter Pike: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the majority of disputes about votes cast in elections have involved postal and proxy votes and that we must be sure that a vote is cast in the way in which the relevant person wishes?
  Mr. Heath: I agree. The hon. Gentleman knows from his constituency that there are all sorts of dangers in allowing malpractice to continue unabated or to remain possible in future. We must make the systems as watertight as possible. I make that point notwithstanding the Electoral Commission's comments. It said that there had been complaints of irregularities but that they had not distorted the outcome of elections. That may be correct, but they undoubtedly compromise the integrity of the electoral system and we should be aware of that.
  It could be argued that the massive electorates for European elections mean that the distortions are less likely to have an effect. However, not every result is so clear cut. In the previous European parliamentary elections in the north-west region, the difference between ninth and 10th place was decided by 2,500 votes in an electorate of 5.5 million. That was therefore a close race, and similar to the result for the fourth and final seat in the north-east region. Under the current system, there is no recourse to a recount at constituency or borough level. If our system is to have integrity, we must introduce such provision.
  Earlier, I referred to the difficulties with postal delivery and delay. The hon. Member for Stone spoke about the volume of misdirected mail. I tested the Minister on Stockport, which he treated with some levity, as though he could not be expected to know what was happening there. He should know what has happened in pilot areas. In Stockport, clear evidence
  536
  showed that a postal delivery strike meant that some electors—probably hundreds—were disfranchised. That is unacceptable. The Government have introduced new proposals to deal with personation, but increasing the penalty will not deal with the basic problem of the capacity for personation that the postal vote system introduces and is less obvious, although it exists, in direct voting systems.
  Let us consider the regions that are to be chosen. The Minister explained that London is discounted because of the mayoral elections. We have been told that Northern Ireland is discounted because of the different voting system there. However, the ground for discounting the region that we assume is the south-west and will include Gibraltar is less firm. I do not fully understand why Gibraltar is a barring factor. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) has said that the population of Gibraltar is slightly smaller than the town of Stroud, which he so ably represents. I strongly supported giving the franchise to the people of Gibraltar, but I do not understand why they cannot use a postal vote as well as anybody else in the United Kingdom.
  Once the regions that I mentioned are removed, few are left from which to choose three. I have a practical worry. It would be unwise to use as a pilot one of the regions that has a high preponderance of local authority elections on the same day. Wales holds elections for 100 per cent. of local authorities on that day. In the north-west of England, 76.7 per cent. of the electorate will have local authority elections. Most of the large metropolitan areas of the north-west—33 councils—hold elections on that day. It is asking for trouble to use the north-west as a pilot with that scale of overlap of different elections and electoral systems.
  Mr. Russell Brown: I am delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman's comments. Given that no other elections will take place in Scotland on that day, does he agree that Scotland is the ideal place to conduct one of the trials?
  Mr. Heath: There has been persistent knocking on the Minister's door to designate Scotland one of the trial areas. As I am arguing against a pilot, it would be difficult for me to say that Scotland should hold the trial. That is a matter for the Minister. I simply say that if there are to be pilots, they should not take place in the most complicated regions.
  I echo the point of the hon. Member for Stone about those who are disfranchised by disability. The Bill is the perfect vehicle for dealing with that long-standing problem. I speak partly as the chairman of the all-party group on eye health and I have worked closely with the Royal National Institute of the Blind for some time. I want the Minister to take the matter seriously, and we shall table amendments in Committee on it.
  Mr. Leslie rose—
  Mr. Heath: I shall give way to the Minister in the hope that he will give me good news.
  Mr. Leslie: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) mentioned a matter to which I did not refer earlier. The Disability Rights Commission and the RNIB made a joint submission. Although they generally recognise the extra flexibility that an opportunity for postal votes in all elections gives people with disabilities, we clearly need to elaborate on matters such as requesting assistance from returning officers to help in a secret ballot process. I shall be happy to expand on that in Committee.
  Mr. Heath: I think that we have made some progress there, and I am grateful to the Minister for that. This is obviously something that we can debate in Committee.
  The timing of the Bill is very suspect, coming, as it does, so late in the Session. It also has a spill-over provision, which we debated earlier. Why on earth we should need simultaneously to have a spill-over provision and a timetable, I do not know. The two seem to be mutually incompatible. We are worried that, even with the best will in the world, by the time the Bill receives Royal Assent, there will be insufficient time for the necessary training for the pilots, especially if we are talking about the very large regions that have a large number of local authorities.
  I do not entirely understand why, if the Government were minded to introduce these measures, they could not have been included in the European Parliamentary Elections Bill, which we have already considered in this Session. At that time, the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), who was sitting on the Front Bench earlier, spent many happy hours debating with us matters relating to the European elections, without once touching on the issues before us today. Now, suddenly, we have a Bill that must be rushed through at the last minute in order to be put into effect by the time of the European parliamentary elections.
  For all those reasons, and for the reasons I have ventilated in terms of the inappropriateness of partial pilot schemes within a single electorate, and because of the practical difficulties that still need to be overcome, my advice to my right hon. and hon. Friends will be to oppose the Bill this evening. If we are unsuccessful in that, we shall try to amend it in Committee to make it a better Bill.
  2.21 pm
  John Robertson: In recent years, Members on both sides of the House, along with countless other people in public life, have rightly complained about the low turnouts in elections. The great virtue of the Bill is that it shows that the Government are willing to extend specific practical and innovative solutions on a large scale. There is no doubt that low turnout must be tackled. In the last general election, turnout was at its lowest since 1918, and in the last European elections, fewer than one in four voters went out to the polling stations. Even more worryingly, low turnouts are noticeably concentrated in the poorest socio-economic groups and in certain geographical areas.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) suggested earlier that first-past-the-post and proportional representation should be trialled in
  538
  different areas. I would also strongly recommend that to my hon. Friend the Minister. Perhaps one of the best first-past-the-post areas in which to hold a trial would be Scotland. Building on other comments that have been made today, I particularly want to consider the piloting of new voting procedures.
  As the Bill is premised on the need to increase turnout, it follows that there should be two criteria for choosing the location of the pilots. First, they should be in areas where the turnout is low and the potential for an increase in turnout is greatest. Secondly, as with any scientific experiment, the variables must be kept to a minimum. Scotland satisfies both criteria. In my own constituency of Glasgow, Anniesland, the turnout in the Scottish Parliament elections in May was 45 per cent., down 5 per cent. on the general election in 2001. Postal votes, however, were returned at a rate of 72 per cent. Nearly 2,500 votes were cast by that method.
  Those 2,500 people might not otherwise have voted—not out of laziness or even because of any disillusion with politics. Many have pressurised jobs and have substantial family commitments. Many others are among the socially excluded. The provision of postal votes therefore gives a voice to those who have difficulty in participating in something that we all take for granted—the exercise of their democratic rights. There are about 18,000 over-60s in my constituency who vote, and many of them have great difficulty in getting to the polling stations, especially as my constituency is somewhat hilly, and some of the schools and halls that are used for voting have difficulty in arranging disabled access. We worked very hard to get postal votes for those people and we had a great deal of success. If only the rest of the population had voted at a rate of 72 per cent. Scotland, therefore, has enormous potential for an increase in turnout, and this is proven by the track record of my constituency and others.
  There is another factor that must be taken into account. Any psephologist will tell us that a person's decision whether to vote or to stay at home is affected by a whole range of issues. A change in turnout could be affected as much by local matters as by the introduction of different voting methods. In Scotland, there are now four different voting methods. To hold a pilot scheme in an area where two different elections are taking place on the same day would complicate matters further. Not only that, but the European and local elections will be taking place under different voting systems. The multiplicity of variables in the elections in England and Wales next June will, therefore, make any scientific assessment of the impact of new voting methods much more difficult. In Scotland, however, there will be one election under one voting system. It therefore provides the perfect testing ground for the pilot schemes to which the Bill refers. May I also suggest that it would, perhaps, be of benefit to trial the same pilot scheme for the next general election and compare first-past-the-post and PR on postal ballots?
  The importance of security, especially locally, has been mentioned by several hon. Members, in the context of the availability of an electronically marked register. I would suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that such a register should be put in place. It should be one that all the parties, and anyone else who wished to do so, could check on a daily basis, and one that could be updated daily. That would allow all the parties to know what the

  539
  turnout was like, and anyone who felt that there was any misuse of the register would be able to go in and have a look at it for themselves.
  Angus Robertson: The hon. Gentleman just mentioned an electronic marked-up register. Will he clarify that he is suggesting that that should be used not only for electronic voting but for postal voting, so that there would be a marked-up register for the voting in its entirety?
  John Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for asking for that clarification. That is absolutely correct.
  When postal ballots come in, they are not all opened on the day of the election. Many are opened the day before, or the day before that, depending on how long they have been coming in. When the returning officer in Glasgow was opening the postal votes for Glasgow, Anniesland, he was somewhat shocked because there were about 600 a day, compared with about six a day for the rest of the Glasgow seats. That was because we had worked so hard, particularly among the elderly people, to ensure that they were not disfranchised. My proposal would help all parties to know where the voters were voting. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) was complaining that too many people were knocking on doors and annoying people who had already voted. This register would go a long way towards solving that problem.
  The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) mentioned security problems. His was the best speech that I have heard in a long time in favour of the introduction of identity cards. He appeared to be worried about people voting as others, or otherwise misusing the electronic systems, but one of the ways in which the system is misused the most involves personation. One way to get round that problem would be for everyone to have an ID card. Before we know it, we could even be swiping our votes in.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is harder to impersonate someone using a postal vote than under the present system whereby all that someone has to do to get a ballot paper is turn up at a polling station and give a name? To use a postal vote, a person has to have access to the building to which the ballot paper has been sent.
  John Robertson: My hon. Friend is correct, and I do not need to add to what he said.
  I shall not take up much more of the House's time, but I wanted to speak about Scotland as one of the trial areas. I hope that the Minister will remember that the Scottish region in Europe covers a vast area. It will make it a lot simpler for the electorate in that area to be able to vote by postal ballot. I hope that we continue to consider the different methods as we take the issue forward. From the days of John Logie Baird, Scotland has often been in the forefront of technological change, and I want it to be at the cutting edge once more.
  It is important that we examine how to improve the voting system and ensure that people are not disfranchised. I will support the Bill. If I am fortunate enough to be on the Committee, I may propose a few tweaks, but I am sure we will find agreement.
  2.30 pm
  Mr. Peter Duncan: I take great pleasure in following the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson), who made a good case for Scotland being part of the postal ballot trials. However, I may give him a reality check in the few minutes for which I will detain the House. The Bill has some good and welcome provisions, and all hon. Members will welcome parts of it. I sympathise with the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) about the timing of this Second Reading at this point in the Session, especially as legislation was already being considered with which this measure could appropriately have been linked. We have suspicions that the devil may be in the detail.
  I am not opposed to all postal ballots in principle. I can assure the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland that there were far in excess of 600 postal ballots in my constituency at the last general election, and I am delighted to have received every one of those votes. I suggest to him that the devil is in the detail, and that we should consider the wider reasons for falling turnout.
  John Robertson: Perhaps I did not make myself clear, but in my constituency there were 2,500 postal ballots, and they came in at about 500 to 600 a day.
  Mr. Duncan: I am delighted to receive that clarification. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. He is so intriguing to listen to that I was obviously distracted at that part of his speech.
  The key aim is participation. That is what all hon. Members have focused on, and they are right to do so. The declining trend in voter participation at elections should be of concern to us all, both on the Government side and in the Opposition. In Scotland in 1999, the turnout in the European elections was 24.7 per cent., which can hardly have been seen as a ringing endorsement for the manner in which election campaigns on either side of the political barrier were conducted. It shows what little connection there was between the electorate and those seeking election. There was a decline of more than 13 per cent. in the five years after the elections in 1994, so it is a worsening trend.
  The Scotland parliamentary elections in 2003 were only the second elections since the creation of the Scottish Parliament, for which we had waited some 300 years—some with more expectation then others. Fewer than 50 per cent. of the electorate could be persuaded to attend the polling booths on that day. This is a wider problem than that of postal ballots.
  It has always struck me as worrying that, if we cannot encourage a wider proportion of the public to attend a polling station once every five years—or once every two years in Scotland, given the Scottish parliamentary elections—we have a bigger problem than perhaps we realise.
  There is another side to this problem, which is that we have too many politicians in politics. I have consistently called for a reduction in the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament and the number of Members of Parliament from Scotland. That would contribute greatly to an enhancement of the role of elections and an enhanced role for politicians in general.

  541
  In Scotland, we have a complex political situation for elections. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland, among others, has alluded to the diverse nature of elections. Each elector in Scotland has to contend with a list system for European elections, first-past-the-post for Westminster elections, the additional member system for the Scottish Parliament, although that may change if the governing party decides that it is in its electoral interests to do so, and the first-past-the-post system for the council elections, which apparently will change to the single transferable vote system.
  Mr. Davidson: Would it be much easier to harmonise elections if we ensured that elections to Westminster remained subject to the first-past-the-post system, the Scottish Parliament moved to a first-past-the-post system, and we retained a first-past-the-post system for Scottish local government elections? I support that position; does the hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. Duncan: I shall give the hon. Gentleman a direct answer: yes, I do. He takes a principled position. I have always believed that the first-past-the-post system creates the best connection between the electorate and the elected Member. It creates a direct connection between those who filled in the ballot paper and those who were fortunate enough to receive more votes than anyone else. I speak as someone who received 74 more votes than my nearest competitor, which gives me a direct interest in first-past-the-post elections. I can see that direct connection at the sharpest end. Interest in elections is greatest when there is a close contest. It is interesting to note that in Galloway and Upper Nithsdale there was a comparatively high turnout at the last general election. There always has been, perhaps because there have historically been very close contests, although perhaps not for much longer.
  Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: Does the hon. Gentleman think that a more effective Opposition in the last general election might have resulted in a higher turnout?
  Mr. Duncan: The hon. Gentleman will recall that I said as much in my remarks. It says much about all sides in politics. We are failing to excite the electorate, and we all need to do more. When in a glasshouse, do not throw stones. The Government have more to answer for than most, because they have disengaged with the electorate and left them bored with the electoral process.
  In my view, the solution is simplicity and a direct relationship between the elected Member and his electorate. I was interested to note the reference to the report of the European Scrutiny Committee, of which the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) is a member. It advocated a return to a first-past-the-post system in European elections.
  Angus Robertson: It may interest the hon. Gentleman to know that that decision was not uncontentious, and
  542
  required the casting vote of the Chairman against the established practice that the Chairman supports the status quo.
  Mr. Duncan: If it was carried on the casting vote of the Chairman, he is a wise man.
  Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend may also be interested to know that it was an amendment that I proposed.
  Mr. Duncan: That shows that the Committee is populated by very wise men.
  This argument is recognised across the political divide. I perused my copy of Public Finance of 26 April 2002, in which the chairman of the Labour party, now Secretary of State for Education and Skills, referred to electoral trials to increase turnout. He said:
  "Generally, I don't think the experiments are the answer".
  The Electoral Commission admitted in its "Modernising elections" document of August 2002 that
  "the nature of the voting process is unlikely ever to be the primary factor in most people's decisions about whether to participate in any election".
  There we have it in crystal form. The fact is that the Bill deals with the symptom and not the root cause of the decline in turnout.
  I have particular concerns about the partial trial. The result of selecting only three regions across the United Kingdom may be differential turnout. I accept the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) that the evidence for postal ballots increasing turnout is not yet conclusive. If we accept the Government's view that postal ballots increase turnout—otherwise why would we be introducing them?—we may increase turnout in three areas but not in others across the UK. That may skew the result. The UK is a diverse country: Scotland is different from the south-east of England, not just socially but politically.
  A partial trial has the potential to influence the result. I was surprised, although perhaps I should not have been, that even the Scottish National party agreed with that. In the Edinburgh Evening News of 4 October, the SNP's wise Professor Neil McCormick MEP—to whom I spoke only last week, along with the hon. Member for Moray—said that if postal voting was to be introduced, it should be introduced everywhere; otherwise the campaign in Scotland would be out of synch with that in the rest of the United Kingdom.
  All too often, the Conservative Administration was accused of using Scotland as a guinea pig. How curious it is that that should now be reversed.
  Elections in my constituency, and in constituencies throughout Scotland, are conducted in a very rural way. In 1997, there were 5,090 polling stations in Scotland. That gives some idea of the nature of the beast. It will be very difficult to conduct a postal ballot in such areas—although it may also be very rewarding, because rural voters often benefit most from postal ballots.
  Mr. Tom Harris: Has the hon. Gentleman a comparable figure for the number of post boxes in Scotland?
  Mr. Duncan: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that I have not, but I understand the difficulty of returning postal ballot papers in rural areas. It is difficult for people living 15 miles from the nearest post box to receive ballot papers, let alone return them.
  It is important for people to be able to return their papers at the last minute, just as they are able to vote at the last minute at polling stations. That will make postal ballots in Scotland disproportionately expensive. Although I do not oppose the principle of all-postal ballots, but it is as well to be aware of the implications of selecting Scotland as a pilot area.
  John Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Duncan: I am always delighted to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  John Robertson: Is it not the case that any member of the public in Scotland can demand a postal ballot? A system already exists in councils for the counting of postal ballot papers. All that this means is that there will be more to count, and the new arrangement may even prove cheaper.
  Mr. Duncan: I must contest that. As I have said, voters across the three trial regions must be able to vote at the last minute, as easily as they can under the regular direct voting system. That will be expensive, as I hope the Government realise.
  Mr. Bill Tynan: The hon. Gentleman seems to be arguing that Scotland should not be used as a pilot area because of the problems of postal ballots. At the same time he is arguing that the system should be developed on a UK-wide basis if it is introduced. Is that not a contradiction in terms?
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Anne McGuire): The hon. Gentleman is a Unionist at heart.
  Mr. Duncan: I try to be. As I said at the outset, I do not oppose all-postal ballots in principle, but I feel that the selection of only three areas has the potential to produce a skewed result, and that the selection of Scotland as one of them has the potential to create a very expensive postal ballot trial. It will also be expensive to arrange a contingency arrangement for distributing ballot papers in the event of a postal strike. We must have an assurance from the Government that any extra expense will be funded by the UK Exchequer rather than being passed on to regional and local government, which is already hard pressed.
  I will leave it to others to consider what has already been said, and what will be said, about the security number e-voting system. As one who has had some experience of e-commerce, however, I feel that the system is wide open to abuse.
  I welcome the extension of personation measures beyond polling places, which I consider logical, but I am worried about witness signatures. We must be careful not to expose ourselves to the risk of fraud. In some past trials, witness signatures have been attached to ballot papers. As the Bill progresses, we need to see evidence
  544
  that the Government take concerns about fraud seriously, and that witness signatures will be returned separately to protect the dignity of the electoral process.
  Mr. Russell Brown: The hon. Gentleman was probably present for the opening of some postal ballot papers at the time of his election. When such papers are opened, the separate pieces of paper bearing witness signatures are discarded. Not only is that almost a waste; it has the potential to disfranchise elderly people who may be scurrying around wondering whom to get as a witness.
  Mr. Duncan: The hon. Gentleman has illustrated the delicacy of the balance between security and encouraging the return of ballot papers. I am merely saying that we must be careful not to expose the system to further fraud.
  In an intervention earlier, I raised the subject of marked registers with the Minister. That subject must be considered in Committee, for it is an important part of the self-policing way in which elections are conducted that representatives of candidates standing for each political party can visit polling stations and establish the percentage of the electorate who have cast their vote at particular times during the day. If we are to adopt all-postal ballots, and if the Government value that process—as I do—considering it to be an important element of scrutiny, they must assure us that a replica will be applied to such ballots. Candidates and their representatives must be shown a marked register during the voting period—daily, I would suggest—so that they can have confidence in the system and see things move forward in a structured way over the two or three weeks involved. Such an arrangement may please those who have campaigned to improve disappointing turnouts, but above all it is a key part of the transparency on which we must not compromise.
  In recent years, even since my arrival, the House has taken steps to modernise its procedures and change timings in order to increase scrutiny by the wider public. For instance, Prime Minister's Question Time has moved from 3 pm to noon. One argument for doing so—other than convenience for the Prime Minister's diary—was that it enabled further scrutiny of the system: it would set the agenda for the day and return politics to the heart of the political process. It is arguable whether that has been achieved.
  Before moving towards all-postal ballots, we have to think very carefully about the consequences of doing so. What is the potential result in terms of the way in which elections are covered? How will the media cover an all-postal ballot, and will it excite the electorate? Will the election crescendo be the point at which ballot papers are issued, or on the last possible date for returns, in which case most people will have voted anyway? This is an important issue. If we are trying to expand turnout and to increase the number of ballot papers returned, we must take into account ways in which to excite the electorate. I accept that the electorate need to be excited—as I have said, the Government have obviously failed to excite them so far—but we have to take into account the manner in which they will be informed about this election process.
  The trialling of this system in three areas raises the possibility that different electorates will peak at different points. I accept that some people in any case return

  545
  postal ballots, and as a result different peaks already occur; however, this system will only accelerate that process, creating a more complex way of informing the electorate about a particular election.
  As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, most of the electorate are gasping for the opportunity to pass their verdict on the manner in which their European affairs have been dealt with in recent years, and next June will provide their opportunity to do so. I want above all to see a higher turnout, through which we can put our Conservative case in Europe once more.
  The essence of my case is that we have to be very careful before we dispense with the ultimate confidentiality afforded by voting at a polling station. It is the absolute pinnacle of confidentiality: voters can go into the booth and put a cross in whichever box they like, and no one will know. That principle is accepted universally, across the political spectrum, and we must be very careful before moving away from it. I accept that the huge benefits that postal voting could bring may well be a positive factor, but we must be very careful about the detail in which the devil may lurk.
  2.52 pm
  Mr. Neil Turner: I want to restrict my comments to postal voting, largely because I am computer illiterate and have very little experience of e-voting in my constituency or any other parts of the north-west. I am a little disappointed in the Bill's title and content, as we have had more than enough pilot schemes to make it absolutely clear that postal voting does increase turnout. Instead of e-voting pilot schemes, I would much rather that we opt for a scheme that allows postal voting throughout the UK for the forthcoming European and local elections.
  The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said that in no previous election have certain parts of a constituency used one system and other parts a different one, but that is not so. When my borough used postal voting—the only time that it did so—just three of the 24 wards used that system. The result was the same as others have described: an increase in the postal vote in those three wards of between 25 and 50 per cent. Also, there was no appreciable difference between the results in those three wards and the results in any of the others. Postal voting seemed to make no difference in terms of the choice that people made from the parties on offer; it simply ensured that many more people voted in those three wards than voted in the others.
  The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) and others have highlighted the fact that past postal voting pilots have hugely increased the number of people wanting and able to take part in ballots, and who have actually done so. As I have said, we should have opted for a postal vote throughout the country, but I accept that that is not on offer, and that we must go along with what we have.
  The Electoral Commission has looked at past postal voting ballots over several years. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) mentioned some of the difficulties that have arisen. All-postal ballots have been held in places in the north-east such as Sunderland and Gateshead, and in Trafford, Oldham and Chorley, in the north-west. If we do not allow them to have all-postal ballots
  546
  in the next local elections, they will feel extremely disappointed at the prospect of returning to the traditional ballot box. The system will create some difficulties, and illustrates another reason why we should have opted for the postal ballot throughout the UK.
  The Electoral Commission has also looked at the very important issue of fraud in postal voting ballots, which several Members have already mentioned. We need to ensure that we reduce as much as we can the possibility of fraud in postal ballots. However, the commission's expert view is that postal ballots lead to little increase in fraud, and that individual results are not affected. And even if a slight increase does occur, it must be considered in the light of the overall increase in turnout. A single vote in a 50 per cent. turnout, for example, is proportionately of less value than a single vote in a 25 per cent. turnout, so an increase in fraud does not of necessity mean a change in the result. That is not to say that I am endorsing fraud in any way; on the contrary, I want to stress that the legitimacy of the ballot should be paramount. We should ensure in every way possible that fraud is reduced.
  The Minister said in his opening remarks that he has already received a bid from Scotland for one of the all-postal ballot pilots. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West made a bid for the north-east, and I now want to make a bid for the north-west. I take issue with the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, who said that the many local elections that will take place in the north-west at the same time as the European elections will cause some problems. That is not my experience. I was a local councillor in 1979, when a general election and local council elections took place at the same time—indeed, the same thing has happened since—and the fact that the returning officer for the two elections was the same person, and that the elections were held at the same time, caused absolutely no difficulty. The votes were put to one side, and the general election votes and then the local election votes were counted. The only difficulty that arose was that it took an extra day to get the results.
  John Robertson: I agree totally with what my hon. Friend has said, but does he agree that putting a European election with a local election will make it very difficult to analyse the result? It will be difficult to tell whether localness has affected the European election, or vice versa.
  Mr. Turner: That is true, but one could equally say that the same point applies to holding general elections and local elections at the same time. Do local elections influence the general election result, or—much more likely—vice versa? I do not see the difficulty.
  Mr. Heath: Of course local elections and other elections can be held on the same day; indeed, the past couple of general elections have coincided with county council elections for non-metropolitan counties in England. However, complications do arise in terms of the scale of the operation, particularly in a very populous area such as the north-west. Also, our experience shows that county council elections tend to

  547
  constitute an ineffective popular judgment on the performance of county councillors, simply because the campaign is completely eclipsed by the general election.
  Mr. Turner: I accept the hon. Gentleman's latter point, but I take issue with the point about skills. Far be it from me to comment on the skills of electoral returning officers in the south-west, but I can certainly say that those in the north-west are more than capable of dealing with two elections on the same day.
  I want to deal with the north-west and explain why it should be one of the areas included in the pilots. It is a large area with some 5.5 million electors, and it is extremely diverse. That is important because if the Electoral Commission is going to draw conclusions from the pilots, it is no use having a pilot scheme in an area without a decent range of diversity. That would prevent proper conclusions from being reached.
  The north-west has many rural areas, from the hill farms of the western Pennines and those of the Lake district, which is important for tourism, right through to the market gardens and the cattle, cereal and root crop areas of the Solway, Lancashire and the Cheshire plains. The area is also hugely urban with major cities such as Liverpool and Manchester, historic tourist towns such as Carlisle and Chester, and industrial towns such as my own area of Wigan. We also have new towns such as Skelmersdale on my doorstep and satellite towns such as Partington, linked to Manchester. All those areas show the potential for the Electoral Commission to assess the impact of postal voting.
  There is also considerable socio-economic diversity in the region. I have already mentioned Liverpool and Manchester and the huge problems that exist in their core inner city areas. Equally, however, there is deprivation—albeit of a different sort and scale—in the Pemberton area in my constituency, for example. The two wards there are among the top 5 per cent. of deprived areas in the whole country. There is also rural deprivation, often hidden deprivation, of the sort that exists elsewhere in the country. There is also great affluence in Cheshire and on the outskirts of the region's towns and cities, so we certainly have great diversity of socio-economic levels, as well as geographical diversity between rural and urban areas.
  Differences in ethnicity are also evident. Some wards in my borough and elsewhere comprise an almost wholly white British electorate. Equally, other areas have majorities of Afro-Caribbean, Hindu Indian, Pakistani or other Muslim people. In some places, the Chinese form a huge part of the population. The divergences are wide, which also provides the Electoral Commission with the ability to assess the effect of postal voting on those diverse areas. In choosing the north-west as one of the pilot areas, the Minister and the Electoral Commission would be able to consider all those differences within wards and whole polling districts. They could assess different geographical, socio-economic and ethnic factors, so I urge the Minister to choose the north-west as one of the pilot areas.
  3.3 pm
  Mr. John Redwood: In introducing the Bill, the Minister made it clear that the prime aim was to try to increase turnout. He shared the worry of many in the House that turnout is too low and has fallen quite sharply in recent elections. The explanatory notes also make it clear that that is the prime driver of the legislation. In a Second Reading debate we should therefore ask why the turnout is so low and why it has fallen so sharply in recent years in respect of general and European elections.
  The prime reason why so few people now choose to vote is that they do not believe that the people that they are going to elect, of whatever party, can make any real difference to their lives. They do not believe that those people, at whatever level they are seeking election, will have sufficient power to change the way in which people are governed. We can understand the process if we examine the differential levels of turnout between general elections, local elections and European elections. It is still the case that far more people turn out for general elections than for the others. The reason is obvious: many more people still believe that it makes a difference whether one chooses a Conservative or a Labour Government. People still believe that if they choose the right individual Member of Parliament, he or she can make some difference by representing the constituency well, having influence over bureaucracy, and helping to fashion laws in this place that might make more sense and affect their daily lives.
  When it comes to local elections, people know from their experience over many years that, however well-intentioned councillors and candidates are—we obviously all believe that those in our respective parties are extremely well intentioned and capable—there are very tight limits on what can be achieved. In fact, local councillors are driven by legislation coming from this place and, more importantly, by guidance and guidelines in ever-increasing volumes from Whitehall, and they are circumscribed by the financial rules and amounts of moneys voted in the House in respect of local government settlements. As a result of their experience, more and more people are unfortunately saying that they do not believe that local councillors, however well-intentioned and of whatever party, can make much difference, so they are not bothering to vote. They probably sense that the most powerful person in any local authority today is the unelected chief executive, over whom they are unable to exert any direct or indirect influence.
  When it comes to European elections, people take the dimmest view of all. More than three-quarters of the electorate say that there is no point in wasting their time going to the polling station. I suspect that many would say that it is not even worth spending time filling in the piece of paper that comes through the post. People do not believe that MEPs, however well-intentioned and capable, can make any real impact on things that matter in their daily lives.
  If we examine the power structure in the emerging, more integrated European Union, we can understand that people are in many ways being rational. It is disappointing for me, as someone who desperately wants democracy to work, that there is such a huge democratic deficit in the EU. The fact is that our elected

  549
  representatives have no or very little control over the people and the things that matter in the governance of the EU.
  Let us suppose that voters are interested in the state of the European economy, whether there are enough jobs and enough credit, or whether interest rates are set at the right level. They would discover that Euroland, the decisive bloc within the EU, is on autopilot under an unelected official—the governor of the European Central Bank. Unlike in the UK, where an elected Chancellor of the Exchequer and an elected Cabinet could call the so-called independent Governor of the Bank of England to heel, change the rules, issue new instructions or, in extremis, change the personnel, MEPs have no such influence or control, because the central bank was deliberately set up to ensure that there was no democratic accountability and that dreadful politicians had no influence over it.
  Let us consider alternatively the emerging settlement in the European constitution for the conduct of foreign policy. Again, in the British Parliament, a good tradition is established. We have an elected Foreign Secretary, who is senior to the permanent secretary to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and answerable through the Cabinet to the House of Commons. We can all directly have an influence over foreign policy, and even, on certain occasions, effectively have a free vote in the House over the big issue of war. Many Members recently exercised their discretion over that. In the EU, however, the new Minister of Foreign Affairs, soon to be appointed once the constitution goes through. will be unelected, and no MEP will be able to influence that Minister in the way that hon. Members in this House can individually and collectively exert influence over the UK's elected Foreign Secretary.
  Take defence procurement. Here the Secretary of State for Defence is answerable to the House in respect of the purchase of weapons. However, the new armaments agency, which will be set up under the new European constitution, will have an unelected leader, and it will be impossible for people voting in European elections to have any influence—[Interruption.]
  I see that the Minister is getting impatient because he does not like my analysis. However, it is entirely appropriate for us to ask whether the Bill is tackling the problem in the right way. Why, for example, does it not suggest that we should elect some of the people in Europe who have the real power? That would be more sensible, but we are not allowed to do so under Europe's rules, and the Minister is not proposing to do so in the negotiations on the constitution. So we will still have this huge problem in future European elections. Many of our electors will say that they do not mind whether they vote by post or in person, or by some new electronic method, but they will not agree that this Bill has got it right. The problem is that an MEP cannot bring to account the men and women of power.
  Angus Robertson: Has the Conservative party made a tremendous U-turn? Is it now Conservative party policy that the electorate should be able to elect directly the President of the European Union?
  Mr. Redwood: Of course not, because my party does not want a more integrated Europe and it does not want those people to have all that power. I seek to explain to the House, for those who are integrationists and federalists and who will welcome the constitution that we intend to oppose, why the British public will think that it is thoroughly undemocratic and why the Bill is another missed opportunity. Ministers will discover that it does not matter how they invite people to vote in European elections if the people believe that those whom they elect have no influence over those with the power. Ministers wish to give them even more power, but we do not. The problem of voter interest will remain.
  Bob Spink: I am following my right hon. Friend's thesis with interest, and I agree with it. If the Government show that they listen to the people, that will deliver increased turnout in elections much more effectively than changing the electoral system, whether to e-voting or postal voting. Does my right hon. Friend agree that by holding a referendum on the EU constitution, the Government could show that they listen to the people? Does he think that we should have a pilot referendum?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is being tempted down different paths, but I would be grateful if he could resist the temptation.
  Mr. Redwood: I accept your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The lack of turnout in European elections is primarily motivated by the inability to vote on the people who have the power. I—and many of my colleagues—wish that they did not have those powers, but they are going to gain even more.
  A second factor is the move from the first-past-the-post system to the closed list, which was another blow to turnout. The recent precipitate decline in turnout appears in part to have been linked to that change. It was not only that more people had discovered how powerless their MEPs were: many voters in the last election realised that they no longer had any power to influence who would be their MEP, because the political parties had pre-empted that. All voters could do was make a party choice. Many people might have wanted to make a personal choice, just as many do in national elections, because there are different swings in various places. Electors were not able to reward MEPs who had done an assiduous job for their constituency, nor were they able to penalise those candidates on the list who were unlikely to do a good job. Many people saw that as another reason to stay at home.
  The general election also saw a sharp decline in turnout. On my thesis, that was for similar reasons. More and more powers are being taken away from this place by the development of power in Brussels and by the quangocracy. Under this Government, more and more decisions are made by quangos, so people ask why they should vote when Members of Parliament no longer have the same power.
  Mr. Wayne David: I, too, am following the right hon. Gentleman's thesis carefully. How much of the fall in turnout can be attributed to the fact that we have an ineffective Opposition? That is the main reason for the lack of interest in elections.
  Mr. Redwood: The incompetence of the Government overwhelms anything that the hon. Gentleman may allege about the Opposition. If he looks at the differential turnout patterns in the last election, he will see that it was the turnout in the Labour vote that fell most sharply between 1997 and 2001, which speaks volumes about people's judgments on the Government.
  Mr. Davidson: While it is true that turnout fell sharply in many Labour areas, it did so in my area because people assumed that we would win anyway because the Opposition were so useless. If the Opposition do not pull their weight, it diminishes the interest that people have in politics.
  Mr. Redwood: I do not agree with that analysis. On that basis, Labour would have done better than it did in 2001, when it won on a tiny vote. I am describing a general problem with politics in Britain, and by 2001 people had become very cynical about the whole political process. They were most cynical about the European Parliament, by a big margin, but they are becoming more cynical about this place because it appears to have less and less power.
  My electors—and I am sure many other Members will agree—engage more strongly with me and my work on free-vote issues. Then people can see that Members of Parliament can have a decisive impact. People engage less and less on the big issues that matter to them because they do not believe that any of us, including the Government, have the same control over those issues that we had before, because of the growth of the quangocracy. The poor turnout levels in local government tell a similar story. People have become more and more cynical about how much difference elected local officials can make. They sense that councillors are part-time and under a lot of pressure. More and more people need a full-time job and it is difficult to fit in the work of a councillor for someone of working age. The electorate are responding to the growing bureaucracy and professionalisation of councils, with more and more decisions taken by officers on the say-so, instruction or guidance of Whitehall. People are more reluctant to vote, because they think that it will not make any difference.
  The Bill proposes a solution based on symptoms rather than causes. Experiments have shown that people are more likely to spend the few minutes required to cast a postal vote than the many more minutes required to go to the polling station in person. Despite what I and others have said about the growing unpopularity of voting, a one-off stimulus could occur in various places were there to be a compulsory postal ballot. That is the experience so far, and it may happen again in the future if the Bill is passed. If that can be done honestly and satisfactorily, I would be relaxed about it, but the Committee will have to look carefully at whether that can be achieved. The potential for fraud, personation and other difficulties must be overcome in a way that satisfies us. We want good, honest and open elections, and we would like to encourage far more participation.
  552
  I hope that the Minister considers carefully the good points made about identification of voters. Perhaps we should go back to the system of the double envelope to avoid any suggestion that voters could be identified and their intentions made know to other parties. We may need a more stringent system for checking the outer envelope to ensure that an individual casts only one vote and to ensure that it is cast freely and without pressure. Other hon. Members have mentioned the problems for those who live in flats or care homes. We need to ensure that such people genuinely exercise their own choice and are not guided too much by those who might think that they are doing those in their care a favour but may not be truly representing their views. Some sensitive issues arise from that, and we need to consider them carefully.
  We must also make sure that, where we go over to electronic voting, it is not possible for fraudsters to get hold of the series of numbers being used. In an election with a relatively low turnout, they could use those numbers to take advantage and develop a lottery approach, on the basis that they would probably get away with it and that no one would be any the wiser. That is a more serious danger than the one posed by people who turn up at polling stations pretending to be their own neighbours, and so on. In that instance, there is always a risk that, when they vote, those fraudsters could bump into the people who they are claiming to be. I hope that Ministers will be aware of the extra dangers that I have described.
  It would give a very bad impression outside the House if this debate could be summed up as follows: Members of Parliament met, asked themselves why people did not vote very much, especially in European elections, and concluded that it was merely because people really could not be bothered unless a ballot was sent through the post to their individual addresses. If that were to be our conclusion, people would feel that we were living in a very unreal world. The style of voting is not nearly as important as the candidate one chooses, the issues one hopes to settle, and whether one feels that casting a ballot will make a genuine difference.
  People voted in droves when power was more heavily concentrated in the House of Commons, and when Ministers answerable to the House were clearly able to make a difference in matters ranging from interest rates to environmental protection. There was no problem with turnout at general elections. Now that power has dissipated from elected hands—it has passed upwards to unelected European officials, downwards to unelected quangos in the UK and, in large measure, to unelected local government officials—people are becoming very cynical.
  We in this House should worry a great deal about the way in which we are taking away power from those who are elected and giving it to the unelected. We then express surprise when people conclude that casting a vote is a waste of time. I hope that the Government will think again about their great constitutional settlement. They will understand that they cannot tackle the problem by means of this Bill alone, as it will make a very modest contribution to a problem that is much more deep rooted. If the Government drive ahead with constitutional changes that give away more and more

  553
  power to unelected people, the disillusionment will grow much greater, and people will ask why they pay our salaries.
  3.20 pm
  Mr. Tom Harris: First, I congratulate Conservative Members on both the Front and Back Benches. They have shown much ingenuity in contriving to fixate on all things European, regardless of the subject before the House. However, I shall stick to the matter in hand.
  Before I make my main comments, I want to say something about voter registration. I have spoken in the House before about the problem in Glasgow, where one in five adults eligible to vote are not included in the electoral register. That is a scandal, and a legacy of the poll tax. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, people refused to be registered to vote because being registered meant they had to pay that iniquitous tax.
  The council tax system also gives people a motivation for coming off the electoral register: when two people share a household, the 25 per cent. council tax discount given to single householders can be claimed if one person does not register to vote. That is an argument not for abolition of the council tax but for a more stringent enforcement of the electoral register. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take that into account, as there is no point in encouraging people to vote if they are not on the electoral register already. Too many people believe that enrolling on the electoral register is an option, and not a legal necessity.
  Sir Robert Smith: Some of us would like to get rid of the council tax, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that one thing that could be done would be to break the link in the registration office? The biggest damage was caused by the fact that the poll tax register and the electoral register could be cross-referenced. Do not people need to be confident that the electoral register could be used for no purpose other than establishing the right to vote, and that a separate register would be used for the council tax? The two registers would not be linked, and no data would flow between them.
  Mr. Harris: That is a positive suggestion, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not wanting to be drawn too far down that road. I wanted simply to mention that matter before I made my main comments. Registration is a concern for all of us, as it does not reach 100 per cent. in any constituency, as far as I know. The situation has become much worse since we stopped canvassing door to door.
  People fortunate enough to live in what was once called Strathclyde region will be familiar with a very successful postal ballot held in 1994. At that time, the then Conservative Government were getting impatient with Strathclyde, as people there kept voting Labour. They decided to reorganise local government to create a few more Conservative councils. In the event, the plan did not work, but one consequence of the reorganisation was that something had to be done with the water and sewerage industry. The proposal was to create a quango.
  I was working as a press officer for the regional council at the time. The council decided that the people of Strathclyde should be consulted, and it organised a
  554
  postal ballot of every elector in the region. The electorate numbered about 1.5 million people, out of a total population of 2.2 million.
  The ballot was not an election, and it was not about a major constitutional issue. In fact, given the subject—the future of water services—it was rather dry.
  Hon. Members: Oh.
  Mr. Russell Brown: My hon. Friend should take that back.
  Mr. Harris: I apologise to the House for that.
  When the ballot papers were counted, the turnout was found to be 71 per cent. of all electors in Strathclyde. Incidentally, for those who are interested in such things, 2.8 per cent. of voters supported the Government's proposals. That is a real example of how a postal ballot can have a direct effect on voter participation.
  It may be helpful to compare that referendum with some others. Turnout in the Scotland referendum in March 1979 was 63.8 per cent. and in the Wales referendum on the same day, it was 58 per cent. In the European referendum of 1975, turnout in Strathclyde was 61.7 per cent. Even in the Scottish referendum of 1997, turnout was only 62 per cent., yet when we chose to ballot people in Strathclyde on an issue that was hardly of overwhelming constitutional importance, turnout was 71 per cent. That speaks volumes for what could be achieved by the pilots.
  Mr. Davidson: Can my hon. Friend estimate what turnout might be in Strathclyde were we to hold a referendum on the European constitution? Would he consider the possibility of holding a pilot referendum on that issue in Strathclyde?
  Mr. Harris: I thank my hon. Friend for that extremely helpful question. If there were a referendum on any constitutional issue, I would expect turnout to be significantly higher if there was a postal ballot.
  Like many of my colleagues from Scotland, I especially welcome the proposal—if it actually is a proposal—for 100 per cent. postal balloting in Scotland. I add my voice to those calling for such a move. In 1999, turnout throughout Scotland and the whole United Kingdom was derisory. As the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) pointed out, part of the reason was undoubtedly disenchantment, or disconnection, with the European political process. That is not solely the fault of the list system. European parliamentary constituencies were so large that disconnection existed even before 1999. I suspect that it was inevitably part of the process. We need to rein in our expectations about what the pilot projects can achieve. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, they are not a panacea.
  Three factors cause low voter turnout, two of which are the responsibility of politicians. The first is disconnection from elected representatives at all levels. We have all heard the arguments: all the parties are the same, they can change nothing and politicians are too cynical. Some people even say that politicians are far too dismissive of other opinions, which of course is nonsense.

  555
  The second reason, which has already been mentioned, is the electoral system. Earlier in the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) suggested that we should hold an additional pilot for a first-past-the-post system in Scotland, and compare turnout with that for the rest of the UK. However, we have already conducted such an exercise; we used first past the post for the European elections and when we introduced the new proportional system turnout plummeted. The results of that experiment speak for themselves.
  In Scotland, there are four possible electoral systems: first past the post for Westminster; the additional member, or hybrid system, for the Scottish Parliament; the list for Europe; and, imminently, the single transferable vote for local elections. My mother is a lifelong voter and has never missed an opportunity to vote, but she told me that if single transferable voting is introduced in Scotland she will not vote in the local elections. I fear the effect on turnouts in future if we further confuse the electorate with all those different systems.
  The third reason for low turnout is something that politicians can do little about: the wilful apathy of the electorate. I do not hesitate to put some of the blame for low turnouts on the electorate themselves, although some of it is ours. We are seeing the triumph of the instant gratification society, where promised gains over a long number of years have little or no significance for voters and where participation in our wider community—be it voting or taking part in a public meeting—comes far down in people's priorities, after every soap opera and football game broadcast.
  I believe that the postal ballot pilot scheme will result in higher turnouts next June, but I wonder how many right hon. and hon. Members would be willing to bet any of their own money that any of those gains will be maintained in the long term.
  Joyce Quin: The experience in Gateshead, where we have had three consecutive years of postal ballots, certainly shows consistency: there has been little decline in turnout even though the system has now been used on three occasions.
  Mr. Harris: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention. Perhaps my earlier question about which of us would put money on those gains being maintained has been answered—perhaps my right hon. Friend would be willing to do so—but my fear is that it is undeniable that turnouts have generally decreased since the end of the second world war. Although there are blips, such as 1979 and 1992, we are in something of almost a post-democratic age, when voting is not the priority that it once was. I agree with the right hon. Member for Wokingham that changing the mechanism is helpful, but it might not address that long-term decline, which should concern us all as democratically elected politicians.
  If, after two or three such experiments, we see that the gains are reduced—that turnout is reducing to what it was before we introduced postal ballots—what will we have to do? There are gains to be made from such an
  556
  experiment, but those gains are finite, and I would not be surprised if, a few years from now, we have to consider not creating further ways to enable people to vote, but making the duty to vote a legal obligation.
  3.31 pm
  Angus Robertson: Like pretty much every other hon. Member who has spoken so far, my motivation in discussing the Bill is to consider imaginative ways to make it easier for people to vote and to support any and every fair and transparent measure that will boost turnout. A load of suggestions about how we might ease people's ballot casting are on offer, and I am particularly motivated to support any measure that will improve turnout because there is a disproportionate decline in voting among the youngest eligible people in our society. If that issue is not addressed as a matter of priority, it could well store up grave difficulties for us in the future, as that cohort of younger voters continues in its apathy for whatever reason and does not bother to cast ballots in the future.
  I simply believe that the status quo is not sustainable and that it is right to consider imaginative, innovative ways to try to change things. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have not been wrong to point out that, to a certain extent, we may be dealing with the symptoms, not the affliction. That may be a criticism of the workings of the European Union or whatever else. Nevertheless, that does not negate the reasons for considering the way we cast our votes.
  My central concern is that if there is widespread change, it should embrace the highest possible standards and safeguards, but the Government have yet to convince me that that is in fact the case. I would counsel caution, in as much as progress should not be pursued at the risk of imperfect pilot schemes that might then slow the speedy introduction of reformed and updated voting methods.
  The Government should consider various factors, bearing in mind the central premise that we believe that all-postal balloting assists in engaging more of the electorate—something that I support—and we have had many examples from throughout the UK where that is the case. Incidentally, in my book, anything that increases voting by between 20 and 50 per cent. has to be a success, and it would certainly be viewed as a success by people who found it easier to cast their ballots, so that cannot be discounted. Nevertheless, electoral procedures should be improved in a number of ways, so that people have full confidence that postal ballots are secure, fair and efficient.
  I turn first to matters of security, which I and other hon. Members mentioned earlier in interventions. As most Members will be aware, one of the most important measures for detecting electoral fraud is the ability for the public and political parties to inspect the marked-up register of those who voted in an election. Despite current problems in certain local authorities, the public inspection of marked registers is an important safeguard. We need only look at the recent examples of marked-up registers going missing in Renfrewshire, where a number of very closely contested council elections took place recently, and where, curiously, the marked-up register seemed to disappear only in the most closely contested wards. As a result, we know that

  557
  people value the existence of the marked-up register as a central control mechanism to ensure probity and the highest standards.
  The difficulty at present is that the current law does not permit the marked register to show whether a postal ballot has been returned—that is, whether a vote has been cast. All that a marked register will show is that a postal ballot has been sent. In a recent ward by-election in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), one could see clearly that a third of postal ballots were not returned, but one could not work out which third of the electorate that was. The Electoral Commission has given oral advice to the effect that it is in favour of the introduction of a marked register and would have wanted that in advance of the European elections, should we go forward with the pilot programme outlined by the Government today. There has been no mention of that from the Government, however, and when I intervened earlier the Minister said that that matter would be considered separately. I strongly urge him and his colleagues to examine whether this matter can be integrated as part of the Government's considerations, as that would put many people's minds at ease.
  Another matter that is of central importance is the electoral timetable. A number of electoral procedures should be changed to make all-postal balloting fairer and more efficient, and changes to the electoral timetable will be needed should the norm become all-postal voting. The time scale for the issue and replacement of postal ballots, which has not been raised in the debate so far, needs to be addressed. The earliest that an elector can currently receive their postal ballot paper is 10 days before polling day or the close of polling. When a large number of postal ballots have been issued at a traditional general election, those ballot papers can take up to three to four days after the earliest point at which they can be issued. In some instances, an elector then has six working days in which to respond. If, however, an elector declares that they have not received their postal ballot paper, the earliest point at which a replacement ballot can be issued is three working days before the close of polls. With postal services being reduced in a number of areas in Scotland and, I suspect, elsewhere in the UK, that gives insufficient time for an elector to receive a replacement ballot paper and have it sent back by post. I would have thought that one of the central points of any reform is that every elector should have the same guaranteed right to vote. If problems are inherent in the timetabling of the system, the Government must look at that closely.
  On the issue of location of delivery points, it has been suggested that each local authority should have a delivery point for postal ballots to be returned in person or by hand. That could be a safety mechanism, as other Members have mentioned, in the case of industrial action. There is as yet no suggestion as to what number of delivery points should be set up in each local authority area. I would welcome the Minister's views on that, since it is an issue of profound importance in a very large geographic area such as the one I represent. If, for example, someone living in Tomintoul had to get to Elgin, that would be a very substantial journey.
  In terms of efficiency, there is another measure which has not been raised so far but is not unknown to many Members of the House. Parliamentary candidates and
  558
  agents have had experience regarding the efficiency of the Royal Mail in delivering bulk items of post. The experience of the Royal Mail when delivering election addresses in several areas is testament to that. Although postal ballots are addressed items, the Royal Mail gives no guarantee that each elector will receive a postal ballot. I return to a point that I made before: all electors should have the same guarantee of service so that they may exercise their vote. An elector using a postal ballot is in a significantly different position to one who turns up at a polling station.
  I shall briefly talk about e-voting. Before I read the Bill, I was worried that pilots might be rolled out meaning that people in some regions could vote electronically while people in other regions would use postal votes. Such a scheme would have been a grave mistake, so I am reassured that the systems will be tried at the same time in the same region. It would be entirely wrong for some people to be able to cast their votes much more easily than others because they could access technology rather than using the post, which is available to all. However, I am worried about past experiences of technological breakdown meaning that, in extreme circumstances, one could not cross-reference and find out whether postal and electronic votes had been cast. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) said that that had happened in his area, so the Government must examine the problem closely to ensure that it never happens again.
  For reasons of equity, I disagree with a point made by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). He said that it was not a good idea to conduct a pilot throughout a whole electoral region and that it should be more localised. A pilot should take place throughout a whole electoral region rather than in only one part.
  The Government should consider a further question, although it does not fall entirely under the scope of the Bill and it has not been addressed by any hon. Member. If ballot papers are to be issued two to three weeks before polling day, as the Minister said in his opening remarks, how will that dovetail with coverage by broadcasters—especially our public broadcasters—and how will it tie in with the Representation of the People Act 2000? If the Government choose Scotland or Wales as pilot regions—although I do not accept the use of the terminology of "region" for Scotland or Wales—they must bear it in mind that Scotland has a seven-party system and Wales has a four-party system. I am sure that the Government are keen to ensure fair and equitable access to the media wherever and whenever an election is held. However, if ballot papers are delivered two to three weeks before an election takes place, at what point will the Act kick in? At what point will the Government and—hopefully—all political parties be keen for everyone to have fair access to the media? Perhaps the Minister did not have time to talk about that during his opening speech, but I would be interested to hear his colleague's view during the wind-ups.
  Pilot schemes must be introduced with cross-party consensus. There is a feeling—no one dares speak its name—that one electoral system or another could give a specific party political advantage. I do not share that view because any electoral system on offer gives the same advantages and disadvantages to all. Nevertheless, if we want to go forward, we need to bear cross-party consensus in mind, which is why I strongly urge the

  559
  Government to examine the worries that I have raised on behalf of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru—the principal opposition parties in Scotland and Wales. If pilot projects were to be rolled out in Scotland or Wales, it would be advantageous to have cross-party consensus.
  3.44 pm
  Mr. Russell Brown: I welcome the Bill. I begin by echoing the opening comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) about the number of people on electoral registers because that point was raised in an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall on 4 June. The debate was secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) and he talked about our experiences in Scotland during the local elections and the Scottish Parliament elections. There was a significant decline in the number of people registered. The number of people registered in Glasgow, Maryhill between 2001 and 2003 dropped by 13 per cent. That is a significant amount. If the 2001 figure had stood, the number of people turning up to vote would have been significantly worse.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) has an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall tomorrow on electoral registers. We need to do something. We have passed legislation and numbers have fallen. We need to back that up by carrying out checks at vacant addresses, as some local authorities already do.
  John Robertson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the pilot scheme must also deal with electoral registers? We should not wait two years for a register to be updated. We need a rolling register instead. In Glasgow, Anniesland, for instance, where there is a high turnover in council housing, the register is out of date by between 20 and 30 per cent. every election.
  Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is right. There are significant problems in parts of the country. We cannot sit back and be complacent. Although the issue he raises is important, we must also encourage the electorate to go out and vote. The responsibility for that lies at the door of each and every one of us. No one can run away from the fact that we have a major part to play.
  The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) commented on dealing with the symptoms rather than the causes. We need to get to the bottom of why people are not voting. There has been a steady decline in turnout. The 77.8 per cent. turnout in the 1992 general election fell to 71.4 per cent. in 1997. The hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan), in his excellent contribution, tried to lay the blame at the door of the Government. His party was pushed to one side at the 1997 election when the number of people taking part in the process fell by more than 6 per cent. There was a further and more drastic decline in 2001 when turnout fell to 59.4 per cent. It is not good news for us if we, as politicians, who have a role to play in society, cannot engage with people.
  Perhaps the problem is the lack of an alternative on the Opposition Benches or the general dissatisfaction at the pace of reform, for which the people in the UK are
  560
  crying out. Perhaps the problem is our colleagues and friends in the media breeding criticism and dissatisfaction. Although that is sometimes justified, all too often people are only interested in the headlines. So when politicians speak to the general public, what we hear is, "You're all the same. You're all in it for your own ends. Why do you bother?" We need to turn the clock back.
  When I intervened on the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), I explained that the problem is not confined to the UK or the EU. In Canada in the 1970s, 74.6 per cent. of people turned out to vote. By 2000, that had dropped to 61.2 per cent. I may regret mentioning Europe, but the turnout in France was 76.5 per cent. in the 1970s. By 2002, that had dropped to 64 per cent. There are, however, some European countries in which that trend has been bucked. The trend in Denmark, the Netherlands and Finland is against the decline experienced elsewhere.
  We are looking at the European Parliament elections today. There was a 63 per cent. turnout across EU countries in 1979, which fell 10 years later to 58.5 per cent. and a miserable 49.4 per cent. in 1999. Even though I have categorised that 49.4 per cent. as miserable, it was double the turnout in the United Kingdom. Political parties and politicians must try to widen their appeal and engage with those who turn out to vote. However, a revival in civil society making it easier to vote can help, which is why I am very much encouraged by the fact that three areas are being considered for postal ballot pilots. In 2003, we can enjoy the advances of the electronic age, including e-commerce and e-voting, yet it has been in the old idea of postal voting that there has been significant progress, and that is to be applauded.
  Mr. Cash: I hope that, in connection with the issue just raised by the hon. Gentleman, I may vicariously invite a response from the Minister in his summing-up speech. Can the Government explain why, between 1997 and 2001, there was a 12 per cent. drop in turnout compared with the figure of approximately 75 per cent. in the entire range from 1945 to 1997?
  Mr. Brown: I am obviously keen to hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say, but I am not sure whether his question is directed at my hon. Friend the Minister or me. However, I am happy to give my tuppence-worth. There is a problem with people becoming disillusioned. Our friends and colleagues in the press and media hype up the situation, and say that none of us is worth voting for or supporting. However, I wonder where they would be if we were not here.
  John Robertson: The media have taken over the role of the Opposition.
  Mr. Brown: Indeed. I hope that the hon. Member for Stone agrees to a certain extent that that is what the media have done in recent years.
  In 2002, there were 30 postal vote pilots involving 2.5 million electors. The average turnout at all postal elections was about 47.5 per cent., well above the average of 33 per cent. for traditional voting methods.

  561
  On polling day for the Scottish Parliament this year, I met people who had already voted through postal voting. They said that it was the first occasion on which they had done so, and they were pleased to have been able to seize that opportunity. They said that in future they would not use any other way of voting. Of course, there are anxieties about the use of postal votes, and the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) and others have advanced an argument about security and the need for a secret vote.
  The Bill will allow three regional pilot schemes for elections to the European Parliament to be held. I appreciate the anxiety that the hon. Member for Moray experiences when some of my colleagues and I talk about Scotland. However, I am sure that at the end of the day he respects the fact that although Scotland is a nation, it is also a European parliamentary region. The Bill does not specify in which areas the pilots will take place, but Scotland would be a good area. The Electoral Commission will make recommendations, and I hope that the Minister, as well as listening to what it says in mid-December, will listen to what Members of Parliament have said.
  Angus Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman take the opportunity to impress upon Ministers that it would be a tremendous advantage to introduce safeguards, in particular with regard to a marked-up register, and that that should happen before any pilot project is undertaken?
  Mr. Brown: Yes, that has come across loud and clear this afternoon. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have strong reservations about a marked-up register, as do Conservative Members.
  I shall briefly consider three previous postal pilots in Scotland. In April 2002 the first pilot took place in a ward of Stirling council. The turnout was more than 63 per cent., far higher than the turnout at the other council by-election held on the same day. In September 2002 there was a by-election in Durn ward, Aberdeenshire. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) has left the Chamber, but he will know about that one. The turnout in a postal ballot was 66 per cent, the highest ever in a postal pilot. That was in contrast to another election that day to the same council, in which the turnout was a mere 36 per cent. In November 2002 in a ward in the Scottish Borders, there was a turnout of 65.8 per cent., which was up 3.1 per cent. on the turnout for the 1999 election.
  Three schemes in Scotland's 32 authorities are far fewer than those that have taken place elsewhere in the United Kingdom, such as the 33 schemes held in the 43 local authorities in north-west England. The time is ripe for a widespread scheme in Scotland. As I said in an intervention, the European elections in June 2004 will be the only elections to be held in Scotland, so no comparison can be made with any other European parliamentary region. Scotland's rural nature provides an opportunity to reap the greatest dividends from a postal ballot, which will benefit people living in rural areas. I understand the comments made by the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale, but such an election could turn out to be less expensive than
  562
  would otherwise be the case. He mentioned that there are more than 5,000 polling stations, but there will be no need to open them.
  The electorate of an average-sized European constituency is 3.8 million. Although Scotland has a larger population than that, it would provide a clear indication of the success of postal voting. On the question of how we cover the election and promote the idea of a postal ballot, I hope colleagues would agree that press, television and radio in Scotland are unique. Through those means we have an opportunity to promote the excellent idea of a postal ballot.
  We heard from the hon. Members for Moray and for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale their reservations about a full postal pilot being carried out in Scotland. Some of the arguments have already been made as to why such a pilot should be held. I share the concern about fraud, but I am fairly relaxed with clause 6, which covers that. The House of Commons research paper makes excellent reading and highlights some of the problems that have arisen in the past and ways in which they can be dealt with.
  The issue of the witness to a postal ballot causes me some concern. When the ballots are returned, we see those who open the ballot papers discarding the witness form. One wonders whether anyone would take any notice if voters had got Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck to countersign their ballot papers. It is important that we ensure that people cast their vote.
  I have come across elderly people, in particular, who did not return their postal ballots, even after having requested one, because they had no idea about whom they should secure as a witness or whether it mattered.
  The Electoral Commission has indicated that it would not wish parties to be heavily involved in collecting postal votes once cast. There is some justification in that. Although we are all supposed to be right hon. and hon. Members, we are not held in the highest esteem. Sometimes the fraud element is there to be abused by individuals and, dare I say it, parties. Serious consideration must be given to the marked-up register. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister is able to say something positive about that—if not today, at a later stage.
  Some hon. Members are concerned about moving the local authority elections in England and Wales to coincide with the European Parliament elections. In 1999 and 2003, Scotland experienced the marked difference that resulted from combining the two elections and getting people to come out to vote in more than one election on the one day. It is difficult to judge whether the knock-on effect came from people who normally vote at local elections suddenly deciding to cast a vote in another election on the same day, or vice versa, but it is clear that combining the two elections in 2004 will be helpful.
  The Minister still has a lot of work to do. I am not sure that I would want to serve on the Committee, but it will be interesting.
  None of us should run away from the problem: we all have a job to do, whether by engaging more closely with the electorate whom we are supposed to represent or through the proposed pilots. We must unite and say with one voice that we wish the electorate to play a far greater part in elections.
  4.2 pm
  Angela Watkinson: I should like to concentrate my remarks on the all-postal pilots that took place in the local elections in 2002. My constituency is one of the three component parts of the London borough of Havering, which was chosen as one of the authorities to be piloted. That process gave rise to a range of difficulties, which I hope will be addressed in Committee.
  Because what was involved was a new and different way of conducting an election, the local authority faced a challenge in disseminating information in the pre-election period so that people understood what would be expected of them and how voting would differ from the traditional method. They had to understand that everybody was voting by post, not just those who usually chose to do so; that the cut-off date for casting their vote was much earlier than the date of the election; and the nature of the documents that they would receive and how to process them. Many people were unaware that they would be able to vote in person only at the town hall because none of the usual polling stations would be open. Such information had to be emphasised to everybody, especially elderly people, well in advance.
  Another problem that arose was the non-arrival of ballot papers: certain electors did not receive them. That posed a series of questions. Had they been lost in the post? Had they been wrongly delivered? Had they gone to the wrong number in the right road or the right number in the wrong road? Had two been posted in the same letterbox? Had neighbours received them by mistake? When they complained to the council, the question, "Are they telling the truth?" arose. The council was satisfied that the ballot papers had been posted, so nobody ever knew what happened to them. Often, it was too late to issue duplicates because the deadline for posting them back was too close. The electors had neither recourse nor a way of obtaining a ballot paper. Some angry people lost their opportunity to vote. The information to electors must make clear the last possible date for alerting the local council of non-receipt of a ballot paper, thus allowing plenty of time for an exchange of phone calls or correspondence and for the duplicate to be sent out and returned to the council so that it can be included in the ballot.
  Many residents who had moved into the area since the previous election assumed that the fact that they paid council tax meant that they were automatically on the electoral roll. They were indignant to find that they were not. They believed that paying council tax entitled them to a vote, and I have much sympathy with that. Local authorities have an additional duty to encourage people who have moved into the area to ensure that they are on the electoral roll and not to rely on the fact that they pay council tax.
  I am not sure whether the problem that I am about to consider was common to all the pilot schemes, or peculiar to the London borough of Havering, where a one-envelope system was used. Electors had to enclose their declaration of identity and their marked ballot paper in the same envelope, which contained a ward identification mark on the outside. At that point, the ballot ceased to be secret. A basic breach of confidentiality occurred and there was no guarantee that the council received the envelope. At the town hall, the two documents in the envelope had to be separated,
  564
  and it was possible to see how an individual had voted. Indeed, that was difficult to avoid. I am not accusing council staff, who in the London borough of Havering are beyond reproach, or claiming that that actually happened. I am simply pointing out that it was perfectly possible, and that that is an obstacle that needs to be overcome.
  Mr. Mark Hoban: Will my hon. Friend clarify whether representatives of political parties were present when the envelope was opened and the declaration of identity separated from the ballot paper? That would reinforce the risk of loss of confidentiality, of trust in the system and of voter anonymity.
  Angela Watkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I understand that representatives of political parties were not present, but I am prepared to be corrected on that.
  It is also possible for envelopes that are identified by ward on the outside to be diverted or otherwise interfered with. Again, I stress that I have no suspicions that that happened in Havering, but it is possible. Interference could occur for political reasons when the likely voting intentions in a specific ward were predictable or consistent over several elections. It would therefore be possible to affect the outcome of an election.
  The system compromises the security of the election in several ways. It involves more people in handling the paperwork at all stages of the election, from the preparation of ballot papers in council offices through their delivery—or non-delivery—by the Royal Mail and their storage for possibly three weeks after their return to the town hall. Ensuring that there is no interference with the accumulated ballot papers is another security issue.
  In addition to his call for a referendum on the European constitution, the shadow Attorney-General, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) also refered to the 1,500 items of post that go missing every month in each of our constituencies. In a month in which there would be a large additional number of items—as would be the case when ballot papers were being sent out—it is therefore fair to assume that a number in excess of 1,500 would be likely to go missing.
  There is a question here of voter confidence. People want to know that the town hall has indeed received their ballot papers when they have sent them back. Not only are there difficulties with voters receiving their ballot papers, but there is no guarantee, when they have filled them in and sent them back, that the town hall will have received them either. The ballot papers then have to be transferred from their local venue to the Electoral Commission for counting. All these different stages offer additional opportunities for fraud or complications in the electoral process. It is also less convenient for local scrutineers to attend a count in central London, including the London boroughs, than it is for them to go to a local count or to a town hall to observe the counting of postal votes. The whole system is simply not as reliable as the traditional method. In the interests of public confidence, the system has to be seen to be inviolate.
  Many people had either not read the instructions that they received before the election, or not understood them properly. Many did not understand that no polling

  565
  stations would be open, but by the time they realised that, on the morning of the election day, it was either too late or too difficult for them to get to the town hall, which was the only option open to them at that stage. If they could not get to the town hall before noon, they lost their opportunity to vote.
  I have to confess that there was an increase in turnout at that election, but there were a lot of really high-profile local reasons for people wanting to vote. The local electorate were up in arms about council tax. Historically, the London borough of Havering had been underfunded for many years, and the long-awaited review of local government finance and the way in which central Government funds local government was imminent. People were expecting old wrongs to be put right. Unfortunately, their hopes were dashed, but at that stage they were still hopeful, so there was a very high level of interest in that local election, and it is difficult—perhaps impossible—to know how much of the increased turnout can be attributed to the postal voting system and how much to the high level of interest in council tax and other prominent issues.
  The insecurity that I perceive in the system, along with the lack of confidence, the opportunities for interference and multiple voting, and the loss of opportunities for people to vote at all, are too high a price to pay for an increase in turnout. There is already a choice for everyone. Anyone who wants to vote by post can do so. People no longer have to justify their request for a postal vote. At one time, they had to give details of the holiday that they were taking, or state that they were likely to be in hospital or give reasons of employment in order to get a postal vote. Now, all that they have to do is request one, and they get it. Nobody is prevented from having a postal vote.
  Furthermore, large numbers of people enjoy going and casting their vote personally at the polling station where they have always voted. There is a certain ceremony attached to it, and it seems to give the activity more significance. For those reasons, I would like to see the status quo retained, so that anyone who wishes to have a postal vote may have one, and anyone who wishes to cast their vote in person is still be able to do so.
  Other hon. Members have mentioned internet and telephone polling. Those issues give me enormous cause for concern, because I perceive very high risks and far greater opportunities for corruption and interference in the process.
  Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend agree that another point that has not yet been raised is the problem that would emerge if, in a national election, during the period between the closure of the postal voting procedure—which could be about 10 days before the election—and the election date, a significant statement were made that could dramatically affect the basis on which the people voting in person then decided to cast their votes?
  Angela Watkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for his profound intervention. Indeed, such a statement could change people's voting intentions significantly. Many people may have already cast their vote but may wish that they had not done so because they have changed their minds. The Minister may like to consider that in Committee.
  566
  The way to increase turnout is to persuade the electorate that there is some point in voting, and that they are voting for candidates who will represent their views, work hard and produce policies that will affect their everyday lives. They would then be far more likely to take an interest in an election. Casting a vote once every four years is hardly an onerous task. Some people enjoy doing it. They enjoy the significance of turning up personally and going through the little ceremony of entering the polling booth and casting their secret vote knowing that no one else knows how they have voted.
  I support the status quo. People can ask for a postal vote if they want one, but those who want to vote in person should retain the right to do so.
  4.16 pm
  Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: Last week the Sunday Herald published the results of a survey of attitudes of young people in Scotland. It provides information that has a direct bearing on the debate. The survey was encouraging. When young people are asked what they think, rather than having views imputed to them, the findings show that they have a socially responsible attitude. However, the results of the survey of the attitudes of young people to voting were of concern. A question about the most important things that make someone a good citizen offered a number of options, and for the group aged 11 to 25 the lowest of all was voting in elections. Only 17 per cent. thought that voting in elections was important if they wanted to be a good citizen.
  I am sure that that does not mean that the actual turnout for that group when they come to vote will be as low as 17 per cent. There is no immediate election—no general election is in the offing. Nevertheless, that low figure should worry us all, as it shows how little young people identify with the voting process. It does not suggest that the recent reductions in voter turnout will improve in the future when these young people come to vote.
  We have had a mature debate, with only the occasional lapse into a more partisan argument. I accept there are a host of reasons why voter participation has declined. I do not believe that the problem of declining turnout will be solved only by technical solutions—some quick fix that will make things better so that more people vote. However, there are a number of ways to make it easier for people to vote, and they have a role in encouraging people to engage more in the electoral process.
  I accept that people's alienation from the political process is part of the reason for a decline in turnout. However, before hon. Members get subsumed under a pall of doom and gloom, there is evidence to show that many other factors contribute to lower voter turnout, which we can address more easily than some of the more fundamental problems that have been referred to.
  One of the biggest factors, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) mentioned, is the change in people's lifestyles. The traditional election day picture that is painted is one of people going along to vote in the morning, walking down to the polling station after they have done their shopping or at 5 o'clock on their way home from work. That picture does not reflect the

  567
  reality of how many, probably most, people now lead their lives. They travel many miles to out-of-town shopping centres, and they return from work at all times of the day. Members leaving this place in the evenings must notice how many people are going home, clearly from work, at 8, 9 and 10 pm. We must not fall into the trap of self-righteously criticising the electorate for deciding that, having got home at that time of night, the last thing they want to do is go down to the polling station to exercise their democratic rights.
  It may seem odd to those of us whom the Minister described earlier as aficionados of the electoral process—others might describe us as obsessives—that people do not necessarily want to do that, but we should not say that they are guilty of wilful apathy because they choose to lead their lives as we might not. I say that with respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris), who has just returned. If people want to go late-night shopping on a Thursday—Thursday being the traditional polling day—we should not tell them that they are not fulfilling their duty to society because they do not rush out to vote at 9.59 pm.
  Mr. Peter Duncan: Surely the hon. Gentleman accepts that, as well as a change in lifestyles, there is disenchantment with the electoral process and the way in which elections are conducted. As he will know, in the recent Scottish parliamentary elections things changed in all too many constituencies: the constituency Member became a list Member, and the list Member became a constituency Member. Did that lack of change not affect the electorate? Such arrangements will disenchant the vast majority of those about whom the hon. Gentleman is talking.
  Mr. Lazarowicz: I said earlier that many factors were involved in lower turnouts. I am merely suggesting that we should not fall into the trap of assuming that all those factors explain the drop, given other important factors such as changes in lifestyle. June elections provide an example. Many people now go on holiday at all times of the year, rather than restricting their holidays to the traditional trades fortnight when towns and cities empty. We must not try to fit the voters into our preconceptions of how they should behave; we should make it easier for them to take part in the electoral process.
  I mentioned young people's attitudes earlier. We must begin to consider such issues comprehensively. The more voters—young or old, new voters or people who have voted in many elections—become used to not voting, the more the idea that casting a vote is a civic duty will be rejected, by increasingly wide sections of the population.
  That is why I believe that the time is right for the Bill. We have had local pilots involving new forms of voting for more than three years, and, for the most part, they have been successful. I agree with the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) that there have been difficulties on occasion, but by and large they have succeeded not just in terms of their operation, but in increasing turnout.
  I thought the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) was a little selective in his analysis of the turnout for postal voting which appeared in the briefing documents. He
  568
  pointed out that some of the pilots had increased turnout, while others had reduced it. The fact is that, according to the Library, 54 of the 57 instances of all-postal voting featured an increased turnout, and only three featured a reduction—which was in any case a small reduction compared with some substantial increases.
  This is the right time to take a further step towards the use of new voting methods, particularly all-postal ballots, and to make them the norm rather than exotic experiments. Of course, I accept the concerns, expressed by several Members, about the possibility of fraud in all-postal ballots and other new voting methods. It is essential that the possibility of fraud be minimised, and the measures that the Minister referred to in his opening contribution will certainly help to reduce that possibility. As has already been pointed out, there are many ways in which the current system is open to fraud. Indeed, if properly introduced the new system could actually reduce the prospect of fraud. Anti-fraud measures can be effective, and at the end of the day the best protection against electoral fraud resulting in an outcome other than that which the voters want is to increase voter turnout by genuine voters. Increasing the number of people voting in elections through the use of all-postal ballots and other new forms of voting will ensure a result that is a fairer reflection of the wish of the voters—a point that certainly outweighs the minuscule number of cases of electoral fraud in traditional or postal ballots.
  I welcome the move towards greater use of postal ballots and other forms of voting, but further steps need to be taken if the new system is truly to result in the electorate's greater participation in the democratic process. I hope that the Minister will address some of these points when he replies to the debate, if he has time to do so. I agree that it is essential that the information and instructions given to voters about how to use postal ballots are kept as simple as possible. Examples have been given of people not knowing how to use the postal vote and failing to take advantage of the opportunity given to them; we must avoid such situations. I agree that there should be an extensive advertising campaign at national and local levels to ensure that voters are aware of the new system. That campaign should include not just advertising, but access to telephone helplines and to other ways in which voters' queries about the new system can be answered speedily, so that they are encouraged to use their democratic right.
  I agree with the point made about the need to get assurances from Royal Mail about the delivery not just of ballot papers, but of election communications before ballot papers are received. I also agree that it is important that voters have several opportunities to deliver their postal ballot papers by hand, if they wish to do so, to delivery points in the local authority area. In most local authorities, more than just a single central point will be required. Given the absence of any need to provide clerks to issue ballot papers, this is surely the opportunity to provide ballot boxes and places for the receipt of ballot papers in many locations other than the traditional election venues.
  I agree with those of my colleagues who have emphasised the importance of ensuring that the electoral register is as accurate as possible. Of course, that should happen anyway, but it is particularly

  569
  important that the register be accurate if the possibility of postal ballots being sent to the wrong people is to be minimised. The register for next year is already in preparation, but having a rolling register enables us to add or remove names throughout the year. I should still like the Government and local government to carry out an effective, face-to-face, door-to-door canvass, particularly in those parts of the country in which all-postal ballots are used for European parliamentary elections. If that cannot be done for 2004, government at all levels should certainly introduce it for future elections.
  In that connection, it is particularly important to make an effort to register, and to provide information to, ethnic minorities, particularly those for whom English is not their first language. I include in that category citizens of other European countries, who can of course vote in these elections, but who frequently do not realise that they can register and vote. My own experience of electioneering has shown that many citizens of other EU countries are not aware of their right to vote in these and other elections.
  Finally, I turn briefly to the issue of which areas of the country should be used for the pilot postal ballot schemes and the elections next year. As a Member representing a Scottish constituency, I certainly welcome any suggestion that Scotland should be one of the pilot areas, and I urge the Electoral Commission to recommend it as one of those areas. I hope that the Government will make the necessary order when the time comes.
  As hon. Members have pointed out, Scotland has no local elections taking place on the same day in 2004, so there is no risk of confusion. Another argument for choosing Scotland as one of the pilot regions is that it includes many remote and inaccessible areas, so postal ballots will make it easier for voters living there to cast their votes in the important elections next year. I found it hard to follow the bizarre logic of some Opposition Members—that because Scotland is particularly remote and inaccessible, it is the wrong region for a postal pilot. In my view, people in those areas should have an opportunity to cast their votes in next year's elections as a matter of course.
  Mr. Peter Duncan rose—
  Mr. Lazarowicz: I give way to one of the remote and inaccessible Gentlemen.
  Mr. Duncan: I am only too happy to make my position clear to the hon. Gentleman. What I said is that it would be more expensive to have a pilot in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman alluded to people in rural areas of Scotland having the opportunity to vote by post, but such people can already do so now. They have the opportunity to apply for a postal ballot. It is a straightforward process and they can vote by post.
  Mr. Lazarowicz: Of course they can vote by post now. However, I see no reason why we should make it more complicated for them to do so. We were told that some people have difficulty accessing letterboxes, but it is difficult not to believe that a polling station is likely to be even further away. That provides a further reason why
  570
  Scotland should have the opportunity to use internet and telephone polling so that people who cannot get to a letterbox in the constituency of the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan), could use the phone or internet and cast their votes in that way instead.
  Above all, it is appropriate to choose Scotland as one of the pilot areas for new methods of voting because it has been fortunate to experience the pushing out of the frontiers of democratic and constitutional reform. I am certainly proud of the Scottish Parliament and of the fact that Scotland has, by having proportional representation in Scottish elections, been at the forefront of the democratic reform of our constitution. I also hope shortly to see proportional representation in local government elections in Scotland. We have already been at the forefront of such reforms and I would like us to be at the forefront in this further respect.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman is trumpeting his belief in the Scottish position at the forefront of democratic experimentation, but does he agree that, given that there is a separate Scottish Parliament, we should end the gross over-representation of Scotland in the House?
  Mr. Lazarowicz: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the number of Scottish MPs will reduce when the boundary commission completes its work—and there is no dispute about that. The hon. Gentleman should be concerned that, as a result of that process, his party's representation in the House in respect of Scotland might be reduced by 100 per cent.
  In conclusion, I want Scotland to take the lead in democratic change, which will allow more people to reconnect with the political process. All democrats in Scotland should support such a move and only those concerned with narrow political advantage could possibly oppose it.
  4.34 pm
  Mr. Robert Syms: I remember well the original Bill that was the starting point for where we are today. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) introduced that change in our electoral system from first-past-the-post to the list system, in his usual genial way. He talked about famous Belgians and we discussed Mr. d'Hondt and how the new system would make every vote count, so that increasing numbers would go out to vote. Unfortunately, he forgot an integral part of our electoral system—the candidate, and the influence of an individual in a general election or other election. That influence is good news for us all.
  Most of us grow up in a political environment in which people claim that candidates do not count for much. I think that they do. Although the vast majority cast their vote for the political party that they support, they vest their hopes, support and interest in the individual who represents that party in the constituency. We all work and campaign hard in our constituencies, which pushes many of our supporters out to support us. We also probably push many of those who do not support us out to vote against us, and our opponents probably do the same. The level of activity, including the displaying of posters and cavalcades around the constituency, pushes turnout up all round.

  571
  The difficulty with the electoral system that we will have next June is that people will again be asked to vote for a political party rather than an individual, and in such large regions that people do not feel that they can make a difference. Indeed, it is depressing for candidates for the European Parliament to face electorates of 3 million, 4 million or 5 million. The candidates cannot cover the distances and they know that whatever work they do, it probably will not make much difference. The Government have vested their hopes in the system, not in the people who operate it. That is one of the reasons why turnout dropped from 36 per cent. in 1994 to 23 per cent. in 1999.
  Although I am sure that postal voting will help to push turnout up, it is a fundamental flaw that people will not have the ability to vote for individuals. If the Government were really radical, they would go back to the first-past-the-post system. The argument at the time was that European constituencies were too large—comprising seven or eight parliamentary constituencies—and that that was not wise. A year later, the Government introduced the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which created first-past-the-post constituencies the size of boroughs, which were almost the size of the old European constituencies.
  The Government have missed an opportunity to push turnout up in the most fundamental way by going back to first-past-the-post. A postal voting system will help turnout, but legitimate concerns arise, which have been expressed in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) mentioned the concerns raised by not having two envelopes and questioned the security of postal ballots in her borough. We have already heard about the problems of houses in multiple occupation, or flats, which can lead to fraud. Fortunately, incidents of electoral fraud are rare in this country, but when they happen they almost always involve the operation of postal votes. Someone harvests postal votes in a particular ward and suspicion is aroused. The Government must continue to reassure people that the operation of postal votes will be arranged so as to minimise fraud.
  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: The hon. Gentleman makes some good points. He is worried about the prospect for fraud, but we must recognise that the potential for fraud exists in any system. Whatever system is adopted, someone will always try to cheat it. I can reassure him that a postal voting system has been used in two local elections in Chorley, and turnout in the first was more than 60 per cent.—the highest in the country. The next time, turnout was the second highest in the country. The system was successful and I welcome the opportunity to try to increase turnout and encourage more people to exercise their franchise. I am sure that we would agree about that.
  Mr. Syms: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and Chorley was mentioned earlier in the debate as an example of successful postal voting. The briefing paper from the Library shows an increase in turnout in local government elections of more than 15 per cent., sometimes more, sometimes less. So postal voting has led to higher turnouts, which is why the Conservative
  572
  party will support an increase in it. People casting votes must believe that secrecy is being maintained, and that the system is being operated fairly.
  Chris Grayling: Does my hon. Friend agree that an opportunity for fraud will arise if areas or regions are asked to adopt multiple voting strategies? For instance, where e-voting sits alongside postal voting, returning officers may be asked to monitor two or three separate flows of ballots as they come in. Does my hon. Friend agree that, under those circumstances, the job of policing fraud will become much harder?
  Mr. Syms: That is a very good point. The Conservative party's position with respect to e-voting is much more reserved. As has been noted, there are concerns in the US about the security of such votes, and similar concerns have been expressed here.
  The pilots that have been held show that postal voting pushes up turnout. I do not think that we need look to other systems of voting, although we should make it easier for people to get postal votes at general elections. If the Government were to say today that the whole of the European election was to be decided by postal vote, I believe that that would be legitimate. However, I am not so sure of the validity of the argument that part of the election should be conducted by postal vote.
  A number of pilots have been held, and most have happened where councils have volunteered to conduct the experiment. We are now moving into very different territory. After consultation, the Government will tell certain regions that they will have to adopt the new system, and that causes me certain problems.
  Electoral registration departments in many authorities have not received much investment in the past. Many struggle, on limited resources, to carry out their tasks. Some authorities are very good. They are switched on and efficient when it comes to dealing with votes and delivering the count, but other authorities are less so. Introducing a new system on a region-wide basis will mean that there is variety in the delivery of service.
  As we have heard, it is very important, when moving to a postal voting system, to be able to inform the parties of what is going on. The experiment earlier this year in Guildford was quite successful in pushing up turnout, but every day the borough's returning officer told the political parties who had voted. The game, therefore, became a giant knock-up exercise, as parties determined who supported them.
  John Robertson: Would the hon. Gentleman accept an electronic register, marked on a rolling, day-to-day basis?
  Mr. Syms: I have no strong view one way or the other. What is important is that all parties are treated the same. I am concerned to ensure that all authorities in regions with postal voting are efficient enough to be able to tell the political parties about the returns in a particular constituency or borough. That should be the model. We know that provision varies, and that is one reason why the Electoral Commission has been looking into how returning officers provide their services.
  The point was made by the hon. Members for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and for Moray (Angus Robertson) that postal voting makes for a

  573
  different type of election. A problem arises that has to do with how political parties time the climax to their campaigns. A mixed system causes difficulties in that respect.
  In the normal run of things, the vast majority of voters—90-odd per cent.—go down to polling stations. However, some postal voting takes place even then, and people are able to vote a week or 10 days before the final poll. Broadly speaking, the parties know their expenditure limits and the point in their campaigns when they want to get their message across so that people go out and vote for them. A system that means that the important date is a week or 10 days before polling day for one chunk of the country, when the vast majority of people in the neighbouring region will turn out to vote on polling day, will cause problems in respect of advertising, television and the delivery of a particular message.
  That adds to the complications, and we are already confined by the fairly strong straitjacket imposed by the legislation on political parties and referendums.
  Mr. Lazarowicz: Is the hon. Gentleman not in danger of saying that elections should be run for the convenience of political parties rather than of voters?
  Mr. Syms: It is important, as long as we are sensible, that political parties should be happy with the arrangements, too. If I have a criticism of the Government it is that they have not always consulted widely on some of the changes that they have introduced. It is important that those who operate the system should be seen to be fair as we deliver our message. There is no reason not to take into account the concerns of all the political parties in setting up the arrangements.
  We are in favour of postal voting, although we have some concerns about security. We are more anxious about e-voting and some of the newer systems. However, if we are to reconnect with people we must make fundamental changes rather than merely tinkering with the arrangements. We need to get back to individuals and candidates, because they matter more than systems.
  I am not a pessimist about turnout. At present, everyone involved in the political process seems to be terribly depressed because turnout is down. However, the Library briefing shows that turnout did not change much between the second world war and 1997; it bobbed up and down during the 1970s, and at some points people had a stronger wish to vote than at others. In the February 1974 election, when I was still at school, there was a high turnout, owing to the miners' strike and the three-day week. Television broadcasts were reduced and there was a sense of crisis, so many people voted, although I would not argue that that was a successful way of getting people to vote. The rise in turnout compared with 1970 may have been a material factor in the Conservative defeat in February 1974. People wanted to express their concern about the state of the country.
  In 1992, turnout was high because many people wanted to get rid of the Government and many people wanted to keep them. There was pressure from both ends of the political spectrum, so turnout was high.
  574
  Several years before the 2001 election, opinion polls had been telling people that the result was a foregone conclusion, which had a material effect on turnout. Opinion polls influence behaviour, so it would be a perfectly respectable argument that banning them for a period could change the nature of elections and get people to vote. My only reservation would be that if official opinion polls were banned, people might move into the vacuum and make them up, as the Liberal Democrats did in their little newspaper during the Brent, East by-election. However, opinion polls do sometimes depress turnout.
  Mr. Tom Harris: A new question in opinion polls is, "Do you intend to vote at the next election?", so does the hon. Gentleman agree that when the media constantly report the fact that fewer and fewer people will turn out to vote, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy—and the media should take some of the responsibility for lower turnouts?
  Mr. Syms rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I think that we are getting slightly away from the legislation's centre of gravity.
  Mr. Syms: We want to raise turnout in the elections next June and some of the Bill's provisions will be helpful. One can be genuinely critical of the fact that we are not going entirely one way or the other. There are problems in focusing on particular regions, as is currently being proposed. We need to consider what has not been included in the Bill, because the Government could have done much more to encourage turnout in general elections.
  I hope that turnout will rise in June. As the turnout in the previous European election was so appallingly low, there is a chance that it may be higher next time. There are signs from the last two local elections that turnout is rising. If people thought that elections would be more competitive, turnout would start to increase.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) made a good point about the attitude of the public: if there is full employment, when there may be fewer dragons to slay, people may have less motivation to turn out. However, that may not last for ever. If people care passionately about things, they may be more determined to vote. I am not convinced that we shall have ever-lower turnouts. I am sure that in future there will be issues that regenerate people's interest in democracy. It is a pity that we have been landed with this awful list system for the European elections next June.
  4.50 pm
  Ms Dari Taylor: I welcome the Bill. I see it as a very important way to introduce innovatory voting methods that could reinvigorate democracy. This is a complex debate and what I say may be full of ifs and buts, but I believe that we need to consider how to reinvigorate democracy.
  In my early days, in my first election in 1955, my father fought the seat of Vale of Glamorgan, and the percentage vote cast was 89 per cent. It was a

  575
  Conservative seat, with a 20,000 majority. It is now a Labour seat, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) will ensure at some stage that he too may achieve a 20,000 majority, but the point is that all of us hang so much on the argument about turnout. How many people vote indicates to us all the sense of importance or value placed on politics, legislation and government. We underestimate or undermine the argument if we do not see the value of turnout—it shows people's trust and their confidence in voting.
  The Bill is important, but re-engaging people with politics is not solely about persuading them to vote. We have to persuade them that the political discussions that we are involved in are real and valuable to them. We have listening schedules and on-street surgeries. We all use questionnaires. We do an awful lot to engage with the wider population—with our constituents—to persuade them that there are real debates here. Sometimes, some of us feel overwhelmed by the robust nature of our constituent's opinions. We have only to listen to them talking about hunting with dogs, third world debt or the controls that they want on fireworks to know that they are very engaged with the political debate. So if people are involved in political debates, it is important for us to ask why they find it so much more difficult or impossible to vote in the great numbers that voted when I was a child.
  I was singularly depressed in 2001, when the number of people who turned out in Stockton, South went down by 11 per cent. In 1997, 72 per cent. voted. In 2001, 61 per cent. voted. I believed that I had energetically and robustly engaged with my electorate in all manner of ways, persuading them that political discussion—political challenge—is valuable. I was seriously depressed so I carried out a survey. A small team and I spoke to 500 people—not thousands, I know—so I do not necessarily suggest that the analysis has to be accepted by all. We asked people why they had not voted. Was it because they could not be bothered? Were they not engaged in the political process? We got a very clear response. Yes, some of them said, "You're all the same. You don't deliver on your promises", but overwhelmingly, people said, "You changed the date of the anticipated election. It was not May, as we thought, but June, and we were too late to request a postal vote."
  The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) asked why the 2001 election bucked the trend, when the number of people who did not vote doubled. We were very concerned about the foot and mouth episode, so the election was delayed. Let me tell him what my small survey shows. People were caught off guard and had not asked for a postal vote.
  Other answers were given to me. People work shift systems, and many work offshore and are not available to vote during their normal working activity, as they are away for six weeks at a time. Many of my 18 to 21-year-olds told me that they were in the middle of their final examinations and had no time to consider voting in an election. It is therefore important for us to understand that people have complex lives, which are not run according to a normal 8 to 5 day.
  Angela Watkinson: The hon. Lady will of course be aware that it is open to any elector to choose a permanent postal vote. They do not have to ask for one for a specific election—they can have one for every election, and that arrangement can be made well in advance.
  Ms Taylor: The hon. Lady is correct, but when unpredictable things happen, people do not have the opportunity to apply, and the time intervals are too tight. Many people felt that they were disfranchised because the election was moved from the anticipated date, not the stated date.
  Having done a small piece of research to try to understand why my electorate had dropped, in turnout terms, from 72 per cent. to 61 per cent., I became much less depressed about my ability to engage with people locally. I began to believe that perhaps the electoral system was far too inflexible and rigid for people who perhaps go into hospital or go on holiday at the last minute, who cannot vote in the normal way at a polling station and who require the option of a postal vote. I therefore concluded that we must consider people-friendly voting activity, and pilots of postal voting seem to be an appropriate option.
  In the northern region, there have been 13 pilots of postal voting. From my knowledge, the pilots to date have been successful if we consider the one measure on which many of us hang our coats again and again—the number of people who express their voting preference. To date, in all-postal ballots, upwards of 50 per cent. of the population have voted. In fact, the increase in the number of people voting has been 20 per cent. to 25 per cent. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) stated her case about Gateshead, but it is also the case for Sunderland. In fact, in some wards in Sunderland turnout was more than 60 per cent., and in my area of Stockton it was well above 50 per cent. That pilot is being used to persuade others to come on board to say that they have the opportunity to express their opinions and that we are giving them a flexible option to do so.
  I am keen to say to the Minister, as many of my colleagues have said this afternoon, that because the northern region has had 13 different pilots, we have a great deal of valuable experience. Consequently, that leads me to persuade him that we should be one of the pilots chosen for the 2004 European and local elections. Across the region, we would see Conservative and Liberal Democrat seats as well as Labour seats involved in pilots of postal voting. I also say to him that many people in my constituency who have voted by post once, found that it was so user friendly that they believe that the opportunity will be open to them on all future occasions. It will be very difficult for me to explain to them that it was a one-off pilot and that it will not be available in the future. It is therefore important for the Minister to understand that people adapt quickly to new ways of doing things, and that this has been such a valuable experience that many people, if not the majority, would want to have that opportunity again.
  All material published to date by the Electoral Commission, and some published by the Hansard Society, shows the worry about how to get people-friendly politics to work in our community. The assessment of voting pilots to date clearly shows what

