Sitting of 10 September 2003

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

  Assets Recovery
  1. Mr. Harry Barnes: If he will make a statement on the work of the Assets Recovery Agency in Northern Ireland. [128486]
  3. Mr. Andrew Love: If he will make a statement on the use of powers by the Police Service of Northern Ireland to confiscate assets.—[128488]
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): I have been informed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that the Northern Ireland branch of the Assets Recovery Agency has 10 cases which are currently under active investigation. I have every confidence that the Assets Recovery Agency is getting to grips with the problem in Northern Ireland. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that on Monday of this week the agency was granted a freezing order for £1.5 million-worth of assets allegedly derived from drug dealing. I believe that there is much more to come.
  Mr. Barnes: My hon. Friend will be aware of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs and its interest in the genesis of the Assets Recovery Agency, as reflected in its report on the financing of terrorism. However, many problems arise from local hoodlums being involved in activities such as the drugs issue that she mentioned and which the Select Committee is investigating. Will she ensure that those areas are tackled?
  Jane Kennedy: I welcome the interest that the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee takes in these matters, particularly the development of the Assets Recovery Agency. The agency will not only target the so-called Mr. Bigs and the kingpins of organised criminality, but will take a great interest in local hoodlums who, as my hon. Friend says, do so much to blight their communities.
  Mr. Love: The agency was only established in February this year under new legislation which, by
  312
  common consent, is complex. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that there are sufficient resources for both the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Assets Recovery Agency to ensure that we make inroads into drug trafficking, particularly among paramilitary groups?
  Jane Kennedy: Through the work of the organised crime taskforce we have a better understanding of the nature of organised criminality in Northern Ireland and the links between organised crime and paramilitary organisations. However, there is also better coordination between the agencies in their efforts to tackle that. The Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Assets Recovery Agency remain in regular and close touch with my office about the resources that they require to complete their work, and I am confident that both organisations have the necessary resources. The Police Service of Northern Ireland is a highly effective police force. The drug squad in particular deserves special commendation by the House for its success in recent weeks.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: I congratulate the organised crime task force, PSNI and customs and trading standards officials on their recent successes, which prevented paramilitaries and criminals from benefiting from the sale of fake goods at Ballycastle and elsewhere in Northern Ireland. Can the Minister tell the House when an evaluation of the work of the Assets Recovery Agency will be carried out, whether she is willing, if necessary, to strengthen the legislation under which it operates, and whether that can be done without creating another all-Ireland body?
  Jane Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman will know that I am in regular contact with the chief executive of the Assets Recovery Agency, her deputy and the Chief Constable. None of them has expressed any specific concerns about the legislative framework, but obviously the legislation will be reviewed in due course as a matter of routine. The Police Service of Northern Ireland already enjoys a close working relationship with its counterparts in An Garda Siochana. It could not enjoy the success that it does without that very good working relationship. At the end of May this year, senior representatives of both PSNI and the Garda met to discuss proposals to develop a joint cross-border organised crime threat assessment. I believe that we can further develop and cement those good working relationships. I am always open to further ideas about ways in which we can strengthen the performance of those organisations, and I will consider any such ideas that are offered.
  Mr. Nigel Dodds: Will the Minister give an assurance that all the necessary resources will be given to the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Assets Recovery Agency in their fight against organised crime and paramilitary fund-raising-a point that was made in the Select Committee's report on the financing of terrorism, to which the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) referred? On a more general point, will the Minister review the issue of resources for the police generally in the fight against crime in Northern Ireland? My constituents complain to me all

  313
  the time about the lack of response, manpower and police on the streets. Can the Minister ensure that adequate resources are provided to make sure that people are safe on the streets of Northern Ireland?
  Jane Kennedy: As I have already said, I keep these matters under constant review and remain in very close touch with both the Chief Constable and the chief executive of the Assets Recovery Agency. I believe that the agency is being adequately funded. As the hon. Gentleman and members of the Select Committee will know, the initial budget was established at £13 million, but that will be kept under review. There are about 90 staff in total in the UK, and 17 of them are attached to the Belfast branch. I believe that the Belfast branch deserves particular commendation for the success that it has had in the very short period since its establishment.
  Mr. John Taylor: Is the agency adequately resourced by comparison with its counterpart in the Republic, or does the Minister share the serious concerns about that indicated by the Select Committee?
  Jane Kennedy: The short answer is no. I believe that the Assets Recovery Agency is adequately funded and, indeed, that the Northern Ireland branch is adequately resourced, although I obviously keep such matters under constant review. The success of the agency is very important because its success will continue to underpin that of law enforcement agencies in Northern Ireland in their battle against organised crime.

  Decommissioning
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: If he will make a statement on the extent of verifiable decommissioning of illegally held weapons and explosives in Northern Ireland.[128487]
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy): There have been three acts of decommissioning to date—one by the Loyalist Volunteer Force and two by the Provisional IRA. Each has been verified by the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning in accordance with the Government's schemes and regulations.
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: I thank the Secretary of State for his reply. I congratulate his Minister of State on her membership of Her Majesty's Privy Council. I know no more charming member of the Privy Council.
  Does the Secretary of State agree that verifiable decommissioning should have taken place many years ago? Will he give me an assurance that no further concessions will be made to any terrorist organisation—Sinn Fein-IRA or any other organisation—before such decommissioning has taken place? Otherwise, the whole process of confidence of the people of Northern Ireland will be undermined.
  Mr. Murphy: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words about my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. I can testify to her intelligence and ability, as well as to her charm.
  314
  The hon. Gentleman is aware that decommissioning was a very important part of the Good Friday agreement. It is a vital part of ensuring that confidence in that agreement is maintained in Northern Ireland. He can also rest assured that the negotiations and discussions that will now obviously be important in coming weeks will, among many other things, deal with decommissioning as well.
  Mr. Eric Joyce: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the retention of arms by any group distorts the whole political process, so it is crucial that all paramilitary activity be ended to ensure that we can restore a bit of trust in normal political processes?
  Mr. Murphy: I agree with my hon. Friend. Of course, he is aware that the reason why we could not come to an agreement in March and April this year is that, although we achieved some successes, we failed at the end of the day to agree on how to deal with the items identified in the joint declaration as dealing with paramilitary activity. Those issues are still important and will be an important part of the negotiations that we face in the next few weeks.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember 27 November, when he was sitting beside the Prime Minister, who made it clear in answering a question that I asked him during Prime Minister's questions that there could be no further progress towards peace in Northern Ireland until the matter of acts of completion was dealt with—and that those acts of completion were not merely words, but real acts of giving up weaponry? Why is it that the legislation that will shortly be put before the House on Northern Ireland contains no mention whatever of acts of completion? Why is this important matter off the agenda when the Prime Minister said that there could be no further progress until—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Secretary of State will manage a reply.
  Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman is aware that the one of the duties of the independent monitoring commission is to monitor paramilitary activity. That is crucial to the success of the peace process in Northern Ireland. He is also aware that the joint declaration defined that activity as including surveillance, targeting, procurement of weapons, incitement to riot and so-called punishment beatings. Those are all hugely important issues that we have to tackle. The task of the new commission is to investigate such activities, then to report to the Assembly and to me.