  577
  people think about voting by post because they use words such as "easy", "convenient" and "popular". The system gives people the opportunity to express their vote in a manner that references their lifestyles and home lives.
  Angela Watkinson: Does the hon. Lady agree that there is a world of difference between voting by post out of choice and being compelled to vote by post? People who are compelled to vote by post are deprived of the opportunity to cast their vote in person at a polling station.
  Ms Taylor: The hon. Lady makes a valuable point. I listened with great care to the part of her speech about how we can secure the system and ensure that fraud is minimised. However, she described a quite different situation from the way in which the postal vote system operated in my constituency and region, so I quickly wrote some comments down. I could well be wrong but I think that we operated a marked register somewhere in the northern region, if not in Stockton. All parties knew who had voted and at what stage that had happened throughout the process. Secondly, and valuably, voters in Stockton, South could take their postal ballot by hand to a polling station on the day of the election. As the hon. Lady rightly said, we believed that it was important to give people the widest and most flexible possible opportunity to express their vote. People had two options: they could post their vote or take their postal vote to a polling station, so a safety net was established.
  It is crucial that we get the system right because many hon. Members have expressed the fear that fraud will occur. I read all the reports on the northern region's pilot studies because, naturally, we do not want to be part of systems that reduce politics in any way. Politics is reduced enough by far too much unscrupulous press coverage, so I do not want any more of the same. I tell the hon. Lady that I know of no concerns about, or evidence of, serious security issues during the pilot studies and that no challenge was made on the basis of fraud. That was said by all participating parties, which included the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative and Labour parties. We were all involved in watching and scrutinising how the 13 constituencies operated postal voting.
  Sir Robert Smith: My worry is the potential for fraud and whether safeguards have yet been fully worked out to police fraud so that it cannot take off. When we pass legislation, our worry is about how people will respond in the long term, not necessarily during the first trial.
  Ms Taylor: I would not undermine that statement for one minute. Each and every one of us wants to scrutinise the whole system so that we can be reassured again and again that fraud will be minimised.
  First and foremost, I believe that we want to reinvigorate democracy and measure democratic involvement using the one method that we have always used—voting activity. However, equally, while invigorating democracy, we all want to ensure that we keep up to date with methods to the same extent as people throughout the country. Time and time again young people say to me, "What about e-voting?" I am
  578
  cold to that method. I do not want to e-vote because I like going to the ballot box in a polling station, but young people press the case. They ask about text voting. I have no sense of involvement with that either, but it is clear that young people do. It is important for this legislature to have a wide-ranging discussion on possible pilots, as we have done today. We must also acknowledge the views of people outside the Chamber who think that we are not as up to date as they are and do not give them the opportunities to which they believe they are entitled. We are discussing one small pilot. It does not answer the whole case. We are not going to reinvigorate democracy simply by introducing this small measure, which I support.
  I stress to my hon. Friend the Minister that the northern region has had 13 successful pilots, in which the turnout increased by 20 to 25 per cent. It is an obvious place to locate pilots for the European and local government election; in 2004.
  5.6 pm
  Mr. Ian Davidson: It gives me great pleasure to speak in support of the Government. I always wish to do so, but sometimes they let me down.
  I support what is proposed because we must do everything we can to improve turnout at elections. Getting people out to vote is important. I draw lessons from the Library report, which surveys the various experiments that took place. I note, however, that extending voting hours reduced the turnout in every case: the logical conclusion of that is if we allow people 20 minutes to vote at some point during the day, virtually everyone will make it. I see that the Government have not been sufficiently bold to pursue that.
  I support the aim of making it easier for people to vote, but that does not address all the issues. It is necessary, but not sufficient. Parliament is not adequately tackling our failure to interest enough people in politics. There are many problems that the Bill and the Government do not address. The first is the culture of the yah-boo politics of confrontation, which undoubtedly alienates young people. My children and their friends frequently comment on our behaviour. They think we behave like young children in a minor English public school as we shout back and forth at each other across the Benches. I have occasionally indulged in that myself, Mr. Kettle, but none the less I recognise the need to repent, and I am willing to do so if others are willing to do likewise.
  Mr. Tom Harris: Two examples do not help my hon. Friend's argument. Neither the Scottish Parliament nor the European Parliament are forums famous for yah-boo politics, yet turnout for the elections to both Assemblies is considerably lower than it is for the House of Commons.
  Mr. Davidson: I will come to that.
  The second reason why we are losing public support is the culture of spin and over-presentation. Politics as a brand of show business has been introduced to a great extent by some members of the Government. We must consciously break away from that. Spinning the end of

  579
  spin is not sufficient—genuine recantation and reform are needed rather than just the presentation of them. We should consider seriously the way in which we balance the need to end the excessive rigidity of the whipping system and the need to ensure that parties and groups are not over-divided. That balance needs to be struck in a way that enables us to engage more with the public, who on the one hand do not like clones but on the other do not like undue splits and divisions. It is a question of managing to strike that balance in a mature fashion.
  I should like to touch on the serious matter of low turnout, which is politically malign. People who do not vote are usually those who need politics the most, including the poorest and the least educated. Those who most need the state's efforts are often those who make the least effort to influence affairs of state. Politics therefore increasingly becomes a contest for the votes of the prosperous—it is a bidding contest for the votes of the articulate middle class. However, many of the people I seek to represent find themselves neglected and ignored. I do not believe—in this I support the views of one of the Opposition speakers—that that decline is inevitable. It depends on whether or not we can engage with the population as a whole. Had we had a general election or an opportunity for the expression of popular support during the Iraq war, there would have been a tremendously high turnout, particularly among young people, because they engaged with the issue. But there is a disconnection between the issues about which they feel strongly and the ways in which they can express their views.
  Mr. Hawkins: As always, I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Does he agree that if the Government allowed a vote and referendum on the EU constitution—an issue on which he and I would be campaigning on the same side—there would be a large turnout and a decisive rejection of the constitution?
  Mr. Davidson: I believe that that is an issue with which the public could engage. Because they would be engaged with it in a way that the Government do not want, the Government are declining to allow a referendum. The reason why we have not joined the euro is that a commitment was made some time ago to have a referendum, which the Government have declined to hold as they know that they would lose. Similarly, they are resisting a referendum on the new European constitution because they believe that they would be defeated. Some people in favour of the new constitution have argued that the only way in which change will be achieved is to engage the public by putting the issues before them through the forum of a referendum, from which a genuine decision will flow. I support that position. We cannot continue to have a political elite leading us further down a particular road in European decision making and politics without the people's consent, which is almost deliberately designed to increase alienation, discontent and unhappiness. When that alienation and discontent cannot find legitimate political expression, there are swings to the extremes, of the kind that have sadly taken place in some parts of Europe in recent years.
  580
  However, I digress, and shall turn to the European elections themselves. There are a number of reasons why European turnouts have been so low. First, as many Members have mentioned, there is the question of proportional representation. Undoubtedly, the introduction of huge constituencies with list members with whom virtually nobody can identify has driven down voter turnout, engagement and participation. I fail to comprehend why the Government are not prepared to recognise that. I admit that Europe will probably not allow us to change our electoral system, but the Government ought at least to acknowledge that and say honestly, "We would like to change the system. It is not our fault. We recognise that first-past-the-post Members would allow more of you to be adequately represented, but this is one of the prices that we have paid." A straightforward admission would be helpful.
  The closed list system and the jiggery-pokery that has gone on not only in my party, but in the Conservative party and others, whereby people have been selected for lists for various reasons, not all of which are publicly available, has undoubtedly reduced the attraction of participation for many.
  The third reason for low turnout is the dislocation between the British public and the great European adventure in general. We must look for ways of re-establishing contact. It was suggested not long ago by one Minister that the European elections should be turned into a referendum on the European constitution. If the Government were prepared to accept that the European elections would be a referendum on the European constitution, I can see that that would be helpful in terms of driving up turnout. However, it would not be helpful to my party's cause, so I very much hope that the Government would not take that course of action, and would seek by any means possible to avoid the European elections becoming a referendum on the European constitution.
  The best way of doing that is by holding a separate referendum on the European constitution, thereby parking the issue on one side of the European elections, so that the elections can take place in the context of the European constitution, yea or nay. It would be immensely helpful for the engagement of the British public in politics if spokesmen, of the Government in particular, did not make the entirely false assumption that anyone who wants a referendum on the European constitution ipso facto wants us to withdraw entirely from the European Union. That is a foul slander from which, in the interests of honesty and openness in politics, I hope the Government will refrain in future.
  I turn to the provisions for the checks on fraud. Many of the earlier speakers mentioned points that I would otherwise have made. I want some explanation of the process whereby the Electoral Commission came to the conclusion that all the pilots have been acceptable and free from fraud. I wonder how many members of the Electoral Commission have ever stood in a tight selection in a political party context or in a trade union election. That might be a valuable learning experience, which would demonstrate that the theory of elections is not always the practice.
  In council elections, wards can be won when there are relatively small amounts of fraud. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) that the best way to defeat fraud in

  581
  large elections is to bump up the turnout. However, in elections for individual wards, fraud can significantly affect the result. I seek the Minister's clarification of the amount of back-checking that has been done. The fact that there have been no complaints does not necessarily mean that there has been no fraud.
  With reference to postal voting, for example, how many signatures accompanying the ballot paper that came in have been compared with the signature on the application form? How many ballots have been ruled out because the two did not match? If there are no examples of checking and no examples of ballot papers being ruled out, I find it difficult to believe that there has been no fraud whatever. My only significant experience of postal voting was an internal Labour party election in Glasgow, where it was run so inadequately that the whole ballot had to be re-run. It is impossible to believe that that has not happened elsewhere. Those ballot papers were ruled out for a variety of reasons, some of which were innocent: for example, people had rushed their signature on one occasion, but not another; or people whose first language was not English had expressed themselves slightly differently on two separate occasions. Nevertheless, it raised enough doubts in my mind to make me somewhat cynical about the merits of postal voting in small electoral divisions.
  On e-voting, would the mere possession of a number allow someone to cast a vote on someone else's behalf? The United Kingdom is now a multicultural community, and different attitudes to democracy are found among many of the groups that make up our country. I am not certain whether the traditional view is necessarily the only correct one. If, say, a godfather collects numbers from an extended family, or on the basis of comradeship or commercial links, should that be condemned in every case? Are we right to say that there should be individual, rather than collective, voting? [HON. MEMBERS: "What's the answer?"] I think I know the answer, but I want to know what steps the Government are taking to ensure that what we might see as malpractice is being stamped out. All the evidence—anecdotal, not from the Electoral Commission—shows that such malpractice is occurring.
  I am not convinced that the Government are taking that issue sufficiently seriously. I have argued that they should be bold and experimental in several respects, but in some areas more caution is required: we must retain people's trust in the electoral system by ensuring that its integrity is beyond doubt. Can the Minister tell us how many reverse checks have been made? How many people who voted electronically were subsequently approached and asked whether they voted, or whether other people, by a variety of methods, cast votes on their behalf? Let us check whether the system is foolproof.
  Angus Robertson: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for not having been present at the start of his comments. Does he agree that one of the most simple and effective safeguards in making such checks is a marked-up register, and that it is essential to have such a register in any pilot region where postal voting takes place?
  Mr. Davidson: I was about to come to that point, but I shall deal with it now. I am not entirely familiar with the details of the marked-up register system, but hon. Members on both sides of the House have made
  582
  valuable points about it. So far, the Government seem to have provided the strongest possible assurances that as much as possible is being done, and I look forward to the Minister's confirmation that that will be adhered to.
  I want to ask the Minister about recounts. Having participated in elections where recounts have been necessary, whether to save a deposit or to determine who has won, I have never been entirely clear about how a satisfactory recount can be conducted where there is electronic voting. The old paper piles have the merit that they can be stacked up and looked through one by one. I am not clear about the electronic voting equivalent. Unless the system can demonstrate beyond peradventure that the votes have been cast and counted accurately, there will always be a suspicion that those who know how to manipulate the technology have rigged the results.
  Like many others, I was interested to read in a national newspaper reports of anxiety in the United States about the possible misuse of electronic voting. The Americans cannot run even a mechanical system properly, and it is unrealistic to expect them to run anything more complicated more coherently. We should not simply jump into something that is perceived to be technologically at the cutting edge.
  Mr. Parmjit Dhanda: I apologise for missing my hon. Friend's opening remarks. When I was a party agent in Ealing some years ago, there was a recount and genuine difficulties arose because some of the bundles of paper had been lost; they were misplaced under another table. The joy and advantage of electronic voting is that such a problem simply would not occur. It is much easier to compile the information and it should be quicker to count the votes in the first place.
  Mr. Davidson: Gosh. I am not sure what constitutes the electronic equivalent to being lost under a table, but if it can be done with bits of paper, I am sure that it can be done with gee-whizzery. I find it difficult to operate my computer and I cannot believe that everybody else operates theirs to the highest possible standard and that there is no scope for jiggery-pokery. It is not clear how we could be confident that a recount was being conducted according to the highest standards.
  Mr. Miller: My hon. Friend's argument reminds me a little of that of a constituent, who explained carefully, in a seven-page letter, the reason for voting in pencil. He argued that it was so that "they" could alter the results. I asked him how I got elected when "they" altered the results. My hon. Friend is presenting conspiracy theories.
  Mr. Davidson: I can give my hon. Friend's constituent a simple explanation: I always thought that he was one of "they". I rest my case.
  Let me remind the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), of the saying that we are at our best when we are at our boldest. I hope that when he sums up, he will be a little bolder than his fellow Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie), who opened the debate. [Interruption.] I am an optimist. Nobody is beyond

  583
  redemption. My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham is too young to be completely institutionalised.
  We should consider a pilot for first past the post. As I said earlier, I do not understand why we cannot hold a first-past-the-post pilot in Scotland in the European elections to ascertain whether the turnout increases drastically.
  Angus Robertson: How is it possible to hold a first-past-the-post election for the European Parliament in any region, given that under treaty obligations, the United Kingdom and every other European Union member state must have the same or a similar proportional representation electoral system?
  Mr. Davidson: The hon. Gentleman does not appreciate the extent of the Prime Minister's influence with our European partners. I am convinced that if we had the will, we could debate with our European partners and tell them that we were being bold. We could say, "We are at our best when we are at our boldest and we call on you to agree to the experiment." There would be something in that for many of our European colleagues, because if we managed to find a method of increasing people's connection to the European Parliament, they might want to copy it. The falling turnout in European elections is happening not only in the United Kingdom but everywhere else in the European Union.
  It is no coincidence that in virtually every referendum held in the European Union, "they"—whether it is my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) or his colleagues—lose. Those who are running the system lose referendums. It is only when they have to re-run them—as in Ireland—that they occasionally win them.
  I notice that the Minister has had to bring in reinforcements now that we are discussing the question of boldness. My second point about boldness was also raised obliquely by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris); it concerns the question of compulsory voting. Have the Government considered looking at the Australian example? I was in Australia recently and I was struck by the fact that, over there, compulsory voting, which would seem contentious in the extreme to us, is now accepted as part of the furniture. This raises the issue of people's rights and responsibilities. All the citizens of this country have rights—quite rightly so—and we are seeking to expand them. There is also an issue of responsibilities. In Australia, people have the opportunity to go along and not vote, but they actually have to make the effort to make that decision, as it were. We ought at least to be seriously considering that option.
  My third point concerning boldness relates to a referendum on the European constitution. I have already touched on whether we could have a pilot on this. We could ask people whether they would like to have a referendum. Public opinion indicates overwhelmingly that people wish to have a voice on the
  584
  new European constitution. I am not entirely familiar with the position taken by all the Irish parties, but I think that every party bar my own, which is split on this question, is now in favour of a referendum on it. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to increase interest in politics and get himself on the news tonight by announcing that we are to have a referendum on the European constitution.
  Mr. Peter Duncan: Be bold!
  Mr. Davidson: I would also tell the Minister to be bold. This would get him some good coverage. He would be speaking to the Prime Minister pretty quickly if he announced that tonight.
  The final point about boldness that I would like the Minister to consider is the question of the simplification of the electoral system. As has already been mentioned, in Scotland, we are in danger of having four different levels of government with four different electoral systems. That is clearly a recipe for confusion. The European Union might well not allow us to consider anything other than proportional representation at European level. However, we are still open to having a similar or equivalent system across the three other tiers. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to say that the Government will introduce positive proposals in due course for a first-past-the-post system for the Scottish Parliament. In consequence, we could then ensure that first past the post could be retained for Scottish local government as well.
  I would like to say how grateful I am that the new sitting hours of the House have the last speaker finishing at 7 o'clock rather than 10 o'clock. Given the lack of interventions, I am not sure that, if we had had to continue until 10 o'clock, I would have been able to abide by the Whips' exhortation to keep things going as long as possible.
  I support the Government in this matter. What they have done is necessary but not sufficient, and I hope that when the Minister comes to his summation, he will be bold and take up some of the very positive suggestions that have been made by my colleagues and me.
  5.34 pm
  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: This is quite an important debate. [Laughter.] Opposition Members may laugh and Liberal Democrat Front-Bench Members chuckle, but some of us have experience of pilot schemes for postal voting. I shall explain what has happened in Chorley in the past two years. It may be a lesson for the Liberal Democrats, but that is never hard. It is important to discuss previous experience.
  We were lucky in Chorley. Two years ago, not just the Labour group that runs the borough council—far from it—but all three political parties and the independent councillors wanted to encourage the good electors of Chorley to exercise their franchise again. The Liberal Democrat vote collapsed in the local elections, and we felt sorry for them. We felt sorry for all political parties. Once the vote goes below 30 per cent. in certain wards, the problem must be addressed. One of the ways to deal with the problem of people not voting is to give them more time and more opportunity to vote. We believed that the right thing to do was to apply for a pilot in postal voting.

  585
  Two years ago, the leader of the council, Jack Wilson, the leaders of the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives and a couple of Independants agreed to work together to try to persuade more people to vote. They said that if someone objected they would not proceed. It is important that the political parties work together to ensure that more people use their democratic right.
  Angus Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman advise his hon. Friends on the Front Bench that any pilot in any electoral region in the UK should have the support of the main political parties in that region?
  Mr. Hoyle: I am talking about Chorley borough council. The council felt that that was right. If the hon. Gentleman welcomes the position of the Labour leader of Chorley borough council that is fine, but I want to explain how it worked in Chorley. It is up to the people to decide how it should work in the hon. Gentleman's own country. It is not up to me to decide what is good for Scotland. It is up to the Minister and the hon. Gentleman to negotiate and discuss that. It is not for me to influence the views of the people of Scotland. I have no wish to do that, because I do not want my postbag to be full of letters from Scotland. I shall concentrate on the experience of Chorley.
  Leaders of all the political parties in Chorley worked together. They wanted to encourage more people to vote, and they wanted to be in the first pilot scheme. The chief executive, Jeff Davies, who has been there a long time, had seen a declining turnout at every local election. In the general election, there was a 62 per cent. turnout. I was asked why I could bring in 62 per cent. whereas in wards the turnout was down to 24 per cent.
  It was decided that an application should be made for Chorley to be in the first wave of pilot schemes. That application was successful. Thankfully, it went very well. Councillors had to change the way in which they canvassed. They had a new system to work with, and all political parties were sceptical about whether it would work. We wondered how we would let the public know that there was a new scheme and a new way to vote. We got the newspapers involved, because the media have a role to play. They are good at persuading people not to vote by condemning us and showing us up. However, the local newspapers were helpful and urged their readers to get behind this new idea.
  On the side of the town hall and the council offices was a thermometer, and each day as the votes came in the thermometer rose nicely. It worked. People were engaged with the new way of voting. It encouraged people who had never voted before, who did not like the system or were afraid of going into the polling station. I do not know whether it is agoraphobia, but some people have a fear of the ballot box. They were able to vote at home and post their ballot paper to the town hall.
  Royal Mail played its part. This is about partnership. We had the co-operation of the media, the council officers, who had a new system to work with, the political parties and Royal Mail, which emptied the postboxes and made two deliveries a day to the town
  586
  hall. The advantage was that representatives from each of the political parties watched the ballot papers being opened, checked, bundled and put away. The bar codes were also checked, so we knew that the ballot papers were correct. That system was very successful.
  Sir Robert Smith: Was it possible, as it is under the normal system, to carry out a daily spot check on the political balance of voting?
  Mr. Hoyle: At the end of each day the turnout was shown, so that, as was the case when people stood outside polling stations and asked voters for their card numbers, the candidate knew the percentage and where the votes were coming from. Of course he would have to decide for himself whether those votes were for him or for someone else. No doubt someone as popular as the hon. Gentleman would assume that they had all been for him.
  People's imaginations were caught. They were asking each other "Have you voted?" Not wanting to trust their votes to Royal Mail, they were arriving at the town hall to deliver them in person. There was a ballot box for those who wanted to use it, which had to be emptied four or five times a day. That shows how successful was the pilot of two years ago. Indeed, it produced the highest local-election vote in the country. Chorley has a lot to shout about—although I will always shout on its behalf, for I am very parochial and very proud of Chorley.
  Paul Farrelly: My hon. Friend speaks on the basis of great experience—experience of possibly just one election in Chorley. Does he agree that postal voting is often confusing, especially for older people? That applies not least to my area, in which next year not one, not two but three elections will take place—European, local and parish, each featuring a different system. For that reason Newcastle borough council, on a cross-party basis, recently urged the west midlands not to be part of a pilot next year.
  Does my hon. Friend not think, notwithstanding his experience in Chorley, that if we do have pilots it will be best to go for the best of both—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. Is the hon. Gentleman bringing his intervention to a close?
  Paul Farrelly: Should the postal vote not serve as a supplementary to the tried and trusted method of the ballot box, the difference being that people could take their ballot papers along with them on the day?
  Mr. Hoyle: I am interested to learn that the west midlands have opted out. That leaves a few of us who can bid. I hope that the north-west will again be one of the chosen areas, so that the people of Chorley can benefit.
  I am pleased that my hon. Friend wants to express his views, and to exclude his own authority from the postal vote. That is fine, for this is really about what we believe is best for our areas. I can only describe the success we have experienced in Chorley—and it was not just in one election. Far from it: there were two. I was going to come to the second later.
  Angela Watkinson: Claustrophobic people who do not like going into polling booths, and indeed agoraphobic people who do not like leaving their houses, have always had the option of a postal vote. They can have a permanent postal vote if they like. It is not a new option; it is the compulsion that is new.
  Mr. Hoyle: That is true, but there has not been much take-up in the past. People have had to apply, and there have always been restrictions. Until recently, reasons for being allowed a postal vote were limited. Some doctors were unwilling to sign the form allowing such a vote, while others wanted to charge a fee. That was one of the problems. Now people are being offered a golden opportunity. Some regions may not want it, but others, such as mine, are saying, "We want to go ahead. We want to be part of the new trial." That is what Chorley wants: all the political parties have agreed that they want to take part for a third time.
  Mr. Peter Duncan: Those parties were making a voluntary decision. In this instance, the UK Government are deciding which region will take part in the trial. Should not the financial burden therefore fall on the Government?
  Mr. Hoyle: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned that point, which he keeps trying to get across. In fact, the matter went before the full council, so the full council took the decision. In effect, the hon. Gentleman is saying that this House should take such decisions, and I welcome that view. I totally agree: let us put the question to the House and accept the House's decision. That is exactly what happened with Chorley town hall, which took the decision. The hon. Gentleman is taking a very good line that we ought to encourage.
  Richard Younger-Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hoyle: I want to get on to the second part of my speech, but I shall of course give way.
  Richard Younger-Ross: The hon. Gentleman is so generous in giving way. The point was made earlier about the confusion caused by long and complicated ballot papers, with which people can get assistance at polling stations, if necessary. However, there is also the question of those who spoil ballot papers and have to get another paper from the returning officer's desk. What provision is made for that problem in postal voting, and for fraud, impersonation and the stealing of other people's ballot papers?
  Mr. Hoyle: The hon. Gentleman makes some valid points, but those who lost ballot papers or made mistakes filling them in applied for new ones, which were duly issued. We can overcome that problem, but I should point out that this great belief that fraud does not occur under the old system is a little naive. Part of the problem is that under the old system we do not know that the person who goes into the polling station and puts a vote in the ballot box is the per son who should be voting. Nor do we know how much fraud goes on. We
  588
  have heard many stories about people who have impersonated others and voted five or six times, so there has always been fraud. However, you are right to raise the point, and I can tell you that when Chorley undertook the trial, the postal vote—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could remember to use the correct parliamentary term when addressing other Members.
  Mr. Hoyle: Of course he is an hon. Gentleman—is that better, Madam Deputy Speaker? We are all hon. Members, which is why this is an important debate. I am pleased that we can get a little humour into the Chamber now and again; nevertheless, this is an important subject.
  What is crucial is how many additional people will vote under the new system. I agree that no system can be 100 per cent. right, but in the case of the first trial in Chorley, when we franchised the postal vote system, a security check was carried out afterwards. Certain people were picked off the register, their votes were checked and they were all correct. As with everything, there will doubtless always be some fraud somewhere, but in fairness it should be pointed out that a security check was carried out, and that the electoral returning officer, the council leaders and everybody else were happy with the system.
  Because of the success of the first year, Chorley's political leaders decided to put the matter before the full council, and the town hall decided to apply for the second wave. That happened for two reasons. First, the Government provide a subsidy to pay for elections; secondly, the town hall's electoral system had been modernised. For the following election, not only postal voting but texting and computers were used, so votes could be e-mailed. Following the huge success of the first wave—the voting figure was 62 per cent., just 1 per cent. behind the general election figure—we wondered whether the second wave would repeat that success or fall back to 25 per cent. The key point was whether, after the novelty of the first year, the figure would fall right back. So it was crucial to have a two-year trial to discover what people thought of the system. In fairness. the figure did drop in the second year, but not significantly so. It was still well over the magical 50 per cent. figure, which was important. Interestingly, during the first trial the figure for one particular ward was 78 per cent., so there was some enthusiasm in certain wards. People wondered, "Can our ward be better than another ward?"
  Mr. Kevan Jones: It is interesting to hear that the beaming light of democracy is strong and vibrant in Chorley, but does my hon. Friend agree that if we take postal voting away from constituencies such as that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin), where postal voting has been used for three years, the situation will seem strange and turnout might plummet dramatically? That might even prove true in bastions of democracy such as Chorley.
  Mr. Hoyle: I welcome my hon. Friend's contribution. He highlights a problem that could emerge if we are not careful. It is the Chorley experience that we are worried

  589
  about. We built up the vote over two years. Did it fall away in the second year? No, it did not. People still welcomed the opportunity of having different days on which to vote. That was important. The danger now is that people have got used to postal voting. If that is taken away, would the vote collapse back to what it was previously?
  Angela Watkinson rose—
  Mr. Hoyle: I shall give way yet again.
  Angela Watkinson: The hon. Gentleman is generous in allowing me to intervene. He paints such an exciting picture of elections in Chorley that I almost wish I lived there. Is no one in Chorley unhappy about the removal of choice in how to cast their votes? Do no Chorley electors wish that they could still cast their votes in person? Does no one object to compulsory voting?
  Mr. Hoyle: That is a very good point. There will always be someone who argues against any system. Some people argue against the system that we have now. I would say that it was only a minority of people who did not like the new system, but in democracies we must talk about the majority. I hope that we are all democrats here and accept the majority view. That is what happened in Chorley. It was about the majority of people accepting the new system.
  It is important to realise that if people wanted the ballot paper to go into the ballot box, that option was available to them, because they could troop down to the town hall with their envelopes. The ballot box was there and they could put their ballot papers into it, just as under the old system. That choice was still there, which is important. If people wanted their votes to go into the ballot box, that was still available to them. That was crucial. Even on the closing of the polls, the town hall's ballot box was still open. If for some unknown reason people missed the mail on the day before or forgot to take the vote in, they could still dash down and vote at the town hall until the close of the poll. That is important when we are talking about systems and it explains why I welcome the system. All we can talk about is experience, and the experience in Chorley shows that the system worked. I hope that the north-west will benefit once again when we franchise the new system and pilot it.
  Other hon. Members have quite rightly spoken. Some Members from the west midlands have said that they do not want the system. That is fine; that is their choice. I am pleased to say that I believe that it would be good for the north-west. I would like to see a franchise for the north-west and other colleagues here think the same. Some Members from Scotland said that they would like to try the new system.
  It is important at the end of the day that the whole of the country is not trying this. We are going to have pilots. That is why it is called the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill. If people want to opt out, let them say so now, and they will not be considered. Those who want to opt in should put that view forward and rightly say that the Bill is important to them. I know that there are exceptions, but I will be pleased if the north-west goes ahead, because it
  590
  will do well out of postal votes. All political parties will do well because the groundswell of support and the number of votes cast will ensure that we do not collapse to some of the European levels of the past. I believe that people in this country will benefit from having an extra franchise in the way that they vote. We will benefit and democracy will be the winner when the new system comes in. I welcome it for the north-west.
  5.53 pm
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: Conservative Members will not support the legislation this evening. We have substantial concerns and, if I may say so, they have been only exacerbated by some of the arguments made on both sides of the House—from all parties and including Government Back Benchers as well as Conservative Back Benchers. In particular, we strongly oppose the Government's plans to carry over the legislation, and decisions will be taken separately later this evening. We believe that carry-over is wrong in principle and Conservative Members feel very strongly about it. If the Government are allowed to get away with carrying over Bill after Bill, particularly when matters have been consulted on only at short notice, it will be bad for democracy. According to the Government, this legislation is supposed to be about increasing democracy. The proposal to carry the Bill over has nothing to do with that.
  I propose to set out some of our concerns, and then I shall seek to summarise some of the important contributions that we have heard from both sides of the House. We are concerned about the Government's proposals for e-voting, especially because the jury is still out on its reliability and security. I shall return to the issue of the concerns that have been expressed by the most senior IT professionals about the lack of security.
  Mr. Miller: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
  Mr. Hawkins: I shall do so in a moment. The hon. Gentleman may wish to intervene when I come to the detail of our views on e-voting.
  If e-voting is to be piloted at all—we have many doubts about the wisdom of doing so—any pilot scheme should not cover a whole region, given the concerns of the IT profession. Further, the pilot schemes that the Government intend to implement will not address the real, underlying causes of low turnout, especially in European elections. Those underlying causes are, principally, a flawed electoral system, the abandonment of first-past-the-post voting for European elections—we would like to return to it—and a distant and unaccountable European Union, as perceived by the electorate.
  If pilot schemes are to be set up, there is a strong case for the Electoral Commission to choose regions in which most of the local authorities are willing to conduct a pilot scheme. Regions should not be compelled to be pilot areas if the majority of local authorities are opposed to it. If necessary, there should be fewer than three pilot areas. In the speeches by Labour Members, we heard strong calls, especially from Scottish Members and Members from the north-east and north-west, for their areas to be pilot areas. If by some magical means—

  591
  what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) memorably called gee-whizzery or jiggery-pokery—the three chosen regions are Scotland, the north-west and the north-east, we would know that the fix was in, in the way of the old Chicago elections.
  Mr. Miller: Has the hon. Gentleman examined the results of last May's elections in Vale Royal, which were conducted using an e-facility? That e-facility substantially increased turnout. It also resulted in a swing to the Conservatives, who took control of the authority. Why would the hon. Gentleman deny Conservatives in that area the ability to enjoy that facility?
  Mr. Hawkins: I am delighted to congratulate the Conservatives in the Vale Royal area, but it would not he wise to choose one particular small area and generalise its results to the whole country. We have a proper caution about e-voting in the light of the severe warnings that we have received from senior people in the IT industry.
  Mr. Miller rose—
  Mr. Hawkins: I will come back to that issue, as I told the hon. Gentleman I would do, at the appropriate point in my speech. If necessary, the hon. Gentleman can intervene again then.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. David Lammy): The hon. Gentleman makes a strong statement about the potential for fixing, which—to some extent—is a slur on the Electoral Commission. If he examines the election pilot schemes in last year's local elections, he will see that the other parties—including independent candidates, in those areas where they stood—were represented more in the pilots than was the Labour party.
  Mr. Hawkins: I am not sure about the slightly confused latter point, but we are not casting any slurs on the Electoral Commission. We are concerned to ensure that if no good grounds are found for having three pilots, we could have fewer. We will continue to make that case. An area should be chosen for a pilot scheme only if a substantial number of local authorities are in favour of that.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hawkins: No, I want to make progress. I may give way to the hon. Gentleman later.
  The Electoral Commission has already recommended that all-postal voting should become the norm for local elections, subject to legislation against fraud being tightened. It has maintained that
  "there should be a statutory presumption that all local elections be run as all-postal ballots unless there are compelling reasons why an all-postal ballot would be inappropriate or disadvantageous for a group or groups of electors."
  592
  That observation comes from the Electoral Commission's paper entitled "The Shape of Elections to Come", which was published in July.
  We have concerns about that, and will be very interested to see how the pilots proposed in the Bill work out. As a party, we are not in any way opposed to pilots of further postal elections, and we have recognised that in some areas—but as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone remarked, by no means in all areas postal ballots have increased voter turnout. However, concerns persist about ballot security. Investigations into the postal voting pilots that have taken place already have been piecemeal and inadequate.
  What reliable evidence there is from objective sources suggests that the scope for abuse of postal ballots is wider than the Government care to admit. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stone pointed out, senior police officers have raised concerns that the greater use of postal voting, including postal votes on demand, in normal elections could lead to suspicions of vote rigging.
  Detective Chief Inspector Dave Churchill of the West Midlands fraud squad has remarked that
  "the current election system is based on trust and that trust is being eroded. That is why some form of identity is needed from voters, both at polling stations and for those who vote by post. The new postal voting system provides an opportunity for malpractice".
  We think that what is proposed in the Bill by way of increased powers of arrest for personation is important, but that it is not sufficient in itself. We are very concerned about the proposed removal of the countersignature by a witness from postal ballots, as happened in many previous pilot schemes. We are worried that the Electoral Commission appears to support that removal. It could encourage fraud, as many hon. Members of all parties have noted, and especially in areas with a large number of houses in multiple occupation.
  Although we recognise that the countersignature is not a foolproof method of ensuring the identity of the person completing the ballot paper, it is an extra safeguard that does increase confidence. The countersignature requirement has remained the norm for postal voting in normal elections.
  We strongly support a limit on the number of ballot papers that may be sent to an address that is not the registered address of the voter concerned. That would help to increase the public's confidence in postal voting by making large-scale abuses more difficult. We believe that some of the recommendations made by the Electoral Commission could have been introduced in the Bill. We will explore that further in Standing Committee, as we try to improve the proposals. The recommendations include clarifying the law on undue influence and specifying a secrecy warning to be included in postal voting literature.
  On voter confidentiality, concerns have been raised that voter secrecy has been compromised in all postal pilots. In some past pilot schemes, the declaration of identity was even attached to the ballot paper, and only detached at the count. We believe that it would be better to retain the traditional method of placing the ballot paper in a sealed envelope, separate from the declaration of identity. That would help to reassure voters that their ballot would remain confidential during the delivery, handling and counting processes.

  593
  If it remains unamended, the Bill will impose all-postal pilots on local authorities that may not wish to participate. In such cases, we believe that it would be very important to have delivery points in each local government ward. That would allow electors, if they so wished, to drop off their ballot envelopes by hand, at a secure location convenient for them.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Stone made clear, we are very concerned, in the light of current and likely future strike action by Post Office staff in various parts of the country, that there might be a doubt about the reliability of the postal service in an all-postal election. Independent organisations such as Postwatch have commented that since 1997 the postal system has unfortunately become increasingly unreliable. As my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) pointed out, on average 1,500 items of mail are lost each week in every parliamentary constituency. That is a lot of misdelivered or lost mail, which is of great concern if there is to be an increase in postal pilots.
  A delivery point in each ward, arranged by the local authority, would act as a measure of last resort during postal industrial action. It would reassure voters who did not trust the postal service, thereby increasing turnout. Large rural areas may need more than one delivery point per ward. Greater clarification of opening times would also be helpful for voters.
  David Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the vast majority of the 1,500 items that are lost or misdelivered every day in each constituency bear a confusing or unclear address, whereas postal votes would be unambiguously addressed to the local electoral returning officer?
  Mr. Hawkins: I realise that, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that when we propose to change the system and are setting up pilot schemes it is important that we take every possible safeguard. We have referred to the importance of the proposals in restoring faith in democracy, so we must ensure that voters have confidence that the system is as safe and secure as possible.
  Although the Government have promised to fund the pilot schemes, we feel especially strongly that there should be a firmer guarantee in the Bill that all the extra costs that may fall on local authorities will be met by central Government. One of the main complaints from local authorities in my area is that the Government constantly lay greater and greater burdens on them without providing the money to deal with those burdens. One crucial reason why council tax bills for band D properties have soared by 60 per cent. since 1997 is the succession of underfunded burdens and regulations placed on local councils by the Government.
  During the pilot schemes, some local authorities provided marked registers at various stages before the final deadline for the return of ballot papers, an issue raised time and again today by Members on both sides of the House. The provision of marked registers helped to increase turnout by allowing local political parties to remind people who had not yet voted about the election. As several hon. Members have pointed out, people who had already voted were thus spared from being bothered by political parties. We should like the provision of
  594
  marked registers established in law, under the Bill, as without a statutory obligation there is a danger that some local authorities might go slow and fail to supply the information.
  All political parties already face problems with rolling registration, and electoral registration departments in some councils fail to provide updated electoral registers on time. I should be grateful if the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs would deal with marked registers in detail in his response to the debate.
  I promised the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) that I would return to our concerns about e-voting. If the Bill is passed in its current form, e-voting in the 2004 elections might entail remote voting by telephone, text messaging—SMS—digital television or the internet. As the region adopting e-voting will also be an all-postal one, voting electronically in a polling station will not be relevant. We are not convinced of the merits of conducting an e-voting pilot throughout a whole region, rather than setting up e-pilots, if one could devise a secure system, in local authorities that had volunteered to hold them and understood the complexities of the scheme.
  We are extremely concerned about the Government's suggested target of offering e-voting at the general election after next. If e-voting is rushed and bungled in the 2004 elections, the whole method could fatally lose credibility and create a Florida-style, hanging chad-type debacle in the High Court.
  I have some details for the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston on the concerns of experts about e-voting. Dr. Ben Fairweather, a research fellow at De Montfort university's centre for computing and social responsibility has said:
  "I have seen most, if not all of the pilot schemes demonstrated, and have spotted substantial flaws with some of them…There are serious worries about SMS voting. Operators can discard text messages if their systems are busy. Also people are obliged to key in long sequences to vote by text. It's a pale imitation of a cross on a piece of paper. Electronic voting in general has not reached maturity."
  The Foundation for Information Policy Research has asserted that election integrity can be assured only if e-voting machines produce a paper audit trail that can be verified by voters and, later, by election scrutineers. It remarks:
  "The only safe way to allow electronic voting is through machines controlled by election officials that produce an auditable paper trail. Anything else is an invitation for fraud to hackers and virus writers around the world, and could destroy public confidence in our elections. It's always a bad idea to look for technical fixes for social problems. Election turnout would be increased if citizens were convinced that their vote would make a difference. Simply computerising the current system is unlikely to achieve this."
  [Interruption.] Before the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston tries to intervene again, I wish to say that the Electoral Reform Society has asserted:
  "The fact is that that e-voting, whether by telephone, internet, digital TV or text messaging, does not raise turnouts in any significant way…We are concerned that any form of remote voting is potentially more open to abuse than polling station voting."

  595
  The Conservative party does not want to trivialise elections or to pretend that something as important as voting in a general election, a European election or a local election is as trivial as voting in "Big Brother" or "Pop Idol".
  Mr. Miller: I absolutely agree that it is vital that any system adopted has a proper audit trail, but we need to put that in context and recognise that there is no proper audit trail that guarantees that, when the hon. Gentleman last went to the ballot box, it was the Nick Hawkins who cast the vote. There is no paper trail. Such things are just lost in someone's memory—"Ah yes, I think it was him"—but no one can be certain. At least with the electronic systems, one can devise technical solutions that improve that certainty. No system is perfect, but this is a step in the right direction.
  Mr. Hawkins: I beg to differ, and I am sure that we will debate these matters further in Committee if the hon. Gentleman serves on it.
  Our real concern was expressed by a very experienced IT journalist, Bill Thompson, who said:
  "I do not think it is possible to design an e-voting system that can be guaranteed secure against a concerted and well-funded attack…The Government's continued obsession with e-voting in its many forms, especially voting over the internet, is a perfect illustration of how style has triumphed over substance. Instead of finding ways to make people believe that voting actually matters, they want to reduce it to the level of texting a friend or buying a book online."
  That is a classic example of the Government's trivialising approach, and we are concerned about it.
  In the few minutes that remain to me, I want to summarise some of the important points that hon. Members have made. The Minister was less than frank about the difficulties of postal voting in respect of houses in multiple occupation. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) rightly described him as being studiously opaque, even in reply to the sensible questions asked by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. I was slightly concerned about the acronym for the Minister's proposal: the electronically enabled electoral pilot—a pretty unfortunate phrase if we have to deal with EEEPs in discussing the Bill, but we can return to that in Committee.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) intervened on the Minister to ask about the scale of the areas and the fear that using different systems in each area might distort elections because one method might be more effective than another. Again, I do not think that the Minister had a good answer.
  In response to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms), the Minister was rather complacent about the dangers of postal strikes wrecking all-postal ballots and the threat of possible trade union blackmail by postal workers at election time. There is undoubtedly a question about the robustness of the process that the Government propose in case of any strike, and we felt that the Minister did not handle that at all convincingly.
  The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said that he had deep reservations about the Bill. He indicated that he worries about the idea of pilot
  596
  schemes within a national or international context: for example, whether the whole of a local authority would use a pilot in a council election in one area when a different local authority might be using a different system, which will also affect the national campaign. He made it clear that he opposed, as we do, the closed list for the European elections.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) said that a voter's decision to vote or stay at home might be affected by many different factors. He said that he wanted to solve the problems of door-knocking voters who had already voted. He also suggested rather cleverly that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome was making a convincing case for ID cards, which would be a novelty from the Liberal Democrat Benches.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) wanted to give the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland a reality check. He was right to be suspicious that the devil will be in the detail, and he was worried about ensuring that the system would not produce too many politicians. His view—I think he is right—was that there are already far too many politicians in Scotland. Perhaps one could go further and say that there are too many Scottish politicians in Westminster. He had particular concerns about partial trials, but he pointed out that there was a high turnout in his constituency under the current first-past-the-post system. He was supported in an intervention from the Labour Back Benches by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson), who also wanted to return to first-past-the-post. The crucial point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale is that we must be careful to scrutinise the Government's arguments about so-called modernisation, as has always been the case in this Government's history so far. He rightly wanted to know where the crescendo in any general election or European election under the proposals in this Bill would be.
  The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) said that he would have preferred postal voting throughout the UK instead of pilots of postal voting. It is fair to say that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome supported his view that either introducing postal voting for the whole country or sticking to the traditional system would be better than just having pilots. The hon. Member for Wigan, however, made the case in favour of the north-west being one of the pilot areas.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), in a particularly powerful speech, referred to the Minister having said that the Government's prime aim was to raise the turnout in elections. We must therefore ask ourselves why the turnout is so low. My right hon. Friend rightly said that it is because people do not think that those who are elected will change their lives. Far more people turn out for general elections because they think that it may well matter, but they do not believe that in relation to Members of the European Parliament. My right hon. Friend pointed out that there remains a huge democratic deficit in the European Union. Euroland is under the control of the governor of the European Central Bank, and MEPs have no power over it. At the moment, we can directly influence foreign policy in the UK Parliament. After the introduction of the European

  597
  constitution, however, nobody will influence the foreign policy, and defence procurement, as my right hon. Friend said, will face the same problem.
  The question was whether the Bill is tackling the problem in the right way. The answer is no. We should have a Bill that remedies the democratic deficit and that brings unelected European officials under democratic control. The Opposition do not want unelected Eurocrats having such control. Unless and until that democratic deficit is remedied, as my right hon. Friend rightly said, not enough people will take an interest in European elections. There has been a move towards list systems, and the closed list has also been partly responsible for the decline in voting. If we look at the recent general election, one of the reasons for the lower turnout in 2001 as opposed to 1997 was that more and more powers had been taken away from the House of Commons, as my right hon. Friend said. As my right hon. Friend also pointed out, there is a great danger of the debate being summed up as MPs meeting and thinking that turnout could be addressed by giving people easier ways of voting. The style of voting is not nearly as important to people as whom they are voting for and what those people can achieve. Power should not be dissipated from elected hands toward the European Union, officials or the quangocracy.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) made a powerful speech in which he said that he was worried about the impact that the media have had on the decline in voter turnout—I agree. If politicians of all parties and at every level of government are constantly sniped at and there is a cynical view that no one in public life has any worthwhile motive, it increases voter cynicism. I wholeheartedly agree with his worry about the instant gratification society. We need an opportunity to encourage voters to believe that there is something worth while about public life. I hope that he will serve on the Bill's Standing Committee because I have no doubt that he would make a positive contribution toward improving the Bill along the lines that he set out in his speech.
  The hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) spoke on behalf of the Scottish National party and, apparently, Plaid Cymru, in the absence of any of its representatives. He said that he wanted all-postal ballots because any measure that increased voting by 20 per cent. to 50 per cent. must be a success. He said that under the current law, it is not known whether a postal ballot has been returned, only that it has been sent out, and that the Electoral Commission has given oral advice that marked registers should show returns. We agree with him about that.
  The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) referred to an Adjournment debate secured by the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) and talked about the 13 per cent. decline in the number of people registered—he cited the example of the Glasgow, Maryhill electoral roll. He also talked about the three previous postal pilots in Scotland.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster talked about the all-postal pilot during the 2002 local elections in the London borough of Havering, of which her constituency forms one third, and said that people were unhappy that they were unable to cast their votes in person. She said that she preferred the status quo and said during her speech and in interventions that it was
  598
  possible for people to ask for postal votes and that such votes could be requested for every election, if necessary. She said that voter confidence would be enhanced if we stuck with traditional systems.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) gave us his opinion of what young people in Scotland had been reported as saying by local press. He said that he wanted assurances from Royal Mail about the delivery of both ballot papers and election communications. I agree that if we want to increase voter turnout, we must consider the postal system for both ballot papers and election communications, and I have raised that point with senior people in Royal Mail.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) reminded us with cynicism about the mis-statements made by the Foreign Secretary when he introduced the list system for European elections. I remember the debates about the d'Hondt system—"a famous Belgian", as the right hon. Gentleman called him. My hon. Friend also talked about problems faced by candidates in European elections and said that he wanted to return to the first-past-the-post system for those elections—we all share that view. He talked about the current variety of provision that means that some parts of the country could have a different election deadline from that of its next-door area, thus causing problems for media coverage. We shall return to that point in Committee.
  The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) welcomed the Bill and said that she wanted to reinvigorate democracy. She talked about her father's experience of standing for the first time during the 1955 local elections in the Vale of Glamorgan. She also raised a point that no other hon. Member had raised by asking how voters can be engaged with single issues rather than wanting to vote in an election. We must contend with the rise of single-issue lobby groups and the media's overemphasis on such groups, rather than wider issues, during elections.
  In one of the most entertaining speeches, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson), a fellow Eurosceptic, noted that every case of extended voting hours resulted in a reduced turnout. He did not think it essential to have yah-boo politics and believed that they put off young people, although he pleaded guilty to indulging in such politics himself occasionally. He urged his Ministers to be bold and complained about the culture of spin and over-management in his party. He said that the general public did not like clones and that that was one reason why turnout had declined. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the closed list system in Europe. He agreed with me that there would be a massive turnout in a referendum on the European constitution and a massive rejection of it. He rightly said that malpractice must be stamped out. He was worried about the interest in e-voting because if things could be lost physically, they could be lost by gee-whizzery, which he wants to combine with jiggery-pokery.
  The hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), in a belated contribution inspired, perhaps, by the Government Whips, mentioned his constituency, which participated in the pilot projects, more times than any other Member has ever managed to refer to his or her constituency. If it has won him a place on the

  599
  Committee, he can help the Opposition to improve the Bill. It has many flaws and must be massively improved if it is to win the confidence of the Opposition and the British people.
  6.26 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. David Lammy): I thank hon. Members for contributing to an interesting debate. The aim of this important Bill is to continue and to expand a successful electoral pilot programme. The debate has been thoughtful and thorough. I am grateful for the support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington. West (Joyce Quin) and my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson), for Wigan (Mr. Turner), for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris), for Dumfries (Mr. Brown), for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz), for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor), for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) and for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson).
  The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) raised important issues on fraud, which I hope to address. He could not resist the temptation to bring up the dreaded subject of Europe. That was replicated by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) admitted that his area had benefited from the pilots, but was unable to support the Bill. The hon. Members for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) and for Poole (Mr. Syms) urged the Government to return to a first-past-the-post system for European elections.
  We are attempting to develop our traditional voting system to make voting easier for all groups in society. A modernised system will recognise the needs of today's changing lifestyles, including people's work and family commitments. Much of what we heard harks back to a time when people did not have the same commitments. Experience at a local level clearly shows the benefits of the pilots. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West commented on how the new piloted voting mechanisms have benefited her constituents. All-postal ballots in the 2003 local election resulted in an average turnout of just under 50 per cent. compared with 33 per cent. generally. We should applaud that.
  Mr. Heath: I was worried by one aspect of the contributions from the Minister's hon. Friends, several of whom had had a number of postal ballots in their constituencies and liked the arrangement. However, they did not appear to appreciate the fact that under the Bill, the Representation of the People Act 2000 is suspended. Unless they have one of the three pilots in their region, they will be forbidden from having another postal ballot in their borough elections this year.
  Mr. Lammy: The hon. Gentleman clearly did not hear the same debate as me. Labour Members were clear on that point, which is why many of them said that they wanted postal balloting in their area. While electronic pilots have not yet led to significantly higher turnouts, where electronic voting was available it provided people with more choice, with 20 per cent. of the electorate using
  600
  it. That is important because younger people are keen to use new voting methods. Of course, there is a limit to the extent to which changes to the electoral process alone can increase turnout, but by making voting easier and more convenient we will attract voters whose reason for abstaining is the inconvenience of traditional methods.
  Mr. Redwood: If postal voting is as good as the Minister says, what holds him back from making it universal immediately? What worries make him want pilot schemes?
  Mr. Lammy: The Government do not want the chaos of the poll tax and the Child Support Agency that took place under the Conservative Government. We want to upscale the regional pilots and hope that after 2006 we can run national pilots.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith made some important points about simplicity, the need for information and advertising, which I support. A number of hon. Members raised the issue of marked registers. The Electoral Commission has yet to make up its mind about what it will recommend in relation to marked registers, so it would be premature to include anything in the Bill in advance of its determination. However, it is no doubt aware of the strength of feeling across all political parties on the issue and the views expressed once again in today's debate.
  Angus Robertson: Is the Minister prepared to give a commitment that if the Electoral Commission made a recommendation before the end of the legislative process, the Government would be happy to amend the Bill to include an update on marked registers?
  Mr. Lammy: The hon. Gentleman would expect me to say that the Government hope to look at these things seriously. I am sure that the issue will raise its head again in Committee.
  The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome was concerned that MEPs will not all be elected in the same way. In the pilots that have taken place so far, we have purely been testing innovative voting systems. In next year's pilots, we hope to test the scalability, as it were, of those systems. The hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that we should move from local pilots straight to national pilots, and that was supported by Conservative Members. It is the Government's view that that would be negligent. It is important that we test the systems properly in pilots before rolling them out generally. The Government are mindful of the necessity for any programme of pilots to be of a scale and size that reflects the available resources, including the capacity and expertise available for managing electoral pilots.
  As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan, it is not the case that in all local government pilots, all wards have voted the same way. Some pilots took place in only a few wards within a local authority.
  The hon. Member for Stone, supported by the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson), raised security issues. We recognise that the traditional methods of voting rightly have a good reputation for being secure and have not shown any significant evidence of fraud. Through the pilot programme, we hope to learn

  601
  lessons about how new ways of voting work and to build the same level of public confidence in them. We will proceed only with voting methods that are proven to work satisfactorily and which maintain the integrity of the ballot.
  Any electoral system is potentially open to fraud, and it is important that safeguards are in place. That is why we have ensured that all previous pilots have been properly evaluated, and that particular attention has been paid to any allegations of fraud, which have all been investigated.
  Richard Younger-Ross: Is part of the difficulty of evaluating fraud that people incorrectly remember whether they voted and which party they voted for? In the 2001 election, opinion polls showed that more people thought they had voted than actually did, and in 1992 so many people thought that they had voted Labour that Labour should have won the election by a landslide, but of course it did not.
  Mr. Lammy: That is an interesting point, but largely irrelevant. It applies as much to present voting mechanisms as to new ones. Any electoral system is potentially open to fraud, and it is important that safeguards are in place. As further security measures, the Bill provides for the extension of two electoral offences in pilot regions—first, the extension of the power of arrest without warrant for the offence of personation in any location, and secondly, providing magistrates with the power to allow the police or a prosecutor up to two years after the date of offence to commence prosecution.
  We are aware that there has been some public concern about the security and secrecy of all postal and electronic voting, so we were encouraged to see that the Electoral Commission, in its extensive evaluation of the pilots held in the 2003 local elections, found no evidence—I repeat, no evidence—of an increase in fraudulent activity. That was also the commission's finding after the pilots in 2002.
  Mr. Davidson: The Minister tells us that the Electoral Commission did not find any evidence of electoral malpractice. Did the commission go looking for it? What efforts were made to identify whether or not there had been fraud?
  Mr. Lammy: As my hon. Friend knows, the Electoral Commission takes its job of work very seriously, and on these serious matters works closely with the police, as he would expect. The Government's position is that there is no room for complacency on the issue. That is why we have proposed new measures to enhance the security of voting in pilots.
  The hon. Member for Stone raised some very serious allegations involving personation and intimidation in the May 2002 local elections in Birmingham. No allegations have been proven and no legal action has been taken.
  Mr. Cash: The fact that no action was taken is no doubt largely due to the fact that the law was inadequate to deal with the situation. The real problem, as was pointed out by the chief inspector in question, is the need to change the law. Conservative Members are worried that the
  602
  Government have not implemented the recommendations on changing the law, including those of the Electoral Commission, in the Bill.
  Mr. Lammy: We have an open mind on these issues and keep them under review. As I said, no legal action was taken. The hon. Gentleman put his comments in very strong terms, and it is important that I rebut them.
  Several hon. Members discussed e-voting. A range of measures were put in place to guarantee against abuse or fraud in the 2003 e-voting pilots, and similar measures will be implemented in any pilot that takes place next year. They include voter-specific PIN numbers and passwords, real-time electronic registers to cast and record votes, and the subjection of all votes to pre-election technical and security checks, as well as monitoring during the election.
  Chris Grayling: My point was that it is asking too much of returning officers to monitor several different kinds of new voting system across an entire region. Surely it would be more sensible to pilot just one system.
  Mr. Lammy: As some hon. Members said, returning officers in several areas are up for these pilots. Many regions and local authorities have expressed an interest and are lobbying to take part in them. It is possible that some will wish to run pilots but will be prevented from doing so. We understand the frustration that people in those areas will feel, but it is important that the security of the ballot is not compromised in any way by the running of schemes in regions where various factors would complicate the process.
  Mr. Peter Duncan: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Lammy: I am sorry—I want to make some progress.
  It is worth reiterating that without the Bill no pilots would be able to occur at next year's combined elections. It represents a scaling up of previous attempts.
  Several hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Surrey Heath and for Upminster, asked about the ability of the Royal Mail to handle all postal votes. I remind them that the Royal Mail handles 82 million items of mail every day. Electoral mail will receive priority treatment. We will of course work with the Royal Mail and other firms delivering postal services to ensure that appropriate contingency plans are in place.
  Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, mentioned multiple occupation. Key measures adopted by local authorities in previous pilots have included special checks, guidance issued to managers of multiple occupancy buildings and dedicated phone numbers. We hope that that will be repeated.
  The Bill is part of the Government's plan to improve choice, security and ease of voting. Choice comprises different ways of voting: in person, through a postal vote or electronically. Different methods will suit different people in a changing world. Security means ensuring that people can vote in secret and cannot be impersonated by others. Two provisions help to enhance security. Ease means improving access for those who may have difficulty at conventional polling stations, for example, the disabled and carers.

  603
  Although the Bill is small, it is important because it will enable significant scaling-up of electoral pilots, thus extending to millions of people the opportunity to take part in trials of new approaches to voting. Approximately 2.7 million people were eligible to vote in the 2002 pilots—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that those who participated in the debate wish to hear the Minister's response.
  Mr. Lammy: The 2003 pilot encompassed 6.5 million potential voters—the largest test of remote electronic voting at public elections anywhere in the world. We should be proud of that.
  The developments were intended to make voting easier for all groups in society, especially those who, through disability, age or ethnicity find traditional polling methods difficult. Some say that the existing system ain't broke and ask why we should fix it. We should always look for ways in which to improve choice and access for people who typically face social exclusion and to reflect the lifestyles of people today. On that basis and for that reason, the Bill enables us to go further and I commend it to the House.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 306, Noes 172.

  Division No. 331]

  [6:47 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Ainger, Nick

  Cairns, David

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Allen, Graham

  Caton, Martin

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Challen, Colin

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Chaytor, David

  Bailey, Adrian

  Clapham, Michael

  Baird, Vera

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Banks, Tony

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

  Barnes, Harry

  Pentlands)

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Beard, Nigel

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

  Bell, Stuart

  Chryston)

  Benn, Hilary

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Berry, Roger

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Best, Harold

  Connarty, Michael

  Betts, Clive

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Blackman, Liz

  Cooper, Yvette

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Blizzard, Bob

  Cousins, Jim

  Borrow, David

  Cranston, Ross

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Crausby, David

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Brennan, Kevin

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Wallsend)

  Cummings, John

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

  Buck, Ms Karen

  (Copeland)

  Burgon, Colin

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Burnham, Andy

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Dalyell, Tam

  604

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Jenkins, Brian

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  David, Wayne

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

  Davidson, Ian

  Hatfield)

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Denham, rh John

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Kidney, David

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Doran, Frank

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Bow)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Knight Jim (S Dorset)

  Edwards, Huw

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Lammy, David

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Farrelly, Paul

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Fisher, Mark

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Leslie, Christopher

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Follett, Barbara

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Foster, rh Derek

  Linton, Martin

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

  Love, Andrew

  & Rye)

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Gardiner, Barry

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Gerrard, Neil

  McCabe, Stephen

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Gilroy, Linda

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Goggins, Paul

  MacDonald, Calum

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  MacDougall, John

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McFall, John

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Grogan, John

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Hain, rh Peter

  McKechin, Ann

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  MacShane, Denis

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

  McWalter, Tony

  Rhymney)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Healey, John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Heppell, John

  Marshall, David (Glasgow

  Hesford, Stephen

  Shettleston)

  Heyes, David

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Martlew, Eric

  Hodge, Margaret

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Michael, rh Alun

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Miliband, David

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Miller, Andrew

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Moffatt, Laura

  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

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead &

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Highgate)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  605

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Organ, Diana

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Owen, Albert

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Stringer, Graham

  Perham, Linda

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Picking, Anne

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Pickthall, Colin

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Plaskitt, James

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  E)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Dinefwr)

  Trickett, Jon

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Purchase, Ken

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

  Purnell, James

  Kemptown)

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Rammell Bill

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Watts, David

  Robertson, John (Glasgow

  Weir, Michael

  Anniesland)

  White, Brian

  Rooney, Terry

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Ruane, Chris

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Chester)

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Wills, Michael

  Salmond, Alex

  Winnick, David

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

  Sawford, Phil

  C)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wishart, Pete

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Woodward, Shaun

  Sheridan, Jim

  Woolas, Phil

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Worthington, Tony

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

  Singh, Marsha

  Yarmouth)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Stewart, David (Inverness E &

  Mr. Fraser Kemp and

  Lochaber)

  Gillian Merron

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Allan, Richard

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Burnett, John

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Burt, Alistair

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Butterfill, John

  Bacon, Richard

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Baker, Norman

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Barker, Gregory

  Cameron, David

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

  Barrett, John

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Cash, William

  Bellingham, Henry

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

  Bercow, John

  Barnet)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Chope, Christopher

  Blunt, Crispin

  Clappison, James

  Brady, Graham

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Brake, Tom (Carshafton)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Brazier, Julian

  Conway, Derek

  Breed, Colin

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Cotter, Brian

  606

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

  Mercer, Patrick

  Stamford)

  Moore, Michael

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

  Moss, Malcolm

  Howden)

  Norman, Archie

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Doughty, Sue

  Öpik, Lembit

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Page, Richard

  Evans, Nigel

  Paice, James

  Fallon, Michael

  Paterson, Owen

  Flight, Howard

  Pickles, Eric

  Flook, Adrian

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  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)

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  M-Kent)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Goodman, Paul

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Grayling, Chris

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Ruffley, David

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Greenway, John

  Sanders, Adrian

  Grieve, Dominic

  Selous, Andrew

  Hague, rh William

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Hammond, Philip

  Shepherd, Richard

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W &

  Simmonds, Mark

  Abingdon)

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Harvey, Nick

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

  Hawkins, Nick

  Kincardine)

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Heald, Oliver

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Heath, David

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Hendry, Charles

  Spring, Richard

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Holmes, Paul

  Steen, Anthony

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Streeter, Gary

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Hunter, Andrew

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Jack, rh Michael

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Teather, Sarah

  Keetch, Paul

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Tredinnick, David

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Waterson, Nigel

  Lamb, Norman

  Watkinson, Angela

  Lansley, Andrew

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Whittingdale, John

  Leigh, Edward

  Wiggin, Bill

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Willetts, David

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Lidington, David

  Willis, Phil

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Wilshire, David

  Loughton, Tim

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  (Macclesfield)

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Young, rh Sir George

  Malins, Humfrey

  Maples, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury &

  Richard Younger-Ross and

  Atcham)

  Mr. Robert Syms

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.

  EUROPEAN PARLIAMENTARY AND LOCAL ELECTIONS (PILOTS) BILL (PROGRAMME)
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002],
  That the following provisions shall apply to the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill:
  Committal
  1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
  Proceedings in Standing Committee
  2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 30th October 2003.
  3. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
  Consideration and Third Reading
  4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
  5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on consideration are commenced.
  6. Sessional Order B (programming committees) made on 28th June 2001 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
  Other proceedings
  7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—[Margaret Moran.]
  The House divided: Ayes 302, Noes 180.

  Division No. 332]

  [6:59 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Ainger, Nick

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Casale, Roger

  Alexander, Douglas

  Caton, Martin

  Allen, Graham

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Challen, Colin

  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)

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Beard, Nigel

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Chryston)

  Bell, Stuart

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Benn, Hilary

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Coaker, Vernon

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Berry, Roger

  Connarty, Michael

  Best, Harold

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Betts, Clive

  Cooper, Yvette

  Blackman, Liz

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cousins, Jim

  Borrow, David

  Cranston, Ross

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Crausby, David

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Brennan, Kevin

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Wallsend)

  Cummings, John

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

  Buck, Ms Karen

  (Copeland)

  Burgon, Colin

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Burnham, Andy

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Dalyell, Tam

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Cairns, David

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  608

  David, Wayne

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

  Davidson, Ian

  Hatfield)

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Denham, rh John

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Kidney, David

  Doran, Frank

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

  Edwards, Huw

  Bow)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Farrelly, Paul

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Fisher, Mark

  Lammy, David

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Follett, Barbara

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Foster, rh Derek

  Leslie, Christopher

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings &

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Rye)

  Linton, Martin

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Love, Andrew

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Gilroy, Linda

  McCabe, Stephen

  Godsiff, Roger

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Goggins, Paul

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  MacDougall, John

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McFall, John

  Grogan, John

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Hain, rh Peter

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McKechin, Ann

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  MacShane, Denis

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

  McWalter, Tony

  Rhymney)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Healey, John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Heppell, John

  Marshall, David (Glasgow

  Hesford, Stephen

  Shettleston)

  Heyes, David

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Martlew, Eric

  Hodge, Margaret

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Michael, rh Alun

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Miliband, David

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Miller, Andrew

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Moffatt, Laura

  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

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead &

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Highgate)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Jenkins, Brian

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  609

  O'Hara, Edward

  Stewart, David (Inverness E &

  Organ, Diana

  Lochaber)

  Owen, Albert

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Perham, Linda

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Picking, Anne

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Pickthall, Colin

  Stringer, Graham

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Plaskitt, James

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Pollard Kerry

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

  Taylor, David (NW Leis)

  E)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Purchase, Ken

  Touhig, Don (IsIwyn)

  Purnell, James

  Trickett, Jon

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

  Rammell, Bill

  Kemptown)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Anniesland)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

  Wareing, Robert N.

  NW)

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Rooney, Terry

  Watts, David

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  White, Brian

  Ruane, Chris

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Chester)

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Wills, Michael

  Sawford, Phil

  Winnick, David

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

  Shaw, Jonathan

  C)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Woodward, Shaun

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Woolas, Phil

  Worthington, Tony

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

  Singh, Marsha

  Yarmouth)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wright David (Telford)

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Finsbury)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Gillian Merron and

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mr. Fraser Kemp

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Burnett, John

  Allan, Richard

  Burt, Alistair

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Butterfill, John

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Bacon, Richard

  Cameron, David

  Baker, Norman

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

  Barker, Gregory

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Cash, William

  Barrett, John

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

  Beith rh A. J

  Barnet)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Bercow, John

  Chope, Christopher

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Clappison, James

  Blunt, Crispin

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Boswell, Tim

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Collins, Tim

  Brady, Graham

  Conway, Derek

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Brazier, Julian

  Cotter, Brian

  Breed, Colin

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Stamford)

  610

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

  Mercer, Patrick

  Howden)

  Moore, Michael

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Moss, Malcolm

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  Norman, Archie

  Doughty, Sue

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Evans, Nigel

  Page, Richard

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Paice, James

  Fallon, Michael

  Paterson, Owen

  Flight, Howard

  Pickles, Eric

  Flook, Adrian

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

  Forth, rh Eric

  Dinefwr)

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Francois, Mark

  Randall, John

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Garnier, Edward

  Rendel, David

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Gillen, Mrs Cheryl

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Goodman, Paul

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Grayling, Chris

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Ruffley, David

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Greenway, John

  Salmond, Alex

  Grieve, Dominic

  Sanders, Adrian

  Hague, rh William

  Selous, Andrew

  Hammond, Philip

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W &

  Shepherd, Richard

  Abingdon)

  Simmonds, Mark

  Harvey, Nick

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Hawkins, Nick

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

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Kincardine)

  Heald, Oliver

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Heath, David

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Hendry, Charles

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Spring, Richard

  Holmes, Paul

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Steen, Anthony

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Streeter, Gary

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Hunter, Andrew

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Jack, rh Michael

  Taylor, Ian (Eshe)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Keetch Paul

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Tredinnick, David

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Tyriea, Andrew

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Waterson, Nigel

  Lamb, Norman

  Watkinson, Angela

  Lansley, Andrew

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Weir, Michael

  Leigh, Edward

  Whittingdale, John

  Wiggin, Bill

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Willetts, David

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Lidington, David

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Willis, Phil

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Wilshire, David

  Loughton, Tim

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  (Macclesfield)

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Wishart, Pete

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Young, rh Sir George

  Maples, John

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury &

  Atcham)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Mr. Robert Syms and

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Hugh Robertson

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  EUROPEAN PARLIAMENTARY AND LOCAL ELECTIONS (PILOTS) BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with Bills),
  That for the purposes of any Act resulting from the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill it is expedient to authorise—
  (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
  (a) any expenses of the Secretary of State in making arrangements for the purposes of the Act in connection with the holding of the European Parliamentary general election of 2004;
  (b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable under any other enactment.
  (2) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums which under any other Act are payable out of that Fund.—[Ruth Kelly.]
  Question agreed to.

  EUROPEAN PARLIAMENTARY AND LOCAL ELECTIONS (PILOTS) BILL (CARRY-OVER)
  Motion made and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [29 October 2002],
  That, if at the conclusion of this Session of Parliament, proceedings on the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill have not been completed, they shall be resumed in the next Session.—[Mr. Heppell.]
  The House divided: Ayes 349, Noes 125.

  Division No. 333]

  [7:13 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

  Ainger, Nick

  Wallsend)

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Allan, Richard

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Allen, Graham

  Burgon, Colin

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Burnham, Andy

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Bailey, Adrian

  Cairns, David

  Baird, Vera

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Baker, Norman

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Banks, Tony

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

  Barnes, Harry

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Barrett, John

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Casale, Roger

  Beard, Nigel

  Caton, Martin

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Berth, rh A. J.

  Challen, Colin

  Chaytor, David

  Bell, Stuart

  Clapham, Michael

  Benn, Hilary

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Pentlands)

  Berry, Roger

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Best, Harold

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Betts, Clive

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Blackman, Liz

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Borrow, David

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Connarty, Michael

  Breed, Colin

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Brennan, Kevin

  Cooper, Yvette

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  612

  Cotter, Brian

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Cousins, Jim

  Heppell, John

  Cranston, Ross

  Hesford, Stephen

  Crausby, David

  Heyes, David

  Cruddas, Jon

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Holmes, Paul

  Cummings, John

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  David, Wayne

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Davidson, Ian

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jenkins, Brian

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Denham, rh John

  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)

  Doran, Frank

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Doughty, Sue

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Edwards, Huw

  Keen, Ann (Brenfford)

  Efford, Clive

  Keetch, Paul

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Kidney, David

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Ewing, Annabelle

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Farrelly, Paul

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Fisher, Mark

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Follett, Barbara

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Lammy, David

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Gardiner, Barry

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Leslie, Christopher

  Gidley, Sandra

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Gilroy, Linda

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Linton, Martin

  Goggins, Paul

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Love, Andrew

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Grogan, John

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Hain, rh Peter

  McCabe, Stephen

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  MacDougall, John

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

  McFall, John

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Harvey, Nick

  McKechin, Ann

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Healey, John

  MacShane, Denis

  Heath, David

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  McWalter, Tony

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Hendrick, Mark

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  613

  Mallaber, Judy

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

  Singh, Marsha

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Meacher, rh Michael

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

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Michael, rh Alun

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Miliband, David

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Miller, Andrew

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Moore, Michael

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Moran, Margaret

  Stringer, Graham

  Morgan, Julie

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Mountford, Kali

  Stunell, Andrew

  Mudie, George

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Mullin, Chris

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Taylor, Dan (Stockton S)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Tipping, Paddy

  Organ, Diana

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Owen, Albert

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Trickett, Jon

  Perham, Linda

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Picking, Anne

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Plaskitt, James

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Watts, David

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Purchase, Ken

  Weir, Michael

  Purnell, James

  White, Brian

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Rammell, Bill

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Willis, Phil

  Rendel, David

  Wills, Michael

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Winnick, David

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Wishart, Pete

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Rooney, Terry

  Woodward, Shaun

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Woolas, Phil

  Ruane, Chris

  Worthington, Tony

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Salmond, Alex

  Wyatt, Derek

  Sanders, Adrian

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Sawford, Phil

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Gillian Merron and

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Mr. Fraser Kemp

  614

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Bacon, Richard

  Lamb, Norman

  Barker, Gregory

  Lansley, Andrew

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Leigh, Edward

  Bellingham, Henry

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Bercow, John

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Lidington, David

  Blunt, Crispin

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Boswell, Tim

  Loughton, Tim

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Brady, Graham

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Brazier, Julian

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Burt, Alistair

  Matins, Humfrey

  Butterfill, John

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Cameron, David

  Mercer, Patrick

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Norman, Archie

  Chope, Christopher

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Clappison, James

  Osborne, George (Talton)

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Page, Richard

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Paice, James

  Collins, Tim

  Paterson, Owen

  Conway, Derek

  Pickles, Eric

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

  Randall, John

  Robathan, Andrew

  Davis, rh David (Haftemprice & Howden)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Ruffley, David

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Selous, Andrew

  Evans, Nigel

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Fallon, Michael

  Shepherd, Richard

  Flight, Howard

  Simmonds, Mark

  Flook Adrian

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Forth rh Eric

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Fox Dr Liam

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Francois Mark

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Spring, Richard

  Garnier, Edward

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Steen, Anthony

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Goodman, Paul

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Grayling, Chris

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Green, Daian (Ashford)

  Tredinnick, David

  Greenway, John

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Grieve, Dominic

  Waterson, Nigel

  Hague, rh William

  Watkinson, Angela

  Hammond, Philip

  Whittingdale, John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Wiggin, Bill

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Willetts, David

  Heald, Oliver

  Wilshire, David

  Hendry, Charles

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Young, rh Sir George

  Jack, rh Michael

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Mr. Robert Syms and

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Hugh Robertson

  Question accordingly agreed to.

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

    ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS
    That the draft Electronic Communications (Networks and Services) (Penalties) (Rules for Calculation of Turnover) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 8th September, be approved.—[Mr. Heppell.]
    Question agreed to.

    PETITION

      Palliative Care
      7.26 pm
      David Taylor: In March 2002, the availability of terminal, respite and day care facilities for the communities of North-West Leicestershire, South Derbyshire and adjacent areas was seriously reduced when Sue Ryder Care summarily closed its much valued and greatly loved hospice at Staunton Harold Hall. Although the local NHS trust has since supplied alternative services and obtained some extra places in nearby hospitals, the view of many people who have worked unstintingly for years giving time to and raising finance for Staunton Harold is that a successor facility is needed to help to provide improved palliative care in the area.
      Banded together as Hospice Hope, Dorothy Lacey, June Matthews, Carol Smith, Jan and Stewart Shepherd, Lee Cooper and others have prepared a petition containing 2,260 signatures to the House of Commons and I am privileged to present it.
      The petition declares that:
      Hospice Hope and the supporting signatories believe that North West Leicestershire and adjacent areas need the restoration of its own hospice and associated day care centre for those requiring palliative care.
      The petitioners therefore urge the House of Commons to pass the necessary legislation to provide the resources needed to afford the people of North West Leicestershire and surrounding areas an adequate level of access to palliative care in a hospice or day care environment.
      And the petitioners remain etc.
      To lie upon the Table.

  Sports Lottery Bids
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heppell.]
  7.28 pm
  Stephen Hesford: I am obliged to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the House authorities for granting me the opportunity for a debate on what is a serious and urgent matter for my constituents.
  The reason for the debate is an allegation of bias in the distribution of lottery funds from Sport England, which I shall consider by examining two bids made in my constituency, although my remarks are not limited to those bids. I shall make a more general proposition about north-south bias in the distribution of lottery funds.
  The House will know that this year Sport England experienced a funding crisis and had to review lottery funding. I am not concerned about the extraneous events but about Sport England's response to the crisis.
  The two bids from my constituents were for sports facilities at Pensby high school for boys and for West Kirby sailing club. The House will know how much effort is put into preparing such bids and what a disappointment it is for them to be turned down by Sport England.
  Without a shadow of doubt, Pensby boys school's bid for £900,000 to refurbish and build sports facilities on its playing fields would have benefited the local community—some 30,000 possible users of those facilities in an area that does not have the required facilities for activities such as five-a-side football, netball, tennis and so on. West Kirby sailing club's bid for about £80,000 to extend its clubhouse and training facilities would have enabled it to expand its training facilities for disadvantaged youths from inner-city Birkenhead. Those bids are currently the subject of an appeal, and I shall return to that in a moment.
  I want to address three issues: how the specific applications were dealt with; what I consider to be the bias in the distribution of money by Sport England, which is perhaps part of a north-south divide; and the sham nature—I hope that that does not overstate the position—of the appeal system to which those two bids are subject.
  The trail started on 14 July this year, when Sport England wrote to the possible recipients of the money. Almost identical letters were sent to Pensby boys school and West Kirby sailing club, and one of the features of the letter detailing the rejection by Sport England is that it contained no real information. I ask the House to bear in mind that considerable criticism because it is a feature that will crop up continually in my speech. Those involved also indicate rather curiously that the bids were refused partly because they were based on criteria that had already been set out in a letter in April. I question that because the criteria set out in the April letter were not relevant to what has been subsequently described as the new business case.
  On 17 July, West Kirby sailing club wrote to Roger Draper, chief executive of Sport England, to query the refusal and said:
  "We have been given no reason for the rejection of our application, other than the comment in the Press Release, which says that the projects which have not been approved did not meet Sport England's new business objectives."

  617
  I shall say why that is problematic for West Kirby sailing club. I should make it clear to the Minister that the bids were not new; they were submitted as long ago as early 2002. The House will know that the bids go through a staged process to be granted. Stage 1 involves the initial vetting. Stage 2 involves the allocation process. Both bids had gone through stage 1 and were well on their way to being sanctioned when they hit a snag.
  On 26 February, Gordon Tebay, who was Sport England's senior development manager for facilities in the north-west, sent an internal memo that suggested that the tender figure represented tremendous value for money and used the words:
  "representing a good value for money course of action to take."
  Later on, the e-mailed internal memo says that the facilities development checklist was discussed with the club and DL&E—one of the contractors—and that it was
  agreed to address the points formally by way of tying up these loose ends in a written response as far as"
  facility development
  "issues at Stage 2 are concerned."
  It continues:
  Overall, I feel that the Club has worked prudently and the facility"
  development offers good value for money to Sport England and the lottery fund.
  It goes on:
  "The Club is extremely keen to proceed to get the scheme converted to award"—
  stage 2—
  at the March case conference".
  At that point, therefore, it looked as though Sport England's representative was in effect signing up to getting the stage 2 permission when the funding crisis hit. The e-mail finishes:
  "I do hope the Club can achieve conversion to Award asap and trust you can oblige them in this respect."
  Based on that information, the club was entitled to think that, in effect, it had the go-ahead. Yet in the fullness of time, the process came to a shuddering halt, for reasons that are not convincing.
  In terms of the Pensby boys school bid, its appeal note indicates that it feels that it was disadvantaged by the time lag caused by Sport England taking 10 months for the formal approval to stage 1, as opposed to the three months advertised. That put back the decision process to such an extent that the bid hit the funding crisis, which it would not have done had it been dealt with in a timely way. My first point is that the reason for rejection is unclear. The various reasons given in correspondence appear to be fluid, but the response to attempts to get information about the two bids was secretive.
  On the question of appeal, I wrote to Sport England because concerns were being expressed by those two bids as to what the appeal meant. On inquiring, Paul Churchill of West Kirby sailing club learned from others who were in the process of appealing that some people had been told that there was not an appeal—there was a suggestion of people being fobbed off. I wrote to Sport England to clarify what the appeal meant, and I received a letter on 18 September. I do not know whether Sport England intended any irony when it composed the
  618
  letter—probably not—but it sets out the so-called appeals process as follows. It set up what it calls an independent adjudicator—the appellate body—which turns out to be an ex-employee of Sport England. What the appellate body can do is very little, because the Sport England letter states:
  "The adjudicator cannot decide that a rejection of an application for funding should be overturned."
  That is an astonishing proposition. It gives rise to the question, "What is the appellate body for?" In effect, the ex-employee sifts appeals, perhaps makes a comment, and then sends the appeal back to the very body from which the appeal is being made.
  It is even worse than that. The appeal goes back to what is called a case team, which has had no involvement in the original assessment, which reassesses the application. But that independent reassessment cannot overturn the original decision, because when it has looked at it, it goes back to the original decision makers, who then take the decision. One has to ask whether it is likely that the people who turned something down in the first place are going to overturn their decision. I called the appeals system a sham, and in reality it is. I have no confidence that it will work, although I hope that the decisions in relation to my constituents will be overturned.
  Further to that, to underline—if it were needed—the way in which the appeal system has been less than helpful to Pensby boys school and West Kirby sailing club, Mr. Sillitoe, the independent adjudicator, sent identical letters to both appellants, despite the fact that on the face of it their cases were radically different. He told them that he would be away until November and that they should not expect to hear from him until then, although I am not sure whether that was supposed to help them. In fact, we know that he will not be part of the decision-making process, so a lot of help that was.
  I was worried by some of the things that I have mentioned, so I wrote to Sport England on 7 October setting out those and other issues. It may or may not surprise hon. Members to know that I am yet to receive a response; I do not know if or when I shall receive one, or what its form might be. My letter made it plain that I did not think that the appeal process was fair or reasonable or that the original decisions were balanced. I said that the decisions were inconsistent, and that inconsistency was inherent in the process, which leads me on to my third point.
  When I wrote to Sport England about its appeals system, I asked it to send me details of all the bids that had gone through the same procedure as those from Pensby boys school and West Kirby sailing club. I also asked for a list of successful and a list of failed bids. I drew the following conclusions after calculating the value of bids and examining where awards were made. Nationally, one in four bids in the tranche were rejected but one in three bids from the north, which is made up of the north-western, north-eastern and Yorkshire regions, were rejected. Only one in five bids from the southern region, which is made up of London and the south?eastern and south-western regions, were rejected. Only one of all London's bids was rejected. Nearly half all rejected bids came from the north and nearly a third came from the north-west, which is where my constituency is. Nearly twice as many bids were rejected

  619
  from the north as from the south. More than half the total money allocated for successful bids went to the south and nearly half all successful bids were from the south. On average, a successful bid from the south received £200,000 more than a successful bid from the north. Fewer than a third of all successful bids came from the north and they received only a third of the total money for successful bids.
  David Taylor: Does my hon. Friend accept that the patterns and worries that he is outlining as examples of the north-south divide also apply to the midlands—especially the west and east midlands? The east midlands is at the bottom of the league table under most lottery distribution assessments, and its failure rate for bids is even worse than that of the north.
  Stephen Hesford: My hon. Friend is doing his best for his region and he has a point, which I am sure the Minister and the House have heard.
  When I compared more closely the kind of bids from the south that were successful with the two bids from my constituency, I pulled out two examples that might enlighten the Minister in relation to the definite appearance of bias. Bexhill sailing club, which is not on a needy or deprived part of the south coast, received backing to the tune of more than £112,000. Likewise, Weymouth and Portland sailing academy received £2.5 million. Although I do not know the details of those bids, I cannot believe that they were so different from the bid by West Kirby sailing club which was rejected.
  I also noted applications that I thought similar to the bid by Pensby boys school. Portsmouth local education authority, on behalf of the Prior school on the Hampshire coast, was awarded £992,000, and Herschel grammar school, which I think is in Sussex, received £2.5 million.
  David Taylor: Needy causes.
  Stephen Hesford: Clearly.
  Those bids demonstrate the type of applications that are successful. They got past the new criteria applied by Sport England whereas it rejected the bids from my constituency. They stand in stark contrast to the bids by Pensby boys school and the West Kirby sailing club.
  One of the various suggestions why the bids were rejected—I emphasise that I am not talking about a key single suggestion that one can understand and get a grip of—was that they had no long-term viability. That is a joke. West Kirby sailing club has been established for 102 years. There is no reason to think that the club, which is thriving and could have gone on to benefit my constituents and others in poorer parts of the Wirral, would not have been in operation for another 102 years.
  The bid by Pensby boys school had the backing of the local authority, which pledged £400,000 as match funding. The idea that that did not have long-term viability or that it was connected with an excessive risk leaves my constituents cold. Martin Jones, the head teacher, Glyn Davies, the then deputy head teacher, and Paul Churchill, the commodore of the sailing club, put
  620
  a lot of work into the bid. I look forward to the Minister dealing with some of the concerns raised, because it looks as though that is something that Sport England does not want to do.
  7.48 pm
  The Minister for Sport and Tourism (Mr. Richard Caborn): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford) on securing the debate. He made a forceful case in which he raised a number of points about Sport England, in particular the process of adjudicating on lottery awards, to which I shall return in a moment.
  My hon. Friend said that about twice as much sports lottery funding is received by applicants from the south than by applicants from the north, leaving aside the national stadium, and he quoted figures from Sport England to support his case. I have some sympathy with him. At times we see too much of the London syndrome in our national life, and that can be unfortunate. However, the figures on which he based his case do not bear close scrutiny.
  Sport England has nine regions. I shall not list them all. It does not draw a line across the country between the north and south when it makes policy decisions, and nor do the Government. Aside from anything else, I am sure hon. Members from the midlands and the eastern region would not thank us for placing their constituencies one side or the other of an arbitrary line.
  Let us keep things simple and compare the three northern regions—the north-east, the north-west and Yorkshire and the Humber—with the three southern regions, consisting of the south-west, the south-east and London. My hon. Friend has a fair point if we look only at 2002–03, the last year for which full Sport England statistics on awards are available. In that year, the north received 120 awards totalling £32.5 million. On the face of it, that does not compare well with the south's yield of £67.8 million from 163 awards. But matters are not so simple. Across the lottery field, a relatively high proportion of London awards relate to projects that are national in scope, and that does not just mean Wembley stadium.
  That is true of awards in other regions, but the concentration of lottery projects that can be said truly to benefit the whole UK is, as one would expect, highest in the capital. In any event, when the figures are adjusted per head of population, the comparison is not nearly as skewed in favour of the south. The population of the three southern regions is much greater than that of the north. I will not do the maths, but others can do the calculations if they wish. The long-term figures show that any perceived inequalities in awards have broadly evened out over time.
  Lottery grants, as many hon. Members know, are cyclical, and my hon. Friend is looking at only one year. If we look at the whole period from 1995 to 2003, the north received a total of 1,200 grants totalling £466.3 million. That compares favourably with the 1,751 awards totalling £579.4 million received by applicants in the three southern regions over the same period. It could be said—indeed, it has been mentioned this evening—that the central regions have a common complaint. The midlands and the eastern region received 1,278 awards totalling £351 million, which is a respectable showing, but well behind the north and south before adjustments per head of population.

  621
  That is the position under a funding structure without a significant regional focus. Until this year, Sport England has not been formally required to ensure an even spread of awards. Its policy directions required it to take into account
  "the needs of sport…the need to ensure that all parts of England have access to funding"
  and
  "the scope for reducing economic and social deprivation."
  Sport England built on that with its 1999 lottery strategy, which confirmed that
  "local projects will respond to local priorities."
  It put that into practice by designating 12 sport action zones, which are deprived areas that qualify for additional lottery support. Going back to our definitions of north and south, six of the zones are in the north—in Bradford, Manchester, Liverpool, south Yorkshire, the Wear valley and Cumbria—and only two are in the south. The designation of those zones sprang from admirable sentiments, and was backed up with real achievements. Sport England has gone a long way towards putting regional equity into practice, but its directions, strategy and action zones did not amount to a formal requirement to spread funding fairly across the country when addressing need.
  That is changing with the reorganisation of Sport England. As part of the Government's modernisation drive, Sport England will in future make 60 per cent. of its total funding available to sport through the new regional sports boards. Each of the nine boards will receive its share of the total based on population, weighted for the index of social deprivation. Each brings together local and regional expertise to ensure that the awards truly reflect regional priorities.
  With my Department, I have spent a great deal of time getting the structure right. I am confident that the nine boards will make a significant impact on the way that sport is funded in the regions. The boards will not only make sure that money goes to where it is needed in the regions; they will have the necessary clout and powers to bring in supporting funding from both the public and the private sectors. My hon. Friend will be reassured to learn that I know the chairman of the regional board in the north-west, Andy Worthington. I know from speaking to my hon. Friend earlier that he also knows him well, as he worked in his authority. Andy Worthington will bring a great deal to sport in the north-west.
  Stephen Hesford: Amid a situation that is dreadful for my constituents, I confirm what my right hon. Friend
  622
  said. Andy Worthington worked as a director of leisure services. I know him well, and I wish him well in his new capacity.
  Mr. Caborn: I am sure that that will be passed on to Andy Worthington and that he will put an effective board together. That will no doubt have an impact in the medium to long term on the structures for sport in the north-west.
  Let me take a brief look at the wider lottery position. Since 1995, the three northern regions have received a total of nearly £2.6 billion in all lottery funding. That compares favourably with the £3.3 billion received by the three southern regions, so the north has not done so badly in the past, after all. In sport at least, I believe that it will do even better in the future. So much for the bigger regional picture.
  My hon. Friend is understandably concerned with the interests of his constituents. He put that case forcefully to the House. He referred to two sports lottery applications that, he maintains, were affected by this year's reforms at Sport England. As he said, the reform programme included a stock-take of all lottery-funded projects in January. That led to a number of applicants' schemes being capped, deferred, or—in Sport England's terminology—decommitted. Fifty-four projects were decommitted, and 41 deferred. Of those 95, 20 were in the north-west.
  On the face of it, that appears to be a high proportion. Why the proportion should be so high is a matter for Sport England. I cannot answer the specific question raised by my hon. Friend, but I will write to Sport England and, I hope, be able to give my hon. Friend a much fuller answer. As he said, two of the decommitted projects were in his constituency in the Wirral. West Kirby sailing club's application for £88,000 for a new boathouse was turned down, as was Pensby high school's application for £893,000 for sports facilities.
  My hon. Friend asked for my views on those two Sport England decisions. He knows full well and acknowledged in his contribution that, as both applicants have appealed to the independent adjudicator, it would be improper for me to comment on either case while the adjudication is going through. For the same reason, I cannot comment on the points he made about officials in Sport England's regional offices, other than to note that these—
  The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at two minutes to Eight o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR NICHOLAS WINTERTON in the Chair]

Crossrail Project
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Gillian Merron.]
9.30 am
Mr. Deputy Speaker:Today?s first debate is initiated by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable). The subject is important, particularly for London.
Dr. Vincent Cable: I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise this subject in Parliament. There may be debates on Crossrail back in the archives, but I think that this is the first debate in modern times on the subject. As you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the project is enormously important to my constituency and many others. I shall speak in support of it, but I also want to open up debate on some of the issues that it presents.
I have a parochial interest in that my constituency lies on what I think is called corridor 6—one of the branches that will spin off from the spine of the Crossrail project and go through Richmond, Twickenham and Kingston. That has the potential to benefit my constituency enormously, but I am not introducing this debate in a parochial spirit: the project has major implications for the whole of London and the region. There are other major spines, running to Reading and Maidenhead, Aylesbury and Buckingham, Watford, and Brentwood in Essex. Probably most important in terms of development is the north Kent route from Dartford. The project will primarily benefit the parts of London around Whitechapel, which is one of the focal points of the project. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber will get an opportunity to express their point of view on the subject.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: My hon. Friend knows that there are huge benefits to be gained across London from the Crossrail project, particularly in my constituency, as there will be much improved access to central London, the City and Heathrow from Kingston and Richmond. However, there are concerns among some of my constituents about the loss of the District line beyond Turnham Green. Does he agree that, as we go forward with the much needed Crossrail project, full consultation with all involved is essential, so that people understand the implications and can advance their point of view?
Dr. Cable: Yes, that is a sensible and helpful contribution. I note that my hon. Friend is a member of the new all-party Crossrail group, which is chaired by the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham). My hon. Friend and I both support the project and envisage great benefits from it for our constituencies.
As is inevitable, people are beginning to look at the detailed implications of the project and discover potential problems with certain stations. I will come to
184WH
the issues that my hon. Friend raised later, but her key conclusion—that there has to be proper consultation— is absolutely right. I am sure that when that consultation takes place, those residents expressing concern will be reassured that the project will be greatly to their benefit.
I enlarge that point to suggest that the project now has broad support. That is significant. The project is a joint venture between the rail industry, embodied in the Strategic Rail Authority, and Transport for London, which expresses the collective view of the Mayor and the Greater London Assembly. It has the support of important London organisations such as the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Corporation of London, which has said that the project is extremely important for the London economy. The Crossrail project has, as far as I am aware, attracted the support of all London boroughs, or at least all those potentially affected by it. In addition, as I have mentioned, it has wide support in the House. The all-party Crossrail group has just got off the ground and so far has the support of 100 MPs and peers. The project has wide support, and I expect that support to grow.
I shall not spell out the implications in great detail, but the rationale behind the project is environmental and economic. The Secretary of State for Transport broadly accepted the transport case in his statement on 14 July. When Crossrail is complete, it will take about 160,000 passengers at peak hours, diverting them from other, highly congested, routes. In a report last week, the Select Committee on Transport pointed out the massive economic cost and personal discomfort stemming from the current level of overcrowding, and said that the creation of the additional service would reduce those factors by speeding up journey times and increasing the flexibility of journeys. Considerable transport benefits will flow from the project.
Crossrail will not proceed unless those transport benefits are translated into a positive economic cost-benefit return. A study that is now with the Department for Transport and which will, I hope, be in the public domain soon—I have seen only fragments of it— suggests, based on fairly modest assumptions, that the considerable cost of the project, estimated to be between £10 billion and £15 billion, depending on the assumptions made, is considerably exceeded by the economic benefits, which will amount to £20 billion or more. Complex issues relating to discounting and the measuring of the economic benefits of big infrastructure projects remain, but Crossrail seems to be a project with considerable net economic and transport benefits.
Linda Perham: The hon. Gentleman might go on to cover my point, but I hope that he has also considered the possible negative impact if Crossrail is not built.
Dr. Cable: That point was implied in my previous comments. If we do not go ahead with Crossrail, the economic benefits will not be realised. One or two more modest projects have been proposed, probably to circumvent some of the inevitable practical and political difficulties that the Crossrail project faces, but there is a danger of taking the line of least resistance and forgoing the considerable economic benefits of Crossrail.
There are areas of potential controversy. First, who will provide the considerable funding needed? The promoters of the project are realistic and wise to suggest

185WH
that the majority of funding must come from private sources. In their initial statements, they acknowledge that the Government will be asked to provide quite a large pump-priming contribution of about £2 billion to £3 billion. However, the bulk of funding must come from the private sector, which is right given that most of the benefits will be realised by private business and, potentially, private investors.
The London Chamber of Commerce and Industry has made some useful suggestions about where the money might come from. A large amount might come from equity finance and from long-term bond issues in the tradition of the big Victorian infrastructure projects, which makes sense in today?s low inflation environment. There is clearly support for that from some financial institutions already.
The people who directly benefit from the appreciation of property values and developments along the line might also contribute. That is a slightly more controversial idea, which I instinctively support to some extent. A development levy or supplementary business rate charged on some of the beneficiaries has been proposed. There are practical problems with the proposal, but the London government are sensible to consider it as a supplementary source of finance. At this early stage, it would be interesting to find out how the Government see the balance of funding between charges made to beneficiaries, private finance and Government finance.
The second controversial area is the project's timing. The London Mayor is specifically committed to getting Crossrail, or its basic spine, running by 2011 or 2012, in time for the Olympic games. I am not here to argue the pros and cons of the Olympic games. The advantage of having such a timetable is that it might help to prevent the endless slippage that has affected other big projects.
Mr. John Randall: Does the hon. Gentleman concede that the Olympic bid is not at all dependent on the Crossrail project going ahead, and that it would be doing a disservice to that bid to imply in any way that that might be the case?
Dr. Cable: I think that that argument applies in both directions: the Olympic bid is certainly not dependent on the Crossrail project, and I certainly do not want the Crossrail project to be dependent on the Olympic bid. Each stands independently on its own merits. The Crossrail project offers potentially more permanent and more substantial benefits, and we should be arguing for it on its own. None the less, it is useful to have the discipline of a time framework; otherwise deadlines slip, as they invariably have on big projects in the past.
It is more important to discuss the usefulness of the approach that the project promoters have set out. Instead of going through the traditional route of a Government White Paper, a public consultation and a long planning inquiry process, what is proposed is a Government response followed by an enabling Bill, which would enable the project to proceed with full parliamentary authority. That would foreshorten the process as well as give it democratic legitimacy. My understanding of the timetable is that if that Bill were to
186WH
be put to Parliament next year, legislation would be in place by 2005, giving a five to seven-year time horizon for the project to be initiated.
Mr. John Redwood: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us his and his party's thinking on the type of vehicle to hold the assets that should be proposed in such legislation? Would there be any state guarantee of the project, directly or indirectly, through such a vehicle?
Dr. Cable: The honest answer is that we have not yet developed a dogmatic view on what that vehicle should be and whether there should be a state guarantee. The project promoters envisage that with the combination of finance that I have already desrcibed—some state funding and some market funding—the project may well be viable in its own terms. However, I am sure that there will be pressures to provide guarantees. The right hon. Gentleman probably had long experience of the Eurostar project and all the underwriting pressures that came from that, so I understand why he poses his questions. The honest answer is that we have not defined a detailed policy response. My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), who I know will want to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may want to develop the issue a little more.
As the project proceeds, we shall uncover the detailed difficulties. As groups of residents become aware of the project, they will see that the service affecting their particular town or village is not quite as they envisaged. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) has already pointed out that the highly articulate and aware residents of one district served by Kew underground station have already spotted that under the proposals they might lose their District line service, which could have the effect of making them change trains. That is a minor inconvenience that we have to take into account and on which we have to consult with them, but I do not see it as a massive problem.
I am worried that local politicians, particularly the GLA member for my area, are jumping on the bandwagon and creating a degree of unease and division that is not merited. I hope that we will all try to approach the matter responsibly and recognise that there are considerable net benefits to our respective communities from the project.
Miss Anne McIntosh: I believe that the hon. Gentleman is now the Treasury spokesman for his party. Does he imagine that there will be any charge to the public purse, and if so, what that charge would be and from which budget it would come?
Dr. Cable: I am delighted that my Conservative colleague has noticed my new role. I have been in it for three days and no doubt I shall be working out the financial implications of the project during the next 18 months. To be frank, I have not yet worked out the details of how the Crossrail project will affect our general election commitments in the public finance field. I have already explained that the common understanding is that the Government will be expected to make a pump-priming commitment to the project, although most of the money will have to come from the

187WH
private sector. In my new role, I am certainly not looking for expensive public expenditure commitments, nor do I think that Crossrail is one. The Crossrail project will fly on its own merits.
The key point to stress—from which I was slightly distracted by that intervention—is that there are potentially enormous benefits from Crossrail, but it will create difficulties for particular local communities, which provides all the more reason to initiate a detailed process of public consultation. Those in charge of the project have made an effort to consult individual households, but consciousness of Crossrail is only just beginning to sink in. I hope that those of us who are committed to Crossrail and think that it will have enormous benefits will begin the process of getting communities engaged and persuading them of the merits of a brave and important infrastructure project.
9.45 am
Linda Perham: I welcome this debate, and congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing it. He mentioned the formation of the all-party group on Crossrail, which I chair, and its membership of about 100. It includes Members from both Houses, and not just London Members but representatives of other parts of the country, including the hon. Gentleman himself and several other hon. Members present today. It was perhaps a coincidence, and certainly a fortunate happenstance, that the all-party group was set up literally days before the Secretary of State?s announcement on 14 July of the Government's support in principle for the project. The all-party group wants to be a focus in Parliament for support for the Crossrail project as it progresses to completion in the next decade.
The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) referred to public consultation. There has already been a public awareness campaign, and full public consultation started this month. An information exhibition for the central London boroughs was held at Church house in Westminster, and one for the eastern boroughs will be held at the museum of docklands. There is a programme of dates, venues and visits covering places as far away as Heathrow in the west and Dartford and Gravesend in the east. Consultation in the hon. Lady?s constituency will take place at the end of November, so I hope that that reassures her.
As the project will have such an effect on the future of London, there is a move to involve and interest young people in the project. There is even a "Young Crossrail" newsletter. Secondary school students in my borough are being invited to take part in a competition to design a Crossrail carriage. Cross London Rail Links is obviously trying to ensure that everybody knows about the project, gets behind it and raises any problems that they have with it.
From my point of view, it is vital that Crossrail is built in north-east London. Just how important it will be to easing congestion and overcrowding became even more obvious at the beginning of the year, when we lost the Central line for three months. I have eight Central line stations in my constituency, and the only rail alternatives are the First Great Eastern via Ilford and the Jubilee line from Stratford. My borough is one of
188WH
those that export the majority of their work force into the City and central London, so there is a pressing need to improve the transport infrastructure, as well as to cope with the population and economic growth that the Thames gateway regeneration plans promise to deliver.
Mr. Randall: I represent the other end of the Central line. Does the hon. Lady not think it rather sad that we are talking about this project at a time when not only the Central line but the Northern line is being disrupted? I think that she is making the point that we should get our act together to ensure that existing rail services also work properly.
Linda Perham: I agree. The London underground has been running since 1863, and some would say that it is doing rather well for such an old system. As the hon. Gentleman says, there is a need for investment in London's rail services. That would benefit not only London workers, but everyone who comes into the capital for tourism and other reasons. London needs a good rail system.
In January this year, a study of the wider benefits of Crossrail was carried out for Canary Wharf by the Centre for Economics and Business Research. It estimated that, by 2023, Crossrail could stimulate an extra 181,000 jobs in London, of which 115,000 would be diverted from outside the United Kingdom. That would provide opportunities for some of London's most deprived communities, leading to lower dependency on benefits, reductions in health problems and crime, and improvements in educational attainment and housing in seven London boroughs, with my borough, Redbridge, being one of the greatest gainers. The study concluded that failure to invest in London's rail network would slow the growth of London's gross domestic product by 2 per cent. per annum and lead to a haemorrhage of about 500,000 jobs. Crossrail is vital to all Londoners, not only those in my area, and to people who travel into London for work and leisure, or who visit the city from throughout the country and the world.
London's position as the engine of the UK economy and its future existence as an international business and financial centre will be strengthened and enhanced by Crossrail; without it, both will be threatened. Other UK regions should not regard investment in Crossrail as yet more resources being spent on the capital. People outside London and the south-east should welcome the fact that there will be an increase in the 4 million jobs that London already generates in the rest of the country and additional demand for goods and services from London, as well as benefits to the whole UK economy, including an increase in the net fiscal contribution that London makes each year to the Treasury, which is currently estimated to be about £20 billion.
As the hon. Member for Twickenham mentioned, funding is the key issue. How do we pay for this exciting project? A large investment is required—perhaps as much as £15 billion. Contacts that I, as chair of the all-party group, have pursued with the business community—in particular with London First and Canary Wharf—have confirmed that business in general is convinced of the benefits of Crossrail, but that business people need to know as soon as possible the direction the Government wish to pursue in finding the funding. I am glad that the Government have set up the

189WH
expert panel under Adrian Montague, which is due to report by the turn of the year on the financing options for the project.
I congratulate the Government on taking the important step of backing the Crossrail project. One estimate dates its origin back to 1948, which would make it slightly younger than me. Investment in Crossrail is essential. I fear that if the present commitment to the project is not carried through now, it will be too late to save London from overcrowding, congestion and environmental damage. If the investment is not made, improved transport facilities, more jobs, better housing, the regeneration of the Thames gateway area, the wider benefits to the country as a whole, and London's place in the world, will all be put at risk. I urge the Minister not to lose the opportunity that was squandered by previous Governments to embrace, in co-operation with the business community, the potential presented by the exciting Crossrail project.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Many Members are rising and hoping to catch my eye. If they bear their colleagues in mind, we can get everyone in.
9.54 am
Mr. John Redwood: The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) has done us a great service in securing the debate. The state of the railways is lamentable; they are in financial chaos, thanks to the Government's stupid intervention and partial renationalisation of the system. We have also been done a service because the Liberal Democrats have demonstrated that, as always, they are all hot air and good intentions, with no sensible plans whatever for putting the system right. It was quite extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman should have gone to the lengths of securing the debate and presumably, preparing for it and yet be quite unable to answer the most elementary questions.
What is the cost likely to be and how could it be paid for? The hon. Gentleman cannot tell us how much public subsidy or grant the Liberal Democrats would recommend the Government pay to get the project pump primed. He cannot tell us whether there needs to be an implicit or explicit Government guarantee on all or part of the other moneys, and he cannot say how much revenue subsidy there should be. He cannot explain how his suggestions would integrate with the existing Network Rail system and the London underground. He concedes that it could be embarrassing if part of the underground service were no longer available, but he does not know how he would handle that. He had nothing to say about the financial chaos on Network Rail at the moment, which is the backdrop against which we must judge the plans and ideas.
My interest is twofold. First, I am interested as a Member of Parliament from the Berkshire area. Some of the commuters from that area who currently use rail services would benefit if trains went beyond Paddington
190WH
into the west end and the City; they would rather make their journey on a single train, without having to change. Many of my constituents might use such a service if it was better than their current service and available in all senses. Such a project could add to the charms of a rail service. However, I have been led to believe that the Reading area is no longer to be linked into Crossrail—there have already been cuts before there is a proper plan. My constituents and I naturally find that disappointing.
Secondly, I am interested in the financing of the project. I do not think that this country can afford to increase the amount of public subsidy for the railway network. One of the biggest financial disasters so far under the Labour Government was the decision to bankrupt Railtrack and take over responsibility for the funding of much of the railway network. There have been huge escalations in costs, guarantees and actual subsidy paid and, at the same time, a deterioration in service standards and quality.
Until the Government solve that problem it is difficult to get going on exciting new projects that could expand and improve the network. I hope that my party will state clearly that we want Crossrail, but that it will have to be a proper private sector project and there will not be public money available for large pump-priming subsidies or guarantees covering all the capital and revenue losses that could ensue if the project miscarried.
In previous debates on railways in Westminster Hall and the main Chamber, Ministers have led me to believe that under the new Network Rail regime Wokingham would get a new station, which it desperately needs. There is currently an inadequate, small set of station buildings that are in an advanced state of decay and need to be replaced. We owe it to the long-suffering commuters to offer them better facilities. The station does not live up to the general standards—it sticks out like a sore thumb in a town that is otherwise well provided for, where the private sector institutions reinvest and maintain their properties. I should like more of my constituents who want to use the railways to do so, but we need a more welcoming station if they are to do so. In addition, there must be a proper transport interchange with better links to the railway so that more people are encouraged to use it.
I want reassurance from Minister that whatever decisions are made on the public finance contribution and on other big projects, such as the west coast main line, which has a more immediate claim on the Government?s resources, there will be resources available for more modest but none the less important projects, such as the redevelopment of Wokingham station. A better service could thereby be offered to people who are currently paying for the railway.
My constituents are paying many times over for the bungled mismanagement of the railway system. Those who use the railways pay dearly through the fares levied on them, in addition to which we all have to pay substantial taxes, which are being guzzled up by the cash guzzler that is Network Rail. I hope that the Minister will comment on the current financial situation of the railways. He may be able to tell us that their management are beginning to get to grips with their cost overruns and heavy losses. It is against that background that we must examine such large projects.

191WH
if the Minister is wise he will say that it would be better to spend what money there is on improving the performance and asset base for existing service users. Crossrail is a very desirable large-scale new project, but it should be entirely privately financed because I do not think that the state can afford another big loss-maker on the scale of Network Rail. I have declared my interests in the register; I do not think that they are relevant to the debate, but I shall do so for the sake of good form.
10 am
Jane Griffiths: Thank you for the opportunity to take part in this important debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing it.
I have been involved with Crossrail in one way or another since first hearing of it as a newly elected councillor in Reading in 1989. Little did I know when I heard about the proposal that 14 years later we would still be talking about it and there would have been no further progress, despite hundreds of millions of pounds having been spent on various reports, investigations, consultations and lobbying exercises.
Fourteen years ago people in Reading were excited about a proposal that would connect us by a cross-London rail line to east London and Essex. One can see why we were excited: such a link would provide further transport improvements to Reading, which owes its success to its transport links. So far, however, the only people in Reading to have benefited from the scheme are local councillors who at their respective local government conferences have been on the receiving end of hospitality from the proposers of previous versions of the Crossrail scheme. The fringe meetings held by the proposers of the scheme became notorious for the quality and quantity of free food and wine.
The Crossrail proposal is important to me for reasons other than past hospitality. One of the many Transport Ministers who had a role in this sorry affair in the mid-nineties was the then Member of Parliament for Slough. He sought a safer berth than Slough and was selected to fight Reading, East, which at the time was a safe Conservative seat. In April 1996, the then Secretary of State for Transport announced that the scheme would come in priority terms behind the Jubilee line extension, Thameslink 2000 and the channel tunnel rail link. I could not thank the Minister enough for providing me with a perfect local story and photo opportunity when I laid a wreath at Reading station commemorating the demise of the Crossrail scheme. Little did I know then that, seven years later, I would be pointing out that nothing has happened since.
I should not really be surprised by that—none of us should. In a previous debate in the House, I raised the history of the failure to invest in rail services west of London. That has left us without electrification, and the high-speed trains that were a stopgap before electrification are now more than 30 years old. The train companies are looking to invest in new versions of the high-speed trains. Now, however, the situation has become even worse.
Throughout the history of the Crossrail proposal it has always been intended that Reading would be at the western end of the scheme. Crossrail originally appeared in a post-war plan in the late 1940s and reappeared in the
192WH
Barran plan of the 1970s. It was put forward in October 1990 by British Rail and London Transport, who envisaged a line running from Shenfield and Romford in the east to Aylesbury and Reading in the west. A report into the scheme following the 1993 Budget confirmed the financial and engineering viability of the scheme and the then Prime Minister announced that it would go forward. However, parliamentary progress was put on hold while further studies were carried out.
It was reported in January 1994 that the scheme had been approved by consultants, who had rejected alternative routes. After four years and lots of money spent on preparing plans, parliamentary activity, sumptuous lobbying, and consultants to look again at the proposals, it was confirmed that the 1990s plans were fine and should go forward. Everything should have been fine for Crossrail—but no, the four MPs who were supposed to take the Bill forward refused to do so, saying that the proposers of the scheme had failed to make their case. In particular, they said that the number of people travelling by rail had declined since the scheme was proposed in 1989. As Homer Simpson might have said, "D'oh!" It is widely understood that the number of rail journeys made reflects the level of activity in the economy, so taking a four-year period to determine whether an investment in the railways is justified is stupid, especially when those four years contain one of the worst recessions of the past century.
That exemplifies the problems that we have had to put up with in investment in public transport schemes. Far too often, the time scale over which the return has been sought has not been long enough for public transport. We will not emerge from our transport problems until it is understood that it takes 30 years to make a significant difference to any situation. There will always be short-term schemes that give a payback, and no one says that they should not happen, but schemes that take longer to earn a return should not be refused solely for that reason. Crossrail is a prime example. As we have seen in investments in other public transport infrastructure schemes, if they go ahead they generally prove the economic modellers wrong and generate much better returns than had been predicted. Another problem with the 30-year period needed to make a serious difference in transport is that the people involved in the scheme at the beginning are usually not around at the end to say, "I told you so."
The Crossrail scheme was killed off because we were in the middle of a recession. Commendably, the Government of the time continued to seek ways to take the scheme forward, so in January 1995 there was another study by a different set of consultants to see if there could be progress with smaller-scale alternatives. Yet again, it was concluded that there were no cheap alternatives to Crossrail. Not happy with that report, Government officials carried out another review, taking account of financing levels and funding post-privatisation of British Rail. That concluded that the project had a good cost-benefit ratio, that it was resilient to pessimistic levels of demand and cost, that the level of central London employment was not critical, that powers to proceed with the scheme would have to be obtained before private finance was sought and that private finance could not meet the whole cost. The Government of the time made no response to that

193WH
report—the Montague report—but said that Crossrail came after the Jubilee line extension, Thameslink 2000 and the channel tunnel rail link in priority terms.
Railtrack was asked to consider the project further once it was in the private sector, but an answer to a parliamentary question in January 1999 revealed that, three years later, Railtrack had not even considered the scheme. The Corporation of London did not forget about it. It could see the benefits brought by the Jubilee line, and realised that Crossrail could deliver equally for residents and companies in London. I worked with the corporation after 1997 to try to keep the scheme alive. It published a report in February 2001 that showed that there had been a 50 per cent. increase in the direct economic benefits over cost in the five years since the Montague report, and that had Crossrail been built, it would have been carrying 12 per cent. more passengers than even the most optimistic of the original forecasts had suggested. Many other reports—in 1995, 1996, 1999 and 2001—all showed that the proposed route was the best and that the scheme would deliver a return.
The Government called for another report in May 2001. Just before the 2001 general election, some of us were otherwise occupied, but it was hoped that the scheme would begin in 2005–06, so yet another study was undertaken and £154 million set aside for it. That produced a report that included the options of a tunnel below London and a route to Reading in the west, with a number of new route options, some of which hon. Members have already mentioned. In February 2003, a business case was presented to the Secretary of State and it was decided that an expert team had to be set up to assess the proposals. I suggest that Crossrail be used at the Civil Service college as an example for training mandarins in how to kill off an idea by review. Future Sir Humphreys could learn a great deal from the example of Crossrail about how not to make a decision on a matter that involves a large amount of money.
Until recently, Reading was one of the fixed points of the Crossrail scheme, and the proposal would have brought electrification to Reading. We had been told that electrification at Paddington would cause too much disruption to that important station, so Crossrail was a big problem—but then came the Heathrow express, which someone else was willing to pay for, so electrification at Paddington was suddenly not a problem. Any sensible person would think that electrifying a further section of the Great Western route would be seen as a benefit, but no such luck.
I pay tribute to the current issue of Railfuture's magazine for a cogent analysis of the current position. It refers to the madness of trying to remove other services to Richmond and replace them with Crossrail, delivering no new services at all, and the barmy mission growth that has occurred, with other tunnels and schemes being thrown in. More sensibly, there is the suggestion of getting back to basics—another old favourite from the 1990s—and returning to the original east-west proposal involving Shenfield, ideally Stansted, and probably Ebbsfleet in the east, and Heathrow and Reading in the west.
Crossrail has shown all that is wrong with project planning and implementation in this country. A simple scheme, which has been around for decades, and which
194WH
offers excellent value for money, has been killed off by report after report. It has now been taken over by those who have vested interests, who have come up with a barmy version that does not serve the best interests of the travelling public. Other schemes, which offer less value for money, have been developed because someone will pay for them rather than because they represent real value for money.
We now have a chance for the Government and the civil service to redeem themselves. Dump the scheme proposed by Cross London Rail Links, return to the original proposal and get on and implement Crossrail. The message is simple: let us have Crossrail and let us have it soon.
10.10 am
Mr. Mark Field: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing this timely debate. As a central London Member, I am clearly going to be affected by whatever route it is finally agreed Crossrail should take. Within the multitude of proposals for Crossrail, there has never been a suggestion that central London should be missed out.
To touch on some constituency interests, Hanover square residents have expressed grave concerns about the lack of consultation on the current proposal for a route through Mayfair. Notwithstanding the catalogue of disasters iterated by the hon. Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths), the residents feel that there has not been enough information about potential disruption and the ongoing blight that would affect that part of my constituency.
One of the key issues is the eventual route of Crossrail. Understandably, colleagues have argued in favour of their own, perhaps narrow, political corridors and proposals that would affect their constituencies. My view is that it is of key importance to link in the east London gateway corridor, as well as places such as Dartford, Shenfield and Grays.
The spectre of the Olympic bid has been raised. I did not entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) when he said that the two issues had to be kept entirely apart. Crossrail investment will, in practical terms, be of key importance to any sensible and successful Olympic bid. Clearly, time is running out if the Olympic bid is to be made by July 2005.
I am also worried about the rather high barrier that the Government have erected in their most recent thinking on Crossrail. They have said that it
"needs to be feasible from both operational and engineering points of view, environmentally acceptable and value for money."
It has been rightly pointed out by all right hon. and hon. Members that the key consideration is how Crossrail will be funded. The hon. Member for Reading, East was absolutely right to point out that the Crossrail project was first mooted in 1948—it might have been her colleague the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham) who pointed that out. The catalogue of delays since the project was shelved during the recession of the early 1990s has also rightly been mentioned.
It now seems clear that the Treasury will not be willing to provide funding up front, and the Secretary of State for Transport has given a fairly clear indication

195WH
that Crossrail is pretty low on his list of priorities, especially in view of his task of clearing up the mess created by his predecessor during the botched renationalisation of Railtrack in October 2001—rightly mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)—which will apparently take up an additional £1.5 billion per year of public money. It is therefore difficult to see how Crossrail will be in any way a priority for the Government in considering their rail projects.
Londoners seem to receive a poor return, as a number of London Members have pointed out. London is a massive contributor to the public purse. How can Britain?s only globally competitive city continue to shine internationally if the infrastructure investment that is demanded of such a global city cannot be taken for granted? The Government's anti-London bias is damaging the UK economy, and we will see the results of that in the coming decade.
The talk is of a private sector consortium for Crossrail, which is the only realistic game in town. Several consortiums, comprising for the most part property and construction businesses, have discussed the matter and put forward innovative plans, but there are two key flaws. First, they anticipate that the Government will ultimately be the guarantors of last resort. Secondly, there is no proper risk-transfer test for public-private partnership projects. Conservative Members have consistently pointed out that that makes a mockery of the Government?s prestige projects, for which we will all pay in higher taxes during the next decade and a half. The risk is that private consortiums will cherry-pick the most economically desirable routes. They might discuss stage B development but will shelve it later, probably for good. Prior to world war two, for example, there were great plans, all of which have been permanently shelved, to build tube lines to places such as Cranleigh Gardens and Muswell Hill.
One of the ways forward on funding is to examine the notion of value capture, which was touched on by the hon. Member for Twickenham. I cannot do justice to the concept in this brief speech, but the proposal by the Conservative mayoral candidate, Steve Norris, to add a 2 per cent. levy to the business rate in the vicinity of the new line over the next 20 years to allow the cash flow to be securitised and to ensure that the capital works come into play has at least some merit.
When I first read Don Riley's book "Taken for a Ride", I found it persuasive. He is one of my constituents, and he gave me a proof copy of the book a few weeks before the general election when I was out canvassing in Morton place, where he lives. His thesis is simple: when taxpayers invest in a new transport system, many landowners are given accidental windfall fortunes. He argues that the leakage of publicly created income into private hands explains why railways have not been self-financing. The thesis is fairly, but not entirely, persuasive.
Various bandwagons have jumped on to value capture. Some people—particularly left-of-centre politicians—think that it will be an enormous property tax. With the fast-deteriorating public finances, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has got his eyes on a range of property taxes—as predicted 18 months ago by many hon. Members who worked on the then Finance Bill. I am concerned that great injustices will by done by taxing
196WH
windfall gains. The great worry is that if the sums are not properly ring-fenced, there will simply be more money in the Exchequer's pocket. There is also a large question mark about the practicality of taxing windfall gains. It is not clear how far away from a railway line the benefits would extend. There would clearly be losers, and a sense of injustice on the part of those located right on the edge of affected areas.
Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend touches on an important point. It is easy to see that there is a gain if a property owner realises an asset that has gone up in value or decides that he can enhance his business because a new line is coming or has arrived. However, an existing property owner who wants to use his property for the same purposes or whose business is not enhanced will simply suffer higher taxation. That problem must be sorted out when we implement such schemes.
Mr. Field: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend that there is a great worry that such a levy would simply be a stealth tax.
Although I appreciate that he is not a Treasury Minister, I hope that the Minister here today can indicate the Treasury's intentions. If we look upon new property taxes as a means of clobbering landowners rather than as a specifically ring-fenced way to finance projects such as Crossrail, we will see some of the conspicuous disadvantages that arose in the 1990s during the construction of the Jubilee line extension. Clearly, one has to follow the money, which is the great problem with Crossrail.
I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response to the comments of the hon. Member for Reading, East, because there is a worry that we are being inundated with yet more reports as a way of kicking the issue into the long grass. From where will the funding come? Understandably, given the problems with Network Rail, the Treasury may feel that insufficient funding is available in its coffers in the short term for the Crossrail project. If so, can we at least get some indication of the preferred route forward, so that we can ensure that in 14 or 15 years' time we are not still debating the issue, without any further progress having been made?
I appreciate that at least one other speaker wants to get in. I look forward to sharing a platform with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) tonight in Covent Garden, although I cannot imagine why he wants to come to my constituency to discuss these matters. It may have something to do with an election in the middle of next year. I look forward to hearing his comments and those of the Minister.
10.20 am
Simon Hughes: I am grateful for the opportunity to take advantage of the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable). As a London MP for 20 years, I have had an interest in Crossrail for some time, like the hon. Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths). It has been on the agenda all the time that I have been involved in London politics. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) referred to other

197WH
reasons for my interest: I now share with my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham responsibility in my parliamentary party for London issues, and I expect to be the Liberal Democrat candidate when London has a mayoral election next year.
From all the evidence, the Crossrail proposal has unprecedented general support not just from all the local authorities and residents in the capital but from the business community. The London Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Confederation of British Industry and London First have not just supported it but have persuasively, strongly, regularly and consistently lobbied for it. They understand the economic importance of a new west-east cross-London line. Without exception, the project is now the number one business issue for those groups. That is what they tell me, and I sense it from talking with their members as well. Surveys of businesses in London indicate that half of all businesses think that it will benefit them and that they are positive about it. There is hardly a single voice expressing concern about the project.
Obviously, there are strategic Government and regional government reasons to support Crossrail, not least the development of the Thames gateway, which will create new investment in the jobs and housing that that area of London needs and that I hope it will get. We in London argue that the country works better if London works better. I believe that the rest of the country understands that, if London is more efficient, the country of which London is the capital will be more efficient and prosperous as well.
I welcome the Minister and have some questions for him. I look forward to further conversations on the issue with him and his colleagues in the months ahead. There has been a considerable amount of commentary on the nature of the statement given by the Secretary of State for Transport in July. Was it a statement of conditional support or of clear, unequivocal support? In the words of one commentator, was it a statement with lots of ifs and buts, or was it a statement of Government support? It would be helpful if the Minister put on the record whether the Government support the Crossrail project.
Can the Minister update us on the likely date of the report of the expert panel that was set up this autumn to carry our specific work? The report was intended to be published at about the turn of the year, but it would be useful if he gave the date for the conclusion of that work. In that context, to pick up a point made by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), the details of the route outside the core route should be properly worked out as a result of the consultation that is now taking place. My colleagues believe in that consultation process, which should deal with precisely such matters. The consultation is being carried out enthusiastically and well and is receiving responses. I hope that it will produce the best result for areas such as south-west London, where there are clearly important issues.
Mr. Redwood: Surely, before any of that, the important questions that need answering are how will the deal be structured and who will pay for it? Will the
198WH
hon. Gentleman spell out his and his party's policy on how much public money will be used, how many guarantees are needed, and how it will be paid for?
Simon Hughes: I hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would expect me to deal with those matters, and I will answer him in a moment.
I have dealt with the question of Government support. The second question relates to the project's timetable. The opportunity in the Queen's Speech to announce a Bill in the forthcoming Session has been missed. A hybrid Bill is needed, but the window of opportunity has gone. Will the Minister confirm without qualification that the Government are willing to provide the time for a Bill, even if there is no time in the forthcoming Session, and to support a Bill in the Session after next? If that is the case, do the Government agree that the core project from Paddington to Liverpool Street or to Stratford could be completed before 2012?
There is no inevitable link between an Olympic bid and the project, but if an Olympic bid were successful in 2005, there would be huge advantage in getting the core of the project in place before the Olympic games. I am meeting Crossrail representatives today—I have met them before—and I want to ensure that we can deliver a core Crossrail link before 2012, because it must enhance the prospects of our Olympic bid. Even if we do not win the bid, the Government should not resile from either a commitment or a timetable. None of us knows whether we can win the bid, and that is why my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham and others say that the bid and Crossrail stand separate, but there will be an additional benefit if we win. It would be helpful if the Government were willing to countenance support for a proposal that delivers the core project before 2011. I believe that technically it can be delivered; I remain to be persuaded about some of the details but I hope and believe that it can be delivered.
Funding is a central issue and I accept the questions from the right hon. Member for Wokingham. I also accept the importance of the two background elements that he described, which are the funding of the rail system across the United Kingdom and, as alluded to by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, the regional take and spend across the UK. I have secured an undertaking from my party to re-examine the Barnett formula and regional allocation. The issue is public sector spend ability in all regions. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham—just appointed to his new brief leading our Treasury team—and I will discuss it and come up with some answers. He has been in his new post for about a week, as have I, but we have started conversations and I undertake to the House and beyond that we will answer those questions.
The direct answer to the funding question is that we already have one small element of Government-guaranteed funding, which is £154 million for the initial work. It would be helpful if the Minister were to guarantee that that money at least is ring-fenced, as we need it to be. It should not be subject to any cuts, bearing in mind that the Strategic Rail Authority has stated that it must reduce its budget. Beyond that, I accept that the best proposition is for the private sector to finance the rest of the spending on Crossrail. That is my starting point, and the business community believes that it is achievable. There are questions about the

199WH
Government's guarantees, and they need to be ironed out. I must consider that before next year's mayoral election, and my hon. Friend and I will work it out.
We are left with some private sector mechanism options. There is a perfectly honest debate within the business community, which has considered four options. They include a bonds option, which is reasonable and viable, and the option referred to by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, which was proposed by his constituent, Mr. Riley, who runs businesses in my constituency and has also given me a copy of his book, "Taken for a Ride". Those who benefit from the windfall increase in land value because they are next to the line should make a contribution. There are questions about boundary definition, which I understand, but as the Member of Parliament with the largest section of the Jubilee line going through his constituency, I have seen the accidental benefit that accrues to some people. In that end, the project had a good outcome, but it may well have been possible for those who benefited from the line to have partially funded it.
I would like the Minister to address my next point specifically: am I right in saying that the Local Government Bill allows Transport for London to borrow in the private sector? My understanding of the Government's view is that local government should be able to borrow from the private sector. That applies to the London government and the GLA. I would be grateful for a reassurance that TFL and the GLA can borrow as much as they want in order to put the money in the system. The most recent proposal, floated by the Conservative candidate for the London mayoralty, is that there should be a levy on particular businesses. That idea is less popular than some others but the argument is on the table none the less.
My hon. Friends and I will make clear our preferred proposal in good time for the election, once we have had the consultations with colleagues. The Government must guarantee that the current money is ring-fenced, and tell us that TFL can borrow from the private sector and that the Government have advanced work on the idea of a levy on those who gain windfall profits. If we had answers on those points, we would know that the Government were serious. If we had an unconditional response on their support for the project, we would go away from the debate much happier.
10.31 am
John Thurso: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) for securing this important debate. I congratulate him on the way in which he set out the important issues, particularly the many implications that the Crossrail project has for redevelopment, and on mentioning the support given by all the boroughs and the Corporation of London.
I also thank my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to have my first outing on transport matters since I, like some other colleagues, assumed new responsibilities a week ago. Coming as I do from the far north of Scotland, I almost feel as though I am intruding on something private in discussing this very London-centred project. A mere 10 days ago, I was blissfully unaware of most matters to do with transport. I was, as
200WH
are so many people, a simple, straightforward user of public transport—sometimes a very frustrated one, when using public transport in London.
Since then, I have had an opportunity to meet a great many people and have done a considerable amount of reading. Having done my homework as best I could, I found that the Crossrail project shines out as a scheme that deserves to succeed and has clear benefits, including cost: benefits. It is also an example of what should be right in transport policy but is often marred by the vacillation and delay of successive Governments. In that regard, I must say that the Conservative Administrations deserve just as much blame as anyone else.
The project in its current guise was first proposed in January 1989 by the central London rail study. The reasons then advanced for it were the increase in central London employment in the 1980s and the pressure on rail links; those reasons are just as valid today. The cost in 1993 was estimated at £1.8 billion, but afterward there was much to-ing and fro-ing—we have heard about some of that this morning. The project was supported by the then Prime Minister, but thrown out by the then Secretary of State for Transport, Mr. MacGregor, who made it subject to the Transport and Works Act 1992 procedure.
Two reports were made. What was known as the Montague report was produced in 1996, and it said that the project had a good cost-benefit ratio, that it was resilient to pessimistic assumptions about demand and cost, and that private finance could not meet the whole cost. As the hon. Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) said, the project has been dogged by too many reports. Another, undertaken for the Corporation of London by the technology strategy centre at Imperial college, estimated in 2001, first, that there had been a 50 per cent. increase in direct economic benefits over cost in the five years since the Montague report and, secondly, that if Crossrail had been built by 1999, as originally envisaged, it would already be carrying 12 per cent. more passengers than the most optimistic original assessments. It is clear that there is a strong and growing case for Crossrail and the reasons for it have stood the test of time.
Transport is the critical lubricant that allows the cogs of commerce to grind smoothly. It is the duty of Government not simply to maintain the status quo, but to have a clear vision for future development and make those happen. Crossrail is such a vision and it should happen. It is up to the Government to lead. The Liberal Democrats stand strongly behind Crossrail. We back it because it is vital to the redevelopment of east London, especially its economically deprived communities. I urge the Government—particularly the Treasury—to give full support and grant the powers that are necessary for Crossrail to raise its own finance through bonds, if that is required.
I know a little bit about the Olympic bid, having served on the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. In January this year the Committee undertook a report into the bid and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport used Ove Arup & Partners to study its feasibility. On transport,
"Arup said that London could cope with the 125,000 extra 'Games' commuters, even without Crossrail, if the network was managed to 'an unprecedented degree'."

201WH
Although Crossrail is not essential to the Olympic bid, it would at least be extremely helpful to it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham said, neither project should depend on the other. There is, however, much synergy between them. When researching that report, I came across a memorandum submitted in evidence by Crossrail that stated that it:
"expects the application for statutory consent for Crossrail Line 1 to be ready in November. It is hoped that this is the beginning of a programme and timetable that will lead to a construction completion date that is"
in
"time for 2001, subject to obtaining powers, finance and procurement. The Line 1 train service itself would be in place by May 2012."
Even in the early part of this year Crossrail anticipated that it could ready in time for the Olympics. Perhaps the Minister can say why there has been such slippage on that programme and whether it is retrievable. The Olympic bid is an engine of regeneration for the Thames gateway. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister estimated that by 2016 there would be some 295,000 new jobs and 95,000 new houses in the area. If the Olympics go ahead they will help to accelerate and underpin that. Both Crossrail and the Olympics could help regeneration.
The critical issue, as hon. Members said, is funding. When considering funding, two things become clear. First, the longer the project is held in abeyance, the more it will cost—the cost has risen from £1.8 billion in 1993 to some £10 or £11 billion today. Secondly, there will be a benefit to business if the project goes ahead. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham said that the London economy would benefit by some £20 billion. That is important.
We must consider how the project could be financed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) said, I hope that the majority of the finance, if not all of it, could come from the private sector. We must consider bonds and the securitisation of revenue streams, which is a straightforward way of securing finance. As the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) said, we must also consider whether it is possible to use taxation and employ the increase in value arising from development to produce revenue streams for the project.
The Crossrail scheme merits such support. If it requires an amount of Government funding to make it happen, whether seed money or a small percentage of the overall cost, we should not shy away from committing that money to it. When he conducts his spending review, I shall press my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham to permit inclusion of that in our plans.
If we are looking for reasons for Crossrail to go ahead, we need look no further than the fact that the current cross-London links are at saturation point. The District line can take no more trains, and without a new artery London will begin to clog up. It is time that the Government came clean and were honest with Londoners. They should accept the compelling case, say yes and get on with it, or admit that the Treasury is
202WH
trying to block the project and kick it into the long grass. I hope that the Government will answer in the affirmative and do so with dispatch.
10.40 am
Miss Anne McIntosh: I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing the debate. I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) in declaring an interest, but unfortunately it is not worthy of register. I am a one-time shareholder in Railtrack, Eurotunnel, British Airways, BAA, BAE Systems and First Group.
I recently heard that a new definition of "cross rail" is a passenger who travels with Virgin Rail on its new Voyager train and arrives in Penzance, but his luggage arrives by road several hours or days later.
Almost an hour and a half into this debate we are still no clearer about the Liberal Democrats' policy on the Crossrail project, even though we have heard three speakers from that party. Their answer seems to be, watch this space. Furthermore, it is clear that one proposal has secured all-party support over and above the competing proposals, but we seem to be no clearer about what the total cost or the start date will be. The Secretary of State for Transport enjoys one thing in common with the newly appointed Liberal Democrat transport spokesman: both believe that transport is so unimportant that it should be a part-time responsibility, held alongside responsibility for Scotland.
During Transport questions on 15 July, the Secretary of State said:
"Clearly, the precise cost will depend on the route and the construction of the service. As I made clear in my statement yesterday, the Chancellor and I intend to consult London businesses and others to ensure that we secure the best and most effective way of funding the project."—[Official Report , 15 July 2003; Vol. 409, c. 141.]
As the hon. Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) said, we are still no further forward—from either 14 or 40 years ago, depending on which historical account one accepts—in knowing the total cost.
I agree that Crossrail will bring huge benefits to London, as my hon. Friends have said. It will cut overcrowding on existing services and will provide a more rapid and efficient method of transport across London. The perceived £10 billion cost is, however, too heavy a charge to put on the taxpayer. In the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), the Conservatives will
"be creative about transport solutions in the big cities—we'll explore entirely private sector means to build London's Crossrail."
Indeed, our mayoral candidate, Steve Norris, has suggested several imaginative ways for funding based on projected increases in property values.
Whichever project is chosen, once the many reviews have been conducted and have reached their conclusions, it must be technically and economically viable and the Government must in the meantime allay fears among the public about existing rail infrastructure, in particular those about the London underground and responsibility for the track post-privatisation. It is clearly unacceptable to have two potentially major disasters within three days, and so soon after that track has been privatised.

203WH
Confidence in the railways collapsed when the then Secretary of State forced Railtrack into administration. The Minister need not take my words for it, but those of their own appointed rail regulator, Tom Winsor. On a number of occasions, he has put on record his personal regret that the move into administration of Railtrack led to a lack of accountability of Network Rail and has removed the shareholder discipline, replacing it with a loose group representing 100 disparate rail interests. That is a hopeless situation—yet is the backdrop against which Crossrail is being considered. Does the Minister accept that the 10-year transport plan is in tatters, especially as we have heard that railway performance is no longer expected to improve before 2010?
The debate raises a number of questions, and I would be grateful if the Minister addressed them. Will any public funds be attached to the project? If they will, what will be their nature—will they be national, or does the Minister think that European Union funds would be attracted to a potential trans-European network? Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham, I was astonished that the hon. Member for Twickenham had not given that any thought, even though he was fortunate enough to secure the debate. Are the Government confident that private sector support will be sufficient to pick up the whole cost of Crossrail? Will the Government be prepared to guarantee any of the debts that may flow from its construction? Following construction, who will be responsible for maintaining the line?
My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) and the hon. Members for Reading, East and for Ilford, North (Linda Perham) spoke about connections across London, most notably the connection to Heathrow. It has been put to me that the Heathrow express—a recent and very successful project, which was privately financed—might be jeopardised by Crossrail. Can the Minister give an assurance that whichever Crossrail project is secured, it will have no implications for the Heathrow express—that people who access that airport from central London will continue to enjoy the Heathrow express? Will the Minister take this opportunity to put our minds at rest on these matters? In addition, will he give a date when the review team appointed by the Secretary of State will reach its conclusions?
All Opposition Members are determined that Crossrail will take shape. I would hate this country's bid for the Olympics to be dependent on the Crossrail project, but it would be ideal if they could be linked. Can sufficient private funding be secured? Will any public funds be attracted to this project and, if so, will they be national or European?
10.47 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): Underneath all the sound and fury and the usual Liberal Democrat opportunism, this has been a serious debate. The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) just touched on what I was going to refer to—with no unkindness intended—as the dog that didn't bark. We dwelt on one Montague—Nick—who was responsible for the earlier report. The Montague that matters is Adrian, along with the review that the hon. Lady alluded to at the end of her comments.
204WH
I was going to start by making a laboured joke about the fact that I am going to the informal Transport Council in Verona on Thursday—although I will not see much of the city—and that this debate was more Montague versus Montague than Montague versus Capulet. I am glad that I did not do so.
Serious matters have been mentioned. However, the context that we must be clear about is receipt of final business case from Crossrail in June or July, the response from the Secretary of State in July, and the subsequent appointment of the Montague team, with it being given a clear undertaking to report by the turn of the year—probably in the new year, but as close to the end of this year as possible. Does that mean that the scheme or any discussions or preparations for the scheme, should be held in abeyance, as one or two hon. Members have suggested? No, it does not. There were extensive talks with Crossrail prior to the appointment of the Montague review team.
I have learned from previous debates not to try to say CLRL too often, for fear of being accused of a lack of sobriety early in the day. I shall refer to it as the Crossrail team—people will know who I mean. There has been constructive engagement with the team and a host of questions has been asked on an array of fronts. One would think from the way that some hon. Members were referring to the important Crossrail project that all we had to do was go to Hamley's and buy a train set. The scheme encompasses substantial infrastructure projects and they should be accorded due importance.
One opportunistic speaker, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), asked, in his finest mayoral voice, whether he could have an assurance that the Government support his party on the matter. He should read paragraph 8 of the original statement: it says that the Government remain wedded in principle to the notion of a cross-London link. The statement could not have been any clearer in its support. We were then asked whether we could give an assurance that there will be a hybrid Bill in November. I would like to give such an assurance, but I cannot. Why not? Because the review has not reported yet. To deal with such serious matters in such a shallow fashion ill becomes the House and is an insult to it.
Montague needs to determine whether the proposals are likely to deliver to time, scope and budget, whether the business case proposals will offer value for money, the extent of Government funding that can be justified in the context of value for money, the proportion of the funding required from non-Government sources and a range of other matters
Ms Oona King: May I press my hon. Friend on funding? He will not be surprised to hear that only 7 per cent. of businesses back a property tax. Some 24 per cent. back a tax-based solution, 33 per cent. back a bond and 36 per cent. back a share issue. What is the Government thinking on the matter and when will it be announced?
Mr. McNulty: The Government's thinking will be announced when we have seen the Montague review. Adrian Montague himself has said that he is

205WH
"pleased to announce the detailed terms of reference … Crossrail has the potential to improve journeys on public transport across a wide area of London and the South East"—
we completely concur with that. He continues:
"But the costs are very high: the scheme put forward by CLRL is forecast to cost up to £10 billion, and that's before any finance costs. Alistair"—
that is, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport—
"has asked me to look closely at CLRL's proposals to see whether they are deliverable and, if so, whether they are likely to provide proper value for money. As part of the review, I have been asked to explore how much of the very large cost of this scheme might be justified from the taxpayer and how much might be raised from non-Government sources. I shall also consider whether there are any other ways of delivering a Crossrail project that would offer better performance than the proposals set out in CLRL's Business Case."
Adrian Montague has been asked to report as soon as is practicable. We hope that he will do so by the end of the year.
We are told that there has been a great deal of slippage on the scheme. In fact, there has been none. The Crossrail business plan submitted in July talked about 2013 and rolling out for 18 months as the start of the process, so the siren voices suggesting that there has already been slippage are fundamentally wrong. If the Montague report stacks every thing up in terms of funding and the nature of the line and all is well, I would hope that we would be on schedule for a hybrid Bill in November. I cannot say that for sure, because I do not know what the review will report, nor does anyone else in this Chamber—certainly not aspiring third, fourth or fifth-placed mayoral candidates. CLRL has always intended to open over 18 months.
I am astonished to discover that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is now an engineer, among other things, but the central core going under the Cities of London and Westminster was always the most difficult of the engineering feats. We are told that we could pop back to Hamley's and buy one and get it in place for the Olympics—absolute, unremitting twaddle. Barbara Cassini has said that the Crossrail project has nothing to do with the Olympics and does not fit in with the Olympics. I ask all those suggesting that it does, or that somehow one project will fail without the other, to mind their words. To talk down London's Olympic bid and the success or otherwise of the Crossrail project does no one in London any service. I ask people to reflect before they make such remarks simply for cheap, opportunistic gain, even though that is not unnatural for the third party.
I am delighted—I think that that is a first—that we have here the Liberal Democrat parliamentary version of the three tenors. We have three third party minor spokespersons representing various portfolios, and it is nice to see them. I especially look forward to working with the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) on the transport brief. However, there was some confusion. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) has gone to open a sure start scheme in her constituency—I hope that she thanks the Government for that and that it is there when she arrives, as she once went to open a hospital but found
206WH
that it was not yet built, although that is by the by. The hon. Lady said that there are many concerns about the loss of the District line beyond Turnham Green. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) also made various points. I know that there are concerns there, but let us see what the final model will be, so that we can see whether all those concerns stack up.
Typically for a Liberal Democrat, the hon. Member for Richmond Park demanded consultation. Well, there has already been a roadshow and the formal consultation on the business case will start next Monday. I do not know whether she will put out a press release saying that she demanded consultation on Tuesday and that on the following Monday, Crossrail buckled and there was consultation.
I know that Reading, Wokingham and other places outside London are being examined in the context of the Montague review to see what will be best for London. I assume, although I shall discuss this with him, that when the hon. Member for Twickenham mentioned a study in the Department of which he has seen fragments, he meant the fuller business case, not the summary, in which case I urge him to look in detail at the summary and report.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham) on the establishment of the all-party Crossrail group. Everyone—but everyone—is signed up and wedded to the notion that the scheme should happen, so the opportunistic point of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey was ill made. We are now collectively looking at the details of how to get the scheme off the ground. Today is part of that.
I found the funding issues raised very interesting. All and none of those suggestions are on the table. There was some confusion over whether it is to be 100 per cent. public sector or 100 per cent. private sector. I know that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) is on record as saying that he wants to explore a fully private sector-funded scheme. In the context of the Montague review, we shall examine how that could happen. Without getting a brick thrown at me by my Department, I can say that the only certainty is that we can rule out a 100 per cent. public sector-funded scheme. I think that I can do that—touch wood—with some degree of certainty. All the elements suggested by hon. Members are on the table.
Rather than waste precious time now, I shall write to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) about a new station for Wokingham and a proper interchange there. I understand the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) about why Reading and a western expansion outside London fell off the agenda. I think that that had fallen off the agenda by February 2003, in the interim business plan for the current proposals, so that really is a matter for others. She should blame not me, but people who were responsible for the scheme prior to that date. If she wants some comfort, very early in this round of the game there was a plan for a lovely line through to Amersham and Watford. One option took it through Harrow and Wealdstone and one through Harrow on the Hill, both plumb in the middle of my constituency, so I, too, do not gain under the current business case, and I share her concerns.

207WH
The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) should not dwell on supposedly novel ideas. Last year when I was in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, I was told that betterment levies and value capture were all brand, spanking-new civil service ideas. To my certain knowledge, they are at least 40 years old, if not considerably older. When I was a Minister responsible for housing, I thought that it might be useful to read the first chapter of Dick Crossman's diaries, on when he held a similar post. By page 3, he was discussing the betterment levy and capture, when there was a windfall gain. All those elements must be in play if we are collectively, across the parties, serious about securing a very substantial contribution from the private sector, which will be needed if the scheme is to prevail.
It is not fair to use the Jubilee line as an example to suggest that Crossrail will somehow dribble into the sand because it is a public sector-private sector mix. The channel tunnel rail link was completed on time, on budget and is a paragon of British engineering success. All of us—in the public and private sector—should be very proud of it.
We want Crossrail to happen, and we want to do all that we can to assist. There are a number of things going on with the team that mean that the project is not being held in abeyance, and I urge all those present, and all those who have London's welfare at heart, to examine the Montague review carefully when it is published in all its glory in January or February next year.

Legal Services (Northern Ireland)
11 am
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: From the outset, I should declare an interest in that I was a solicitor for 20 years and have been a member of the Bar for six. In all of those years, I have not come across anything like the case of my constituents Dr. and Mrs. Donnelly of Hengwm, Tal y Bont, Barmouth in my constituency.
The matter arose due to complaints being made against two of the large solicitors firms in Belfast namely McCartan, Turkington, Breen of Chancery house, Victoria street, Belfast and Parnell Kerr Forster of 22 Great Victoria street, Belfast. The complaints arose out of their conduct in relation to the acquisition of a limited company, Stagecoach Inn Limited, which I shall refer to as SCIL. It was owned and operated by people in Belfast, and the Stagecoach was one of the best-known public houses in Northern Ireland. The company's issued share capital was 60,000 ordinary shares at £1 each, of which my constituent had 14,500. In addition to being a shareholder, Dr. Donnelly was also a director of SCIL, being appointed in 1979. The day-to-day management of the licensed premises was undertaken by a Mr. and Mrs. Davidson who were also shareholders of SCIL. Due to difficult trading conditions, a decision was taken during 1984 that SCIL should be sold.
A purchaser, Mr. Conor Kelly, was found and the company's shareholders instructed Messrs Parnell, Kerr and Forster to act on their behalf, and the purchaser also approached them. Mr. Conor Kelly then duly instructed Messrs Heneghan and Company, solicitors, to act on his behalf. Mr Kelly, via his solicitors, negotiated with SCIL's shareholders' solicitors, Messrs McCartan Turkington and Breen, and matters progressed well, with all parties looking towards completion. During the transaction, its nature changed from being a pure sale of the freehold and the premises to a sale of actual shares in the company—a total sale in other words. That indeed happened, and was completed on 1 November 1984.
It was not until about 12 years after completion of the sale that Dr. Donnelly became aware of the identity of the purchaser despite being a vendor of the company. That followed a company search, which revealed the identities of the new directors, who were also purchasers. Dr. Donnelly knew of the transaction as a whole, but did not know the identity of the purchasers. At no time were his views solicited in relation to the terms of the share sale agreement, in particular in relation to price and its ultimate calculation or the mechanism for payment of any consequential liabilities.
More surprisingly, and unknown at the time to my constituent, the purchaser appeared to be a consortium comprised of a number of partners of McCartan, Turkington and Breen?—Mr. Turkington and Mr. Breen becoming directors of SCIL—and, incredibly, Parnell Kerr Forster, who were the solicitors acting for the company. Mr. Francis Gerard French of that firm also became a director of SCIL.
The following terms were agreed in the share sale agreement. A notional sum of £225,000 was to be paid to the shareholders, equating to about £3.75 per share. That was payable as follows: first, £15,000 deposit on

209WH
the 12 November 1984; secondly, the sum of £135,000 on account on completion on 1 November 1984; thirdly, there was to be subtracted from the notional sum of £225,000 the losses that had occurred within SCIL recorded to 31 August 1984, together with further losses that had occurred between 1 September 1984 and 31 October 1984, as calculated by the auditors, PKF, and certified in audited accounts; and, fourthly, further sums were to be deducted in respect of fees incurred by J. A. Whelan Best, PKF, and McCartan Turkington Breen, where two of the partners were purchasers.
To facilitate completion of the sale, Dr. Donnelly received a telephone call from Mr. Courtney of PKF indicating that his presence was urgently required in Belfast in connection with matters arising from the proposed sale. I have seen a letter from 2 October 1984 written by Mr. Courtney to Dr. Donnelly and enclosing a copy of a power of attorney, which Dr. Donnelly subsequently executed. A copy of the power of attorney has been made available to my constituent and is dated 29 September 1984. It is signed by Dr. Donnelly, and witnessed by his mother and an Andrew James Wilkinson of PKF. The power of attorney is general and is not limited in scope simply to signing the share sale agreement.
In relation to post-completion matters, in my constituent's letter to the firms on 29 November 1984, he confirmed his telephone conversation the previous day with Mr. Courtney and, in particular, his instructions as to how the proceeds of sale from his shares in SCIL were to be dealt with. Those instructions were as follows: sale proceeds of 12,000 of those shares were to have their cash equivalent remitted to him, and cash proceeds referable to the sale of a second tranche of 2,500 shares were to be invested to provide an income for his mother, by which I understand that he meant that the money was to be invested in trust for her.
Notwithstanding those instructions, Mr. Courtney wrote to my constituent on 21 December 1984 enclosing a schedule setting out how the proceeds of sale had been, or were proposed to be, appropriated. Consideration of that schedule showed that in addition to losses and costs certain debts were also taken into account prior to the distribution being made to my constituent. It appears that the following amounts were deducted: a Stagecoach/SCIL debt of £27,175, taxation of £17,185, and a bank loan of £14,031. I cannot see any contractual provision contained in the share sale agreement that confirms that those deductions were authorised. At no stage was my constituent consulted and he did not have an opportunity to corroborate the amounts.
In the event, my constituent received from PKF the sum of £12,000, plus £5,000 of bonds, and confirmation that the balance due, the sum of £17,880, was owed to Dr. Donnelly by his mother. It appears that that balance was paid directly to my constituent's mother without any express or implied authority from my constituent to deal with that money in that way.
It would appear that the complaints against both firms arise out of their failure to advise properly in relation to the meaning and implications of the general power of attorney. That pertains particularly to Brian Courtney and the representation of my constituent in relation to the share sale transaction There was also a
210WH
failure to give any advice in connection with the share sale agreement and, in particular, with potential personal liability, valuation and price per share, the effect of the warranties contained within the agreement, the identification of the purchaser, potential personal liability pursuant to warranties, undertakings concerning competition, and the meaning and effect of confidentiality covenants. Also, there was a failure to give any notice or request any instructions about the appropriation of the proceeds of sale and to act upon my constituent's written instructions concerning how he wished the proceeds of sale to be received and accounted for.
Finally, there were various conflicts of interest including a potential conflict of interest between my constituent and his mother in how the proceeds of sale were to be appropriated; a clear potential conflict of interest in the way in which PKF acted on my constituent's behalf while also apparently acting as expert in the production of completion accounts for the purposes of identifying losses that were to be subtracted from the sale price, given the involvement of a partner as one of the purchasers; and, finally, a failure to give proper advice on how the calculation of such losses was undertaken. There was also a failure to obtain instructions, notwithstanding the existence of a general power of attorney in respect of the apparent change of purchaser.
One of the difficulties that Dr. Donnelly faced was that his mother was suffering from multiple sclerosis, which had been diagnosed in 1977. Her condition had deteriorated. She was unable to draw any of the benefits to which she otherwise would have been entitled because of the capital sum that had been paid over to her without Dr. Donnelly's authority.
Dr. and Mrs. Donnelly have subsequently been in protracted correspondence with the Law Society of Northern Ireland. In a letter dated 1 January 1999, they asked whether the Law Society would say that professional ethics were central to proper standards of behaviour; whether it was professional or ethical for a solicitor in Northern Ireland to act for both owner and purchaser; whether it was professional or ethical for a solicitor in Northern Ireland to act for both vendor and purchaser and also to be involved in the transaction personally; whether it was ethical for a solicitor in Northern Ireland to accept a general power of attorney if he was acting for both buyer and seller and if he himself was one of the purchasers, and not to investigate the provenance of that power of attorney, considering that the document was drafted by an accountant whose partner was also a purchaser, a future shareholder and a witness to the signing of the power. Almost incredibly, the letter did not elicit any action from the Law Society.
In August 1999, my constituent asked the lay observer, Professor Vincent Mageean, to look at the failure of the Law Society to investigate Mr. Turkington and to maintain standards in the profession. He was asked repeatedly to investigate conflicts of interest that the society may have failed to declare, as my constituent felt that the Law Society was protecting Mr. Turkington.
The lay observer stated in his report that he was always given information that he requested from the Law Society. He declared that he had no reason to believe that Mr. Turkington had held any office in the

211WH
society. Two years later, in 2001, we discovered that Mr. Turkington had been a committee member of the Law Society for many years and had been a past president in 1986, just over a year after what has been put forward by my constituent as an alleged fraud. When faced with the evidence, the lay observer wrote that he did not feel that that constituted any form of conflict.
Correspondence continued with the solicitors disciplinary tribunal between 1999 and 2002. The secretary, Donal McFerran, informed my constituent that he needed a copy of the 1980 solicitors practice regulations to draft a formal complaint to the tribunal. Mr. McFerran claimed that none of the lawyers on the tribunal had a copy of the document. One lawyer, Michael Wilson, was about to send a copy to my constituent when Mr. McFerran prevented him from doing so. Mr. McFerran wrote that there is strict impartiality in the tribunal and no connections with the Law Society of Northern Ireland. We later discovered that Mr. Butler was a lecturer and examiner for the society and that the entire tribunal is chosen by it. There is no impartiality whatsoever.
Correspondence continued with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. Two years later, Brice Dickson finally decided that the commission could not help. The fraud squad agreed to investigate the matter if my constituent found a lawyer who was willing to bring a case.
The situation is dire and every effort has drawn a blank. An individual, the Law Society of Northern Ireland or the lay observer can refer matters to the solicitors disciplinary tribunal for Northern Ireland. My constituents complained that the individuals and the Law Society saw nothing wrong because they were shot through with conflicts of interest, while the lay observer would not take up the matter.
That leaves my constituents absolutely nowhere after all those years of hard work going from pillar to post. I secured an Adjournment debate similar to this one about 18 months ago. I am not making conspiratorial accusations, but it was disappointing that two days before the debate took place, a Government Minister rang me and said, "Because of the Northern Ireland Assembly, the matter is devolved and is not within the Lord Chancellor's Department", which effectively pulled up the stumps for that debate. That is not a back-door accusation against anyone, least of all the Minister concerned, whose position I fully understood. Following that telephone conversation, I even corresponded with the Deputy First Minister of the Northern Ireland Assembly, but nothing came of it.
I am terribly disappointed on behalf of my constituents. There has been not only misconduct but something worse. We are discussing a group of fairly high-powered lawyers and accountants in Northern Ireland taking proceeds of sale, taking over a company and running a business with no regard for the rights of those to whom the business belonged. That cannot be right. It is nearer fraud than it is a disciplinary offence.
I urge the Minister to do his best to ensure that some justice comes my constituents' way. It has been said that because of the length of time that has elapsed the statute of limitations would probably bar legal actions for recovery of the funds owed. That may or may not be true, but where fraud is involved there is no statute of
212WH
limitations, so the matter is still at large. I contend that one should go to law only when all other avenues have been fully examined. My constituents have examined most of the avenues, but the door has been peremptorily shut in their faces at the end of each and every one of them. I urge the Minister to examine the problem anew. I know that it is fairly new to him and I am not expecting cast-iron guarantees but I ask him to examine the issue carefully and to liaise with his colleagues in Northern Ireland and the LCD.
I shall conclude with a quotation:
"Steps should be taken to achieve better representation on the Professional Conduct Committee"
in Northern Ireland.
"Currently it is dominated by the male staff of larger firms in Belfast."
That desrciption of the Law Society of Northern Ireland casts a long shadow over the whole unfortunate affair. The quotation is from the lay observer's 21st annual report 1997–98. That is the same lay observer who has vehemently declined to act in the matter.
11.18 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ian Pearson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) on securing this debate on what all of us in Parliament hope will be a momentous day in Northern Ireland's political history. He outlined a serious complaint made by his constituent relating to a legal transaction conducted by solicitors practising in Northern Ireland. He has done so in a typically cogent and forceful way and I applaud his diligence.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the matter is new to me. I cannot comment on the detail of the case. Notwithstanding events occurring across the water, however, what is said and placed on record today will benefit his constituents and keep open the arguments on the complaint.
The hon. Gentleman referred to difficulties encountered with the Law Society of Northern Ireland and the lay observer—both have statutory roles in connection with the regulation of solicitors in Northern Ireland. I shall begin by setting out the arrangements for the regulation of that profession because the regime differs from that operating in other UK jurisdictions.
The relevant legislation is the Solicitors (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, as amended by the Solicitors (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, under which there is self-regulation, with a complaints procedure administered by the Law Society of Northern Ireland. Complaints made to the Law Society are dealt with in the first instance by its secretariat and then by the client complaints committee, formerly known as the professional conduct committee, which investigates the background to the complaint and allegations made about the quality of services provided by a solicitor. The circumstances underlying complaints include undue delay, withholding or loss of documents, bills and accounts, disclosure of information, dissatisfaction with advice and ethics and inappropriate behaviour.
The client complaints committee may issue guidance, directions, admonition or warning, or it may refer a complaint to the solicitors disciplinary tribunal, which

213WH
has extensive powers and a range of sanctions, including admonishing the solicitor, imposing fines, restrictions on practice and suspension, striking off, and ordering payment of costs or restitution. A client or member of the public may also bring a complaint to the tribunal and there is scope for the lay observer to refer complaints to it in certain cases.
I have some direct responsibility for the role of the lay observer, who is appointed under article 42 of the 1976 order, as amended by Article 17 of the 1989 order. The Department of Finance and Personnel makes an appointment after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland. It is important to recognise that the lay observer is not a solicitor, barrister, or Government official. He provides independent oversight of the Law Society's handling of complaints and has a monitoring and reporting role. The Department may, after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice, give general directions to the lay observer about the scope and discharge of his functions. The Department does not intervene in his consideration of the complaints handling process in any individual case.
The functions of the lay observer are twofold. First, he reports on the nature of the complaints made to the Law Society of Northern Ireland about the conduct of solicitors and how they are dealt with by it. Those reports are furnished to the Lord Chief Justice, the Department of Finance and Personnel and the council of the Law Society. They are also laid before the Northern Ireland Assembly. Secondly, he examines any written allegation made by, or on behalf of, a member of the public concerning the society's treatment of a complaint about a solicitor, or employer of a solicitor, made to the society by that member of the public or on his behalf.
If, during the examination of any such allegation, it appears to the lay observer that questions arise about the professional conduct of the solicitor and the quality of professional services provided, he may make an application to the solicitors disciplinary tribunal about the solicitor concerned, as the hon. Gentleman outlined. He may do that if he thinks that it would be appropriate for the tribunal to consider the quality of professional services provided, with a view to determining whether it should exercise any of its powers to impose sanctions under article 51A. Sanctions for inadequate professional services relate to the determination of costs and setting time for the completion and rectification of errors, omissions or deficiencies at the expense of the solicitor.
The yearly report of the lay observer provides statistical information about the nature of complaints and their outcomes. In the report for 2002, some 286 complaints were made to the Law Society—a decrease from 309 in the previous year. The report does not deal with the details of any individual complaint. The lay observer does not comment on the merits of individual cases, because his responsibilities are confined to the complaints handling process.
When the report is received it is laid before the Assembly. The council of the Law Society is required to consider any report and notify the lay observer of any action in consequence of the lay observer's comments or recommendations. In addition, substantive responses
214WH
are submitted from the Department. The lay observer assesses those responses and, where appropriate, returns to the issues in his next report and indicates whether he is satisfied. In that way, a measure of transparency and accountability is achieved in the system.
The complaint to which the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy referred, as he fully outlined, involves a transaction entered into in 1984 for the sale of shares in a company, and allegations of conflicts of interests and improper advice arising at that time. As I have suggested, I am unable to comment in detail on the circumstances of an individual case and hon. Members will appreciate that it would be inappropriate for me to do so. I shall therefore outline for the hon. Gentleman the procedures that have been followed to date.
I have been informed that the Law Society's professional conduct committee considered the complaints in 1998. The committee did not accept the arguments and allegations put forward by the complainants and took no further action in relation to the two firms involved. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the handling of the complaint was examined by the lay observer in 2000, and after lengthy examination and due deliberation he decided that the Law Society had acted properly and that he would not make an application to the solicitors disciplinary tribunal for its consideration. However, he advised the complainants that they had the right to contact the tribunal themselves directly. He also decided to make some recommendations of a general nature to the Law Society on the subject of client care, which had arisen from his examination of the documents in the case. The complaint was not, in the event, referred to the tribunal by the complainants.
Mr. Llwyd: As a matter of record, it was. I refer to the secretary, Donal McFerran, who said that he did not have a copy of the appropriate regulations under which a complaint should be handled. The tribunal was therefore contacted, but it was not interested in taking the matter forward.
Mr. Pearson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I am sure that they will be drawn to the attention of those that need to know. I am also aware that the complainant referred the case to the police, but that no criminal prosecution was brought. Currently, no other legal proceedings are being instituted.
The hon. Gentleman has made some serious allegations and it is important that we consider them further. They also raise a more general issue about regulation of the solicitor profession. It is recognised that there is a need for a review of the system of regulation for the provision of legal services in Northern Ireland. The Department of Finance and Personnel has said in its response to the lay observer's report for 2002 that it would want to explore all of those issues. The best context for doing so would be the devolution of justice functions in Northern Ireland, which would facilitate a thorough evaluation and allow the Northern Ireland Administration to take a comprehensive view of the whole area. Following elections and restoration of the Assembly and the full implementation of the Belfast agreement, that will be possible.
It is true that the system is different in England and Wales, as the hon. Gentleman will know from his background as a solicitor and barrister. The legal

215WH
services ombudsman provides independent supervision of the self-regulatory process. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Department for Constitutional Affairs recently announced proposals to bring into operation provisions in the Access to Justice Act 1999 to establish a legal services complaints commissioner. There are powers in England and Wales that have no parallel with the situation of the lay observer in Northern Ireland. That is something that a devolved Assembly and devolved Ministers will want to pursue in due course and that may well be the best way forward for the hon. Gentleman's constituents.
11.30 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

National Insurance Fund
2 pm
Paul Flynn: The national insurance fund, along with the national health service, was the supreme achievement of social welfare legislation in the 20th century. It was an act of great courage by Lloyd George to face down his many enemies and introduce an insurance fund reform, which has delivered five generations from the worst effects of poverty. We contemporary politicians should be ashamed about what we have done to the fund over the past 25 years. The purpose of this debate is to list the recent damaging changes that have disfigured the vision of the pioneers. The scheme has been neglected, looted, distorted, undervalued and degraded.
When I was reading a website called "Gathering the Jewels", I was struck by an example of how people used to feel about social legislation. The website contains a poem written in praise of a parliamentary Act. Sadly, that does not happen these days, with landfill tax legislation and the aggregates levy for example, although the poet laureate might address himself to that. I will quote one stanza of the poem, in Welsh first:

"Pwy all fesur gwerth y cysur,

Dygir 'nawr I lawer ty,

Yn lle tristwch du, gorlethol

Gwelir yno obaith cry'

Ofn y tlotty wedi ei symud-

Llethol ofn i luaws mawr-

A phelydrau disglair, goleu,

Yn mynegi hyfryd wawr."

[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I can see that that has stirred the blood of hon. Members. This is what it was saying in that extravagant language that now feels alien and exotic:

"Who can measure the value of comfort

That will visit every home?

Where once was black overwhelming sadness,

Now strong hope is seen.

The great fear of poverty has been lifted

From a host of people,

And rays of brilliant, shining light

Heralds a lovely dawn."

If only we could get our constituents to appreciate our efforts in such terms in these pedestrian days.
David Lloyd George sold the national insurance fund to a suspicious public, particularly the well-heeled, articulate and prosperous, by saying that people would put in fourpence and get out ninepence. That is the way in which the system worked for a long period. It was very good value: fourpence was put in by the employee, the employer contributed thruppence and the Treasury tuppence. When the scheme began, it was very popular. It was reformed in 1948.
The fund is the essential part of our body of social insurance. The system operates on a pay-as-you-go basis: people of working age and their employers pay national insurance contributions based on their earnings. By doing so, they earn the right to pensions and other benefits. Because it is a pay-as-you-go system, it is never possible to identify a particular pot of money

217WH
or a share in the fund as belonging to a particular contributor. That does not make the rights earned by contributions any less real. In the long run, the system can work efficiently only if all concerned believe that it will be administered fairly and openly, and that the money paid in will be used for its intended purposes. The way in which the fund has been manipulated during the past 25 years has done little to encourage that belief.
The fund works by collecting national insurance contributions, paid by employers, employees and the self-employed, to pay national insurance benefits, of which by far the most important—and the main reason for this debate—is the retirement pension. This year, national insurance benefits are expected to total about £55 billion, of which £46 billion will be for retirement pensions. What happens with the fund affects all those receiving retirement pensions. Part of the fund's job is to retain a relatively small balance, enough to ensure that it remains solvent in unforeseen circumstances, such as a fall in the number of people in employment, which would mean a fall in the number of people paying contributions.
The Government Actuary's report states annually how much is in the fund and how healthy it is. That ensures that the expected income for the coming year is sufficient to cover the cost of the benefits, and leaves what is described as a "reasonable working balance". The Government Actuary views as reasonable a balance of one sixth of the previous year's total benefits. It is important to understand that to realise the extraordinary position that the fund is in today, with a vast, unneeded surplus. In recent years, the fund has been collecting far more in contributions than it has needed to pay the benefit.
An early-day motion of February 1999 noted that the balance at the end of that year was expected to be £5.9 billion. It suggested, usefully I thought, that the unneeded surplus could be used to increase the basic pension to the level of the means-tested minimum income guarantee. That would be a useful way of ensuring that the many people who do not claim their full entitlement—the genuinely poorest pensioners—got their pension as a right and did not have to become supplicants in asking for it. Unfortunately, that was not done and the surplus has continued to grow.
The Government Actuary's latest report shows that by March 2004 the fund will have a balance of £29.3 billion, which is more than three times the recommended level. The unneeded surplus will have risen to more than £20 billion, so it is far from being a pay-as-you-go system. It is a profitable enterprise, which is fine—we are very happy with profits in classic Labour. However, the profits should be applied in a sensible way, because the source of the fund's profits is the money paid in every week by working people and their employers to meet current benefit costs. However, a significant part of that money is no longer used for that purpose; it is being salted away in Government stocks.
The main effect on the fund came with the breaking of the link between pensions and earnings. It is fascinating that the Conservative party has now espoused the restoration of that link. For five continuous years, early-day motion 1 on the Order Paper sought the restoration of the link. I have looked back through the signatures—
218WH
there were usually more than 100 each time—but not one Conservative Member signed during those years. From 1980 to 1997, having broken the link, the Conservatives kept it broken. If there were a Nobel prize for shameless political opportunism, it would go to the Tory party, which claims to be the apostle of the restoration of the link.
I welcome the Tory party's espousal of the policy—as a non-Government organisation, it can be a useful pressure group to advocate new policies. I speak today in the hope that it will take up the restoration of the integrity of the national insurance fund as another brand new policy. What happened with the breaking of the link was significant and simple. National insurance contributions are calculated as a percentage of earnings, and as earnings rise, the fund's income from contributions automatically rises by approximately the same percentage.
Until 1980, the state pension also rose roughly in line with average earnings. The earnings link itself was only a statutory requirement for a brief period of five years but, in practice, pensions and earnings rose broadly in line with inflation from the war until 1980. Of course, if contributions and benefit levels rise in that way, the effect is entirely neutral. That was the happy situation until 1980, when the earnings link was broken. In what was the grandmother of all stealth taxes, contributions continued to rise in line with earnings, but benefits rose only in line with prices. That went on for 17 long years of salami cuts for pensioners. That was extremely lucrative for the fund, and led to there being so much money in the fund that in 1987 the Conservative Government decided to abolish the Treasury contribution.
Before the Treasury contribution was abolished, fourpence came from the employee, thruppence from the employer and tuppence from the Government. That tuppence was taken out. That is the most significant change to the fund in the past 25 years. The Treasury contribution was 18 per cent. of the combined contributions of employers and employees—a very substantial sum. That was paid in for most of the second half of the previous century. In the first part of the century, a similar amount was paid in. The Treasury contribution stayed at 18 per cent. under both Conservative and Labour Governments until it was phased out in the 1980s. There is now no Treasury contribution as such.
Legislation provides for a Treasury grant to be paid in if the fund looks like going into the red. That happened for a brief period after the fund had been looted for the 2 per cent. bribe used to promote private pensions in that dreadful mis-selling disaster started and inspired by the then Government. That legislation still exists. However, with a surplus of nearly £30 billion in the fund, there is not much risk of that at the moment.
There is a strong case for the Treasury contribution to national insurance to be restored. Although the entitlement to benefit has rested mainly on the individual's record of contributions—one gets what one pays for—it was recognised from the start that some allowance must be made for periods when a person did no paid work; hence the system of contribution credits which, as much as anything, distinguishes social insurance from commercial insurance. The recently introduced state second pension, with its generous

219WH
system of credits for carers and disabled people, is an excellent example of that, and is a justification for the Treasury paying the supplement. However, if people are to receive, on the ground of social justice, benefits for which they have not paid through their own contributions, by far the fairest way of financing those benefits is through general progressive taxation—by a direct grant from the Treasury—not taking it out of the contributions of those putting money in for their own benefit later.
Reintroducing the Treasury contribution at the level at which it stood before it was phased out would increase the fund's income by about £11 billion in the current year—enough to pay for an increase in the basic pension from £77.45 to £95.60 a week. We are talking about enormous sums. There would be vast consequences for pensioners. A Treasury contribution would also result in similar increases in widows' and incapacity benefits, without even touching the existing £20 billion surplus in the fund.
Another painful period followed the 2 per cent. bribe that was offered after the abolition of the Treasury contribution. That was one of the most shameful episodes in the career of that Parliament. In that disastrous campaign to sell dodgy personal pensions, people were invited to accept what was claimed to be a gift from the Government of £5,000. Part of that was a bribe of a 2 per cent. reduction in NI contributions, which was made at the expense of all those people—the majority—who stayed in the state scheme.
More recently, the fund has suffered massive losses through the introduction of a series of new taxes. I believe that we all admire the new laws that encourage environmentally responsible behaviour by employers. First, there was the landfill tax, then the aggregates levy and, most recently, the climate change levy. In each case, the Government decided to compensate employers as a whole by reducing labour costs, and the simplest way to do that was by reducing employers' NI contributions. That may make administrative sense. There may be a good reason for doing it that way and putting on a charge. It may be the most efficient way to do it. Regardless, the Treasury collects the money.
As a result of recent questions to discover the extent of the loss to the NI fund, I discovered that the fund will lose £1.2 billion this year in compensation for the climate change levy and £0.4 billion for the aggregates levy. I have been told that the effect of the landfill tax on the fund cannot be calculated, but it is entirely safe to assume that the three taxes together are costing the fund some £2 billion a year in reduced employers' contributions, although none of them has the slightest relevance to national insurance. Why on earth should a fund that is devoted mainly to rewarding pensioners for their contributions be looted in that way to pay for the whole country's responsibility for environmental taxes? It is entirely perverse and damaging that that should happen.
There has been a further obscure loss to the fund that is, perhaps, surprising. I believe that we would all agree that we should pay more taxes for the health service. However, when the extra 1 per cent. contribution for the NHS was introduced, the idea as promulgated was that it would simply be handed over to the NHS and that the amount of money available for pensions and other benefits would not be affected in any way.
220WH
The truth was revealed in paragraph 10 of the Government Actuary's report of February 2003. It explains that, although the extra 1 per cent. employers' contribution is payable only on earnings above the secondary threshold of £89 a week, the amount paid to the NHS is defined as a percentage of all earnings, not just earnings above the threshold. It is difficult to believe, but the result is that an extra £1 billion a year over and above the 1 per cent. contribution is being transferred from the NI fund to the NHS. Again, that is without logic or sense. It is grossly unfair to the principal beneficiaries of the NI fund.
What all that amounts to, adding up the results of all those changes, is that the current annual income of the NI fund has been reduced by some £13 billion a year and its annual expenditure increased by another £1 billion—a total loss of £14 billion a year. That is almost exactly one third of the total bill for retirement pensions. It is a vast amount that, if it were available, would easily allow the minimum income guarantee to be at the same level as the basic pension. The basic pension would then be paid.
As many hon. Members have said in the House, the great problem with the poorest pensioners is that they have lived their lives in self-respect and dignity and never taken a handout. Many pensioners will say with great pride that they have done that and never had to seek any handout from the state. When they reach retirement age, they say that they are not going to start doing it. They say that they have paid their dues—their contributions—and they see no reason why they should ask for income support to raise their income to what the Government define as a basic necessity of life.
Now we are in government, we have exchanged scripts from when we were the Opposition. I remember a Government spokesman saying that we must not talk about stigma, because that was a bad word and would discourage people from claiming income support—the same thing was said before 1997 by the Tory Government. That group of people still remains. Although we do not know the precise number, there are probably around 500,000 of the poorest pensioners living below the level of the minimum income guarantee.
Despite all the losses that the fund has taken and all that has gone on, there is still a massive and steadily growing surplus, which currently stands at £20 billion. That is over and above the working balance recommended by the Government Actuary. Is it any wonder pensioners reject the argument that says that an increase in the basic pension to the level of the minimum income guarantee is unaffordable? Is it any wonder that young people have so little confidence in a state system that says that they will be paid adequate pensions, as promised, when we see the chicanery that has happened under Labour and Tory Governments in recent years?
If the Government are looking for new ways to spend the huge surplus, there are many ways they could do it. One of the most heart-breaking situations is the suffering of Allied Steel and Wire pensioners and, to a lesser extent, those of Bell Lines in my constituency. Those people paid into their occupational pension funds and expected something at the end of it. They now feel that they will be short-changed, or that they may end up with no pension at all.
It would be far more appropriate if the Government found out what the finite amount involved is and decided—exceptionally, for a limited period—to

221WH
compensate those who have lost their pensions for no reason at all. There would be a very small amount involved, compared with the sums of money in the national insurance fund at the moment.
Kevin Brennan: My hon. Friend's argument is compelling and reveals a lot. Is he aware that one of the arguments advanced about why Allied Steel and Wire workers, and others in the same position, cannot be compensated is that the Government do not stand behind private pensions? He has, however, revealed to us this afternoon that the Government of the day raided the national insurance fund to subsidise dodgy private pensions, rather than the rock-solid private pensions that workers were told—indeed, compelled—to join when they went out to work. Would not it be much better to use any surplus in the national insurance fund to compensate those workers, thereby restoring confidence in occupational private pensions?
Paul Flynn: That is entirely right. We know the Government's objection to having a bottomless pit of compensation that might go on and on. However, the law could be changed to ensure that the disaster of Allied Steel and Wire would not be repeated in future. If there is any cause precisely associated with the social insurance fund that must be at the top of everyone's list, it is the one I am talking about. That is far more relevant than the green taxes, which have no connection with the national insurance fund at all.
After the sad effects of the past 25 years, we must make a move to restore people's faith in social insurance. A group known as Catalyst published a pamphlet called "Better Pensions: the state's responsibility". It suggests one possible way of restoring faith in our social insurance system. It proposes the appointment of a national insurance commission consisting largely of representatives of contributors and pensioners, which would be responsible for fixing benefit and contribution rates and proposing structural changes to the benefit system. The Government and Parliament will still have the final say, but if the Government want to impose changes to benefits or contributions that are contrary to the views of the commission, they would have to lay before Parliament a full statement of the reason, which could then be debated by the House.
That proposal is similar to one that was published a while ago by Tony Lyons in a booklet called "Our Pensions". He made a persuasive suggestion that the whole national insurance fund should be placed at arm's length from Government, so that they are not tempted to interfere with it when dealing with matters that are entirely extraneous to the fund. The fund should be divided into two sections: one that is invested and one that is kept as a static fund. Managers of the fund should be rewarded on the successes of their investments and on the contributions that they manage to pay out. That is where we stand.
David Lloyd George introduced a marvellous and brave law, but we are now far away from the bright new dawn that was then envisaged. There are dark clouds over the pension industry and pensions themselves. There is a way out, and that is to rebuild confidence in
222WH
the social insurance principle, so that people know that if they put money in they will get it out at the end. Instead of getting ninepence for fourpence, sadly, the deal for many people is that they put in ninepence and get fourpence. All parties in the House should combine to restore the full confidence that the national insurance fund enjoyed in the past, and to recreate it on a fair, just and reasonable basis.
2.27 pm
Mr. Steve Webb: One of the joys of these extended Westminster Hall debates is that they provide the opportunity to think and reflect. We should all thank the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) for giving us the chance to do just that this afternoon and congratulate him on a thorough presentation and documentation of what has been happening to the national insurance fund since David Lloyd George—who is his forebear as much as mine—introduced it 100 years ago.
I broadly agree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis of the problem and of where we have got to, but I part company from him when it comes to where we should go from here. I agree that national insurance has become, to all intents and purposes, another tax. It raises a pot of money that Governments feel free to dip into for whatever purpose suits them at the time, and a lot of what goes into the fund does not earn any entitlement anyway. Employer contributions, which are of course greater than employee contributions, earn no rights whatsoever, but are just a payroll tax. Class 4 national insurance contributions accrue no benefit rights; they are just another tax. Much of what goes into the fund is tax by any other name. The examples that the hon. Gentleman gave of what is done with the money—relieving employers of payroll burdens for green taxes and that sort of thing—is further evidence that we simply have a pot of money with an historic boundary around it, which is increasingly hard to justify.
I also agree that there are plenty of good things that we could do with the money. We can all think what we might do if we had £20 billion. There is sometimes the sense that this is free money and that we can spend it without it costing us anything—I do not accuse the hon. Gentleman of that. We need to remember that every pound spent from the national insurance fund using up that surplus is another pound on aggregate Government borrowing. If Government raised another tax and spent that money, it would have the same effect. I am not sure that we can spend that pot of money in any meaningful sense. The money is being raised through a direct tax and if we put the Treasury supplement back in, we would have to raise other taxes to pay for it. It is certainly not free money, and we must be careful not to give that impression.
If national insurance has effectively become a tax like any other—I suspect that that is the way that we have gone—what do we do about that? The hon. Gentleman's principled position is that one restores the original intent of the national insurance fund and recreates social insurance. My problem with that is that social insurance has become a system of exclusion. Social insurance today involves a set of rules that stop a set of people from getting benefits.
By and large, men pay national insurance; virtually all who work earn above the lower earnings limit, therefore virtually all accrue pension rights. A number of women

223WH
do not do so. Many women who have two part-time jobs below the lower earnings limit accrue no pension rights at all. The rights of carers are limited. Although the state second pension gives rights to carers when their child is up to five years of age, a mum who is not earning, or not earning up to the lower earnings limit, and whose child is six gets no protection.
National insurance today excludes a subset of people, predominantly women, and predominantly the low-paid. Do we really want to reinforce that structure, or do we want to develop a new one? We should move away from a situation where people's retirement pensions are linked in a complicated way to their record of national insurance contributions during their working lives. All that does is create a lot of infrastructure and administrative cost to keep a small number of people out. That is what national insurance does—it excludes a minority.
Henceforth, we should have a citizenship-based pension whereby each year one accrues a right to a year's worth of state pension—or a 40th, or whatever the percentage is—on the basis of having been a citizen of the country. The effect of that would be to bring in women who work part-time, are low-paid or carers and so on. That would ensure that people are getting a good pension in their own right, rather than excluding people.
The reason I suggest that now when it would not have been the right system 100 years ago is that Lloyd George's model for the pension was that what was needed—this was particularly true post-war with the Beveridge model—was that the pension should be enough to support the man and his dependants, not to support women in their own right. In other words, it did not matter that women were excluded from national insurance because they did not need pensions—they depended on their husbands. We do not want to reinforce such a structure.
We want a citizenship model that allows people to earn pension rights through being a citizen. Therefore, social insurance ceases to be relevant to the basis of entitlement for pensions. Under that system, men and women are treated equally and we do not have a bureaucracy to keep contribution records only to exclude a small number of people. It is an inclusive agenda and once everyone is getting a citizenship pension, the political cost to any Government of mucking about with it is much greater.
As the hon. Gentleman graphically demonstrated, because the present system in so complicated—no one really understands how it works—Government after Government and scheme after scheme can dip a billion here and there out of the national insurance fund and get away with it scot free as it has no political visibility. A citizenship-based pension that is nothing to do with complex social contribution rules, with people knowing that they as citizens have a right to a certain level of pension, would be a much better way of doing things.
Having said that, I accept that hypothecation—that is not what Lloyd George would have called it—has an important part to play. Hypothecation makes taxation more acceptable. People are more willing to pay any given level of tax, or any tax increase, if they know where the money is going, and it is going on something that they want it to be spent on. That is why the Liberal
224WH
Democrats have increasingly come to the view that we should hypothecate the entire national insurance pot to the national health service.
There may be all sorts of arguments against that. Once a pot of money has been hypothecated to the health service, what do we do if we have a bad year and there is no national insurance? Do we cancel operations? We have a model. The Treasury does not set its goals from one financial year to the next; it sets them over the cycle. It says that that is necessary to satisfy certain economic rules over the cycle, not in each financial year. If one hypothecated the entire national insurance pot to the health service, one could have the independent commission that the hon. Gentleman suggested. It would set the national insurance rates so that over the cycle the national health service would have the funds that it needed for the spending plans that Parliament had set.
If, for example, the public wanted an improvement in the health service, politicians could say, "We will put your national insurance up," and by statute that money would be ring-fenced for the health service. Evidence shows that if the public believe that money is going where they want it to go, they will be more willing to accept an increase. A policy that lowers the political cost of putting more money into public services has to be good for those hon. Members who are positive about progressive taxation and an active public sector.
The Chancellor's increase in national insurance last year for the benefit of the health service was a watered-down version of what I am discussing. I used e-mail to poll hundreds of my constituents about the extra penny on national insurance and about two thirds said that they liked the idea provided that the money went to the health service. I did not ask them to say that—it was an unprompted response.
The principle of hypothecation is good. It reduces the political cost of providing enhanced public services. In a modern setting, the principle of hypothecation must not be to reconstruct state pensions based on an insurance model that excludes those who are too poor to pay insurance. It must be the basis of payment for the national health service—a different sort of national insurance.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned a couple of areas on which he would spend the surplus. We share a lot more common ground on that point. We share the view that the value of the basic state pension is wholly inadequate and that it is not good enough to re-link it to earnings from its present inadequate level. Keeping the state pension at its current percentage of average earnings will leave it substantially below the means test indefinitely, if the test is earnings linked. If it is price linked, the poorest households will lose out. We must increase pensions before considering indexation rules.
I am relaxed about whether that increase is made through a national insurance rise or a tax rise because the structure of national insurances is such that employee contributions are still effectively capped. Paying for a state pension rise through national insurance, which is capped, is less progressive than paying by income tax, which is not. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the ends of an enhanced basic pension but I am not sure about the means. I am not sure whether clear and honest direct taxation is not more

225WH
progressive than a contribution system in which those earning above £30,000 pay no more than those earning below.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the position of people whose company pensions have been inadequately wound up and asked where we can find the money for them. I agree that we must find the money, but I question whether the national insurance fund is the right place. One would be asking employed earners—primarily those who are not in private schemes—to compensate those in private schemes. They might feel that that is unfair. If the general taxpayer funded the system, it would be fairer. Anything funded by national insurance is by definition funded from a subset of the population. It is not clear why that subset— those earning in particular income bands in particular employment—should pay, rather than taxpayers as a whole. That distinction does not help us any more.
I back what the hon. Gentleman said about compensation for people in schemes that are wound up owing to inadequate funding. It is unacceptable for the Government to say that in a few years they will protect people but that those who fall foul of a wind-up tomorrow will be completely abandoned. The Government are worried that there would be an element of retrospection if somebody whose pension fund had been wound up were compensated. However, compensation is by definition retrospective. Somebody cannot be compensated for an event until it has happened; it would not be compensation if somebody were paid before an event. Governments have always compensated people when things go wrong for example as a result of the legislative framework being incorrect.
To give an analogy—I am not straying from the topic, Mr. Deputy Speaker—when people had blood transfusions that were not properly checked for Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, the Government said, "That is not right. We are going to do something." The action was retrospective in that it occurred after the event, but it was compensation and properly so. Likewise, given that people are sometimes forced to join pension schemes as a condition of employment, when the Government introduced the Pensions Act 1995, which states that if a scheme goes belly up people have got practically no rights, they took responsibility for it.
Retrospection is not an issue. Compensation should be paid and the hon. Gentleman is right about that. I do not care two hoots whether the compensation is from the national insurance fund or anywhere else. The Department for Work and Pensions has identified surplus funding for the coming few years in unallocated spending, and that is where I should like the money to come from.
The hon. Gentleman is right that we have come a long way from the founding principles of national insurance. The question is whether we rebuild that structure or build something new. My concern about rebuilding is that we live in a world in which women should be treated not as their husbands' hangers-on but as people in their own right. I do not want to rebuild a structure that treats women as second-class citizens. I would base the pensions system on citizenship rather than on contributions, which would help women, carers, the low-paid and the disabled, but preserve the idea of
226WH
hypothecation—a ring-fenced tax for a ring-fenced purpose—and apply it in the 21st century to the health service as it was applied in the 20th century to pensions. The hon. Gentleman has done us a service by raising the issues because there is too little scrutiny of what happens to the national insurance fund. The House owes him its thanks this afternoon.
2.41 pm
Mr. Howard Flight: I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) on securing this valuable debate. I thank him for his analysis of the history of national insurance. I should like to focus on a few historical points before examining the political issues more closely in relation to this and previous Governments' uses of national insurance funds and, more generally, taxation.
I spent a period of my life studying the economic history of the 19th and early-20th centuries. As the hon. Gentleman outlined, national health and unemployment insurance was introduced by the National Insurance Act 1911 with mutually owned bodies and friendly societies operating the health aspects of the scheme and with contribution levels laid down by Parliament.
Interestingly, substantial pension arrangements and health finance had previously been provided by friendly societies and trade unions. Although there is debate about how serious the situation was, the concern was the big jump in life expectancy at the end of the 19th century, when cholera and typhoid were finally conquered. It was feared actuarially that those bodies would go bust, and the focus was therefore on what to do about it. Members will know that both Churchill and Lloyd George went to Germany to study what Bismarck had done. The subsequent campaign stated that,
"A Healthy Empire needs Healthy Bodies".
The provision was promoted not as a socialist measure, but as part of the heady imperialism of those days. Indeed, Lloyd George spoke about
"putting Britain ahead in this field on a level with Germany; we should not emulate them only in armaments".
It was a competitive imperial strategy.
Until 1948, our system was a bit like German health insurance today in that membership was not compulsory. As late as 1960, I can remember asking why one of my grandfathers got a state pension and the other did not. The gist of what I learned was that the one that did not had an income in the 1920s and 1930s when he was not obliged to participate in the system, as was generally the case, and the other one did not earn as much. As the hon. Member for Newport, West will know, for more than the first half of the previous century, it was not a universal scheme at all. Some changes in the 1960s brought everyone in to qualify for state pensions, even if they had not necessarily paid their contributions.
I was never clear whether the original intent was that that should be funded like an insurance scheme, or whether it should be a pay-as-you-go system from day one. There was some controversy on that question at the time, but the fact is that it has become a completely pay-as-you-go system, not a funded one, with individuals

227WH
paying money, at least in theory, into a general pot. Governments have for a long time treated that in reality as just another form of tax revenue, but with entitlements to what one can draw in benefits. Those are partly determined by contributions, but another category of welfare benefits is not determined by contributions. Since the 1960s, we have had a complete mish-mash in terms of what entitlement across the broad range of welfare benefits rests on. Some go back to the Churchill and Lloyd George measures and some date from Wilson's measures, when the concept was brought in—by accident, as I have always understood it—of rights to welfare.
In the community, there are very different views. If one talks to people of 50 or over, including me, they broadly still think that it is an insurance scheme, where we have paid our national insurance and are entitled to our benefits, and they get extremely annoyed when Governments fiddle around with it. They might greatly support the hon. Member for Newport, West in the argument that Governments have raided the scheme. However, people in the younger age group broadly see the scheme as just another form of taxation levied under different rules. In that sense, the whole accounting is something of an illusion. It needs to be done, but it is really going through the motions while the Treasury get at a particular source of taxation. Some people in both main parties have argued for merging national insurance and income tax, and I have spent a fair amount of time during my life examining such proposals. Largely on pragmatic grounds, I have concluded that that would be a bad idea, not to mention the problems that transition would cause for entitlement if any Government sought to do that.
I have sympathy with the hon. Member for Newport, West on the point that the integrity of what was originally intended has been undermined and made into grey territory. Talking about unused money in the fund is an accounting illusion, and it is not on politically to revert to a truly integral arrangement. If one were to do that, it would be necessary to consider a funded arrangement, for it to stand alone. National insurance receipts are treated today very much as part of general tax revenue. They are not invested and there is no separate fund. When national insurance was introduced, the Liberal Government were anxious not to raise income tax, and were looking at a way of solving a problem that had emerged with the financial difficulties that the friendly societies and some of the trade union welfare arrangements had encountered as a result of improved life expectancy.
In place of the Liberals, we have today a Labour Government in a very similar situation. They do not want to raise income tax, for fear of alienating voters, so we have had the politically convenient measure of increasing national insurance contributions by 1 per cent. without any ceiling, which is patently simply a tax on earnings and employment. Business leaders, as well as my colleagues and I in the Conservative Treasury team, have attacked the Government for those increases, which have been levied since last April. At the time they were introduced, people had forgotten about the tax increases that were already in the pipeline following the previous Budget and had quite a major shock when they opened their April pay packets.
228WH
It is absolutely clear that, because NICs are levied on business and personal taxpayers, the perception is of a tax on jobs and pay. Indeed, for the first time in a long time, disposable incomes after tax are falling, with the overall tax take in the current year, specifically boosted by national insurance, up by 7 per cent. and about £27 billion in aggregate.
The evidence suggests that it was slightly an unwise form of tax at a wrong time. Last week, Britain's biggest bank advised that it was going to shed 4,000 jobs, at least partly as a result of increased employment costs, which were put up by the national insurance rise. When the figures are not interfered with by changing to a different system, they show that we have a background of an 85,000 fall in private sector employment in the past year, matched by a larger rise in public sector employment. Therefore, increasing the costs of employment is, as expected, serving to reduce jobs.
We should not be surprised by that negative impact. The Treasury said in 2000:
"Lower National Insurance Contributions will act to promote employment opportunities"
and businesses will benefit from the cut in employer's national insurance contributions, which will enable them to employ more people. In the last general election campaign, the Prime Minister gave his word and spoke against any increases in national insurance charges. When asked whether any reasonable person would suppose that the Labour Government might increase national insurance charges, the Prime Minister replied that "they shouldn't" so suppose.
The hon. Member for Newport, West commented on recent Conservative announcements on state pensions. The thinking that lies behind those announcements, which is perhaps a little different from his thinking, is that the Government have got the country into a nightmare situation in which all incentives to encourage private sector pension saving, such as the stakeholder initiative, no matter how well intended, are completely negated by the pension tax credit.
More than half of the nation would be foolish to save for a private pension. They would have to save about £180,000 to be in a situation equal to that which they would enjoy under the pension tax credit. Yet, for the good of the economy as a whole, and as the Government's own target has set out, there is the desire to increase the proportion of private sector pension provision as a proportion of the total.
People are greatly discouraged from saving privately for pensions because they do not like the idea that, by 75, they will have to part with all their savings, buy an annuity and take a chance on whether it is a good time to do that and whether inflation or interest rates are rising.
The only solution to those two massive problems is to get the basic state pension up to the minimum income support level. That would mean that both measures would no longer be necessary. In that context, we concluded that the only way in which that could be done is by restoring the earnings link to allow basic pensions to rise. It will take some time to do that and it would be too expensive to do it more quickly. For the sake of clarity, that is the fundamental objective. The key to restoring better levels of private sector pension saving is a basic state pension that means that there is no longer a need for the pension tax credit, or to force people to buy annuities.