  Belfast Agreement
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: If he will make a statement on the state of the implementation of the Belfast agreement.—[128489]
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy): The central issue remains that only by restoring trust and confidence can we get stable and inclusive devolved institutions up and running again. We have taken positive steps towards that—most

  315
  recently, as I mentioned just now, with the announcement of substantive progress on the independent monitoring commission. It is also necessary to have clarity on the ending of paramilitarism and on the stability of the institutions, once restored. We will continue to engage with the parties in Northern Ireland, and I hope that that will lead to the early progress that we all want.
  Mr. Robathan: It is now five and a half years since the Belfast agreement. Critically, as the Secretary of State said, terrorist arsenals remain intact and the institutions of the agreement are largely suspended. How does that leave the review of the agreement that, according to page 26 of the agreement, is planned for four years after its implementation, and which is due in December? There are no parties in the Assembly to call for the review. Will the review go forward and what is the Government's position on it, as a whole?
  Mr. Murphy: The position is that it was decided in the Good Friday agreement—in paragraph 8, I think—that there should be a review after four years. People in Ireland, north and south, voted for the agreement, so they obviously expect the review. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that it refers to parties in the Assembly. Of course, it was anticipated at the time that the Assembly would be up and running at the time of the review. Although the agreement is not a legal document, but a political document, we all hope that elections will be held before the year is out so that there will indeed be parties in the Assembly to participate in the review.
  Mr. John Hume: Does the Secretary of State agree that the overwhelming consent of the people of Northern Ireland was given to the Good Friday agreement; that the principle of consent has always been central to Unionism; that that principle of consent is now accepted by all other parties in Ireland, north and south; and that if those parties that are trying to overthrow the agreement succeed in not having it implemented, they are completely overthrowing the principle of the consent of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland, which means that if there has to be a future agreement it would be confined solely to the two Governments to work it out together?
  Mr. Murphy: Of course we do not want to get into the situation whereby it is for the two Governments to work it out together, as my hon. Friend suggests. It is for the parties and the Government in Northern Ireland to be able to come to a proper settlement. He is right to remind the House that the principle of consent is central to the Good Friday agreement and that people north and south overwhelmingly voted for that. I still believe that the Good Friday agreement is the best way forward and that the majority of people in Ireland believe that as well.
  r. David Trimble: Can the Secretary of State confirm that it s still the Government's policy that there must be effective and substantial acts of completion—which is a euphemism for complete decommissioning and effective disbandment—before
  316
  there can be a resumption of the Northern Ireland Assembly? Can he give his assessment of whether we will see early movement on effective acts of completion?
  Mr. Murphy: I sincerely hope that there will be early movement on such acts. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that in March and April we made considerable progress over a number of weeks—although not enough, of course, to be able to do what we wanted in setting up the institutions. I believe that by working on what occurred in March and April, and because all parties in Northern Ireland want to make progress, we can be hopeful that there will be progress on acts of completion in order to ensure that we can get the institutions up and running again.
  The right hon. Gentleman is aware—more than anybody, I suppose—that we want to get not only the Assembly but the Executive up and running in Northern Ireland. The establishment of that Executive must be based on mutual trust, understanding and confidence among the parties that make it up.
  Mr. Seamus Mallon: When the Secretary of State presents the Northern Ireland (Monitoring Commission etc.) Bill next week, will he ensure that the measure requires parties in the Executive to attend Executive meetings and north-south ministerial meetings as part of their duties and to ensure that they assume collective responsibility along with their ministerial colleagues? Will he ensure that the Bill deals with such breaches of rules or will they be put on the long finger again? [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. May I ask for the private conversations, which are unfair to Northern Ireland Question Time, to cease before the Secretary of State replies?
  Mr. Murphy: My hon. Friend is right that the independent monitoring commission will deal, among other matters, with political breaches of the Good Friday agreement. He also knows that the commission will report to the implementation group in the Northern Ireland Assembly. There will be an opportunity next week to debate that in detail. It is therefore up to the Northern Ireland Assembly to consider the best way to deal with such a report. I repeat that we shall debate those matters in greater detail next week.
  Mr. Alistair Carmichael: Does the Secretary of State accept that the implementation of the Belfast agreement is going nowhere unless and until the Northern Ireland Assembly is allowed to renew its democratic mandate? Will he therefore take the opportunity to confirm that elections will be held in the autumn and that there will be no further postponement, which would constitute cancellation?
  Mr. Murphy: No one wants postponement or cancellation of elections. Earlier, I said that we all want the elections to take place before the year is out. I repeat the point that I made to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble): that we want the other institutions as well as the Assembly to work again. Of course, we want the Northern Ireland Assembly to be up and running, but we also want the Government of