229WH
May I say a little about NICs and health spending? Again, such is the myth about NI that one can say whatever one likes. I recollect that the 1 per cent. increase was presented as hypothecated to the health service. However, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer presented the actual figures in the relevant Budget, it was broadly shown that half of the increase would go to finance the health service and half would go to finance tax credits. Precisely how much of the extra NIC levy is in any meaningful way financing additional health spending is not clear. The reality is that it was a smokescreen for levying more tax on income and employment to pay for higher Government spending in aggregate.
Here lies the problem. The sudden and dramatic shift to tax and spend three years ago is failing dismally to deliver improved public services. Indeed, on the Government's own Office for National Statistics figures, 83 per cent. of the 50 per cent. increase in public sector spending since 1997 has gone on public sector inflation, which has risen from 1.6 per cent. to 6.5 per cent. and is now nearly 7 per cent. It is that failure that will be the main determinant of the next general election result.
For too long, health funding has been used as a political badge of honour or banner, rather than seen as a serious subject that affects the good of the country. Major reforms, not just ideological rhetoric, are needed to enable better delivery of health services. Above all, the Government should be concerned about output and delivery, not just spending. One could vastly increase spending and not get any material improvement in output.
In this territory, the Liberal Democrats seem as bad, or worse. Earlier this year, the then Liberal Democrat spokesman on Treasury issues, the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor), committed his party to a permanent ring-fenced tax for the NHS, without mention of the necessary reforms to enable the NHS to deliver better services. He said that he wanted to replace NICs with an NHS contribution tax to fund the NHS. I was not entirely clear from the contribution of the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) whether that is still Liberal Democrat policy, after its changes.
Paul Flynn: May I clear up one point? The hon. Gentleman says that the reason why his party now supports restoring the link is not that it wants what pensioners tell me that they want. Pensioners want a guarantee that their income will not decline with inflation. They want reassurance that, whatever happens, their income will continue at least at its present level. However, I understand that the hon. Gentleman's main reason for restoring the link is to boost the private pensions industry, which benefited so well from the previous Tory Government, particularly from the 2 per cent. bribe and the way in which the state earnings-related pension scheme was cut in half. Personal pensions were actively promoted with the result that at least 6 million people were mis-sold pensions. Would he not embark on a disastrous road in making another
230WH
attempt to support the private pensions industry, which is inefficient, wasteful and very costly to administer compared with the NI fund?
Mr. Flight: Of course, restoring the earnings link does just what it describes. The point that I was making was different from the sweet but inaccurate little caricature that the hon. Gentleman sketched. There is consensus across all parties that if private sector pension saving in whatever form is not increased—the Government's target is to move from 40 per cent. to 60 per cent.—the outlook for the overall economic welfare of our people and the ability to deliver welfare will be threatened. The economy will become bogged down like that of Germany with excessive levels of taxation, and will be unable to grow fast enough to produce the necessary growth to finance improved welfare. Therefore, the question is: how can the country move in the right direction? The present major barriers to increasing private sector pension saving are emerging as, first, the pension tax credit—no matter how well intended it is, it is a major disincentive—and, secondly, the obligation to buy an annuity.
No one denies that there were serious problems with private sector pension saving, but the hon. Gentleman would be mistaken if he did not realise that this country, prior to 1997, was to some extent the envy of the world in having achieved greater pension saving and greater participation in private sector saving, which was roughly at 70 per cent., than any other economy, and in having the economic advantages that went with that. The issue of tackling the proper selling of pensions, how they should be invested and managed, and other measures are being addressed and broadly enjoy cross-party support. If the hon. Gentleman believes that we can all have better welfare without the economy growing to a level that can finance that, he is deluding himself.
I close by going back to the issue of the debate. It has raised the major question: does our country stay with our rather mongrel national insurance arrangements, which in many ways are, on one side, merely another form of taxation but, on the other, a measurement of entitlement? Do we consider moving back towards what was originally intended, or even to a funded arrangement, or do we look in the other direction of merging national insurance and income tax?
My conclusion is that there should be a little more integrity, but the arguments against—in either direction—are rather more powerful than the criticisms of the present arrangements. Although the points of principle raised are perfectly justified, I certainly do not see an easy or powerful path without problems that would take us back to where national insurance came from in the beginning. However, I will certainly heed the hon. Member's words, and I think that the concept of a funded arrangement is well worth looking at.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to reply to this fascinating and well-informed debated.
3.2 pm
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn). I greatly enjoyed his

231WH
contribution. It was passionate and poetic, and I congratulate him on it. He has shown a long-standing interest in the subject, and I commend him for that.
It is probably worth starting with a few words of background about the national insurance fund. It was established in 1911, reformed in 1948 and it assumed, broadly, its current form in 1975, when the national insurance industrial injuries and the national insurance reserved funds were merged with it. It lies at the heart of the national insurance system, which was inspired by William Beveridge in his 1942 report and introduced by the post-war Labour Government in 1948. The Beveridge report set out the principle on which the fund is based. I quote from it:
"Every citizen of working age will contribute … according to the security that he needs … benefit in return for contributions, rather than free allowances from the State, is what the people of Britain desire."
In debates on the 1946 National Insurance Bill, James Griffiths MP said:
"I have no hesitation in saying—I have said it before outside and I will say it now in the House—this scheme is the best and cheapest insurance policy ever offered to the British people, or to any people anywhere."—[Official Report , 6 February 1946: Vol. 418, c. 1751.]
That is what it has been ever since: an insurance policy for every working family, ensuring that they have a right to benefits when they cannot work because of unemployment, incapacity or age, financed by contributions to the fund by employees, employers and the self-employed. As has been mentioned in the debate, it is based on a pay-as-you-go principle, which means that those working today are supporting those claiming contributory benefits today.
The national insurance fund provides security for those contributory benefits. It is ring-fenced and cannot be used for other Government expenditure. It is reviewed every year by the Government Actuary, who reports to Parliament on the effect of any changes to contributions or benefits and on the state of the fund. The Government Actuary also reports on the prospects for the fund every five years. The latest quinquennial review is due to be published shortly. The accounts to the fund are audited by the National Audit Office and published annually. The national insurance fund is, therefore, a clear and transparent mechanism for demonstrating the link between national insurance contributions and contributory benefits.
My hon. Friend has pointed to what he calls the fund's vast, unneeded surplus. I take issue with some of his comments. The fund is clearly in a healthy state. Income from contributions is more than enough to cover expenditure on benefits. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the Government Actuary's latest report shows that the balance at the end of 2003–04 is likely to be nearly £20 billion. That number needs to be set in context. During the current year, the fund's income is expected to be £63 billion and expenditure on benefits about £60.5 billion, 80 per cent. of which will go on retirement pensions. The difference, which is added to the balance, is only about £2.5 billion. Last year, the difference was £3 billion, and that is a small proportion—about 4 per cent.—of the amounts flowing through the fund.
As my hon. Friend said, the then Government were sufficiently confident of the state of the fund in 1989 to abolish the Treasury supplement. However, by 1993—
232WH
just four years later—legislation had to be introduced to provide for a Treasury grant to prevent the fund from running out of money. That clearly illustrates how wrong it is to take a short-term view of the fund.
Paul Flynn: I think that my hon. Friend is defending a situation where contributions were going up at a high rate—the rate of the level of earnings—which led to increases in prices. Funds were built up between 1980 and 1987 by that method, but using such a system was fraudulent for the beneficiaries. However, following the introduction of the fund in 1911, the rate of money going in and coming out was roughly the same and matched inflation. I do not think that my hon. Friend is defending the Conservative position, but there is no question but that the surplus is unneeded. The surplus is defined. I have watched, as many others have, the surplus go from £5.9 billion in 1999 to £20 billion now, over and above the contingency fund. Surely, the surplus is not needed.
Ruth Kelly: In no sense am I trying to defend the decisions taken with regard to benefit levels during the 1980s. However, even when there is a positive surplus in the fund, it is tempting to think that it will persist indefinitely. In fact, events can mean that the surplus disappears quickly; between 1989 and 1993, in the space of just four years, the surplus that had led the Conservative Government to abolish the Treasury supplement disappeared so dramatically that they had to introduce legislation to allow a Treasury grant to supplement the income of the fund. I am arguing that, although a surplus might appear very large at any point time, it is not right to assume that it will not be needed for the purposes of the fund in future.
Paul Flynn: There was a call for Treasury funds in the early 1990s because of a self-imposed double whammy from the then Government. There were two losses to the fund. The 2 per cent. loss in contributions was caused by the bribe to persuade people to take out personal pensions. The reason for the shortfall was, therefore, because of a loss of income to the fund, which was to the great advantage of the private pensions industry. Those were peculiar circumstances, which are unlikely to be repeated.
Ruth Kelly: We will not have to wait long to discover the Government Actuary's view of the current surplus in the fund. Events—some of them, perhaps, inspired by the Government, in which instance there were obviously aggravating factors—can mean that the surplus turns around very quickly. I am cautioning against viewing a surplus above the 16.7 per cent. margin that the Government Actuary specifies as unnecessary and available to be spent.
There is a more significant point. The balance on the fund is not wasted. The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) made that point. Any surplus in the fund is used to buy gilts, which provide security for contributory benefits and reduce the Government's need to borrow elsewhere. It is a mistake to think that there is a pot of money that could be used to fund spending on another purpose.
Mr. Flight: The point that the Minister has just made—if there is a surplus, it goes to fund other

233WH
Government activities by buying gilts—is in essence the mechanics under which the illusion of a separate fund is maintained, because the overall economic effect of national insurance revenues is that they come out just the same as any other form of tax, even though they are accounted for separately.
Ruth Kelly: I do not think that that is the case. The money that is built up in the fund is based on a system of contributions; the hon. Member for Northavon made it clear that people earn entitlements built up through the national insurance fund. The fund, and the availability of the capital in it, is protected and ring-fenced for contributory benefits. Because of the gilt system, the borrowing requirement is reduced elsewhere as well.
This debate touches on our pensions policy in general, and whether it is right to restore the link to earnings or to follow a different approach. Many challenges face us now and in the future. The most important of them are to combat pensioner poverty and to ensure that all of today's workers can provide a decent income for themselves in retirement.
More of us are living longer. Birth rates are falling. At current trends, in the middle of the century, pensioners will outnumber children: there will be a mere 10.1 million children, compared with 14.6 million pensioners. By 2020, 40 per cent. of our population will be over 50. There will be more older people with fewer working age people to support them. That has serious implications for the Government and for society as a whole.
When people decide to retire—they should be allowed to retire later, if they so wish—they currently have to face a retirement of about 20 years. As the century progresses and life expectancy increases, retirements may last up to 20 per cent. longer. People must consider how they plan to achieve their required income in retirement. They have to ask themselves whether they are on track to achieve their target level of income. Will they need to work longer or save more? The Government must put in place systems to ensure that our pension system remains sustainable, and that services are in place to serve an ageing population.
Our reforms are about tackling poverty and helping people to plan and to save for their retirement. For the past three years, we have increased the basic state pension by significantly more than the legal minimum requirement. We have guaranteed that for the rest of the current Parliament we will increase the basic state pension by 2.5 per cent., or the retail price index if that is higher. That stands in marked contrast to previous Conservative party policy. When it was in power, it increased the basic state pension only once, to compensate pensioners when it introduced extra VAT on fuel. The Conservatives left millions in poverty: they expected pensioners to live on just £68.80 a week. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West and other hon. Members will be aware that we also introduced the £200 winter fuel allowance and several other mechanisms to help pensioners.
Paul Flynn: The Government have certainly increased pension levels beyond the rate to which they would have
234WH
risen had the link been restored in 1997. Is it not a matter of regret that the perception of pensioners is different from that? The lack of transparency in the fund and the fact that it does not exist as a separate unit has led to confusion in the public mind. If there were a simple, transparent system, where people put money in and got something out, it would be greatly appreciated.
Had the Government restored the link, which would have cost them nothing because of the large increase in 2001 and low interest rates, that would have been to their enormous benefit politically. It would also have given some satisfaction to pensioners to realise that the totem policy of restoring the link had been achieved at virtually nil cost to the Government between 1997 and now.
Ruth Kelly: It is worth reminding hon. Members that the pension credit was introduced only this month. If the present situation is compared to the 1997 system, one sees that, on average, pensioner households will be £1,250 a year better off in real terms as a result of Government measures, including the pension credit just introduced. That is about £24 extra a week. The poorest third of pensioners will have gained about £1,600 a year in real terms. If people had to choose between that and a rise in the basic state pension linked to earnings, they would choose to have the extra average £24 a week. Of course we can debate the matter, and I know that my hon. Friend holds his views close to his heart.
Paul Flynn: My hon. Friend is being very generous with time in allowing me to intervene. Will she address the position of the very poorest pensioners: those who are entitled to income support to raise them to the level of the minimum income guarantee, but who do not claim it?
Ruth Kelly: Yes. We have a take-up campaign to try to get people to claim the benefits to which they are entitled. However, one of the aspects of the pension credit is the Pension Service system, which means that the pension credit becomes an entitlement for pensioners and that they no longer have to use the old-fashioned means-tested system. As they approach the age of 65, pensioners will start to receive the credit as a matter of course for a period that is fixed for up to five years. The system and the culture surrounding it are changing, so that pensioners will view that credit increasingly as part of their normal retirement income.
Restoring the link between pensions and earnings would be unaffordable, unsustainable and unfair. It was not long ago that the Opposition spokesman for work and pensions, the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), called restoring the earnings link
"a wild and uncosted policy".—[Official Report, 8 June 2000; Vol. 351, c. 440.]
It is hard to believe that that is now the policy of the official Conservative Opposition. He has also said that his Government in the 1980s had taken the "crucial" step of
"ending the link between the basic pension and earnings"
and resisted the
"seductive politics, but dangerous economics"
that had

235WH
"bedevilled state pension arrangements in other countries".— [Official Report, 8 July 1993; Vol. 228, c. 516.]
That was something that he was keen to pronounce not very long ago. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West, said, if there were a Nobel prize for shameless political opportunism, the Conservative party would certainly win it.
Mr. Flight: I rise merely to comment that since then my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) has costed that and found that it is affordable. He has set out precisely how we would pay for it.
Ruth Kelly: If the hon. Gentleman explores his party's policies and scrutinises them more closely, he will see that the hon. Member for Havant proposes, for example, to abolish the new deals for lone parents and for young people, which institutions such as the National Institute of Economic and Social Research have said pay for themselves.
The policy is completely uncosted, but more than that, it is unfair. Under the Tory plan, as the shadow Chancellor has conceded, nothing will be done to help the poorest pensioners, who will fall further behind and see any increase in the basic state pension knocked straight off their pension credit. That also fails the basis test of fairness towards poorer pensioners. We believe that the foundation of the state pension system on pension credit, the minimum income guarantee and increases in the basic state pension is a much fairer way to proceed.
We are also looking after the interests of future pensioners. The state second pension, which was introduced in April 2002, reformed the state earnings-related pension scheme. That, too, follows the theme of aiding the poorest. It allows greater accrual rates for the lower paid—those earning less than £11,200 a year are being treated as if they had earned that amount.
The accrual rate applying to earnings up to £11,200 is double the rate that applied under the state earnings-related pension scheme. For the first time, carers, people with disabilities and those with broken work records are helped to build the state second pension. When that is compared to SERPS, it provides extra help for retirement for around 20 million people.
Mr. Webb: Surely, it all depends what it is compared with. Mothers who receive child benefit get complete protection in the basic state pension but, under the state second pension, once their children are five, they do not. Mothers with children over five would have done better with all that money on a decent basic pension, rather than on a state second pension, under which they do not qualify for credits.
Ruth Kelly: Even the hon. Gentleman does not dispute the fact that some 20 million people will benefit from the state second pension and many groups of people in the circumstances he mentioned would not benefit from the basic state pension.
We have not only been active on the state pension. To return to the point that was raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Newport, West and for Cardiff, West
236WH
(Kevin Brennan), we must protect the position of occupational pensions. Good occupational pension schemes play a major part in boosting income in retirement. We are taking action on that, too.
The most important question that was raised is: how do we protect the pensions promise? One of the proposals that we intend to take forward in the pensions Bill is to help to protect people in occupational pension schemes, if they are at risk of insolvency. For the first time in this country, our reforms will introduce the pensions protection fund to protect victims in such situations.
I understand hon. Members' concerns about the workers at ASW. Indeed, I met a delegation from there. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions made it clear that we will consider any sensible, reasonable scheme put forward to help those people. The last thing I want to do is raise false expectations in people who have suffered a major blow to their hopes of a decent retirement income. We are very sympathetic to their concerns. However, the pensions protection fund is an insurance fund that looks forward to protecting people in future, rather than capturing that group of employees. We would, of course, always welcome suggestions on how we might help them.
The other strand of our pensions savings policy is informed choice. If people are to save, they need clear information, so that they can make informed choices. The Pension Service already provides forecasts for the state pension on request. Now it is going further. Having started with self-employed people last May, we are extending the automatic issue of state pensioner forecasts, so that people can see clearly what pension they will receive in retirement. We also want to extend the coverage of combined pension forecasts, which for the first time bring together information on an individual's state and occupational or private pension entitlement, to allow people to see more clearly what pension they can expect to receive when they retire.
I believe that, when people see their forecast income in black and white, they will take action and save more where they need to. We are committed to ensuring that people have the information that they need when they need it, through as many channels as possible.
Our policy is to target the poorest pensioners who need help the most. That will enable people to make informed decisions about how much they save, how and when they work, and it will introduce much greater flexibility to the system, as well as protect the pensions promise. That is the way forward and it contrasts with a Conservative policy that is unaffordable, unsustainable and unfair.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We have finished a little early and the Minister for the next debate has not arrived, although the initiator of the debate is in his place in plenty of time. Therefore, I will suspend the sitting until 3.30.
3.24 pm
Sitting suspended

UK Airfreight Market
3.30 pm
Mr. Mark Todd: Much of South Derbyshire is impacted by the activities of East Midlands airport. In positive terms, the airport provides jobs to local people both directly and through a variety of on-site and adjacent associated businesses. It also offers a fairly limited range of travel destinations. The negative aspects, however, are substantial. Aircraft noise affects the lives of my constituents along the flight paths to the west and south-west of the airport in communities such as Melbourne, Ticknall, Weston-on-Trent, Swarkestone, Milton, Barrow upon Trent and Findern. Although most people judge that acceptable in daytime, the increasing strength of the airport and its chosen core market of dedicated freight traffic have greatly increased night flying. No formal restrictions are in place through planning consent conditions or national regulation. That is unacceptable in its impact on local residents and its distorting effect on the freight marketplace. This debate gives me the opportunity to expand on both aspects.
Just-in-time logistics have driven faster delivery demands, met by specialist freight integrators. Globalisation of sourcing and trade liberalisation have prompted longer supply chains, particularly for high-value products. Airfreight thus carries a disproportionate 20 per cent. of our exports by value. Airfreight has expanded rapidly in the past few years, doubling between 1969 and 1989 and doubling again between 1989 and 1999. Growth is expected to accelerate, with forecasts of 8 per cent. growth per annum during the next 10 years. At present, 70 to 80 per cent. of freight is carried in the bellies of passenger aircraft. Provided that capacity is available, it is anticipated that dedicated and express freighter services will grow in importance. Considerably more than half the cargo flights from East Midlands take place at night. To ensure next-day delivery, night flights are necessary. That also helps to spread the stress on the surface network that is a critical part of the distribution of airfreight goods.
The Select Committee on Transport, when advising the Government on aviation after its consultation, stated
"if the UK were to reject night flights altogether—"
one can recall the court case at Heathrow, which suggested that that might happen—
"it would be rejecting a key means of support for modern industry … There are significant risks to the UK economy and its relative standing in Europe in the air freight market if no solution can be found."
However, one should not exaggerate. Constraints on market channels to meet demand will prompt innovation. During the 30-year period covered by the Government's airport consultation, many adventitious innovations will impact on products, demand and market channels. It is worth noting that the recent huge growth in airfreight would not have been predicted in a similar Government study 30 years ago. A leading freight integrator has confirmed that to me. It is accepted in the Government's consultation on the future development of air transport that the modelling of airfreight demand is primitive.
238WH
East Midlands is comfortably the largest freighter airport in the United Kingdom. It is claimed that expanding operations there will bring 26,800 extra jobs to the region over 30 years. A balanced approach to the development of the airport and its disadvantages, as well as advantages, is therefore necessary.
In the Government's projections, East Midlands airport's freight volume is expected to grow between tenfold and fifteenfold by 2030. Very little of that volume is expected to be carried in the bellies of passenger aircraft.
There are DHL, TNT and UPS bases at East Midlands, along with nearly 30 freight-forwarding and airfreight service providers. The largest users of those services are the fashion industry, professional services, engineering, telecommunications and aerospace, which are all core sectors of the midlands economy. The economic value of a typical airfreight air traffic movement is three to five times more than an equivalent passenger flight. However, airport slots are not allocated on economic value and returns from passenger sales increase the value of passenger traffic to airports, which, of course, allocate the slots.
Thus, predicted growth in passenger traffic will squeeze out freight at the margins. That is a certainty with the costs of passenger air travel expected to fall by 1 to 2 per cent. per year in real terms over the 30-year period, prompting more rapid passenger volume growth. Restricting airport growth will accelerate that trend if there is no market intervention. Capacity for freight traffic is already limited by night-flight restrictions at many airports, and I have emphasised that night flights are critical in providing express airfreight services.
Again, the Select Committee highlights that point. It states that there is a need to
"identify the extent to which night operations can expand at existing airports without compromising noise protection standards. This is likely to affect the location and nature of future development of the air freight industry."
if capacity at UK airports is constrained—the Government's consultation suggests that it may be—prices will rise and, if decisions are left solely to airports, slots will be allocated to those flights that attract the highest value to an airport. More marginal activity will be displaced first to less favoured airports and then entirely. It is clear that freighter traffic will be impacted by constraints, forcing up prices for freighter use and prompting greater selectivity in the use of that transport mode, which is welcome in terms of sustainability. The airfreight of relatively low-value items is not justifiable in terms of the environmental impact of the transport mode. That squeeze process is also likely to focus express freighter traffic at airports with minimal night noise regulation.
One of the thrusts of the Government's consultation on the future development of air transport is that East Midlands airport will further strengthen its already dominant position in the freighter market. That is not in the interests of airfreight users, as I will explain, and the Government should not encourage it. The current market share of East Midlands already poses competitiveness concerns. Further steps towards the monopoly supply of freighter slots would be unacceptable.

239WH
Freight integrators told the Select Committee that they would like to use an airport closer to the south-east since that is where most freight comes from and is destined for. A Federal Express spokesman told the Committee,
"Three of us operate out of Stansted and we have got a major investment there … simply because over the years we have been forced to move out of Heathrow and Gatwick",
which bears out a point that I have already made.
"We have a major concern for the South East because if that happens at Stansted as well we will not be able to offer businesses in the South East generally, particularly in Central London, meaningful services that we do now because we will be going too far away to another airport."
Furthermore, in terms of surface logistics East Midlands is a poor choice on which to base the whole strategy for airfreight. Surface communications to East Midlands airport are poor. There is a proposal to open the Donington loop to passenger traffic permitting a rail station at Castle Donington. There is also the long-delayed proposal for a station adjacent to the M1, but neither of those proposals would provide freight access to the airport through rail. The lack of provision ensures that all freight traffic to and from the airport travels by road or is moved on by air through the hub.
Road links are also poor. The airport lies close to one of the most congested sections of the M1. Although the A50 offers reasonable routes to part of the west midlands, links to the east are poor and rely on the M1. Accepting that further airport growth at East Midlands is achievable within the current built environment, it is essential that surface links are improved. The airport owners should meet the cost as a condition of meeting a set benchmark point of traffic growth.
National strategy needs at least one other airport that could absorb freighter growth and would be attractive to operators in logistics terms. I hesitate to commend an airport option that might well have impacts of which I am unaware, but an airport much closer than East Midlands to the south-east and well located for east-to-west and north-to-south movements would be appropriate. That airport would have to be permitted on the basis of freight use to prevent the squeeze by passenger services. It would also be wise to consider intervening in how airports allocate slots between freight and passenger services to protect freight access to some areas.
A large part of freighter activity necessarily takes place at night and has used the oldest, noisiest aircraft. The attractiveness of East Midlands to that sector is explained in large part by the consistent failure of any level of government to impose night noise controls similar to those at equivalent airports. The Government consultation notes the local night noise issue but hints that, since the area around the airport is relatively sparsely populated, it should be of no great concern.
The implication of the highest forecasts of freight traffic from East Midlands would suggest a flight every three to five minutes from the airport. That density is unacceptable. Even modern aircraft produce significant noise while climbing at low altitudes. It is essential that a reasonable night noise regime encompassing both flight quantities and noise volume is agreed between the airport and local representatives—if that is facilitated by the White Paper—or failing that, is set by
240WH
Government. The current voluntary framework endorsed by Ministers is inadequate to deal with anything like the growth forecast.
I have already pressed the Minister to define at what point the current regime should be reviewed. The local planning process on airport growth will not fill the gap in regulation. There is already significant capacity for growth without major runway or building development, let alone a second runway. The lack of effective controls skews the freight market in favour of East Midlands and this is not in the interests of the local residential community or, as I have argued, the wider economy.
It is suggested that international environmental controls will save the day. Chapter 4 applies to all new aircraft manufactured after 2006—the first new noise standard agreed since 1977. Chapter 3 reduced noise only modestly and there is no agreed date for phasing out chapter 3 aircraft. With replacement rates of 20 to 30 years and given that freight aircraft are generally older than passenger aircraft, one could expect only gradual implementation on freight routes. Since most new aircraft now meet chapter 4 standards and it took 25 years to move from chapter 3 to 4 it would not be reasonable to expect much further progress from international regulation in the next 20 years. We should focus on the potential for accelerated European implementation of chapter 4.
The UK needs a thriving airfreight sector. It should bear appropriate environmental burdens and be forced to adopt modern technologies. The Government have an important role in driving development and the adoption of more demanding international aircraft noise standards. It is neither economically nor logistically sound to focus freighter traffic growth at East Midlands. The current light noise regulation of the airport distorts location choice for integrators and that trend will accelerate as other airports fill with passengers.
Although night flying is an essential part of freighter activity, the scale of growth projected at East Midlands would have unacceptable noise impacts on our communities even with the most modern aircraft. Some growth at East Midlands is inevitable. There should be clear and close benchmarks at which the need for formal regulation is reviewed. The Government should intervene in slot allocation to protect freight use of other airports and should identify a suitable south-eastern location for core freight activity so that we have a logistically coherent strategy, not one driven solely by where night slots are available.
Most of my constituents appreciate the needs of a growing airport; they seek a more balanced approach. Their interests and that of the wider economy largely coincide. I hope that the Minister will reflect further on how to proceed in providing for the freight sector and responding to local concerns.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) has obtained permission from the initiator of the debate, the Minister and the Chair to take part.
3.45 pm
David Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) and to the Minister for allowing

241WH
me to make a brief contribution to this short debate, as East Midlands airport is located in my constituency, although it is close to the Derbyshire border.
When the aviation White Paper is published in a few weeks' time, will the Minister reassure us that, when spelling out the future of airfreight in the midlands, the document will properly reflect the existing social and environmental impact of aviation on local airport communities in the three counties affected by East Midlands airport?
The contribution of air transport, in particular aircraft arrivals and departures, to greenhouse gases, air pollution and noise was recently calculated in a Treasury report to cost more than £1.4 billion per year, of which many millions are inflicted on my area.
As my hon. Friend said, the difficulty with East Midlands airport is that it is unique in the United Kingdom. It operates a very high volume of freight aircraft and a rapidly increasing number of passenger aircraft with few, if any, conditions imposed on it by local authority planners to protect nearby villages. The Government have so far declined to designate it under the Civil Aviation Act 1982 to restrict the impact of noise at night.
Although East Midlands airport has attempted to ameliorate the adverse effects of its operations by using noise-preferred routes, noise penalty schemes and sound insulation grants, that is not making a sufficient difference to the thousands of people whose human rights are infringed and whose sleep is seriously disturbed by freight aircraft at night.
Although economists shy away from putting a figure on such environmental blight in their cost-benefit calculations, will the Minister ensure that the White Paper takes a balanced view and prohibits any extra regional airport capacity without a common protective environmental framework being implemented?
Britain's airports must be removed from their fiscal cocoon and required to deal much more effectively with the adverse consequences of their night freight operations. "Things can only get noisier" will never be a sustainable aviation strategy.
3.47 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) on securing the debate. The issue is important and it is made more so by the imminent publication of the aviation White Paper. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) for his contribution. I had a useful discussion with both of them en route to East Midlands airport recently. Happily for them, they went off to do whatever they were doing for the rest of the day, while I stayed at the airport until about 11.15 pm seeing the pleasure that is DHL and its operations, as well as being entertained over dinner.
As my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire said, freight is important to this country and business is increasingly international. We depend on our export services and on high-value goods, and as a freight-
242WH
specific airport, East Midlands is unique. It ranks third in the country for net volume of freight handled, but those airports that are respectively first and second deal with belly cargo in passenger planes only rather than dedicated freight.
We depend on export services and high-value goods. In the 21st century, many of those exports depend on aviation and that trend is increasing. Set against that, our major airports are full or filling up rapidly, as my hon. Friend mentioned. In the south-east, which handles more than half our passenger traffic, Heathrow's two runways are full for most of the day, and so is the single runway at Gatwick. Those issues will be addressed in the forthcoming aviation White Paper. As the Secretary of State said when he announced the air transport consultation, doing nothing is not an option. It would be positively the wrong thing to do.
Although I do not want to dwell on the White Paper, it provides the necessary backdrop to our debate about the future of East Midlands airport. The key consultation questions on which we sought views were: how much, if any, additional airport capacity is needed; where could or should any new capacity be located; and, given what my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire asked, what measures will be needed to control and mitigate the environmental impact of airport growth.
As and when the White Paper comes to fruition, we would very much like to develop a package for each and every airport covered by it in respect of their existing functions and role in the local economy, whether or not there will be expansion of capacity. In that context, especially if there is to be expansion, yes, it does mean a key package for surface logistics—the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire referred to surface access—for noise abatement and mitigation, for environmental impact mitigation and for all the other elements to which both my hon. Friends referred.
The White Paper will most emphatically not be about one here, one there and half of one there. It is supposed to be about developing a framework for aviation in this country for the next 30 years and, in that context, must be done responsibly, above and beyond simply the allocation of capacity.
Yes, airport development is a matter of national interest and there are wide-ranging implications for people and the environment, as my hon. Friends said. It is right that the Government should look ahead and make plans to ensure that we can develop a sustainable airports policy and, equally, along with that and within the context of the Treasury's view, the economic instruments for aviation.
We must follow that approach everywhere. Clearly, London and the south-east is a key area, but we have examined in detail a wide range of options for the midlands as well as elsewhere in the country. All the options that we concentrated on have strengths and weaknesses. There is no perfect answer and, as I have told my hon. Friends on several occasions, we have made no decisions yet—the White Paper is in genesis, to say the least. We must consider the 400,000 responses that we have received.
The consultation highlighted a very important issue that we are now considering; namely, the future of the UK airfreight sector. That industry is worth a total of

243WH
about £5 billion to the UK economy. It accounts for some 50,000 jobs directly and as many again in indirect employment. It is vital for the success of British businesses in an increasingly competitive international marketplace and, as my hon. Friends have mentioned, it is growing. Airfreight traffic at UK airports has doubled in the past 12 years and we have forecasts of a sixfold increase by 2030.
The fastest growing area within the sector is express freight, which is expected to comprise more than half the UK freight market by 2030. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire said, some of the main players have a significant presence at the East Midlands airport. I am sure that many companies in the region find it invaluable to have on their doorstep the means to dispatch consignments for delivery almost anywhere in the world within 24 hours.
DHL and UPS have suggested to me—I exclude TNT simply because I have not met representatives of that company—that they need slots closer to London precisely for the express market. The fact that the express end of the freight sector is expanding does not necessarily mean that all the expansion has to be at East Midlands. A strong case has been put by UPS and DHL for at least an early and night flight into and out of Stansted, where they are based—whether they stay there is neither here nor there—to deal with the express market. The entire sixfold increase will not go to the East Midlands airport.
However, as my hon. Friends said, such capability comes at a price. Night flights are essential to operation of the international next-day delivery market, and that means night noise. East Midlands airport is in a fairly rural area. It would be very easy to regard noise impact there as a lesser issue than at, say, Heathrow or Birmingham, but be assured that we recognise that it is a very real issue every night for the people in communities such as Kegworth, Melbourne or Diseworth. As my hon. Friends said, the airport company clearly takes the noise issue seriously. It has made good progress in implementing the enhanced noise control scheme agreed last year.
However, if East Midlands is to expand to accommodate growth in the freight market, further measures will be required. That is why we will want to consider the airport's proposals for mitigation of aircraft noise problems before we reach any decisions. Its proposals include property purchase and noise insulation. Indeed, I would go further. As I said earlier, given the capacity to expand that already exists at East Midlands, apart from any greater capacity, we shall consider how that expansion, should it come—it is not necessarily an issue for the White Paper—can be done in a sustainable and mitigated fashion. It is not simply about no management at all of that particular capacity.
Mr. Todd: May I press the Minister slightly? He and I have exchanged letters about setting precise benchmarks at which one could reasonably review the current regulatory environment at East Midlands airport, foreseeing growth in the future. Will he reflect a little further on that? I have just received his latest letter.
Mr. McNulty: I shall certainly reflect on the matter a little further, but I am unable to do that with my
244WH
futurologist hat on, in the sense of the expansion that there may or may not be to the existing airport or any expansion that we permit or otherwise in the White Paper. I assure my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire that, whatever the future road map—if that is an appropriate phrase—for East Midlands airport, there does need to be a notion of a development or growth brief in terms of expanding the existing facilities or any subsequent expansion of capacity.
As with all the decisions that will be taken on our new runways and our existing airports we must, as both my hon. Friends have suggested, strike a balance between maximising the economic and social benefits of more capacity and minimising environmental impacts such as noise, air quality and, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire said, greenhouse gas emissions. The consultation exercise is helping to inform us where that balance should lie and answers on the Government's thoughts will be forthcoming by the end of the year in the White Paper. I reassure my hon. Friends that we are on schedule to publish the White Paper by the end of the year. I know that in terms of the stretch and import of the White Paper, their constituents in the east midlands as well as people throughout the country seek, if nothing else, some clarity about what that future will be, with or without extensive capacity.
I reiterate that, regardless of what happens at East Midlands airport, we will keep under review the essential package that is in place to control noise, which was mentioned my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire. It involves phasing out noisier freight aircraft, especially DHL; a marked reduction in flight tracking noise level infringements; a noise charging regime; operational procedures to promote quiet operations; instigation of a noise insulation grant scheme; and extensive stakeholder and community outreach to build consensus about noise amelioration proposals. Those elements are constantly kept under review and that will continue. Whatever the future for East Midlands airport, I will continue to reflect on what amelioration package is needed given the expansion or capacity increases that there may be.
Mr. Todd: May I press the Minister on one other point? I mentioned ensuring the availability of slots in other parts of the country where it is necessary to provide express freight Locations. As he said, it would be foolish to base the entire growth in the east midlands. That would not work logistically. How can we ensure that other slots are kept available for freight?
Mr. McNulty: Certainly in the express freight market, which is where the real significant growth is, market forces are doing that as we speak. I suspect that my hon. Friend cannot continue to push beyond that this side of the White Paper. I would resist that up until then. The notion of the White Paper being about more than simply the allocation of any airport capacity that we determine is real. It is about regional access to the London and south-east hubs, and a consequential, managed development of the freight sector. In that context, I am sure that the sort of issues that my hon. Friend raised will be considered. However, there is nothing that I can say today to my hon. Friend that will move the matter on further.

245WH
I congratulate my hon. Friends on their contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire is twitching, but I will not give way to him as we are running out of time. This is a serious issue, and I am sure that we will address it again after the White Paper has been published.

Television Reception (Rural Areas)
3.59 pm
Mr. Alan Reid: During my summer tour of my constituency, the most common complaint raised by constituents was difficulties obtaining television reception. The matter kept cropping up in all parts of Argyll and Bute. It is a problem that does not affect only the highlands and islands. Since I was granted this Adjournment debate, many Members from throughout the country have contacted me to say that their constituents experience it.
The fundamental problem is that the terrestrial analogue signal does not reach many parts of the country. Many constituents who cannot receive a decent reception from terrestrial signals sought to solve the problem by buying a Sky digibox. Until recently, they were able to receive the five terrestrial channels from a BSkyB satellite via their digibox on a free-to-view basis using a Solus viewing card. However, the BBC has decided to end its contract with BSkyB, and it has moved its digital services to a new satellite. The effect of that is that BSkyB can disable those Solus viewing cards at any time. If that happens, those viewers will no longer be able to use their Solus card to receive ITV1 and Channels 4 and 5. Unless they pay a subscription to BSkyB, their cards could be disabled at any time and then they would be able to watch only the two BBC channels.
In addition to buying a Sky digibox, many of those viewers also paid a year's subscription to BSkyB because its adverts led them to believe that their contract with BSkyB would allow them to view the five terrestrial channels indefinitely at no further cost, after the expiry of their year's subscription. Having paid a licence fee, bought a digibox and paid a year's subscription to BSkyB, they were told out of the blue that they must pay further annual subscriptions to BSkyB to receive the terrestrial channels ITV 1, and Channels 4 and 5.
That is outrageous, bearing in mind that most of the country takes these services for granted. BSkyB, ITV and Channels 4 and 5 are negotiating to try to reach an agreement that would allow viewers with a Sky digibox to continue to view ITV1 and Channels 4 and 5. It is possible that they have already reached an agreement and not announced it yet. Even if an agreement is reached, I am sure that there will still be a cost to the viewers, and there will also be uncertainty about what will happen when the contract between ITV and BSkyB ends.
A fundamental principle is at stake. People who have bought a TV licence should have the right to watch the five terrestrial channels without having to pay more fees to private broadcasters. The present system is chaotic. It is wrong that viewers who have bought expensive equipment and paid up-front costs such as a year's subscription to Sky can be led to believe that they can watch the five terrestrial channels from then on so long as they pay the annual licence fee, only to find that their TV can be blanked out as a result of a deal between major corporations. A deal between Sky and ITV and Channels 4 and 5 may resolve the situation in the short term, but the uncertainty will continue and the Government must sort this situation out in the long term.

247WH
The licence fee is a hypothecated poll tax. The money raised goes to the BBC. Everybody who pays that poll tax should receive the five terrestrial channels in return. Otherwise, taking the licence fee off those viewers is tantamount to fraud.
the situation with regard to ITV and Channels 4 and 5 were not bad enough, viewers who receive the BBC digitally via the satellite, cannot even watch all BBC programmes. As one of the Minister's responsibilities is sport, I am sure that he will appreciate the anger felt by viewers when I explain that one of the effects of the BBC's decision to broadcast its regional channels throughout the UK is that digital viewers of BBC Scotland cannot watch Scottish football.
The Minister for Sport and Tourism (Mr. Richard Caborn): I will not be tempted by that.
Mr. Reid: The Minister would have a feeling for the scale of the outrage if he found that Sheffield United games were to be broadcast throughout the whole country but blanked out in Sheffield—his postbag would be full. That is what happens in Scotland at the moment. The BBC is blanking out Scottish premier league matches from its digital service because its contract with Scottish premier league says that those matches cannot he broadcast outside Scotland and the digital version of its regional channels are now broadcast throughout the UK.
I find it galling that the BBC can pay millions of pounds of licence payers' money to the Scottish and English football authorities, yet cannot find a solution to the problem. Surely, either a technical solution can be found or the BBC could simply renegotiate its contract with the Scottish premier league. Again, the fundamental principle should be—this is where the Government should step in—that if people pay the licence fee, they should have the right to watch all BBC programmes.
Other gaps in television reception mean that many parts of Argyll and Bute cannot receive the new Freeview service; many parts cannot receive Channel 5. As an example of the frustration felt by my constituents, I shall read out a letter that I received from a constituent in Kilmelford. I received it after I had sent her a copy of the standard letter that the Minister for Media and Heritage, the noble Lord McIntosh, sends out to MPs who complain about television reception in their constituencies. This is the reply to that letter:
"Regarding the installation of a satellite dish, I have made enquiries, but it would have to be put on a post 200 metres up the hill from my house at a cost of £220 over and above the Sky charge. I would also have to pay £12.50 per month to Sky and being a pensioner, still paying for my TV licence",
she says that she cannot afford the additional monthly cost. She continues:
"I would have to get permission from the farmer who owns the field, and according to people I've spoken to in the village they had 'Sky' dishes fixed on posts on the hill and the livestock kept chewing through the cables".
Those are some of the problems that people trying to receive decent television reception in rural areas face.
The standard reply from the Minister advises viewers to contact a reputable local installer through the Confederation of Aerial Industries. A reputable
248WH
installer will have experience of local reception characteristics and can advise on the location and orientation of a satellite dish. I generally find that when I send on that standard letter to constituents, they have already spoken to a reputable aeriel installer before contacting me, and it is simply not possible to achieve decent quality television reception in many places.
Another cause for concern in rural areas is the Government's plan to switch all the terrestrial television channels from analogue to digital no later than 2010—only seven years away. Many viewers in rural areas, outside the reach of analogue signals, rely on self-help relay schemes to receive the terrestrial channels. Those are small cable systems that carry the signal from an analogue relay station situated on a nearby hill. In years gone by, such schemes received financial support from the BBC, but no longer. Government policy is that no central Government moneys are available to assist in the funding of self-help schemes.
There also appear to be no plans to convert those small analogue relay stations so that they will be able to receive and relay digital signals around the village. Many of the villages served by the self-help schemes are in glens that cannot receive digital signals from the satellite because of the high mountains round about. The self-help scheme is the only way those villages can receive TV.
Unless the Government change their policy of no assistance for the self-help schemes, those villages will be left without TV when the analogue signals are switched off. One of the Government's criteria for the analogue switch-off is that
"everyone who currently receives the main public broadcast channels in analogue form must be able to receive them digitally".
It is not clear from the criteria whether viewers who receive the terrestrial channels via a self-help relay system count as viewers who must be able to receive digital before the analogue switch-off. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that. I hope that he will agree that those viewers should count in the statistics. If he does, will he tell the House that the Government will pay the cost of converting the self-help relay systems to digital?
Another criteria for the analogue switch-off is affordability. The criteria here is:
"Switching to digital should be an affordable option for the vast majority of people."
"Vast majority" is a worryingly vague term, whereas other statistics in the Government's criteria involve specific percentages. I earlier explained the vast costs that some viewers have gone to to receive digital TV. But even then the plug can be pulled from their TV set by big corporations doing some deal. Such uncertainty does not encourage viewers to invest in expensive equipment.
I am concerned that we will see two divides in TV-watching in our country. The first will be urban/rural. The urban viewer will buy a TV licence and be able to receive all programmes with no problem. The rural dweller will either have no decent reception at all or will have to pay out vast sums of money to be able to watch TV. The other divide in our rural communities will be between rich and poor. Those who can afford it will be able to buy the equipment and pay the subscriptions necessary to watch TV, but those on low incomes will be left out.
Hywel Williams: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there are further problems in

249WH
parts of rural Wales? Some people wish to watch Channel 4 because they cannot understand Sianel Pedwar Cymru, S4C, the Welsh language fourth channel and have invested in equipment specifically to watch Channel 4 and Channel 5. With the current proposals, that is a problem for Welsh constituents.
Mr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point and I agree. The Government should be making available the Welsh TV channel on a free-to-view basis as well as the other five terrestrial channels.
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: Can I suggest that this problem is yet a further compulsitor towards the depopulation of the highlands and islands? The families that we want to keep there are those with young children. The inability to receive television signals of the sort that my hon. Friend has outlined will be another factor that they will take into consideration when deciding whether to remain in those communities.
Mr. Reid: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. The highlands and islands have suffered depopulation for many years. We want to encourage young families to stay and other young families to come and live there. If they cannot get decent affordable television, that will be one reason why they will move away.
The Government should adopt a simple principle. Everyone who pays the licence fee should be able to receive all programmes on all terrestrial channels on a free-to-view basis. I hope that the Minister agrees.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I believe that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) has sought the permission of the initiator of the debate, the Minister and me to take part in the debate.
4.14 pm
Mr. Roger Williams: I shall take a short part in the debate. Thank you for your great kindness in allowing me to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to build on the point that the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) made about S4C, the Welsh language station, particularly as it relates to my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) who live up and down the Welsh border. Television viewers receive their terrestrial analogue signal from relay stations on the other side of the border. The result is that they generally receive Channel 4 when they would like to receive S4C, the Welsh language station, to get news and political developments from Wales.
Another issue is that my constituents often receive midlands ITV signals. The regional programmes, and particularly local political issues, are from the midlands rather than from Wales. We saw the digital solution as enabling the people to have a choice between S4C and Channel 4, and between midland ITV and the Welsh independent television service. We would be pleased if the Minister could come to us with a solution. Without such a solution, those facilities will not be available to our constituents.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Minister is full of solutions.
4.15 pm
The Minister for Sport and Tourism (Mr. Richard Caborn): I was reflecting on the comments made by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid). I congratulate him on securing the Adjournment debate. As he explained, the issue is important. However, I have just left a meeting about obesity in young children who watch too much television. It shows that one can become schizophrenic in this job if one is not careful. I am grateful to him for raising the issue of rural television.
Lembit Öpik: We want rural children to have the right to watch too much television in the same way as their urban counterparts, which they sadly cannot do in Montgomeryshire at the moment.
Mr. Caborn: It is all a matter of choice.
I have a great deal of sympathy for viewers who installed satellite equipment in good faith, who chose to go free to view and who have been told that their Solus cards will not work after a certain date. We have received more than 800 letters about the matter, and we have also received more than 150 letters from MPs, some of which have been cited in this afternoon's debate.
I will give the Chamber an update on how the broadcasters are trying to resolve the issue, but first I want to explain the background to the Government's policy on digital television and the digital switchover, which the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute also raised.
The growth in take-up of digital television is a significant development in broadcasting in this country. We are close to the point at which 50 per cent. of all households have digital television. The current take-up level is 48 per cent., and we believe that it will have gone over 50 per cent. by Christmas.
The successful launch of Freeview and the continued growth of Sky have been central to the increase in digital television. The launch of Freeview has been helped by technical changes to improve the signal since its launch last year. All six digital terrestrial television multiplexes are available to around 73 per cent. of households.
The enthusiastic take-up of digital makes the Government believe that switching off the analogue signals at some time is the right decision for the economy and viewers alike. Indeed, on 18 September my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry published a cost-benefit analysis showing that switchover will bring a quantifiable benefit of between £1.5 billion and £2 billion in net present value terms.
There is still some way to go to convince people that switchover is the right thing, and this debate provides a timely opportunity to set out the arguments. First, we need to switch off because we can extend DTT coverage more widely because of the limitations of terrestrial broadcasting. Analogue is the incumbent mode of terrestrial broadcast, which means that analogue transmissions have exclusive use of channels that have been cleared internationally for full power transmission.
Digital television uses the same spectrum as that used for analogue television, with digital transmission interleaved between the analogue services. That means

251WH
that the number of clear frequency channels that can be used for DTT without causing interference with other services, nationally and internationally, is severely restricted.
Those limitations mean that digital terrestrial cannot be extended until the completion of switchover. In planning the current DTT transmitter network, the broadcasters decided to concentrate on developing the 50 main transmitter sites and 30 of the larger relay sites, which would deliver the maximum coverage, given spectrum constraints. Inevitably, that means that at present rural and remote areas fall outside the scope of digital terrestrial coverage.
Secondly, there is the cost of duplication. Broadcasters are spending significant sums on transmitting programmes in analogue and digital form. The terrestrial broadcast network will need major capital investment in the next decade or so. As the majority of households switch to digital, it makes less and less sense to continue with that uneconomic arrangement.
The third factor is the sheer inefficiency of analogue broadcasts in spectrum terms. Digital transmission uses a fraction of the capacity of analogue broadcasts while increasing choice, giving access to interactivity and driving electronic programme guides to help viewers in a multi-channel environment. Switching off will allow us to work the spectrum much harder.
We are clear, then, that the question is not whether we switch off analogue broadcasts—that case has been made—but when. We must ensure that digital is right for all viewers. That is why we have established a consumer experts' group to ensure that there is an effective conduit for working through issues affecting consumers. Ofcom also has a consumer panel, and it will be involved in the exercise, too.
There are many other issues to be resolved before we can set a date. We are still on track for 2010, but progress depends on the response of consumers, broadcasters and other stakeholders. One of the tasks of switchover will be for broadcasters to produce proposals on the level of digital terrestrial coverage at switchover. Their decision will be based on a judgment about the cost effectiveness of a complete conversion to the 1,100 transmitters and the relays in the UK.
The Government and Ofcom will need to review the broadcasters' proposals, and to consider whether sufficient provision is made for those who have no access to digital terrestrial. We will consult on those proposals next year. The points that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute raised about switchover will be factored into that consultation. The decision on when we move to switchover will be based on the outcome of that consultation.
Pete Wishart: Not much that the Minister has said will be of comfort to my constituents who cannot receive services. Would he be prepared to ensure that Ofcom provided satellite services if we do not make any progress on that issue in the foreseeable future?
Mr. Caborn: Let me complete what I have to say, and then the hon. Gentleman may want to come back to that subject if there is time. What I have to say will probably cover his question.
252WH
One of the main considerations will be the option of free-to-view cards when public service broadcasts are encrypted. That is a particular concern for people in remote areas who may only have access to satellite when switchover takes place.
As has been said, in May the BBC decided to move its broadcast services from the Astra 2A to the Astra 2D satellite, and to enable consumers to receive BBC services in the clear without a viewing card. However, that new arrangement ended payments by the BBC to Sky for provision of Solus viewing cards to digital satellite viewers who do not have a subscription to a pay-TV service. A consequence of that decision was the problem of how access to the free-to-view commercial channels—ITV, Channels 4 and 5—could be maintained on the satellite platform. Sky made it clear that it was not prepared to fund supplying new viewing cards to Solus card viewers, but said it would facilitate a new scheme.
ITV, and Channels 4 and 5 have been working hard to develop a solution, following the representations made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Good progress is being made and we believe that the broadcasters are close to a solution. Indeed, today I am able to announce good news: they have made a deal. The details are not finalised yet, but we already know that those people who have no subscription satellite viewing card, and who wish to continue receiving the commercially funded public service channels without paying subscription to Sky or other broadcasters will be able to get a new card. They will be offered the opportunity to buy a viewing card for £20 plus VAT. Those cards will last until Sky does another card swap-out, and for at least two years if the next swap-out is sooner than that.
Channel 4, ITV and Channel 5 are contributing hundreds of thousands of pounds to cover the overheads of the scheme. Sky is not expected to disable existing cards until the new scheme is up and running. All the affected viewers—those who have not received new viewing cards from BSkyB because they are not current subscribers—will be alerted to the new scheme through an on-screen message, which will direct them to the call centre where they will be told what to do. Those on-screen messages should appear on Monday 27 October or the following week on 3 November. We believe that is a good outcome. It has not been easy to achieve and I want to take the opportunity to thank the broadcasters for their hard work in coming to that solution. We are aware of other issues affecting rural television coverage and those are concerns.
Mr. Reid: The announcement that the Minister has just made about the £20 plus VAT charge, although a step in the right direction, is still not the ideal solution. The Government provide free television licences for the over-75s. Will they be consistent and offer viewing cards for free to the over-75s?
Mr. Caborn: The difference between being 75 and over and living in a particular area is that of choice. People do not have a choice about being over 75. There is a rationale to the idea and if representations were made, it would be a decision for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but it is not a decision for the DCMS.

253WH
I was pointing out that the planning rules on the installation of dishes are too restrictive, especially for people living in national parks and other rural designated areas. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister published a consultation paper in April outlining options for reform. I understand that the Scottish Executive are to publish a consultation paper shortly and we are also looking at other constraints affecting tenants, particularly those in public sector housing. Those points were raised, and the ODPM will produce a consultation paper.
The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute touched on television coverage being part of the wider digital divide. The Government are looking at several possible solutions, such as broadband aggregation and satellite broadband. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are committed to doing everything we can to stimulate the market. The Government have looked at the satellite platform's ability to offer an attractive consumer broadband solution either independently or as part of a combined digital television and rural digital package and that work is continuing. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will make representations to ensure that we get that right.
Hywel Williams: I am still trying to take in the announcement the Minister made about those over 75. Will he answer a simple question? Does he mean that those over 75 will pay twice for the same thing?
Mr. Caborn: There are two clear rules. One applies to those over 75, which was put in place by the
254WH
Government to ensure that they have access to television—because of their age, income and circumstances a political decision has been made that they should have such access. That was made in its own right and on its own merits. We are discussing a totally different issue in this case—[Interruption.] We are still dealing with those over 75, but if they live in certain areas, conditions apply there. That is no different whether someone is under or over 75. Anyone who is over 75 will deal with those conditions that apply for anyone who is that age in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Carmichael: Why is someone who is over 75 and living in the west side of Shetland to be treated differently from someone over 75 who is living in Glasgow?
Mr. Caborn: The rules that apply for someone over the age of 75 do not change. If they live in certain areas where the same conditions apply to everyone, 75 and under, or those over 85, they will still get what any other over-75-year-old will get via that Act. That concession has been made.
The problems of rural coverage cannot be resolved separately from digital switchover. It is not sensible to improve analogue services when an increased number of householders are voting to go digital. Our framework for switchover will ensure that people in rural areas who receive public service broadcasting channels on analogue—BBC1 to Channel 4, S4C and Channel 5— have access to those public service channels when analogue is switched off.
It being half-past Four o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

TRANSPORT

  Trains (Television Cameras)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of proposals by train operating companies to install television in railway carriages. [132973]

  Mr. McNulty
  Television may be installed in railway carriages for either onboard entertainment or security purposes. The first is a commercial matter for operators. CCTV for security purposes has already been installed by some operators and the Department is working with the Strategic Rail Authority to continue to improve security on trains.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport was assessment he has made of the possibility of Channel Tunnel Rail Link domestic service trains stopping in the Medway towns. [132974]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Strategic Rail Authority yesterday launched a further public consultation on Channel Tunnel Rail Link domestic services, building on one carried out earlier this year. A particular issue for the consultation will be whether CTRL domestic services should run to the Medway Towns.

  Bus Industry
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent steps his Department has taken to disseminate best practice within the bus industry. [132975]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department will shortly be publishing two good practice guides, one drawing on experience with Rural Bus Grant and Rural Challenge, and one on tendering of bus subsidy contracts. The Bus Partnership Forum has produced a report on Understanding Customer Needs and a code of conduct on Service Stability. Guidance on Quality Bus Partnerships was published in 2001.

  School Transport
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with other Government Departments on the relationship between home to school transport and children's health. [132976]

  Dr. Howells
  My Department works closely with the Department of Health on all aspects of school travel policy. We are keen to encourage walking and cycling to school.
  476W

  Bus Deregulation
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies he has undertaken to assess the impact of bus deregulation in metropolitan areas. [132977]

  Mr. McNulty
  The impact of bus deregulation was studied in the years following 1986. No recent studies have been undertaken but we continue to publish statistical data on kilometres operated, the cost of services, passenger satisfaction etc. We are in constant touch with the Passenger Transport Executives and major bus operators about local developments. Later today I shall be meeting representatives from Greater Manchester about bus regulation issues.

  Transport Provision
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, if he will make a statement on the relationship between transport provision and access to public services. [132978]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Social Exclusion Unit's February 2003 report "Making the Connections" showed that provision of good local transport and provision of public services in accessible places are both essential to enable people to access the services they need when they need them. The increased funding for local transport we have already provided, and inclusion of accessibility planning in local authorities' next transport plans, will help authorities deliver real improvements in accessibility for their communities.

  Air Travel (Compensation)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what measures the Government will put in place to ensure that the proposed regulation establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights is proportionate and workable; and if he will make a statement; [133568]

  (2) if he will publish a regulatory impact assessment in respect of the proposed EU regulation establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights. [133569]

  Mr. McNulty
  The UK is supportive of the basic aim of this regulation, which is to protect passengers who are denied boarding or are the victims of commercial cancellations. However, we also believe a balance should be struck between the rights of passengers and the additional costs to airlines, which may ultimately be passed through to the consumer. Accordingly, we have been working hard to improve the original text, to try to make it more balanced and workable. Once the regulation comes into force it will be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in member states, who will be required to designate a body responsible for it enforcement and ensure that sanctions laid down for infringements are effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
  477W
  When the text of the regulation has been finalised we will be in a position to complete cur Regulatory Impact Assessment, which will appear on the Department for Transport website in due course.

  Driving Licences
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will require drivers to be retested for their driving licence on a regular basis. [133540]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government do not consider that the regular retesting of all drivers would be a proportionate measure to deliver road safety benefits. Courts already have powers to require those drivers who offend to undergo a driving test. Where a driver is guilty of a serious offence, this involves an extended length driving test.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the average waiting time was for a driver aged over 70 between applying for a licence renewal and the issue of the licence in each of the last three years. [133590]

  Dr. Howells
  The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) aims to return licences 15 working days following receipt of a valid application (i.e. one complete in all respects). This can take longer where further inquiries are required into an individual's health or personal details. This is published in the DVLA's literature that supports application forms. Apart from a courtesy reminder system there are no separate arrangements specifically for processing applications from drivers aged over 70.

  Flight Paths (Walthamstow)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what altitude restrictions apply to aircraft on flight paths above Walthamstow; and how these have changed in the last five years. [131582]

  Mr. McNulty
  [pursuant to his answer, 14 October 2003, Official Report, c. 168–69W]: The airspace over all of Walthamstow above 2,500 ft has been classified as 'controlled' for many years. Over the southernmost quarter of the Walthamstow constituency the airspace has been controlled to ground level since the opening of London City Airport. Aircraft using Heathrow and City operate within this controlled airspace. Aircraft inbound to Heathrow will normally be above 5,000 ft.

  Over the remainder of my hon. Friend's constituency below 2,500 ft, helicopters and general aviation aircraft from smaller aerodromes can determine routes and altitudes according to their particular requirements Such flights are subject to the Rules of the Air Regulations, notably Rule 5, which means most will be above 1,500 ft.

  There have been no changes to the airspace over Walthamstow in the last five years.

  Grosvenor Square (Street Closure)
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what the costs to his Department were of the(a) closure of Grosvenor Square and (b) policing of the private event held there on 11 September. [131411]
  478W
  Mr. McNulty
  The event was organised by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and was policed by officers from the Home Department.

  The closure of Grosvenor Square incurred no costs to the Department for Transport. The cost of the ad hoc policing arrangements to Government was approximately £7,000.

  Light Rail Schemes
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assessment his Department has made of the risk factors associated with light rail schemes(a) where there is a pre-existing light rail passenger base and (b) that rely on projections of passenger growth; and how this is reflected in his Department's costs and other assessments of such schemes; [131924]

  (2) what risk assessment his Department has made of the Blackpool and Fleetwood Tramway renewal proposals; [131925]

  (3) what account his Department took of the (a) extent and (b) costs of Disability Discrimination Act 1995 compliance in 2004 in its assessment of the costs and value for money of the minimal option of works to keep the Blackpool and Fleetwood Tramway operational; [131927]

  (4) whether his Department has included regeneration benefits from the upgrade of the Blackpool and Fleetwood Tramway in its assessment of its value for money and cost-benefit ratios; [131928]

  (5) what assessment his Department has made of the success of (a) light rail and (b) bus schemes in attracting users to public transport; [131963]

  (6) what his Department's policy is on the upgrade of existing light rail networks; [131964]

  (7) what research his Department has undertaken of the (a) benefits and (b) costs of (i) upgrading existing and (ii) building new light rail systems; [131965]

  (8) what (a) assessment his Department has made of the cost-benefit ratios and (b) value for money of the options for the renewal of the Blackpool and Fleetwood Tramway. [131966]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department is nearing completion of its assessment of the proposals by Blackpool borough council and Lancashire county council to upgrade the Blackpool Tramway. In common with all transport projects considered by the Department, it is being assessed using the New Approach To Appraisal (NATA) framework, which pays attention both to those impacts which can readily be monetarised (such as time savings) and to others of policy significance (such as environmental impacts) which can only be considered qualitatively.

  The NATA framework also requires the preparation of an Economic Impact Report on the possible regeneration impact of the scheme and a thorough quantified risk assessment, both of which the Council has provided. My right hon. Friend will take into account the findings of the appraisal in the light of all the other pressures on his programmes in deciding whether to fund the scheme.
  479W
  Lower-cost alternatives to the full scheme have also been appraised, taking account of the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act.

  A crucial, and difficult, part of the assessment of any light rail project is the forecasting of patronage. The uncertainties are always considerable, though greater in the case of proposals for an entirely new system than for an upgrading of a long-established line. Different scenarios, including optimistic and pessimistic, are examined to help capture the inherent uncertainty in forecasting future demand.

  There has been no research on the relative costs and benefits of upgrading existing tram systems and of building new systems, since the circumstances and characteristics of individual schemes vary too greatly for such a comparison to be useful. For the same reason, the Department does not have any general policy as regards tram upgrades. Each proposed major local transport scheme is considered on its individual merits.

  Evaluation Studies have been completed for new light rail systems, such as Croydon Supertram and Manchester Metrolink, which suggest that around 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. of passenger journeys on these systems would otherwise have taken place by car. and that generated trips can increase demand by up to 15 per cent. in the off-peak. However, there is also evidence that investment in buses can be successful in increasing public transport use. There is as yet only very limited experience in this country of guided bus schemes, which are the nearest bus-based equivalent to tram systems, and assessments of their relative attractiveness are therefore uncertain.

  Light Rapid Transit Schemes (Hampshire)
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress with light rapid transit schemes in South Hampshire. [132963]

  Mr. McNulty
  The South Hampshire Rapid Transit scheme was approved for funding in March 2001 Unfortunately the cost estimates now exceed the threshold figure agreed at the time and my right hon Friend is reviewing the options for its future.

  Mersey Tunnels
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the proposed increase in tolls on the Mersey Tunnels. [133670]

  Dr. Howells
  The application by the Merseyside Passenger Transport Authority (Merseytravel) to increase the toll charges for the use of the Mersey Tunnels and representations against that application are currently being considered.

  Motor Insurers Bureau
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the Motor Insurers Bureau receives Government funding. [133730]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Motor Insurers' Bureau (MIB) is a Company which was set up and is managed by the 480W
  insurance industry. It is funded entirely by a levy on the insurance industry and receives no Government funding.

  Motorway Resurfacing
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to take into account minimising noise disruption to schools as part of the criteria for resurfacing motorways; and if he will make a statement. [132567]

  Mr. McNulty
  Government policy is that lower noise surfaces should now be used. except for practical reasons. when any trunk road is resurfaced and it is currently anticipated that over 60 per cent. of the strategic road network will have been surfaced with lower noise materials by 2011. The phasing of resurfacing is usually based on the need to keep the road in optimum condition without causing excessive delays to traffic. Noise mitigation measures on roads built after 1988 take into consideration the need to reduce their impact on noise sensitive facilities such as schools, as well as residential properties.

  Railways
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much money has been granted to(a) Railtrack in Administration and (b) to Network Rail (i) by way of grant and (ii) in loan guarantees since the appointment of the Administrator. [133667]

  Dr. Howells
  Network grants paid to Railtrack in Administration and Network Rail are as set out in the Rail Regulator's Periodic Review Final Conclusions of October 2000, as amended by agreements between Railtrack and the Department for Transport in April 2001 and between Network Rail and the Strategic Rail Authority in June 2002.

  Railtrack in Administration received network grants of £654 million. The Secretary of State guaranteed loans and other liabilities of Railtrack in Administration up to £4.5 billion. To date, Network Rail has received network grants of £1.8 billion. The SRA has made available standby credit facilities of up to £21 billion to support Network Rail's borrowing.

  Recorded Crime (Railways)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the recorded crime figures on the Great Eastern/Anglia railway for the past four years and if he will make a statement. [133658]

  Mr. McNulty
  The British Transport police have provided the following information on serious offences reported to the force:

  Total notifiable offences

  First Great Eastern

  Anglia Railways

  1999–2000

  1,425

  390

  2000–01

  1,584

  324

  2001–02

  1,841

  415

  2002–03

  1,696

  409

  Road Schemes
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received from the Royal Automobile Club about new road building projects. [133025]

  Dr. Howells
  The RAC Foundation have contributed to several of the Multi Modal Studies, including those involving new road building projects, on which the Secretary of State made announcements in December 2002 and July 2003. Since then my officials have had regular dialogue with the RAC Foundation.

  Salisbury Transportation Package
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will complete his review of the Salisbury Transportation Package. [132923]

  Mr. McNulty
  Department for Transport Officials are currently working with Wiltshire County Council and Salisbury District Council to complete a re-appraisal of the transport package following an increase in scheme costs since the initial bid in the 2000 Local Transport Plan.

  It is anticipated that this work will be completed in time for an announcement on future funding to be made in the Local Transport Plan settlement, which we expect to announce in December 2003.

  US Warship Disposal
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the planned route within UK waters is of the ships from the US Reserve Fleet intended for dismantling on Teesside which have set sail from the US; what control he has over this route; and if he will make a statement. [133362]

  Mr. McNulty
  The routing for the first four ships within the contract will be through the English Channel, observing mandatory IMO traffic separation schemes, and up the east coast of the UK. Generally, international rights of freedom of navigation apply, although upon entry into UK waters the tows could be directed by the Secretary of State's Representative to change routing or to leave UK waters if he believed it necessary for safety reasons or to prevent pollution or to conduct salvage operations.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent guidance he has issued to the Marine Coastguard Agency in respect of the proposal to bring ships from the US Reserve Fleet to Teesside for disposal; what policy the Marine Coastguard Agency has adopted on this matter; what discussions the Marine Coastguard Agency has had with the US Marine Administration; and if he will make a statement. [133363]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) must be satisfied that the ships can make the passage without undue risk to the marine environment or safety. The MCA has had a number of meetings with both the US Coast Guard and the US Maritime Administration. MCA marine surveyors have accompanied Coast Guard surveyors during inspections of the ships. The US authorities refused to allow the vessels to sail until the MCA confirmed it was satisfied with all arrangements. The MCA did so only when it 482W
  had completed a detailed scrutiny of all aspects of the company's proposals in relation to towing the first four ships within the contract; the remaining ships have yet to be considered or approved.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from the EU Environment Commissioner in respect of the proposal to bring ships from the US Reserve Fleet to Teesside for disposal; and if he will make a statement. [133366]

  Mr. McNulty
  None.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his latest estimate is of the annual cost to the Exchequer of the evasion of vehicle excise duty; and if he will make a statement. [132901]

  Mr. McNulty
  In March 2003 the Department published the results of a roadside survey which estimated the level of revenue lost from vehicle excise duty in 2002–03 to be £193 million, equivalent to 4.5 per cent. of the total revenue that should be raised.

TREASURY

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people with registered disabilities are in full-time employment. [132642]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Nigel Waterson, dated October 2003:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question about the number of registered disabled people who are in full-time employment. (132642)
  The Labour Force Survey (LFS) asks a series of questions which determine whether respondents are subject to the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. In the three month period ending August 2003, an estimated total of 1.88 million such people of working age were in full-time employment.
  Further information on the definition of disability used in the above Act is available from: http://www.disability.gov.uk/dda/

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people have benefited from the national minimum wage since its introduction(a) in Leeds, West and (b) in total; and in each case how much was given to them. [132741]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.
  483W
  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. John Battle, dated 21 October 2003:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the number of people in the Leeds West parliamentary constituency and in the UK who have benefited from the national minimum wage (NMW) since its introduction, and how much has been given to them. (132741)
  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) calculates estimates of the number of jobs paid less than NMW rates for the United Kingdom and Government Office Regions. A guide to measuring low pay and associated articles and data can be found on the National Statistics website at:
  http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Product.asp?vink = 5837&Pos = 1&ColRank = 1&Rank = 272
  Estimates for Parliamentary Constituencies are not available.
  No information is available on how much money has been given to people as a result of the National Minimum Wage.

  British Troops (Tax and National Insurance)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce reliefs on tax and National Insurance payments for British troops serving in Iraq. [133478]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) on 6 May 2003,Official Report, column 625W.

  Business Taxation
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to change the levels of taxation levied on the business sector; and if he will make a statement. [132654]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government keeps all taxes under review and any changes will be made as part of the normal Budget process. Since 1997 the Government has introduced a wide-ranging package of measures to make the UK an attractive place for business to locate and help small business, including cuts in corporation tax and the introduction of targeted measures such as the R&D tax credit, permanent 40 per cent. first year capital allowances and improvements to the capital gains tax regime.

  Correspondence
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will reply to the letter dated 9 September from the hon. Member for North Norfolk to the Paymaster General concerning the export of BAC Strikemaster aircraft. [132866]

  John Healey
  I have done so.

  Customs and Excise (Vehicle Seizure)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer under what powers Customs and Excise officers may seize private vehicles at ports of entry in connection with duty paid goods. [133585]

  John Healey
  Section 141(1)(a) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (CEMA) gives Customs the power to seize vehicles used in the carriage handling, deposit or concealment of goods liable to forfeiture.
  484W
  Travellers may bring back to the UK as many duty-paid excise goods from another EU member state as they wish for their own use. But such goods which are not for their own use may not be brought back into the UK without payment of UK taxes, and are liable to forfeiture.

  Economic Growth
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the economy's predicted level of growth for 2003–04. [132989]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government's latest economic forecasts were published in the Financial Statement and Budget Report 2003 (HC 500) on 9 April. GDP growth was forecast to be 2 to 2.5 per cent. in 2003 and 3 to 3.5 per cent. in 2004. Updated growth forecasts will be published in the forthcoming pre-Budget report 2003.

  Energy Efficiency
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 25 June 2003,Official Report, column 760W, if he will set out the timetable for the detailed consultation on specific fiscal instruments to encourage household energy efficiency announced in the November 2002 pre-Budget statement. [132744]

  John Healey
  A consultation paper 'Economic instruments to improve household energy efficiency' was published on 1 August 2003, and the consultation will close on 24 October 2003. Responses will inform decisions made as part of the usual pre-Budget report and Budget process.

  European Court of Justice
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the(a) reference number, (b) date and (c) subject of the decisions of the European Court of Justice that have a bearing on UK taxation regimes; and what the effects of these decisions are. [132557]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The European Court of Justice ensures that Community Law is uniformly interpreted and effectively applied, including in relation to tax matters. All judgments of the European Court of Justice are set out in full in the Official Journal of the European Communities (C Series), a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the impact on marginal tax rates would be of reducing the starting rate of income tax by each one per cent. between 10 per cent. and 0 per cent. assuming no change in entitlement to tax credits or benefits. [133176]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer my right hon. Friend to table 2.1 on the Inland Revenue website www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats/income_tax/it_t01_1.htm and table 1.6 on the Inland Revenue website www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats/tax_expenditures/g_t06_1.htm.

  Influenza
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people aged 65 years or over have died of influenza in(a) South Tyneside, (b) Tyne and Wear, (c) the North East and (d) the UK in each year since 1997. [133214]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Hepburn, dated 21 October 2003:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking how many people aged 65 years or over died of influenza in (a) South Tyneside, (b) Tyne and Wear, (c) the North East and (d) the UK in each year since 1997. (133214)
  The information requested is given in the table below.

  Numbers of deaths from influenza for people aged 65 and over,1 1997 to 20012, for South Tyneside local authority, the former county of Tyne and Wear, North East Government Office Region and the United Kingdom3

  Number of deaths

  Year

  South Tyneside

  Tyne and Wear

  North East

  United Kingdom

  1997

  -

  *

  7

  413

  1998

  -

  -

  *

  129

  1999

  *

  17

  35

  598

  2000

  *

  8

  32

  630

  2001

  -

  -

  *

  27

  - Zero deaths

  * Fewer than 5 deaths

  1 Deaths with an underlying cause of influenza defined using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) code 487 for the years 1997 to 2000 and, for the year 2001, the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes J10 and J11.

  2 Figures are for deaths occurring in each calendar year, except for data for Scotland and Northern Ireland included in the United Kingdom totals. These are deaths registered in each calendar year.

  3 Deaths of usual residents of these areas.

  Investment Trusts
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment the Treasury has made of the Financial Services Authority's ability to regulate split capital investment trusts. [132990]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury has full confidence in the way that the FSA is carrying out its regulatory responsibilities. Split-capital investment trusts are not currently directly regulated by the FSA—the Treasury has undertaken to consult on whether the FSA should regulate these companies.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment the Treasury has made of the security of investment in split capital trusts. [132991]

  Ruth Kelly
  Investments in split-capital investment trusts have many risks in common with other forms of equity investment. It is for individual investors to take appropriate financial advice before investing in the shares of these companies.

  The Treasury, however, welcomes the changes to the listing and conduct of business rules, as they apply to investment trust companies, recently announced by the
  486W
  Financial Services Authority. We believe that these will improve investor protection and effectively tackle the issues which have arisen at some split-capital investment trusts.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will bring investment trusts fully into the regulation regime of the Financial Services Authority; [132992]

  (2) if he will accept the recommendation of the Treasury Committee to bring investment trusts directly within the scope of investment product regulation by the Financial Services Authority. [132993]

  Ruth Kelly
  In its response to the Treasury Committee (published in the Committee's Fourth Special Report of Session 2002–03, HC651) the Treasury said:'The Treasury welcomes the proposals put forward by the FSA in CP164 and believe that, when implemented, these will effectively tackle the issues which arose directly from split capital investment trusts. However, we accept that there may be a case for bringing investment trusts fully within regulation by the FSA. There are a number of ways in which this could be done and it is by no means clear which, if any, might be the most appropriate. The Treasury will, therefore. in conjunction with the FSA consider the available options for doing so and will, in due course, consult fully on these.'

  This remains the Treasury's position.

  Lorry Road User Charging Project
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the estimated revenues for the lorry road user charging project are for each year for which figures are available; and what proportion of the estimated revenues for the project are expected to come from Scotland. [132776]

  John Healey
  There will be reductions in fuel duty for those paying the charge so that there is no increase in the overall tax burden for that sector of the haulage industry that buys fuel in the UK.

  No assessment of revenues can be made until it is decided at what level the charge will be set, and what level of offsetting fuel duty reduction will be available to charge-payers. Decisions on fuel duties and other taxes are made on a Budget-by-Budget basis.

  Money Laundering Regulations
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a regulatory impact assessment in respect of the Money Laundering Regulations 2003. [133537]

  Ruth Kelly
  A full Regulatory Impact Assessment will be completed for the Money Laundering Regulations 2003. Copies will be deposited in the Library of the House and it will also be available on the Treasury website.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies (Expenditure)
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the expenditure on non-departmental public bodies was(a) in the last year for which figures are available and (b) in 1996–97. [133662]
  487W
  Mr. Boateng
  Total spending by non-departmental public bodies for 1998–99 to 2002–03 is shown as follows. Data on a comparable basis is not readily available for earlier years. For each department, the total of their NDPB spending is contained within their Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL), so that any increase in spending on their NDPBs is offset elsewhere within their total DEL.

  NDPB spending (£ million)

  Outturn

  1998–99

  12,238

  1999–2000

  13,846

  2000–01

  14,670

  2001–02

  20,151

  Estimated outturn

  2002–03

  24,843

  Source:

  Supplementary Budgetary Information to the Central Government Supply Estimates 2003–04 (Cm 5797).

  Productivity Growth
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on average projected productivity growth for 2003–04. [132987]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government's latest published forecasts for the UK economy were set out in this year's Financial Statement and Budget Report (HC500). A full update will be made in the forthcoming pre-Budget report.

  Professional Indemnity Insurance
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many financial advisers he estimates are operating without professional indemnity insurance; and if he will make a statement. [132880]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Financial Services Authority (FSA) tell me that as at 30 September 2003 of the 4,047 firms that are required to hold professional indemnity insurance (PII) cover, 749 have yet to notify the FSA that they have obtained cover. At that same date, 82 firms have been granted a waiver from the requirement to hold PII and are, in effect, self-insuring. Under current market conditions, there can be a time lag of three months or more for a firm to obtain suitable cover and notify FSA of that fact.
  488W
  The FSA published a consultation paper in July 2003 with new proposals on its PII policy and revised rules for firms. The new PII policy will give firms a more flexible framework within which they can choose how to combine PII and financial resources. This will help firms remain in business and will continue to protect consumers who may have claims against firms.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress is being made in relocating(a) Civil Service Departments and (b) public bodies from London. [132957]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Chancellor and Deputy Prime Minister asked Sir Michael Lyons, Director of the Institute of Local Government Studies at the University of Birmingham, to conduct an independent study into the scope for relocating a substantial number of public sector activities from London and the South East of England to other parts of the United Kingdom.

  Sir Michael has now received responses from Government Departments to his review and is currently assessing these before preparing his final report.

  Registered Maternities
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many registered maternities to women resident in(a) Fareham, (b) Gosport, (c) Portsmouth and (d) Havant local authority areas took place in (i) Blackbrook Maternity Unit, (ii) the Mary Rose Unit, St. Mary's Hospital Portsmouth, (iii) other Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust, (iv) other NHS hospitals, (v) at home and (vi) elsewhere in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [133578]

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

  Letter from Colin Mowl to Mr. Mark Hoban, dated 21 October 2003:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your request for the number of registered maternities to women resident in (a) Fareham, (b) Gosport, (c) Portsmouth and (d) Havant local authority areas, which took place in (i) Blackbrook Maternity Unit, (ii) the Mary Rose Unit, St Mary's Hospital Portsmouth, (iii) other Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust, (iv) other NHS hospitals, (v) at home and (vi) elsewhere in the each of the last three years for which figures are available. I am replying in his absence. (133578)
  The attached table gives data for 2000, 2001 and 2002.

  Maternities to residents of Portsmouth UA, Fareham CD, Gosport CD and Havant CD by place of occurrence 2000–2002

  Mothers Local Authority of Residence

  Year and place of maternity

  Portsmouth

  Fareham

  Gosport

  Havant

  2000

  (i) Blackbrook Maternity Unit

  5

  51

  *

  —

  (ii) Mary Rose Unit, Portsmouth

  2,118

  703

  737

  1,087

  (iii) Other Portsmouth NHS trusts

  —

  27

  170

  —

  (iv) Other NHS hospitals

  38

  181

  16

  90

  (v) At Home

  39

  19

  22

  33

  (vi) Elsewhere

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Total

  2,202

  984

  953

  1,211

  489W

  Maternities to residents of Portsmouth UA, Fareham CD, Gosport CD and Havant CD by place of occurrence 2000–2002

  Mothers Local Authority of Residence

  Year and place of maternity

  Portsmouth

  Fareham

  Gosport

  Havant

  2001

  (i) Blackbrook Maternity Unit

  *

  44

  *

  —

  (ii) Mary Rose Unit, Portsmouth

  2,052

  704

  613

  1,039

  (iii) Other Portsmouth NHS trusts

  *

  29

  177

  —

  (iv) Other NHS hospitals

  46

  259

  25

  96

  (v) At Home

  29

  22

  14

  35

  (vi) Elsewhere

  *

  *

  —

  *

  Total

  2,133

  1,061

  833

  1,174

  2002

  (i) Blackbrook Maternity Unit

  —

  79

  *

  —

  (ii) Mary Rose Unit, Portsmouth

  2,078

  583

  577

  960

  (iii) Other Portsmouth NHS trusts

  *

  19

  233

  —

  (iv) Other NHS hospitals

  46

  272

  32

  159

  (v) At Home

  31

  19

  21

  27

  (vi) Elsewhere

  *

  —

  *

  *

  Total

  2,161

  972

  868

  1,148

  — Zero maternities

  * Fewer than 5 maternities

  Regulatory Impact Assessments
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many regulatory impact assessments have been produced by his Department since August 2001; if he will list those(a) produced following initial consultation with affected parties about the most appropriate methodology for assessing costs and other impacts and (b) which set out full commercial impacts, including profitability, employment, consumer prices and competitiveness, as recommended in Good Policy Making; and if he will make a statement. [132883]

  Dawn Primarolo
  HM Treasury, HM Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue have produced 50 final Regulatory Impact Assessments since August 2001. These are listed below and are available from the House Libraries and departmental web sites.

  HM Treasury

  The Building Societies Act 1986 (Electronic Communications) Order 2003; The Credit Unions Act 1979 (Commencement No.3) Order 2003; The Regulatory Reform (Credit Unions) Order 2003; Implementation of the Insurers Reorganisation and Winding-up Directive; Extension of Financial Services Regulation to Mortgages; Statutory Instruments Needed under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000; Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities (UCITS) (Second Amending Directive); Regulating Insurance Mediation; Regulating Mortgages; Orders to be made in support of the transfer of Audit responsibility for the Special Health Service Health Authorities from the Audit Commission to the Comptroller and Auditor General; The Electronic Commerce Directive (Financial Service & Markets) Regulations 2002—July 2001; FSMA Regulated Activities (Amendment) (No 2) Order 2002—July 2001; Fourth Motor Insurance Directive Regulations 2002—October 2001; FSMA 2000 (Administration Orders relating to Insurers) Order 2002; Implementation of the Money Directive 2002; The Money Laundering Regulations 2001; The Protection of the Euro against Counterfeiting Regulations; The Insurance (Fees) regulation 2001; The Credit Unions (Increases in Limits on Deposits by persons too young to be members of
  490W
  Periods for Repayments of Loans) Order 2001; FSMA 2000 (Promotion of Collective Investment Schemes) (Exemptions) Order 2001; The Open Ended Investment Companies Regulations 2001.

  Inland Revenue

  Mandatory Electronic Payment for Large Employers, Payroll Services; National Insurance Contributions—Offshore Manning Taxation of UK Branches of Foreign Companies; Payments by Employers towards the incidental costs of Home working; Simplification of Employee Share Schemes; Stamp Duty in Disadvantaged Areas Extension of the Relief to all Non-Residential Property; Corporation Tax Relief and Employee Share Schemes ISAS—Simplified Voiding for Investor Error; Tax Law Rewrite Project—Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Bill; The New Tax Credits; National Insurance Contributions Bill; Fuel Scale Charge; Reform of the Taxation of Intangible Assets; Construction Industry Scheme; Research and Development Tax Credits for Large Companies/ Vaccines Research Relief; Exemptions for Gains and Losses on Substantial Shareholdings; Reform of the Corporate Debt, Financial Instruments and Foreign Exchange; Gains and Losses Regimes; Community Amateur Sports Club; Appendix to Enterprise Management Incentive.

  Construction Industry Scheme: Issue of CIS5 (Partner) Certificates; Life Insurance Policies Etc.—Information Duties of Insurers.

  HM Customs and Excise

  Simplified Import VAT Accounting 2003; VAT Strategy: Joint and Several Liability 2003; VAT Strategy: Input Tax deduction without a valid VAT invoice 2003; Extension of the VAT Annual Accounting Scheme and the Flat Rate Scheme, and relaxations to the VAT Default Surcharge Scheme 2003; Oils Fraud Strategy 2002; VAT Flat Rate Scheme and changes to the Annual Accounting Scheme 2002; New VAT registration forms 2001; Proposal for a Council Directive Amending the Sixth VAT Directive to simplify, modernise and harmonise the conditions laid down for VAT invoicing 2001.
  491W
  The costs associated to regulatory proposals are considered at the policy development stage. A Regulatory Impact Assessment is completed for regulatory proposals unless there are no or negligible costs.

  An RIA considers the consequences of proposals, improving the quality of advice to Ministers and encouraging informed public debate. An RIA sets out the impact, in terms of costs, benefits and risks of the proposed regulation that could affect businesses, charities or the voluntary sector.

  Research and Development Tax Credit
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was allocated to small firms using the research and development tax credit in financial years(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [132884]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is not possible to separately identify small firms from our data. However, it is possible to identify Small or Medium Enterprises (SMEs). Latest estimates of the total cost, on an accruals basis, of the research and development tax credit for 2001–02 and 2002–03 are available on the Inland Revenue's website at http://www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats/tax_expenditures/g_t05_1.htm. For 2002–03, the first year that large companies were eligible to claim R&D tax credits, the estimated cost of support for companies which are defined as SMEs for the purposes of the tax credit is £200 million.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reasons the Government imposes vehicle excise duty on vehicle ownership; and if he will make a statement. [132902]

  John Healey
  Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) helps ensure that all motorists contribute to the costs of maintaining and policing the road network. The VED system is also important in helping the enforcement of vehicle insurance and registration rules, and it enables discounts to be offered to help disabled drivers. The graduation of VED from March 2001 in relation to the carbon dioxide emissions and the pollution of cars has been important in helping to strengthen the signals for environmentally responsible behaviour by motorists.

  Research Science
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people were employed in research science in each year since 1 January 1996. [132332]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mrs. Cheryl Gillan, dated 21 October 2003:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question about people employed in research science since 1996. (132332)
  The attached table shows the number of people employed in four occupational groups that comprise workers in research science. This data is derived from the Labour Force Survey (LFS)
  492W
  and is only available from Spring 2001, when the last major change to the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC2000) was implemented.
  Estimates for previous years have not been given as they are not available on a consistent basis. This is because the Standard Occupation Classification (SOC)2000 classification was introduced to the LFS in spring (March to May) 2001 and is not comparable with the SOC90 classification used in earlier periods.

  People employed in research science occupations1 United Kingdom, March to May 2001, 2002, 2003 not seasonally adjusted

  Thousand

  2001

  2002

  2003

  All research science occupations

  837

  852

  833

  211 Science Professionals

  120

  117

  117

  212 Engineering Professionals

  427

  429

  443

  311 Science and Engineering Technicians

  273

  290

  258

  2321 Scientific researchers

  17

  16

  14

  1 People whose occupation in their main job is Standard Occupation Classification (SOC) 2000 codes 211, 212, 213, or 2321.

  These LFS estimates have not been adjusted to reflect the 2001 Census results

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey

  Vehicle/Fuel Taxation
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assessment he has made of the impact on emissions of carcinogens from road vehicles of(a) company car tax, (b) other vehicle taxation and (c) fuel tax;. [132836]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact on emissions of oxides of nitrogen from road vehicles of (a) company car tax, (b) other vehicle taxation and (c) fuel tax. [132840]

  John Healey
  The Government has incorporated tax differentials into the company car tax, vehicle excise duty and fuel duty regimes to facilitate the use of alternative fuels and cleaner technologies to improve air quality.

  Much of the reduction in pollution from road transport results from tougher emissions standards for new vehicles. The tax system provides some incentives for the earlier take-up of cleaner vehicles, as well as incentives for switching to less-polluting fuels and technologies.

  Transport taxation is also intended to encourage the use of more fuel-efficient cars with lower carbon dioxide emissions.

  Key air pollutants, including carcinogens, have reduced by around 50 per cent. over the last decade and are forecast to fall by a further 30 per cent. over the next decade. The specific information requested is not available; although further details of emissions of all pollutants from road transport are available from the National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (www.naei.org.uk).

  Written Consultation
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) consultation documents and (b) consultative drafts of legislation have been issued by his Department

  493W
  since January 2001; what proportion of these have observed Criterion 5 of the Code of Practice on Written Consultation; and if he will make a statement. [132882]

  Ruth Kelly
  A list of consultation documents issued since January 2001 can be found on the HM Treasury website at http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/consultations and legislation/. In 2001, a third of consultation documents met Criterion 5. In 2002 and to date in 2003, more than three-quarters have done so. Most of the consultations that did not meet Criterion 5 related to market-sensitive financial service areas. In those cases where the consultation period is due to be shorter than normal, the reasons for this are now routinely set out in the text of the document.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Foxes
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what methods of controlling the fox population her Department will recommend if the Hunting Bill receives Royal Assent. [133476]

  Alun Michael
  The Department's advice on fox control will remain unchanged if the Hunting Bill receives Royal Assent (assuming that it does so in its current form).

  At present, shooting is the recommended method of fox control in rural areas. Snaring, which is also an effective technique when used by experienced personnel, may have advantages over shooting in certain situations.

  Lethal control is not generally recommended in urban areas. Killing or relocating foxes usually only provides transient relief from the problems foxes cause, as vacant territories are rapidly reoccupied once the control measures cease. In addition, shooting and snaring are unlikely to be appropriate control methods for reasons of safety, and in the case of shooting, public disturbance. Advice on alternative strategies for preventing problems is given in the Department's "Urban Fox" leaflet (code WMO8) which is available from the Defra website (www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/vertebrates).

  High-risk Chemicals
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has for the development of comparative risk assessment for high-risk chemicals; what the timescale is for each of the steps envisaged; and if she will list the chemicals to which it is intended to apply this system. [132454]

  Alun Michael
  When putting in place measures to reduce the risks of high-risk substances we consider the availability of substitutes and their hazards to ensure that the best option is taken. This is done following guidance set out by the EU and we currently have no plans to further develop this. The full examination to reduce risks—which includes this comparison—is divided into a five-stage process and generally takes between six and nine months. This process is applied 494W
  to chemicals which have been demonstrated to be a high risk and examples of those completed include: short chain chlorinated paraffins, octa and penta bromodiphenyl ether, bis phenol A and nonyl phenol ethoxylate.

  Pesticides
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment has been made of the costs of the safe disposal from farms of stocks of those pesticides which have been withdrawn from the market this year as a result of the review taking place under EU Agricultural Pesticides Directive 91/414; and if she will list the cost to(a) the Government, (b) farmers and (c) the pesticide industry arising from the review. [133108]

  Alun Michael
  Pesticides are regularly withdrawn from the market as a result of regulatory reviews or commercial decisions taken by crop protection companies. However, when there are not over-riding safety concerns a 'use up' period is provided. The purpose of this period is to allow the pesticide industry and farmers to use up existing stocks of the pesticide products concerned and thus avoid significant disposal costs. We believe that this is the best environmental option as well as minimising the costs for all parties.

  The withdrawals of products under the EC review programme has been taking place progressively since 1995 although the largest batch of withdrawals is taking place this year. In all cases a use-up period has been provided. In anticipation of this years withdrawals the department undertook special publicity campaigns, both this year and last, supported by the crop protection industry and farmers organisations. These were designed to ensure that those affected used their stocks by the end of this year thus minimising the need for disposals.

  Because of this costs would only arise at the end of this year for farmers or pesticide companies if they have failed to take advantage of the use up period and we do not envisage that there will be additional costs to Government.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the information contained on the Pesticides Safety Directorate website on the mixing of individual compounds after sale in relation to Regulation 4 of the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986 and Regulation 4 of the Plant Protection Regulations 1997. [133502]

  Alun Michael
  The information on the Pesticide Safety Directorate's website describing the mixing of individual pesticides after sale refers to the published 'Guidelines on the Provision of Pesticide Mixing Services and Sale of Twin Packs and Kits'. These guidelines confirm the requirement that only pesticides formulated in accordance with approved formulations may be sold or supplied. However once sale has taken place a pesticide may legally be mixed with another pesticide or with other substances without the need for a further product approval. This is provided that the mixing process is carried out by the user or on behalf of the user, and that specific conditions of use set for
  495W
  the individually approved pesticides concerned are complied with. Many users choose to employ mixing services provided at retailer or distributor premises, or by mobile mixing services that visit farms. The mixing service guidelines stipulate that these services must be provided only after sale has taken place, that mixing must be carried out only in accordance with any restrictions placed on the individual pesticides used, and that mixed product should be used promptly.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  British Energy
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what level of public funds will be made available to British Energy in respect of the agreement announced in her written statement of 14 October 2003,Official Report, columns 10–12WS. [133310]

  Mr. Timms
  Government's underlying commitment is the same as it was last year. Up until restructuring, we have made the credit facility (currently £200 million) available to British Energy, which has been approved by the European Commission. That will be repaid by the company under the terms of the restructuring plan at no cost to the taxpayer. Post restructuring we will take financial responsibility for British Energy's historic spent fuel liabilities, with an average cost to Government of £150 to £200 million per annum for the next 10 years, falling thereafter. We will also underwrite British Energy's arrangements for funding decommissioning and uncontracted liabilities to the extent that British Energy's contributions are insufficient.

  Christmas Opening
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the response to her request that retailers not open on Christmas Day 2002; and what action she proposes to take in relation to Christmas Day 2003. [133154]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  A consultation of individual major retailers in summer 2002 indicated that the majority did not plan to open on Christmas Day in 2002 or in future years. However, it was apparent that opening by competitors or changes in customer demand would lead to plans being reviewed in some cases.

  A public consultation on legislation to prohibit opening by large stores on Christmas Day took place earlier this year. This showed the majority of respondents in favour of maintaining the special nature of the day. The Government may introduce legislation as soon as parliamentary time permits.

  Civil Relationships Registration
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 15 September 2003,Official Report, column 539W, on the civil relationships registration scheme, which significant rights and responsibilities have not been addressed in the consultation paper on civil relationships. [133324]
  496W
  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 20 October 2003]: The Government have so far not become aware of any significant rights and responsibilities that were omitted from the consultation paper on civil partnerships. We are still considering the many responses to the consultation paper and will publish a report in due course.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the control of fireworks. [132583]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Fireworks Act 2003, which received Royal Assent on 18 September 2003, will allow the Department to make regulations covering a range of firework issues which we are currently unable to regulate under the Consumer Protection Act 1987. These include restricting firework sales and use, licensing of retailers and controlling noise and nuisance.

  We hope to implement those parts of the Act dealing with anti-social issues before Christmas. This means that we will create a curfew for the use of fireworks, create an offence for possession of fireworks by those under 18 years of age, and prohibit the supply of air bombs.

  The Act's other principal provisions—setting a maximum noise limit for fireworks, licensing of suppliers, rules for public firework displays, importation of fireworks and training of display operators—require more detailed consultation with all the interested parties. We will start implementation of this part of the Act in the New Year.

  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) when she expects to introduce regulations prohibiting the supply, purchase, possession and use of fireworks during anti-social hours; [132646]

  (2) when she expects to introduce regulations to prohibit the purchase, possession and use of fireworks by those under 18 years; [132647]

  (3) when she expects to introduce regulations to prohibit consumer sales for excessively noisy fireworks; [132648]

  (4) when she expects to introduce regulations to license fireworks retailers. [132649]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Department is committed to implementing and ensuring proper enforcement of the Fireworks Act 2003.

  We hope to implement those parts of the Act dealing with anti-social issues before Christmas. This means that we will create a curfew for the use of fireworks, create an offence for possession of fireworks by those under 18 years of age, and prohibit the supply of air bombs.

  The Act's other principal provisions—setting a maximum noise limit for fireworks, licensing of suppliers, rules for public firework displays, importation of fireworks and training of display operators—require more detailed consultation with all the interested parties. We will start implementation of this part of the Act in the New Year.

  Interest Charges
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps her Department is taking to protect consumers from excessive levels of interest charged on(a) small loans, (b) credit cards and (c) store cards. [132861]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  There are currently in excess of 200,000 businesses licensed under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and monitoring the activities of all these businesses would create a significant burden on legitimate business.

  The Consumer Credit Act 1974 contains provisions that allow a consumer to challenge an extortionate credit bargain. However, only about 30 extortionate credit cases are known to have reached the courts since the Act came into force and, of those, in only 10 did the court find the agreement to be extortionate.

  I believe that these provisions have not operated effectively in enabling consumers to challenge unfair credit agreements and I intend to publish a White Paper this autumn, which will contain details of how I intend to make it easier for consumers to challenge unfair credit transactions.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimates she has made of the costs to employers of standardising the minimum wage rate for all employees aged 18 and above. [131356]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  [holding answer 14 October 2003]: When the Low Pay Commission recommended in their 4th report that the rate for 18 to 21-year-olds should be increased to £3.80 an hour from October 2003, they took into account the need to maximise employment opportunities for young people in work. A significantly higher rate rise for young adult workers could have an impact on employment levels and this would make the cost to employers uncertain.

  Newspapers
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to take action on monopoly power in the newspaper wholesale industry. [133613]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  None. The investigation of anti-competitive behaviour is a matter for the competition authorities.

  Post Office Card Accounts
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the number of Post Office card accounts. [133171]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 20 October 2003]: I understand from the Department for Work and Pensions that as of 3 October 2003, 1.25 million customers had requested a Post Office card account and that the Government now expect the total number of card accounts to exceed the three million operating assumption. It is too early to make a firm prediction of the ultimate number of Post Office card accounts because it will depend on the pattern of customer choices.

  Precious Metals Directive
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what voting method will be used by the European Union to decide whether to implement the Precious Metals Directive. [133063]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  [holding answer 20 October 2003]: Qualified Majority Voting will be used.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what effect the Precious Metals Directive would have upon UK hallmarking of gold and silver. [133064]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  [holding answer 20 October 2003]: Third party testing and marking would no longer be mandatory in the UK, and manufacturers would be able to choose whether to mark their own goods or send them to an assay office for marking. A full Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) will be done if the draft Directive is agreed.

  Road Haulage
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures are in place to regulate the activities of franchise operators in the road haulage industry. [132200]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is not aware of any measures that are in place to specifically regulate the activities of franchise operators in the road haulage industry.

  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will conduct an inquiry into the activities of franchises, franchisors and recruitment agencies operating in the road haulage industry. [132202]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has discretionary powers under the Companies Acts to make inquiries into companies when there appears to be sufficient grounds to do so, for instance, in cases of fraud or other serious misconduct.

  The Department's Companies Investigation Branch is always ready to receive for consideration any information with regard to companies whose activities give cause for concern.

  Employment agencies and employment businesses, including those supplying drivers for the road haulage industry, are required to meet minimum standards of conduct established under the Employment Agencies Act 1973 and associated regulations.

  The Department's Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate is responsible for enforcing the provisions of the Act and would encourage anyone who has reason to believe an agency is not complying with these provisions to call the Employment Agency Standards helpline on 0845 955 5105.

  TUPE Regulations
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the
  499W
  implementation of TUPE regulations with respect to (a) final salary pension schemes and (b) other pension rights. [132864]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  An announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was made on 11 June 2003 to the effect that a degree of protection will in future be provided for occupational pension rights on transfer. My right hon. Friend intends to take forward these proposals through primary legislation when parliamentary time allows. I do not propose therefore to implement them through the forthcoming revision of TUPE regulations, on which I expect to consult publicly around the turn of the year.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what studies her Department has made comparing the regulations to implement the working time directive in the United Kingdom with those in other EU member states, with particular reference to France; what plans she has to(a) improve the clarity and (b) reduce the length of the United Kingdom regulations; and if she will make a statement. [132852]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  My officials are in regular contact with their counterparts from other member states, and share ideas for the implementation of the working time directive. They have followed developments in France with particular interest. However, direct comparison of the legislation is difficult because of the legal codes on which they are based.

  I am fully committed to the Better Regulation principles of clarity in regulation. The Commission are currently reviewing elements of the working time directive and we will need to look at the UK regulations again in the light of that work. In consultation with the stakeholders we will look to see if there is scope to simplify and reduce the length of the regulations, but would need to balance any reduction in length against the corresponding potential reduction in clarity.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Teacher Salaries
  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he made of(a) teacher salaries in each local authority and (b) teacher salary costs as a percentage of overall education spending share, for each local authority when setting the Revenue Support Grant for 2003–04. [131685]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department does not collect information on the distribution of teaching salaries by local education authority.

  The calculation of Revenue Support Grant takes account of differing wage pressures across England and Wales through the area cost adjustment using data from the New Earnings Survey (NES). This contains information on the occupation and workplace of participants. Teaching professionals1 is one of the minor occupational classifications into which all NES participants are placed. The occupation of each
  500W
  individual in the NES at the minor level makes up 81 of the variables we examine in calculating the area cost adjustment. Full details of the ACA calculation are available on the ODPM website at http://www.local.odpm.gov.uk/finance/0304/acatechs.pdf

  Academies
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his policy is in respect of applications by individuals and organisations to establish and maintain academies solely intended for gifted and talented pupils. [131227]

  Mr. Miliband
  Academies are a key element of the Government's drive to raise standards and increase the diversity of education provision in disadvantaged and challenging areas. All academy proposals that have been approved to date have been for all ability schools. Any future proposal to establish an academy solely intended for gifted and talented pupils would be treated on its merits, subject to the Government's commitment that there may be no increase in(a) grammar schools, and (b) selection at 11 (depending on best definition of policy).

  Euro
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much has been spent in each year by his Department in preparing for United Kingdom entry to the euro; how much his Department plans to spend on preparations for United Kingdom entry to the euro for each year from the current financial year up to and including 2005–06; and what estimates he has made of the total costs to his Department of changeover to the European Single Currency. [131603]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  I refer the hon. Member to the written reply to the same question given by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary on 14 October 2003,Official Report, column 142W.

  Further Education
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many further education colleges have had their three-year development plans returned by their local learning and skills council with(a) an upward financial revision, (b) a downward financial revision and (c) no change; and if he will make a statement. [132856]

  Alan Johnson
  Discussions between local learning and skills councils and further education colleges and other providers about three-year development plans are on-going. The Learning and Skills Council (LSC) expect this process to be completed by the end of October. I have therefore asked the chief executive of the LSC to write to the hon. Member as soon as the planning dialogue is complete, providing the information requested and to place a copy of his reply in the House Library.

  The introduction of three-year development plans allows colleges and other providers to plan on a more secure and predictable basis. Colleges and providers will set out their plans for improving the customer focus of their provision; raising standards of teaching and learning; and improving the capability of the workforce.

  501W
  Resources will be allocated by the LSC based on a provider's success in meeting its targets. This provides clear incentives for colleges to improve their performance.

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what specific funding his Department has provided to the Learning and Skills Council for further education colleges to meet targets set in relation to(a) the attainment of Level 3 qualifications and (b) meeting employers' needs; and if he will make a statement. [132857]

  Alan Johnson
  It is for the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) to determine for itself the right level of investment in the programmes and initiatives that it delivers. The Department does not provide specific funding to the LSC for further education colleges to meet targets set in relation to(a) the attainment of Level 3 qualifications, or (b) meeting employers' needs. The Department expects the LSC to use the funds allocated to it for learning participation and capital to allocate funds to colleges to help them meet these and other targets. Assumed learning participation funding for further education allocated to the Learning and Skills Council is £4,278 million in 2003–04; £4,625 million in 2004–05; and £4,987 million in 2005–06. Capital funding allocated by the Department to the LSC will rise by over 60 per cent. in real terms to over £400 million by 2005–06. compared with 2002–03. This will help providers to develop new, and enhance existing, vocational provision that is focused on meeting the skills needs of employers.

  GCSEs
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 1 September 2003,Official Report, column 733W, and to his answer of 11 September 2003, Official Report, column 409W, when he will place the data requested in the Library. [132284]

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

  Learning and Skills Council
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the effect of the proposed budget for the next three years of the Learning and Skills Council, on(a) the number of people employed and (b) the level of service provided in (i) England and (ii) Portsmouth; and if he will make a statement. [129791]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The budget for the Learning and Skills Council in 2003–04 is £8.1 billion, rising to £9.2 billion in 2005–06. This substantial increase will allow the LSC to improve the range and quality of learning opportunities available to young people and adults in all parts of England. Within the LSC's budget I have allocated £218 million in each year for the LSC's administration costs and I have asked the LSC to find administrative economies so that it can manage with a flat cash administrative budget. The LSC is also undertaking a reshaping exercise which will build on its strengths, resulting in fewer staff but an enhanced 502W
  capacity to improve services and deliver against targets. This is a matter for the LSC and Mark Haysom, the Council's Chief Executive, will write to the hon. Member with more information about the reshaping exercise and place a copy of his reply in the Library.

  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his letter to the hon. Member for Wycombe of 21 July when he plans to lay a draft order in relation to complaints of maladministration against local learning and skills councils. [133599]

  Alan Johnson
  The Learning and Skills Council will be brought within the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (The Ombudsman) shortly. Officials in my Department have been in contact with the relevant officials in the Cabinet Office to ensure that this happens as quickly as possible. I will write to the hon. Member when this happens.

  Minister for Children
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the(a) areas of responsibility, (b) targets and (c) priorities of the Minister for Children are. [122339]

  Margaret Hodge
  I have responsibility within the Department for Education and Skills for policy on children, young people and families. The creation of the post of Minister for Children in June 2003 brought together within the DfES a number of key responsibilities including some from other Government Departments in order to improve the co-ordination of policy on children, young people and families. From September 2003, the title of this post was changed to Minister for Children, Young People and Families.

  The accountability arrangements for PSA and supporting targets affected by this change are:

  the transfer from the Department of Health of the PSA target on improving the life chances for children in care together with work on the adoption of looked after children;

  joint ownership of the PSA target on reducing the under-18 conception rate by 50 per cent. by 2010; and

  the Department of Health will retain the PSA target on improving life outcomes for adults and children with mental health problems with DfES having an important role in ensuring input from social care and other services.

  I will also retain responsibilities for the Sure Start targets which aim to ensure that accessible and high quality child care, early education and other services are available for all young children and families.

  My priorities are set out in the Green Paper, published in September 2003. We need to ensure we properly protect children at risk within a framework of universal services which support every child to develop their full potential and which aim to protect negative outcomes.

  I will be reviewing all targets and structures are now being established within the Department to ensure that our policy ambitions are delivered in the most cost effective manner.

  Modern Apprenticeships
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his targets are for the number
  503W
  of modern apprenticeships to be provided; and how many have been achieved for each year since they were introduced. [133250]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 20 October 2003]: The Public Service Agreement (PSA) for Modern Apprenticeships states that:
  "By 2004, at least 28 per cent. of young people to start a Modern Apprenticeship by age 22".

  The technical note for this target clarifies this to mean first-time entrants to Foundation or Advanced Modern Apprenticeships by those aged 16 to 21. The outturn will be starts, defined above, during the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) academic year 2004/05, expressed as a proportion of the most recent population estimate for that cohort from the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

  While Modern Apprenticeships have a longer history, fit for purpose data for the PSA target have been compiled only since 2001/02:

  Modern Apprenticeship starts

  Number

  Percentage

  2001/02

  137,000

  122.8

  2002/03

  2144,900

  123.9

  1 Proportion calculated using ONS population estimates DME50 Table 4.

  2 Data for 2002/03 outturn are provisional; due to be finalised by the LSC in January 2004.

  Physical Assaults
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers have been attacked by(a) pupils and (b) parents in each education authority, in each academic year since 1997. [133700]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  In my answer to a similar question from the hon. Member on 8 September 2003,Official Report, column 148W, I stated that the number of serious injuries to primary and secondary school teachers in Great Britain caused by physical violence reported to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) was as follows:

  1996–97—83

  1997–98—119

  1998–99—124

  1999–2000—135

  2000–01—135

  2001–02—110.

  The injuries reported to the HSE are major injuries and those resulting in more than three days' absence from work as a result of assault. Information about who caused the injury is not available and the figures cannot be broken down by education authority.

  School Funding
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he will make a statement on school funding for the next financial year. [133602]

  Mr. Miliband
  In his statement to the House on 17 July, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State outlined initial steps in responding to the practical 504W
  concerns raised about the present system of funding schools, and promised a further report in the autumn. He expects to make that report shortly.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent representations he has received in respect of the funding of schools in Essex; and if he will make a statement. [133710]

  Mr. Miliband
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations about school funding issues in Essex. He made a statement to the House on 17 July about changes we propose to make to restore stability to school funding in 2004–05 and 2005–06. We are currently working with national partners on the detail of his proposals and the Secretary of State will be announcing the outcome as soon as this work is complete.

  School Places
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children failed to gain a place at the school of their choice in(a) primary schools, (b) secondary schools, (c) special schools and (d) all schools in each year since 1997, broken down by local education authority. [133674]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department does not keep statistics on how many children fail to gain a place at the school of their choice at primary, secondary and special schools. Individual local education authorities may have information. Collecting reliable data is difficult, because many parents apply for places at more than one school and it may not be clear which is their first preference. Research published by the Department in June 2001 suggested that, nationally, 96 per cent. of parents receive an offer of a place at one, at least, of the schools for which they express a preference.

  School Transport
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his policy is towards the funding of free school transport for pupils attending faith schools. [132810]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Education Act 1996 sets out the local education authorities (LEAs) responsibilities in providing free transport to school for pupils of compulsory school age. Section 509(1) requires LEAs to make arrangements for the provision of transport as they consider necessary, so that pupils can attend school. This transport must be free. Section 509(3) enables authorities to pay the whole of part of a pupil's travelling expenses.

  LEAs must provide free transport to denominational schools, where pupils live beyond the statutory walking distances, where they are the nearest suitable school that pupils can attend. Where pupils live closer to a non-denominational school, LEAs will provide free transport to a denominational school of their choice if they consider that transport is necessary, and they may otherwise provide assistance with travel costs. This is an area where LEAs exercise local discretion, taking into account the religious beliefs of parents and local circumstances.
  505W
  Our recent document, "Travelling to School: an Action Plan", set out our plans for boosting walking, cycling and bus use on the journey to school. We are planning to put legislation in place as soon as possible which will allow LEAs to trial new approaches to school transport.

  We hope that one or more exemplar scheme will examine fresh approaches to denominational transport.

  Sector Skills Councils
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which sector skills councils are accredited; when they were accredited; and when the remainder will be operational. [1324981]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We are making good progress in setting up the Sector Skills Councils (SSCs). I expect the network of around 25 SSCs will be in place by summer 2004, as outlined in the recently published White Paper, "21st Century Skills. Realising Our Potential". Between April and October this year, four SSCs have been awarded full five-year licences to operate. They cover IT, Telecommunications and Contact Centres; Science, Engineering and Manufacturing Technologies; Construction and Active Leisure and Learning. Plans are well advanced for the development of proposals for a further 17 SSCs, including the live trailblazer SSCs. In addition, the SSDA continues to work with a number of other sectors to ensure the right coverage.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions he has had with the Department for Trade and Industry about joint funding streams for(a) sector skills councils and (b) related training opportunities; and if he will make a statement with specific reference to the ceramics industry. [132496]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Skills Strategy White Paper, "21st Century Skills, Realising our Potential", set out our intention that the DTI should jointly sponsor, with DfES, the Skills for Business Network.

  Discussions are taking place at official level regarding the details of this arrangement, including funding. The Secretaries of State for Education and Skills and Trade and Industry will receive proposals for their consideration at the end of this year.

  Although the ceramics industry does not meet the criteria for establishing a dedicated Sector Skills Council (SSC), the Sector Skills Development Agency (SSDA) is working with the Association of Ceramic Training and Development to put in place effective arrangements for bringing the ceramics industry fully within the Skills for Business Network.

  Teacher Vacancies
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the, Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teacher vacancies in each subject there were in(a) primary schools, (b) secondary schools, (c) special schools and (d) all schools in each year since 1997, broken down by local education authority; and if he will express the numbers as a percentage of all teachers. [133676]
  506W
  Mr. Miliband
  The tables showing the number of teacher vacancies in maintained secondary schools in England have been placed in the Libraries. Vacancies by subject are available only for secondary schools. The most recent data available at local education authority level are for January 2003. Vacancy rates are not available because data for the denominator (teacher numbers by subject, by local education authority) are not collected.

  Teacher vacancies are defined as advertised vacancies for full-time permanent appointments (or appointments of at least one term's duration). This includes vacancies being filled on a temporary basis unless filled by someone with a fixed term contract of one term or more.

  Truancy
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many prosecutions of parents per thousand pupils for truancy at school there were in descending order by local authority, in the latest year for which figures are available. [133048]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Information about the number of prosecutions for truancy is not collected centrally.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations he has received from vice-chancellors in Wales about proposals to introduce differential tuition fees for university students. [129408]

  Alan Johnson
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations from various stakeholders in Wales about variable fees for university students.

  University Medical Schools
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 6 October 2003,Official Report, column 1150W, on university medical schools (funding), which universities have received funding from the improving retention pot as a result of admitting full-time students under 21 with an A-level points score of less than 3 C grades to study medicine; how many such students each university has admitted; and how much of such funding each school has attracted. [133325]

  Alan Johnson
  The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) allocated funds for the first time in 2003–04 to institutions to improve retention based on the profile of their students and an assessment of the risks of students failing to complete their studies. The HEFCE does not publish sensitive student or financial data at course level for individual institutions, but the institutions set out below received part of their funding from this exercise as a result of the profile of their medical students. Across these institutions, some 480 full-time medical students attracted a total of £126,092 in additional funding from the improving
  507W
  retention pot because they were under 21 years of age and their points score was less than the equivalent of 3 Cs at A level.

  University of Bath

  University of Birmingham

  University of Bristol

  University of Cambridge

  University of Durham

  University of Leeds

  University of Leicester

  University of Liverpool

  Imperial College

  Queen Mary, University of London

  University College, London

  University of Newcastle

  University of Oxford

  University of Southampton

  King's College London

  St George's Hospital Medical School

  University of Manchester

  University of Nottingham

  University of Sheffield

  University of Warwick.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  House Tours
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission what the ticket revenue was in each of the years that the House has been opened to members of the public for guided tours; and what the staffing cost was in each year of(a) the tour guides, (b) ticket booth staff and (c) other staff costs. [132438]

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  Revenue and costs for the four years that the House has been open during the summer to members of the public for guided tours are given as follows:

  £

  2000 (trial)

  2001 (trial)

  2002

  2003 (Estimated)

  Net ticket revenue

  80,357

  185,568

  440,000

  482,900

  Tour guide costs

  93,497

  171,928

  185,000

  230,000

  Ticket booth staff

  Costs of ticket booth staff not differentiated from 'other staff costs' until 2003

  29,989

  Other staff costs

  65,948

  77.235

  85,000

  Figures not yet available

  Medical Services
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission what services are available to hon. Members in accessing(a) a nurse, (b) a general practitioner and (c) a mental health professional within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster. [132302]

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  The Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Service (OHSWS) in the Department of Finance and Administration is an 508W
  advisory service provided to both Houses of Parliament. The OHSWS assesses the effects work has on health and offers specialist advice on all aspects of health and safety in the workplace.

  A walk-in treatment and advisory service is located in Lower Waiting Hall and is available to hon. Members and Peers during parliamentary sessions between 9am and 5pm on Mondays to Thursdays and between 9am and 4pm on Fridays.

  A medical screening service is also offered on a three yearly rolling programme and an earlier appointment can be requested if required. This service is located in 7 Millbank and has been provided without interruption for more than ten years.

  The OHSWS currently has two doctors: a consultant occupational physician working one day a week and a medical adviser who works three days a week. There are three qualified nurses (one full-time, two part-time). In addition, the Occupational Health Manager is a qualified nurse, and is full-time. The House does not employ any mental health professionals, but the doctors maintain close links with consultant psychiatrists at St Thomas's Hospital from whom advice can be sought.

  The House does not provide general practitioner services, but the OHSWS is in discussion with a local practice about the possibility of providing an emergency GP service for Members and Peers. hon Members will be informed should such a service become available.

  September Sittings
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission if he will estimate the additional expense to public funds of the two week September sitting of the House; and if he will make a statement. [131860]

  Norman Baker
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission what extra costs have been incurred as a result of the sitting of the House in September, broken down by(a) staff costs, (b) costs relating to building works and (c) other costs; and if he will make a statement. [131867]

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  The sitting of the House in September has not increased the total number of sitting days. The main costs of accommodation and staff were not affected appreciably by the two week return. The building work was planned, as far as was practicable, on the basis of the revised arrangements in order to cause minimum disruption. It is impossible to determine with any accuracy what the actual costs of alternative contracts might have been, but it is estimated that some £90,000 of additional House of Commons works-related expenditure was incurred directly by the change to the recess period, out of a total forecast spend of around £24 million. In addition, it is estimated that the income from public tours was about £40,000 less as the result of moving them to later in September.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Parliamentary Questions
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Solicitor-General when she will reply to question 128333 of 15 September from the hon. Member for Vale of York. [133596]

  The Solicitor-General
  The question was answered on 14 October 2003,Official Report, column 155W.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Bosnia
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many(a) casualties and (b) injuries have been recorded each month in Bosnia (i) during the mandate of the International Peacekeeping Force and (ii) since the establishment of the Stabilisation Force; and if he will make a statement. [131792]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  We do not hold this information. In regard to UK military personnel, there have been a total of 29 deaths since December 1995.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many de-mining programmes have been in operation in Bosnia per annum since 1997; how much aid his Department has contributed to each programme per annum(a) directly, (b) through the EU and (c) through the UN; and if he will make a statement. [131891]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The UK bilateral contribution to demining in Bosnia since 1997 is £1 million which was paid in 2000–01 into the International Trust Fund (ITF) for demining. The ITF is an international body of which the UN is a partner. These funds were used to support demining operations in the Kupres region of the country with priority being given to agricultural areas and areas being used for refugee return.

  The following table shows the contribution from the EU to demining operations in Bosnia from 1998–2001 (figures obtained from the United Nations Mine Action Service (UNMAS) website).

  EU contribution to demining in Bosnia US$

  Total UK share of EU funding (%)

  1998

  2,583,000

  19.1

  1999

  5,640,000

  17.75

  2000

  3,330,806

  19.66

  2001

  5,293,412

  18.9

  DFID will make a further contribution to demining in Bosnia this year of £150,000 which will be paid via the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). This is our first direct contribution to the UN for demining in Bosnia. These funds will be used to support capacity building of the National Mine Action Authority, improving national survey mechanisms, database co-ordination, development of transparent priority-setting processes, and improving senior and middle management skills through UNDP-sponsored training courses.
  510W
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what de-mining programmes were(a) initiated and (b) directly run in Bosnia since 1997. [131892]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  Since 1997 National and International NGOs, the UN, the International Trust Fund for Demining (supported by various donors) working through the Bosnian mine action authorities have run programmes covering the following activities in Bosnia; advocacy and prevention, co-ordination, information, integrated mine action, mine awareness, mine clearance, research and development and victim assistance.

  Ethiopia
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on the status of the food shortage in Ethiopia; and what provisions are being made to prevent it recurring in the longer term. [133563]

  Hilary Benn
  The August 2003 update of the Ethiopian Government/UN Emergency Assistance Requirements and Implementation Options stated that for the period August-December unmet requirements were 37,458 metric tonnes of pulses and vegetable oil, while cereal food needs were covered.

  Our Country Assistance Plan for Ethiopia, which was published in March, outlines the various methods that we are using to take forward our longer-term food strategy. We are working with the Ethiopian Government and Ireland Aid to pilot new approaches to improving roads and transport in rural areas. We are also working at federal and regional level in Ethiopia to learn policy-relevant lessons about key food security issues; for example we have also supported a study of destitution and the policy options available to address this.

  The Ethiopian Government has itself established a task force to address the issue of food insecurity.

  Foreign Aid
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which poor countries are considered to be committed to reform and therefore received or are due to receive increased allocations of direct budget support. [132098]

  Hilary Benn
  The UK will provide Direct Budget Support to a country where that country's government demonstrates a credible commitment to poverty reduction and where the developmental benefits of providing direct budget support outweigh the fiduciary risks, as outlined in the DFID guidelines "Managing Fiduciary Risk When Providing Direct Budget Support".

  Countries where, subject to these criteria being met, allocations of direct budget support have increased or are expected to increase are India, Afghanistan (where we make contributions to the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund), Ethiopia, Ghana, Mozambique, Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Tanzania. Funding agreements in some countries are still being negotiated.

  Fossil Fuels
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on his Department's policy towards the provision of loans and loan guarantees by multi-national banks to fossil fuel projects overseas; and what plans he has to amend his policy. [133632]

  Hilary Benn
  The UK is a shareholder in a number of multilateral Development Banks which provide loans and loan guarantees for fossil fuel projects. The Government's policy is to ensure that these institutions comply with their own policies and procedures in all projects for which they provide finance. In considering whether to provide loans or loan guarantees this should include an assessment of the possible social and environmental impacts. In addition, our policy is to fully understand the developmental implications of fossil fuel projects. We are particularly concerned that the management of revenues from such projects occurs transparently and with a positive developmental impact. We hope that initiatives such as the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative will help to achieve this.

  Overseas Development Aid
  Chris McCafferty
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when he expects the United Kingdom Government will reach the target of 0.7 per cent. of gross national product spent on overseas development aid; and if he will make a statement on the percentage allocated to reproductive health programmes. [132310]

  Hilary Benn
  The Government remain firmly committed to the 0.7 per cent. target. Although there is no timetable for reaching the target, the trend in the ratio of official development assistance (oda) to Gross National Income (GNI) has been upward since 1997, when it was 0.26 per cent. By 2005–06 the ratio will be 0.4 per cent. the highest since 1981.

  DFID spent over £270 million on reproductive health and HIV/AIDS programmes in the financial year 2002–03. We regard reproductive health as an essential and inseparable element of good health. We believe that the best way to deliver this is for people to be given the right, freedom and support necessary to enable them to take full individual and personal control of their own fertility and reproductive health. Reproductive health continues to be a priority for DFID and we remain firmly committed to the 1994 Cairo International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) target of achieving access to reproductive health for all by 2015.

  The allocation of funds under the UK international development programme is decided on the basis of country programmes, agreed following discussions with partner governments, and also depends on the existence of effective partners in the country, either government, international or civil society organisations, to ensure that the funding is well spent and achieves its objectives.

  DFID support for reproductive health is wide ranging. It covers HIV/AIDS programmes, prevention and treatment of sexually transmitted infections and maternal and adolescent health. Reproductive health
  512W
  also encompasses the services for family planning, contraception and childbearing that make an important contribution to increasing women's choice and opportunity and to preventing unplanned or unwanted pregnancy. Family planning services also provide an important opportunity to improve sexual health and in particular to increase women's access to methods that help prevent HIV infection. DFID's total expenditure cannot therefore be apportioned between HIV/AIDS and Family Planning, as many reproductive health programmes and projects contribute to both objectives (for example through the provision of information on family planning and HIV/AIDS prevention or the provision of condoms).

  Refugee Camps
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to his answer of 14 October, reference 131643, how many refugee camps are(a) directly run and (b) indirectly aided by UNHCR; and if he will make a statement. [132907]

  Hilary Benn
  UNHCR estimates there are nearly 116,000 Liberian refugees in the south of Guinea, including some 67,000 assisted in four camps managed by them. The rest are spontaneously settled in urban centres. UNHCR is registering newly arrived refugees in border areas and arranging for them to be transferred to the camps. They are coordinating with other agencies to provide food, water and sanitation to newly arriving refugees.

  My reply of 14 October to the hon. Member should have made it clear that, while our support to refugees is through UNHCR and other agencies, and in that sense is not direct, £600,000 of our support to UNHCR this year was specifically allocated for Liberian and Ivorian refugees in Guinea. I apologise for my misunderstanding.

  Reproductive Health
  Chris McCafferty
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on the availability of reproductive health supplies globally; and what steps the Government is taking to increase availability. [132311]

  Hilary Benn
  Estimates suggest that 350 million couples worldwide lack access to modern family planning methods, and as many as 150 million women want to prevent or delay pregnancy but are not using any method of family planning.

  The aim of family planning programmes is to enable couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their children and to have the information and means to do so.

  The Department for International Development (DFID) is one of the leading bilateral providers of condoms and other forms of contraceptives to developing countries. We are also supporting a number of male and female condom social marketing programmes. We are helping the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) to provide the widest achievable range of safe and effective family planning and contraceptive methods, including condoms to prevent HIV/AIDS. In January 2001, we provided

  513W
  UNFPA with a grant of £25 million to help meet immediate needs for reproductive health commodities, including condoms, in a range of countries facing immediate shortages. We have increased our core annual funding to UNFPA from £15 million to £18 million.

  The Government have committed £16 million (over five years) to the Medical Research Council's Microbicide development programme. New technologies such as the female condom and microbicides will be an important step forward. They will give women the power to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections.

  The Government champions reproductive health issues at a country level, including through support for UNFPA. DFID works through Sector Wide Approaches (SWAPS) and Direct Budget Support as ways of supporting countries' Poverty Reduction Strategies. Within these processes it is important to ensure that sufficient attention is given to reproductive health issues, for example the assured supply and availability of reproductive health commodities. In many circumstances DFID is also continuing to ring-fence its support for reproductive health and HIV/AIDS work, including for example social marketing programmes. DFID spent £31 million in 2002–03 on activities within SWAPS that had support for reproductive health services as one of their objectives.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to his answer of 14 October 2003,Official Report, column 74W, on reproductive health, what the structure of the Open Health Institute in Russia is; and if he will make a statement. [133200]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The Open Health Institute is a Russian non-governmental organisation which works to resolve the most pressing health problems facing the Russian population. It was established in January 2003 as an independent NGO and previously was part of the Open Society Institute (Soros Foundation) in Russia. It continues to have a close affiliation with the Open Society Institute, from which it currently receives core funding. DFID is providing £4.2 million to OSI/OHI for three years from September 2001 for a project which aims to reduce the transmission of HIV among injecting drug users and commercial sex workers in a network of over 40 harm reduction sites in Russia. The project was most recently reviewed in September 2003 and its outcomes are expected to be largely achieved by the project's end in August 2004.

  DFID's collaboration with the Open Health Institute is a valuable part of the Department's HIV prevention programme in Russia. The purpose of the programme is to influence the Russian Government and society to make a timely and effective response to HIV/AIDS by targeting vulnerable groups. There are over 250,000 officially-registered HIV cases in Russia, but the real number may be significantly higher. This is one of the fastest-growing HIV epidemics in the world.

  Southern African Development Community
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to his answer of 13 October. reference 131644, how much of the 514W
  £7.65 million committed to the Southern African Development Community's work on HIV/AIDS has already been provided; what the per annum break-up for the provisioning of the committed amount is; when the commitment amount was last reviewed; when a new commitment will be made; and if he will make a statement. [132909]

  Hilary Benn
  Of the £7.65 million committed to SADC, £2.79 million has already been provided. The indicative per annum budget breakdown in the Programme Memorandum was as follows—year 1, £1.09 million; year 2, £1.295 million; year 3, £2.045 million; year 4, £2.065 million and year 5, £1.155 million. But actual disbursement is flexible, based on the needs of the programme.

  The commitment amount was last reviewed in late 2002 and will be considered again during a review of the programme in the first half of 2004. As the current commitment runs until 2006, no further commitment to this particular programme is planned at this time.

  Sudan
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on the recent peace talks in Sudan. [133560]

  Hilary Benn
  We are optimistic about the prospects for peace. There is a good chance of agreement this year. There are outstanding problems which need to be resolved, on power and wealth sharing, the three conflict areas (of Southern Blue Nile, the Nuba Mountains and Abyei) and ceasefire and security issues. But discussion of these issues has now begun. On 25 September, the parties signed a Framework Agreement on Security Arrangements during the Interim Period. We will continue to offer the parties and mediators our full support and advice and remain actively involved in helping them reach a comprehensive peace agreement. Sudan will remain a priority for our diplomacy.

  We have committed to over £220 million (including UK's share of EC food aid) to Sudan since 1991, predominantly for humanitarian purposes. Since the start of the peace process, we have broadened our assistance to Sudan to include direct support for this process and for rehabilitation work where possible. Funds for Sudan in 2002–03 total £20 million, including £5 million from the Africa Conflict Prevention Pool.

  With others in the international community, we are now planning for recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction when there is peace. We are considering what support we can provide in Sudan immediately following a peace agreement, to ensure that the Sudanese people see early benefits of peace. We are also considering how we might support Sudan in the longer term. For example, re-integration of displaced persons, refugees, and armed forces; support for improvements to governance in Sudan; and relief of Sudan's huge debt arrears.

  We recognise that a sustained international effort will be needed to help Sudan after a peace agreement and remain determined to play a full part in it.

  Tanzania
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of food shortages in(a) Tanzania and (b) the Singida region. [133556]

  Hilary Benn
  The Government of Tanzania carried out an initial crop assessment in May followed by further assessment in July. DFID has accepted the findings of the latter which identified 1.9 million people in 16 areas, including 135,000 in Singida region, as being particularly vulnerable to food shortage following the failure of the June harvest. DFID continues to await the formal appeal for assistance being coordinated by the WFP on behalf of the Government of Tanzania.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much aid his Department has given and is giving to meet the food shortages in(a) Tanzania and (b) the Singida region. [133557]

  Hilary Benn
  During the current year DFID has made £60 million available through direct budget support to the Government of Tanzania to support its Poverty Reduction Strategy, which includes provision for food security. In response to recent shortages, the Government of Tanzania has begun to distribute food from its strategic grain reserve in 16 areas (including Singida) identified as being particularly vulnerable. DFID continues to await the formal appeal for assistance being coordinated by the WFP on behalf of the Government of Tanzania.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Disability Bill
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he expects to publish the Disability Bill. [133083]

  Maria Eagle
  We will publish a draft Disability Bill later this year with the intention that it will undergo pre-legislative scrutiny. The draft Bill would amend the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) to make fundamental improvements to disabled people's rights in areas like the public sector, premises, transport, private clubs and the definition of disability.

  This is the next step toward meeting our 2001 Manifesto commitment to extend basic rights and opportunities for disabled people. It builds on other legislation we have already introduced, including the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (Amendment) Regulations 2003, which were approved by Parliament on 1 July. Those regulations make significant and far-reaching changes to the DDA which will, among other things, bring within scope of its employment provisions a further 1 million small employers, 7 million jobs and 600,000 disabled people already working in those jobs. The final step toward meeting our Manifesto commitment will be when a Disability Bill is passed in this Parliament.

  By the end of this Parliament, we will have taken forward the most significant package of changes to civil rights for disabled people ever seen.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he has taken to ensure that people with learning disabilities are not deprived of housing benefit as a result of their accommodation being registered under the Care Standards Act 2000. [133166]

  Mr. Pond
  [holding answer 20 October 2003]Housing benefit is generally withdrawn when accommodation becomes registered under the Care Standards Act 2000. The Department of Health is responsible for providing appropriate funding, through local authority social services, for places in accommodation registered under the Act.

  However entitlement to Housing Benefit may be retained in certain cases where the accommodation would not have been required to be registered under the previous Registered Homes Act 1984.

  Middlesbrough Pathfinder Project
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what progress has been made in relation to the Middlesbrough Pathfinder Project; and if he will make a statement. [133707]

  Mr. Pond
  As a result of their commitment to restructure the regional housing market through the Tees Valley Market Renewal Project, Middlesbrough Council have reconsidered their decision to take part in testing the Local Housing Allowance.

  They recognise the benefits of the Local Housing Allowance and would have continued their involvement had it not been for this commitment. We are disappointed with this outcome, given the amount of work that has been put in by both the council and ourselves, but we respect what was a difficult decision for Middlesbrough and the reasons behind it. Their withdrawal in no way alters our commitment to proceed with the remaining nine Pathfinders.

  Pension
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what powers his Department has to reclaim duplicate payments of retirement pension paid because of official error. [133565]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Social Security legislation does not provide for recovery of such duplicate overpayments arising as a result of official error. Although these duplicate payments are not recoverable under Social Security legislation, repayment can be sought under common law in exceptional circumstances.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in how many cases order books including payment of pension credit have been issued where the previous order book for retirement pension had not been cancelled; what the value of duplicate payments was in such cases; how many such duplicate payments have been made to those receiving direct payments into an account and of what value; and if he will make a statement. [133566]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We are aware that a number of duplicate order books were issued in the South West Region in June 2003. Although it is not possible to say
  517W
  precisely how many cases were involved, corrective action was taken to prevent any further cases and we are satisfied that the number was small. Payment arrangements have been corrected where cases have been identified. Pension Credit has been payable only from 6 October and information on duplicate payments is not yet available.

SCOTLAND

  Bechtel
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the contracts for consultancy and work carried out by Bechtel in each year since 1997, stating in each case(a) the nature of the work, (b) the value of the contract and (c) the duration of the contract; and if he will make a statement. [133019]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Scotland Office was established on 1 July 1999. Since that date no consultancy or other work has been carried out by Bechtel for the Office.

CABINET OFFICE

  Government Websites
  Miss Begg
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what steps the Government is taking to ensure that the design of government websites is focused on the needs of the general public. [132955]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Cabinet Office publishes "Guidelines for UK Government Websites", a best practice guide for the design and management of websites.

  The guidelines were last updated in December 2002 to reflect advancements in technology and to clarify and extend the range of advice.

  Public Appointments
  Rob Marris
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what age restrictions there are on public appointments. [132956]

  Mr. Alexander
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier to my hon. Friends the Members for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) and South Ribble (Mr. Borrow).

  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will revise the list of ministerial responsibilities published by his office in July so that the Ministries are set out in the same alphabetical order as in previous editions of the same publication. [133535]

  Mr. Alexander
  The List of Ministerial Responsibilities (LMR) is now available in both electronic and paper form. LMR now lists Departments in alphabetical order consistent with the style adopted in previous editions. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House and the Vote Office. A copy is also being sent direct to the hon. Member.

DEFENCE

  AWE Aldermaston
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the purposes are of the refurbishment of buildings and other infrastructure at AWE Aldermaston; and what estimate he has made of the final cost. [132439]

  Mr. Ingram
  The refurbishment and replacement of older facilities and the decommissioning of those no longer required at AWE is an on-going programme of work to meet safety, regulatory and operational requirements. This work also offers potential environmental and efficiency benefits.

  The costs of this work are included in the overall incentivised price of the 25-year AWE Management and Operation contract. It will be for AWE to determine the scope and level of investment necessary to maintain the infrastructure that will underpin the ability both to deliver the requisite contract outputs and to generate the efficiencies that we expect the incentivised arrangements will produce.

  Challenger 2 Tank
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what future plans there are for the digitalisation of the Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank fleet; what the predicted cost of digitising the Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank fleet is; and when the digitisation of the Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank fleet is due to start. [133708]

  Mr. Ingram
  The digitisation of Challenger 2 will be achieved through the installation and integration of Bowman radios, Platform Battlefield Information Systems Application (P BIS A) and the Commander's Crew Station Screen with the current fire control and sighting systems within the tank. This work will be completed by the Design Authority Alvis Vickers Ltd. The approved cost for the Bowman project is £2.073 billion (resource cost, VAT inclusive, for the Demonstration and Manufacture phases) and the approved cost for the Combat Infrastructure and Platform BISA (CIP) project is £410 million (P BISA is an integral part of the CIP project). Both projects involve digitisation of a number of platforms over-and-above Challenger 2, it is therefore not possible to determine the elements attributable to a specific platform. The programme to digitise the Challenger 2 fleet is due to start in January 2004.

  Colchester Garrison
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether(a) the Ministry of Defence and (b) Her Majesty's Treasury will receive a payment from Annington Homes as a result of the sale of former Ministry of Defence dwellings and land at the Colchester Garrison; and if he will make a statement. [132816]

  Mr. Caplin
  Under the terms of the 1996 Sale Agreement between the Ministry of Defence and Annington Homes, the Exchequer benefits from a Profit Share arrangement when properties that have become surplus are returned to the owners (Annington) and sold. This arrangement applies for the first 15 years
  519W
  following the 1996 sale and is based on a sliding percentage scale of the profit made by the Company after allowable overheads have been deducted.

  Compensation Claims
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much compensation has been paid by his Department in each year since 1990. [132736]

  Mr. Caplin
  Records going back to 1990 on how much compensation has been paid by the Ministry of Defence are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, the information sought in relation to compensation paid, which includes legal costs, since financial year 1997–98 is shown in the following table.

  Compensation paid (£ million)

  1997–98

  70

  1998–99

  76

  1999–2000

  83

  2000–01

  88.5

  2001–02

  91.5

  2002–03

  104

  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. For a breakdown of the figures, as well as further details regarding compensation issues associated with the Ministry of Defence, I refer my hon. Friend to the Department's Claims Annual Report, a copy of which is placed in the Library of the House each year.

  Postal Services
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to continue with free postal and parcel services for armed forces personnel on detached duties abroad. [133157]

  Mr. Ingram
  A scheme to allow only those personnel deployed on Operation Telic to be sent small packets up to 2 kg in weight free of charge commenced on 17 April 2003. The service is kept under review.

  Ministry of Defence Police
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the accountability of the Ministry of Defence Police. [132445]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Ministry of Defence Police (MDP) are accountable to the Secretary of State, and therefore to Parliament for their actions. The role of the MOD Police Committee is now comparable to that of a police authority, mirroring best practice where appropriate. The committee focuses on strategic advice and governance, and holds MDP to account on a wide range of issues including complaints and discipline and the use of the extended jurisdiction granted to the MDP under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. A number of independent members sit on the committee.
  520W
  The Chief Constable's Annual Report and Accounts as well as his annual Key Targets are in the public domain. The Chief Constable now also provides an annual Operational Report. When this is available a copy will be placed in the Library of the House. The Chief Constable can be called before Select Committees if required and constituents of Members of Parliament may raise questions with the Secretary of State for Defence and the Chief Constable on the force and its activities.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department expects to publish the second stage of the Quinquennial Review of the Ministry of Defence Police; and if he will make a statement. [132446]

  Mr. Caplin
  We have no plans to publish material relating to the second stage of the Ministry of Defence Police Quinquennial Review, as most of the issues relate to internal Ministry of Defence Police matters. This concerned governance and accountability, with particular reference to the MOD Police Committee.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the timetable is for implementing provisions of the Police Reform Act 2002 concerning the Ministry of Defence Police; and if he will make a statement. [132447]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Police Reform Act 2002 includes four sections that are specific to the Ministry of Defence Police (MDP). Three sections of the Police Reform Act 2002 have been implemented already. These allow for MDP officers to serve with other police forces under the direction of the chief officer of the force with which they are serving; place inspections by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary on a statutory basis; and allow potential recruits to the MDP to use firearms without a certificate for the purpose of assessment.

  The final section concerns disciplinary procedures for the MDP, and the process to change these procedures is nearly complete. I expect the new procedures to be laid before Parliament early next year.

  Pilot Training
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the time interval is between pilots completing fast jet training and beginning operational conversion unit training in respect of the(a) Tornado GR4, (b) Tornado F3, (c) Harrier and (d) Jaguar. [132551]

  Mr. Ingram
  Following completion of fast jet training, all pilots from the RN and the RAF are selected to join a specific Operational Conversion Unit (OCU). The length of time pilots wait to join their allotted OCU depends on the availability of spaces at the OCU.

  During these periods, trainees are attached to units to enhance their general service knowledge. Refresher training is normally undertaken at RAF Valley in the event of time intervals exceeding 20 weeks between the completion of flying training and the formal start of the OCU.

  Recruitment
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the involvement of a recruitment company in the enlisting into Her Majesty's armed forces people from Fiji. [132807]

  Mr. Caplin
  I am not aware of any involvement of a recruiting company currently connected with the enlistment of Fijian citizens into the United Kingdom armed forces.

  Royal Naval Personnel (Family Contact)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how often(a) submariners and (b) other Royal Naval personnel are able to contact their families when on operations; and under what circumstances contact is restricted. [128118]

  Mr. Caplin
  All personnel deployed outside UK waters or Northern Europe on a Permanent Joint Headquarters "named" operation for seven days, or a Fleet operation or exercise for two months, are eligible to the benefits of the Operational Welfare Package, free of charge. This comprises 20 minutes of telephone time per week; one e-mail per week (which may be increased if operational circumstances permit); and unlimited postal aerogrammes.

  Telephone calls and e-mails are sent using satellite communications, which may be restricted from time to time at the discretion of the local commander for reasons of operational security. Also, satellite communications cannot be used by submerged submarines, so use of these facilities is restricted to time on the surface or in port. Aerogrammes can only be delivered or sent when the ship or submarine receives a mail delivery/collection.

  In the case of Vanguard Class ballistic missile submarines, which spend the whole of their deployed time submerged, none of the above methods can be used, but personnel on board are able to receive "familygrams" sent via Flotilla HQ at Faslane. These are restricted to 40 words per week at the moment, although we are currently considering increasing this limit.

  Iraq
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 1 September 2003,Official Report, column 910W, whether his Department has had discussions with the (a) World Food Programme and (b) International Committee of the Red Cross about security at the Ministry of Trade warehouse in Basra. [129802]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Department for International Development is responsible for liaison at departmental level with non-governmental organisations operating within Iraq. It is usual procedure for local commanders to discuss matters such as these with representatives of NGOs. Because representatives of the World Food Programme and the International Committee of the Red Cross have now withdrawn from Iraq and due to the roulement of UK armed forces personnel, I cannot confirm when security arrangements at the Ministry of Trade warehouse in Basra were discussed.
  522W
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many atropine Combopens each soldier had in his possession at 202 Field Hospital at the start of the conflict in Iraq. [133709]

  Mr. Ingram
  At the start of the conflict atropine Combopens were not issued to individual personnel of 202 Field Hospital (Volunteer) (202 Fd Hosp (V)), but 420 were distributed across several locations in the Hospital complex. By the end of March a further 1,200 were issued to 202 Fd Hosp and each member of the unit was personally issued with 2 Combopens.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what work his Department is doing to locate, identify and repatriate Kuwaitis who remain in Iraq from Iraq's invasion in 1990. [117032]

  Mr. Ingram
  None. However, the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) is making significant efforts to implement UN Security Council Resolution 1483 which calls for continuing efforts to locate, identify and repatriate all Kuwaiti and Third-State Nationals. Mass grave sites continue to be found across Iraq which may contain human remains from a number of groups of Iraqi society as well as foreign nationals. United Kingdom forensic experts have visited mass grave sites and a strategy is being drawn up which will enable the CPA to protect sites and secure evidence. There are a number of UK CPA secondees working to support the collection of witness statements and testimonies and train Iraqi organisations in the relevant skills.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Maze Prison
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will support the transformation of Maze Prison in County Antrim into a tourist attraction or a site that could be used by European countries as an outreaching post for the US tourism market. [128572]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Government appointed a Consultation Panel in March this year to consider and bring forward proposals for the regeneration of the Maze Prison and adjacent Ministry of Defence site. The Panel will be trawling widely for ideas and proposals to regenerate these very valuable sites. Having considered and taken advice on the proposals received, the Panel will make recommendations to Government both on how the sites can be used to promote social and economic regeneration and on the appropriate regeneration vehicle for taking the work forward.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what his policy is on tackling age discrimination in Northern Ireland. [131856]

  Mr. Spellar
  We plan shortly to issue for consultation, proposals for legislation which will tackle age discrimination in employment and training. These proposals will be in line with the requirements of the EU Employment Framework Directive.
  523W
  Policy development is continuing within the context of the single Equality Bill on extending protection against age discrimination to the provision of goods, facilities and services. A consultation on the single Equality Bill is planned for the end of 2003.

  The Promoting Social Inclusion working group on Older People is also planning to issue their 'Strategy for Older People in Northern Ireland' for consultation before the end of the year.

  Ambulance Service
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he is taking to improve ambulance response times in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [133183]

  Angela Smith
  One of my Priorities for Action in 2003–04 is that the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service should by 31 March 2004 have an Accident and Emergency ambulance at the scene of 50 per cent. of 999 calls in 8 minutes, and at the scene of 95 per cent. of 999 calls in 18 minutes in the Eastern Board area, 21 minutes in the Northern, Southern and Western Board areas.

  I have already made capital funding available to the Ambulance Service to replace and add to its vehicle fleet, and revenue funding to recruit and train the necessary additional staff, to enable these targets to be met.

  In addition in February this year it was announced that some 29 million would be available over the next five years from the Strategic Investment Programme to continue to take forward the development of a modern ambulance service which can respond quickly to emergency situations and provide vital clinical care to patients.

  Belfast City Airport
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his plans for the future policing of the Belfast City Airport. [133300]

  Jane Kennedy
  The policing arrangements at Belfast City Airport are being enhanced following a recommendation from the Chief Constable of the PSNI. This move is seen as a necessary and prudent measure to ensure the airport has the appropriate level of security. As is the case at other important economic facilities in Northern Ireland, levels of security at BCA are kept under continual review.

  Carpets International (UK) Ltd.
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he has taken to assist Carpets International (UK) Ltd. since it went into receivership; and if he will make a statement. [133188]

  Mr. Pearson
  Since Carpets International (UK) Ltd. went into receivership on 20 August 2003, officials from Invest NI, the Department of Employment and Learning and the Social Security Agency have maintained close links with all relevant parties associated with this case.
  524W
  Invest NI received a project plan from a management buy out (MBO) team on 17 October 2003. This plan is currently being appraised. As regards the employees made redundant by the company, links have been made available to them to local job agencies, job clinics and the Social Security Agency. I am also aware that local employers have offered positions to suitable applicants from the Carpet International plants at Killinchy and Donaghadee.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the likelihood of a successful outcome for a management buy-out at Carpets International; and if he will make a statement. [133235]

  Mr. Pearson
  Officials from Invest NI met the management buy out (MBO) team from Carpets International, Donaghadee and their advisers on Friday 17 October 2003 having been in touch with them on a number of previous occasions. At that meeting Invest NI was presented with the MBO team's business plan. The business plan is being appraised by Invest NI and it would be inappropriate to make an assessment at this early stage.

  Elderly Mentally Infirm Unit Places
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to increase the number of elderly mentally infirm unit places in Northern Ireland. [132470]

  Angela Smith
  It is a matter for each Health and Social Services Board to determine the need for any service in their area and to commission that service within the resources available to it.

  The Northern HSS Board is currently undertaking a review of services for older people with mental health problems, and will use the findings to determine level of need in their area. A report is due in March 2004.

  The Eastern HSS Board has no plans to increase number of elderly mentally infirm places at present.

  The Southern HSS Board has plans to support an additional 40 elderly mentally infirm people using a supported living model.

  The Western HSS Board has recently sponsored the development of 20 nursing placements, and is currently planning for the provision of a further 30 places in a Housing with Care Unit. It has also identified further need for additional EMI places within a supported living model, and is planning a review of provision to quantify this.

  Although it is not possible to provide an exact Northern Ireland total, it was estimated in 2002 that there are 2,500–3,000 permanent places available for, or occupied by, persons with dementia (equivalent to elderly mentally infirm persons) regardless of the source of funding. At the moment there is no evidence that there is a need to increase the number of elderly mentally infirm unit places in Northern Ireland.

  Equality Commission
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to assess the Northern Ireland
  525W
  Equality Commission's (a) ability to carry out its activities and (b) value to the public purse following the report of the Northern Ireland Auditor General; and if he will make a statement. [128296]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister is responsible for approving the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland's three year Corporate Plan and annual Business Plan. The Department monitors and assesses the Commission's progress against these agreed targets and objectives and ensures that action is taken on recommendations arising from the annual audit of accounts by the Northern Ireland Audit Office. The Equality Commission publishes an Annual Report detailing performance against its agreed objectives which is laid before Parliament.

  EU Constitution
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the implications for Northern Ireland of the proposed European Union constitution. [131858]

  Mr. Pearson
  Treaty changes to bring the institutions and policies of the European Union up to date, in particular in view of the enlargement of the EU next year, will be negotiated by member state governments at the Inter-Governmental Conference, which begins on 4 October in Rome.

  In terms of the likely implications of changes for Northern Ireland, the situation will continue to be kept under review through the normal channels operating between Northern Ireland and the relevant Whitehall Departments.

  Fair Employment and Treatment Order
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to review exemptions for certain employees from the provisions of the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998. [131862]

  Mr. Spellar
  The exceptions in the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 for employment for the purposes of a private household and for charities as employers will be removed and the exception for the employment of schoolteachers will be restricted to teacher recruitment with effect from 2 December 2003 in order to comply with the EU Employment Framework Directive.

  The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland is currently undertaking an investigation with a view to putting forward recommendations on action necessary to further equality of opportunity in the employment of teachers in schools. These recommendations will be considered in the context of the single Equality Bill.

  On 22 September, the Government announced a review of the effectiveness of the temporary provisions of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 which provide for 50:50 recruitment and lateral entry to the Police Service of Northern Ireland. These temporary provisions, which are due to expire in March 2004 unless they are renewed, include an exception to the Fair Employment and Treatment Order. Government will
  526W
  carry out a wide-ranging consultation on this issue which is due to come to a close on 19 December this year.

  Farming
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many pedigree and commercial producers have attended(a) training programmes and (b) cattle management programmes in each of the last three years, broken down by parliamentary constituency. [133346]

  Mr. Pearson
  The information requested is as follows:

  Training Programmes

  The College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise provides a wide range of training programmes for all farmers in a number of subject areas. In general courses can be classified into five main areas:

  Practical skills courses,

  Legislative courses,

  Technical courses,

  Environmental training courses,

  Business management training courses.

  Training programmes are available to farmers, farm family members and farm workers. The number of pedigree and commercial producers attending these programmes is not recorded by CAFRE. The total number of people attending training programmes across Northern Ireland in the last three years is:

  2000–01—6,153 participants

  2001–02—6,046 participants

  002–03—9,281 participants

  Information on participants is not available by parliamentary constituencies.

  Cattle Management Programmes

  The number of pedigree and commercial producers, by County, who have attended Breed Cattle Improvement learning programmes since delivery commenced in October 2002 is illustrated in the following tables:

  2002–03

  Numbers of producers

  Pedigree

  Commercial

  Antrim

  56

  130

  Armagh

  17

  89

  Down

  36

  116

  Fermanagh

  52

  80

  Londonderry

  34

  142

  Tyrone

  52

  234

  Total

  247

  791

  2003–04

  Numbers of producers

  Pedigree

  Commercial

  Antrim

  0

  13

  Armagh

  0

  24

  Down

  0

  19

  Fermanagh

  0

  26

  Londonderry

  0

  25

  Tyrone

  0

  68

  Total

  0

  175

  Currently there are 60 pedigree producers and 111 commercial producers participating in learning

  527W
  programmes. A further 101 commercial producers have been invited to commence training before the end of October.

  Delivery of the Cattle Health Management learning programmes commenced in May 03. The number of producers who have attended learning programmes is illustrated in the following table. Participants on this learning programme are not recorded by their commercial or pedigree status.

  Numbers of producers

  Completed training

  Currently in training

  Antrim

  16

  0

  Armagh

  14

  0

  Down

  25

  26

  Fermanagh

  0

  15

  Londonderry

  12

  17

  Tyrone

  27

  35

  Total

  94

  93

  A further 111 producers have been invited to commence training before the end of October.

  Invest Northern Ireland
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the total value was of funding allocated by Invest Northern Ireland in(a) grants and (b) equity, in each of the last three years. [133341]

  Mr. Pearson
  During 2002–03 Invest NI offered assistance through letters of offer totalling £125.6 million, of which £8.2 million was in the form of equity. For 2001–02 Invest NI's legacy agencies issued £80 million through offers, of which £3.7 million was equity based. For 2000–01 a total of £107.7 million was offered, £2.8 million in the form of equity.

  Fish Farms
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the value was of funding allocated to assist Northern Ireland's inland fish farms to improve their international competitiveness in each of the last three years. [133342]

  Mr. Pearson
  The information available is set out in the following table.

  EU funding (£ million)

  2001

  0.208

  2002

  0.313

  2003

  0.208

  Total

  0.729

  Organ Retention
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the proposed new informed consent document will be available for public comment. [132475]

  Angela Smith
  New consent forms and information on post mortem examinations have been drafted and will form the basis of a 13-week consultation process, which will commence in January 2004. The Department will promulgate these documents together with other new guidance and information to a wide range of key 528W
  stakeholders, including relatives, and invite their views and comments, which will be analysed following the completion of the consultation process. The documents will also be made available on the Department's website.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what form of informed consent documentation is being used in Northern Ireland pending the revision of the Human Tissue Act 1961. [132476]

  Angela Smith
  Trusts were issued with interim guidance on post mortem examination by the Chief Medical Officer in March 2000. This was updated in May 2003. The guidance states that consent should be obtained through the use of a form, normally signed off by the next of kin, which provides clear written information about:

  what the examination entails.

  which organs and tissues may be retained and why.

  how this might impact on the funeral arrangements.

  whether archiving for research or legal reasons is required.

  Copies of the consent form should then become an integral part of the post mortem record, placed in the deceased patient's notes and given to the relative who signed it.

  Broadly similar forms are used by all Trusts. New forms have been drafted and will form part of a consultation exercise beginning in January 2004.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress with the revision of the(a) Human Tissue Act 1961 and (b) the Anatomy Act 1984. [132478]

  Angela Smith
  In 2001–02 England and Wales undertook a fundamental and broad review of the law on human organs and tissues taken from adults or children (including foetuses and stillborn children), either during surgery or after death. This review encompassed the two pieces of legislation mentioned by the hon. Member, for which the Northern Ireland equivalents are the Human Tissue Act (Northern Ireland) 1962 and the Anatomy (Northern Ireland) Order 1992.

  A public consultation document, "Human Bodies, Human Choices", was launched in July 2002 and copied to key stakeholders in Northern Ireland. This work not only achieved broad consensus on the way forward but also demonstrated that the system of regulation being proposed, under a Human Tissue Authority, could apply equally to Northern Ireland as to England and Wales, in very much the same way as the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority operates at present.

  Work is well advanced on preparing new legislation covering England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Chief Medical Officer for Northern Ireland issued a summary of these proposals for information on Friday 17 October. It can be viewed at the Department's website: www.dhsspni.gov.uk.

  Modern Apprenticeships
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the take-up rate of modern apprenticeships
  529W
  in Northern Ireland was in each of the last five years, broken down by (a) industrial sector, (b) gender and (c) parliamentary constituency. [132794]

  Modern apprenticeships

  Industrial sector

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Total

  Administration, Clerical & IT

  127

  135

  286

  255

  218

  1021

  Creative, Educational, Recreational

  34

  20

  45

  43

  43

  185

  Health Community &Personal Services

  115

  98

  224

  340

  357

  1,134

  Selling & Storage

  12

  103

  302

  168

  128

  713

  Hotel & Catering, Food Preparation

  16

  59

  175

  299

  532

  1,081

  Agricultural & Related

  39

  21

  44

  48

  37

  189

  Construction & Civil Engineering

  377

  95

  823

  973

  729

  2,997

  Motor Vehicle Repairs & Maintenance

  159

  75

  251

  263

  260

  1,008

  Printing

  1

  26

  28

  9

  21

  85

  Processing

  12

  5

  28

  32

  27

  104

  Engineering

  274

  505

  893

  894

  734

  3,300

  Total

  1,166

  1,142

  3,099

  3,324

  3,086

  11,817

  Note:

  It is not possible to provide the data by parliamentary constituency

  Gender

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Total

  Male

  913

  817

  2.340

  2,492

  2,181

  8,743

  Female

  253

  325

  759

  832

  905

  3,074

  Total

  1,166

  1,142

  3,099

  3,324

  3,086

  11,817

  Multiple Sclerosis
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to extend(a) beta interferon and (b) glatiramer therapy for Multiple Sclerosis sufferers in Northern Ireland before the end of 2003. [132473]

  Angela Smith
  Extra staff have now been recruited specifically to enhance the delivery of services for Multiple Sclerosis patients. It is expected that a considerable number of the patients on the current waiting list will be started on treatment by the end of the current financial year. The suitability of a specific therapy for an individual patient is a matter for the clinicians concerned, in consultation with the patient.

  Electoral Identity Cards
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many electors had obtained photo identity cards by(a) 1 May, (b) 29 May and (c) 1 September. [133288]

  Mr. Spellar
  The number of Electoral Identity Cards issued by each of the dates specified is as follows:

  (a) 1 May—55,024

  (b) 29 May—66,605

  (c) 1 September—79,762

  Policing of Airports (Belfast City) Order
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which bodies were consulted prior to the laying of the draft Policing of Airports (Belfast City) Order 2003 on 10 July 2003; and which bodies were consulted prior to its withdrawal during the summer recess. [133298]

  Jane Kennedy
  Prior to laying the draft Policing of Airports (Belfast City) Order 2003, consultation took place with the Chief Constable of the Police Service
  530W
  Jane Kennedy
  The information requested is in the following tables.

  of Northern Ireland, the Policing Board and the authorities at Belfast City Airport. The draft Order was withdrawn following consultation with the Chief Constable and the airport authorities.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what reasons the draft Policing of Airports (Belfast City) Order 2003 was withdrawn. [133299]

  Jane Kennedy
  I agreed to withdraw this Order once I had been assured that the Belfast City Airport Authority would make provision for an armed policing presence in accordance with the Chief Constable's recommendation.

  Post-mortem Information
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress of the post mortem information leaflet intended for supply to all households in Northern Ireland. [132477]

  Angela Smith
  Over 600,000 of the leaflets have now been issued. A further 2,952 leaflets will be sent out over the period 17–22 November. The Royal Mail has advised that the distribution of a leaflet to every household in Northern Ireland will be competed by 23 November 2003.

  Rheumatoid Arthritis
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many rheumatoid arthritis sufferers have commenced(a) Remicade and (b) Enbrel treatment during the current year in Northern Ireland. [132464]

  Angela Smith
  This year to date, six rheumatoid arthritis sufferers have commenced treatment with Remicade and a further six have commenced treatment with Enbrel.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to extend(a) remicade and (b) enbrel therapy for rheumatoid arthritis sufferers in Northern Ireland before the end of 2003. [132474]
  531W
  Angela Smith
  Extra recurrent funding has been provided, which has enabled the first phase of a three-phase project to commence, allowing a significant expansion in these therapies to suitable patients by the end of this year. The decision on the appropriate therapy for an individual patient is a matter for the clinician concerned, in consultation with the patient.

  Social housing: Starts and completions for past five years

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  District Council

  Houses started

  Houses completed

  Houses started

  Houses completed

  Houses started

  Houses completed

  Antrim

  0

  13

  4

  4

  16

  0

  Ards

  30

  36

  49

  7

  14

  15

  Armagh

  98

  25

  4

  102

  15

  10

  Ballymena

  69

  80

  2

  11

  46

  60

  Ballymoney

  0

  11

  12

  0

  0

  12

  Banbridge

  32

  37

  10

  0

  0

  10

  Belfast

  691

  542

  649

  542

  367

  483

  Carrick

  81

  33

  39

  31

  0

  52

  Castlereagh

  84

  0

  20

  0

  0

  84

  Coleraine

  43

  16

  0

  62

  10

  27

  Cookstown

  12

  21

  0

  12

  7

  0

  Craigavon

  108

  71

  16

  53

  11

  58

  Derry

  236

  242

  420

  188

  305

  135

  Down

  145

  97

  75

  69

  7

  116

  Dungannon

  18

  20

  4

  44

  27

  3

  Fermanagh

  50

  42

  15

  67

  27

  35

  Larne

  0

  49

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Limavady

  42

  0

  23

  53

  37

  42

  Lisburn

  152

  72

  231

  137

  90

  132

  Magherafelt

  16

  13

  8

  24

  9

  6

  Moyle

  40

  37

  0

  28

  0

  0

  Newry & Mourne

  31

  91

  95

  46

  25

  80

  Newtownabbey

  86

  34

  27

  20

  12

  32

  North Down

  50

  9

  18

  97

  0

  4

  Omagh

  124

  31

  22

  116

  30

  37

  Strabane

  59

  66

  77

  25

  72

  75

  Total

  2,297

  1,688

  1,820

  1,738

  1.127

  1,508

  2001–02

  2002–03

  District Council

  Houses started

  Houses completed

  Houses started

  Houses completed

  Antrim

  9

  31

  2

  9

  Ards

  18

  84

  0

  0

  Armagh

  4

  19

  0

  0

  Ballymena

  0

  27

  20

  33

  Ballymoney

  6

  0

  2

  4

  Banbridge

  0

  32

  1

  1

  Belfast

  611

  681

  447

  392

  Carrick

  15

  27

  30

  15

  Castlereagh

  0

  20

  0

  6

  Coleraine

  7

  10

  45

  0

  Cookstown

  0

  7

  0

  0

  Craigavon

  0

  13

  18

  0

  Derry

  103

  336

  45

  334

  Down

  63

  37

  7

  51

  Dungannon

  2

  12

  4

  14

  Fermanagh

  6

  38

  55

  5

  Larne

  15

  15

  0

  0

  Limavady

  0

  22

  11

  31

  Lisburn

  9

  172

  113

  86

  Magherafelt

  5

  2

  6

  5

  Moyle

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Newry & Mourne

  36

  25

  33

  38

  Newtownabbey

  18

  27

  0

  12

  North Down

  100

  56

  31

  44

  Omagh

  1

  25

  22

  5

  Strabane

  2

  62

  8

  50

  Total

  1,030

  1,780

  900

  1,135

  Note:

  Figures include properties purchased or rehabilitated.

  Social Housing
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many new build social houses were commenced and completed in each of the last five years, broken down by location. [120153]

  Mr. Spellar
  The following table details the number of new build starts and completions by District Council Area for the five years 1998–99 to 2002–03.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Analogue Transmission
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will publish the timetable for the ending of the analogue system of television transmission. [132798]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Digital TV Action Plan sets out a series of actions to ensure that the criteria set for switchover are met so the Government can, if we choose, take the decision to proceed to full switchover by ordering the switching off by 2010 of analogue terrestrial transmissions. Details of the switchover criteria are contained in the Action Plan, which can be found on the website: www.digitaltelevision.gov.uk

  Brewster Sessions
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture. Media and Sport how many licences will be considered by Brewster Sessions in 2004, broken down by percentage represented by(a) hotels, (b) restaurants, (c) pubs and (d) others; what proportion of applications were refused by the Brewster Sessions in each of the last five years; and what the cost to industry of applications to the Brewster Sessions was in the last year for which figures are available. [133149]
  533W
  Mr. Caborn
  We estimate that the costs to applicants for renewal of their licences at the last triennial Brewster Sessions was about £11 million, including fees and legal support costs, of which £4.65 million was paid in fees.

  The Brewster Sessions at which justices' licences are renewed is a triennial event which last took place in 2001. There have therefore been only two such sessions in the last five years. At these sessions, licensing committees consider objections made by the police, local authorities and local residents to the continuation of licences for a further three years.

  The percentage of on-licensed premises which are residential or residential/restaurant licences (hotels) is 7.5 per cent. of restaurants, 18 5 per cent. of public houses, 71 per cent. and of other licences, 3.5 per cent. The total number of on-licensed premises was 110,000 at the end of June 2001, these being the last available figures. In addition, there are some 45,000 off licensed premises.

  There are no figures collected centrally of the proportion of applications for renewal refused by the licensing justices sitting at the Brewster Sessions.

  Images of England Project
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people are being included in the Images of England project at the National Monuments Record of English Heritage. [132276]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Images of England project is creating a 'point in time' photographic record of England's 370,000 listed buildings. A wide range of buildings and other structures, from houses and barns to telephone boxes, churches, gravestones and cinemas, are included in the statutory lists of buildings of special architectural or historic interest.

  The project is not seeking to photograph people associated with the listed buildings and English Heritage does not generally hold (or seek) information about how many individuals inhabit those that are private dwellings.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people have applied requesting exemption from the Images of England project at the National Monuments Record of English Heritage. [132277]

  Mr. Caborn
  As of the end of September 2003, English Heritage has received 4,508 applications for exemption relating to less than 1.5 per cent of the 370,000 listed buildings.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the annual cost is of the Images of England project at the National Monuments Record of English Heritage. [132278]

  Mr. Caborn
  The average annual cost of the Images of England project (taken until the end of the 2002–03 financial year and excluding the pilot project) is £897,000, 75 per cent. of which is provided through a grant from the Heritage Lottery Fund. The average annual cost to English Heritage over the same period is therefore £224,000.

  Maritime Archaeology
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on developments in maritime archaeology since responsibility was transferred from her Department to English Heritage; and what further developments are planned. [132599]

  Mr. Caborn
  Since being given responsibilities for maritime archaeology, English Heritage now provides the Secretariat to the Advisory Committee on Historic Wreck Sites, and has re-tendered the contract for archaeological diving services.

  English Heritage is also currently reviewing the priorities for its wider responsibilities for maritime archaeology in England, and advances have been made in understanding the issues relating to the protection, enhancement and preservation of two of those wrecks in England designated under the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973, in the form of Desk Based Assessments. Further such assessments are planned in the future.

  In addition, English Heritage has been able, in partnership with other Government Departments and agencies, to raise the awareness of industry and regulators about the need to take the submerged historic environment into account when planning developments.

  Tourism (North-East)
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures the Department is taking to encourage tourism in the north-east. [133217]

  Mr. Caborn
  This Department has allocated £50 million to VisitBritain in 2003–04 for the promotion of Britain overseas and to promote England to the domestic market. Although the north-east benefits from this activity, funding for VisitBritain is not allocated for individual regions, but promotes the country as a whole in a way which maximises the impact of its campaigns in individual markets.

  Additionally, DCMS is providing funding to One North East of £330,000 for 2003–04 for tourism development in line with its regional tourism strategy and within the national framework.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Child Soldiers
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures are in place(a) to stop the exploitation of children as soldiers and (b) to bring those responsible to justice. [133559]

  Mr. Rammell
  We are working with other UK Government Departments, other governments, the non-governmental community and the multi-lateral system (including UN and regional mechanisms) to prevent, reduce and resolve armed conflicts. We consider this to be the most effective way of stopping the exploitation of children as soldiers.
  535W
  Work is on-going to integrate child-specific issues into post-conflict truth and justice mechanisms to that end, examples being in Sierra Leone and Rwanda. Furthermore, the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court recognises the enlistment or use of children under the age of 15 years to be a war crime, and the ICC provides a means by which to prosecute such offences.

  In June 2003, the UK ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict. The Protocol, ratified by 64 countries worldwide, increases the protection afforded to children by prohibiting their participation in armed conflict.

  Democratic Republic of the Congo
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures are in place to end human rights violations in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. [133558]

  Mr. Mullin
  The UK strongly condemns all abuses of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and the climate of impunity which exists there. We have worked hard, with international partners, for an end to the regional conflicts which perpetuated the appalling human rights situation. Instruments available to tackle human rights abuses include:

  continued diplomatic dialogue with the DRC authorities;

  the presence of the United Nations Organisation Mission in Congo (MONUC—who have specialist human rights staff);

  the democracy support institutions set up alongside the Transitional National Government in Kinshasa (including the National Human Rights Observatory and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission). The UK is actively considering ways in which it can support the work of these institutions;

  the valuable work of the many human rights NGOs operating in the DRC.

  The Government also note the announcement in July 2003 by the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court that he intends to follow closely the situation in the DRC.

  Uganda
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the effect on(a) security and (b) the humanitarian situation in Uganda of the fighting between government forces and the Lord's Resistance Army. [133564]

  Mr. Mullin
  We are deeply concerned that the security and humanitarian situation in the North and North-Eastern regions of Uganda continues to deteriorate as a result of the recent escalation of violence by the Lord's Resistance Army.

  We understand the Ugandan Government's need to take military action to restore security but have repeatedly urged the Ugandan Government to ensure the humanitarian implications of their military campaign are given the highest priority. We continue to encourage the government to explore complementary methods of bringing the conflict to an end. The United
  536W
  Kingdom gave £2.5 million last financial year for humanitarian assistance to Uganda and is currently allocating a further £3 million.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what discussions the Government have held with the England and Wales Cricket Board regarding the planned tour of Zimbabwe by England in 2004; [132569]

  (2) what representations the Government has made to the International Cricket Council (ICC) concerning future tours to Zimbabwe by the England cricket team; what advice was received from the ICC; and when; [1325701

  (3) which of his Ministers have held discussions with the England and Welsh Cricket Board concerning the planned tour by the England cricket team to Zimbabwe in 2004; and when the meetings were held; [132571]

  (4) what the Government's policy is on the decision by the English Cricket Board to tour Zimbabwe in 2004; and what advice his Department is planning to give English supporters about travelling to Zimbabwe; [132575]

  (5) what advice the England and Wales Cricket Board sought from his Department regarding the planned tour of Zimbabwe by England in 2004; and what advice he has given them. [132576]

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made concerning next year's proposed England cricket tour to Zimbabwe; and if he will make a statement. [132582]

  Mr. Straw
  The England cricket team's tour of Zimbabwe scheduled for late 2004 is a matter for the UK cricket authorities.

  FCO Ministers have had no contact with the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) or International Cricket Council (ICC) about next year's tour.

  FCO officials have spoken with ECB officials and stand ready to further brief the ECB, as and when required, on the political situation inside Zimbabwe and on safety and security issues.

  English supporters, like all travellers to Zimbabwe, are advised to refer to our regularly up-dated travel advice.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the level of employment of child soldiers in Zimbabwe. [133562]

  Mr. Mullin
  The official minimum age for entry into the Zimbabwean armed forces is 18 years. We are not aware of the Zimbabwean armed forces systematically recruiting below this age.

  The Zimbabwean "National Youth Service" was established in 2000. Nominally a voluntary training scheme for vocational skills, disaster management, patriotism and moral education, it is widely understood to operate as a youth militia for the ruling party. By the end of 2002 an estimated 9,000 young people had

  537W
  undergone formal training in this scheme in five main camps and up to 20,000 were trained less formally elsewhere. This allegedly included weapons training. In July 2003, the Zimbabwe Defence Minister announced plans to formally integrate weapons training in the scheme's programme. The stated catchment age for the National Youth Service is 12–30 years.

  The "National Youth Service" is now one of the most commonly reported violators of human rights in Zimbabwe. There are also numerous credible reports of young people in training camps being abused.

  We deplore the political violence which is prevalent in Zimbabwe and will continue to work with our international partners to bring about a return to good governance and a respect for human rights, including the rights of the child, there.

  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his assessment is of the current economic and political situation in Zimbabwe. [132245]

  Mr. Mullin
  The situation in Zimbabwe continues to deteriorate. Last month saw the closure of the only independent daily newspaper, and last week saw the arrest of up to 200 trade unionists for peacefully demonstrating. As this year's meagre crop runs out, half the population will depend on food aid. The Zimbabwean people continue to struggle with hyperinflation, mass unemployment, and shortages of cash, food and fuel. The source of the problem is clear: bad governance and bad policies. We will continue to support all those working for peaceful change in Zimbabwe and a return to democracy, accountable government and respect for human rights.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to ensure that journalists from the United Kingdom have access to Zimbabwe. [132785]

  Mr. Mullin
  We deplore Zimbabwe's draconian media legislation. We have made it clear that the expulsion of foreign journalists only serves to further damage Zimbabwe's reputation. We have also underlined that free speech and a free press are among the essential prerequisites for the restoration of Zimbabwe's relations with the international community.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to ensure an end to the harassment of the political opposition within Zimbabwe. [132786]

  Mr. Mullin
  We have consistently condemned the Mugabe government's harassment of the opposition, independent media and civil society. With our strong support, the EU has imposed sanctions on the ZANU (PF) leadership. The Commonwealth has suspended Zimbabwe from its Councils. We have encouraged Zimbabwe's neighbours to press ZANU (PF) to stop its violence towards the opposition. We will continue to support all those working peacefully for a return to a democratically elected government which respects human fights and the rule of law.

  Arjan Erkel
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Russian Government on efforts to secure the release of Arjan Erkel, from Medicins Sans Frontieres, in Dagestan. [132915]

  Mr. Rammell
  Officials take all appropriate bilateral opportunities to raise this with the Russian authorities. Officials last raised the case of Mr. Erkel in Moscow on 6 October. We and other EU partners fully support the efforts of the Government of the Netherlands to ensure the safe release of Mr. Erkel.

  Burma
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Government of Burma regarding(a) Aung San Suu Kyi and (b) human rights in Burma. [133574]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have had numerous discussions with the Burmese authorities about the detention of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and wider human rights abuses in Burma, most recently on 1 September when I met the Burmese Ambassador. This has been supplemented by representations by the British Embassy in Rangoon.

  European Treaties
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what occasions since 1973 the UK has asserted its national law as against its obligations under European treaties. [132935]

  Mr. MacShane
  The jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice since the case of Costa v. ENEL (case 6/64) has clearly established the principle that no provision of national law may be invoked to override Community law. In Costa v. ENEL the Court ruled that:
  "the law stemming from the Treaty…[cannot] be overidden by domestic legal provisions…The transfer by the states from their domestic legal systems to the Community legal system of the rights and obligations arising under the Treaty carries with it a permanent limitation of their sovereign rights against which a subsequent unilateral act incompatible with the concept of the Community cannot prevail."

  Iraq
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future UN role in the reconstruction of Iraq. [133159]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Government remain committed to a vital role for the UN in Iraq, as provided for by Security Council Resolutions 1483 and 1511.

  Security Council Resolution 1511, passed unanimously on 16 October 2003, encourages further participation by the UN and the international community in assisting Iraq, including in the political processes leading to the formation of a representative government.
  539W
  Following the terrorist attack on the United Nations Headquarters in Baghdad on 19 August, the UN's efforts in Iraq have inevitably been scaled back. We are in discussion with the UN on the security measures needed to ensure that the UN is able to strengthen its vital role in Iraq.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current position in the Loizidou case. [132579]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government supports the implementation of the relevant judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and the efforts currently under way in Strasbourg to achieve this.

  An outcome which would satisfy the Committee of Ministers that the judgments of the Court had been properly respected is within our grasp. We urge all concerned to spare no effort to achieve this within the next few days, for the good of the plaintiff, of Turkey's good name in the Council of Europe, of Cyprus and of the region as a whole. Such an outcome would be fully in the spirit of the proposals for a comprehensive settlement put forward by the UN Secretary General. Agreement on the basis of the Annan Plan would provide the shortest route to compensation for Greek and Turkish Cypriots who, like Ms Loizidou, have been deprived of the use of their property and other rights.

  North Korea
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the discussions he and members of his Department have had since 1997, with representatives of the Governments of(a) the US, (b) Australia, (c) South Korea, (d) Japan, (e) China, (f) Russia and (g) India on the issue of missile testing in North Korea; where each discussion took place; what concerns were raised by (i) him, (ii) members of his Department and (iii) their respective counterpart(s); and if he will make a statement. [132543]

  Mr. Rammell
  We regularly discuss North Korea's nuclear programmes and missile proliferation with Australia, South Korea, Japan, China and Russia, both at ministerial and official level. We shall continue to work with international partners towards a peaceful settlement on the Korean peninsula, and to urge North Korea to return to compliance with its international obligations.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the peace process in Sri Lanka. [133060]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 20 October 2003]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. Although the peace talks are currently suspended, the ceasefire is holding. Proposals for an interim administration in the North and East have been put forward by the Government of Sri Lanka, and we hope that the 540W
  Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) will shortly table a counter-proposal that will enable all parties to return to the negotiating table.

  Tibet
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last raised human rights in Tibet with his Chinese counterparts. [132855]

  Mr. Rammell
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised Tibet, and the human rights situation in China, when he met Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing on 25 June. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister also raised Tibet with the Chinese leadership during his visit to China on 20–22 July.

  Turkey
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he is taking to help restore the ceasefire between the Kurds and the Turkish Government. [132239]

  Mr. MacShane
  We welcome the Turkish "Reintegration Law", passed on 29 July, which enables those associated with a terrorist group, including PKK/KADEK, to renounce the organisation and return home, and introduces lighter sentences for those accused of PKK/KADEK associated crimes. It is encouraging that this is beginning to be implemented.

  Properly implemented, this will complement Turkey's efforts to ensure that the human rights of all groups within Turkey, including the Kurds, are protected.

  Visas
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the total visa income was in August. [131884]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is unable to disaggregate UKVisas income as between July and August. UKVisas income for the two months combined was £22,887,111.

  Uzbekistan
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Uzbekistan on imprisonment, torture and executions of religious and political opponents of the Government; and if he will make a statement. [132553]

  Mr. Rammell
  We are deeply concerned by reports of imprisonment, torture and executions of religious and political opponents of the Uzbek Government. We take every opportunity to raise human rights issues bilaterally with the Uzbek authorities, including raising individual cases of religious and political persecution. For instance, I raised human rights issues with the Uzbek Ambassador on 8 October.

  We frequently work with EU Partners and within the OSCE to raise our concerns by way of EU statements in Brussels and Vienna and demarches by EU Heads of Mission. The UK supported the EU statement at the OSCE Permanent Council on 17 July condemning the recent executions of individuals whose cases were under

  541W
  consideration by the UN Human Rights Committee and calling on Uzbekistan to use OSCE expertise in implementing the UN Special Rapporteur's recommendations. Our Embassy in Tashkent is actively involved in human rights issues and is currently working with human rights organisations, the OSCE, UNDP and other Embassies to push Uzbekistan to develop and implement a National Action Plan to Combat Torture.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on(a) the standard of human rights and (b) the democratic process in Uzbekistan. [132554]

  Mr. Rammell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) on 20 June 2003,Official Report, column 437W.

  Since then, I raised human rights issues with the Uzbek Ambassador on 8 October, urging the Uzbek authorities to implement the UN Special Rapporteur for Torture's recommendations immediately. Bilaterally, and through the EU and the OSCE, we shall continue to press Uzbekistan to take greater steps towards democratisation and respect for human rights. We stand ready to assist Uzbekistan develop and implement its action plan to combat torture. While we welcome the Uzbek government's verbal and written commitments on human rights issues, we shall continue to press for tangible improvements and evidence of institutional reform.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the reasons are for the recall of the British Ambassador to Uzbekistan; what representations he has received on the early return of the Ambassador; when the Ambassador will return to Tashkent; and if he will make a statement. [132555]

  Mr. Rammell
  Her Majesty's Ambassador to Uzbekistan is currently in the UK where he has been receiving medical treatment. It would not be right for me to make further public comment on the private circumstances of an individual member of staff.

HEALTH

  Age-related Macular Degeneration
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate the Government have made of the number of people whose sight will be affected following the Government's decision to delay implementation of NICE's guidelines to make photo-dynamic therapy available to those suffering from age-related macular degeneration. [132691]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 20 October 2003]: We are not delaying implementation of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance on photo-dynamic therapy (PDT). Patients are already receiving PDT treatment on the national health service and will do so in increasing numbers in the coming months.
  542W
  In reviewing the final appraisal determination, the NICE Guidance Executive also considered whether there were grounds for advising the Department to vary the three-month direction. They considered there were grounds to do so on this occasion.

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

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

  Within the nine months allowed for full implementation, commissioners are expected to expand the service in a planned way to ensure there is sufficient capacity which is appropriately located to meet patient need, a fully trained workforce and access to expert diagnostic services. This will include the creation of new, and the expansion of existing, PDT centres and expert reading centres.

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of community health councils will be fully operational on 1 November; and if he will list those that will no longer be operational on that date. [132692]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 20 October 2003]: 98 per cent. of community health councils (CHCs) will still be operational on 1 November.

  Three CHCs (Bassetlaw, Southern Derbyshire and Hounslow) will be closed. In these cases, arrangements have been made for members of the public to access information and advice from neighbouring CHCs.

  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the staffing level of community health councils was on(a) 1 January, (b) 1 April and (c) 1 July. [132693]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 20 October 2003]: The staffing level of community health councils (CHCs) was 732 on 1 January, 680 on 1 April and 572 on 1 July.

  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 17 September 2003,Official Report, column 843W, on community health councils, what the staffing levels on 1 November will be as a proportion of the full-time staffing strength before the decision to abolish the councils was taken. [132760]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 20 October 2003]: It is expected that about 54 per cent. of the full staff complement will be working in community health councils on 1 November.

  Mental Health
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which mental health trusts are unable(a) to offer a

  543W
  crisis resolution service and (b) to provide funded accommodation for service users taken into care under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983. [131024]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information is not available in the requested format. Information on the distribution of crisis resolution teams in operation on 31 March 2003 according to strategic health authority boundaries is provided in the table.

  Strategic health authority

  Number of crisis resolution teams

  Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire

  7

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire

  2

  Birmingham and the Black Country

  12

  Cheshire and Merseyside

  2

  County Durham and Tees Valley

  5

  Coventry, Warwickshire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire

  4

  Cumbria and Lancashire

  2

  Essex

  1

  Greater Manchester

  3

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  2

  Kent and Medway

  1

  Leicestershire. Northamptonshire and Rutland

  0

  Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire

  3

  North and East Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire

  2

  North Central London

  4

  North East London

  1

  North West London

  3

  Northumberland, Tyne and Wear

  4

  Shropshire and Staffordshire

  3

  Somerset and Dorset

  0

  South East London

  7

  South West London

  4

  South West Peninsula

  6

  South Yorkshire

  4

  Surrey and Sussex

  5

  Thames Valley

  6

  Trent

  4

  West Yorkshire

  4

  England

  101

  Fabry's Disease
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many primary care trusts pay for the prescribing of Fabrazyme; and which do not pay for it; [133575]

  (2) what guidance has been issued on the treatment of Fabry Disease; [133576]

  (3) what guidance has been issued to (a) primary care trusts and (b) NHS acute hospitals trusts on prescribing Fabrazyme. [133577]

  Dr. Ladyman
  No central guidance on the treatment of Fabry's Disease or on the prescribing of Fabrazyme has been issued to primary care trusts or acute hospitals.

  The Prescription Pricing Authority only collects prescription information on drugs dispensed in the primary care setting. We have no record of Fabrazyme being dispensed in the community in England. Information is not collected centrally on drugs dispensed in secondary care so we would be unable to say if it had been prescribed in a hospital setting.

  Although the forthcoming national service framework for long term conditions will not deal directly with Fabry's Disease it is expected to set standards that will improve support and care for people with long term conditions and disabilities.

  Neurological Conditions
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people in(a) Chesham and Amersham, (b) Buckinghamshire and (c) England suffer from neurological conditions; [132329]

  (2) what plans he has to monitor the number of people with neurological conditions in (a) Chesham and Amersham, (b) Buckinghamshire and (c) England. [132330]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information requested is not collected centrally. We do not ask the national health service to collect data on the incidence of individual conditions such as neurology because of the enormous range of conditions and diseases that exist.

  I have no plans to monitor the number of people with neurological conditions. The administrative burden of developing and maintaining a diseases and conditions database would be expensive and would divert resources away from the main function of the NHS, which is the treatment of patients.

  NHS Dentistry
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much, and what percentage, of the NHS budget was spent on NHS dentistry in(a) 1992, (b)1997 and (c) the latest 12 months for which figures are available. [121993]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The gross national health service spend on the general dental service (GDS) and personal dental services (PDS)1 and the proportion this represents of total gross NHS expenditure for 1992–93, 1997–98 and 2001–02 are shown in the following table.

  NHS dental services: Gross2 expenditure on NHS dental services, 1992–93, 1997–98 and 2001–02—England

  Gross NHS dental service expenditure3(£ million)

  Gross NHS dental service expenditure3as percentage of total gross NHS expenditure

  1992–93

  1,306

  4.4

  1997–98

  1,348

  3.6

  2001–024

  1,674

  3.2

  1All years give GDS expenditure. 2001–02 also includes PDS expenditure. PDS pilots began in 1998 and a proportion of GDS expenditure was moved into a separate budget to reflect this. Spend on PDS pilots has been included in the 2001–02 figures. This includes spending on Trust-led pilots as well as PDS/GDS.

  2Gross expenditure is tae total expenditure on the service before the deduction of patient charge income.

  3All years give GDS expenditure. 2001–02 also includes PDS expenditure. Expenditure on community and hospital dental services has not been included in this table; information on the total funding for these services is not collected centrally.

  4Figures for 2001–02 are on a resource basis. This change in accounting practice had the effect of increasing the levels of expenditure attributed to that year. As a result the NHS expenditure total increased by about £200 million compared with the cash system used for previous years.

  The amount of money drawn down through the GDS funding arrangements is determined by the amount of work dentists carry out on NHS patients. The rate of increase of spend has been moderated by an increase in the number of dentists treating patients privately. The proportionate spend on dentistry has also been affected

  545W
  by the major additional investment across the NHS in recent years; total NHS expenditure has increased at a faster rate than expenditure on dentistry.

  The gross NHS GDS expenditure shown above for 2001–02 does not include the £35 million Modernisation Fund and £6 million Dentistry Action Plan Payments.

  The Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill currently before the House proposes the introduction of local commissioning for NHS dental services. Funding currently held and administered centrally would then become part of primary care trusts' general allocations. Unlike the current arrangements, resources would remain with the PCT should a dental practice reduce its level of commitment to the NHS. In the longer term, allocations will need to take oral health inequalities into account.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  British Summer Time
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make British Summer Time permanent throughout the year. [132808]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are no current plans to change the way British Summer Time operates.