  317
  Northern Ireland to do those things that my fellow Ministers and I currently have to undertake on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is not enough for the nationalist community to give its support to the Belfast agreement and that we can have no lasting, stable political structures unless both sections of the community support them? The support of half the Ulster Unionist party, which represents less than half of the Unionist community, is not sufficient to provide that consent. Will he therefore allow politicians to get a mandate for new negotiations for an agreement that has the support of both sections of the community?
  Mr. Murphy: I agree that, for the agreement to work, it must have the commitment of both sides of the community—Unionist and nationalist—in Northern Ireland. However, I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis that the Unionist people are opposed to successful implementation of the Belfast agreement. He knows that the latest opinion poll in Northern Ireland showed that most Protestant and Unionist people want the agreement to work. I still believe that it is the best way forward.
  Mr. Iain Luke: As the Secretary of State said, there has been agreement that the best way forward for all the people of Northern Ireland is reconciliation and the restart of the Belfast agreement. Given that the breakdown and suspension of the Executive last year was due to extra-political activity in Stormont, can he give evidence of willingness on the nationalist side, especially on Sinn Fein's part, to play a more constructive and positive role in bringing about the negotiations?
  Mr. Murphy: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of the republican movement in Sinn Fein and that of the IRA in ensuring that the IRA undertakes the necessary acts of completion so that people in Northern Ireland—nationalist and Unionist—can have proper confidence.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I must take up the Secretary of State on an answer that he gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). He implied that the four-year review for which the agreement provides could take place in December, whether or not the Assembly was in place. Is that seriously what he meant? Has he forgotten the provision in paragraph 8 of the agreement that the two Governments and the parties in the Assembly must summon the review?
  Mr. Murphy: Of course I have not. I was present when the agreement was signed and helped to make it. I repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan)—I was referring specifically to parties in the Assembly. The document in question is not a legal document. It is imperative that we have an Assembly up and running; that is what everyone wants. The parties in that Assembly will take part in the review.
  Mr. Davies: It might not be a legal document, but it is a very finely balanced one that has resulted from
  318
  extremely delicate negotiations, in which the Secretary of State took part. It cannot be unilaterally rewritten in part. This is just one reason among many why, if we are to make any progress in the peace process, the Government really must stop shilly-shallying and call an election.
  Mr. Murphy: No one wants to rewrite the agreement; no one is suggesting that. I am merely pointing out to the hon. Gentleman the facts in relation to the paragraph 8 review. He is right to say that everyone wants an Assembly in Northern Ireland, but we also want a Government there and a review. I sincerely hope that all three will be achievable before the year is out.

  Sea Fishing
  Ann Winterton: What assessment he has made of the future economic viability of the Northern Ireland sea fishing industry. [128491]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ian Pearson): The Northern Ireland sea fishing industry continues to land top-quality fish that is much sought after at home and abroad, and I am confident that it has a viable economic future. The Prime Minister's strategy unit is currently undertaking a review of the medium-term prospects for the UK sea fishing industry as a whole, and hopes to report around the end of this year—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Lady asks her supplementary question, I would say again that the noise level in the Chamber is unfair to Members who wish to speak.
  Ann Winterton: I rather regret that the Minister has not recognised that the first six months of this year have been the worst for the Northern Ireland sea fishing industry for many years, going back in some cases to the mid-1980s. Bearing in mind the industry's grim future, will the Minister therefore undertake personally to visit fishing enterprises in the Province that have been disadvantaged and suffered losses because of European Union decisions? Will he discuss with them retrospective and future aid to secure their future?
  Mr. Pearson: The hon. Lady is clearly unaware that I meet representatives from the fishing industry on a regular basis. Following the decisions of last December's Fisheries Council, I immediately launched a fishing villages taskforce, which is due to report shortly, and which has members of the fishing community on it. We have also announced a vessel decommissioning scheme, and the Government have put in about £20 million to support the industry over the past five years. We are clearly listening, and we want to support the fishing industry to ensure that it has an economic and environmentally sustainable future.
  David Burnside: The Minister seems to be badly out of touch with the fishing communities in Ardglass, Kilkeel and Portavogie. Is he aware that the white fish quota has already almost been met by the fishing fleet in that part of Northern Ireland? Will he speak to his opposite number during the next

  319
  negotiations in Brussels and get a proper, increased quota for white fish in the Irish sea? There has been a considerable increase in stocks, but the fishing industry in Northern Ireland is not benefiting from it.
  Mr. Pearson: I am aware of the implications of the December decision on the swingeing reduction in tax that took place. I talk regularly to representatives of the industry and to UK and other European Fishery Ministers about this issue. It is important that we act on the basis of the best available science, and I understand that the industry disputes some of the science. We have to act on the basis of the science, however, and to take measures that are in the best long-term interests of the fishing industry to ensure that we have sustainable stocks of fish.
  Mr. George Foulkes: Is the Minister aware that when I was in Derry on Saturday, I was able to buy my fish with euros? In that respect, is Northern Ireland not the most progressive part of the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Pearson: Northern Ireland is a very progressive community. It has done extremely well economically over the past five years. Its economic performance has been better than that of any other UK region, and I am convinced that it has a bright economic future, given a peaceful and sustainable society.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 10 September.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): Before listing my engagements, I know the whole House will join with me in sending our deepest sympathy and condolences to the families of the British people-serving soldiers and others-who have lost their lives in Iraq since the House rose on 17 July. They were doing an extraordinary and heroic job in trying to bring normal and decent life to people in Iraq, and the whole country and their families can be immensely proud of them, even as they mourn them.
    In particular, we should mention Fiona Watson, who was a servant of this House for many years with very distinguished service, and someone who is not British, the United Nations Special Representative Sergio de Mello, who tragically lost his life in the terrorist outrage on the United Nations building.
    This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in House, I will have further such meetings later today.
    Mr. Hawkins: Conservative Members echo the Prime Minister's initial words. Given the disastrous summer that he and his Government have had, what is his definition of "deceit"?
    The Prime Minister: We all know what that is. As to the summer, it is important to recognise that the British economy is in better shape than virtually any other. There have been 1.5 million extra jobs since we came to power, we have had the best ever school results, a further fall in waiting lists, a halving of the number of asylum seekers, and we now have the pensioner tax credit, which gives help to pensioners for them to look forward to.
    Mr. Mohammad Sarwar: Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to my constituent Fusilier Russell Beeston, following his funeral yesterday?
    The Prime Minister: Certainly, we join my hon. Friend in offering our deep sympathy and condolences to the family of his constituent, as I am sure will everyone in the House.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: May I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to our servicemen out in Iraq who are risking their lives, and particularly to the families of those servicemen who have lost their lives? It is also worth reflecting on the fact that one of our hon. Friends is still serving in those dangerous zones.
    If it becomes clear that the Secretary of State for Defence misled the Intelligence and Security Committee, will the Prime Minister dismiss him?
    The Prime Minister: I think it quite wrong that we make any assumptions until we see the Intelligence and Security Committee report, which is to be presented to me tomorrow. It would be wrong to comment on it before that is done.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Senior Downing street officials are already spinning their version of the leak. It is in the newspaper report. The point is that with new troop deployments in Iraq, surely it is absolutely essential that there be complete confidence in the Defence Secretary? How can the Prime Minister justify leaving him twisting in the wind, when it is in his power to end all the uncertainty and speculation and publish the report right now?
    The Prime Minister: On the right hon. Gentleman's first point, if he has evidence that somebody from Downing street has put the report into the newspapers, perhaps he would produce it now, because I believe that to be completely untrue.
    In respect of the Defence Secretary, we should recognise that over these past few months, under his leadership in the Ministry of Defence, we have won a magnificent victory in Iraq; our troops are now engaged heroically in rebuilding that country; and, if I may repeat what I said to the right hon. Gentleman, we