  The start and end dates of summer time are harmonised across EC member states through a European Directive. The Directive provides for summer time to be one hour ahead of winter time but does not determine what these times are.

  Brickworks Development (Upchurch)
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will publish(a) the Lawful Development Certificate and (b) the Appeal file for the site at Fourbun Field, Otterham, Quay Lane, Upchurch. [133600]

  Keith Hill
  An Inspector issued a lawful development certificate on 8 May 2001 for the use of land at Four Gun Field, Otterham Quay Lane, Upchurch, Kent for the purposes of a brickworks including ancillary open storage. A copy of the appeal decision and certificate will be available in the library of the House. The appeal file was destroyed 12 months after the appeal decision was issued in line with normal procedures.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will estimate the total revenue which would be raised by local authorities from charging(a) 100 per cent. council tax rate and (b) 100 per cent. business rate on second homes. [132449]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Approximately £160 million per year would be raised by English local authorities if 100 per cent. council tax were charged and collected on all second homes. This represents an additional £80 million because there is currently a 50 per cent. discount on council tax for second homes. However, because owners of second homes would have no reason to provide this information if discounts were to be 546W
  entirely ended, the yield in future years would be increasingly difficult to estimate. This would, of course, affect the scope for individual local authorities to benefit directly from the reduction of discounts on second homes.

  In addition, some second homes let as self-catering holiday homes are subject to business rates because it is intended that they are let as holiday accommodation for more than 140 days in a year. Business rates are usually charged at 100% for such properties, although figures the revenue raised from them are not available.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not have sufficiently detailed records to be able to calculate what would he raised if all second homes were subject to non-domestic rates rather than council tax.

  Microsoft (Licensing Fees)
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much was paid to Microsoft in licensing fees by his Department and its agencies in each of the last three years; and how much has been budgeted for(a) 2003–04 and (b) 2004–05. [130667]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was created on 29 May 2002. The following table summarises Microsoft licensing fees incurred by the Office since its creation, and those incurred by Agencies for the period requested:

  Agency

  Spend 2000–01

  Spend 2001–02

  Spend 2002–03

  ODPM Central

  n/a

  n/a

  346,800

  Fire Service College

  Prior to 2002, licenses supplied from the Home Office

  6,940

  The Rent Service

  0

  0

  0

  QEII Conference Centre

  6,200

  11,900

  7,200

  Planning Inspectorate

  13,000

  185,000

  67,000

  Budgets for spend in 2003/04 and in future years are withheld on grounds of commercial confidentiality.

  Milton Keynes/South Midlands Study
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which organisations are represented on the Infrastructure Delivery Board convened by the Minister responsible for the Milton Keynes and South Midlands Growth Area; when the Board will first meet; and at what frequency he expects the Board to meet thereafter. [132173]

  Yvette Cooper
  Building on the work of the existing Milton Keynes and South Midlands Steering Group, the proposed Milton Keynes and South Midlands Inter Regional Board will seek long-term commitment to delivery through high level executive membership from relevant agencies. The board, to be chaired by my right hon. Friend the Lord Rooker, would include representatives of areas of infrastructure delivery including: environment, industry, housing, water, transport, education, health, Regional Development Agencies and Regional Planning Bodies, relevant local authorities and delivery vehicles. Some other organisations will also be invited on specific topics. The board is expected to meet two to three times a year and, for the first time in its new role by the end of 2003.
  547W
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether the Infrastructure Delivery Board for Milton Keynes and South Midlands will consider both capital and revenue implications of planned growth. [132174]

  Yvette Cooper
  The role of the proposed Milton Keynes and South Midlands Inter Regional Board will be to influence the investment of others, which will include both capital and revenue implications of planned growth.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Communications Masts
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the possible biological effects of terrestrial trunked/radio pulsing rates emanating from(a) handsets and (b) masts; what scientific research he collated to make this assessment; and how his Department's code of best practice applies the findings in respect of siting masts close to schools. [131942]

  Ms Blears
  In 2001, the National Radiological Protection's Board independent Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation (AGNIR) published a report on "Possible health effects from Terrestrial Trunked Radio (TETRA)". The report concluded that it was unlikely that the specific features of TETRA handsets and repeaters could pose a risk to health.

  The AGNIR report also concluded that signals from TETRA masts are not pulsed and confirmed that TETRA masts are similar to other mobile phone masts in terms of health and safety. There are no plans to issue specific guidance on the siting of TETRA masts close to schools.

  The AGNIR experts' recommendations for further research were taken forward by the Home Office. Recent results from the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory show that signals from TETRA handsets have no effect on calcium exchanges in cells—the main concern about TETRA technology. Further information on TETRA health and safety issues is available at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/tetra.html

  National Alcohol Strategy
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the national alcohol strategy. [131936]

  Ms Blears
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister commissioned the Strategy Unit (SU) to undertake a project to develop an alcohol harm reduction strategy for England. I am the Sponsor Minister for the project.
  548W
  The SU published its interim analysis on 19 September and it is available on the unit's website www.strategy.gov.uk. The final report, which will set out the cross-governmental alcohol harm reduction strategy for England, is due for publication later in the year. Implementation of the strategy will begin according to timetable in 2004.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) failed asylum seekers and (b) non-asylum seekers have been deported in each quarter of each of the last three years; to which countries they have been returned; and if he will make a statement. [131979]

  Beverley Hughes
  Deportations are a specific subset of removals alongside persons subject to administrative removal, removal due to Illegal entry action or those refused entry at port and subsequently removed. Information on the destination of enforced removals is not available. Table 1 shows the number of principal asylum seekers who were removed from the United Kingdom between 2001 and the first quarter of 2003—the latest available data—by nationality. This information is not available for removals made in 2000.

  Information on the removal of persons other than asylum seekers is not available by nationality or by quarter. 37,665 non-asylum cases were removed from the UK in 2000, 39,850 in 2001 and 54,720 in 2002. These figures include those persons who departed 'voluntarily' after enforcement action had been initiated against them.

  Information on the removal of asylum applicants is published quarterly, and on the removals of other immigration cases is published annually. The next quarterly publication will be available from the end of November 2003 on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate web site at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html Information on the removal of persons other than asylum seekers is not available by nationality or by quarter. 37,665 non-asylum cases were removed from the UK in 2000, 39,850 in 2001 and 54,720 in 2002. These figures include those persons who departed 'voluntarily' after enforcement action had been initiated against them.

  Information on the removal of asylum applicants is published quarterly, and on the removals of other immigration cases is published annually. The next quarterly publication will be available from the end of November 2003 on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate web site at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html

  Table 1 Removals and voluntary departures1of asylum applicants, excluding dependants, by nationality, 2001 to Q1 20032

  Number of principal applicants

  Nationality

  Q1 20013, 4(E)

  Q2 20013, 4(E)

  Q3 20013, 4(E)

  Q4 20013, 4(E)

  Q1 20023, 4(E) (P)

  Q2 20023, 4(E) (P)

  Q3 30023, 4(E) (P)

  Q4 20023, 4(E) (P)

  Q1 20033, 4(E) (P)

  Albania

  125

  150

  135

  120

  110

  150

  140

  115

  105

  Bulgaria

  5

  15

  25

  20

  20

  20

  10

  15

  10

  Cyprus

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  5

  5

  5

  *

  Czech Republic

  185

  230

  195

  185

  170

  110

  190

  320

  270

  Slovakia

  25

  10

  10

  10

  15

  20

  20

  25

  20

  Hungary

  *

  5

  5

  -

  *

  5

  *

  5

  *

  549W

  Table 1 Removals and voluntary departures1of asylum applicants, excluding dependants, by nationality, 2001 to Q1 20032

  Number of principal applicants

  Nationality

  Q1 20013,4(E)

  Q2 20013,4(E)

  Q3 20013,4(E)

  Q4 20013,4(E)

  Q1 20023,4(E) (P)

  Q2 20023,4(E) (P)

  Q3 30023,4(E) (P)

  Q4 20023,4(E) (P)

  Q1 20033,4(E) (P)

  Poland

  150

  150

  145

  160

  140

  135

  135

  225

  260

  Romania

  105

  130

  100

  115

  115

  150

  160

  135

  130

  Turkey

  35

  50

  35

  50

  60

  100

  110

  90

  45

  Russia

  30

  15

  35

  30

  20

  25

  20

  20

  20

  Ukraine

  45

  60

  70

  75

  65

  60

  65

  45

  35

  FRY

  240

  455

  445

  560

  505

  605

  625

  510

  475

  Other Former USSR

  175

  175

  200

  165

  155

  160

  185

  230

  180

  Other Former Yugoslavia

  20

  15

  10

  25

  35

  25

  40

  20

  30

  Europe Other

  10

  20

  20

  5

  5

  10

  5

  5

  10

  Europe Total

  1,155

  1.480

  1,430

  1,535

  1,415

  1,565

  1,715

  1,755

  1,590

  Brazil

  20

  5

  10

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  Colombia

  50

  40

  35

  50

  25

  20

  20

  50

  25

  Ecuador

  20

  35

  20

  15

  25

  20

  35

  35

  30

  Jamaica

  65

  35

  35

  45

  40

  50

  55

  75

  55

  Peru

  -

  -

  -

  -

  *

  -

  -

  *

  *

  United States of America

  -

  5

  5

  5

  *

  *

  *

  -

  *

  Americas Other

  10

  5

  10

  5

  5

  15

  25

  5

  5

  Americas Total

  165

  125

  110

  125

  100

  115

  150

  175

  120

  Algeria

  25

  20

  45

  35

  35

  40

  25

  30

  45

  Angola

  5

  5

  5

  5

  15

  15

  10

  15

  15

  Dem. Rep. Congo

  5

  5

  10

  5

  15

  5

  5

  5

  5

  Egypt

  -

  5

  5

  *

  .

  5

  5

  5

  *

  Ethiopia

  *

  5

  *

  *

  5

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Gambia

  10

  10

  5

  5

  5

  10

  5

  5

  *

  Ghana

  30

  25

  35

  20

  25

  45

  30

  40

  15

  Ivory Coast

  *

  5

  5

  10

  10

  20

  5

  10

  5

  Kenya

  20

  25

  20

  25

  30

  15

  20

  30

  35

  Liberia

  -

  *

  -

  -

  -

  5

  *

  -

  -

  Libya

  *

  *

  *

  5

  -

  5

  *

  *

  5

  Mauritius

  5

  *

  -

  5

  *

  *

  -

  -

  *

  Morocco

  5

  5

  5

  -

  *

  -

  5

  5

  Niger

  *

  -

  -

  *

  *

  *

  *

  -

  Nigeria

  55

  55

  55

  70

  70

  60

  75

  85

  50

  Seychelles

  -

  -

  -

  -

  *

  -

  5

  Sierra Leone

  5

  5

  10

  10

  15

  20

  15

  15

  20

  Somalia

  15

  5

  5

  5

  15

  15

  10

  10

  10

  South Africa

  5

  5

  10

  5

  15

  5

  10

  10

  10

  Sudan

  *

  *

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  10

  Tanzania

  20

  10

  5

  10

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  Uganda

  10

  10

  10

  15

  20

  15

  30

  35

  30

  Zimbabwe

  50

  35

  65

  65

  25

  30

  25

  25

  15

  Africa Other

  25

  20

  20

  30

  35

  35

  35

  30

  65

  Africa Total

  290

  250

  320

  330

  355

  365

  320

  365

  350

  Iran

  20

  70

  35

  45

  50

  40

  50

  35

  40

  Iraq

  40

  25

  15

  15

  35

  40

  60

  55

  90

  Lebanon

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  10

  10

  10

  Middle East Other

  20

  15

  5

  10

  10

  15

  15

  15

  10

  Middle East Total

  85

  115

  65

  70

  105

  100

  135

  110

  150

  Afghanistan

  15

  10

  35

  65

  95

  135

  110

  55

  65

  Bangladesh

  40

  25

  30

  50

  30

  35

  45

  35

  25

  China

  20

  15

  20

  30

  20

  10

  15

  10

  10

  India

  100

  85

  110

  135

  95

  90

  75

  85

  55

  Pakistan

  140

  135

  135

  85

  110

  125

  90

  95

  90

  Sri Lanka

  35

  40

  40

  40

  60

  85

  115

  120

  115

  Asia Other

  25

  15

  20

  25

  40

  35

  35

  15

  35

  Asia Total

  370

  325

  390

  435

  450

  505

  480

  415

  395

  Nat. not known3

  40

  25

  30

  30

  20

  5

  5

  10

  10

  Grand Total

  2,100

  2,325

  2,340

  2,520

  2.445

  2.660

  2,805

  2.830

  2,620

  1Includes persons departing voluntarily 1 after enforcement action had been initiated against them, persons leaving under Assisted Voluntary Return Programmes run by the international Organisation for Migration, and removals on safe third country grounds

  2 Figures rounded to the nearest five, with *= 1 or 2, and may not sum due to rounding.

  3Figures may include a small number of dependants leaving under Assisted Voluntary Return Programmes.

  4Figures exclude dependants of asylum seekers removed. Data on dependants removed have only been collected since April 2001.

  (E) Data have been estimated due to data quality issues.

  (P) Provisional figures

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average rate of response is by relevant embassies in replacing lost or damaged documentation of asylum seekers in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [132387]
  550W
  Beverley Hughes
  The exact information requested is not available and could only be gathered at disproportionate cost by detailed examination of individual casefiles. This is because applications for documentation by the Immigration Service are not
  551W
  broken down to reflect those which arise as a result of lost or damaged documents.

  The documentation of those persons who fail to be removed from the United Kingdom is an important issue and the Immigration Service Documentation Unit (ISDU) was established in order to facilitate and organise the provision of documentation in such cases. ISDU liaises closely with foreign Embassies and High Commissions in order to secure the issue of travel documents and to reach agreement on the associated processes.

  Every country has its own procedures, criteria, and requirements which must be met in order to establish identity and nationality and these procedures, and the timescales associated with them, vary from nationality to nationality.

  Given the wide differences between individual countries any averaged figure would be misleading and therefore unhelpful.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers in(a) Scotland and (b) England and Wales are awaiting deportation as a result of vandalised documentation. [132388]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information requested is not available and could only be obtained by examination of individual case-files at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to prevent the destruction of travel documents by asylum seekers who aim to delay their deportation. [132389]

  Beverley Hughes
  On the 28 August 2003 my righ hon. Friend the Home Secretary made a statement that he would be considering new legislation to tackle asylum seekers who destroy their travel documents in order to delay their removal from the United Kingdom. That legislation is still under consideration, and it is expected that we will be making a further statement about this matter in due course.

  Brinsford Young Offenders Institution
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children in Brinsford Young Offenders Institution have been placed in the segregation unit since January; and for how long. [130239]

  Paul Goggins
  Provisional data on the number of children held in segregation at Brinsford young offender institution from January to August 2003 is shown in the following table. This has been split to show the number of times the segregation unit was used for(a) less than seven days, (b) for longer than seven days and (c) for longer than 28 days during this period. The length of stay is dependent on the reason and will vary from no more than a few hours to a carefully prescribed number of days.
  552W

  The number of children held in segregation at Brinsford Young Offender Institution from January to August 2003

  Month

  Number of Juveniles held for less than 7 days

  Number of Juveniles held for longer than 7 days

  Number of Juveniles held for longer than 28 days

  January

  5

  0

  0

  February

  5

  6

  0

  March

  5

  4

  0

  April

  3

  2

  0

  May

  6

  3

  2

  June

  10

  3

  0

  July

  9

  7

  1

  August

  14

  5

  0

  Correspondence
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter and email dated 16 April and 23 April from Andrew H. Coveney of CP Pharmaceuticals, Wrexham. [120955]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The issues raised in the letter and emails of 16 and 23 April were confirmed as being resolved on 30 June 2003.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter dated 14 August 2003 from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan regarding his constituent, Mr. S. Chemlakh of Fraserburgh. [132552]

  Beverley Hughes
  I replied to the hon. Member on 14 October 2003.

  Crime Statistics
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the decision was taken to alter the basis for measuring performance against his Department's targets for the reduction of(a) burglary and (b) vehicle crime from recorded crime statistics to the British Crime Survey; which bodies and individuals were consulted before he authorised this change; and what form the announcement of this change took. [131804]

  Ms Blears
  The decision was taken by Home Office Ministers during the process of establishing Home Office Public Service Agreement targets for the period 2003–04 to 2005–06; announced by way of written ministerial statement on 25 March 2003,Official Report, column 8WS.

  Criminal Cases Review Commission
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will outline the case ordering and priority ranking that is used by the CCRC in determining which cases to review. [128849]

  Paul Goggins
  In case ordering and priority ranking, a distinction is drawn between applications for a case review for those in custody and those who are at liberty or dead. Cases are generally reviewed in date order of receipt, with in-custody cases generally being assigned one year of priority over at-liberty cases. In-custody applicants requesting reviews of their sentences will generally be assigned priority over those applying for reviews of their convictions. Factors such as age and ill
  553W
  health of applicants and witnesses, and the possibility of deterioration of evidence, are also taken into account. Priority is also assigned to cases that the Commission believes to be of particular significance to the criminal justice system.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what the average time has been for processing a check by the Criminal Records Bureau, broken down by category of worker; [129842]

  (2) what the average time is which it is expected the Criminal Records Bureau will take to check on new staff seeking to work in the long-term care sector. [129843]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 15 September 2003]: I am unable to provide data to the hon. Member on the average time taken to process Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks, broken down by category of worker because there are no IT procedures at present to extract these data from the CRB database.

  However, I can confirm that the average turnaround times for Standard and Enhanced Disclosures across all business sectors is 24 days. Service turnaround times for Standard and Enhanced continue to exceed the CRB target of 90 per cent. of Standard Disclosures within two weeks and 90 per cent. of Enhanced Disclosures within four weeks. The CRB expects to process the checks for new care home workers within this service standard. In July 2003, the average turnaround was 93.1 per cent. for Standard Disclosures and 93.5 per cent. for Enhanced Disclosures. Over the last four weeks, output has exceeded intake: 142,932 applications have been received and 145,117 have been issued. Since 11 March 2002, the CRB has issued over 2,364,312 Disclosures.

  Deaf Prisoners
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action is being taken to improve the support and welfare of deaf prisoners. [129921]

  Paul Goggins
  The Prison Service has policies in place to try to ensure that deaf, and indeed all, disabled prisoners are able to participate fully in prison life and that their needs in terms of rehabilitation, maintaining family ties, and support generally, are met. Ensuring staff awareness of the needs of deaf prisoners remains a high priority for the Prison Service: disability and deaf awareness and communication skills for staff are included within diversity training across the Service.

  Prisons are encouraged to employ British Sign Language (BSL) interpreters where necessary, for example, in adjudication hearings and in parole interviews. Although it is recognised that not all deaf and hard of hearing people use BSL, more staff in prisons are being trained in basic BSL skills and a small number of staff are more highly qualified and experienced signers.

  Staff and managers in prisons are also becoming more aware of the need to ensure that deaf prisoners are able to access offending behaviour programmes, and are starting to explore alternative ways of delivering these programmes.
  554W
  Great importance is placed on the maintenance of family ties for all prisoners; it is recognised that for deaf prisoners, this requires adjustments such as provision of textphones, and quiet areas and induction loops in visits halls to enhance the quality of visits. Wherever possible, prisons develop links with community groups, some of which support and visit deaf prisoners.

  Dr. Ali Dizaei
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on ministerial involvement in, and reports received by, Ministers during the stages of(a) investigation and (b) prosecution of Dr. Ali Dizaei. [131662]

  Ms Blears
  The only ministerial involvement in this case has been as a result of responding to parliamentary questions or correspondence from Members of Parliament or briefings on progress. Specific requests are then made to the MPS Secretariat for factual information to support Ministers' replies. This routine procedure—which allows Ministers to answer MPs' inquiries—was followed in response to all PQs and correspondence submitted in this case.

  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the warrants issued on police applications listed allegations that were charges leading to the prosecution of Dr. Ali Dizaei. [131663]

  Ms Blears
  The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis informs me that none of the allegations, in respect of which warrants were issued, resulted in charges leading to prosecution of Dr. Ali Dizaei.

  Dungavel
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average number of children resident at Dungavel Immigration Removal Centre has been during the last 12 months. [131556]

  Beverley Hughes
  Information on the average number of children resident in Dungavel Immigration Removal Centre during the last 12 months and the average length of time for which detainees were held is not yet available in the form requested and could be obtained only by examination of individual case-files at disproportionate cost.

  Minors are detained only in two limited circumstances: first, as part of a family group whose detention is considered appropriate; second, when unaccompanied, while alternative care arrangements are made and normally just overnight. While the detention of families with children is very regrettable, it nevertheless remains necessary in appropriate cases in order to maintain an effective immigration control and to tackle abuses of the asylum system.

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many responses he has received to his consultation exercises on identity cards; and if he will make a statement. [131681]
  555W
  Beverley Hughes
  The consultation period on entitlement cards and identity fraud formally ended on 31 January 2003. We received a total of 4,942 individual responses from companies/organisations and from individual members of the public.

  A further 5,031 responses from individual members of the public were sent in via the STAND website.

  We have been carefully analysing all the responses received and are in the process of preparing a detailed summary of the responses, which we will be publishing. It is right that we take time to consider these thoroughly before making an announcement.

  Illegal Immigration
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next plans to meet the French authorities to discuss(a) illegal immigration from France and (b) trafficking of illegal immigrants across Europe. [131980]

  Beverley Hughes
  There is extensive co-operation between the two Governments and Ministers meet regularly to discuss issues of mutual concern. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary met the French Minister of the Interior on 19–20 October.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of(a) the use of freight searching equipment, and (b) steps taken by the French authorities to return failed asylum seekers to the Balkans. [131981]

  Beverley Hughes
  The effectiveness of using UK freight searching equipment in France has been clear for some time. There has been during 2003, the capacity to search 100 per cent. of freight vehicles passing through Calais and the number of clandestines encountered by Immigration Officers in the South East District (SED) has fallen drastically as a result. Locally collated management information (which may be subject to revision and correction) indicates a fall of 72 per cent. in monthly detections by SED, from 975 in September 2002 to 270 in June 2003.

  New detection technology has also now been deployed in Belgium at Zeebrugge and Ostend and will be rolled out to other ports in Northern France. The deployment of UK detection technology in continental Europe has been a key measure in reducing asylum applications from 8,770 in October 2002 to 3,610 in June 2003.

  The French are continuing to operate an efficient system for dealing with asylum applications and failed asylum seekers are being removed to their countries of origin, including the Balkans. The French are currently bringing in new legislation to tighten up their immigration rules.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for the(a) issuing and (b) loaning of high-technology UK freight searching equipment to port-cities in (i) the United Kingdom and (ii) Europe; what equipment is in place; and if he will make a statement. [131983]
  556W
  Beverley Hughes
  There are no current plans to issue or loan freight-searching technology to port operators in the United Kingdom. Freight searching to detect clandestine arrivals is carried out in the United Kingdom by the UK Immigration Service.

  As part of the measures to reduce the number of unfounded asylum applications in the United Kingdom, a programme is under way to loan and deploy UK-owned detection technology to port operators and carriers overseas.

  We have deployed people detection technology at the ports of Calais and Coquelles. At Calais there is the capability to screen 100 per cent. of embarking freight vehicles. Following the tightening of security at Calais, we are taking steps to deploy at other continental ports including in France, Belgium and Holland, vulnerable to the displacement of clandestine activity.

  Additionally, a UK owned scanner is currently on loan to the Belgian authorities and is deployed by the Belgian Federal Maritime Police. In line with the UK commitment to work with European partners to combat illegal immigration, UK owned technology is also currently on loan to the Irish and German authorities.

  Immigration and Asylum
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what factors underlay decisions about the number of United Kingdom immigration officers employed in ports in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Europe; what the role is of UK officers in non-United Kingdom ports; and if he will make a statement. [131982]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Port staffing levels in the United Kingdom are determined by a number of factors;

  Current and projected numbers of passenger arrivals;

  For seaports the number of freight vehicles that will require searching

  An assessment of the casework generated from the arriving passenger traffic

  Projected numbers of asylum seekers that will require interview on arrival

  (b) Officers are currently deployed to the following European ports to operate juxtaposed immigration controls:

  Gare du Nord, Paris;

  Gare du Midi, Lille;

  Frethun, Calais;

  Coquelles (Eurotunnel)

  Officers will be deployed to Calais ferryport, Calais Hoverport, Dunkerque, and Boulogne following the conclusion of the Anglo-French treaty for the implementation of frontier controls at the seaports of both countries on the Channel and North Sea. This will take place towards the end of November 2003.

  Save in respect of asylum claims and suspensive rights of appeal all these controls operate on the same basis as immigration controls operated at UK ports.
  557W
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement about judicial involvement in the immigration and asylum system. [132235]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Government are committed to providing a firm, fast and fair asylum and immigration system. The reforms we introduced through the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum (NIA) Act 2002 have helped to deliver a significantly faster and more efficient system, which benefits both the taxpayer and those seeking legal entry or asylum in the United Kingdom. However, the Government believe that there are still too many examples of asylum applicants lodging groundless appeals to frustrate the asylum process and delay removal. Therefore, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary stated on 22 May 2003, we are drawing up further legislative measures to limit the scope for making unfounded appeals, including the possibility of moving to a single tier of appeal.

  Kent Police
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many(a) police constables, (b) sergeants and (c) inspectors were transferred from the Kent Police Force to the Metropolitan Police Force in each of the last five years; [131701]

  (2) what the vacancy rate was for (a) police constables, (b) sergeants and (c) inspectors in each of the last five years for the Kent Police Force area; [131702]

  (3)how many police officers have retired from Kent Police Force in each of the last five years; and what the average age of retirement was. [131759]

  Ms Blears
  There have been no compulsory transfers of officers between the two forces. Information about the officers who have chosen to transfer from Kent County Constabulary to the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) between 1998–99 to 2002–03 is in Table 1. This information has been provided by the Acting Chief Constable (Mr. R. Ayling QPM). I am also told that during the last five years a total of 37 officers transferred from the MPS to Kent. At the end of August Kent County Constabulary had 3,520 officers, a record number and 260 more than in March 1997.

  No information is collected centrally about the age of retiring police officers. Table 2 sets out the number of retirements as a whole for each year from 1998–99 to 2002–03 and, separately, shows the number of medical and ordinary retirements, from the Kent County Constabulary.

  Details of vacancy levels in police forces for the last five years are not available centrally.

  Table 1: Transfers from Kent County Constabulary to Metropolitan Police

  Constable

  Sergeant

  Inspector

  Other

  Total

  1998–99

  —

  2

  —

  1

  3

  1999–2000

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2000–01

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2001–02

  4

  1

  —

  —

  5

  2002–03

  13

  6

  4

  1

  24

  558W

  Table 2: Retirements from Kent County Constabulary between 1998–99 and 2002–03

  All ranks

  Medical retirements

  Ordinary retirements

  Total retirements

  1998–99

  16

  80

  96

  1999–2000

  18

  84

  102

  2000–01

  29

  74

  103

  2001–02

  38

  101

  139

  2002–03

  21

  85

  106

  Migrants
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the numbers of migrant participants in the new Sector Based Schemes covering food processing and hospitality. [130500]

  Beverley Hughes
  The figures for the number of Sectors Based Scheme (SBS) work permits that have been approved from the launch on 30 May 2003 to 31 June 2003 covering food processing and hospitality are given in the table:

  SBS permits issued

  Number

  Total

  1,269

  Food manufacturing sector

  1,214

  Hospitality sector

  55

  Work Permits (UK) is currently discussing with key stakeholders how effectively the scheme is operating, and these discussions will inform the way forward from the end of January 2004 onward (when the current quota is due to expire).

  Military Deaths
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the result was of the police investigation into the death of Private Alison Croft at Dalton Barracks in Abingdon, Oxfordshire, on 28 September 2002. [132188]

  Ms Blears
  I understand that Thames Valley Police have submitted a file to the Coroner on this case. It would therefore be inappropriate for me to comment further.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the result was of the police investigation into the death of Private Tesoni Vakacakaudrove at the Defence School of Transport, Leconfield, on 6 October 2002. [132189]

  Ms Blears
  I understand that following a major investigation by Humberside Police into the death of Private Vakacakaudrove the Coroner inquest returned a verdict of accidental death.

  Police Community Support Officers
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many police community support officers are now in post(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in West Yorkshire; [132340]
  559W
  (2) how many police community support officers will be in post by 21 December. [132341]

  Ms Blears
  As of 1 October 2003 there were 1,934 Community Support Officers (CSOs) in England and Wales. Of these 96 CSOs had been recruited by West Yorkshire Police. I have also been informed by West Yorkshire Police that currently Huddersfield have 10 CSOs and will have 18 by the end of March 2004.

  We estimate there will be 2,200 Community Support Officers in post in England and Wales by 21 December 2003, rising to over 2,500 by 1 April 2004. We are on track to reach the National Policing Plan target of 4,000 CSOs by the end of 2005.

  Police Investigations
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is standard practice for police authorities to keep the report of investigations into their own officers confidential; and under what circumstances a police authority would publish such a report. [132222]

  Ms Blears
  Generally, in investigations into criminal allegations involving either a member of the police or a member of the public, it is standard to keep investigation reports confidential. The same applies to investigations into complaints against police officers.

  It is for police authorities to decide whether to publish reports of investigations: they might choose to do so if they considered that the public interest in disclosing a report's contents outweighed the public interest in preserving its confidentiality.

  Police Targets
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will review the target setting framework within which the police services work. [132342]

  Ms Blears
  The National Policing Plan, due for publication in November, will confirm the levels of improvement in performance required, by individual police forces and authorities, to deliver the existing Public Service Agreement targets (which cover the period April 2003—March 2006; published in Cm 5571). It will be for individual police forces and authorities to ensure that these requirements are reflected in their local strategic and annual policing plans.

  Prisons
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications to release on temporary licence have been made this year and in each of the last five years in(a) all prisons in England and Wales and (b) each individual prison in England and Wales. [130534]

  Paul Goggins
  The Prison Service does not collect the numbers of applications for release on temporary licence. However, the numbers of releases on temporary licence listed by type of establishment and by type of licence are published in Prison statistics England and Wales 2001 (Cm 5743), which is held in the Library.
  560W
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the prisons that have prison visiting facilities which are(a) permanent and (b) temporary; [131208]

  (2) which of the prisons that have prison visiting facilities include facilities which cater for (a) people with disabilities and (b) children; [131209]

  (3) which prison visiting facilities have been (a) refurbished, (b) built and (c) relocated within the last five years; and what the cost was of the work undertaken; [131210]

  (4) which prison visiting facilities are included in an improvement programme; what the nature of the improvements planned is in each case; and what the cost is of work to be undertaken. [131211]

  Paul Goggins
  The Prison Service has a statutory obligation to encourage and assist prisoners to maintain outside contacts. In recognition of the important role that visits can play in achieving this, as well as the benefits for prisoners' successful resettlement, all prisons have permanent visiting areas. Over 90 establishments provide additional facilities such as visitors' centres.

  Prison Governors are required to comply with the duty under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to provide adequate facilities for people with disabilities and to make 'reasonable adjustments' to existing facilities. In particular, visitors to prison must be able to access all visits facilities. All establishments are currently assessing their facilities, but there is no central record of work conducted. Over 80 prisons provide play areas for children and an increasing number also offer extended day visits. Our policy is to encourage establishments to provide such facilities wherever possible, subject to individual operational and resource considerations.

  Individual governors initiate refurbishments to prisons costing less than £50,000 and the expenditure is incurred from their local budgets. Information on where such refurbishments have taken place and the costs involved are not held centrally. All newly built and contracted-out prisons are required to have a visitors' centre, distinct from visits halls, under the terms of their contract and the costs of building these range from around £25,000 to £200,000.

  Prison Service policy is to provide adequate facilities and these are under constant review. However, as most improvements are not centrally resourced, there is no comprehensive record of work carried out, or of the associated costs.

  Probation Service
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many pilot projects were conducted in the Probation Service in each of the last 10 years. [124959]

  Paul Goggins
  Central records go back until 1999. The table sets out for each year since 1999 the number of pilots which were commenced in that year. A number of pilots will have run for more than a year, but are shown only against the year in which they started.
  561W

  Number of pilots

  1999

  31

  2000

  14

  2001

  10

  2002

  43

  2003

  46

  Quad Bikes
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints were made to Merseyside Police about illegal quad bikes in the last 12 months; and how many prosecutions resulted. [131962]

  Ms Blears
  Detailed figures for the whole of last year are not available. I understand, however, from Merseyside Police that they estimate there were, over the summer months, around 1,000 complaints relating to the misuse of quad bikes in the force area. These resulted in about 100 prosecutions and cautions.

  Over the summer months Merseyside Police undertook a specific operation against quad bike riders causing a nuisance. This operation specifically led to 17 prosecutions and 16 vehicles being seized under the provisions of section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002.

  Richard Thomas
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place a copy of the report of the inquiry into the conduct of ex-acting chief constable Richard Thomas of Gwent Police in the Library. [132221]

  Ms Blears
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for the Home Department does not hold a copy of the report of the inquiry into the conduct of Richard Thomas, ex-acting chief constable of Gwent Police. The report is the property of Gwent Police and I am informed that they have no plans to publish it in any form.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Euro
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how much has been spent in each year by his Department in preparing for UK entry to the euro; how much his Department plans to spend on preparations for UK entry to the euro for each year from the current financial year up to and including 2005–06; and what estimates he has made of the total costs to his Department of changeover to the European Single Currency. [131595]

  Mr. Leslie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury gave on 14 October 2003,Official Report, column 142W.

  Voter Registration
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many(a) adults and (b) adults registered to vote there
  562W
  were in each parliamentary constituency in descending order according to the disparity between the two figures. [133049]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Chris Ruane, dated 21 October 2003:
  As National Statistician and Registrar General for England and Wales I have been asked to reply to your recent question, asking how many (a) adults and (b) adults registered to vote there were in each parliamentary constituency in descending order according to the disparity between the two figures. (133049)
  I am placing in the House of Commons Library a table which shows the count of adults (that is persons aged 18 and over) in each Parliamentary Constituency in England and Wales, taken from the published 2001 Census Report for Parliamentary Constituencies, compared with electoral register data from February 2001. It has been sorted in descending order, according to the disparity between the two. There are a number of reasons, which I have outlined below, why these counts can vary so greatly and why some constituencies have more registered voters than the Census counted resident adults. Therefore. the data has been sorted, with the constituency showing the greatest number of adults not on the electoral register at the top, and the constituency showing the greatest number of adults registered to vote but not resident in that constituency according to the Census at the bottom.
  The Census and electoral register data are not directly comparable for a number of reasons. These include definitional differences in the way the sources are compiled, differences in the timing of the data for each source being collected, and the delay in people being removed from the electoral register in a constituency after they move away from the area. In addition to this, it is possible for people to be on the electoral register in more than one constituency or none at all.

  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary. Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will list the local authority registration departments that are(a) adopting and (b) not adopting the best practice electoral registration procedures outlined in the Electoral Commission report of 2002, "Making an Impact". [133055]

  Mr. Leslie
  This information is not collected by my Department. The independent Electoral Commission is planning to undertake and complete early next year research building upon reports it has published in the past year, including "Making an Impact", in order to promote best practice guidance on tackling under-registration. The Government will consider carefully this research which we understand is intended to lead to the establishment of a national framework for the continued monitoring of electoral registration rates. The Electoral Commission is responsible for offering advice and guidance to electoral registration officers on these and other matters and will continue to encourage registration through various promotional activities.

  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what research on registration rates he has commissioned in the past three years; and what future research he intends to commission on this subject. [133056]

  Mr. Leslie
  Research on registration rates has not been carried out by this Department or those responsible for electoral matters during the past three
  563W
  years. The independent Electoral Commission, set up in 2000 with a remit to keep under review electoral law and practice, has carried out such research since then publishing reports examining the local promotion of electoral registration and voter engagement among black and minority ethnic communities. Arising from its more recent report, "the Electoral Registration Process" the Commission is planning to undertake and complete early next year a further research project to identify the extent and nature of under-registration in particular communities in Britain as well as reviewing the operation and impact of rolling registration. The Government welcomes this proposal and will give due consideration to any further recommendations the Commission may make as it does to all of the Commission's recommendations concerning electoral registration arrangements.

  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will list the authorities that have initiated proceedings against individuals who fail to register to vote. [133057]

  Mr. Leslie
  This information is not collected centrally. The Representation of the People Act 1983 requires electoral registration officers (EROs), appointed by local authorities for the purpose, to compile the electoral register. Regulation 23 of the Representation of the People Regulations 2001 permits an ERO to 564W
  require any person to give information required for the purposes of that officer's duties in maintaining registers of parliamentary and local government electors. It is an offence punishable upon conviction by a fine not exceeding £1,000 for a person to fail to comply with a request for information from an ERO, or to give false information to an ERO. Prosecutions for non-compliance are initiated at local discretion.

  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will set out the Department's assessment of the main reasons for substantial falls in electoral registration rates in the UK over the past six years. [133058]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Government are concerned at the apparent drop in electoral registration in recent years. We are aware of a number of possible contributing factors, but do not wish to prejudge the conclusions of the independent Electoral Commission which is planning to undertake and complete next year research on this subject, building on reports it has published in the past year. The Government welcome this proposal and will give due consideration to any further recommendations the Commission may make as it does to all of the Commission's recommendations concerning electoral registration arrangements.

TREASURY

  National Statistics
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly)
  The National Statistics Annual Report for 2002–03 is being published and laid before the House today. Copies are available in the Vote Office and from the Libraries of the House. The report can also be obtained free on the National Statistics Web site.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Culture Online
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell)
  Culture Online is a new project, led by my Department, which aims to use new technology to increase access to and participation in the arts and culture. Digital technologies—including, but not limited to, the internet—give us the opportunity to present cultural resources and activities in different formats and allow people to use and add to them in new and exciting ways. Projects involving interactive games, audio and video footage, and digital cameras and editing software and tools can improve the quality of education and bring in new users.

  Culture Online is commissioning digital educational materials from cultural and new media organisations. We are about to commission the first seven projects (details of which will be placed in the Libraries of both houses). They involve a range of organisations including local and regional museums and theatres, the V&A, Kew Gardens and the National Theatre. Just over a half of all projects will be aimed at school age children. The rest will be aimed at adult learners, particularly those who may not traditionally have been involved in the arts and culture. The first projects will start in November and will be accessible by the public next year. Projects will be available through participating organisations websites, the Culture Online website www.cultureonline.gov.uk and the DfES Curriculum Online portal.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Affordable Housing
  The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott)
  I am pleased to be announcing today the allocation of nearly £5 billion over the next two years to drive forward the Government's commitment to affordable housing. This includes the balance of the £1 billion for key worker 32WS
  housing promised in the communities plan and funding to help ensure that all people living in social housing have a decent home by 2010.

  KEY WORKER HOUSING PROGRAMME

  Using housing initiatives to support recruitment and retention in key public services is a government priority. Over the summer the Government have worked to develop a successor programme to the starter homes initiative. This will target resources on the key workers who can make the biggest possible contribution to improving frontline public services.

  The proposals I am announcing today represent the main features of the key worker housing programme to be run in 2004/05 and 2005/06.

  The majority of support will continue to be directed towards our priority categories such as teachers and health workers. However, we also propose that the programme should be widened to apply to other public sector workers, such as social workers, where there is clear evidence of recruitment and retention problems. This is in response to the needs identified by the regional housing boards in their housing strategies.

  Support will be provided to key workers through one of four simple options. Emphasis will be more on family homes rather than on starter homes as the evidence base compiled in recent months suggests that this is what the workers who are critical to service delivery need and want.

  The options are: Homebuy, "homebuy plus", shared ownership or intermediate renting. Homebuy will provide key workers with an interest-free equity loan equal to 25 per cent. or more of the value of the property on the basis that the key worker pays back the same proportion of value of the property when he or she sells it. Homebuy plus will offer assistance on the same basis but with larger equity loans for a very small number of critically important key workers—for example, teachers who will become middle managers in key London schools. Shared ownership will allow a key worker to buy part of a property—at least 25 per cent.—and pay rent on the remainder. Key workers will be able to increase their stake in the property when they can afford to do so. Intermediate renting offers the chance to rent a property at a rate between social rents and open market values.

  The starter homes initiative has concentrated on helping key workers buy homes on the open market. The new scheme will shift the balance progressively towards new build schemes. Details will be decided in consultation with the regional housing boards.

  Through this programme we will ensure that support for key workers is better targeted and better tailored to meet both the recruitment and retention needs of our frontline public services and the needs of the employees crucial to delivering those services.

  LOCAL AUTHORITY SOCIAL HOUSING GRANT

  I am pleased to announce increased funding for transitional arrangements following the abolition of local authority social housing grant. An additional £75m has been made available for debt-free authorities.
  33WS
  Local authority social housing grant (LASHG) was abolished from 1 April 2003. It was a mechanism which local authorities used to fund new or improved social housing through registered social landlords (RSLs). The authority made a loan from its own capital resources to the RSL. The loan was then repaid to the authority by the housing corporation. With-debt authorities were then required to set-aside the reimbursement to meet debt and credit liabilities. Debt-free authorities, on the other hand, were allowed to use the reimbursement for any purpose they wished—not necessarily housing. This meant debt-free authorities effectively obtained additional affordable housing at no cost to themselves.

  As anticipated, the transitional funding was oversubsrcibed. Many of the bids submitted did not meet the bidding criteria. The housing corporation prioritised the bids in consultation with the Government offices and I am today announcing approval for transitional local authority social housing grant schemes (LASHG). The transitional arrangements will lead to £680m spend on schemes and will provide 14,000 homes over the next three years.

  The housing corporation will be notifying local authorities of the outcome of the bids.

  I should like to emphasise that local authorities remain able to support new social and key worker housing by housing associations. They will, however, no longer be reimbursed by the housing corporation—and, in particular, debt-free authorities will no longer be able to spend the money twice. I would encourage local authorities to continue to support the acquisition of new affordable housing wherever this is the best way to achieve the objectives set out in their housing strategies.

  REGIONAL HOUSING BOARDS

  The communities plan set out a range of measures to deliver a step change in tackling the serious imbalances between the supply of and demand for housing in many parts of England. A key element of this was to ensure better integration between investment in housing, the planning system and economic development strategies.

  In order to help achieve this, the framework for determining the allocation of funds for housing investment is being substantially changed to focus resources on strategic housing priorities. Regional housing boards have been established to make recommendations to me on how the funds available to each region should be distributed between local authorities and housing associations and where they should be targeted. These recommendations reflect priorities set out in their regional housing strategies, which build on the existing housing statements.

  I have given careful consideration to their funding recommendations, Regional Housing Strategies and other supporting information and I can now announce my conclusions.

  The task the boards faced—balancing the competing demands within the region while at the same time supporting delivery of a small number of key national priorities and targets—was a difficult one.

  I am pleased to say that I am accepting the broad thrust of the Boards' recommendations for 2004/05 and 2005/6 and their regional spending priorities. In most
  34WS
  regions the recommendations will be accepted in their entirety. There have been further discussions with the boards for the London, East and South East Regions. These have taken into account the increased resources now available for transitional local authority social housing grant and the additional homes we expect English Partnerships to provide via innovative new schemes, neither of which the regional boards were aware of at the time they made their recommendations. As a result the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has been able to increase the funding made available for key worker housing.

  A table giving details of each region's allocation will be placed in the Library. Details of the housing allocations for individual local authorities will be announced in 4–6 weeks time.

  A competitive bidding round for the funds available for new affordable housing schemes is being launched by the housing corporation; the results will be announced by March.

  I have been impressed by what the boards, local authorities and other stakeholders have achieved in a short space of time. There is clearly a real appetite for a strengthened regional role on housing and for finding new ways of working to improve effectiveness of delivery.

  It is important to build on this—both to increase and strengthen partnership working and innovation and to develop regional and, where appropriate sub-regional, housing strategies. Sub-regional housing strategies require a stronger analysis of current and future housing needs. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister always recognised that the short time available would limit the analysis this year.

  Central Government will play their part. Work is already underway to evaluate the first round of the new arrangements and will include feedback from the regional housing boards. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will consider carefully what changes are needed.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police Performance Monitors
  The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing, and Community Safety (Ms Hazel Blears)
  Today I have published the second set of police performance monitors for individual forces in England and Wales. The first set of performance monitors was published in February 2003. The "performance monitor" diagrams provide a quick, visual summary representation of the balance of performance for a force. Although the diagrams are simple to look at, they contain a lot of information and have the capacity to reflect performance in a number of separate areas of policing responsibility.

  The forthcoming National Policing Plan 2004–07, to be published in November 2003, describes in more detail the ongoing work to develop a set of national measures of policing performance and an associated assessment system. While this is being developed, we are continuing

  35WS
  to monitor the performance of police forces across a set of "interim indicators" of policing performance, as well as through other relevant information.

  The publication of the second set of performance monitors will enable the public to gauge the performance of their local force across a range of policing responsibilities. The ability to make this assessment has been considerably improved by the addition of bar charts to the original monitor diagrams, giving a more detailed breakdown of the comparison of forces with their peers. This is further enhanced by the inclusion of two years' worth of performance information, which indicates changes in police performance since last year.

  Asylum Seekers (Language Analysis Pilot)
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes)
  I am pleased to announce the outcome of the pilot testing of language analysis to help determine asylum claims from selected applicants who claimed to be nationals of Afghanistan, Somalia and Sri Lanka. The pilot was established in the light of concerns that some asylum seekers were posing falsely as nationals of these three countries. Its purpose was to assess the potential value of language analysis in providing expert evidence to identify the place of origin of asylum seekers, and to detect and deter abuse of the asylum system.

  Evaluation of the decisions and appeals outcomes for cases in the three-country pilot to the end of July this year has shown that language analysis is a valuable aid in detecting false nationals (9 per cent. of the total number of applicants selected for the pilot and 21 per cent. of claimed Somali nationals) and in delivering robust and effective decisions. The percentage of outright refusal decisions was 78 per cent. compared with 51 per cent. for the pilot nationalities as a whole in 2002. In cases where appeal rights have been exhausted the percentage of decisions upheld (86 per cent.) was also higher than the norm (68 per cent. for these nationalities, in 2002).

  In order to address continuing concerns about abuse of the asylum system and in the light of the initial and similarly encouraging results from the subsequent Iraqi language analysis pilot, I have decided to commission further work to take forward the wider introduction of language analysis. To achieve maximum benefit, this will form part of the asylum srceening process, and will be targeted on cases where claiming a false nationality would give rise to a greater likelihood of being granted asylum, humanitarian protection or discretionary leave.

  The evaluation of the appeals outcomes for cases in the three-country pilot found that challenges to the reports have focused on the credentials of individual language analysts. It is of course essential that the reports are accepted as credible evidence at appeal and that failed applicants are removed from the UK. This demonstrates the need to ensure that the credentials of the language analysis bureau and their analysts meet the requirements of the Immigration Appellate Authority.

  Among other options, we will be considering the feasibility of establishing a language analysis bureau in the UK to address this issue.
  36WS
  The race monitor, Mary Coussey, who reports to Parliament via the Secretary of State, will exercise independent scrutiny of the operation of language analysis.

  A copy of the summary of findings of the three country language analysis pilot has been placed in the Library of the House.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Government/Business Information Sharing
  The Minister for Trade and Investment (Mr. Mike O'Brien)
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Confederation of British Industry have been working together to strengthen arrangements for government and business to share information on a wide range of issues affecting their security when operating in overseas markets. The Government recognise that business needs good information sharing to ensure that they are making the right decisions on their investments in overseas markets.

  Most of our embassies and high commissions already have arrangements to exchange information on security issues with locally-based British business representatives and to provide information on request to business visitors, The new scheme is designed to make the service more systematic and more proactive, and will seek to ensure that all posts and FCO departments provide a consistent level of service.

  A major feature of the new scheme will be the establishment of a forum in the UK for regular discussion of security related issues. A steering group consisting of FCO, CBI and. British Trade International officials and business representatives will monitor the process to ensure we are fully meeting the needs of business. Details of the new scheme have been placed on the FCO, British Trade International and CBI websites with links to each other

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Local Museum and Heritage Review
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Angela Smith)
  The local museum and heritage review, which was instigated by Michael McGimpsey, Minister in the NI Executive, has sought to chart the best way forward for the museum and heritage sectors in Northern Ireland.

  The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure and the Department of the Environment have considered carefully the report of the review steering group and have produced this response that sets out our proposals for taking forward the review's recommendations.

  I believe that the response provides a sound basis for the future development of local museum and heritage provision in Northern Ireland.

  I am pleased to be able to commend this joint response by the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure and the Department of the Environment.
  37WS
  Copies of the Joint Response are now available in the Library.

TRANSPORT

  Working Time Directive
  The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Dr. Kim Howells)
  A consultation document on working time limits for the road transport sector has today been published. The proposals will form the basis for transposing the sector specific road transport directive scheduled for implementation by 23 March 2005, into domestic legislation.

  These proposals will provide extra protection for drivers and crew of heavy goods and public service vehicles, who carry out road transport activities covered by the EU drivers hours rules—regulation (EEC) 3820/85. The main provisions of the directive include:
  Weekly working time is limited to an average 48 hours.
  38WS
  Up to 60 hours work can be performed in a single week, as long as the average 48 hour limit is maintained.
  Night workers are restricted to 10 hours working time in any 24 hour period.
  Self-employed drivers will be subject to the RTD from March 2009.

  The consultation exercise seeks views on how the Government should implement the RTD. The document provides a summary of the contents of the directive and sets out the Government's preliminary views on how it should be transposed. Specific issues include the definition of night time for the purpose of the night working limit and the intention to use the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency to enforce the directive. The consultation document also seeks views on whether we should implement the derogations available under the RTD.

  An assessment of the costs and benefits of these proposals is being published alongside the consultation document. Copies of these documents will be placed in the House Library and will also be available on the DfT Website.

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

European Union Legislation
Lord Willoughby de Brokeasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the European Commission remains the appropriate body to initiate European Union legislation.
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, in areas provided for under the existing treaties, the Commission initiates legislation which is then considered by member states through the Council of Ministers. Bodies other than the Commission, including the member states, the European Parliament and the European Court of Justice, may also initiate legislation in certain areas that are provided for in the treaties.
The Government believe that the Commission plays an essential role in implementing the EU's agenda and supports its right of initiative as provided for in the treaties.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, while I am grateful for the reply given by the noble Baroness, does she recall that four years ago I asked a Question of the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, on this subject? Her Answer was:
"We believe that the Commission should be guided by efficiency, transparency and accountability".—[Official Report, 20/4/1999; cols. 1017-1018.]
Is this not a triumph of optimism over reality, given that the Commission is mired, yet again, in fraud and corruption? Mr Kinnock, who was charged with cleaning out the Augean stables, seems to be part of the problem and not part of the solution. He is dealing with the responsibilities in a manner that is almost Hoon-like. Will the Government act to ensure that in future our interests will not be dealt with by a body that is so lacking in credibility?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I first say to the noble Lord that I do not recall the debate of four years ago, but I entirely accept the quotation from my noble friend Lady Symons. On the issues of efficiency, transparency and accountability, we continue to believe that it is important that the Commission demonstrates both things. We fully support the comprehensive reports the Commission is now preparing, and we think that Neil Kinnock is doing an extremely good job. Reform is crucial to modernise the Commission and to improve the way it uses taxpayers' money.
1492
Your Lordships may wish to know that in January of this year Neil Kinnock's review of progress on a wide-ranging human resources package showed that 87 out of 98 reform actions have already been implemented and that the remaining 11 reforms are being fine-tuned before being put into play. Noble Lords will know that we have been leading that reform effort.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend agree with my suggestion that it is almost as ludicrous to condemn the European Union because of some illustrations of fraud as it would be to condemn free enterprise on the basis of Enron?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right: there have been irregularities in the Commission. The recent case happened in the 1990s. The current Commission has been robust in tackling this issue. An NAO report pointed to the Commission's progress in tackling fraud and in putting into place the tools which make that effective. It is important to remember that.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, perhaps I may remind the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, that the directors of Enron are being prosecuted. Is that not a very good idea? Might we move towards prosecuting some members of the Commission who are still mired in corruption and fraud, despite all the excuses that the noble Baroness offered for them?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, it is important that we recognise that serious allegations will be taken through a legal process. Currently, there is an ongoing investigation. There have been three interim reports. The President of the Commission has addressed the European Parliament on this issue. It is being tackled.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, can the noble Baroness assure the House that the accounts, which have been unsigned by the auditors for the past several years, are now being signed?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I understand that the Commission is putting a new financial regulation in place. The NAO noted its timetable of 1st January 2005 for introducing that. Regarding the signing-off of the accounts, my understanding is not the same as that of the noble Lord. I shall check on the point and write to him.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, perhaps [may first say how remarkably well the Leader of the House is looking, considering that she went to bed at 5 o'clock this morning and presumably had a rather short night's sleep. Will she accept the advice that many of us would like to give her that politicians should not work too hard and should make sure they get a decent night's sleep?
I support the noble Baroness on the reform of the Commission. The European Parliament and OLAF are investigating the current status. We assure the Government that these Benches actively support their pursuance of the agenda of Commission reform. Some progress has been made but there is a good deal further

1493
to go. Can we ask Her Majesty's Government to make sure that, with the selection of the new Commission next year, the question of continuing this reform agenda is one priority which the Government wish to pursue?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. A number of noble Lords were still here in this House at 5 a.m. this morning, and I find that we are all looking remarkably fit.
On the noble Lord's other point, the investigation is ongoing. I entirely agree with him that we need to give support to those investigations and to the reform process. We shall continue to do that.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, is not the difficulty that all this ongoing investigation has been ongoing for years? In order to create a stronger enlarged Union—not to undermine it; that is absurd—we must depend upon the Commission being corruption-free and honest. Is not the difficulty that the Court of Auditors has now said that the book-keeping of the Commission is eccentric; that it fails to meet accepted accountancy standards; and that the matter is not amenable to further ongoing negotiations, but to instant action now if we want a strong Commission and a successful European Union?
Baroness Amos: First, my Lords, the European Court of Auditors bases its statement of assurance on a small sample of transactions audited in each of the main budget sectors. Errors were found in the payments sampled in other budget sectors, but commitments and revenues received a positive statement of assurance and the ECA found the Commission's accounts to be reliable, as it has done every year.
I also remind the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that during the past 12 months a new director-general has been appointed; a new financial regulation will be in place as of 1st January 2004; annual activity reports have been introduced; and the Commission has set out detailed plans completely to recast the accounting framework. I agree that much needs to be done, but a great deal has already been done.

House of Lords: Appointment of Peers
2.44 p.m.
Lord Barnettasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in accordance with the Lord Chancellor's Statement on constitutional reform on 18th September, an invitation has now been made to the non-statutory Appointments Commission to make recommendations for new non-party Peers; and, if so, what number, if any, was suggested.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the Prime Minister has invited the interim Appointments Commission to recommend a small number of non-party political Peers.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, it was a strange statement by the Lord Chancellor at the time to suggest that
1494
some more Cross-Bench, independent Peers should be appointed. Does my noble friend accept that at the recent count we already have 179 Cross-Bench and independent Peers, plus another seven "Others", as they are called? Some of them are excellent; some of them even sit here on my Bench.
However—as I always want to try to help the Government—would it not be more sensible and helpful to getting business through the House if the Government considered announcing now that those hereditary Peers who are proposed to be removed were—all who wished—offered life peerages in advance, so that we could proceed with our normal business?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his spirit of helpfulness. As he knows, there is a commitment in our published proposals to the retention of a strong independent element in this House. I can only echo the words of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, when he commented on the hereditary Peers:
"I hope that we shall continue to benefit from the contribution of at least some of them, should they be nominated as life Peers in the future".—[Official Report, 18/09/03; col. 1058.]
That remains the position.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, until 18th September, it was government policy that the party of government and the main party of opposition should, in relative terms of strength, be in broad parity. Since 18th September, that position has changed and the Labour Party now says that it should have a majority over the other political parties. Is that another sign of the Government breaking an undertaking?
Baroness Amos: No, my Lords. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, would like to read again what we said. We said that no one party should have an overall majority. That remains the position, but there are a number of proposals for considering the percentage of votes cast in an election and asking the statutory Appointments Commission, once it has been established, to determine the number of Peers across the House on a party political basis as well as with respect to the Cross Benches.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, can the Leader of the House confirm that it remains the Government's position that they will base the appointment of new political Peers on the share of the electorate at the previous election, which affects the main party of opposition and the effective party of opposition alike?
Secondly, will the Appointments Commission, some of whose members were appointed by virtue of having been outstanding contributors to this House, ensure that all those appointed are informed that they can make a contribution beyond their own expertise to the work of the House? That would be extremely welcome.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I entirely agree with the second point made by the noble Baroness. On her first

1495
point, she will be aware that a consultation document is out. The Government's position has always been that we should consider the percentage of the vote, but we have also asked in the consultation document whether we should consider the percentage of seats that parties hold in the other place.
Lord Peston: My Lords, while echoing the views of my noble friend Lord Barnett on converting the remaining hereditaries into life Peers, which is a matter that we can debate when we receive the Bill, can my noble friend explain why the commission is the body being used to make those appointments? If your Lordships' House has a future—and I hope that it does—it will be as a working House. With one obvious exception, the members of the commission who are Peers seem not to take part in the workings of the House; they seem to have no knowledge of the hard slog—of last night, for example. Where Peers are involved, would it not be better if the appointments were made by Peers who are committed to this House and do its work?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that we currently have an Appointments Commission. Those on the commission were reappointed in July. The Government have proposed that we move to a statutory appointments commission. My noble friend's point about the knowledge that members of that commission should have will be taken into account when we move to that process.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, will the Minister reassure us that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, the chairman of the commission, has rid himself of his prejudice against considering hairdressers? I declare an interest: my father was a hairdresser.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I was not aware that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, had a prejudice against any particular group. It is gratifying to know that the noble Lord's father was a hairdresser.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, while I greatly welcome the Government's indication that hereditary Peers who sit in the House may well return as life Peers—that is within a party's gift—has the noble Baroness any suggestion about how hereditary Peers who sit on these Benches may find their way back as life Peers after the removal of the 92?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, my noble and learned friend made it clear in the Statement that, when time allowed, we would move towards some kind of legislation. As part of the process of taking that legislation through, I have no doubt that such issues will be discussed.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, rather than fiddling around, as the Government are doing, with a
1496
hybrid system, would it not be better if they now decided that it was right to have a fully elected House of Lords and pursued that as a policy item?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that there is a difference of opinion between this House and the other place. We intend to move to the next stage, which involves a fully appointed Chamber.

General Practitioners: Performance Tables
2.52 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they favour the recording and publication of tables of general practitioners' performance in their work in the medical profession.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): My Lords, after 1 st January 2005, the Freedom of Information Act will provide the public with a general right of access to information held by public authorities, including the information held by primary care trusts relating to the work of GPs. We will consult key stakeholders, including the British Medical Association, about the arrangements for doing that to ensure that the rights of patients and practitioners under the Data Protection Act are safeguarded.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. While performance tables are being compiled in some areas, does he agree that although such tables promote friendly competition, they do not everywhere provide choice for patients because there is a national shortage of general practitioners?
Lord Warner: My Lords, there may be a misunderstanding. The issue arises out of the arrangements under the new contract in relation to a quality and outcomes framework, which was agreed by the profession—the profession wanted it. That will show how well GPs are treating patients with 10 common chronic illnesses. It is a method of paying GPs, not for compiling league tables.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, in all the publicity, contrary to what the Minister said, the official tables show that GP vacancies are up by 800 this year and that total GP vacancies are now at 3,500. Is it not grossly misleading for the Government to give the public the impression that they can judge quality in a GP when they cannot even get access to one?
Lord Warner: My Lords, the noble Lord has been joining us in our midnight—and later—activities on the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill. He will know that that Bill will implement a number of major improvements, which

1497
have been agreed by the profession. They will provide an even higher quality of primary care service than we currently have.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, can the Minister offer any explanation of the fact that GP vacancies are up by one-third to, I believe, 3,435 and that deprived urban areas are particularly badly affected?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I did not think that this Question was about deprived areas and GP practices. We are addressing the problems around GP supply. There has been an increase in the number of GPs under this Government. There are some longstanding problems in particular areas and the new contract will improve the quality of primary care widely across the country.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, if details of GP performance are recorded and published as tables, how can we be reassured that they contain an accurate reflection of performance rather than a view of patient health, which varies enormously across the country and which is intrinsically linked to patient poverty?
Lord Warner: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right—any information about performance by any health professional does not necessarily indicate that the health of the general population in that area is improving; wider issues, apart from healthcare, affect the population's health in any particular area.
Earl Howe: My Lords, was the specific idea of GP league tables discussed with GP representative bodies prior to the Government's announcement?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I must try to nail this issue. The idea is getting abroad because there is a proposal, which has been agreed by the profession in the new contract, for a quality and outcomes framework, which will enable GPs to be paid on the basis of the quality of the services that they provide. Incidentally that information will tell one something about the point score under the framework that a particular GP attained in order to get the payment that he deserves as a result of that work. We are merely saying that under the Freedom of Information Act, it is possible that that information could be available to the public. They will have that right under the Freedom of Information Act after 1st January 2005. We will be discussing with the BMA how that information might be made available publicly while safeguarding the rights of practitioners and patients under the Data Protection Act.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, at a time when, as several noble Lords have said, there is a national shortage of general practitioners and when, in the next two years, all doctors will have to cope with a programme of professional appraisal under the rules that are being introduced by the General Medical
1498
Council, will the Minister see to it that the process will not be too administratively burdensome on general practitioners?
Lord Warner: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a perfectly fair point. I remind the House that the contract was agreed by the BMA and that, in a ballot of GPs and with a turnout of 70 per cent, 79 per cent voted to accept the contract. The Government are not forcing a contract on GPs; the Government and the NHS Confederation are working with the profession to agree a new contract. From what I have said, I am sure that it is clear that we will exercise care in relation to the way in which information is made available under the Freedom of Information Act.

State Visits to the United Kingdom
2.58 p.m.
Lord Marlesfordasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will try to ensure that in future any head of state making a state visit to the United Kingdom has an invitation to address both Houses of Parliament.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, each state visit is different and the programme put together is individually tailored to the guest. It is therefore not possible to give an assurance that on all future state visits, visiting heads of state will be invited to address both Houses of Parliament.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, do the Government believe that it is a good thing for visiting statesmen and the Parliaments of the countries that they are visiting to meet each other? I refer, for example, to the highly successful meeting that our Prime Minister had with the American Congress. Does the Minister recollect that we had a very useful and enlightening address when President Yeltsin came here? We had another when President Clinton came here. Does she share my regret that we did not have the opportunity of hearing from President Putin when he came on 23 rd and 24th June, when Parliament was sitting? Can she perhaps ask whether President Bush, when he is here from 19th to 21st November, might fit in a visit to Parliament on the morning of Thursday 20th?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that not all state visits result in an address to both Houses of Parliament. He will know that on average we have two state visits a year. The last state visit to result in an address to both Houses of Parliament was the state visit of Nelson Mandela in 1996. I am sure that there will be an opportunity for Members of Parliament to meet President Bush during his programme, but I have to say that the programme has not yet been finalised. It is always good for politicians on both sides of the Atlantic to talk to each other.
Lord Acton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that under this plan both Houses of Parliament would

1499
have had the privilege of being addressed by President Ceausescu of Romania and President Mugabe of Zimbabwe? Would it not be better to leave well alone?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for bowling that one. I can only repeat my Answer to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. Every state visit is different. It is up to the governments of both countries and Buckingham Palace to make a decision about the programme.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, leaving, if I may, President Ceausescu on one side for the moment, does not my noble friend Lord Marlesford have a serious point? Do not noble Lords remember the addresses to both Houses of Parliament by President Mitterand, President Clinton and particularly that by Nelson Mandela? In my memory, those were great parliamentary occasions. I very much hope therefore that the Minister will put the efforts of the Government into ensuring that there are more addresses to both Houses of Parliament. If that does not happen, I fear a further dumbing down of Parliament, something to which I think this Government are all too readily prone.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord's views, now that they are in Hansard, will be looked at carefully by the Government.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when President Chirac came to the House he was reminded by the Lord Chancellor in the Royal Gallery of all our former historical associations with France? We should be delighted to show our former historical associations to the President of the United States of America when he comes.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, we are delighted that President Bush is coming as I am sure is the whole country. During his visit we will discuss with him bilateral relations with America in terms of trade and investment. For example, as a result of US investment into the United Kingdom in 2002–03, 35,000 new jobs were created. There are a great many positive issues to discuss.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, would not some of these people be extremely boring?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, Parliament has had the joy of listening to many international politicians over the years; some more exciting than others.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that such invitations have been customary if Parliament has been sitting at the time but,
1500
that there are so many sovereign states in the world now—more than 200—that the practice may no longer be possible in all cases?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord. It is not standard practice for that very reason.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that on the occasion of the visit of President Clinton a large amount of electronic equipment was installed in the passageway at the back of the Royal Gallery? When I asked what it was for I was told that it was to keep President Clinton in touch with the Pentagon, so that presumably he could launch World War Three if he felt so inclined. When I said that I found that impressive the American gentleman involved said that it was, but that the only contact he had been able to make was with Westminster Tube Station.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, as always, 1 am fascinated by my noble friend's information.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, many people in this country will be disappointed by the Minister's response. We have a special relationship with the United States and we saw with pleasure our Prime Minister addressing Congress a few weeks ago. It seems a great tragedy that we are not giving President Bush a chance to speak to Parliament and it seems to be only because the Labour Party is afraid of its Members not turning up.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, as I am sure the noble Lord would expect, I have to disagree with him. We have an important relationship with our friends in the United States. That relationship will be well on display during this important visit.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we kindly arranged, I recall, for President Chirac to give a speech to both Houses in between a picture of the Battle of Waterloo and the Battle of Trafalgar. Is it possible for the Government to ensure that there could be a picture somewhere of the burning of the White House in 1812 before President Bush comes to speak?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, very good.

National Grid: Security of Supply
3.5 p.m.
Lord Ezraasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they agree with the view recently expressed by the National Grid that it would like a bigger electricity safety cushion to manage exceptional circumstances.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, in its report on winter operations published last week, National Grid Transco said that it would like a bigger "safety

1501
cushion" if the most onerous conditions occur together. Since the report was published, the "safety cushion" has grown as generators have returned mothballed plant and are making plans to return more. Ofgem is now working with NGT on measures to improve still further the way the market can best deliver security of supply.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, is it not a fact that even with the mothballed plant that has been returned to service there is still a lower reserve of electricity generating capacity than in recent years? Does that not support the view of the National Grid that in exceptional circumstances there could be difficulties? In those circumstances, does the noble Lord agree that special measures should be introduced to stimulate the generating companies to hold a greater reserve than they otherwise might do under normal commercial considerations?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the target has been between 15 and 20 per cent. As a result of decisions taken by companies in the past few months, the figure has already moved up to 18 per cent. If, as announced on 15th October, the PowerGen 650 megawatt unit at Grain comes on stream the margin would exceed 19 per cent. That is within the range of security.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, does the noble Lord recollect that on 8th October he gave those figures in answer to a question from my noble friend Lord Peyton? The noble Lord, Lord Tombs, then asked the noble Lord to distinguish between capacity margin and available capacity margin. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, did not respond to that question by stating which margin the Government are using— what is actually available or some kind of hypothetical figure.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the margin we have been identifying is the one common to all in terms of the figure of between 15 per cent and 20 per cent capacity. That margin has been moving up quite steadily as a result of the increase in prices available to the companies and the indication that extra resources need to be made available. We are moving towards the upper end of the target of security. When the NGT announced that it would like a more secure cushion, it was predicating that against the most extreme conditions that could obtain in the winter. That would require three distinct factors to come together before the system came under undue strain.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, the noble Lord has done his best with the material provided for him by the—I shall not repeat what I said about it the other day—Department of Trade and Industry. I wonder whether the noble Lord could stir the department into
1502
a burgeoning suspicion of whether it has got things wrong and is being a little complacent. I am not accusing the noble Lord of that. I am thinking that it is a habit of mind of the Department of Trade and Industry.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I do not believe that that charge holds water. As soon as difficulties have occurred with transmission on the grid, the department has moved quickly into action with a full investigation into what has gone wrong. For example, the recent incident which caused considerable misery to people in the Birmingham area as regards New Street and parts of the city turned out to be a problem which involved a fraction of a second during transmission. As yet, we do not know the reasons for it. It has nothing to do with under-investment or the adequacy of supply. It was a technical fault which needs to be examined. I and my officials are not in a position to give precise answers as to why that incident occurred until the full inquiry has been carried out.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, does the capacity to which the Minister referred include the Norwick pump storage system, which can deliver 2,000 megawatts in 12 minutes, if it is still working? Is it still going to be valid in 10 years' time or so when the nuclear programme is allowed to run down and when we seem to be relying on the Government's policy on wind farms to fill the gap? Will they really be able to do that?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it is not the case that the Government are relying on wind farms to fill the gap created by the nuclear programme in 2010. As regards wind farms and all renewables, the target is only 10 per cent. It is clear that we shall need to generate and purchase electricity from other sources. That is why quite significant contracts have been entered into for overseas supply of electricity to this country.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord is not being complacent. I speak as someone who has worked in a power station. The 18 per cent margin is the very lowest there should be. Is the noble Lord aware that, since we have not had any very hard winters, maximum demand has not been tested? Therefore, will the noble Lord look further at the figures he has been given? If there is an abnormal winter and abnormal plant outage, I fear that we shall have very severe power cuts in parts of the country.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I recognise the fact that the noble Lord has the advantage of having worked in the industry, albeit a little while back and things have changed quite significantly. I believe that the noble Lord would claim at best old Labour and probably further back than that. As regards the question, the noble Lord is right in that we have been fortunate in having had relatively mild winters in recent years. But I assure him that the capacity can easily and readily cope with the problems of a colder

1503
winter. It would require a number of quite significant factors to come into play before the available margin would cause any real anxiety. The noble Lord said that it was at the lower end of the range, but it is not. The published position was to aim for a target between 15 per cent and 20 per cent. As I have emphasised to the House today, we are moving towards the upper range of capacity.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that he has not answered the question put by my noble friend Lord Jenkin? It went to the heart of the problem. Will the noble Lord leave a letter in the Library, at his convenience, so that we may have the answer?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am happy to do that, although it is a confession of failure on my part if it is thought a letter is necessary to clarify the answers which have been given. The noble Lord has made his point. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, was fairly emphatic on the matter. A letter will be deposited in the Library.
The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, if the underlying anxiety that exists on this issue is a result of the fact that we are increasingly having to rely on sources of supply which are less secure such as imported gas, which unlike oil and coal, cannot be stored, and 10 per cent wind power, what happens if there is a large anticyclone over the country and there is no wind? There are also ageing nuclear plants, which are more likely to break down. When they do, we have discovered that, over the years, that tends to be for longer. Is that not a reason why the historic target of 15 per cent to 20 per cent may need to be made even higher?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate has a point in that we are having to change the basis of the supply of electricity generation. It is the case that we shall import more in future. We hold that situation in common with the rest of Europe, where there is no self-sufficiency in any of the advanced economies. If it is indicated that we are not entirely self-sufficient in energy supply, largely because of the running down of the natural gas fields and so forth, it is a situation we share with others. It is an aspect which we have to take into account with the rest of Europe.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, is it not a fact that we can store gas? There is ample space under the North Sea. All that is needed is the will to do it.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it is true that the technical problems are being overcome and that it can be done. We will need to do it. I am grateful to my noble friend for putting forward a more optimistic perspective on the country's future with regard to energy than that put forward in several of the contributions today.

Business of the House: 23rd and 27th October
3.16 p.m.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, with permission, I should like to make a short Statement about future business. As the House will know, the Committee stage of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill was left unfinished this morning. The intention is that it will be resumed on Thursday morning. That means that the Report stage of the Anti-social Behaviour Bill will then follow whenever the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill is completed. The Report stage of the European Union (Accessions) Bill is rescheduled to next Monday, first business.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the Government Chief Whip for making that brief Statement and doing it so speedily at the first available opportunity so that everyone can rearrange their diaries. We all appreciate the trouble the Government have got themselves into on the timing of legislation and that is another reason to welcome this announcement.
It is worth reiterating that we accept that the Government have the right to secure their business, but last night we sat until five o'clock in the morning, which was seven hours beyond the recommended cut-off of 10 o'clock in the evening. In all conscience we should not have allowed that to happen. I know that the noble Lord agrees that the current problems do not result from actions in your Lordships' House, which is simply doing its job. That is what it is for and that is what it must do. I hope that the noble Lord will recognise the co-operation he has had from the usual channels in what has been an unusually busy Session. After all, good will is a valuable parliamentary commodity never wisely lost.
I hope that both the Government Chief Whip and the noble Baroness the Leader of the House can be assured of our support if they take a much firmer line with departments and business managers in another place to ensure that such a bottleneck of major and controversial legislation does not arise next Session. We cannot continue to sit at five o'clock in the morning.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I, too, welcome the brief Statement from the Government Chief Whip and say in particular that we appreciate that he has done his best to try to meet the problems which the House confronts. I remind him and the House that those problems do not arise only under one government: governments of both parties have consistently found themselves trying to get through more legislation than this House can handle.
Having said that, it is the case that many, many Peers are now being kept for extraordinarily long hours which the 10 o'clock rule suggested would not happen. It is also worth reminding the House that members of our staff, who often have to be here within

1505
a few hours of the moment at which the work of the House ceases, are carrying a huge burden night after night as well as those Peers who are trying to help with legislation.
There is one new factor: as the Commons now timetables all the Bills that pass through it, far more legislation comes to this House without having been fully debated in the other Chamber. The House is therefore faced with the dilemma of whether to undertake the job of thorough scrutiny, which it believes to be its main purpose in life, or to abandon that job in the interests of maintaining reasonable hours. The House should not be faced with that dilemma.
I wish to raise two matters that the Chief Whip might consider. The 10 o'clock rule may not be as effective as trying to reach a particular amendment. It tends to make people feel that they can continue for longer than they might otherwise. Secondly, will he consider closer liaison with his colleagues in the other House so that the allocation of Bills between the two Chambers, and the whole weight of government legislation, could be considered to the benefit of both Houses at a very early stage—that is to say, very shortly before the new Session begins, rather than at the end of the old Session, when we are dealing with an almost impossible load of legislation?
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I am pleased to say that I agree wholeheartedly with many of the comments made by the shadow Leader of the House and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. I repeat on the record and with feeling that I am passionately in favour of this House sitting at sensible hours. It does not aid the Government, the scrutiny of legislation or, as the noble Baroness mentioned, the unfailing goodwill and support of the people who serve us so faithfully in the House. We must bear in mind their interests as well.
I welcome warmly the comment by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that the Government have the right to have their legislation considered—I would expect no less from him. We should remind ourselves that this is a revising Chamber; it does not exercise a veto over government legislation, as I think we all agree. I am sure that all of it will be properly considered.
It is within the power of this House to find the remedy to our problems, which is relatively simple: to find a proper balance between work done on the Floor of the House and that carried out in Committee. We have not yet found that balance in working practices. Floor time is precious; it should be used for major debates and the consideration of major parts of government legislation. It is far more appropriate that detailed consideration take place in Committee.
If humanly possible, I avoid the ritual of abuse between the two Houses that can develop sometimes. It is not helpful from either side. Although the House of Commons timetables its legislation, I venture to suggest that, even should the Official Opposition came into government after the next election—I fervently hope that that will not happen—I would look forward
1506
to seeing them abolish the timetabling system. I would be extraordinarily surprised if they did that. Despite the timetabling in the House of Commons, it spends far more time considering legislation in detail precisely because it goes to a committee. If we did that here, we would consider legislation much more effectively, finish at a sensible time and have sensible Recesses.
I thank fervently the 47 Peers who were present at 4.15 this morning—eight from the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Benches and a splendid 39 from the Labour Benches, to whom I express special thanks.

Sustainable Energy Bill
3.24 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed.

Hunting Bill
3.26 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Hunting wild mammals with dogs]:
Baroness Mallalieumoved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 4, after "he" insert "intentionally"
The noble Baroness said: Perhaps I might explain briefly the purpose of this amendment and the others that will follow during the Committee stage in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Carlile of Berriew, Lord Donoughue, Lord Mancroft and others, to which I have added my name.
As the Committee will know, the Minister in another place who was charged with grasping the nettle that the issue of hunting has become for the Government promised to consult widely, to take evidence from all sides and to produce a hunting Bill that would be,
"based on principle and evidence".
The Prime Minister, too, gave that undertaking. On the basis that the issue would be dealt with fairly, the rural community co-operated to the full with the Minister.
The Minister used as a basis for his consultation exercise the report of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, which the then Home Secretary, the right honourable Jack Straw, had ordered "to inform the debate". On 12th March 2001, after publishing his report, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, said:
"Naturally, people ask whether we were implying that hunting is cruel… The short answer to that question is no. There was not sufficient verifiable evidence or data safely to reach views about cruelty".—[Official Report, 12/3/01; col. 533.]
Significantly, the Burns report also raised the possibility of licensing, which was beyond its terms of remit. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, said during the later hearings at Portcullis House,
"the bulk of the concerns the Burns Report raised about hunting might be addressed through licensing, a regulatory approach or by changing the rules of the hunts".
I know that each of the concerns that the noble Lord raised was dealt with and has specifically been remedied, in so far as it was possible, by the hunts themselves.
In September 2002, the Minister chaired three days of hearings in Portcullis House, with representatives from the Countryside Alliance, of which I am president, the then named Deadline 2000 and the Middle Way Group. Each of them questioned expert independent witnesses who gave evidence. I sat through every minute of those three days. At no point during the six-month consultation process, the evidence of which was helpfully placed by the Minister on the website, or during those hearings, was any evidence presented to justify an outright ban on any form of hunting.
There were, however, three major points of consensus among the experts on all sides during those hearings. The first was that the populations of quarry species would continue to be controlled whether or not hunting was banned. Secondly, the animal welfare experts on all sides agreed with the findings of the Burns report that suffering would occur from alternative control methods and that those often unaccountable methods would necessarily increase in the event of a ban. Thirdly, it was agreed that all species should be given parity of treatment.
In the Queen's Speech last November, the Government promised that,
"A Bill will be introduced to enable Parliament"—
I stress that the word was "Parliament"—
"to reach a conclusion",
on this issue.—[Official Report, 13/11/03; col.3]
The Bill originally presented by the Govt, as your Lordships will know, established a regulatory regime—a registrar who would deal with licensing applications and grant them according to specific criteria. It created three categories of hunting, despite the consensus that had been indicated at Portcullis House: the first related to hunting to be banned outright—that is, deer hunting and coursing. I stress that that was despite evidence to the contrary. Secondly, there was to be exempt hunting, which included ratting, rabbiting and flushing-out for shooting; thirdly, came all other forms of hunting— which had to be registered. In order to be registered, hunting had to pass two tests: first, of utility and, secondly, of least suffering. In some important respects, the Bill did not match the evidence and in some respects the tests that were to be applied were drawn in such a way as to exclude a fair consideration of the application by the registrar.
However, that said, those defects could have been remedied by careful examination and amendment of the Bill as it passed through Parliament. The essential
1508
structure provided by that Bill—a regulatory system for hunting and a framework against which the registrar could consider applications—was, I believe, sensible and with relatively few amendments could have been made into one which was workable, which would have been seen to be fair on all reasonable sides and would, I believe, have had the respect and support of the rural communities to which it would apply.
The public as a whole could have had confidence that hunting was being properly conducted according to recognised and approved codes of practice and that any breach would result in deregulation and the loss of the ability to hunt in future. Moreover, because registrations were required to be renewed, the registrar would have been able to keep under review changing circumstances in different areas and developments in alternative methods in research and in scientific progress.
As the Committee knows, that Bill was seriously undermined in its Standing Committee stages in another place and in July this year, in Mr Michael's own words, it was "wrecked" at Report stage when the provision was turned into a total ban. All references to the hunting register and the tribunal system in that original Bill were stripped from the Bill in a subsequent Standing Committee hearing, and the Bill that we now have received a Third Reading in another place, supported by fewer than half the 659 Members of Parliament.
The purpose of my amendments is to restore to the Bill a fair and workable registration system as envisaged by the Government and, indeed, as promised by them. Many of the amendments—indeed, most of them—will restore word for word those of the original Bill. In some respects, there are changes—and where there are changes, they will be clearly identified so that your Lordships can understand what they are and why they are suggested.
The role of this House must surely be both to seek to improve a Bill and, in this case, to try to ensure that the Government's promise of a fair Bill that is based on the evidence can be kept.
Amendment No. 1 seeks to insert the word "intentionally" into the first line of the Bill, so that it would read,
"A person commits an offence if he intentionally hunts a wild mammal with a dog".
That is a short but important addition to the original Bill. I believe that it is necessary and that the Committee should accept it. Perhaps I may briefly explain why.
Rather extraordinarily, there is no satisfactory definition of "hunting" in the Bill that has been sent to us. The interpretation provisions in Part 3, Clause 11(2) state:
"For the purposes of this Act a reference to a person hunting a wild mammal with a dog includes, in particular, any case where—

(a) a person engages or participates in the pursuit of a wild mammal, and

(b) one or more dogs are employed in that pursuit (whether or not by him and whether or not under his control or direction)".

1509
The definition is not exhaustive; it lacks clarity and there is no indication whatsoever either there or elsewhere in the Bill of what participation may be required to render the accused guilty of what is to become a criminal offence. The amendment provides a clear requirement for the prosecution before conviction to prove specific intent on the part of the person who is accused.
My concerns about the inadequacy of the definition were shared even by supporters of a ban on the Standing Committee in another place. During a debate on this topic, Mr Rob Marris, a lawyer who worked closely with the Minister, urged him to consider the interpretation of that clause very carefully, saying:
"I do not think that hunting is sufficiently well defined at present".
No change was made; and I echo the words of my friend Mr Marris.
Without a requirement that there be a specific intention on the part of the accused, this Bill will create a nightmare for the police and the courts and a field-day for the lawyers. It would presumably be necessary for the courts to develop a definition which relied upon degrees of risk and foresight which, in the context of the activity of hunting, would be extremely difficult. Would someone, for example, who released their dog in a public park, knowing that there were foxes in the vicinity—most of us know that there are foxes in every park in this city—and knowing that that dog had a propensity to give chase, fall foul of this legislation? On the face of it, it seems that he would. At present, there is no requirement on the part of the prosecution to prove a specific intent to hunt, let alone to cause any suffering or to kill.
So, if, for example, an individual acting and believing he was acting in the best interests of an animal by seeking to relieve unnecessary suffering acted in the following way, he might well be considered criminal. Let us take as an example a motorist who hits a fox or a deer and then uses the dog in his car to try to find the injured animal speedily in adjacent woodland or undergrowth. He would appear to be committing an offence under this Bill unless he actually owned the land or first went and found out who was the owner and got his permission; or went first to the police and got their authority. So much for relieving animal suffering as quickly as possible.
Legislation which creates a new criminal offence, as this legislation does, must surely make it clear to everyone when, how and by whom an offence is committed. What is totally unclear from the Bill sent to us by the House of Commons is who essentially is to be criminalised. On a standard day's hunting with a pack of hounds, they are under the control of one person—the huntsman—with possibly one or two assistants acting as whippers-in. The mounted field is there, following and watching the hounds. In addition to the mounted field, there will in many cases be a very large number of people following in cars, on motorbikes, bicycles, on foot or on quadbikes.
1510
On 4th February 2003, during the Committee stage in another place, Mr Michael said:
"Hunt followers who merely observe the progress of the hunters or follow at some distance without themselves engaging in the pursuit of a wild mammal being hunted are not hunting and are not covered by the offence".
That presumably means that followers, whether they are on horses, in cars, on foot or on all those types of bike, who merely watch and follow, will not face prosecution. I should like to hear the Minister confirm that that is so. I have a particular interest in that last Saturday, when I would have said that I went out hunting, despite my best efforts I was not within a quarter of a mile of any hounds doing any hunting for the whole of the day after the meet. Would I have been a criminal?
The Bill contains no definition of participation in hunting, following a hunt or even being a spectator at a hunt. However, the Bill as it stands makes certain circumstances an offence, which cannot possibly have been intended. Some people may take part in a drag hunt so beloved of supporters of a ban. The hounds set out a drag line but then, without any intention on the part of those in control, "go live" when hounds start to follow the scent of a wild mammal. That is not something that is unheard of: it happens frequently. As the Bill is currently drafted, such people would appear to be committing a criminal offence.
Is an offence committed when hounds go out and no fox, deer or hare is found? A blank day is not uncommon. It might be said that the huntsman was attempting to hunt, but that raises questions that are more suited to the Bar finals examination about whether any offence is committed by attempting to do the impossible, even though no mammal will ever have been found let alone chased or killed.
Is it an offence when, as happens so often, hounds follow the scent in the wrong direction, not chasing the wild animal but in fact running away from it? I hope that some of those questions will be answered by the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, that is grouped with this one. I have opted for simplicity. Amendment No. 1 simply inserts the single word "intentionally" and I hope that the Minister will feel that he can accept it. I am encouraged to hope that he will do so in the light of what Mr Alun Michael said in Committee in another place on 4th February 2003. He said:
"The intentions or actions of the hunter determine what is going on. Hunting has an ordinary English meaning … Without that intent, a person is not hunting and is not covered by the offence in clause 1".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee F, 4/02/03; col.735.]
If that is still the Government's view, let us make it plain in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I wish to propose Amendment No. 2, but will first comment briefly on Amendment No. 1. The expertise of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, became very evident in her speech and I have no wish to repeat what she said, but merely to add to her final statement. The Minister, Mr Alun Michael, when discussing the word intention, which is the nature

1511
of Amendment No. 1, said that the intention was to pursue a wild mammal. That was his description originally on 4th February. The definitions were spelled out by the Minister on that occasion during the Committee stage of the Hunting Bill. However, such definitions do not appear in the Bill as presently constituted. In other words, there are no definitions of intention in the Bill. That is a very serious matter indeed.
We should surely ask, "Why not?" when we question how this state of affairs has arisen. Surely the Bill should spell out the intention and the different functions that are taking place. It is not specific in relation to accountability, to which the noble Baroness referred. As the Bill stands, an offence would be committed if a drag hunt sets off on the drag line but the hounds start to follow the scent of a wild mammal—even if the mammal is not present in the area. Surely it should be exempt because the hounds are not intentionally hunting a wild mammal.
Without this amendment, the courts would have to develop a definition that relied upon degrees of risk and foresight in the context of the activity of hunting. Inevitably, such definitions in court would be subjective and not objective because the definitions are not spelled out in the legislation. These are serious matters because criminality would be defined by the court without such a definition coming forward.
Amendment No. 2 tries to define what occurs during a hunt. In line 4, it would leave out from the word "he" to the end of the line and insert,
"expressly encourages a dog to hunt a wild mammal that can be shown to be present, unless his hunting is registered or exempt".
That means that an offence would be committed only if the dog or dogs were not registered to hunt or were not exempt and were being encouraged to hunt without those specific conditions.
I will address two major points: the nature of hunting and the processes that occur in hunting, which are very important. The amendment addresses the lack of definitions for what is undoubtedly a complex activity. For example, in exempt hunting specified in Schedule 1, there is reference to flushing a wild mammal out of cover. That is common parlance in shooting and is something that also occurs in hunting. There is no actual description of "cover". Is it woodland or just long grass? Sometimes a fox will run out into the open from an area of scrub and then back again and so on. When does a flush become a hunt? The lack of proper definitions in the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002 has contributed to the complete shambles north of the Border regarding hunting with dogs. The Scottish Parliament has not banned hunting. It has simply changed the way in which the practice is undertaken. Foxes are still chased, but are now shot as well and in greater numbers. One wonders where the animal welfare benefit lies in that ill thought-out legislation.
Definitions were included in the Anti-hunting Bill introduced in the House of Commons by Michael Foster MP in 1997, but were poorly drafted and found so difficult to improve that they were subsequently dropped. However, if good legislation—and I mean
1512
good legislation—is to reach the statute book, that law must be clear to everyone. It is the dog that hunts, not the human. Dogs will naturally hunt whether a human is present or not. If a dog owner or keeper knows that dogs have a propensity to hunt yet does not wish to do so, what happens if the dog is released from its lead? Clearly, such an action on the part of the owner is intentional. The amendment makes it clear that the prosecution would have to show that the owner "expressly encouraged" the dog to hunt.
The offence in Clause 1 is to hunt a wild mammal with a dog, but what if a wild mammal is not present? For example, one cannot be accused of stealing a car if that car does not exist. Of course, there will be the accusation of intent, but that raises further difficulties. Indeed, I mentioned the example of a drag hunt earlier. A hunt is made up of several sections. The first is when the dogs cast around for a scent. The second is when the dogs have found the scent and follow it. At this point the quarry species probably does not know that it is being hunted. The third part is when the quarry is viewed by the dogs and a sighted chase takes place. The final part is either the quarry escaping or being caught and killed. The question must be, if the intention of those hunting is not clear, at what point will an offence take place? Only when a quarry is sighted? If so, there will be lots of police officers spending a long time following hunts.
Sometimes, however, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said, the dogs will find a scent line but go the wrong way. When that happens the line is called the "heel" line, whereas the direction in which the animal is going is known as the "toe" line. So it is possible that those hunting with dogs are going in exactly the opposite direction.
I should like to make a number of other short points. In the Second Reading debate in your Lordships' House on 16th September 2003, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said:
"Cruelty is justifiable only if the alternative is worse cruelty or there is no alternative in achieving the utilitarian objective".— [Official Report, 16/9/03; col. 892.]
Scientific evidence now exists to show that shooting, the main alternative to hunting, may in certain circumstances result in much higher wounding rates than previously claimed. There is no scientific study other than the flawed study of foxes taken to wildlife hospitals to counter that new evidence. It is the case, therefore, that a simple ban on hunting with dogs will actually make animal welfare worse. It is important to note that evidence.
Comparisons of hunting with dogs and the so-called baiting sports are totally wrong. I am sure that some of those issues will be raised later in the debate. Such comparisons are wrong for two reasons. First, the animal being baited is held captive by one means or another. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, no alternatives to baiting were proposed. The hunting debate has been flawed from the very start in that it has concentrated solely on just one method of control while ignoring the other methods regardless of how much suffering they cause. The Bill sponsored by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, to amend the Wild

1513
Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 is the right way in which to approach the issue. That legislation will give all wild mammals protection from undue suffering in any activity.
I hope that I have clearly spelt out the importance of Amendment No. 2.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I will certainly oppose Amendment No. 1, not least because it is the opening shot which we shall hear reverberate round this Chamber both today and in future debates. It attempts not to revise this legislation but to disembowel a Bill which has come to us from another place. Great play has been made of the function of this House, which I respect. Our function is to examine, to alter and to ask the other House to think again. However, devoid of the rhetoric behind the decision in the other place, the plain fact is that Clause 1 states:
"A person commits an offence if he hunts a wild mammal with a dog, unless his hunting is exempt".
I have waited all my life to see legislation with those words in it. I understand the feeling of Members on all sides of the Committee who do not wish to accept that provision, but it has come to us from the other place.
When I look through the range of amendments, which have been put together strategically and cohesively, it is clear that Amendment No. 1 is intended to lead the onslaught on the integrity of legislation sent to us from the Commons. I realise that that may be to the liking of a great many noble Lords. Because of the arithmetic, I cannot believe that the proposed amendments will not succeed in this Chamber. However, if we send the Bill back to the other place with the proposed amendments, we know the situation in which we will be placed. This argument is not about the issues; it is an argument between the Houses.
I shall not speak very often or for very long in these debates. Those who are perturbed about the time taken up on the Bill may be assured that I will be their ally on this amendment and on others. As a former Member of the Commons, however, it sticks in my craw that the decisions of the other place are being treated so casually by those who want hunting to continue. The issue has not changed. Are you in favour of training one animal, a dog, to hunt another animal, not for food, but for pleasure or leisure or sport or whatever you like to call it? I am against it. Amendment No. 1 is the beginning of the wedge. I oppose this amendment and perhaps every other one that hangs with it.
Lord Crickhowell: I had thought that this was the one amendment on which those in favour of a ban on hunting could join in support with those against a ban on hunting. If the noble Lord who has just spoken had made that speech on the next set of amendments I could have understood what he was about. Here, however, we are simply dealing with the question of the definition of what constitutes hunting. I should have thought that anyone who drafts legislation would want to ensure that they do not have to rely simply on
1514
statements made by Ministers during a Committee stage for such a definition. I should like to give two very simple examples of the problems that are likely to arise.
I very regularly exercise my younger daughter's dog, a charming, delightful whippet. Confronted with sheep, it behaves impeccably. Confronted with any farm animal, it does not consider chasing it. Unfortunately, however, it is not a lawyer. As the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, pointed out, it is dogs that hunt, not humans. The fact is that Sterling—for that is the dog's name—behaving impeccably when it meets a sheep on the Black Mountains, but shortly afterwards sensing that there may be a squirrel, possibly a rabbit or better still a hare in the bracken, becomes almost uncontrollable.
I know that Sterling is inclined to chase those animals. He usually makes a bit of a fool of himself, but off he goes. I suppose it could be argued, as the Bill is drafted, that if I do not keep him on a lead the whole time, I am hunting, because I know that he is likely to go off after the animal. The fact that I walk beside him saying, "Now, Sterling, don't you think about it; behave yourself, would not, I suspect, be a very convincing defence if I happened to be spotted chasing the animal which was in full pursuit of a hare, although it is very difficult in deep bracken to know what it is pursuing.
So I suspect that, without a definition, the ordinary dog owner out exercising their dog in the park—as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, suggested, although I am on wilder country—may find themselves committing a criminal offence. I do not think that that is a possibility that we should consider.
Let us consider the case of flushing out, which has been mentioned. Any of us who have been shooting knows that dogs are put into the wood to put up pheasants, as I understand it, or whatever other birds one is seeking to flush. However, as I understand it, if those dogs chasing through the wood, encouraged by the beaters, suddenly come across a rabbit, fox or any other mammal, as they very likely will, they are then committing a criminal offence. That seems absolute madness. There was no intention that they should be chasing the fox or the rabbits, and indeed the beaters will do their best to get them back to the job of flushing out as quickly as they may. However, unless we have this matter properly defined in the Bill we are going to have a huge doubt about the legal position.
I do not think that we should allow legislation to pass from this House with that kind of doubt hanging over it. I do not think that we should put ourselves in a position of perhaps creating criminals of people who had absolutely no intention of hunting but cannot mount an effective defence. Even the noble Lord who has just spoken may occasionally take a dog for a walk. It is possible that that dog will chase a mammal. I do not want to see him prosecuted either for committing the offence that he hates so much. I hope that we shall support both these admirable amendments.
4 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, and can never hope to achieve the parliamentary distinction and service that he has rendered over a long political life. However, I must take issue with him when he twice referred—I think it is fair to say—to this Bill, rather than to these amendments, as an onslaught on the integrity of the Bill.
If there has been an onslaught on the integrity of the Bill, it occurred in the House of Commons when the original Bill succumbed to an onslaught of prejudice by Back-Benchers. I use the word "prejudice" advisedly. I suggest that the one single issue which might make those of us who are against abolition take the contrary view would be if there was solid evidence that hunting of foxes by hounds was a cruel pursuit. But the evidence—as collected by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, as produced before the hearings at Portcullis House, as submitted by a variety of vets and other people who know what they are talking about, which the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, referred to succinctly—is plain to the contrary. The only method known to mankind of hunting a fox so as to leave it at the end of the hunt 100 per cent alive or 100 per cent dead is hunting by hounds.
Every alternative suffers from a double defect; that is, first, the competence of the shooter or the layer of a trap or poison. Secondly, where there is not an outright death by shooting, trapping or poisoning, there is the prospect of long, agonising suffering. Therefore, I put it to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that he should not continue with a line that, I believe, in all objective truth, has been exploded. In exploding the case of cruelty, the case for abolition has been exploded. I strongly support the amendments that we are now discussing and I strongly support the amendments that follow, which seek to return the Bill to the kind of state in which it was introduced to the House of Commons.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Will the Minister focus closely on the effect of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, which is simply to require that this crime shall not be committed unless it be shown to be committed intentionally? It is quite a sensible legal maxim to hold that there should be no crime without a guilty mind. We have heard passionately explained the reasons why the other place should prevail in its view if there is a conflict with this House. That is because it is elected; its Members are elected.
Will the Minister reflect on this? If he does not provide a clear definition of a crime—as proposed in the noble Baroness's amendment—he is leaving the definition of the crime to the judges. The judges are not elected—not yet, at any rate. Is that what he wishes to achieve, rather than to accept a simple amendment which brings the legislation—whatever its merits or its ultimate effect—into line with the most fundamental maxim of criminal law?
1516
There is just one other matter. The Government have made a big point about being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. It is just a little difficult to claim to be tough on the causes of crime, if one declines to define what is a crime.
Lord Eden of Winton: I support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. In doing so, I should be grateful if the Minister would help me by clarifying the position about what would constitute a criminal offence in these circumstances. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell gave a personal illustration of taking a dog for a walk. I had a similar experience, albeit more than a decade ago.
I remember the experience clearly because I was walking with two dogs along a riverbank. Running parallel with the riverbank was a railway raised on a bank. It so happened that both the bank of the railway and the bank of the river provided the perfect habitat for rabbits. As I said, it was many years ago. Many of the rabbits encountered on that walk were suffering from myxomatosis and were hardly able to move. I shall not describe the nature of my dog because it did not have to be a very athletic beast in those circumstances. Several of the rabbits were caught and we dealt with them appropriately because they were blinded and in the most appalling condition from myxomatosis.
I do not know whether that would fall under utility or under another provision in the Bill. Without the addition of the word proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, it would seem that if my wife and I, who were in control of the dogs, allowed a similar situation to occur today, or when the Bill becomes law, we would be guilty of a crime. That is unrealistic. It is something that goes against any concept of common sense, which is worrying a great number of people.
Many people who are not hunting—I do not hunt— and just go out in the normal course of exercising their dogs and so forth, would experience something like that. I am sure that that happens every day. Anyone who goes into the country must experience similar occurrences to that. Perhaps people in towns do not; although they might in public parks, particularly where there is a surfeit of grey squirrels and now a surfeit of foxes. But in the country it happens regularly. Are those people to be considered criminals? Are the police to be required to pursue them? Are neighbours to be encouraged to spy on them and to report on them? What kind of society is the noble Lord trying to create?
Lord Hooson: While listening to the debate, I was thinking that I have already twice declared an interest in this matter; first, my agricultural activities and, secondly, for many years I represented a county where there was widespread hunting of foxes because they were so much the predators of sheep. Now I have a third interest to declare. I finance my activities as a farmer and as a politician by another profession where I benefited enormously from being able to argue, from time to time, that the meaning set out in an Act of Parliament was entirely obscure and that a different

1517
meaning could be given to it. It was therefore very important that the benefit of the doubt should be given to those clients for whom I was appearing at the time.
That is why it is so important to have clarity in this Act. My old friend, the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, will appreciate that point. In this country, no one should be convicted of an offence—least of all a fairly obscure one like this—unless it is absolutely proven that he or she had the intention of crossing that Act of Parliament. What is proposed in the first amendment, which is a crucial amendment and totally necessary in this Bill, clears up the obvious ambiguity; that is, what constitutes hunting?
Let us take the example of a drag hunt, which is to become one of the approved pursuits. The dogs follow the drag scent, but a different scent may intervene, perhaps from a hare or a fox. The dogs will follow that scent. Is a criminal offence being committed under those circumstances? Should the people who initially laid out the drag scent be prosecuted?
The Minister for Rural Affairs in the other place is, in my experience, a sensible, reasonable and balanced man. During the Committee stage in the Commons he stated that:
"The intentions and actions of the hunter determine what is going on".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee F, 4/2/03; col. 735.]
That is what he intended, but the Bill which has come to this House does not spell that out. Thus the purpose of the amendment is to spell out the intention so clearly stated by the Minister for Rural Affairs but not made clear in the Bill now before noble Lords. The Minister went on to say that:
"The actions and intentions of the hunter determine what is going on. Without the intent, a person is not hunting and is not covered by the offence in Clause 1".
But the Bill does not make that clear. All that this first amendment seeks to do is spell it out.
I am amazed that my old friend the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, does not appreciate this point. Surely it is not the purpose of this House, as a revising Chamber, to give a blank cheque to an obscure Act and not seek to make it clear. On reflection, I think that my noble friend would agree that the first amendment should be accepted. I would be surprised, knowing him of old, if he did not accept that. Similarly, I support entirely the second amendment in the group.
Lord Elton: On the narrow point of intention, I rise merely to remind the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, that at this time of year, although increasingly throughout the year, parks—including London parks—where dogs are allowed off the lead are alive with grey squirrels. If you let a dog off the lead in a London park, you know that it is likely to see and to pursue a grey squirrel. You know also that the squirrel will make it to the safety of a tree first, while the dog has fun chasing it. The squirrel may lose a nut, but no one is the worse for it. However, under the terms of the Bill, you are knowingly allowing the dog to pursue a wild mammal; it need not be a fox.
1518
On other matters I am very much at one with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. In its present form I think that the Bill is wrong-headed and it is the function of this Chamber to ask the other place to think again when it gets something manifestly wrong, in particular when it is doing so in the face of a growing chorus of disapproval from the majority of the inhabitants of these islands.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I should like very much to extend a word of sympathy to the noble Lord sitting on the Front Bench opposite, the Minister responsible for this Bill. I developed this rather surprising wave of sympathy for him during the Second Reading debate, when the noble Lord seemed to be armoured only by his deftness. Perhaps we can derive a strange kind of satisfaction from the fact that he was doing the will of the "second Tony", as one might call him, Mr Banks, who regards this issue as having been totemised.
It is rather a pity that, when the noble Lord came to reply to that debate, he did not mention any word of the speech of his noble friend Lady Mallalieu. Let me quote one sentence from her remarks:
"True democracy ensures fair and proper treatment of minorities and avoids misuse of a dominant position. Its hallmarks are fairness, tolerance and broad-mindedness, which are impossible to find in this vindictive little Bill".—[Official Report, 16/9/03; col. 783.]
I hope that, on this occasion, the noble Lord will find it possible at least to say that he has listened to his noble friend. While I could not possibly ask him to say that he agrees with her, I am sure that he would not be so obtuse as to say he disagrees.
I wish to make one other brief and simple point on the question of enforceability, a matter already touched on by my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew and my noble friend Lord Eden, both of whom have asked how the police can be expected to enforce a law which makes criminal an action which has not been clearly defined.
Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord of one sentence he used in his Second Reading speech on the question of unenforceability:
"The threat of disruption and unenforceability is not one to which the Government or Parliament can or should succumb".— [Official Report, 16/9/03; col. 771.]
I hope that that threat does not feature large in our debates. I want to ask the Minister as clearly as I can— and I hope that he will try to answer my question— whether he is really suggesting that enforceability is a matter of no importance for legislators to consider.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: I support this amendment, to which my name is attached. I say to my good and noble friend Lord Graham that I share the puzzlement expressed by the rest of the Chamber. It seems to me that this first amendment would strengthen the banning Bill, should we emerge with that legislation, because it gives it a clarity and credibility which it would otherwise lack for the reasons that have been explained.