    321
    should see what the Intelligence and Security Committee, and, indeed, the Hutton inquiry, say when the reports are published.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister knows very well that his own officials are briefing on it even as we stand here. Is not the leaked report another nail in the coffin of this Government?
    You can get rid of Campbell; you can even get rid of the Defence Secretary. But the lying and the spinning will not stop until we get rid of this Prime Minister.
    The Prime Minister: It is a measure of the right hon. Gentleman's objectivity that he has decided what the report says before it has actually been published. [Interruption] It is no use holding up a piece of paper. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not wait until the report is actually published tomorrow? It is to be presented to me by the Committee. Perhaps in the light of that report tomorrow the right hon. Gentleman can make his comments clear. I simply say to him that, rather than deciding what that report or the report of the Hutton inquiry says before it is published, we should actually wait and see and not make up our minds beforehand.
    Claire Ward: Today, booklets published by Tory-controlled Hertfordshire county council have been landing on the doormats of parents all over Watford who are due to send their children to school next September, telling them that consultations have taken place on the closure of Leavesden Green school and that the last intake of pupils will be in January next year. In fact no formal consultation has taken place, and councils have not even voted on the issue. The community is overwhelmingly against the proposal.
    This is an outrageous deceit of the community, and an insult to democracy. Will my right hon. Friend ensure—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the Prime Minister can answer.
    The Prime Minister: Obviously I am not aware of the details of the consultation in my hon. Friend's constituency, but I think she has made a powerful case.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: When President Bush delivered his televised address to the United States a couple of days ago, he specifically chose not to refer once to weapons of mass destruction. Does that mean that we can now expect the Prime Minister to follow suit?
    The Prime Minister: No. The reason we went to conflict is absolutely clear—the evidence of weapons of mass destruction. We should allow the Iraq survey group to do its work; but as I have said to the right hon. Gentleman on many occasions, the notion that the issue of Iraq and weapons of mass destruction was invented by British or American intelligence is absurd.
    I remind the right hon. Gentleman that last November the whole United Nations came together and agreed that as a result of Saddam and his attempts to develop weapons of mass destruction, he was a security
    322
    threat to the entire world. This is not an issue to do with British or American intelligence. It has to do with the stated facts, mainly contained in UN weapons inspectors' reports.
    Mr. Kennedy: Given that the position in Iraq remains dangerously unstable, given that Iraqi citizens are still being denied basic necessities and resources, and recognising—as the British public do-the need to bolster the safety of our forces in the country, does the Prime Minister not realise that what the public also seek from the Government is a clear lead in the attempt to internationalise the situation there under the auspices and authority of the UN itself?
    The Prime Minister: Today there are already more non-US and non-UK troops in Iraq than there are UK troops—some 15,000. The new UN resolution will help to bring in further troops. It is true that the situation in Iraq is extremely difficult, but it is worth pointing out that much progress has been made. For example, all the hospitals are now open and functioning, and some 5.5 million children managed to take their end-of-year exams in June and July for the first time in ages. It is also the case that we are doing our level best to get the country back on its feet. We now have an Iraqi governing council that actually represents the people of Iraq.
    The right hon. Gentleman says, "Should we not be worried about the situation?" Yes, of course we should, but the answer is not to run away from Iraq. The answer is not to turn our back on the task. The answer is to see the task through, because it was the right thing to do at the time, it is the right thing to do now, and we will get the job done.

    Iraq
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: If he will discuss the military position in Iraq with President Bush.
    The Prime Minister: I have regular discussions with President Bush on a wide range of issues, and of course that includes the continuing military operations in Iraq.
    Mr. Dalyell: In the light of the letter from Captain Peter Kimm, Royal Navy retired, to which I drew the Prime Minister's attention on Monday-it was published in The Times on 29 August—did certain of the chiefs of staff, led by the then chief of defence staff, without the knowledge of the chief of air staff, express their unease to the Prime Minister on Sunday 9 March about going to war in Iraq, not least in relation to the legality of what he and President Bush were asking the forces to do?
    The Prime Minister: No, that is not correct-none of the chiefs of staff expressed such unease to me. If I may I shall quote to my hon. Friend from the then chief of air staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Peter Squire, who said on 31 August:
    "As far as I am concerned there's absolutely no truth in it whatsoever."
    Dr. Richard Taylor: May I thank the Prime Minister for paying tribute to those who have died in Iraq, and draw his attention to the case of Ian Rimell of Kidderminster, a bomb disposal expert who was working for the Mines Advisory Group? He was murdered while driving home from his work defusing shells, while in a clearly marked MAG vehicle. May I also ask the Prime Minister to express his sympathy to Mr. Rimell's wife and three grown-up children, who are devastated by this pointless loss, which was not due to his work? Does the Prime Minister agree with me that the only fitting memorial for Ian Rimell is the establishment of a humanitarian, protected zone for workers who are doing this crucial business of defusing mines and shells? Will he consider instituting that?
    The Prime Minister: I am deeply saddened to learn of the death of Ian Rimell and of the serious wounding of his colleague Salim Ahmed Mohammed, which took place near Mosul on 4 September. I pay tribute to Ian Rimell and to the other people doing similar work in Iraq.
    UK and Danish teams have to date cleared some 350,000 unexploded munitions in Iraq, and it is worth while mentioning that as well as our serving soldiers, there are many people in Iraq from non-governmental organisations they are doing tremendous humanitarian work—whose lives are also at risk. I have to say, however,that their lives are at risk from people who do not recognise any humanitarian zone, and who do not recognise any concept of humanitarian protection. These are people who have committed outrages on the United Nations and on people worshipping at the mosque in Iraq. These people are terrorists who want to stand in the way of precisely the type of Iraq that Ian Rimell and others wanted to see. The best memorial to him, in my view, would be to make sure that we see the job done and create an Iraq that is stable, democratic and prosperous.

    Engagements
    Mark Tami: Antisocial behaviour, often fuelled by under-age drinking, continues to blight many of our areas. Will my right hon. Friend join me in urging the police to take tougher action to combat drinking on our streets, particularly by juveniles?
    The Prime Minister: The provisions of the Licensing Act 2003, which I think come into effect today, will give the police additional powers in respect of the abuse of alcohol, and in particular in respect of cracking down on antisocial behaviour caused by alcohol. These measures, along with the other measures in the legislation that we are introducing on antisocial behaviour, give the police hugely important additional powers in dealing with what is, in many constituencies up and down the country, the single biggest issue of concern to people.
    Mr. George Osborne: Given that the Prime Minister has a copy of the Intelligence and Security Committee report, what reason does he give for not publishing it today?
    The Prime Minister: The proper procedure is that the Intelligence and Security Committee present the report to me tomorrow. That is the right way of doing it, and it should be done in accordance with the procedure that we laid out. It would be quite wrong of us to do it in any other way.
    Mr. lain Luke: Prime Minister you are an outstanding example of a Scot who has benefited from coming south to study at one of the UK's most prestigious universities. Will you accept that concern exists that the top-up fees proposal will deter Scots from following suit, and create a golden triangle of research-based universities in the south-east, to the great disadvantage of universities throughout the UK? Recent polls have shown that 80 per cent. of people are opposed to the proposal. Will my right hon. Friend now think again?
    The Prime Minister: What surely is important is that universities get additional access to funds, either from the taxpayer or through a contribution from students once they graduate. It is also important that we widen access so that more and more people go to university. We have said that we want half of all school leavers in this country to go to university, but we cannot do that unless we extend the funds available to universities. That is precisely why it is important that we proceed with the reforms that we have set out. It would be disastrous to adopt, for example, the policies of the Conservative party, which would mean 100,000 fewer students going to university every year.
    Mr. lain Duncan Smith: In public, the Government say that the European constitution is just a tidying-up exercise. In private, we know that the Prime Minister has said that it is absolutely fundamental and will define the relationship between Britain and the rest of Europe for generations. Which of these two faces of the Government should we believe?
    The Prime Minister: Of course the outcome of the convention is absolutely fundamental, which is why it is right that we secured the positions on foreign policy, defence and tax that preserve Britain's identity as a nation state, at the same time as making the changes necessary so that Europe at 25 can govern itself and operate effectively. That is why the draft constitution for Europe is good for Europe and for Britain, and essential if we are to make enlargement work and secure British interests.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Earlier this year, the Prime Minister said that if the European constitution were about fundamental change, he would hold a referendum. He has told his Cabinet in secret that it is absolutely fundamental. So where is the referendum?
    The Prime Minister: The outcome of the constitution, of course, is fundamental, which is why it is important that we have secured the positions that we set out. What I said to the right hon. Gentleman was that if we ended up in a situation where we were giving up, for example, our right to set our own tax rates, it would be appalling; but we are not. The right hon. Gentleman is opposed to