1519
I should like to ask my noble friend on the Front Bench why the question of intention is not addressed in this Bill. He will know better than most that previous legislation in this area has done so. The last major piece of legislation was the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996, which no doubt my noble friend knows word for word. He will know that the opening section states that if someone is doing something "with intent", that constitutes the offence. My own Private Member's Bill seeks to amend that Act in order to curb cruelty to mammals. It states that it is an offence "deliberately" and "with intent" to cause undue suffering to animals.
The Government took over the banning Bill in an act of striking humiliation and capitulation, but since then it has been the Government's Bill and they have chosen to present it to noble Lords as it is. Perhaps my noble friend can explain to noble Lords why the crucial issue of intent is not met.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: I rise to support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. As the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, has just pointed out, I think that we would help the Government if we were to pass the amendment. I say that because in Committee in another place, the Minister responsible for the Bill, Mr Alun Michael, said that:
"The hunt is the intention to pursue a wild animal. Without that, a person is not hunting and is therefore not covered by the offence in Clause 1".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee F, 4/2/03; col. 736.]
Later in that Committee, he said in response to a question put to him by another Member of the Committee that,
"it depends on whether they are hunting".
If people are merely observing, then they are not hunting. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, made the point herself: how is one to separate those who are hunting from those who are simply observing, gossiping or talking to their neighbours and doing what many people do while out hunting? Is it only the huntsmen who are actually hunting, is it the master, the field master, or is it those members of the field within a certain distance of the hounds?
Unless the question of intent is satisfactorily resolved there will be endless difficulties in enforcing the provisions of the Bill. I do not see how anyone can reasonably oppose what is, after all, a very small but important amendment. I hope that the Committee will support it.
Viscount Ullswater: It is right that at the outset of the Committee stage we should debate the intention of the owner of the dog. We have heard arguments—for instance, the one raised by my noble friend Lord Eden—which demonstrate the need to protect the dog walker from inadvertently becoming liable to an offence. The intention of the dog may be quite different to the intention of the owner and the two should not be confused. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, indicated that the drafting of legislation for previous Acts attempted to recognise that fact.
1520
The Bill seeks to draw a very fine line in regard to animal welfare. It is apparently all right to shoot, snare, ferret, fly a falcon or hunt with dogs the rabbit or the lowly rat, but not the four wild animals that are commonly the quarries, of packs of hounds. The welfare of the rabbit somehow is not a problem. My noble friend Lord Eden referred to the occasion when he was walking his dog and came across rabbits with myxomatosis. You can do what you like with rabbits. They are exempted; they do not seem to have a welfare problem.
The Bill is aimed at the hunter rather than at the hunted. How can animal welfare campaigners be so selective as to distinguish between the hare and the rabbit? Many people would not be able to tell the difference between the two species.
Lord Eden of Winton: Rabbits are not exempted in that sense. They are exempted only if they are on land that you own; or if you have permission from the owner of the land; or, if you do not know who owns it, you have taken the trouble to try to find out who owns it. If, in the illustration I gave, I had no idea whether it was public land or whatever on the side of a river, it would not be covered by the exemptions itemised in Schedule 1 to the Bill.
Viscount Ullswater: I accept my noble friend's strictures. I was referring to the welfare of the animal rather than the preconditions needed for hunting to take place.
We do not have a tradition of hunting rabbits with packs of hounds, but in France they do. There are 45 foot packs registered there which are experiencing a rapid growth in popularity, as the Burns report tells us. Where would the welfare considerations of the humble rabbit be in this country if packs of hounds were hunting it? Would it suddenly gain different rights to protect it from hunting with dogs? Once the intention becomes a collective sport it runs the risk of being banned. It is impossible to consider the Bill in terms of animal welfare when such glaring inconsistencies exist.
In any proper regulation of hunting legislation, an intention on behalf of the hunter needs to be demonstrated. I support this simple but important amendment.
Lord Mancroft: My noble friend Lord Ullswater may well have put his finger on the issue. This is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, believes, an animal welfare Bill—it was never intended to be; it is a criminal Bill. That is the problem. Members of another place and casual observers, if such people exist, tend to think of it in terms of animals, but the Bill has nothing to do with animals at all; it is to do with people and their conduct. It is not a pro-fox or a pro-deer Bill; it is an anti-people Bill which creates a criminal offence.
During the Committee stage in another place, it became clear that the Minister had spent an awful lot of time looking at the issue of hunting and consulting

1521
experts, scientists, vets and so on. But what he did not do, I suspect, was to go out to see what happens in the countryside; to observe what lawyers might call the facts of the case; to see what happens when people go out with dogs in the countryside, either with the personal intention of hunting or of going for a walk with their dogs and not hunting. That is where the problem exists.
As with so many Bills, it is a problem of language. You might come up to me and say, "What are you doing on Saturday?" and I might say, "I am going hunting". But I promise you that I am not going to run across a field, barking, after the scent of an animal. I cannot do that. Hounds can do that, dogs can do that, but when I say, "I am going hunting", I get on a horse—I do not wear a red coat, but I could—and I follow a pack of hounds. I do what Mr Alun Michael said in Committee in another place. He stated:
"Hunt followers, who merely observe the progress of the hunters, or follow them at some distance without themselves engaging in the pursuit of the wild mammal being hunted, are not hunting and are not covered by the offence".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee F, 4/2/03; col. 735.]
If in the process of galloping along on my horse I engaged in the pursuit of the wild mammal—or I got in the way—I would be in dead trouble.
In reality, I am an observer. When I say, "I am going hunting", I mean that in exactly the same way as others may say, "I am going to football". They are not going to kick a ball about but to sit in a stadium. The only difference between the person who goes to a football stadium, sits in a seat and watches the game being played, and the person who goes hunting on a horse—both are sitting down, thank God—is that, because the field of play moves rather further in hunting, hunters require a chair with legs. But we are not participants. Clearly from what he said in Committee, the Minister believes that we are. There is a complete misconception.
There is no real definition of hunting in the Bill. It is not as clear as the Minister in another place thinks it is; it is extremely unclear. This means that the provisions in the Bill will be incredibly difficult to enforce. As other noble Lords have said, one of the most obvious problems is that most hunting takes place out of sight and sound of the quarry. When dogs hunt, most of the time they are following an invisible line on the ground. Even the most expert huntsmen are occasionally fooled as to whether they are following a hare, a fox or a deer. Usually they get it right but, although they will not admit it in public, occasionally everyone gets it wrong and the hounds chase the wrong quarry.
Of course, you cannot see the quarry, but if they can be fooled, how will a police constable be able to give evidence in court about what was going on? He would not possibly know. Who will be the expert witness? There will be probably only one at the scene of the crime—the huntsman—and I very much doubt that he will be an expert witness against himself.
1522
The Bill is unenforceable because hunting is not defined. I suspect that those who drew up the Bill did not know how to define it. The Bill needs a definition and it needs an intention. As we go through the Bill we will come across other matters that need definition, but the first and most obvious is that there must be an intention to commit the crime. You cannot mug someone by mistake. You cannot steal a car by mistake and say, "Honestly, officer, I did not mean it. It was an accident. I stole it but it wasn't on purpose".
But you can hunt by mistake. My wife does it every day. She takes out our three dogs and they go hunting. She says, "Stop" and they say, "No", and off they go. That is a reality of life. Technically, she probably commits an offence every day, and I suspect that there are masses of people up and down the country like her. It is essential that we are clear about this.
I have listened to debates in your Lordships' House when criminal justice Bills were being discussed. On many occasions there were arguments about definitions and the precision of language. This is such a debate. It is not about hunting but about accurate law. As it is drafted at the moment, the Bill is extremely inaccurate.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: I support the amendment for the very narrow but precise reason given by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, that it is independent of the wider purposes of the Bill. It is relevant and ought to be part of the Bill, however wide the net of exemption is cast. It is equally relevant for a Bill which bans hunting and a Bill in which certain pursuits are non-exempt. That is the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. Therefore, it is simply a question of good, enforceable and commonsense law. That is the only really relevant point on this amendment.
Earl Peel: No matter what the outcome of the Bill, it is clearly essential that we deliver legislation that will be practicable and workable and which the police can live with, with some degree of confidence.
I am certain that many of your Lordships will have read in the newspapers recently that the police are deeply concerned about implementing certain aspects of the legislation, so it is essential that we attempt to inject as much clarity as we can into the Bill. For all the reasons that have been given so far, I believe it is essential that we do that. I wholeheartedly support both amendments, because either would achieve the purpose we want.
I have listened with great interest to what your Lordships have said so far. The more I listen to what is said, the more I realise just how ridiculous a situation we are in. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell gave us an account of walking through the woods with his whippet. He maintains, and I am sure he is right, that he would have no intention of hunting. But supposing my grandmother, if she were still alive— which she is not—was walking through the same woods with two chihuahuas. Can one honestly believe that it would be my grandmother's intention to allow those chihuahuas successfully to pursue a hare? Of

1523
course there would be no intention. Therefore, if we do not have a clear definition in the Bill, the police will have to be involved in matters which they frankly will not be able to deal with.
One other example that comes to mind is that of a farmer, on his quad bike, going out to gather his sheep. His sheepdog is behind him and it temporarily takes off after a hare. Will that farmer be committing an offence under this Bill? If so, we have reached fantasy world, and we really have to think again.
Lord Palmer: I, too, strongly support these amendments. The noble Lords, Lord Willoughby de Broke and Lord Mancroft, have summed everything up. It is not man that hunts, but hounds. That is a very important distinction and I therefore strongly support the amendments.
Viscount Astor: I thank the noble Baroness for introducing this important amendment. As the noble Lords, Lord Donoughue and Lord Skidelsky, said, whatever one's views about hunting, this amendment is probably required. It is crucial, as it deals with intent.
Like the noble Baroness, I sat through the three days of evidence-taking at Portcullis House, and I welcomed the Alun Michael Bill when it was first published. I welcomed it in principle, although I believed it needed amendments. I followed its rather tortuous process through another place, through its 27 Committee sittings. I noted, too—carefully—the Government's manifesto commitment to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion. I have always understood Parliament to include this House as well as another place.
The Alun Michael Bill was wrecked—those are not my words but his. This House is a revising Chamber and it has a duty, if it so wishes, to ask another place to think again and to revise. This amendment is central to any sensible Bill, in whatever state it leaves this House. In Committee in another place, the Minister, Alun Michael, was asked about intent. He said that if people are merely observing, they are not hunting.
I have read those Committee proceedings very carefully, and I find it very difficult to pinpoint any definition that the Minister made at any stage of the Bill's passage through another place of what constitutes observing and what constitutes hunting. If you are following in a car, are you observing? Surely you must be—you have no control over the hounds. If you are following on foot, what is that? If you are following on a motorbike or a bicycle, what are you doing? Is that any different from following on a horse? Surely such people are observing as well. Who is hunting and who is not hunting? If someone peers over a hedge and looks at the hunt, are they hunting? Have they joined in? What happens if, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said, it is a blank day? Is anybody hunting?
Let us consider drag hunting. As noble Lords have said, should the hounds cross the trail of a fox and suddenly find that is a superior scent to follow, they will
1524
not be committing an offence if they hunt backwards because they will not be following the fox, they will be following a scent in the wrong direction. However, if they hunt forwards, they will be committing an offence. This does not make any sense.
My noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew made an important point. Unless the amendment is considered carefully by the Government, it will be left to the courts and judges to define what is a crime. That point was of concern to my noble friends Lord Eden, Lord Crickhowell and Lord Peyton.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, has a similar intention. I will be interested to hear the Minister's reply to both amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, again asked the crucial question: when will an offence take place? At what point? My noble friend Lord Elton raised the spectre of London and squirrels. It would be an extraordinary effect of the Bill if innocent dog-walkers were suddenly hauled up in their hundreds because their charges misbehaved in whichever London park they happened to be using.
This is a crucial issue of intent. As my noble friends Lord Ullswater and Lord Mancroft said, this is not an animal welfare Bill. It is about people, not animals. My noble friend Lord Peel summed it up well—we must have a Bill that is practicable and workable, and we must try and inject clarity into the process. I believe this amendment goes a long way—probably all the way—to doing that, and I hope that the Government will accept it or give us very good reasons why they cannot. As I said at the start of my remarks, whatever one's views about the outcome of the Bill, this amendment is probably necessary.
Lord Whitty: When I first saw this amendment, I thought this was a fairly straightforward issue. 1 thought the question of intent would be discussed and the only issue would be whether it was necessary to include it in the Bill. I will come on to that point in a moment. However, a number of somewhat wider issues have been touched on, starting with the speech of my noble friend Lady Mallalieu. I therefore, regrettably, feel constrained to make a few general points in my first intervention in this Committee stage. That will give an indication of the way in which I intend to operate during Committee.
Your Lordships will be aware of the position I put to the House at Second Reading. I referred to my personal position, which is not particularly relevant in this respect, and to the Government's view of the Bill we received from the Commons.
I remind the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and my noble friend Lady Mallalieu, that I started by quoting from the Labour Party manifesto somewhat incompletely. Some of you will know that I am rather familiar with Labour Party manifestos, and it has been known that from time to time they contain weasel words, as, no doubt, do those of other parties. However, in this case, it is absolutely clear what it says in the manifesto.

1525
The 2001 manifesto refers back to the House of Commons elected in 1997, which made clear its wish to ban fox hunting. It said:
"The House of Lords took a different view (and reform has been blocked). Such issues are rightly a matter for a free vote and we will give the new House of Commons an early opportunity to express its view".
That has now happened.
The Earl of Onslow: Did the Minister say that the manifesto said that the House of Lords blocked the Hunting Bill? If it did, the manifesto is telling a lie.
Lord Whitty: We are talking about the 1997 Parliament, at which point the House of Lords did not accept the same view as the House of Commons.
The Earl of Onslow: This is incredibly important—
Lord Whitty: I am simply quoting the manifesto, if the noble Earl would listen to me for a moment.
The Earl of Onslow: This is incredibly important. If people say that someone did something when he did not, and it has been shown beyond peradventure that he did not, that is not telling the truth. The House of Lords did not block the Hunting Bill, under any circumstances whatever. It had a slightly different view and time ran out. That is not blocking it, and the sooner that is recognised and the sooner that people do not say things that are not exactly coincidental with the facts, the better.
Lord Whitty: As I said, I am quoting the manifesto. What actually happened in the 1997 Parliament was that, as the noble Earl said, this House took a different view from the House of Commons. The manifesto had given the House of Commons a free vote on its views on fox hunting, as we have given the House of Commons in this Parliament a free vote on fox hunting. That House of Commons has made its view known; the view of the House of Commons was different from the original proposition that the Government put before the House of Commons, but it was carried overwhelmingly clearly, with support in that overwhelming majority from members of all parties in the House of Commons.
The reference to Parliament is thereafter. If the House of Lords now fails to agree with the House of Commons, clearly it will be a matter for the House of Commons where to take the legislation subsequently, and we will in that sense enable Parliament to reach a conclusion.
I do not want us to get ahead of ourselves, but what we are faced with at this point—
Lord Waddington: The Minister is not right even in that. It is not for the House of Commons to decide whether to reintroduce the Bill. It will be for the Government to decide whether they are going to introduce a Bill themselves or give time for a Bill introduced by a Back-Bencher. It is the Government's responsibility.
Lord Whitty: The noble Lord is completely wrong in that respect. Ultimately, the time in the House of
1526
Commons is a matter for the House of Commons itself, particularly in relation to legislation based on a free vote of the House of Commons. It is therefore not entirely in the hands of the Government. It is true that the Government can help that process along or not, but at the end of the day it is a matter for the House of Commons, which has already spoken, and spoken clearly, on what it believes the legislation should provide. That is the Bill before us.
The Government felt that a degree of compromise at an earlier stage might be possible with the original Bill that we put before the House of Commons. In fact, that was greeted with no great enthusiasm by those who wish to defend hunting. Several of those who have tabled amendments today opposed the basis of that legislation. The next groups of amendments that we will debate, which on the face of it purport to reinstate the original Bill, in fact dilute the original Bill very substantially. My noble friend Lady Mallalieu was clear that she felt that the original Bill would not be acceptable to this Chamber and was certainly not acceptable to her.
Therefore, the idea that we have an alternative before us today—the original Bill promoted by the Government as against the Bill presented by the House of Commons—is not actually the truth. Instead, we are faced with a Bill that has been passed by an overwhelming majority of the House of Commons, which is in line with the manifesto commitment and the Government's responsibility to facilitate that Bill passing into law.
Baroness Mallalieu: Is it no longer the Government's intention to continue to deliver a Bill based on evidence, which was the promise that was made both by my right honourable friend Mr Alun Michael and by the Prime Minister and was the basis of the original Bill?
4.45 p.m.
Lord Whitty: The evidence base of the original Bill was one set of evidence. The evidence that was taken into account by the majority in the House of Commons includes other views, and views that some Members of this House undoubtedly query. The fact is that the House of Commons has made a judgment. Although that judgment does not meet with the approval of large sections of this Chamber, it is a fact. If we ignore that fact in this debate we are avoiding discussing the content of the legislation and the potential constitutional impasse that we will be up against. Therefore, we should be dealing with the Bill that is now before us.
Lord Donoughue: I thank my noble friend for giving way. Because he was being interrupted, he may not have conveyed the total contents of the Labour Party manifesto. Will he allow me to tell the Committee what it says? It says that the Government,
"will give the new House of Commons an early opportunity to express its view".

1527
The Minister conveyed that accurately, but then he was interrupted and did not have a full opportunity to read out the following sentence, which says:
"We will then enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on this issue".
Noble Lords: He said that.
Lord Donoughue: I know that he meant that, but I do not believe that it came across as clearly as he would have wished.
Lord Whitty: As a number of my noble friends have said, I read that bit out as well. I said that we are not yet at that stage. Excuse me, I need my glasses—the Labour manifesto needs to be written in larger print. It says:
"If the issue continues to be blocked we will look at how the disagreement can be resolved".
The manifesto says that, in that context,
"we will then enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on this issue".
Parliament can reach a conclusion in a number of different ways, and it is open to the House of Lords to attempt to amend this Bill. I was pointing out to the Committee that, in line with the manifesto and the Government's responsibilities, noble Lords must consider the Bill that is before them. I, in terms of the Government's responsibilities, must make it clear that I—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am most obliged to the Minister and sorry to interrupt him. Did I hear him correctly when he said that the Labour Party manifesto referred to fox hunting and that the Government would give the House of Commons the opportunity to vote? Are those the exact terms? Fox hunting?
Lord Whitty: Yes, they are, and if my noble friend takes the matter further he can no doubt say that hare coursing and stag hunting are therefore not covered by the manifesto commitment. Nevertheless, they are covered by the legislation introduced through the House of Commons.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister again. This is a Bill to ban the hunting of wild mammals, not to ban fox hunting, so in actual fact the House of Commons has gone very much further than the Labour Party manifesto wanted it to go.
Lord Whitty: Yes—the House of Commons, on a free vote, has gone further than the manifesto commitment. However, the core of the Bill and most of the argument in the course of the discussion of the amendment, which does not of itself really provoke such a wide discussion, was focused very much on fox hunting. The fact that the Bill before us goes somewhat wider than that does not undermine the fact that the Government are broadly following the manifesto commitment.
1528
I have engaged in this rather lengthy preamble in order to—
Earl Ferrers: If the Government are following the manifesto commitment, were they not following the manifesto commitment with their original Bill?
Lord Whitty: Yes—the manifesto commitment is to allow the House of Commons a free vote on the issue. That is what we have done. The manifesto commitment is completely fulfilled and has resulted in the Bill that is before us.
I apologise to the Committee for making such a long preamble. However, it is a preamble to me saying that, because of that background—because of the decisions taken by the House of Commons, the attitude that the House has hitherto taken and the amendments that are before us, which are an attempt to substitute at later stages an alternative to the Bill—I am not going to recommend to the Committee that we accept any amendments to the Bill, whether this amendment or any other amendment. It is, of course, a free vote. I am not binding my colleagues on the Benches behind me and I am not attempting to determine that the noble Earl opposite will always oppose me.
The Earl of Onslow: In all my time in this House I do not think that I have ever heard a more arrogant disregard of people's views. It is completely disgraceful that a Government Minister should come to the Front Bench and say that he has no intention of paying any attention to any views put forward in your Lordships' House. That is an abuse of Parliament. I have not yet finished. It is second rate and it shows how low this Government have now fallen. I have been angry before but never so angry as when I hear that kind of arrogant remark.
Lord Kirkhill: Before my noble friend the Minister responds, as a long-standing Member of this House— just about as long-standing as the noble Earl—I say that the noble Earl's intervention just now was entirely disgraceful in its content, its attitude and its expression. I for one take the strongest possible objection to it.
Lord Whitty: I thank my noble friend for that intervention if only because it prevented me responding rather more strongly. I respectfully point out to the noble Earl that I did not say that I would not take any notice of what was said in your Lordships' House. I did not say that I would not recommend the House of Commons to take notice of what was said in your Lordships' House. I said that I would not recommend acceptance of any amendment which is before this House. That is entirely different. That does not seem to me arrogant. It is a matter for your Lordships' judgment whether that is second rate but it is certainly not arrogant.
Earl Ferrers: I realise that the noble Lord does not want to be arrogant and I am sure that he does not intend to be. But if he says that he is not prepared

1529
to listen to an argument to find out whether it has anything in it before saying whether or not it should be accepted, that is being slightly arrogant. Surely the whole purpose of putting down amendments is to hear the argument.
Lord Whitty: I did not say that I would not listen to argument. I said that in the rather unique circumstances in which we find ourselves when both Houses have a free vote, and when the Government, in line with their manifesto commitment, have brought to this House a Bill carried by a free vote of all parties in the House of Commons, it is not the Government's intention to indicate support for amendments to that Bill.
Lord Campbell-Savours: Is my noble friend prepared to tell us what he believes would be the effect of introducing the word "intentionally" into the legislation?
Lord Whitty: We should all be grateful to my noble friend for getting down to the actual content of the amendment. Perhaps we can calmly face up to that. Whether we address the original Bill presented to the House of Commons, the Bill that we have before us or the amendments before us today, it is clear that we are all talking about intentional hunting. The question is whether we need the word "intentionally" in the text of the Bill in order to convey that meaning. This, in essence, is a technical issue. I am advised that the ordinary English meaning of "to hunt" incorporates all the senses of searching for, pursuing, tracking and chasing. According to The Oxford English Dictionary, to hunt means to go in pursuit of wild animals or game; to engage in the chase; to pursue; to engage in; to chase—in other words, all words which convey intention: the intention of the hunter—the human— not the intention of the dog.
It is therefore clear from the normal definition of "hunting" that the dog which runs after a squirrel in the park; people who are not themselves engaged in the organisation of hunting but are simply observers; and people who deal with injured animals, as was the case with the rabbits mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Eden—that is a clear exemption in the Bill under paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 1—or the motorist to which my noble friend Lady Mallalieu referred, would not be covered by intentional hunting. The latter two cases are clearly exempt under the Bill. The advice I have, which is technical advice, is that it is not necessary to insert the word "intentionally" in the Bill at this point.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am most obliged to the Minister, but this debate so far has ranged round countryside pursuits. But, of course, the countryside is not the only part of our country which is involved. We now have urban foxes, squirrels and all sorts of animals coming into gardens. Would someone with a large garden who set his alsatian dog on a fox or squirrels on his property to drive them out be hunting?
1530
If he is not, how does the Minister explain the Bill and what he has just said? If he is, very many more people than think they will may be criminalised.
Lord Whitty: There are exemptions for pursuit of non-specified species on one's own property. If someone has organised a hunt with a pack of hounds, that is intent. However, if someone has let a dog loose in a park, whether urban or rural, that is not intent. That is implied in the word "hunt". The Committee may feel that for the avoidance of doubt we ought to introduce the word "intentionally" into Clause 1. The normal advice from parliamentary counsel and lawyers is that if it is not necessary, it is otiose to introduce it. I make that technical point. I give way.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: I happen to be of the view that we need one or other of these two amendments, whether we are for or against hunting. I slightly prefer the second of the two amendments, partly for the reasons which the Minister gave on whether intention would be implied anyway. Can the Minister explain how I can achieve the result I want, which is to vote for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, rather than Amendment No. 1, because presumably if we pass the first amendment, the second will fall?
Lord Whitty: That is probably a matter for the House authorities rather than me. If the first amendment is pressed to a vote and is passed, no doubt we would be advised whether the second amendment would then fall. However, as I say, that is not a matter for me.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: Best of all, of course, would be if we could combine the two amendments, but it may be too late to do that now. I suspect that would suit everyone—those who are for hunting and those who are against.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Before the Minister responds to the debate, I am a relatively new Member of this House compared with some who have spoken, and I do not know in what status the debate on this Bill is left if the Government are saying that, regardless of the merits of what is said on any amendment, they will not accept them. It seems to me a bit like a judge who says, "I will listen to you but I have made up my mind about your guilt". I am trying to make clear what is the purpose of the debate that is to follow if the Government have a closed mind on the amendments that will be put forward.
Lord Whitty: The purpose of the debate is for the Committee to decide what its view is on a free vote. All I said was that in the circumstances in which we find ourselves the Government are not suggesting support for any amendment which is on the Marshalled List today.
Lord King of Bridgwater: Before the Minister sits down, I listened very carefully to his final sentence. Is

1531
he saying that the Government will not support any amendment that is due for debate today—any amendment on the Marshalled List? I shall have to advise certain conservation groups as well as others who are not particularly involved in the debate for or against hunting but which think that the Bill could be improved. Am I to tell them that it is not worth tabling amendments?
Lord Whitty: Of course it is worth tabling amendments for debate in this House where the House will have a free vote. The House of Commons will then have to consider its view of any amendments which are carried by this House. The only point that I make today is that the Government do not advocate amendments to the Bill as it stands. On a clause-by-clause basis, that is a pretty usual position for the Government to take in this House when we are dealing with a Bill from the House of Commons.
The Earl of Onslow: It is not.
Lord Whitty: On a clause-by-clause basis, it is a very common position for the Government to say that we do not recommend acceptance of an amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: It is not.
Lord Whitty: Will the noble Earl please not interrupt from a sedentary position?
The Earl of Onslow: What the Minister says is not true.
Lord Whitty: The noble Earl is constantly accusing me of telling untruths. Will he please withdraw that comment?
The Earl of Onslow: Time after time, governments of all parties have said that they will take amendments away and look at them because they have listened to what people say on the Floor of this House. The noble Lord is saying, "I have come in with my mind like a steel trap. I do not have the faintest intention of listening to anything that anyone says".
5 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: I shall try to introduce a voice of moderation. When the Government disagree with an amendment moved by a noble Lord, wherever he stands in the House, do we not have the right to vote on it? He has the right to divide the House. If the House then agrees to that amendment, the Bill is altered.
Lord Whitty: Precisely. In this circumstance, we will have a free vote. The Government's position is normally to indicate to our supporters how to vote, whereas it is not my intention to recommend accepting any of the amendments, for the reasons that I have spelled out. We are in free-vote territory, although the noble Earl may not understand that. It is a somewhat unique position.
1532
I should clarify a point made earlier on the procedure: Amendment No. 2 would be called even if Amendment No. 1 were agreed to.
Earl Peel: I accept that the noble Lord has closed his mind to the debate, but it is normal practice for a Minister at least to answer the questions put to him on an amendment. In this case, some of them are technical and need clarification. I hope that he might at the very least consider doing that, as it is the normal practice of this House.
Noble Lords: He has.
Earl Peel: I do not believe that he has for one moment.
I want to go back to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, as it is very important. He asked a question about someone putting their dog on to a fox in, let us say, a garden. I think that I am right in saying that the Minister said that that would not be hunting. However, the Bill states:
"A person commits an offence if he hunts a wild mammal with a dog".
As we have no definition of "hunting" I suggest that, as the Bill stands, that individual could find himself in some difficulty if a prosecution occurred. Will the Minister clarify that?
Viscount Astor: Before the Minister answers, I would be grateful if he would address who is hunting and who is not. I made the point about foot-followers and people in cars. What is their position? I would be grateful for his explanation, as he has not addressed the issues.
Lord Whitty: Whether or not we incorporate "intentionally", the intention of the clause is to deal with humans who intentionally hunt. Anyone who is involved and is part of the organisation of the hunt seems to me to qualify for "hunting". Anyone driving in a car or watching from a distance who is not part of that hunt in normal circumstances would not be deemed as hunting.
Lord Elton: The Minister—
Lord Whitty: I would like to answer the noble Earl, Lord Peel. I did not say that "hunting" did not include such circumstances in answer to my noble friend Lord Stoddart, but that there were a number of exemptions relating to hunting of animals on one's own land that relate to Schedule 1 on rats, rabbits and, in certain circumstances, hares. The precise position to which he referred is not covered by those exemptions, but many equivalent situations would be.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord's answer leaves quite a lot in doubt. Large numbers of followers on foot, in motor cars and on bicycles subscribe and belong to hunt supporters' clubs. Does that imply intention? Are they caught? Should that not be plain in the Bill? Perhaps the amendment would not make it plain, but

1533
a provision on that is surely needed. It needs to be proposed to the other place before we have finished with the Bill, so that it has the arguments before it in green and black.
Lord Whitty: The intention to hunt means engaging in the activity of hunting, not of driving a car down country lanes. There may be some grey areas that would have to be determined by the courts, but in general the definition is pretty clearly the intention to participate in a hunt.
I shall go back to the intervention of the noble Earl, Lord Peel. The principal amendment relates to "intentionally". To say that I have not replied to that point takes the biscuit. I have been replying to it for nearly 30 minutes. I continue to intend to reply to the debate. If it will help the Committee to have my interpretation on issues raised by the amendments, I will give that. All that I say is that I will not, at the end of that, recommend acceptance of any amendment before us today.
Lord Brittan of Spennithorne: With regard to the question raised by my noble friend Lord Peel, the Minister may have been a little rapid in his final answer. He conceded that the exemption that would mean that someone was not guilty if he hunted a rabbit on his own land did not apply to a fox. Is he not saying that my noble friend is absolutely right and that, in the circumstances that he described of setting a dog on a fox in one's own land, one would be guilty of the offence?
Lord Whitty: That is consistent with what I said in relation to foxes. However, some species are exempt under the Bill. The question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, was actually in relation to squirrels, and that may also require some clarification.
Lord Waddington: I am sure that the noble Lord would want to be entirely frank with the Committee. Is not the position this: he is not prepared to accept any amendment, even one recommended as necessary by a noble and learned Lord, because if the Government did so and the Bill did not become law this Session, the consequences of the Government having accepted such an amendment here and in the other place would be that they could not use the Parliament Act if the Bill were rejected next Session? That is the truth of the matter.
Lord Whitty: No. I have argued that the Committee should not get ahead of itself. Let us find a way through the matter without necessarily pre-empting all the subsequent stages that the House of Commons—I repeat, the House of Commons—might take. Were I to take the noble Lord's advice and accept every
1534
amendment recommended by a noble and learned Lord, the Government would find themselves in serious trouble.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: The noble Lord is saying that he will not accept any amendment. Is he also saying that he will not reject any amendment?
Lord Whitty: In Committee, we have a free vote. It is not down to me to accept or reject. I wish to hear the debate. As it happens, I do not propose to vote either way in Committee. What I do at subsequent stages depends how the House decides on the various amendments now and in future. All that I say today is that there is no amendment in the Marshalled List that the Government are prepared to advise the Committee or any Member of the Committee to accept.
The Earl of Caithness: Will the Minister clarify a point that he made earlier? He seemed to say that the dog of the daughter of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell would not be hunting if it went off when taken for a walk. Then he said that the provision would prevent hunting by packs. I cannot find a definition of "pack" in the Bill. What is the Minister's definition?
Lord Whitty: It is not a question of numbers of dogs; it is a question of intention to hunt.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I must return to the question of the householder who sets his dog on a fox which might invade his garden or on squirrels, hedgehogs and all kinds of wild mammals which might do so. It is an important point.
The argument has revolved around fox hunting but has widened. There seems always to have been an argument between the town and the country and the Bill appears to put the townies at risk, too. From what I heard the Minister say, 1 understand that the person who sets an Alsatian or any other kind of dog on any wild mammal other than those exempted under Schedule 2 will be committing an offence. It is important that every householder in this country, particularly if he has a large garden in an urban setting, understands that if someone goes out and reports him for setting his dog on foxes, squirrels or other wild animals not exempted, he may well be committing a criminal offence and he can be arrested, arraigned and fined £5,000.
The matter must therefore be clarified and that may well require an amendment to Schedule 2. If so, will the Minister still say he is not prepared to recommend the acceptance of an amendment which will protect people living in the urban environment that I have described?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am trying very carefully to be as reasonable as possible. My noble friend the Minister has sat down five times before someone has asked for an intervention "before the Minister sits down". I have absolutely no desire to stifle questions or debate at all, but I sense from all sides of the Committee that Members are beginning to feel that questions are being repeated merely because

1535
the questioner does not like the answer. Noble Lords would be delayed a long time were that practice to grow and continue.
Viscount Astor: I should be happy for the Minister to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and then to hear from the noble Baroness. But it is Committee stage and it is important that the Minister gives us full replies.
Lord Whitty: I am grateful for the support of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, in these matters. I thought that I had given a full reply. I said that where a person intentionally unleashes a dog or dogs on a mammal which is not exempted under Clause 8, it could constitute hunting under the Bill. Some of the examples which have been thrown at me fall under that category and some do not, but in relation to foxes it will include activity on one's own land.
Baroness Mallalieu: I shall not delay the Committee any more than I have to, save to thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. Given that the Minister has said that intention is the key to criminality, I am profoundly surprised that that word appears nowhere in the Bill.
I had not thought that I would be unleashing a tide of slightly intemperate exchange when I introduced what seemed to me an amendment to which no one could take exception, whichever side of the debate they were on. Whatever course the Bill takes—whether regulatory or a ban—it seemed that it would be improved by clarifying the nature of the criminal offence that had to be proved.
The Minister said that the amendment is unnecessary. Presumably, it would have been possible for him to accept that word on the face of the Bill and avoid a considerable debate. No doubt it would have speeded up our deliberations.
I have very much in mind what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, said. I, too, am attracted by the second amendment, but I propose that the Committee should consider the first. For that reason, I wish to test the feeling of the Committee.
5.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 271; Not-Contents, 58.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Attlee, E.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Barker, B.

Ampthill, L.

Barnett, L.

Armstrong of Ilminster, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Arran, E.

Belstead, L.

Ashcroft, L.

Best, L.

Astor, V.

Biffen, L.

1536

Blackstone, B.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Blackwell, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Blaker, L.

Hayman, B.

Blatch, B.

Henley, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Higgins, L.

Bowness, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Boyce, L.

Hoffmann, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Hogg, B.

Bragg, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Bramall, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Brennan, L.

Hooson, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Howe, E.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

Howe of Aberavon, I..

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Howie of Troon, L.

Brookman, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Hussey of North Bradley, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hylton, L.

Burnham, L.

Inge, L.

Buscombe, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Byford, B. [Teller]

Jacobs, L.

Caithness, E.

James of Holland Park, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Jauncey of Tullichettle, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Jopling, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Kimball, L.

Carrington, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Carter, L.

Kingsdown, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Kingsland, L.

Chester, Bp.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Chorley, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Cobbold, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Coe, L.

Lane, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Colwyn, L.

Lewis of Newnham, L.

Condon, L.

Lindsay, E.

Cooke of Islandreagh, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Courtown, E.

Lipsey, L.

Cox, B.

Listowel, E.

Craig of Radley, L.

Liverpool, E.

Crathorne, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Lloyd of Berwick, L.

Croham, L.

Lucas, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Luke, L.

David, B.

Lyell, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market,

Denham, L.

L.

Desai, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L

Donoughue, L.

MacLaurin of Knebworth, L.

Eames, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Mallalieu, B. [Teller]

Eden of Winton, L.

Mancroft, L.

Elder, L.

Mar, C.

Elton, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Erroll, E.

Marlesford, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Marsh, L.

Falkland, V.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Feldman, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Fellowes, L.

May of Oxford, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Methuen, L.

Fowler, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Gavron, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Geddes, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Geraint, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Monson, L.

Golding, B.

Montrose, D.

Gray of Contin, L.

Moran, L.

Greenway, L.

Moser, L.

Grenfell, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Habgood, L.

Naseby, L.

Hanham, B.

Neill of Bladen, L.

1537

Newby, L.

Sharman, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Sharples, B.

Nickson, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Noakes, B.

Sheppard of Didgemere, L.

Northbourne, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Northbrook, L.

Simon, V.

Northesk, E.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Skidelsky, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Slim, V.

Oliver of Aylmerton, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Onslow, E.

Stallard, L.

Palmer, L.

Stern, B.

Palumbo, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Stewartby, L.

Parkinson, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Strange, B.

Peel, E

Strathclyde, L.

Peston, L.

Swinfen, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Taverne, L

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Tebbit, L.

Plumb, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Plummer of St.Marylebone, L.

Tenby, V.

Prys-Davies L

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Randal of st. Budeaux, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Rawlings, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Reay, L.

Tombs, L.

Redesdale, L

Tordoff, L.

Redesdale, L.

Trumpington, B.

Rees, L

Tugendhat, L.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Ullswater, V.

Renton, L.

Vinson, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Vivian, L

Richardson of Duntisbourne, L.

Waddington L

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Wade of chorlton, L.

Rogan, L

Wakeham, L.

Rooker, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Roper, L

Walpole, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Sainsbury of Preston Candover,

Warnock, B.

L.

Weatherill, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Wilcox, B.

Sandberg, L.

Wilkins, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Sandwich, E.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Scott of Foscote, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

Seccombe, B.

Winston, L.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Worcester, Bp.

Selsdon, L.

Wright of Richmond. L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Amos. B. (Lord President)

Fookes, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Goudie, B.

Avebury, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Bach, L

[Teller]

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Berkeley, L.

[Teller]

Billingham, B.

Grocott, L.

Brett, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Harrison, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L

Haskel, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Hattersley, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Dholakia, L.

Hoyle, L.

Dixon, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Islwyn, L.

Dubs, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Jones, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Fearn, L.

Laird, L.

1538

Lockwood, B.

Puttnam, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Sheldon, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Morgan, L.

Thornton. B.

Morris of Manchester, L

Walmsley, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Nicol, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Orme, L.

Whitaker, B.

Pendry, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.32 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes): Before calling Amendment No. 2, I must advise the Committee that, if it is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 3 due to pre-emption.
Lord Livsey of Talgarthmoved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 4, leave out from "he" to end of line 5 and insert "expressly encourages a dog to hunt a wild mammal that can be shown to be present, unless his hunting is registered or exempt"
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Mallalieu: We were unaware of the result of what was said a little earlier—that is, that Amendment No. 2 would result in a pre-emption of Amendment No. 3. Can that be checked because I believe that I and other Members of the Committee were not aware of it? I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, was aware of that.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: It was stated very clearly for the benefit of the Committee. The Deputy Chairman of Committees made it plain that, if Amendment No. 2 were carried, Amendment No. 3 would not be called through pre-emption. It was clearly heard and Amendment No. 2 was moved and agreed to.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: It does not seem to me that Amendment No. 3 can arise because the word "registered" is included in Amendment No. 2. Therefore, as I understand it, the noble Baroness should be perfectly happy.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Mancroftmoved Amendment No. 4:

After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
"REGISTERED HUNTING
(1) Hunting by an individual is registered if he is the subject of individual registration in respect of—
(5) (a) wild mammals of the species hunted, and
(6) (b) the area in which the hunting takes place.
(2) Hunting by an individual is also registered if—

(a) he participates in hunting by a group,

(b) at least one of the group is registered under a group registration in respect of—

11 (i) wild mammals of the species hunted, and
12 (ii) the area in which the hunting takes place, and
15 (c)his participation in the hunting is recorded under arrangements made in pursuance of section (Automatic conditions of group registration) (5).
(3) Hunting by an individual is also registered if—

(a) he participates in hunting by a number of individuals, and

(b) one of the individuals is the subject of individual
registration in respect of—

20 (i) wild mammals of the species hunted, and
21 (ii) the area in which the hunting takes place, and
(c) the condition of registration imposed by section (Automatic conditions of individual registration) (5) (maximum number of hunters) is complied with.
(4) In this Act—
"group registration" means registration under Part (Registration) pursuant to an application under section (Application on behalf of group), and
"individual registration" means registration under Part (Registration) pursuant to an application under section (Application by individual)."
The noble Lord said: In her opening remarks the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, helpfully pointed out to the Committee the purpose of the bulk of the amendments that she, the noble Lords, Lord Donoughue and Lord Carlile, and I intend to move. The purpose of the amendments is to return the Bill to its original architecture, as it was when the Government introduced it to the other place.
In answering the first amendment, the Minister in the rather sad, heated exchanges that took place at the end of the debate—untypical of this House and I hope that they will not be repeated during the course of the Bill—made it clear that he found himself in unique circumstances. The Minister is right; these are unique circumstances.
Last December the Government introduced a Bill into the House of Commons—a government Bill, not surprisingly—and as the noble Baroness explained, that Bill was not just changed at Report stage in another place, but completely wrecked. Those were the Secretary of State's words and the Minister's words. The Bill arrived in your Lordships' House in a very different state from that which the Government intended. At the very earliest opportunity the Minister, in answering the many questions and points raised from all sides of the Committee, has said that realistically the Government do not have a view. He said that he would listen to the amendments but he would not advise the Committee whether to accept them or not. However carefully one listened to what he said, it was difficult to discern what the Government now want. They have produced a Bill but they have lost their Bill, although they still claim it is their Bill and now it has come here.
I do not think that any Member of the Committee wishes to be unreasonable, but we have received no guidance from the Government at all on the Bill: whether they want it; whether they do not want it; or whether they want it changed or amended. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, suggested the best route forward, which is to return the Bill to its original form, based on the principles that stemmed from the
1540
evidence. It is worth remembering that the Government commissioned the report of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, at considerable cost in terms of time and effort from a great number of people—experts, the general public, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his team, my noble friend Lord Soulsby and others. They then engaged in a massive consultation exercise at great expense and trouble—I hate to think what it cost the public purse. They made their views, intentions and plans public; they debated them, discussed them, met all the groups, took all the matters forward and produced a Bill.
The Government now appear to have abandoned that Bill. They have abandoned it not because that was the Government's policy nor because of the improvements that the House of Commons has made to it, but because both the Secretary of State and the Minister have made it clear that the Bill that we now have, or had when it came into this House, is wrecked. Other words that were used are "unenforceable" and "unworkable". That Bill has been dumped in your Lordships' laps without any hint of what the Government think we should do with it, except to leave it alone.
I suppose that the only thing we can reasonably do—like the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, we wish to be nothing but reasonable—is to attempt to proceed and to give the Government the Bill that they started with, that they wanted, that they planned and consulted for, that they spent money on and that they worked for all that time. We can give it back to them in the best and most reasonable way that we can. I cannot see that we can do anything else.
In the first amendment the noble Baroness looked at definitional and criminal: problems. Before doing so, she went through the history of how we have reached our present position. The two previous Bills—the one introduced by Mr Foster in the other place in 1997 or 1998 and then the Government's "options" Bill—were primarily Bills to ban this particular activity—hunting. However, badly or well it may have been defined, that was the object—a ban.
The significant factor from a political point of view is that those Bills were supported by the Prime Minister. He may not have voted for them quite as often as he thought he did. We know he has a problem with fact and fiction, but we shall gloss over that. We know that if he had thought about voting he would have. Let us not make a fuss about that. He supported them. The Deputy Prime Minister, the then Secretary of State of that department, Mrs Beckett, and the Minister who sponsored this Bill, supported both those banning Bills.
We then had the report of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, the public consultation, the Portcullis House hearings and everything that went with it, which, as the noble Baroness said, was in the public domain. The result was a Bill which centrally did not ban the activity. The reason for that is that all that consultation, all those public hearings and the Portcullis House hearings recorded quite clearly that there is not a reasonable, legitimate case for a ban. The Government recognised that, whether or not they liked to admit it. Therefore, the Prime Minister,

1541
the Deputy Prime Minister, and the Secretary of State, Mr Michael, put their names to a Bill which was publicly based on principles which stemmed from the evidence which showed quite clearly that you cannot ban this activity.
So, in principle, this Bill and the Bill in its original form are completely different. One had the principle of a ban, which was supported by those people as such. This Bill, when it came into the House of Commons, was completely different. It did not have that ban because they could not justify it. Now, thanks to the activities and behaviour in the House of Commons we have a Bill with the principle at its heart torn out. That is the Bill we have and the one with which we have to deal.
It seems to me and to other noble Lords that the way, therefore, to deal with the issue is to put back the registration process. The registration process allows hunting in regulated form to continue. That removes the ban. By removing that registration process in another place the Back-Benchers turned the Government's Bill into their own toy. I do not know what we should do because we are receiving no guidance from the Government. However, it seems to me that the responsible thing for this Chamber to do is quietly, responsibly and gently to put back as best we can the principle that the irresponsible Members in another place ripped out. We like to be helpful.
Registration was put in the Bill in the first place because all the evidence pointed—and it is very important to make this single point—to the fact that hunting is not cruel. The supposed reason why people have wanted for years to ban hunting is that it is cruel. In fact, one of the most interesting things about this process since 1997—the Burns report, the Portcullis House hearings and all the consultation—is what the evidence has shown. For example, the Portcullis House hearings brought together experts for the first time. They were asked to explain and to express in public what their views on welfare were and how these things work—difficult questions.
I have been involved in this debate now for many years. If I have not met those scientists personally, I have read their works. I know that many of the leading welfare scientists in this country were never particularly keen on hunting. They were not very interested or thought that it was not a significant welfare issue. I suspect that quietly they were not very keen on it.
During the public hearings, those scientists were questioned, asked to present papers and to think about these issues. It was very interesting to see so many of them move their views. Those views are still moving. There is, as the noble Lord, Lord Burns, says in his report, an extraordinary shortage of accurate science in the relevant areas. But there is a little. Most, if not all, of it produces evidence that comes down to the fact that hunting is not actually very cruel. It does not appear to cause a great deal of stress. It certainly measures up extremely well when compared with other methods.
Most of these things are extremely difficult to measure. The noble Baroness talked about the principles that emerged from the Portcullis House hearings. One matter upon which virtually all the scientists were agreed was that you cannot actually measure suffering. It is impossible to measure the suffering of a fox being hunted, compared with a fox being shot at, poisoned or snared. There is no barometer of suffering to which we can refer. If one asks scientists to talk about what they know about stress, distress and animals' reactions, they will say, "Well, actually, the more we think about it, the more we realise that hunting is probably the least stressful, the least distressing and causes the least suffering". The debate is slowly moving in that direction.
Two substantive pieces of science have appeared in the past six months. The Middle Way Group's report on shooting came down enormously in favour of hunting, not I may add because shooting was bad, but because of best practice. Foxes shot by qualified people who know what they are doing is an extremely good method of control. In some areas it is the only method of control. Equally, if done badly—as is anything done badly in this world—it is not a good idea. That is one of the points that the Middle Way Group has been making. I never focused on it at the beginning, but of course it is right. It is not a question of all shooting being good or all hunting being bad or all anything being good or bad, it is about best practice. One of the original Bill's problems is that it does not take any account of that at all.
Casting one's mind back to what the noble Baroness was saying earlier, one thing the noble Lord, Lord Burns, makes clear in his report is that most of the problems with hunting would best be dealt with by regulation, by changing the way hunting is carried out. Most internal changes to do with hunting that could be carried out now have been. I have no doubt that there will be more in the future. The issue is about better regulation, not about banning.
The point that we had reached when the Bill appeared was that a ban was not justified. The Bill starts rather strangely with the fact that hunting is banned unless it is exempt. The exceptions are exempt hunting and registered hunting. That is an unusual roundabout way of going about things. The fact is that it was registered hunting that comprised the bulk of the Bill introduced way back in December of last year, which we are now looking at in the third week of October, after the Government have spent so long dragging it tortuously and rather incompetently through both Houses.
We shall be looking at the different aspects of suffering and at the tests in registration later on in Committee. Those subjects are not for today. The centre of the original Bill was the registration process. The amendment—the first on this subjects-defines who may be registered, not the qualifications, or how or what they have to do.
There are two distinct groups of people to be registered. There are individuals who may be registered. Although the bulk of the debate in the popular press and

1543
certainly in the House of Commons concerns people with red faces and red coats, the vast majority of hunting in this country—I suppose 90 per cent—consists of individuals hunting with their own dogs and on their feet. So, as with so much of this debate, ignorance and prejudice pushes the wrong parts of the subject to the fore. The reality is that most people who will seek registration under the Bill, if it ever becomes an Act, will be individuals.
So there are two categories of people to be registered: the first is individuals; the second is groups. As I said, this is the first of a tranche of amendments intended to reintroduce the registration process—to give back to the Government the Bill that they introduced. I hope that when they get it back they will be pleased and like the Bill that we have given back to them—doing their work for them; I am always happy to do that.
I hope that we can take some of the heat out of this debate, because that is what your Lordships are best at doing and what your Lordships are here to do: to revise or amend Bills that have got into a muddle on their way through the House of Commons. I do not think that it is controversial to say that on its way through the House of Commons, this Bill got into an awful muddle, but with this amendment, I hope to start to return it to a workable piece of legislation. I beg to move.
Baroness Byfordmoved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 4, Amendment No. 5:
Line 5, leave out "the" and insert "one or more"
The noble Baroness said: This group of amendments are amendments to the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Mancroft. At the outset, I should say that I support his Amendment No. 4, which brings important matters before the Committee. If I may, I shall speak first to the amendments individually and explain my reasons for tabling them, before returning to make a few more comments on Amendment No. 4.
I move amendment No. 5, but speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 9 and 14, because they all fall under the same banner. The amendments would enable an individual or group registration to apply to hunt more than one species of wild animal. The Bill as drafted may be read to provide that registration is permitted to an individual or group in respect of only one species. There was a substantial debate on that in another place.
Most hunts currently recognised by one of the official hunting associations are of quarry species—in other words, those hunts registered with the Masters of Foxhounds Association hunt foxes. However, gamekeepers use dogs to hunt a wide variety of wild animals as part of their species management activities. As the National Gamekeepers' Association notes, about 4,000 gamekeepers regularly use their dogs in the necessary control of fox, mink and stoat. The same gamekeepers on occasion use their dogs in pursuit of deer.
Gamekeepers could find that they had to make three applications for fox, mink and stoats. That is unnecessary bureaucracy. Similarly, I understand that
1544
terrier men who are called out to deal with wild mammals where they are a problem use working terriers. Those terriers may be used for more than one species of wild animal.
During the recess, when I was in Wales, I was talking to someone who acts as a hunt servant of his local hunt. He reminded me that in certain parts of the country—especially in Wales—farmers often call on their local hunts, especially at the start of a lambing season, because of the trouble with foxes. The request is for the use of more than two dogs—often seven or eight—to clear predatory species from the vicinity of the lambing area.
I now turn to Amendments Nos. 6 and 10, which, after the word "species", would insert the words "to be". They are probing amendments to try to improve the amendment so ably moved by my noble friend. The effect of the amendments is consequential on Amendment No. 5, which I have already described. Its purpose is to tidy up the drafting to ensure that the correct sense of this part of the Bill is established.
I now turn to Amendment No. 7 and speak also to Amendments Nos. 11 and 15. As Amendment No. 4 is drafted, it requires of an individual or group registration that the application must specify the area in respect of which permission to hunt is sought. Existing hunts operate over considerable distances. For all packs registered with one of the hunting associations, there is a designated hunt country for each pack and hunting will take place in different parts of that country on different days.
Registration will last for three years, during which time the area covered in which gamekeepers or hunts operate may expand or, indeed, retract. If it expands, it could be due to the shooting captain obtaining rights to shoot over a neighbour's land; a hunt clearing more country over which to hunt owing to a change of landowner; or, for example, hunt amalgamation.
Moreover, hunts provide a call-out service for farmers within their hunt country that can necessitate their travelling to a large variety of areas within that country. It is unnecessary for me to remind your Lordships how important that service is now that we have a ban on fallen stock being buried. That service is hugely important.
By defining an area for the registered hunt or gamekeeper employed on an estate, it will be harder for those using other working dogs, such as terrier dogs or long dogs, on a call-out basis to define the set area. It will also be hard—if not impossible—for them to be sufficiently familiar with every farm or house on which they may be called to visit to satisfy the utility test without conducting research. At present, they respond to landowners as and when required, whether in the urban or rural environment.
I now turn to Amendment No. 8, and with it, Amendments Nos. 12 and 16. The effect of these amendments reflects on the previous amendments to which I have just spoken. It would be problematic for hunts or individuals to specify the area in which hunting takes place if that is understood in a restrictive sense. For the reasons I have set out, those wanting to

1545
hunt must be able to specify more generally areas in which hunting may take place, or is intended to take place—not that it necessarily does so. Those are important amendments.
I now turn briefly to Amendment No. 13. It would leave out from "place" to the end of line 15. It would remove the requirement for an individual hunting in reliance on a group registration held by another from being subject to the requirement for his name to be recorded under the amendment's provision:
"(Automatic conditions of group registration)(5)".
It is a serious question of civil liberties that people should be free to participate in a lawful activity without undue interference from the state. If the registered person is hunting and others are following that activity, there should be no requirement for those others to be recorded. That is all the more important as there is a real threat of animal rights violence directed against people who participate in hunting and whose identities are known.
In that context, I ask the Minister to clarify what he was unable to clarify earlier when he was asked about those taking part in hunting. From what I have read of the debate in another place, those who must be registered for hunting are those who actually hunt. The Minister was questioned during debate on the previous amendment about whether followers would be included as part of those who were hunting. If I remember correctly, the noble Lord said that those foot followers were obviously not involved in the hunt. But he did not clarify for us—and he needs to— whether those on horseback who are not involved in the hunting, but are followers or participants, will also be caught within this particular section.
A person following a pack of hounds via lanes in a car would appear to be hunting. I seek clarification. As Rob Marris told the committee on 28th January, all those who control dogs are hunting; not all those who are hunting control dogs. I ask the Minister whether that means that followers, on foot or on horseback, are or are not hunting.
Publishing the identity of those who participate in a hunt could raise serious issues under the data protection legislation and international human rights obligations, with no significant identifiable benefit to animal welfare to balance the intrusion on private life.
Followers of the hunt have precious little, if anything, to do with the process of hunting, as we have already debated in great detail. Thus the detail should be of no concern to the public or prescribed animal welfare bodies. Indeed, as the Minister stated himself, the enjoyment is a side benefit. He said that he regarded any enjoyment that people may experience from being in the open air and so on as relevant to the judgment that Parliament wishes to make or the judgment which people make on its behalf.
When Defra issued permits to hunt following the foot and mouth crisis, a condition of the permits was that a record be held by the hunt of the names and addresses of the followers to be made available on request to Defra. A daily record of the area hunted had
1546
to be submitted to Defra within 48 hours for the very good reasons which we know. But it raises issues about where the Government stand now.
I am sorry that these amendments are grouped as they are, but I understand why that is so. I hope that my explanation of these amendments has helped to clarify some points. I remind Members of the Committee that they are probing amendments and that I do not wish in any way to detract from the main thrust of the amendment moved by my noble friend, which is extremely important. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Hoyle: I rise to speak because of some remarks made at the beginning by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. He said that the intention was to introduce amendments that would return the Alun Michael Bill from this House to another place. That is how I understood the noble Lord. If I am wrong on that, I am sure that he will correct me.
As I understand the amendments to registration and its different aspects, they go a lot further than the Alun Michael Bill. Is it not the intention with these amendments to bring back deer hunting? That is my interpretation and it is a lot wider than the Alun Michael Bill. What happens with regard to hare coursing? Are they going to take away all controls over that activity? That was not in the Alun Michael Bill. There is the question of whether the tests of utility and cruelty will be severely weakened. I speak for those reasons and to say that it is misleading to suggest to the House that all that is attempted is to take back to another place the Alun Michael Bill as it was originally. I believe that what is proposed goes far wider in an attempt to take us back to deer hunting and to weaken the controls established in the Alun Michael Bill.
Lord Mancroft: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. There is a series of amendments, but I am moving one amendment at the moment. It is exactly as it was worded in the Alun Michael Bill. When speaking earlier, the Minister said that through our amendments we were planning to dilute the Bill. I am not sure whether that is the word he used, but I believe that that is what he implied. That may be his view.
It is true that at later stages later in the Bill we have other amendments and do not deal with the matter in one go, as Mr Banks did. We have divided it so that the Committee will have a reason to look at the issues and discuss all the amendments. We do not believe that we have watered down the Bill. In some places the Government's Bill, as with all government Bills, is not particularly well drafted. We will point out those changes to the Committee. We do not believe that they are hugely significant. It may be that the noble Lord will consider that they are and no doubt he will tell us at that stage. There is no intention to disguise the matter from the House. Where we have felt it right to amend the original Bill we shall put it before the Committee and hear what it has to say. It will decide.

1547
The amendment before the Committee at the moment is word for word as it appeared in Alun Michael's Bill, as will be the vast majority of the amendments that we shall move. We shall take the trouble to take the Committee through them as carefully as we can so that we can explain exactly what is intended. I do not believe that some of the material is particularly good. For example, in the first amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, there clearly needs to be an intention and the Committee agreed with that. There will be other parts of the legislation which have to be dealt with in the same way. We wish to deal with the issues openly, calmly and reasonably. Perhaps, one day, that will be an example that another place might like to follow.
Lord Hoyle: I thank the noble Lord for his frankness. I believe we can agree that the intention is eventually to go far wider than the Alun Michael Bill and certainly to bring back deer hunting.
Lord Waddington: It is a very small point. I know that the noble Lord does not wish to mislead the Committee in any way, but in a sense it is slightly misleading to speak about the Alun Michael Bill. It was not his Bill but the Government's own Bill, which we should bear in mind the whole time.
Lord Hoyle: I do not mind how it is defined. What is intended is to go far wider and dilute and weaken the Government's Bill.
Lord Davies of Coity: In raising this question on the amendments and addressing hare coursing and deer hunting, do I understand from my noble friend Lord Hoyle that if it is limited to the Alun Michael amendment that he will support it?
Lord Hoyle: I did not say that. The point I am making is that we must not mislead the Committee by amendments being made to the Government Bill which makes it far weaker in every respect.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I wonder whether it would help to make the debate run more smoothly if Members of the Committee were to speak to the mover of the amendment. It is quite complicated to follow when individual Members of the Committee have a duologue across the Chamber.
Lord Donoughue: I support all that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said in proposing the restoration of the process of registration and regulation. I say to my noble friend that it is not taking anything wider. It is the registration process which was in the original government Bill and there is no taking matters wider on this amendment.
The Bill had defects, which did not please everyone totally, but it pleased virtually everybody to a considerable extent. It followed six months of consultation and scientific evidence. Ultimately, whatever our reservations, we saw it as broadly a fair Bill. It provided that alleged bad practices in hunting should be dealt with.
1548
The banning Bill is unfair. It is based on prejudice and intolerance. The Minister, when opposing the proposals at an earlier stage in the House of Commons, used such phraseology. I am simply agreeing with him. The Bill is probably unenforceable, as the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, said in a very impressive speech at Second Reading. I believe that animal suffering would be worse under the ban.
I shall not repeat Second Reading arguments. I wish to speak in narrow terms, particularly to my Labour colleagues. I hope that we will not lose Members of the Committee opposite; I ask for their tolerance. I suggest to my noble friends that the restoration of regulation and registration is based on democratic Labour principles. I use the word "democratic" because, historically, some socialist principles were unacceptable and, like the ban in some respects, draconian in their attempt to deal with issues.
My first point is obvious. The regulation process was a central part of what was a Labour government Bill. Labour Ministers argued strongly and impressively against a ban. Secondly, the Bill is totally acceptable because it is fair. It is neither discriminatory nor socially divisive, as the ban is. The best of Labour's social policies have been based on fairness and anti-discrimination—Members of the Committee opposite will not always agree. The proposed ban is unfair and certainly discriminates against a minority group.
My third point is central. The process of registration and regulation is now a mainstream Labour approach in many areas. It secures that the activities of private groups are subject to public accountability. The genuine concerns on my side of the Committee about cruelty in hunting are met by the regulation process. Those genuinely concerned about cruelty and suffering of animals should be satisfied with the Bill. I have not always been convinced that colleagues in another place have been concerned mainly with that.
The regulation process also secures good practice in hunting. In handling a Private Member's Bill, as I have done over the past two years, I have met many country sports groups. It has struck me that they all want good practice and the elimination of bad practice. The registration and regulation process proposed and described in the amendment achieves that.
Fourthly, the Bill should be very acceptable to all Labour colleagues, because it protects thousands of jobs in the countryside, whereas the ban creates serious rural unemployment. The Burns report said that it would take 10 years for the jobs lost to be reabsorbed in the rural economy. Perhaps not all my colleagues in the House of Commons share my belief that it is not a Labour approach to create unemployment in the way that the ban will.
We discussed the party manifesto earlier. Although I was concerned that it should be accurately recorded in full, it does not commit the Government to a ban on hunting, nor does it say what the conclusion of Parliament's deliberations should be. In addition, it does not say that it should impose the House of Commons view. It says that it will enable Parliament to reach a conclusion—Parliament, not the Commons.

1549
For those five reasons, and as a lifelong Labour supporter and non-hunter, a ban would be offensive and against my Labour principles. In supporting the amendment, I call on my colleagues to do the same.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: The passing of Amendment No. 2 incorporates specifically the principles of registration and exemption. The new clause contained in Amendment No. 4 clarifies and defines registration. The regulations to be introduced will be specific to individuals, as defined in the amendment, and groups. They will also relate specifically to wild mammals and the area in which they are hunted. Registration is the civilised alternative to a ban. It underwrites good practice, which is an essential element of the principle of registration being debated in the amendment. The amendment is vital, as it clarifies registration and the question of participation, which it takes into account in provisions for group registration, for example.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, was honest in saying that her amendments were probing measures. I am sympathetic to that and shall be interested to hear the Minister's response. Amendment No. 4 defines registered hunting. Having accepted the principle, I feel that the amendment is necessary.
Baroness Warnock: I strongly support everything that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said in moving the amendment. It offers the civilised way through the dilemma. This is a very familiar case of two diametrically opposed moral opinions on which no compromise is possible. If the concept of regulation, registration and, therefore, monitoring of what happens in the field is accepted, both sides of the moral dispute are likely to be more satisfied, if not absolutely satisfied, with the amendment. The concept of good practice is incorporated in the registration proposal.
The only respect in which I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, is trivial. He says that it is an odd approach first to provide in Clause 1 that hunting of mammals is an offence and then to give the exceptions. On the contrary, it is a common approach. Lawyers have a word for such a concept—perhaps defeasible. The same principle was observed in the very different circumstances of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, where the clauses on using live embryos for experiment and research provided first that it was an offence to use live embryos for research, with the regulations, time limits and other provisions coming next. That seems to me to be the essence of what is proposed in this amendment. It emphasises the extreme centrality of the concept of regulation. It is not an added something or other, it is the whole reason why the hunting of mammals with dogs is to be, in certain specified circumstances, permitted. The
1550
assumption is that unregulated hunting would be wrong. I admire the way the Bill will come out if this amendment follows Clause 1 and I strongly support it.
The Earl of Onslow: First, I unreservedly apologise to the Minister if I got too cross with him in the previous exchange. I am quite happy to have got cross, but not too cross.
On this particular issue of the amendment, let us assume for the sake of argument that it is just within the bounds of possibility that the Committee agrees Clause 4, or rather Amendment No. 4—"Clause 4" was a lovely Freudian slip. Can we then have an agreement from the Minister that the Government will accept the new clause, even if they may not like it, and that he will address his mind to making it better than it is at present. In other words, assuming that the amendment is carried, can we have an undertaking from the Minister that he will make sure that the new clause will be as good as it can be, even if he does not like it in the first place? I hope the Minister follows my meaning.
Lord Alli: I have never spoken in a hunting debate and after the first amendment I did not think I would ever participate in one again. I have listened to and read patiently much of what has been said in this House, in the other place and in the media. I have heard good sound arguments for and against hunting put with equal passion and vigour and the one conclusion I have drawn is that to believe this is a simple issue is very naive.
This debate, distilled into its simplest form, is about a person's right to kill an animal, which would otherwise have been destroyed, for pleasure versus the state's right to curb an individual's liberty using the criminal law. It is a question of individual freedom versus the views of the majority, not simply cruelty versus liberty. These are not simple questions and we in this House should not believe that there are simple answers. Simplicity is for the headline writers of the tabloid newspapers or the television news bulletins but not for this Chamber.
What we have before us today is an amendment that says to the other place, "Think again. Think again about a system of regulation before you take that final step and deprive our fellow citizens of a freedom they currently enjoy".
Ours is a complex system of government and law making, but this House does have a unique role; my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton referred to it. It can say to the other place, "Think again". Indeed part of its very purpose is to do just that. It is for that reason that I shall be supporting this amendment today. The Minister, in his Second Reading speech, said about the arguments put forward on the grounds of civil liberties:
"I know that a number of Members of your Lordships' House feel deeply, otherwise they would not be defending fox hunting. But I find those arguments particularly unconvincing and, at times, distasteful.
To argue that the high principles of the European Convention on Human Rights—drawn up in the aftermath of totalitarianism and war—were in any sense designed to protect groups of people

1551
inflicting unnecessary suffering on frightened animals is ludicrous, as well as completely untenable in law". [Official Report, 16/9/03; col. 772.]
Let me say to the noble Lord that I do not agree with his view. Freedom, in my view, is a precious thing. You have to want freedom very, very badly. You have to want freedom badly enough to allow two men to walk down a road, holding hands and kissing. You have to want freedom badly enough to watch British Muslims burn a Union flag. You have to want freedom badly enough to allow people to get onto horses and hunt.
Freedom does not come cheap. It is a hard concept. You really have to work for it. It was never easy, it is never easy and it will never be easy because there is always somebody who wants to deprive us of elements of our personal freedom to make us appear more just, or simply to allow government to perform their function.
This debate has ceased to be about facts, evidence or reason and I suspect it was probably naïve to believe that it ever could have been. It is about passion and belief and that is why it is here in this Chamber, because passion and belief are involved in what we do. I will never be convinced that the fox does not feel pain when the dog rips it apart. I will never be convinced that much of animal testing is right. I will not be convinced that the treatment of a veal calf is humane. I will not be convinced that stuffing grain down the throat of a duck or a goose is right or justified. I will never be convinced that fish caught on a hook, whether or not you throw them back into the river, do not feel pain. However I do not believe that because I do not fish, you should not and that we should use the criminal law to prevent you. Equally, I do not believe that because I do not hunt, we should use the criminal law to stop people hunting.
I have always thought that criminalising large sections of the otherwise law-abiding population is never a good idea. I say that with trepidation as I see the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, in her place and I refer your Lordships to the poll tax, or should I say the community charge?
I have listened to the animal cruelty argument, which I find in part unconvincing, but in the end this Bill is not about animal cruelty. If this Bill formed part of a wider package of animal welfare measures perhaps the arguments put forward on cruelty grounds might be more compelling, but it is not.
I say to the Committee, and particularly to those on these Benches, that I know that the hunting lobby has tried to put forward libertarian arguments before and I understand the sense of hypocrisy that you might feel at seeing those who have been among the most prejudiced and intolerant seeking final refuge in the libertarian tent. I have read speeches by noble Lords who talk of prejudice but who have resisted every piece of equal opportunities legislation and equal rights legislation and speeches by some noble Lords who think that universal suffrage is a step too far. I know it is difficult to listen to these arguments as they are deployed in a cynical and unconvincing way, but I ask noble Lords not to dismiss these arguments because of the people who make them.
1552
I accept completely the legitimate right of the other place to disagree with registration. If it sends this Bill back much in the form that it was received today, I suspect we cannot stand in its way. But at this stage, in Committee, I believe we have a duty, that I have a duty, given the arguments that I have put forward, to say to its Members, "Think again". It is a difficult choice: individual freedom versus the views of the majority. It is a close call. I understand why for many cruelty overrides liberty. I have wrestled with this issue but in the end, for me, liberty must have her way.
Lord Eden of Winton: The noble Lord, Lord Alli, has made a most powerful speech. He is so right to remind the Committee that the liberty of the individual is at the root of our consideration during the course of these proceedings in Committee. I do not think that I should attempt to extend the debate any longer, or to add to what he has said, because he has said it with such conviction and force, but I remind the Committee that the Government, in their press handout in September 2002, stated:
"The future of hunting with dogs should not be decided on personal taste, but on evidence on the principles of whether or not it is serving an effective purpose in managing wildlife and whether it is more or less cruel than the alternative methods currently available".
There has been ample opportunity for consideration of both principle and evidence. The Government carefully considered the evidence, and on that basis they brought forward the original Bill that contained clauses for registration. It is that which should be reinstated in the Bill and 1 so agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken that it is the right and duty of this House to ask the other place and especially the Government to think again.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Brennan: The primary duty of this House in enacting criminal law—and this is criminal law—is to ensure that it represents the view of most of our people, that the acts in question are properly to be regarded as criminal and properly to be dealt with by the criminal court. That question involves the exercise of each of us in fulfilling a parliamentary duty of deciding whether the Bill satisfies that test. I wish to raise an issue for consideration about that question, which involves an issue of governance. On Second Reading the Minister said:
"This is a difficult situation for the House and, in many respects, the Government".—[Official Report, 16/9/03; col 888.]
He was right. I amend the quotation in only one regard: it is a difficult situation for both Houses.
In a healthy democracy, it is inevitable with a bicameral system that the two Houses disagree from time to time, and very seriously disagree. Three solutions occur. First, this House could accept the Salisbury convention and a manifesto commitment and pass the law. Or, the Government could decide not to pursue the legislation, for whatever reason. We now face a third alternative used in recent times in a serious dispute between the two Houses in which it is said that

1553
a free vote of one House enables that House to prevail regardless of the Salisbury convention and regardless of the Government's position.
I raise this as a question and have no firm conclusions to draw, but I want the House to consider this issue. We accept the Salisbury convention relating to a manifesto commitment because we interpret that approach as meaning that we have accepted not just the will of the Commons or the Government, but the will of the people expressed at a general election. Secondly, by dint of the Parliament Acts, the lower House—the Commons—has the power, should it exercise it, to force through legislation regardless of the convention. I accept that that is a democratic right that should exist, but it should be exercised with prudence. In the 80 years between the 1911 Parliament Act and 1991, including the 1911 Act, it was exercised three times. In 1991, the then Conservative government used the Parliament Act. Although I am making no comment about the integrity of my party— which has acted as it thought best—if this Bill is dealt with under the Parliament Act it will be the third in four years. That is a very serious matter for democracy for us to consider.
Of those three, the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act was a free vote and this is a free vote. As for the two others, the European Parliamentary Elections Bill was a government Bill that the Government pursued with Whipping. The Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill failed in this House in 1999–2000 and the Government chose not to pursue it. In those two Whipped Bills, the Government decided what they thought best politically.
As with the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill, we are dealing with a free vote. Let us consider what has happened democratically. The Government went into an election—it could be any government—with a policy to ban fox hunting on a free vote. Having got that manifesto commitment, they employed a very substantial and serious course of public inquiry and consultation. Having considered everything that they had heard, they put a scheme to Parliament, which, because I have every confidence in my Government, I have no doubt that they thought best represented the will of the people.
If the House of Commons, by the exercise of a free vote, takes a different route from what the Government thought to be in the best interests of the people, as a democrat, I for one want that free vote to be explained to me as being taken and exercised by every MP on the conscientious basis that he or she was seeking to represent what he or she thought to be the best interests of most of our people—the will of the people. Otherwise, a free vote would be a capricious commodity in the hands of a House of Commons MP.
Has that happened in this instance? In the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act, it did. Most people agreed with the Parliament Act route when it became necessary. Do they now? Can this House or the other responsibly say that most of the people in this country want to criminalise hunting in the form of this Bill? I am quite convinced as just one citizen among others
1554
that that cannot be plausibly argued. I ask the question, because it is worth the other House noting our concern: is this a proper Bill, the correct vehicle to employ the Parliament Act? It is a very serious question.
My noble friend Lord Graham talks about the amendments disembowelling the Bill, but they are disembowelling a Bill that has been created as a consequence of—in the Minister's word—"wrecking" his Bill. Can anyone plausibly say that, out of that disembowelled wreckage of legislative enterprise, the will of the people has been clearly expressed? I doubt it.
When my noble friend Lord Hoyle reads the debate again when we have time, he will find that, in substance, the Bill represents the Government's position—what they thought best represented the interests of our community. If the Bill goes back to the other House in an amended form, it is not a contest of power between two Houses, but a serious, honest disagreement in which each Member of each House should look to the responsibility he or she carries to the nation, not to his or her own opinions. I applaud this attempt to reach a middle ground, to resolve disagreement in the best interests of Parliament and the country. I firmly support the words of my noble friend Lord Donoughue and I hope that, although I have put a constitutional flavour on this, it will help us to maintain a view that is correct: the way that we deal with this Bill, majority or minority, liberty or cruelty, whatever it might be, we do so for the country.
Lord Waddington: Does the noble Lord agree that there is certainly no precedent for use of the Parliament Act when this House refuses to connive at the destruction of the Government's own Bill?
Lord Brennan: I am distressed that my very old friend the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, who led me many times at the Bar, has forgotten the objectivity that he used to exercise in those days. The fact is that we are not here involved in a party political debate. I have made it expressly clear that my comments were made as a democrat and not a Labour politician. I hope that the debate can continue in that vein.
The Lord Bishop of Chester: I should like to say from these Benches that the predominant view in speeches in previous debates has been to support a form of registration. I personally support the amendment and also, to a very large extent, the powerful and moving speech by the noble Lord, Lord Alli. However, I think that the principle of freedom does not stand alone but has to be qualified by other principles which are introduced in later amendments, in terms of utility, lack of cruelty and so forth.
I shall, if I may, flag up my own view. It probably is the time slightly to adjust the boundary of what is legal and not legal in the general area of hunting and field sports. I find that I can support fox hunting. I declare an interest in that I keep a few hens. I have five. Indeed, I am tempted to adopt the unique position of wishing to extend fox hunting to urban areas where I live, because until recently I had six.

1555
It seems that there is a clear argument on the basis of utility to have fox hunting as part of the mix of the control of foxes. People may get a certain amount of pleasure from it, but, as long as that does not become the predominant argument, it seems to me to be perfectly possible. Human motives are often mixed. I find it much harder to justify the continuation of hare coursing. I shall come on to that later. My own view is that the principle of freedom which the noble Lord, Lord Alli, advocated, needs to be qualified in particular cases. That was true with the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, where the 14-day limit was an absolutely clear barrier to the freedom of the medical profession and so forth.
So on those grounds I wish at this stage to support the principle of the amendment. I support in general terms the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alli. As we move into a more multicultural, multi-faith and diverse society, as we are doing all the time, these issues of how we tolerate minority views that we ourselves would not particularly wish to advocate will arise in all sorts of areas. It seems to me that the more the criminal law can keep its limits clearly in sight and leave room for moral debate—which indeed one might have with my noble friend here—the better we will be. However, for the moment, I believe that the amendment is the right way forward. I shall vote for it.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I should like very much to support this amendment and to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, on one particular issue that he raised. When you can read the book you do not have to look at the crystal ball. I live in the area where a Bill has become an Act and hunting has been banned. All I would say to the Committee is that before you go ahead and completely ban hunting in England and Wales, think very carefully about those who are very uncertain about their future in my part of the world as a result of the Scottish Executive passing that Bill. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, put his finger on it when he said to his colleagues, "Think very carefully about those involved in this work". It is work. They are dedicated people and they do not deserve to lose their jobs.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Elton: While congratulating the noble Lords, Lord Alli and Lord Brennan, on making a contribution between them of notable and constitutional importance, might I remind your Lordships that we are discussing Amendment No. 5 to Amendment No. 4 and that we have been straying very close to the borders of order?
I rise merely, first, to support the inquiry of my noble friend Lady Byford about the advisability of Amendments Nos. 5 to 12 and 14 to 16, all of which seem to me to be plain right. Secondly, on Amendment No. 13, which addresses the issue of group registration, it really is impossible to form a view until one knows who will be registered. We have had this discussion once or twice before, but we really need to know whether it will be the 150 or 200 people following by all sorts of means—a handful of them perhaps on horses, perhaps more—or whether it is aimed at the master of the hunt, the
1556
huntsmen, the two or three whippers-in, the kennelmen, the groom at the stables or the committee which arranges the finances. Those are two quite different concepts. One of them is feasible while the other seems not to be. Keeping a record of all those who had followed on a bicycle three miles away is not feasible. We therefore need a definition of what hunting is. We have proposed inserting "intentional", but I suspect—and this is perhaps a point to return to on Report—that we need a closer definition before we can do more than nod at these amendments and then go back to the great sweeping oratory on Amendment No. 4, which I, like others, wholly support.
Baroness Golding: I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Mancroft and shall speak to the need for the registration of the hunting of mink with dogs. As I said in a previous debate, the Government have signed up to the European Convention on Biological Diversity, which commits them to,
"control and eradicate those alien species which threaten ecosystems, habitats or native species".
Having signed up to the treaty, the Government have committed themselves as far as possible to the eradication of that very alien species, mink.
There is no evidence that mink can be eradicated or controlled by trapping alone. Indeed, the expense and inefficiency of the use of traps have without doubt led to the spread of mink in many areas of this country. The Game Conservancy Trust at Fordingbridge recognises the problem only too well and has recently successfully tested the idea of a raft which can identify the presence of mink. Subsequently a baited trap is placed on the raft to catch the mink and the mink are then shot. Those scientists have the good sense to recognise that mink are not easy to catch by traps alone and that there will always be a need for hunting mink with hounds. They are not the only scientists to recognise that need.
Scientists involved in the £1.6 million mink eradication scheme on the Scottish Hebrides have found themselves proved wrong by mink hounds in areas that they thought were free of mink. Indeed, the evidence produced by the scientists running the programme leads one to the conclusion that, unless trap-shy mink are recognised, and the very real need to train people in the use of mink hounds is recognised, then the large-scale and expensive eradication programme will not be successful and the £1.6 million spent will perhaps have been wasted.
Those scientists point to the fact that the Icelandic Government rely on dogs as their primary weapon to locate mink, which are then dispatched by shooting. About 6,500 mink are culled in Iceland every year, at an average annual cost of £150,000. No one knows how many mink there are in this country but estimates vary from 18,000 to 50,000. We can only guess at the cost of eradicating them. The nature department of the Icelandic Government have all the evidence to show that mink hounds are essential for the control of mink. The Government should listen to their scientific evidence and allow hunts to be registered. In doing so, the Government would recognise their commitment to the Convention on Biological Diversity. They would go some way to answering the damning report of Defra's

1557
European wildlife division on the lack of action in their commitment to the convention. I most strongly support the amendment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I support the noble Lord, Lord Elton. Most Members of the Committee who have spoken have spoken to Amendment No. 4, which is not before us. Unless any Member of the Committee wishes to speak to Amendments Nos. 5 to 16, which are amendments to Amendment No. 4, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, the Minister could reply and the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, could indicate whether he is prepared to accept the noble Baroness's amendments.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My understanding is that Amendment No. 4 is grouped with the other amendments.
Lord Whitty: For clarity's sake, Amendment No. 5 and the rest of the noble Baroness's amendments are amendments to Amendment No. 4. But the first issue must be how we deal with Amendment No. 5 and, should the noble Baroness care to move them, the subsequent amendments to Amendment No. 4. Indeed, most of the discussion has been on the substantive amendment— that is, Amendment No. 4.
I did not agree with a great deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said, but he is correct to say that Amendment No. 4, of itself, is precisely the same wording as what had been the second clause of the original Government Bill in another place. For those Members of the Committee who think that it is wise to go back to the Commons, after it rejected overwhelmingly that approach, with something very similar to the original Bill, clearly there is an argument for voting for Amendment No. 4.
However, the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, was also frank enough to indicate that this is part of a package, although we have the right to vote in different ways on different parts of the package. As far as concerns the noble Lord and his colleagues who have put their names to the various groups of amendments—most of which come after Clause 5—-the effect would be to change the original Bill quite substantially. At this stage, it is probably not wise for me to spell out how the subsequent amendments would change the Bill. However, if Members of the Committee buy into this clause, they are also buying into a potential strategy which does not deliver the "Alun Michael" original Government Bill, but delivers a Bill which is much wider, much more diluted and much more preserving of the status quo.
I say to my noble friend Lord Alli and to others that there are limits on liberty. In the "Alun Michael" Bill, which has been described as not a banning Bill but a registration Bill, there were a great number of things which were banned. Deer hunting was banned; hair coursing was banned; non-registered hunting was banned; and the hunting of all sorts was subject to some very significant restrictions. There therefore would have been banning and a significant restriction on the liberty of a minority of people in the "Alun Michael" Bill. The distinction is therefore not between liberty and
1558
authoritarian limitations on liberty, but just how far one wishes to restrict liberty. That is a legitimate debate, but let us not say that it is a central principle.
As regards the rest of the amendments tabled in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Mancroft and Lord Carlile, and my noble friends Lady Mallalieu and Lord Donoughue, if they are all carried we would move significantly away from the "Alun Michael" original Government Bill. It is also true that if the amendments before us in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, are carried, we would also move, maybe not quite so dramatically, but significantly, away from the original Bill. Effectively, the noble Baroness's amendments would allow someone to register for any species in any part of the country and be allowed to pursue hunting for any other species in any other part of the country.
Therefore, under the terms of the original Bill—to take my noble friend Lady Golding's point—if a person was registered and had passed the utility and cruelty tests in relation to mink, that person would, in an entirely different part of the country, be allowed to engage in hunting for an entirely different species. That was not the principle of the original Bill, which was to look at registration on a case-by-case basis and judge it on the terms of utility and least cruelty.
While the substantive amendment would be in line with the original Government Bill, the noble Baroness's various amendments would take us a significant way away from it. It is up to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, to decide whether he would be prepared to accept those amendments. Were he to do so, he would amend Amendment No. 4 away from what he originally claimed it was—namely, the basis for introducing the "Alun Michael" Bill. We shall return to the rest of his package of amendments—it is to be hoped in part, at least, this evening, but if not, next week—which, as I have indicated, move away from the "Alun Michael" Bill. In terms of the noble Baroness's amendments, we would already do that if the noble Lord accepted her amendments and Members of the Committee voted for them.
In respect of one particular amendment, the noble Baroness asked me to clarify, yet again—or for clarification even further than I thought that I had clarified before—the distinction between those engaged in hunting and those who are followers of hunting. This was in the terms of the original Bill, although some of the provisions would read across to the Bill now before us. It is clear that in any given circumstance for a given hunt, it would be a question of fact; that is, whether a person is hunting with dogs or merely watching people who hunt. That would be irrespective of whether such people were on foot or on horseback.
In normal circumstances, those who are hunting as part of the hunt would be deemed to be hunting under the terms of the Act. Those following, particularly those following, for example, in a road vehicle, would not be. In terms of judging whether an offence has been committed, if those people were not registered or if it was an unregistered hunt, clearly that would have to be judged on the facts of the case. In principle, those

1559
engaged in the hunt are required to be registered. Those following the hunt would not be required to be registered if they are not part of the activity itself.
The Earl of Onslow: The Minister is in danger of being "horsist". He is saying that those who follow on a horse are committing an offence, but those who follow in a car are not. I may have misunderstood, but he particularly said that those who follow are not hunting. That is what I understood him to say. He implied that those who follow in cars would be all right, but those who follow on horses possibly would not. I thought he was being "horsist"; that was all.
Lord Whitty: I carefully tried to avoid being "horsist" in this particular context. In a normal hunt there are horse people who are clearly engaged in the hunt from the word go. There may be other horse people who are, like a car, going down the lanes to catch up with the hunt or to get a view of the hunt at some different point. There may be others on foot who might be doing the same thing. There will be some forms of hunting where people on foot are clearly engaged in the activity. So it is not a "horsist" or a "carist" or a "footist" remark; it is whether one is engaged in the activity or a spectator in the activity.
Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that last point. From what the Minister said, I can put it into layman's terms. I am trying not to put words into his mouth. He is referring to members of the hunt staff who would normally lead and control the hunt itself. He is excluding from those participating in hunting those who are in the field and not involved in the hunt itself. I am happy if the Minister wants to come back on that point, but we need to clarify that point. It is a major issue.
When we talked about this matter before—I have looked very carefully at what was said in another place— my understanding was that, on the whole, it is those who are involved in the activity of organising the hunt who are actually considered as hunting. Those involved in following the hunt, as hunt supporters either on foot or on horseback—it is particularly the horseback that we needed clarification on—are not involved in hunting. They are observers, or whatever else, but they are not engaged in hunting itself. I think that I have understood him to say that. I hope that I have not put words into his mouth.
7 p.m.
Lord Whitty: The noble Baroness has not put words into my mouth, but I think that we are in broadly the same territory. It is not only those who organise the hunt, it is also those who participate as against those who are spectators.
Baroness Byford: I think that the noble Lord and I are in total agreement. I am sorry that he is perhaps not quite happy with my words, but it is those who are actually involved in the hunt.
Time is moving on. I explained earlier to noble Lords that my amendments are probing in nature and seek to improve the Bill. I understand what has been said by
1560
many noble Lords and I should have liked to say more about Amendment No. 4 myself. However, the restrictions on time prevent me from doing so. At this stage, I do not wish to press these amendments. 1 shall withdraw them because it is clear that noble Lords want to consider Amendment No. 4, which would restore the Bill over which the Minister keeps slipping and referring to as "the Alun Michael Bill", but is the government Bill, set out in their words. For that reason and that one alone, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 5.
Amendment No. 5, as an amendment to Amendment No. 4, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 6 to 16, as amendments to Amendment No. 4, not moved. ]
Lord Mancroft: We have had an extensive debate, indeed, a rather more extensive discussion than I had thought. The debate has been remarkable for a number of reasons, not least because of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan. The House will have listened to his remarks with great care. Having listened to his fascinating words, I wonder how on earth we could have got ourselves into a situation where we are discussing issues such as the Parliament Act on the very first day of our deliberations in Committee. Much as I appreciate the noble Lord's words—and he was absolutely right in everything he said—it can only be an indication of the muddle that possibly Parliament and certainly the Government have got into when an issue such as the Parliament Act is discussed on the very first day in Committee, before we have even considered the Bill in depth.
It would be so much better for both Houses and for all those outside in the country who are worrying about these issues if we were able to step back and think about them in the terms expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Alli, in what I thought was a most remarkable speech. It was an example to all. It is not easy to make speeches about unpopular issues. The noble Lord, Lord Alli, has done that with great courage and his speech served as a useful guide. Noble Lords should hear such speeches occasionally.
I was interested in what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester had to say, in particular his words about the need to improve our animal cruelty laws. Of course he was quite right to make the point; that is what we need to do. That is why we should not be dealing with a shambolic criminal Bill today when we could be spending the time in consideration of something like the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, which really would be of immense benefit to wild animal welfare in this country, a matter which the Government appear to regard as nothing of any significance. For those of us who do care about animals and are not interested in criminalising people, that is a useful piece of legislation. The time being spent by noble Lords on this Bill, both today and next week, could more usefully have been spent on seeking to put the noble Lord's Bill on the statute book.
A number of issues have been raised during the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, is very worried about deer hunting, while the right reverend Prelate

1561
aired his concerns about hare coursing. Those are important details and we shall come to them in due course. However, the issue before us at this precise moment is the concept of registration, which forms the heart that was ripped out of the Bill last summer in the House of Commons. By putting the concept of registration back into the Bill—the simple concept that individuals or groups can register to hunt—we would introduce a strict regulatory framework. We do not need at this moment to discuss details such as animals, places and so forth; rather the issue of registration is a concept, a theory. The Chamber would then put forward the message that it is better to regulate than to ban, a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. As the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, remarked, it is better to look for a sensible, middle route than to go to the extremes in these difficult arguments. I hope that noble Lords will agree with me.
7.5 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 261; Not-Contents, 49.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Allenby of Megiddo. V.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Alli, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Ampthill, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Armstrong of Ilminster, L.

Carrington, L.

Arran, E.

Carter, L.

Ashcroft, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Astor. V.

Chan, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Chester, Bp.

Attlee, E.

Chorley, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Clement-Jones, L.

Barnett, L.

Cobbold, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Belstead, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Best, L.

Colwyn, L.

Biffen, L.

Courtown, E.

Blackstone, B.

Cox, B.

Blackwell, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Blaker, L.

Crathorne, L.

Blatch, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Croham, L.

Borrie, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Bowness, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Boyce, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Bragg, L.

David, B.

Bramall, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Brennan, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Bridgeman, V

Denham, L.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

Desai, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Donoughue, L. [Teller]

Brookman, L.

Dundee, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Burnham, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Buscombe, B.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Butler of Brockwell, L.

Elton, L.

Byford, B.

Erroll, E.

Caithness, E.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

1562

Falkland, V.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Feldman, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Fellowes, L.

Monson, L.

Ferrers, E.

Montrose. D.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Moran, L.

Fowler, L.

Moser, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Freeman, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Freyberg, L.

Naseby, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Newby, L.

Gavron, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Geraint, L.

Nickson, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Northbourne, L.

Glentoran, L.

Northbrook, L.

Golding, B.

Northesk, E.

Goschen, V.

Norton of Louth, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Greengross, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Greenway, L.

Oliver of Aylmerton, L.

Grenfell, L.

Onslow, E.

Habgood, L.

Palmer, L.

Hanham, B.

Palumbo, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Parkinson, L.

Hayman, B.

Patten, L.

Henley, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Heseltine, L.

Peel, E.

Higgins, L.

Peston, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Hoffmann, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Hogg, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Plumb, L.

Hooson, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Howe, E.

Prys-Davies, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Puttnam, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Rawlings, B.

Hussey of North Bradley, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Hylton, L.

Rea, L.

Inge, L.

Reay, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Redesdale, L.

James of Holland Park, B.

Rees, L.

Jauncey of Tullichettle, L.

Renton, L.

Jopling, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Keith of Castleacre, L

Richardson of Duntisbourne, L.

Kimball, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Rogan, L.

Kingsland, L.

Rooker, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Roper, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Saatchi, L.

Lewis of Newnham, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Lipsey, L.

Sandberg, L.

Listowel, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Liverpool, E.

Sandwich, E.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Scott of Foscote, L.

Lloyd of Berwick. L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Lucas, L.

Seccombe, B.

Luke, L.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Lyell, L.

Selsdon, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Sharman, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market,

Sharples, B.

L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Sheppard of Didgemere, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

MacLaurin of Knebworth, L.

Simon, V.

Mallalieu, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Mancroft, L. [Teller]

Skelmersdale, L.

Mar, C.

Skidelsky. L.

Marlesford, L.

Slim, V.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Stern, B.

Methuen, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Stewartby, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

1563

Strange, B.

Vinson, L.

Swinfen, L.

Vivian, L.

Taverne, L.

Waddington, L.

Tebbit, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Temple-Morris. L.

Wakeham, L.

Tenby, V.

Wallace of Saltaire, L

Thatcher, B.

Walpole, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L

Warnock, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Weatherill, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Wilcox, B.

Tombs, L.

Wilkins, B.

Tordoff, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

Ullswater, V.

Winston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Amos, B.(Lord President)

Harris of Haringey, L.

Bach. L

Harris of Richmond, B.

Berkeley. L.

Haskel, L.

Billingham, B.

Hattersley, L.

Brett, L.

Hoyle, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Jones, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L

Kirkhill, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Laird, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lockwood, B

Davies of Oldham, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Dholakia, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Dixon, L.

Morgan, L.

Dubs, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Elder, L.

Nicol, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Pendry, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Fookes, B.

Rennard L

Sheffield, Bp.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Sheldon L

Gilbert, L.

Thornton, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Tope, L.

[Teller]

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Whitaker, B.

[Teller]

Worcester, Bp.

Grocott, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
7.20 p.m.
Clause 2 [Exempt hunting]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Lockwood): I should point out to the Committee that if Amendment No. 17 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 18 under the pre-emption rule.
Baroness Byfordmoved Amendment No. 17:
Page 1, line 8, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Baroness said: These are important amendments which may take a little while to discuss— perhaps an hour—by which time the dinner debate will be totally out of line. Would it be possible, with the Committee's permission, to leave consideration of the amendments until after the dinner break?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The rules of the House state that we may break before 7.30 p.m. only when all noble Lords taking part in the debate are present. They are not here. Given that noble Lords have expressed concern about the amount of time
1564
available for the Bill, I am loath to allow an hour and 10 minutes for the dinner break business. It would be better to proceed with the debate on Amendment No. 17.
Baroness Byford: In that case, I am quite happy to proceed.
In moving Amendment No. 17, I shall also speak briefly to support Amendment No. 18. Amendment No. 17 would remove the Secretary of State's power to amend by order a class of exempt hunting. An order made under this clause would be subject to affirmative procedure of parliamentary approval—
The Countess of Mar: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but there seem to be an awful lot of sub-committees going on in the House. May I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, to ensure that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, can be heard?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am grateful to the noble Countess. I am seeking not to appear too heavy-handed with the House, but I was conscious of the difficulty the noble Baroness had in being heard.
Baroness Byford: I presume the noble Baroness wishes me to continue, although I see her colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, in his place. I apologise to noble Lords if I was not heard—I normally have a loud voice, and will make sure that I am heard now.
The amendment would remove the Secretary of State's power to amend by order a class of exempt hunting. An order made under this clause could be subject to the affirmative procedure of parliamentary approval for delegated legislation. This, I believe, is a Henry VIII clause that allows the Secretary of State to change the very heart of the Bill which Parliament approves. That should not be acceptable, as it would allow a Secretary of State to expand or restrict the application of this Bill and could, in effect, render a parent Act a nonsense.
This is another probing amendment, designed to establish beyond any doubt that any change to Schedule 1 could take place only if both Houses of Parliament, not just the Commons, and independent of one another, approve this change.
As I have said, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, to which I will return later. I beg to move.
Baroness Mallalieu: Amendment No. 18 is really a tidying-up amendment, which would insert the words "add or" in the clause. It would enable the Secretary of State to add, as well as to vary, the classes of exempt hunting. This is proposed not for any draconian or sinister purposes, which seemed to be suggested with regard to my earlier amendment, but simply to bring this part of the Bill in line with the other parts of the Government's original Bill. By adding to the classes of exempt hunting, the Bill is made consistent with what the Government had set out earlier.

1565
For example, Clause 17(5)(b) of the original Bill, which dealt with the determination by the registrar, stated that the registrar may,
"add to or vary the conditions specified in the application".
Clause 19(4)(b), which dealt with determination by the tribunal in the Government's original Bill, stated that the tribunal may,
"add to or vary the conditions specified in the application".
Clause 29(a), which dealt with the amendment of automatic conditions in the Government's original Bill, stated that the Secretary of State may "add a condition" to the group registration licence.
There seems no reason that I am able to see why the change has been made in this Bill. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why those words are not used. It seems to me that by adding them, one gives scope for alterations which may become necessary later. I should have thought that, notwithstanding all that the Minister said earlier, it is surely desirable to give some flexibility within the system which would not require amendment either by subsequent order or, indeed, by subsequent legislation.
The amendments would increase the powers of the registrar. Given that the House has voted for registration, I should have thought that that was, in this context, desirable.
Lord Renton: The amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Byford raises a matter of parliamentary principle. It is suggested in Clause 2(2) that the Secretary of State may, by order—that means by secondary legislation—amend Schedule 1, which is fundamental and is primary legislation. The way in which it could be amended is something that we should avoid. For example, if merely foxhunting is to be dealt with in the primary legislation, the clause would enable other forms of hunting, such as stag hunting, to be dealt with as well. I really do not think that is the sort of thing we should delegate to the Secretary of State to enable him to deal with the matter by secondary legislation, so I support the amendment.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: I, too, support what has just been said and the objection in principle to the introduction of a Henry VIII clause which would give the Secretary of State power to determine what should be in the schedule, if that is what is meant by Clause 2(2). Will the Minister tell the House what really is meant by Clause 2(2)? It says:
"The Secretary of State may by order amend Schedule 1".
That is reasonably clear. However, it then appears to limit the amendments the Secretary of State may make by providing the purpose,
"so as to vary a class of exempt hunting".
Schedule 1 contains several classes of exempt hunting, each of which is given a title which presumably defines the class. For example, paragraph 6 is headed "Falconry". What can the Secretary of State do under Clause 2(2) to vary that class of falconry? Is it the Government's intention that the
1566
Secretary of State should have the power to remove that class from exempt hunting? If so, they have not provided for that to take place in Clause 2(2), because it does not allow the Secretary of State to remove a class, but only to vary the class. If they want to allow the Secretary of State to vary the classes of hunting by removing or adding, they should say so in the text of the Bill. It is a completely obscure provision.
What is meant by varying a class in relation to the example that I chose—falconry, in paragraph 6 of Schedule 1? Does varying falconry mean, for example, that the Secretary of State could remove paragraph 6(a)? I doubt whether that would be permitted under the provision in Clause 2(2). I cannot see what the Secretary of State can do under Clause 2(2). It looks to me like a piece of legislative nonsense that would be of benefit only to people such as myself and the other lawyers in the Chamber, who would welcome the opportunity to earn substantial brief fees from whoever cares to pay us under the cab-rank rule— which, as the Committee knows, we always follow.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Carlile of Berriew: I think I rather resent that titter from my left.
There is an important and serious point here. The legislation that we introduce must have a meaning that those who adjudge upon it can understand. This seems to me to have no useful meaning whatever.
7.30 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: In view of the speech just made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, I wonder where the Minister stands and where his integrity stands, given that he has said that he will not recommend to the Committee that an amendment is accepted.
Viscount Bledisloe: As another lawyer, I share the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, as to the extreme difficulty of knowing what subsection (2) means by,
"so as to vary a class".
Would the provision entitle the Secretary of State to remove a class completely—to say that rat hunting was no longer exempt at all? Even if the provision does not allow the Secretary of State to do that, it allows him virtually to do that, because he could say that all he was doing was varying the class by saying that rat hunting was exempt, provided that it takes place between 2 a.m. and 4 a.m. on Christmas Day. That would considerably remove the exemption. It cannot be right that, whether directly or in that sort of indirect way, the Secretary of State has absolute power to take away exemptions that Parliament has given.
Lord Whitty: It might be helpful if I explained the point of the measure, which is to ensure that we do not have to return to primary legislation if, in practice, the clauses prove difficult to interpret. We could vary exemptions, but not delete them. That would be subject to the affirmative procedure anyway, but an

1567
over-interpretation of "vary" so as to completely undermine the exemption would not be allowable under the clause.
The second amendment suggests that we could add to the exemptions. Again, that would be a significant variation of primary legislation. It is better that we are able to vary but not to add to or subtract from the classes of exemption. It may be helpful if I spell out the provisions in writing between now and Report, so that the kind of situations that might arise are clearer. If the noble Baronesses, Lady Byford and Lady Mallalieu, were prepared not to press their amendments, we might have a debate on the basis of that information at a later stage. There could be qualifications to variation rather than deletion of variation.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: On the assumption that the proposal is a considered piece of legislation, can the Minister give us some examples of the situations in which the Government envisage that the power contained in the subsection might be needed? That would help the rest of us who do not understand the meaning of the clause.
Lord Whitty: That is what I am suggesting that I write down, because I cannot immediately envisage, in relation to falconry, quite how we would do it. Those who have more knowledge of falconry than I do may be able to say that there could be a variation either to the welfare of the birds or for conservation purposes, and that we might want to alter the terms of the exemption but not to delete or add to it. That limited power for the Secretary of State—in practice, for the tribunal and the registrar—ought to be allowable in the Bill.
I shall do as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, suggests, and write a letter to those Members of the Committee who are interested in the area.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: In the light of an earlier misunderstanding, it might be helpful if I remind both noble Baronesses that, if Amendment No. 17 is called and agreed to, Amendment No. 18 cannot be called.
Lord Mancroft: Can the Minister think of any other examples in legislation where this type of order and language have been used? He may not be able to do that at this precise moment, but could he at some point give us some examples? It seems most extraordinary. I cannot envisage how one could vary the classes, although I can see how one can add to or subtract from them. The language seems most extraordinary. If the noble Baronesses withdraw their amendments, it might be helpful to know other examples of this type of order in legislation.
Lord Whitty: I am happy to do that, but I believe that the noble Lord will find that there are a lot of
1568
examples of power for the Secretary of State to vary particular provisions of schedules. I shall try to find some.
Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken to the amendment. My understanding is that the provision is to vary a class.
There is a whole range of issues on which the Minister has not answered satisfactorily, but he offered to go away and think about the matter. I should like clarification from him before I decide what to do, because if he is only going to go away and write to me about it, and not have this debated or come back with some form of government words, I am not content. However, I am quite willing to give the Minister a second chance at greater clarification, because from his words I did not quite understand his commitment to us. I need to know that before I decide what to do.
Lord Whitty: I was not offering that the Government would introduce alternative forms of words. I suggested that the Chamber might be better informed in making up its mind on a free vote on this amendment if I provided a letter spelling out the circumstances in which a variation might be appropriate. In case the noble Baroness thought that it had changed my stance on these matters, I was not suggesting that we would introduce an alternative form of words to the amendment; I was simply offering information before the Chamber made a decision.
Earl Ferrers: If the Minister does not understand the wording and finds out what it means, it is possible that he may find that the words are not quite as good as they should be.
Lord Whitty: I do not want to get ahead of myself; let us see what decision the Chamber would take if I gave it a few more examples of where variation would be a desirable power.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Will the letter go to all Members of the Committee who have taken an interest in the debate? It would be helpful if we knew where we stood on the matter.
Lord Whitty: Since the noble Lord requests a letter, I shall certainly ensure that he gets one. However, the normal procedure is to write to those who have participated in the debate and leave a copy in the Library.
The Earl of Onslow: Can the Minister clear my mind? If he is persuaded by his officials that the wording is not clear, does he intend to stick with the original wording irrespective of what the advice is? As my noble friend Lord Ferrers said, the noble Lord should not knowingly allow words into a Bill which he does not understand, or which he has reason to believe might be unclear. I should have thought that he had a duty to ensure that the wording of the Bill was absolutely clear.
Lord Whitty: I understand what the wording means. It means that the Secretary of State can vary the

1569
description of the exemption but not delete or add to the class of exemptions provided for in the Bill. I suggested to the Committee that we needed further clarification on one or more of those exemptions. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, mentioned falconry of which, regrettably, I have little knowledge. He asked in what circumstances the Secretary of State might wish to vary falconry without changing the basic fact that falconry is exempt.
Baroness Byford: I listened to the Minister but he did not give me hope. He gave me hope originally but then said that he would not do what I had understood from his words that he would. No message has come from his officials so perhaps the Government themselves, including the Bill team, have no idea of the answer to the question. In those circumstances, I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Question is that Amendment No. 17 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content", to the contrary, "Not Content". The Contents have it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I remind the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, that I cannot call her Amendment No. 18 under the pre-emption rule.
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House be now resumed. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee begins again not before 8.40 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Personal Debt
7.42 p.m.
Baroness Wilcoxrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to rising levels of personal debt and its social consequences.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am grateful for this pause in the consideration of the Hunting Bill which enables us to consider something almost as weighty—personal debt and its social consequences.
The level of personal over-indebtedness in this country is a grave and deteriorating problem. The statistics paint a dreary picture. Not only is the situation severe but it is getting worse at a phenomenal rate as each month total lending to individuals increases by approximately 1 per cent. Comparing total lending in 2002 with the projected figure for 2003, the difference is a staggering £51 billion.
What takes us further into dangerous waters is the fragility of the situation: research shows that it takes only a very small change in an individual's
1570
circumstances to turn what was a manageable debt into a major burden. On a national scale, a sharp fall in property prices or a small hike in interest rates will provoke debt to spiral yet further out of control.
I want to speak for a few minutes about what all this means, and why we should be deeply concerned. After all, wide availability of credit has contributed to increasing our living standards, enabling people to buy their own houses, go on holidays and buy cars which they would not be able to afford otherwise. On balance, access to credit is a good thing. But poorly managed credit debts can have tragic consequences on a social level. According to citizen's advice, a quarter of its clients who seek advice on debt issues have already seen their GP to report feelings of stress, anxiety or depression. Debt puts a terrible strain on personal relationships and can lead to the misery of family break-ups. When this is multiplied by the quarter of households in the UK that feel they are in financial difficulty, the magnitude of the situation becomes frightening.
Over the past days and weeks we have seen considerable press coverage on this issue. This will hopefully serve to encourage the Government to sit up and take note and, more importantly, to come up with an effective response. A brief glance through the newspapers over the past few days reveals a plethora of sorry tales—and that is just the tip of the iceberg. Those stories represent millions of households suffering in varying degrees from the consequences of accumulating debt that they have to struggle to repay.
Last Thursday, as I am sure all noble Lords are aware, the chief executive of Barclays, Matt Barrett, admitted to the Treasury Select Committee in another place that he would not accumulate credit on his card as it was "too expensive". That seems to me to be an appalling confession which gets us to the heart of the issue. Mr Barrett, with his £ 1.7 million salary, finds the Barclaycard rates "too expensive", while his clients, many of whom presumably earn a good deal less, have to fork out these rates. Why is that the case? It is because extremely well informed credit card companies are able to take advantage of naive consumers who do not understand what they are letting themselves in for.
Credit card companies use a range of techniques. These include: indiscriminately mailing promotional materials even to those individuals already up to their neck in debt; enticing their customers to borrow more money with sample cheques through the post; adopting confusing and misleading offers; and making it very difficult to compare rates.
A long-term solution must be to deal with the root cause: financial illiteracy. A well informed borrower who fully understands what is at stake is confidently able to shop for his money, compare rates, and move his business accordingly. Nowadays people know how to shop for fridges, cars, clothes and food, but not yet how to shop for money. They are still grateful to be offered a loan. There are good deals out there for those who search for them. This is when the market functions properly.

1571
What is too common, however, is uninformed borrowing. According to a KPMG survey, 36 per cent of people have no idea or only a "rough idea" how much interest they are paying on their debts. Over 3 million households in this country are reliant on the services of moneylenders, who regularly charge in excess of 150 per cent APR for cash loans. I am worried that the Government are not doing enough to tackle financial illiteracy. At the beginning of 2003 the Financial Services Authority announced that consumer education would be a priority for the year, but despite this it devoted only a fraction of the overall FSA budget to it.
We have seen a number of initiatives being launched and these are welcome, but what we need is an integrated, sustained campaign over a long period. The FSA will publish a White Paper outlining a national strategy for financial literacy, and I am hopeful that it will offer just that. However, I am fearful that we may have to wait a long time to see any action.
A sustainable strategy for tackling financial illiteracy must involve the co-operation and involvement of the financial services industry, as it is in its interests to have well informed clients with whom it can cultivate long-term relationships. The rogue traders are damaging everyone in the long term. A precedent for good procedure has been set by NatWest, which funds a financial literacy centre at the University of Warwick, and is a business benefiting from the good PR that it has generated.
So what should be done right now? Measures must be taken to promote responsible lending. I understand that the Government will publish a White Paper on reform of the outdated Consumer Credit Act. That is well overdue. When the Act came into force nearly 30 years ago there was only one type of credit card available; now there are 1,300. It seems extraordinary that the legislation has not been updated, given the rapid rate of change in the industry.
A number of issues urgently need addressing. Existing legislation is unable to deal with hard-sell techniques, extortionate interest or the unfair treatment of people in debt. Moreover, industry practices exist that are anti-competitive, such as the early settlement regulations designed to discourage debtors from settling early.
We need informed, responsible borrowing and clearly described responsible lending. I look to the publication of the White Paper, which I hope will make significant and speedy headway in tackling the problems. But I am not over-confident. This is the Government who have allowed the situation to get progressively out of hand. I suppose that that is hardly surprising, as that is typical of their overall attitude to money matters. Leading the way is the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, setting the worst example possible, with the Treasury on course to overspend by a phenomenal £10 billion. Whatever happened to Gordon Brown's famous prudence and, sadly, what kind of example is that to the borrowers of this country?
7.51 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, not for the first time, the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, has done the House a service in promoting debate on consumer matters. As a former chair of the National Consumer Council and current president of the Trading Standards Institute, she has great knowledge and authority with which to speak on such matters, especially on the hardships and problems incurred by those overburdened with debt.
The pushing of debt to those already over-committed; the monstrously extortionate rates of interest sometimes charged; the vicious power held by illegal, unlicensed, back-street moneylenders who do not depend on lawful recovery methods—all those raise problems of law enforcement and questions about the Consumer Credit Act 1974, to which the noble Baroness referred. It needs the attention that the Government are now giving it, with a view to reform. I suppose that the chief executive of Barclays was inevitably to be mentioned in the debate. He may have given the forthcoming White Paper a very useful boost.
Many people get into debt-difficulty simply because of natural, normal risks of everyday life, such as illness, bereavement and redundancy. The key requirement is timely and realistic advice for those in debt. I declare an interest as honorary president of the Money Advice Trust, which, with the aid of numerous banks, retail firms and others, provides the back-up necessary to enable skilled debt advice to be provided to anyone who needs it. The trust's best-known role is financing National Debtline, a telephone advice service, which I remember being started many years ago by the Birmingham Settlement and which is now run on a national scale.
In the recent pilot phase of the national scheme, that telephone service helped 26,000 clients over 12 months. However, it answered only 40 per cent of the calls received, through lack of resources. The Money Advice Trust plans a recruitment and adviser-training programme that will enable 150,000 clients a year to be helped. Helped to do what? To maximise their possible income, and to reorganise their debts to work out, with the creditors, a practical programme for repayment and getting on course again.
The trust works with many associated bodies, one of which—the most important nationwide body, the citizens advice bureaux—was mentioned by the noble Baroness. Its advisers have been dealing with a huge increase—of 47 per cent—in the number of consumer debt problems over the past five years.
Central Government, represented tonight by the Minister, and local authorities are playing a vital part in funding the National Debtline, grants to citizens advice bureaux, and local face-to-face advice. This evening, I hope that I can rely on the Minister to give us what is so strongly needed: a strong commitment— a medium-term commitment—to government funding which will carry with it great encouragement to the private sector to support what is needed.
7.55 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield: My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity. My grandmother was a Lancashire mill worker and a lapsed Baptist. She had three categories of persons who were anathematised. In ascending order of anathematisation—if there is such a word—they were the divorced, Catholics and, finally and worst of all, those who were on something called the never-never. The never-never was a term that described those who bought now and paid later. They were anathematised because she said that people on the never-never had lost their pride. She had pride. All her children took the 11-plus examination and passed, but none of them went to the grammar school because they could not afford the uniform.
As a student whose parents did not own a home— nor did they have a bank account—I had great difficulty opening a bank account at all. I was not allowed any sort of overdraft, and credit was simply not available. Three of my four children have recently graduated from university. Credit is still poured on them, almost on a daily basis, in spite of the fact that they owe many thousands of pounds. No one other than my wife and myself encourage savings, good budgeting or any sort of financial responsibility, and that will be a problem.
They will cope, but I do not want to spend the couple of minutes that I have talking about my children or those who will cope with credit, whether it is good or bad. I will talk about those who unfortunately cannot cope or get credit from the usual sources, and whose level of debt and total lack of access to reasonably priced loans makes the need urgent for an integrated strategy to tackle debt among our most excluded people.
In Sheffield, we have done three years of research through an organisation called IMPACT—Communities in Partnership for Action. It is a broad-based organisation with 27 communities in urban and suburban areas, mostly of Anglican, Roman Catholic and Methodist churches. Its research has come up with some very interesting facts and figures. One is that more money is leaving our weakest communities in payments to loan sharks than is put in through regeneration activities. If the Government are serious about wanting to create sustainable communities, they will need to fund and encourage the development of area-wide strategies to address debt, particularly in our poorest areas where, for many people, there is no alternative to loan sharks.
As the noble Baroness pointed out, the interest rates charged by such people are quite incredible. A £300 washing machine to you or me will cost £900 to a single parent living on a housing estate who has no access to the usual sorts of credit. It is no good simply throwing the responsibility to do something about that appalling situation at the Government. Responsibility must be shared between national and local government, the faith communities, the voluntary sectors, businesses and statutory bodies, as well as the financial sector, in whose long-term interest it must be to encourage financial responsibility.
1574
In our work we have set up, in co-operation with one of the large high-street banks, a strategy for financial inclusion for our poorer areas. I shall recite our aims very briefly.
The first is the setting up of a community finance initiative—a non-profit-making company. There are several examples in other places which lend money to those who cannot find it elsewhere. More than 90 per cent of the loans are returned. So much for being high-risk businesses justifying excessive interest rates. Such a company will fill the gap which some credit unions are not able to meet because they tend to be small, limited to communities which are poor and made up of people who in the main want to borrow rather than invest. An area-wide credit union makes much more sense because it can become self-supporting.
We need to increase accessibility to credit unions by having collection points in schools. We need to encourage payroll deduction to credit unions from our authorities. We need more and better debt support and money advice. Last, but not least, and perhaps most importantly, we need a financial literacy initiative in our schools. Many young people leave school with no knowledge of how to handle finances. Some families have for generations had no experience of financial services and they do not know what to do with a bank account. It can do more harm than good if they do not know how to use it.
It is a good thing to be a Lancastrian as Bishop of Sheffield in Yorkshire. The city is improving at a rapid rate. We are getting over pit closures and steel redundancies, but this issue is a remnant of despair that must be dealt with in our community.
8.1 p.m.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, 1, too, thank my noble friend for introducing today's subject. It is extremely important. I watched the news on television this morning. It was interspersed with advertisements urging me to borrow, borrow, borrow against no security. How can people resist such offers? Why cannot companies be made to ensure that people have sufficient security should they fall behind in their payments, which otherwise results in disaster?
As the right reverend Prelate asked, do young people receive sufficient education in financial matters? Statistics appear to show that they certainly do not. It is a stated government intention for young people to go to university and they are encouraged to do so, but the debts they incur make their futures extremely perilous.
Parents should be able to advise against spending more than can be afforded, but that is evidently old-fashioned. The idea that you do not buy anything until you have the money in your pocket is very out-of-date. Getting on the property ladder encourages even greater financial risk to young people. I join the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, in asking: do not all these problems require the Government to ensure that reform of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is brought speedily before Parliament?
8.3 p.m.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, for giving me the opportunity to speak publicly on a matter which has angered me a couple of times in the past year. It is the problem of how someone who is prudent with finances can fall into debt inadvertently and what can be done about it simply.
The problem arises with the debit card. I was always under the misapprehension that one could buy goods with a debit card only if one had funds in the bank— or an authorised overdraft—and that the bank would refuse to honour a transaction if one did not have funds. One could not therefore go into debt. Not so.
I believed that when the card was put into the machine the bank account was checked and any funds there were released to the merchant and all was well. If the transaction is small—say, £20—no check is made at that point because it is cheaper to upload at the end of the day. Let us say that an annual direct debit payment went out on the same day as one spent £20. That spend may well take the account into overdraft at the end of the day.

I believe that the transaction should be treated like a cheque and should be bounced. The bank should say, "Right, that's it because there are no funds". Not so. The bank honours the payment to the merchant and creates an overdraft on the account of the person who is not allowed credit.
The next problem is that the bank immediately issues a letter, which costs £25 or £30, saying, "You've been a very naughty person and exceeded your limit", and it slaps on a £60 referral charge. Suddenly, overnight, some poor person finds himself about £100 in debt. If he is a student on an allowance of about £100, probably all of which is earmarked for living on and buying books, how is he to pay it off?
The bank then applies the opposite of an old adage: only kick a man when he is down and make sure you kick him hard enough to stop him getting up again. The next month, he will receive another £20 letter informing him that he is still overdrawn and another £60 referral charge. The debt has doubled. Oh, and of course, this is at 25 per cent unauthorised overdraft interest rates. The downward spiral is created.
I know two people to whom that happened. One was a Russian girl. I do not know how she managed to pay off the debt, because she had terrible trouble. Every time she paid it off, the bank made sure it sent another £20 letter to take her overdrawn again. That went on for a long time until someone eventually bailed her out.
It also happened to my son. Having been briefed by me, my son telephoned the bank. He gave them an earful, threatened to move his account and pointed out that while they were trying to get students to sign up to their accounts they were about to lose a good customer who had been with them for many years. At that, they took fright, refunded the money and he went into credit. We learnt a good lesson from that.
1576
The simple answer to the problem is to make such practices illegal. When debit cards are involved, the banks must take the risks. If they do not check the account immediately a transaction is made, they must take the risk. They may wish to treat it like a bounced cheque relating to that amount, but the charge should be limited to a maximum of the £1 or £2 it costs them to generate an automatic computer letter. That is automatically posted, without a check taking place, to the account holder and it certainly would not cost £25 or £30. If it did cost that, I should be delighted to lend them my consultancy services to try to solve some of their internal problems.
I do not see why the procedure should not be limited so that transactions can be kept within bounds and people do not fall ever further into debt. That can happen and something should be done about it.
My last point is that the problem may worsen. One matter that has been raised in relation to electronic money is the Common Electronic Purse Specifications— CEPS—system. I now learn that that is unlikely to be implemented. It was a European standard which it was hoped would get off the ground, but there is no particular commercial reason to launch it. As local authorities are trying to find ever cheaper ways of making small payments, they may be looking at EMV standards for doing so. Again, that would involve transactions being taken off line and not knowing exactly whether a person had credit at the centre to cover those transactions. Therefore, that could become a bigger problem in the future, and I simply flag it up as a warning.
8.8 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I declare an interest as the author of a book on this subject and also as a long-standing member of the Jubilee 2000 Coalition and the Debt on our Doorstep campaigns on this subject. I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, for ensuring that this debate took place. I am grateful for all that she said and the facts that she put before the House with the possible exception that, in all honesty, this problem has escalated over the past several decades under both parties in government. Therefore, I do not believe that responsibility for it can be laid entirely at the door of the present Government. That does not mean that we can all wash our hands of it as though it were the tide coming in.
I am very grateful to all those who put the facts before us. I also believe that we should pay a very warm tribute to the kind of initiatives that the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, spoke about and those which the right reverend Prelate, my colleague the Bishop of Sheffield, also mentioned.
We have reached the situation where a major social problem requires serious attention. However, I wish to raise two matters in an attempt—I hope that it will be an acceptable attempt—to widen the parameters of this debate. I do not believe that we can automatically assume that the grandmother of the right reverend Prelate was wrong and that we have made great progress in every respect on this matter. The fact is that our society's profligacy and readiness to accept

1577
indebtedness would have horrified our grandparents. But it would have horrified not only our grandparents; in their originating documents, the major religious traditions within which we live are all very serious about the issue of usury.
It cannot be right that we attend only to the problems of the poor and those who are not coping when, as the right reverend Prelate said, the real issue may concern the people who are coping. We now live in a society in which not paying for something when you acquire it is a virtue. That is a serious matter. We also live in a society in which borrowing and indebtedness are now compulsory, and we must not underestimate the way in which that educates both those who enter upon those debts and those who watch them that that is an appropriate way to behave. Those of us who consider that we do cope with this matter need to take responsibility for its effect on those who are then led into situations with which they cannot cope.
Mortgage and personal debt have escalated over the past three or four decades by several hundred per cent, and that is a very serious matter. Therefore, I urge those who are coping to take serious responsibility for this situation. I also urge the Government to attend to the volume of indebtedness as a whole and to question whether it is sustainable in our society.
However, my main point is that the religious traditions of Christianity, Judaism and Islam are clear that the people who need to be regulated and controlled are not the debtors but the creditors. They are in the greatest danger of behaving in oppressive and unacceptable ways. Quite apart from the initiative that the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, proposed in relation to the banks, I suggest that it is inappropriate for people to be able to recover debts through the court system when they charge oppressive rates of interest.
I commend to the Minister the possibility of including in the White Paper the provision that those who charge over an agreed rate of interest, which obviously would need to be discussed, should not be able to recover the debt through the courts. I propose that, first, because not only would it obviate the use of the criminal law, except in cases where people resorted to criminal activity, threatening behaviour and violence in order to recover debts, but it would prevent the use of the criminal law to set interest rates, which, frankly, I believe is likely to be considered impossible. Secondly, as a matter of principle, I find it objectionable that my, and your Lordships', taxes should be used to fund institutions—namely, our courts—for the purpose of enabling people to exact disproportionate rates of interest from poor, vulnerable and defenceless people.
Therefore, I suggest that we need to attend not only to the needs of the poorest, although that is extremely important, but to the escalating acceptance of indebtedness as a way of life. That includes the huge volume of advertising literature and television advertisements on the matter that come our way. We also need to attend to the way that the institutions in
1578
our society do not protect the poor but, instead, protect people who engage in an activity which socially is utterly undesirable.
We need to address those kinds of matters. They concern some of the issues brought before us by those who have drawn attention to the poor and the vulnerable. We also need to address our social consciousness. We have come so far from the world of the right reverend Prelate's grandmother, and indeed of my grandparents, that we are in considerable social danger. I refer not only to the social danger of the poor, but to the social danger of us all.
8.14 p.m.
Lord Newby: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, for initiating this debate on an extremely important issue. She gave a number of examples of the scale of the problem of personal debt. I want to add one other. Figures announced by the Building Societies Association yesterday show that advances during the past year have doubled over the previous year. That is another example of what is a truly remarkable rise in personal debt.
At the moment it would be slightly premature to claim that we face an overall crisis of indebtedness, but we have undoubtedly reached a situation in which many people are becoming extremely vulnerable to even a small adverse change in their personal financial circumstances—and this is a time when the Governor of the Bank of England has made it abundantly clear that the next change in interest rates will almost certainly be up rather than down.
The question that we are debating is the extent to which individuals should be protected by policy from over-borrowing. I would certainly not wish to return to the rigidities that applied to borrowing for a mortgage, for example, when I first took one out some 25 years ago. I certainly agree with the noble Baroness. Lady Wilcox, that access to credit is, in principle, a good thing. Equally, I believe that the balance has tipped too far the other way and it is simply too easy for people to ratchet up unsustainable levels of debt, often as a result of highly aggressive and misleading marketing.
What should be done and who should do it? The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield gave a long list of those who have a responsibility for dealing with the issue. I want to deal with some of the bigger players. Obviously, the banks and the financial services providers have a major responsibility. The Bank of England has a responsibility for the overall financial stability of the economy. The FSA has a major responsibility, not least given that one of its major remits is to protect the consumer as far as financial services products are concerned. The Government have a major responsibility, both directly via their responsibilities at the Treasury and the DTI, and indirectly in giving a lead to the FSA and the Bank of England.
On what should be done, I want to make a number of proposals that draw on work carried out by my colleague in another place, Vince Cable, some of which

1579
has already been referred to by other speakers. First, there is clearly a major problem with exploitative loan sharks. We need tougher legislation to tighten up the issuing and monitoring of credit licences along with harsher penalties for those guilty of bad practice. Secondly, we should outlaw completely any early settlement penalty to encourage the clearance of debt ahead of schedule. It is bizarre that in many cases it is virtually impossible to clear debts sensibly and quickly.
All credit products should be brought within the regulatory control of the Financial Services Authority. Last year when dealing with problems with the split capital investment trust sector, I found that there were major problems concerning the boundaries of what the FSA did and did not cover. That meant huge problems in seeking redress for individuals who had been mis-sold products. At the moment one of the biggest lacunae is equity reversion schemes; the FSA is planning to bring them under its control, but it is taking far too long about it. I believe that the Government should publish strict measures and proposals for responsible lending and that lenders should be required to follow them. Interest rates on store cards should be policed far more vigorously by the competition and trading authorities.
I have two proposals on the issue of the tidal wave of unsolicited mail that we currently receive. First, each mailshot should contain a credit health warning that should explain to potential purchasers the impact of the commitment if interest rates change, particularly if they rise. Secondly, there should be a ban on the practice of sending unsolicited application forms for credit cards, loans and other credit products.
On the broader issue of financial literacy, which is a huge problem, I strongly support the FSA in attempting to get to grips with the issue, but more resources are needed. I hope very much that the tentative plans for a levy on the financial services industry will be followed through, that such a levy will be raised and that we shall have adequate resources generally, and for schools, to explain to people the nature of products that they may buy.
The level of personal debt requires a co-ordinated response by government, with active Bank of England and FSA support. To date, such a response has been wholly lacking. We look for a reassurance from the Minister this evening that the forthcoming White Paper on consumer credit really will get to grips with the issues, and, more generally, that the Government will give a clear lead to all the financial institutions to help to bring personal debt back to a more sustainable level.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, there could not be a more timely debate. My noble friend was too modest to say, but her credentials for bringing forward this debate are impeccable. She is a former chairman of the National Consumer Council and well aware of the issues that she described so tellingly in her opening speech. In fact, she gave such a clear exposition of the problem, with
1580
facts and figures and what she called the "sorry tales" of distress and fear and anxiety, especially among the poorest, as the right reverend Prelate said, that I shall not repeat them.
My noble friend and other noble Lords have focused on the question of financial education. We wondered what the Government's response would be to this problem, so we asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer: what steps are the Government taking to educate the population on financial products? The reply was crisp. It stated:
"Consumer education in relation to financial services is a matter for the Financial Services Authority".
Mr Boateng, who perhaps had just read the Government's latest handout, How to Wash your Hands, elaborated. He said,
"operational decisions reside with the relevant institutions and individuals".—[Official Report, Commons, 30/6/03; col. 52W.]
One government Minister went a great deal further in explaining the Government's view on the issue. Her viewpoint goes well beyond complacency or caveat emptor. For her the growth of consumer debt is a source of pride, a mark of a strong economy. Ruth Kelly told another place:
"Growth in household debt reflects strong fundamentals with a robust labour market, low interest rates and strong gains in housing wealth".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/3/03; col. 21W]
She gets much closer to the reality of why the Government are apparently so relaxed about the issue. Without the build up of debt that we have seen, the reality is that Britain's economy would be in exactly the same position as Germany—that is, near recession. The reason is that there has been, as has been described today, an enormous build up of borrowing against property to fund pensions or purchases.
Today, 50 per cent of all mortgage lending is by homeowners borrowing against the value of their existing homes. They are called mortgage equity withdrawals, home equity release plans or other exotic names, but their real name is a second mortgage. So, 50 per cent of all mortgage lending is on second mortgages. That 50 per cent of all mortgages incredibly accounts for 50 per cent of the rise in consumer spending, which means that—although the Minister will shortly deny it—the Government have a vested interest in the continuation of the present build up of debt.
So, if the Government have no interest in addressing the problem, who is going to deal with it and resolve the many anxieties that my noble friend and other noble Lords have described?
The Financial Services Authority has a statutory duty given to it by Parliament to promote public understanding of the financial system. The interesting thing about that duty is that it is not subsidiary to its other duties. Its other duties include market confidence, the protection of consumers and the reduction of financial crime. But the duty to promote public awareness of financial products and to promote education about the system is equal in weight to its other duties: it is not subsidiary.

1581
Sir Howard Davies has stressed the need to improve the financial literacy of our children in what he says is a big way. However, as many noble Lords said, the FSA's budget for teaching personal finance in schools is only £300,000, with only a further £2.7 million for adult learning. How can the FSA possibly fulfil its duty with such money?
What about the financial services industry? The noble Lord, Lord Newby, was pleased that it was recognising that the quid pro quo for a lighter regulatory touch was for it to fund that effort, and that financial literacy is the key to long-term trust in its practitioners. It has taken many good steps. There is the innovation of an honesty box to appear in marketing literature on credit cards, setting out more clearly the actual rates being charged—perhaps at some stage containing a common definition of APR and a common method of calculating interest. That is all most welcome. Banks such as the National Westminster have done great work in touring schools and providing basic knowledge of money management.
However, after spending some time researching this speech, I must agree with the chief executive of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, David Harker, who said:
"Despite a multitude of governmental and other initiatives to tackle debt problems, these are piecemeal, poorly co-ordinated and there is a real danger that they will not be effective".
I hope that I am not intruding on the Minister's time; I shall try to be brief.
I do not blame the Government for that. When I look back on the work that we did in Parliament on the Act, I do not recall that we ever had a debate on the educational aspects of the FSA's work. We concentrated much more on the regulation of creditors, as the right reverend Prelate said. Perhaps we missed a point to which we should return.
Let me end by saying this to the Minister: the Labour Party's manifesto in 2001 said:
"Poor education is a cruel injustice",
and,
"Our approach will be to intervene where there are problems".
There are now problems in this area, as the debate clearly shows.
I recommend to the Minister that he reads what is perhaps the most iconic Education Act that we have ever had in this country: the Butler Education Act 1944, which established the school system in our country. Something of that level is required to deal with the problems described by all noble Lords who have spoken.
Anyone who smokes a cigarette, drinks too much or gets overweight is aware of the risks that they are taking with their health. What this timely debate shows—as my noble friend Lady Wilcox said—is that we now need the same level of awareness of risks to financial health.
8.28 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, for raising this important topic, which is an issue of major concern to the Government. Total outstanding borrowing, including consumer credit and mortgages, stands at £888 billion, which is made up of unsecured consumer credit of £166 billion and secured mortgage debt of £722 billion.
Economic stability is delivering rising prosperity and record employment, underpinning robust growth in consumer spending. Our stable macro-economic framework has delivered sustainable economic growth, with the growth in borrowing reflecting the strong fundamentals of the UK economy. Unemployment is at its lowest since the 1970s and interest rates are at their lowest level since 1955. Moreover, the UK is the most developed, most competitive and largest credit market in Europe, accounting for about one third of all EU transactions. All that means that consumers of today are able to service higher levels of debt than ever before.
Although most consumers manage their credit successfully, a quarter of households have experienced financial difficulty. Not all financial difficulties become serious, but a significant minority—about 7 per cent of that group—can be classed as being over-indebted. The majority of financial difficulties can be attributed to unexpected changes in circumstances, such as redundancy, job loss, long-term illness, divorce, bereavement or having a child.
I very much welcome the support of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester that this is a long-term issue. I believe that that is right. It should not be considered that this situation is fuelled by government improvidence. I believe the problem is that after such a lengthy period of sustained growth people may be forgetting the lessons of what happens when there is a recession and therefore a down-turn in the economy with all the problems that brings. There is a danger that the folk memory does not remember what has happened in previous situations and that, while the level of debt can be coped with at this time, there can be problems if there is a serious down-turn in the economy.
I understand how provoking it must be to the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, that we have economic success, but the fact is that the causality works the other way round. The economic success is to some extent fuelling the issue of consumer debt. As I have said, this is an issue which the Government take very seriously. We are working to address the problem of personal debt. We will publish a consumer credit White Paper later in this calendar year. It will lay out policy on tackling over-indebtedness and on updating legislation to ensure that it is relevant to today's market, providing effective protection for all consumers.
In answer to a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield, about

1583
financial literacy, we are taking steps to empower consumers by improving their financial literacy. The Department for Education and Skills funds Skills for Life, the Government's strategy to improve adult literacy in England. Similar programmes are run in the devolved regions. The FSA will shortly publish principles for a national strategy for financial capability and this strategy will present a co-ordinated approach to the provision of education, information and generic advice on financial services.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield raised a very important point, which is the question of access to credit in poorer communities. The Government will continue to look at measures to address the need of low income groups for affordable credit. That will include improving the Social Fund administration, guidance and training to enhance the fund's ability to help those on low incomes to manage their finances and also working with credit unions to identify options for future reform.
The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, raised the question of debt advice, which is clearly another extremely important aspect of this problem. There are also government initiatives to help consumers once they have problems. There are government funds, free debt advice providers, including £17.1 million to Citizens Advice and £2.8 million to Citizens Advice Scotland per annum. There is a National Debtline which gives all consumers free, easy access to debt advice by telephone and access to debt repayment plans.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, that we shall be addressing the issue of future funding of telephone debt advice in the White Paper. The Legal Services Commission is running pilot schemes for people qualifying for legal help who find themselves in need of free debt advice. The findings from these pilot schemes and from the operations of the National Debtline are informing considerations of the Government's future role in the provision of such services.
This point was not raised in the debate, but the Government also recognise that over-indebtedness can be a disincentive to entering employment. From April 2004 a new £3 million fund will allow Jobcentre Plus managers to improve access to debt advice in areas where provision is limited, enabling lone parents, partners of the unemployed and other non-jobseeker's allowance benefit customers to get help before they take up work. The Scottish Executive has invested £3 million a year for three years to supply additional frontline specialist money advisers in Scotland.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester raised the question of enforcement. The Government are also looking at measures aimed at creating the right balance between better enforcement methods and safeguarding debtors. The Department for Constitutional Affairs' White Paper Effective Enforcement includes proposals allowing court users to get what is due to them while protecting debtors, who generally cannot pay, from oppressive pursuit of their debts. The review by the Department for Constitutional Affairs and the Insolvency Service of individual insolvency procedures looks at measures to rehabilitate
1584
debtors and provide protection from enforcement action while they make reasonable payments towards their debts.
We recognise that a minority of borrowers suffer from the impact of credit at what appear to be extortionate interest rates. We are not persuaded, however, of the case for setting interest rate ceilings, which could have adverse consequences for some of the most vulnerable and could be subject to manipulation by unscrupulous lenders. But we will make proposals to deal with extortionate credit in our White Paper.
The consumer credit White Paper will contain further measures to promote responsible lending. The Office of Fair Trading has published guidance on debt collection and debt management practices that are regarded as unfair and would call into question fitness to hold a consumer credit licence. The Department for Constitutional Affairs is also considering guidance that, it is hoped, will enable most debt cases to be resolved without recourse to the courts.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, asked whether we were moving quickly enough on the consumer credit White Paper. As I said, we will publish the White Paper later this year. It will lay out government policy on tackling over-indebtedness and update the consumer credit legislation to ensure that it is relevant for today's markets, providing effective protection for all consumers.
Key aspects of our review of the Consumer Credit Act have addressed keeping loan sharks out, tackling unfair lending practices and the quality and quantity of information available to consumers looking for credit. The Government recognise the importance of transparency in the consumer credit sector and support only measures that give consumers the information that they need to make informed choices.
The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, raised an extremely important point and a case that seemed grossly unfair at first sight. Lenders should be able to recover legitimate costs when customers go into default on their accounts. But we recognise that, in some cases, charges and interest on charges can be excessive and fuel increasing over-indebtedness. We will make proposals to address that in the forthcoming White Paper.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, raised the question of mortgages. In most cases, mortgages are subject to self-regulation under the Mortgage Code Compliance Board. First charge mortgages will be regulated by the FSA, from October 2004, and second charge mortgages will be regulated under the Consumer Credit Act.
The burden of personal debt cannot be underestimated. It is a serious and important issue. Today I described briefly the Government's approach. Further detail will be set out in the consumer credit White Paper before the end of the calendar year. The Government remain very concerned about the social problems caused by over-indebtedness and are

1585
particularly aware of measures needed to aid the more vulnerable members of society. We will continue to work on all measures aimed at ensuring prosperity for all.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn for two minutes.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 8.39 to 8.41 p.m.]

Hunting Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Hunting: assistance]:
Lord Renton of Mount Harrymoved Amendment No. 19:
Page 1, line 11, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: I speak to both Amendments No. 19 and No. 21, which are grouped together. The amendments omit the two subsections from Clause 3, which provide that a person commits an offence if he knowingly permits land that belongs to him to be entered or used in the course of the commission of an offence under Clause 1 or if he knowingly permits a dog that belongs to him to be used in the course of the commission of an offence under Clause 1.
I did not speak in the earlier part of this debate, before supper, because I knew that I was to move these amendments and would have an opportunity to speak now. I do not take the generous view about this Bill that has been heard from some noble Lords during the past few hours. I think that this Bill is entirely based on prejudice. I think it has precious little to do with the fox, or whether it is killed in the most cruel or the least cruel way. It is based on the prejudice of believing that those who follow a hunt are simply doing so, as toffs in pink coats with top hats and looking pretty funny, in order to get pleasure out of killing for fun.
That is an absurd misconception, but it is a prejudiced belief that is held by a number of people who live in the cities and towns. It is clearly held by some 300 Labour MPs who were willing to overthrow the contents of a Bill that was put forward by their own Minister in order to vote for the total banning of hunting, as described in the Bill that we had before us before we amended it tonight. This is simply prejudice and in that opinion I am supported by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, who also put his name to these amendments but who is not in his place at the moment. In an extremely good article in the Daily Telegraph on Wednesday, 8th October 2003, which I would recommend your Lordships to read, he states:
"A law supported by a majority will still be considered illegitimate by a minority if it lacks moral or rational justification. We do not accept the right of Parliament to pass any law, even if the majority wants it … In a complex, modern society such as Britain, which is full of minorities doing things of which majorities disapprove—in which the very concept of a "majority" is doubtful—laws must be backed by reason as well as by votes. Here is the problem. The pro-banning movement is based entirely on prejudice".
1586
That is a very fair statement by a Cross-Bencher who, as far as I know, has never hunted in his life.
Where do we go from here? Foxes are vermin. They are not an endangered species. They have to be killed and killing by hounds is the quickest, most efficient and most certain way of doing that. To quote those famous words by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, it is impossible to be certain which method of killing,
"seriously compromises the welfare of the fox",
most. No one can ask the fox that question. However, on all the evidence, as others have said, it is reasonable to believe that the quickest, most efficient, most certain way of killing a fox is killing by hounds, which happens very quickly indeed. Prejudice should not be the basis for law. Turning away the best available means for killing foxes is not a reasonable action. From that, I proceed to examine the two specific amendments.
I am very grateful to see the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, in his seat because he asked a number of questions during the opening debate this afternoon. He asked how one decides, when a person releases a dog, whether it is for the purpose of hunting—whether the person is committing a criminal offence. The noble Lord did not get a proper answer from the Minister. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, made rather the same point about releasing a dog in a park knowing that foxes are in the vicinity. Is that an offence? We started off with the dog owned by the daughter of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, which went into the broom looking for a mammal, then we moved on to other dogs all possibly causing their owner to commit offences that were not intended.
Will the Minister tell us the purpose of Clause 3? The common law rules on secondary liability are widely known. They are very well established common law rules and it is draconian to go beyond them. I am not a lawyer, but I remind the Minister of the common law rules on secondary liability. The definition in chapter 18 of Archbold: Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice, states that,
"someone who aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission of an offence by someone else is guilty of 'the like offence'.
The distinction between joint principals and principals of secondary parties can be very hard to draw".
With that common law definition, why is Clause 3 in the Bill at all? Either it does not spread the net wider than the usual principles, in which case there is no point to it, or it does spread the net wider, in which case why? What is the purpose of creating the crime in Clause 3? What is it about hunting that justifies a wider net being spread, especially as the supporters of Clause 3 have apparently decided that the offence is not serious enough to justify imprisonment? I know that my noble friend Lady Byford will speak later about the question of knowing about an offence, but, on the broad issue, it is extremely important to resolve the lack of definitions and clarity and the question of why Clause 3 is included in the Bill. All criminal offences ought to be clearly defined. That leads on to the other practical point.

1587
Clause 3 uses the words,
"land which belongs to him".
However, the definition of that phrase in the Bill is very wide indeed. The land belongs to him if he,
"owns an interest in it … manages or controls it, or … occupies it".
The definitions are drawn so widely that they would capture those who had only a nominal, indirect or transient interest and involvement in the land. That is very unfair. Someone with a minority interest in the land in question might strongly object to its use for hunting but be unable to prevent it.
For the purposes of the Bill, land is regarded as belonging to a person if he "occupies it". Again, however, although someone is a tenant and might personally object to the land being used for hunting, would he be liable to prosecution if the landowner allowed that land to be used for hunting?
What about a family who take a holiday cottage on a short-term let? If they take no positive steps to prevent dog walkers strolling across the land and the dog slips the lead, perhaps like the dog of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, in order to pursue a cat that is "living wild", an offence would arguably be committed under Clause 3. The short-term tenants would have permitted other persons to use the land to hunt. It seems to me that this clause is inevitably going to lead to a very wide range of misconceptions, arguments and disputes about whether or not a crime has been committed. The possible misinterpretations are endless.
Finally, the provision is totally unenforceable. One could never believe that the police or magistrates would ever be able to go about the task of enforcing this clause. There are 133,600 square miles in total of registered hunting land in this country. Can anyone think that the police or anyone else will be able to ensure that Clause 3 as drafted is obeyed throughout all of those square miles? Clause 3 is a bad and unnecessary part of a bad Bill. I very much hope, therefore, that the Committee will consider omitting Clause 3(1) and (2). I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Turner of Camden): I must tell your Lordships that if this amendment is agreed to I may not call Amendment No. 20 because of pre-emption.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am very happy to support my noble friend; my name is on the amendment. He mentioned the question of enforceability, which reminded me of a question that I asked the Minister earlier this afternoon. Was he saying in the course of his Second Reading speech that unenforceability was a matter about which legislators did not need to have any concern? It seems to me the most extraordinary thing to have said. It was only a fragment, but it was a fragment in his speech which did not make any sense to me at all. I should be very grateful if the noble Lord
1588
would strengthen the case for what my noble friend has said by admitting that what he said on Second Reading about unenforceability was ill-judged.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: Without these amendments this is surely the law for compulsory sneaking, is it not? If one looks at Clause 3 and considers the following set of circumstances, that must be the case. In my example, a landowner does not permit his land to be entered by the person who commits an offence against the legislation. He finds the person on his land. Under Clause 3(1), he will still be guilty of,
"an offence if he knowingly permits land",
which has been entered without his permission to be,
"used in the course of the commission of an offence".
What is he supposed to do? If the purpose of the proposed legislation is to be given effect, he is virtually required to telephone the police to inform them that he thinks an offence is going to be committed on his land—even though he may be a person who is totally opposed to the legislation, has no desire to report people who may be his friends to the police, and knows perfectly well, because he has spoken to any number of chief constables, that they believe the law is unenforceable in any event. It is another example of how ill-thought out the Bill is.
As I see it, there is another legal problem, for which I should be grateful for an explanation from the Minister if I am wrong. What is the criminal state of mind? What is the mens rea required for an offence to be committed under this proposed section? From the way in which the legislation is drafted, it appears that the mens rea consists of knowingly permitting the land to be entered or knowingly permitting the land to be used. It is not clear whether it is the intention of the Government that in order to commit the offence guilty knowledge must apply to both limbs of the clause: that is, first, knowingly permitting the land to be entered or used, and, secondly, knowing that an offence against the legislation is to be committed.
If that is what is intended, why has the legislation not been drafted in a way which everyone understands? On the other hand, if the legislation is deliberately drafted in this way, leaving open the interpretation that an offence is committed simply if the land owner permits the land to be entered or used—even if he does not know that there is to be a commission of an offence under the legislation—it is simply an unfair law which no sensible Parliament should allow to be passed.
After all the time that the Government have had to consider the legislation, we are left with another bad example of a lack of clarity. It is with those points in mind that I propose to support all the amendments if given the opportunity.
Lord Northbrook: I support Amendment No. 19, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry. I am unclear on another point in Clause 3(1), which states:
"A person commits an offence if he knowingly permits land which belongs to him to be entered or used in the course of the commission of an offence under section 1".

1589
Under Clause 10, there is an offence by a body corporate which states:
"This section applies where an offence under this Act is committed by a body corporate with the consent or connivance of an officer of the body".
I should have declared an interest as a landowner. There are situations where the land is held in trust by trustees. There is an inconsistency here. What is the situation if trustees who hold land rather than individuals or body corporates permit hunting to be allowed on the land? That is another complication of this clause.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: When the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, moved the amendment, he said that he feared the Bill was borne out of prejudice. I fear that he is right; namely, that it is a Bill borne out of prejudice. That is very dangerous. Prejudice against a minority has no part in decent democratic legislation. The problem is, once one Bill has been passed as an act of prejudice, exactly where will it stop?
Let us look at the history of this Bill, which we touched on earlier today. The Labour Party manifesto stated that a Bill to ban fox hunting would be introduced into the Commons and would be put before Parliament. As I mentioned earlier, that Bill to ban fox hunting has now become a Bill to ban the hunting with dogs of all wild animals. Beagle hunting is to be banned, as is any form of hunting with dogs. Already, through prejudice, we have expanded the Labour Party commitment that was put before the electorate and on which the electorate voted. So the Government and the House of Commons have taken liberties with the mandate they were granted. They were granted a mandate to ban fox hunting, but in fact they have sought to ban virtually everything to do with hunting with dogs—including even preventing people chasing foxes out of their gardens in our towns and villages.
Where do we go from here? There are people who are already intimidating fishermen on our riverbanks because they do not believe that wild fish should be caught on the hook. Sooner or later, are we to see a ban imposed on angling? Martin Salter, my MP in Reading, voted for this Bill, but he is a keen angler. He needs to watch out, because there are some who seek to ban angling.
Many people certainly want to ban shooting. They do not believe that pheasant, partridge and snipe should be bred and then released into the air for people to shoot at with pellets from a shotgun. They think that that is cruel. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, is in his place. I believe that he has a number of stags on his estate. Many people would like to prevent him and many others shooting stags. Finally, there are many people who believe that the Grand National is cruel. So where are we going to stop?
Perhaps it sounds a little far-fetched, but some 50 years ago, a Labour Government would not have dreamed of introducing a Bill to ban hunting. They
1590
would have believed that to be completely wrong and an interference with the rights of people to pursue a sporting activity that they had enjoyed for over 300 years. Clement Attlee would not have dreamed of introducing such a Bill.
9 p.m.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. Would he be interested to learn that when I entered the first of my two fights to be elected to Parliament, my opponent was a Labour Member of Parliament who was a Master of Foxhounds?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, ever so gently, that we are in Committee. He has betrayed a slight tendency to drift back to Second Reading.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I do not believe I was doing so. I would not have dreamt of doing so if I thought I had been doing so. All I have done is to take the text of the introduction to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, and to draw the conclusions that I have drawn.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I was overly gentle with the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry. He, too, transgressed.
The Earl of Onslow: I shall try not to transgress.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I have not quite finished. I was being hounded—if I may put it that way—by the noble Baroness, who is trying to act as a chairwoman. That is very dangerous in this House. I shall certainly draw my remarks to a conclusion. They were relevant and, through those remarks, the Committee now know that I shall support the amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: As I said, I shall try seriously not to transgress. I shall stick closely to the amendment and ask the following question. Later in the Bill it states that the Crown and the Duchy of Cornwall are subject to its provisions. If we go back to the agents on the Crown land and to the officers of the body corporate, are we not in danger of getting into difficulties about that unless we are very careful about the clause?
Lord Monro of Langholm: I support this important amendment. Let me preface my remarks by saying that I was glad when, towards the end of the debates before dinner, the Minister started calling this a government Bill, which he should have done from the start. It is terribly important to realise that when a government have a majority of more than 200 in another place, whether or not there is a free vote does not matter two hoots because the Government will get their way whatever may happen. However, during my many years in another place, I never saw or heard of a government Bill such as this being overturned and defeated in another place by their Back-Benchers. It is

1591
an astonishing U-turn and one in which the Government must have been particularly disappointed.
Throughout the debate we have heard of the importance of Burns and the Portcullis discussions. We heard every morning on Channel 4 the Minister extolling the virtues of utility and how everything would be fair. We now have a Bill that is totally unfair and totally different from the one that the Government introduced in another place.
I am a farmer in Dumfriesshire. We have lost our hunt because of the bad decision by the Scottish Executive. Everything we forecast has happened. There are now many foxes and there has been a loss of employment, a loss to the slaughterhouse of fallen stock and the loss of coursing, to which I shall refer later.
The Minister must consider seriously the effects on farming of the Bill that he is introducing. The Burns report indicated that 2 per cent of lambs are slaughtered by foxes—that is, 340,000 lambs, which is an awful lot of livestock. They are killed in the most horrible way—far worse than the way in which foxes are killed and which the Government are trying to prevent. I hope the Minister will bear in mind what has happened in practical terms in Scotland. It will turn out to be the same in England and Wales.
I hope the Government will have second thoughts about what they are doing with the Bill that they have introduced, which has been shown to be particularly impractical from the point of view of the meaning of each clause. I hope that tonight we will get more emphatic answers from the Minister about what each clause means to individuals out for a social walk with dogs, and so on.
I hope, too, that the Minister will take the trouble to explain the moral case that he puts forward. How is it morally right to hunt rabbits and rats but not foxes? How is it right for people to be prevented carrying out perfectly reasonable sporting activities on their own land with their own dogs?
Finally, I hope that the Minister will, some time soon—he has been asked often enough—explain the position of the police. They have, at very senior level, indicated the impracticability of the legislation and the difficulty of implementing it.
All these points go together to support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Renton. I hope that the Minister will concede this one, if nothing else.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I should like to put out to noble Lords, in case they have forgotten, that if the amendment is passed, Amendment No. 20 will fall. I would like to know the attitude of the Opposition Front Bench to that, particularly as substituting the phrase "gives permission for" instead of "knowingly permits" would, in my judgment, make a significant difference. We need to take note of possible happenings if the amendments go through.
Baroness Byford: Perhaps I can answer the noble Lord's question, which might help other Members of
1592
the Committee. I wish to return to the amendment in the right place. I tabled my amendment prior to my noble friend's. I rather fancy my own amendment, to be honest, but if he wished to press his, I would support it. However, I reserve my right to return to this.
Lord Palmer: I, too, support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and his colleagues. It is a classic example of the complete muddle and mess the Bill really is. The noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, spoke about land ownership—we desperately need clarification of this. The noble Lord mentioned trustees, which often own an enormous amount of land. One must not forget that an awful lot of land is also owned by charitable trusts. That will be a major problem, and I ask for clarification from the Minister. I wholeheartedly support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, a colleague of mine for many years in the other place and up here, for giving us the opportunity to concentrate on the use of land.
There are two sides to every question. Most Members opposite, and those who take the opposite view from me, are much better versed in the operation and behaviour of hunts, in the past as well as today. At Second Reading, I said that I had heard from a number of people, as we all did—there are lobbies on both sides of the main argument which might or might not encourage people to write. I indicated then that one of the most distressing things that had been drawn to my attention was the arrogance of the hunts, time after time. They went on to people's lands, their gardens or their back doors, causing distress and annoyance, with not a word from Members opposite about how to deal with the problem. People in the locality had to live with it, because the hunt had been in existence for a long time and those who belonged to it were used to getting their own way.
Perhaps I may read this into the record again, because until we get some honesty in acknowledging that there is a problem, the problem will remain. I referred to the hunts in,
"the Isle of Wight and in the Lake District, Weardale and Tees Valley Beagles, Essex and Suffolk Foxhounds, Cotley Harriers, Quantock Hills, Budleigh Salterton, Shropshire, New Forest Hounds, North Shropshire Hunt, Beaufort Hunt, Wynstay Hunt, East Devon Hunt, Totnes, Plymouth, Mudbury Harriers, West Green and Newport South Wales".—[Official Report, 16/9/03; cols. 857-8.]
Those were only a tiny few; people tell me that there are hundreds if not thousands of hunts.
I venture to suggest that the hunts in operation have been guilty of trespass and causing distress and being bullies in their communities without let or hindrance. The Members opposite, who, as far as 1 am concerned, are good colleagues in the Chamber, ought to reflect that they have been negligent in their so-called defence of their communities and the ancient rights—that is, hunts—over the years.
Whatever happens with the amendment and whatever is said under it, we have to be fair and recognise that there are nasty people about who do not

1593
hesitate to frighten people. On Second Reading, I referred to a certain individual and what she had written to me. In a roundabout way it was drawn to my attention that she had been visited, within a week of Hansard coming out, and that certain unfair and distressing words were used. That is not right. I am not saying that everyone on the opposite side of the Chamber knows that that happened; of course they did not. But they know that it does happen. If we are to have equity and fairness in this issue, we ought to be honest and recognise that there is a problem—and it is not a problem on one side alone.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: The noble Lord, Lord Graham, makes a good point. There can be no defence for people who are arrogant and do not respect other people's property. In recent years, with the setting up of the Independent Supervisory Authority for Hunting, there is a mechanism available to any member of the public who feels aggrieved to make a complaint. It will be fully investigated and, if it is found to be justified, there is no question but that penalties will be imposed on those responsible.
I do not believe that any responsible hunters now behave as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, suggested. I accept that there are occasions—they have been made known to the noble Lord, Lord Burns—when trespass takes place inadvertently. In my personal experience, people go backwards to avoid upsetting their neighbours. That may be something relatively new, but it is right that it should happen, and those incidents should not have happened in the past. They have been a cause of friction.
Part of the problem is the difficulty that many rural areas are experiencing with people who may have moved from elsewhere, who have competing interests in life and who have to find ways in which to adapt to other people's ways of life. One notable thing about the Bill and agricultural communities is that the Bill has caused serious polarisation on the issue for the first time. In the past, in rural communities, people have taken views on both sides on hunting. They may have argued and muttered about it, or they may have had open words, but they live side by side and tolerate other people in those communities, because in rural areas one has to live cheek by jowl with other people. The Bill, and the thinking behind it, is saying in effect, "We're going to tell you how to live your lives, and if we can't convince you by argument, we are going to pass legislation to make you into criminals". That is causing real division and real difficulties, not only between town and country—although it has aggravated differences there—but in the country itself, where communities should be getting on together.
I am troubled by what the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has said, because he raised the matter on amendments dealing with the role of landowners. I am troubled about what is being got at by the provisions in this clause. Is it intended to put a landowner in a worse position than someone would otherwise be under the criminal law? If you aid, abet,
1594
counsel or procure the commission of an offence by someone else, you, too, are guilty of the offence. Looking at the wording of the subsection, it would appear that someone who himself does not hunt or encourage it or participate in it, may none the less be guilty if he does not take active steps to stop other people doing so on his land. I wonder where that leaves people—this will come up later when we deal with hare coursing—who have illegal hare coursing (poaching, as it should rightly be called) taking place on their estate now. Would they become criminals if they did not inform the authorities about that matter straightaway? Often there is no response when they go to the authorities as there simply is not sufficient rural policing to deal with the matter.
I am also troubled about these amendments and about the relationship that they have to the Bill due to something that the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, said which I am afraid rings a bell with me. I shall try very hard not to upset the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, by straying into Second Reading, but the noble Lord said that the measure was an attack on people. The measure is aimed specifically at landowners.
I do not know how many of your Lordships read the debates that took place on this Bill in another place in the summer of this year. They did not make pretty reading. The issues relating to animal cruelty—the issues relating to the Bill—were scarcely mentioned. There were a number of references to people who owned land. There were references, curiously, to the injustices that had been meted out to the mining community. I say curiously because, as many of us know, it is from those communities that some of the strongest supporters of coursing, particularly with whippets, come. They are the very people who would be penalised by the Bill.
In short, reading those debates—I do not think that I am being unfair; I invite Members of the Committee who think that I may be to read those debates—there was a refusal even to consider the adverse animal welfare implications which a ban would without question, on all the evidence, cause. It appeared that many of those who spoke, and no doubt voted accordingly in the debate, sought some kind of revenge for perceived or real past social injustice. Surely the Labour Party has grown up. Surely it was that very attitude which kept us in opposition for so many years. It was because the Prime Minister came to office saying that he would govern on behalf of the whole nation—and the nation believed him—that this Government gained two massive election victories.
My noble friend Lord Stoddart referred to previous Labour governments. We are, of course, repeating history here because in 1949 under a Labour government with a huge majority an attempt was made to abolish hunting. The Minister of Agriculture was Tom Williams. Both he and Chuter Ede, the Home Secretary, had previously sponsored anti-hunting Bills in the 1930s. Indeed, Tom Williams had actually moved a Motion against hunting at the Labour Party conference in 1928. Yet on examining the issues they both voted against the Bill, as did the Prime Minister Clement Attlee, Aneurin

1595
Bevan, Ernie Bevin and many other Labour MPs. Tom Williams, in a speech which the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, read in full to the House on a previous occasion, said then what perhaps cannot be said too often because it is still totally relevant. He said that the support for a ban was,
"based on the false premise that its provisions would lessen cruelty; second, that the suppression of these sports without effective and efficient alternatives would lead to much less satisfactory activities; and third, [that] it would alienate the support of the rural population".
He finished with these words:
"'Finally. I ask Members to consider carefully whether the supporters of this Bill have really justified this interference with the liberties of the rural population… I hope that at this moment we are not going to forfeit the goodwill we have so rightly earned, and go down to history as a party anxious to abolish the pleasures of others".
I hope very much that this Government, who have allowed their agenda to be taken by the Back-Benchers and their Bill to be changed into one that bears no relation to the evidence that their own anti-hunting Minister found, will not find themselves tarnished as Tom Williams envisaged that a Labour government might be in the 1945 administration. That 1945 Labour administration faced up to this exact problem. They took charge and control, and ensured that their agenda and programmes were such that their achievements lasted to this day.
In looking at the amendments, I would very much like to know whether it is intended to impose a greater penalty and responsibility on landowners than on any ordinary citizen faced with a criminal allegation.
Also, I would specifically like the Minister's help. He may not be aware that on Exmoor, where I live part of the time, the sporting rights to a large amount of land—many thousands of acres—are owned by a limited company. That land is occupied by people who are sometimes freeholders and sometimes tenants, but none of them is in control of who hunts on their land. What is the position so far as they are concerned? Are they also likely to be made criminal, simply because they are occupiers and perhaps landowners of the land? In reality, they have no legal right to say no.
Lord Mancroft: I, too, have some concerns around the amendments. I throw my mind back to the very long hours that we spent talking about the then Countryside and Rights of Way Bill. In a whole tranche of that Bill, the obligations of landowners to welcome people—tourists, walkers, whoever—on to their land were discussed. We also debated the difficulties that landowners might face with that from damage, people coming near their houses at night and so on.
In those debates, the wicked landowner was trying to stop people coming on their land. Now we have another piece of legislation where the equally wicked landowner has to stop a different lot of people coming on to his land. He has to let some on and keep some off. That puts two extraordinary and completely different new areas of responsibility on to landowners in a
1596
relatively short time. They do not particularly want those responsibilities, and I am not sure that they are in a position to fulfil them.
The noble Baroness talked about the problems of illegal coursing—poaching, as she quite rightly called it. When landowners ask for help from the police and authorities, it is often not forthcoming. That is why there is so much of that type of poaching. There are other similar issues. Travellers are not such a bad problem now, but they certainly were a few years back, in terms of coming on to people's land and possibly committing crimes. Whether they were or not, the landowner had no ability to know what they were up to or even to remove them. He certainly did not welcome them.
I wonder how landowners will respond to this new responsibility, as it is very difficult. Let us compare the Bill to the CROW Act, as it now is. We talked so much on that about access and tourism, and how marvellous it was to welcome people on to places such as Exmoor, which the noble Baroness mentioned, the North Yorkshire moors and all the other beautiful parts of England to which people want to come. Yet here we have an activity for which landowners have welcomed people on to their land for goodness knows how long, on their feet or horses, or however they wanted to come. They were sometimes not quite so welcome on their quad-bikes and in their four-wheel drives, but those difficulties occur.
Putting aside whatever one may think about hunting from the welfare point of view, it is the ultimate access to the countryside. One reason why people enjoy hunting is that they get to see parts of the country that they would not otherwise. With one hand we are encouraging that, but with another, rather illogical hand we are discouraging it. It seems an odd thing to do.
I, too, want to turn to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, because the matter is serious. There is no doubt that occasionally people behave badly. Sometimes they might be hunting people; sometimes they might be walkers; sometimes they might be football fans. During the past few years, we have constantly seen football fans, not only in this country but abroad, behaving appallingly. I am not sure that that is a reason to ban football. Rather, it is a reason to see whether we can improve the behaviour.
I am a member of the hunting community and I have been all my life. I cannot think of another community which has recognised that it had a reputation, whether ill or well deserved, for arrogance and bad behaviour. That was one of the perceptions and, according to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, it still is. That is most sad, but regardless of what anyone may think about hunting, it is not bad behaviour.
I have never come across a community which has made a greater effort to be seen to be welcoming and well mannered. Only the other day my wife said, "It's a frightful nuisance opening the gate for the hunt because every single person—perhaps 100 people—says good morning and thank you and they take their

1597
hats off. By the time they have all gone through, she is completely exhausted with smiling at them because they go out of their way.
I am certain that that does not happen all the time and occasionally people say things they should not say and do things they should not do, but a huge effort has been made by this community. As the noble Baroness said, the independent supervisory authority for hunting, which has been in operation for several years, has a sophisticated complaints procedure.
At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Graham, read out a list of hunts he had been told behaved badly. I felt like writing to him, but then I thought, "What's the point?". I read his speech carefully because I wanted to check up on it and I can inform him that three of the hunts he listed do not exist and never have, so they probably did not behave badly. However, I know two of the hunts very well because I was Master of one and I now hunt with the other. I went to considerable trouble to telephone those responsible in order to discover whether there had been complaints and problems and whether they had trespassed. It is true that hunts do occasionally trespass—fortunately, now rarely. I took the trouble to telephone and ask, "Have you been anywhere you shouldn't have been?". Neither could think of anything they had done. However, if the noble Lord can find more details of the behaviour he mentioned, it should be and will be investigated.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I will certainly let the noble Lord be privy to the correspondence on which I made my remarks. If people have misused the name of dead hunts, that should be seriously investigated. If I have been misled, I have misled the House on the basis of that information. I wonder how many equally honest professions will be made during the course of this debate.
Lord Mancroft: I do not know the answer to that, but if the noble Lord will let me know I will undertake to do my best. I do not for one moment suggest that he had any intention of misleading the House. Of course he did not. However, the important point is that these things happen and people do make allegations and sweeping statements. Sweeping statements have poisoned the debate and made it more difficult. The reality is that most of the issues the noble Lord raised are being addressed and will continue to be addressed, but they are not in themselves bases on which to use the criminal law to inflict one's views and ideas on people who are doing their best to behave in the best way they can every day in their activity.
But that was not the central point of these amendments: it was to put an added responsibility on to landowners. I am uncomfortable with that. I do not know whether the same reaction applies to other crimes, but one gets the impression that there is something so particularly awful about hunting that extra penalties and measures must be taken beyond any which exists in other laws in order to restrict this ghastly and terrible behaviour. One sits through
1598
endless debates on criminal justice Bills, but it is difficult to imagine any other law that we have passed where we have said, "We've got to make sure that no one does this, otherwise they will be punished too". It is extraordinary. One gets the feeling that the whole thing smells of vengeance, and that is very unattractive.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: As a humble Back-Bencher, I must say that I was fascinated by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. I do not know whether it is in order in Committee to put a question to him or whether I should put it to his noble friend the Minister to reply on behalf of his noble friend or, indeed, on behalf of the Government.
It struck me that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, gave a reasonably classic example of the saucepan calling the kettle smutty. We had wonderful images of high-handed huntsmen, huntspersons or huntspeople, or whatever one is supposed to call them nowadays, riding on their shining steeds with top hats and shiny boots "bullying lesser people"—I believe those were his words. Of course, that sort of behaviour is unacceptable, as other noble Lords have said.
Speaking as someone who was fortunate enough to be able to give up riding on his ninth birthday and who has never had the misfortune to hunt, one agrees with the thrust of the amendment. However, does the noble Lord agree that, as a former formidable Chief Whip, he, if anyone in your Lordships' House, has been guilty of all the behaviour of which he accuses these hapless huntsmen, who, we are now assured by my noble friend and his noble friend Lady Mallalieu, no longer exist? In those circumstances, I hope that the saucepan will no longer call the kettle smutty and that the noble Lord might be prepared to withdraw his remarks.
Lord Whitty: This has been a rather wider-ranging debate on the clause than I had anticipated. I was going to comment on it fairly briefly, but I believe that your Lordships need to pause to think slightly. Before the dinner break, I momentarily had the impression that noble Lords were genuine in asking the House to adopt amendments which effectively would ask the Commons to reconsider the position in relation to the Alun Michael Bill—
Noble Lords: The original Bill.
Lord Whitty: The original Bill. But almost everything that has been said in this debate makes it clear that noble Lords who supported some of those amendments are against creating any offence at all in this area.
Yet the amendment carried before the dinner break in relation to the registration of hunting naturally leads to the fact that there will be some non-registered hunting and some non-exempt hunting—that is, there will be illegal hunting. If there is a possibility that illegal hunting will take place, it is surely right that those who aid and abet it should be guilty of a criminal offence.

1599
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, suggested that we should rely on the general criminal law here. But he will know, as will other noble Lords, that many statutes make it an explicit offence knowingly to abet or commit illegal activities. That is all that this clause does. It does so in the sense of an explicit permission by a landowner knowingly to allow people to engage in illegal activity on his land. When I use the word "landowner", that is not a class attack on landowners, as the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, implied; it would be whoever was in a position to give authority to use the land. It might be the manager or someone acting on behalf of a charity or a trustee or it might be common land. We would not necessarily be getting at a land-owning aristocrat here, so let us get that out of the way. But it would be someone who had knowingly and expressly given permission for someone to engage in illegal activity. That is a legitimate area for statute and one that should reasonably be in the Bill.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Would the Minister include tenant farmers in that?
Lord Whitty: Yes, if they were the people with authority over access to land and they knowingly behave in that way, that would include tenant farmers.
Lord Northbrook: The Minister appears to be drawing the definition wider than the Bill does. Clause 3(1) mentions "a person" and Clause 10 mentions "a body corporate". The Minister appears to be drawing a wider definition.
Lord Whitty: A person or someone acting on behalf of a body corporate would have the authority. The body corporate or a person who has been devolved that authority from the landowner, or whoever exercises control over the land, would have the authority.
Lord Northbrook: That does not appear to be in the legislation.
Lord Whitty: It is whoever controls the land. The Committee will know that when a charity owns the land, the board of trustees does not open and close the gate. Someone acts on behalf of a manager of the land and if the manager gives permission for someone to engage in illegal activity, whether illegal hunting or anything else, he or she will be abetting illegal activity. The result of the amendment that was carried, against my earlier advice, envisages there being illegal hunting. Therefore, there should be an offence of knowingly abetting illegal hunting.
The Countess of Mar: The clause states,
"if he knowingly permits land which belongs to him".
A tenant does not own the land.
Lord Whitty: There is the matter of what the word "belongs" means. I am informed—noble Lords who have legal training will understand this—that there is an established legal precedent for that, which would include the owner of the lease to the land.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: The Minister said that before dinner we passed an amendment by a substantial majority that allowed registration. He then implied that given that amendment, he believed that I was going rather far in pushing these amendments for the reasons that he has just stated. I accept that abolishing the two subsections in Clause 3 is a substantial step. Could he give the Committee a promise that he will recommend the amendment on registration, through the Government, to the House of Commons? If so, I agree that it is not necessary to move these amendments but, if not, I have no option because I do not know what will happen to registration.
Lord Whitty: The Committee is entitled to a free vote on all these matters. Should the Committee pass this amendment, and no doubt other amendments that will be tabled at later stages, the question of what the totality of the Bill will look like, and whether I or any government Minister will be prepared to recommend it or parts of it, is premature.
I was making the point that the noble Lord's opening remarks—before he spoke about the specific amendment—and many other comments, suggested that it had not been accepted that there should be some form of heath hunting that had been made illegal, when the act of registration implied that some existing hunting may be deemed illegal and that, therefore, the supplementary offences were needed for anyone who aids and abets by giving permission for illegal activity to take place.
That is the only point that I am making. A more general point is that if the Committee is serious about asking the House of Commons to think again about the original Bill, one should not delete all the other parts of the Bill that support that approach.
The Earl of Caithness: I have listened with care to what the Minister has said and I agree with him about illegal hunting. I shall return to that when we discuss hare coursing. That needs to be attacked in a stronger way than is being done at the moment. However, when talking about the landowner giving permission the words that he used were exactly those words in Amendment No. 20, tabled by my noble friend Lady Byford. The noble Lord did not use the phrase "knowingly permits", but the words "gives permission for". There is a great difference between those two phrases. If the noble Lord could agree to the amendment of my noble friend Lady Byford, which uses the words "gives permission for", that would solve many of the Committee's concerns.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Byford: I finally get to the Dispatch Box to say that my noble friend has just said exactly what I wanted. While I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry, I think that mine clarifies the issue better. The Minister has just indicated that it should be clear that that person has given permission. If so, I cannot see why—although at the moment we have not reached my amendment, which is partly the problem—the Government cannot accept my amendment. It definitely clarifies the position quite precisely.
I shall not go over the ground that other noble Lords have talked about. Certainly, the position regarding tenants is quite right. If, as the noble Countess, Lady Mar, says there is a problem—and the Minister said there is not—I believe, as I am sure do other noble Lords, that the issue should be on the face of the Bill. We are seeking clarity. I do not quite know how to get out of this mess because we are already debating Amendment No. 20, which I support. I would much rather that noble Lords support my amendment, which gives greater clarification and perhaps does not quite go to the lengths that the Minister is accusing various parts of the Chamber of trying to obtain.
Lord Whitty: I have to leave it to noble Lords to sort out which of the amendments they want. However, I would caution the noble Baroness that giving permission without using the term "knowingly" could catch more people than the current clause does.
As regards clarity, Clause 11(3) spells out the definition of "belongs" and who is caught by it.
Baroness Blatch: Can the Minister tell me how one can give permission without knowingly giving permission?
Lord Whitty: One can give permission for people to come on to the land not knowing that it would be an illegal offence.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: When I tabled the amendments I did not know that we would get into quite such a—I do not know whether "muddle" is the right word to use about them, but confusion.
First, I thank the Whip on the Government Front Bench for telling me that she thought I was transgressing in my first remarks. But she allowed me to continue none the less. That is a rare privilege and as an ex Chief Whip I realise what a privilege it was. I thank her very much.
I was particularly grateful during this interesting and wide-ranging debate to have the support of both the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, particularly given the fact that we sat on opposing Benches in the Commons for a great many years. It is particularly pleasant, therefore, to have their support.
I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, referred to me as a colleague—although, again, we sat on opposite sides in the other place. I entirely
1602
understand his concern; but he was very adequately answered by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and by my noble friend Lord Mancroft. I should certainly expect that under the registration procedure that we agreed to before dinner, any hunt that behaved in the manner he described would be hauled up immediately, told to get it right, and asked to apologise and to repair any damage done. But I entirely understand the noble Lord's reason for raising that point; I hope that he will be entirely satisfied by future hunts.
I thank all noble Lords who have supported me. I have sought and received contradictory advice during the course of the past hour but, on balance, I take the Minister's point that we have moved forward on the issue of registration: that if there is registration, there may be illegal hunting. On that basis, I shall not press my amendment to a vote. I should like to hear what my noble friend has to say from the Front Bench, but if registration is not accepted by the Commons. I have no doubt that we shall want to return to the matter when and if the Bill returns to this House. On that basis, and having listened carefully to the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Byfordmoved Amendment No. 20:
Page 1, line 11, leave out "knowingly permits" and insert "gives permission for"
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 20 and to speak to Amendment No. 22, but I shall not waste the Committee's time. I have listened carefully to what the Minister said. I tried to get him to follow the line that he indicated earlier. I beg to test the opinion of the Committee.
9.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 20) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 127; Not-Contents, 22.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Armstrong of Ilminster, L.

Chester, Bp.

Arran, E.

Cobbold, L.

Ashcroft, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Astor, V.

Colwyn, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Attlee, E.

Crathorne, L.

Best, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Blatch, B.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Bledisloe, V.

Denham, L.

Boyce, L.

Dixon-Smith, L. [Teller]

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

Donoughue, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Elton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Erroll, E.

Burnham, L.

Ferrers, E.

Byford, B.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Caithness, E.

Fowler, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Golding, B.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Goschen, V.

1603

Harris of High Cross, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Haskins, L.

Onslow, E.

Henley, L.

Palmer, L.

Higgins, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Hoffmann, L.

Parkinson, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Peel, E.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Plumb, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Puttnam, L.

Hylton, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Inge, L.

Reay, L.

Jopling, L.

Rees, L.

Kimball, L.

Renton, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Richardson of Duntisbourne, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Roper, L.

Linklaterof Butterstone, B.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Listowel, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Liverpool, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Scott of Foscote, L.

Luke, L.

Seccombe, B.

MacGregor of Pulham Market,

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

L.

Selsdon, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Sharman, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Sharpies, B.

Mancroft, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Mar, C.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Stewartby, L.

Marlesford, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Strange, B.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Swinfen, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Monson, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Montrose, D.[Teller]

Ullswater, V.

Moran, L.

Vinson, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Waddington, L.

Naseby, L.

Wakeham, L.

Neill of Bladen, L.

Warnock, B.

Newton of Braintree, L

Weatherill, L.

Nickson, L.

Wilcox, B.

Northbrook. L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Northesk, E.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Berkeley, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Campbell-Savours, L

[Teller]

Harris of Richmond, B.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Haskel L

Dixon, L.

Hoyle, L.

Dubs, L.

Laird, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

[Teller]

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Thornton, B.

Fookes, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Gilbert, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
10 p.m.
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
Baroness Byford: Is Amendment No. 22 consequential on the amendment that we have just agreed? 1 need clarification, as the two amendments are linked.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Amendment No. 22 is not consequential; it is grouped. If the noble Baroness would like to move it, it may be that it will not be opposed.
Baroness Byfordmoved Amendment No. 22:
Page 1, line 14, leave out "knowingly permits" and insert 'gives permission for"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: It may be helpful for Members of the Committee to be aware that the Government accept that, as Amendment No. 3 was pre-empted by Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, Amendment No. 24-—which was consequential on Amendment No. 3— becomes consequential on Amendments Nos. 1 and 2. We therefore consider that it was agreed in the Division on Amendment No. 1.
I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question. Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Transas Group Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time and referred to the Examiners.
Gambling
A message was brought from the Commons that they have amended the order of the House of 10th July 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 by leaving out the words "within the United Kingdom".

Courts Bill [H.L.]
Bill returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments and with a privilege amendment; it was ordered that the Commons amendments be printed.
House adjourned at three minutes past ten o'clock.

  Northern Ireland: Action Mental Health
  Northern Ireland: Action Mental Health
  Prime Minister: Contact with Mr Rupert Murdoch
  Prime Minister: Contact with Mr Rupert Murdoch
  WTO: Food Security Policy
  WTO: Food Security Policy
  Afghanistan: Provincial Reconstruction Teams
  Afghanistan: Provincial Reconstruction Teams
  Crown Prosecution Service: Staffing
  Crown Prosecution Service: Staffing
  Bagram Airbase: Detainees
  Bagram Airbase: Detainees
  Weapons of Mass Destruction
  Weapons of Mass Destruction
  British Citizens in Prison in EU
  British Citizens in Prison in EU
  Iraq and Kuwait
  Iraq and Kuwait
  European Union: Forthcoming Council Business
  European Union: Forthcoming Council Business
  Intergovernmental Conference
  Intergovernmental Conference
  Iraq: UN Arms Embargo
  Iraq: UN Arms Embargo
  Works of Art Loaned to British Council: Indemnity Arrangements
  Works of Art Loaned to British Council: Indemnity Arrangements
  Firearms
  Firearms
  Affordable Housing
  Affordable Housing
  Afghanistan: UK Activity and ISAF
  Afghanistan: UK Activity and ISAF
  Driving at Work
  Driving at Work
  Jobseekers Act 1995: Actively Seeking Work Obligation
  Jobseekers Act 1995: Actively Seeking Work Obligation
  New Deal for Lone Parents
  New Deal for Lone Parents
  National Insurance Numbers
  National Insurance Numbers
  Paralympic Games 2004: Women's Wheelchair Basketball
  Paralympic Games 2004: Women's Wheelchair Basketball
  UK and EU Parliaments: Costs
  UK and EU Parliaments: Costs
  Death Certificates
  Death Certificates
  Culture Online
  Culture Online
  Countryside Agency: Access Rights and Maps
  Countryside Agency: Access Rights and Maps
  Bovine TB Testing
  Bovine TB Testing
  Traffic Regulation Orders
  Traffic Regulation Orders
  Motorists: VED Evasion and Non-insurance
  Motorists: VED Evasion and Non-insurance
  Network Rail
  Network Rail