    325
    any constitution in Europe at all and would veto it. We see that that is what the Conservatives nod their heads to. Let us try the old game with him: there are 25 Governments in Europe, some Labour, some Conservative. Name me one that is in favour of his position.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: What is absolutely clear is that the Prime Minister says one thing to his Cabinet and another thing to everyone else. Whether it is the Kelly tragedy or the TUC speech that he never actually delivered—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must allow the Leader of the Opposition to speak. [Interruption.] Mr. King, you must be quiet.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: They do not want to hear it because it is true. Whether it is the Kelly tragedy, las night's TUC speech that he did not actually deliver or the deliberate deceit about the European constitution, is it not true, now as ever, that no one will ever believe a word that the Prime Minister says any more?
    The Prime Minister: In relation to the European constitution, I note that the right hon. Gentleman could not tell us a single other Government who support his position. So that the country understands, his position would mean that he would go to the conference in Italy in a few weeks and veto the whole thing. No one else would support him and the Conservatives would then get to where they want to be: saying that Britain should get out of the EU. That is their game; it is what they want.
    On trust, the additional jobs in our economy are important, as are the lowest inflation and mortgage rates. The fact that we have the lowest long-term unemployment in this country for more than 30 years is important, as is the fact that we have 25,000 extra teachers and 50,000 extra nurses. Also, the fact that every single aspect of NHS waiting is better than in 1997 is important. That is what we were elected to do and what we will continue to do.
    Phil Sawford: I welcome the publication of the Green Paper "Every Child Matters", which seeks to address the problems, issues and failures highlighted in the Laming report. I welcome also the proposal for a children's commissioner. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that sufficient parliamentary time is available to get this measure through as quickly as possible? Will he ensure also that there are clear lines of accountability for the welfare of our children in the future?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the proposals that we set out in the Green Paper on children will help enormously. I know that my hon. Friend would want to put the proposals for the children's commissioner alongside the other measures that the Government are taking to help some of the most disadvantaged children in our country. The sure start programme has, I believe, been enormously successful along with additional child benefit, the working families tax credit, free nursery education and more child care places for many families in the most disadvantaged parts of our country. Step by step we are trying to create a situation in which no child
    326
    is denied the opportunity to make the most of their abilities, but that can be done only if we keep the investment going through to our local communities.
    >Richard Ottaway: Given that the Prime Minister is one of the few people left in Britain who does not think that the September 2002 dossier was sexed up—
    Mr. George FoulkesHe had an e-mail from Gilligan!
    Richard Ottaway: Can the Prime Minister explain how inserting chemical and biological material into battlefield mortar shells or small calibre weaponry poses a threat to the region or the stability of the world?
    The Prime Minister: First, in respect of allegations about the dossier, perhaps it would be right to wait for the publication of the Intelligence and Security Committee report tomorrow and, indeed, the Hutton inquiry report at a later time. In respect of the Conservatives' position, however, their opportunism on the issue of Iraq is absolutely unbelievable. Here they are, yet as I recall it, they as a political party were urging me to take action against Saddam. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) was urging that long before the dossier even came along. Now they go around the country saying that we were duped and misled by this terrible Prime Minister who got us into the situation of conflict. What they should learn over time is that, if they want to be an effective Opposition-never mind an effective Government—a little less opportunism would be a good idea.
    Chris Ruane: The Prime Minister will he aware of my one-and-a-half hour Adjournment debate this afternoon on seaside town regeneration, and I hope that he finds time in his busy schedule to attend it. Failing that, will he support the calls for a dedicated Minister to be responsible for seaside town regeneration? Will he also support the call for ring-fenced funding for seaside regeneration similar to the amounts given to coal, steel, rural and inner city communities?
    The Prime Minister: Actually, I am aware of my hon. Friend's Adjournment debate—it is on the Order Paper. It is worth pointing out to my hon. Friend that, for the first time, we are making sure that seaside towns, some of which may be relatively prosperous, but many of which have real pockets of deprivation and poverty, are eligible for assistance. My hon. Friend will know that there are two communities in the area that he represents which have had hundreds of thousands of pounds of funding, and we obviously want to do anything more that we can to assist them. The fact that these seaside towns are now recognised as suitable for the new deal for the regeneration of local communities shows that we recognise that although, as I said, there is prosperity among parts of our seaside communities, there is also a great deal of poverty and deprivation.
    Sir Michael Spicer: Why are the Government currently borrowing at the rate of £35 billion a year, when only four months ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the figure was £24 billion?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should wait for the pre-Budget report for the figures, but if he looks at the debt:GDP ratio, it is a darn sight better than it was when his Government were in power. I seem to recall that he was a Minister in the previous Conservative Government when interest rates were between 10 per cent. and 15 per cent., 3 million people were unemployed, and borrowing reached £80 billion. Whoever else can give us lessons on prudent finance, it is certainly not the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. George Stevenson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons for the relative lack of interest on the part of the British people in the European Union is the widespread belief that it is effectively the fiefdom of the political elite? In addition to other good reasons for holding a referendum on the new constitution, would not such a move instil greater interest among the British people in EU matters and effectively show them that their views really do matter on these vital issues?
    The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend should have a little more faith in our parliamentary debates to deal with the issues. In joining with the Conservatives and calling for a referendum, he should bear in mind the fact that Ted Heath did not have a referendum when he took us into the European Community, nor did Margaret Thatcher on the Single European Act, nor did John Major on Maastricht. I repeat that if there were a change in the fundamental nature of our constitution, a referendum would be right, but there is not. My hon. Friend should realise that Opposition Members who call for a referendum want it as the first step in a two-step process to get us out of Europe—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, they do—[Interruption]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It seems that every time the Prime Minister stands, some hon. Members want to shout. That will not be allowed and I will not tolerate it.
    The Prime Minister: I was merely pointing out gently that the Conservative party proposal—which we will not follow as a Government, which is why I comment on it—is a two-stage process, first to paralyse Europe and then to withdraw. That would be a disaster for our country.
    Mr. David Ruffley: For each of the past six years under Labour, the tax burden has been higher than the one that it inherited. In the interests of the British taxpayer, will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to rule out further increases in national insurance contributions in this Parliament?
    The Prime Minister: First, if the hon. Gentleman looks at the Conservative Government as a whole, he will see that the tax burden was higher than at present in
    328
    most of the years for which Mrs. Thatcher was in office, at least. Secondly, I make no apologies for raising national insurance. It was a difficult decision, but it was the right decision because it allows us to put extra investment into our national health service. If the Conservatives oppose that tax increase, perhaps they would say how they would fund the extra investment in the health service that is delivering better cancer care, better cardiac care and reduced waiting lists.
    Judy Mallaber: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Denby Poultry Products factory in my constituency has been at the centre of a massive meat fraud conspiracy that released tonnes of condemned poultry waste to shops, hospitals and schools? Will he take urgent action on failings in the meat inspection system and the legislative framework identified by Amber Valley council officers and Derbyshire police, and will he congratulate them on their persistence in pursuing the case over several years and securing the convictions of six men involved in that appalling conspiracy?
    The Prime Minister: I agree. My hon. Friend makes an extremely import ant point about the importing and exporting of illegal meat products. That is the reason why the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Customs and Excise have been working hard on the issue. I assure her that we will continue to take every possible action to stamp the practice out.
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: As the Prime Minister has ruled out a referendum on the European constitution, despite the fact that it is absolutely fundamental—as he said today—will he give a complete undertaking that if the other place rejects the proposals, he will not apply the Parliament Act?
    The Prime Minister: We will maintain the position that we have set out because we believe it to be right. I repeat that the outcome of the constitution process is, of course, absolutely fundamental, but it is the right outcome for us. If we were to give any of our main positions away—on foreign policy, defence or tax—it would be a different matter. But we are not going to do that. We are going to secure every single one of those red lines. We have already principally done so in the outcome of the Convention and we will do it again at the intergovernmental conference. The hon. Gentleman and others should be honest about their position. They want to veto the European constitution, which would end up paralysing progress in Europe, as the first step to getting Britain out. That is a position that we as a Government will not adopt.
    Ql 1. [128512] Tony Cunningham: I have several successful manufacturing companies in my constituency, including New Balance, which produces world-class athletics shoes, and M-Sport, which produces the very successful Ford rallying car that recently won world championship rallies in Finland and Greece. However, some manufacturing companies are struggling. What more can the Government do to help and support our manufacturing industry?
    The Prime Minister: It is true that the manufacturing sector in our country has been through difficult times, as has the manufacturing sector in the major countries round the world. Indeed, manufacturing output has fallen by 1.5 per cent. in the US, 2 per cent. in Germany and 3.5 per cent. in Italy, so obviously the situation is not confined to us. I have to say, however, that the most recent figures on manufacturing output show an upturn. The most important thing is to carry on with the investment in the measures that will improve skills and productivity, and science and technology, and with the research and development tax credits introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. Above all else, we must maintain our economy's stability because, in the end, manufacturing—like any other part of our economy—depends on that stability in order to make progress.
    Mr. Philip Hammond: Three years ago, the Government stated unequivocally that they would veto any attempt to incorporate the European charter of fundamental rights in EU law. Yesterday, the Government said that they
    330
    would horse-trade on incorporation at the intergovernmental conference. Given that history, what confidence can the British people have that the remaining so-called "red-lined" areas—defence, foreign policy and taxation—will not be sold out in the same way, either at the IGC or later?
    The Prime Minister: We made it clear that we will not sell out the issue of the European charter on fundamental rights. There is no way that that should extend the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. In my view, that position will be secured at the IGC that is coming up. I have to say to the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members that, overall, this constitution is right. If we expand Europe from 15 members to 25, we must have a more effective and efficient way of working. If we simply sit there and say no to everything coming out of Europe—to extensions of qualified majority voting even when that is in our interests, to the first involvement of national Parliaments, or to a full-time President of the Council which will hugely strengthen the nation state—we will not advance this country's interests, but betray them.

Licensing and Registration of Gangmasters
12.31 pm
Mr. Mark Simmonds: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to register and license gangmasters in the agricultural and food processing industries.
To begin with, I should like to pay tribute to my predecessor Sir Richard Body for his tremendous and unstinting work in this area.
The term "gangmaster" is not new. Ganging has been conducted in the fens and East Anglia for as long as anyone can remember. Ganging refers to the provision of casual labour for agricultural work.
The need for such casual labour used to be seasonal, but that is no longer the case. Increased consumer demand and changes in supermarket practices that demand consistency of supply 52 weeks a year for prepackaged and pre-prepared goods now mean that demand for such casual labour is all-year round. Producers and packhouses now import produce when their own supply cannot meet supermarket demand. These imported goods are prepared, packaged and dispatched to supermarkets around the country 364 days a year.
The gangmaster system is not any longer confined to the agriculture and horticulture industries. Ganging has now spread to any sector where there is demand for casual labour. It pays an important role in the fishing, catering, construction, cleaning and retail industries. These highly organised gangs of labour move around the UK fulfilling different labour requirements in different industries, often on a daily basis.
I do not seek to make the gangmaster system illegal. It has to be recognised that gangmasters play a vital role in many industries, particularly in the agricultural sector. Ganging is an essential tool that provides efficient and cost-effective labour for the production of food in the UK. The role of gangmasters is even more important when considered in the context of the pressure placed on producers and packers by the supermarkets. Being a gangmaster is a legitimate business, providing large numbers of workers at short notice. A number of gangmasters pride themselves on their good working practices.
Historically, gangmasters used to employ labour from the immediate locality to bring in the harvest, but packagers, producers and the industry are now hugely dependent on migrant labour. The point must be made, however, that without that migrant labour the food industry would not be able to operate. It has been said that 95 per cent. of the horticulture industry is now dependent on foreign labour. To give the House a sense of the scale of the problem, half the 72,000 casual workers employed in the industry are provided by gangmasters. It has been calculated that 20,000 workers per annum are employed by the gangmaster system in a 16-mile stretch between Spalding and Boston, and a further 20,000 workers are employed in the stretch between Spalding and Ely. However, the real scale of the problem is unknown. It is out of control to such an extent that gangmasters travel to Europe to recruit workers directly.
I am sorry to have to tell the House that some suppliers of gang labour use abusive, evasive, intimidating, fraudulent and exploitative working
332
practices. Regular and significant offences include unlawful deductions from wages; the use of casual workers in receipt of benefits; the use of illegal immigrants; evasion of tax and national insurance payments; non-registration of VAT; evasion of payment of VAT to Customs and Excise; and the use of under-age workers. The implications of those practices are not only the human misery and suffering of the exploited individuals, but significant loss to the Exchequer; damage to legitimate providers of labour owing to undercutting from illegal operators through unfair competition; and damage to the reputation of the entire food chain.
To make life more difficult for the authorities, gangmasters often subcontract to smaller, untraceable labour suppliers, which means that no paper or audit trail is provided. Although the initial gangmaster may be legitimate, the subcontractor may not. It is thus important that all subcontracting gangmasters be included in any scheme, and they must also be licensed.
The House should be under no illusion: this is a multimillion-pound business—so much so that the police believe that professional criminal gangs from around the world have moved into the casual labour market in the UK to exploit the current legislative loophole. Some illegal gangmasters have contacts with migrant importers, who charge people to come to the UK, promising them employment. Once an individual is in the UK, often in massive debt, they are found accommodation, which is often substandard. They are provided with transport to and from their place of work. The transport and accommodation costs are deducted from the worker's pay packet, along with tax and national insurance payments. However, as many of the workers are in this country illegally, there is no justification for many of those deductions, which are inevitably not passed on to the relevant authorities. The worst of the examples brought to my attention is that of an eastern European woman employed by an illegal gangmaster. Her gross wage was £149, but after deductions for accommodation, food and transport her net pay was £19.
If a worker complains or queries deductions from their wages, they can find themselves on the streets, homeless, penniless and passportless. More often than not, however, the van that takes them to work will not turn up, and as many of them are housed in rural areas where transport is limited, if the van fails to arrive there is no work.
There is an atmosphere of intimidation permeating illegal ganging. Stories of verbal and physical abuse are widespread and subsequently generate an understandable reluctance to come forward, so much of the evidence is anecdotal. Indeed, the last reliable statistical data are from 1995; they emanated from the agricultural compliance unit, which identified more than 5,500 gangmasters and, by investigating them at that time, managed to recover £537 million in unpaid tax.
The Government have recognised that the situation is deteriorating and that the prevalence of illegal gangmasters is increasing. In 1998, Operation Gangmaster was established to look into the problems of illegal ganging. However, it is clear from evidence to the recent inquiry into gangmasters conducted by the Select Committee on Environment, Transport and

333
Regional Affairs that the Government have so far failed in their efforts to tackle the problem. They admit that no one has any idea of the extent of the difficulties.
Five years on, Operation Gangmaster has no overall budget, reports to no Minister, has no identified aims or goals and no time frame by which anything must be achieved, and the relevant individuals in each Department with responsibility for Operation Gangmaster have not met during the past year. It is no wonder that little is being done, that nothing is being achieved and that the problem is getting worse.
The Government have no idea of the number of migrant workers—illegal and legal—involved in the problem, how long they have been in the UK, where they are located, where they are working, what they are doing, or whether they are being exploited or intimidated. It is essential to confront those issues for the sake of local economies and the workers themselves.
The fundamental step in combating the problem is to establish a legislative framework to introduce a compulsory code of practice. All gangmasters and subcontractors must abide by that code to obtain a licence and to be allowed to organise casual gang labour. Registration must be kept simple and unbureaucratic, unlike the existing voluntary codes, which are clearly not working. If gangmasters fail to comply with the legal obligations, they must be removed from the register and not be allowed to operate as gangmasters. An annual levy would be charged to make the scheme self-financing.
Any scheme must take into account the importance of the need to maintain flexibility in the labour market and must not add further to the burden on the agriculture and horticulture industries. Such schemes have existed before-for example, under the Agricultural Gangs Act 1867. In the 1940s, there was a licensing scheme administered by magistrates. In 1973, a scheme worked reasonably successfully, alongside the White Paper on employment.
Such a self-financing legislative scheme is supported by supermarkets, producers, farmers, packers, the National Farmers Union, the Fresh Produce Consortium, the trade union movement, legitimate gangmasters and many hon. Members.
334
In conclusion, it is not acceptable to have many thousands of vulnerable legal and illegal workers being transported across the country and being exploited. It must stop. It is essential that we must encourage the legitimate supply of labour to the detriment of the illegal and illegitimate.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Mark Simmonds, Mr. John Hayes, Mr. Peter Luff, Mr. Henry Bellingham, Mr. Mark Prisk, Mr. John Baron, Mr. Mark Hoban, Mr. Mark Field, Mr. George Osborne, Mr. Peter Duncan and Mr. Hugo Swire.

LICENSING AND REGISTRATION OF GANGMASTERS
Mr. Simmonds accordingly presented a Bill to register and license gangmasters in the agricultural and food processing industries: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 November, and to be printed [Bill 156].
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will of course be aware that the House is voting in deferred Divisions at the moment, as indicated on today's Order Paper. Will you perhaps cause that to be looked into, as the House is voting on matters that were debated in early July and thus being asked to reach a decision some two months after they were debated in Committee? That is surely ridiculous, and yet another sign of modernisation going fairly crazy. Should it not be reviewed?
Mr. Speaker: All I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that Members of Parliament have a long memory.
Mr. George Osborne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should be grateful if you could provide me with some guidance on the procedures of the Intelligence and Security Committee of the House. Is it the case that, once the Committee submits a report to the Prime Minister, he decides when that report is published?
Mr. Speaker: All I say to the hon. Gentleman is that, thankfully, that is not an issue for me; it is not a Committee of the House, so he will have to make his inquiries elsewhere.

Opposition Day
[16TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Fairness and Security in Old Age
  Mr. Speaker: We now come to the first debate on the Opposition motions. I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  12.44 pm
  Mr. Paul Burstow: I beg to move,
  That this House believes that this Government has failed to deliver fairness and security for older people; is concerned that home care services for older people have been cut back and that the Government has presided over the collapse of the care home sector through botched regulations and underfunding; condemns the Government for putting in place rules that allowed thousands of elderly people to be forced to give up their life savings and homes to fund their continuing healthcare; believes that the Government has failed to tackle the pensions crisis both for current and future pensioners, putting in place a complex system of means-tests that fails to get help to the poorest pensioners, whilst heaping extra costs on pensioners by relying on the unfair Conservative council tax to fund local services; is concerned that many pensioners will suffer as a result of the closure of local post offices, a problem made worse by the Government's plans to scrap the pension book and introduce direct payment; and calls on the Government to stabilise the care home and home care sectors, offer security and real choice to older people, simplify the pension system, boost the basic state pension and abolish the council tax and replace it with a tax related to ability to pay.
  Liberal Democrats have called this debate because we believe that the Government have failed to deliver fairness and security for older people in this country. It is convenient that we are debating this subject today, because many hundreds of our constituents from the National Pensioners Convention and many other pensioner organisations up and down the country are coming to this House to lobby Members of Parliament about their concerns. Their message and ours is that older people feel cheated by this Government-cheated out of their life savings to pay for their care, cheated out of a decent pension and cheated out of a reasonable standard of living by an unfair and ever-rising council tax.
  A growing concern exists among older people that there is a crisis in our care system. Day after day, more and more care homes are closing their doors, but where are the extra home care services to make up the difference? As care homes close their doors, where are the provision in people's own homes and the staff to enable people to continue to live in their own homes?
  Since the peak in 1996, some 74,000 care home places have been lost in this country. In the 15 months to April this year, a further 13,400 places have been lost. The prospects remain bleak. The number of new registrations of care homes is falling even faster than the number of closures is rising.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: To underline my hon. Friend's point, is he aware that in Cornwall so many care homes have been closed that people have had to be transferred into our hospitals, taking up beds that are then blocked for those who should be there?
  Mr. Burstow: My hon. Friend makes an important point, to which I want to refer in a moment.
  336
  As a consequence of that lack of care home capacity in our communities—and the lack of foresight on the part of this Government that has allowed a shortage of supply to arise in more and more places—growing numbers of people are getting stuck in hospitals when they are ready to go to a care home.
  In the 15 months to April this year just 96 new homes were registered for care of the elderly in this country. I repeat: 96 in 15 months. Since 1997, the number of people receiving home care has fallen by 110,000: almost a quarter of home care places have been axed in this country since 1997. Social services departments have always been gatekeepers of services, but increasingly the elderly are finding the gateway to those services firmly locked, and opened to them only when they are at death's door or in desperate straits. More and more councils are rationing services. Who picks up the pieces? It is the relatives, the husbands, the wives, the parents, the children—all of them carers. They find themselves asked to carry on that caring role for longer and longer because adequate provision of social care services is not available to support them in that role, and indeed when they can no longer carry on in that role.
  At the same time, the Government have driven through half-baked plans to put a price on the head of every elderly person who is stuck in a hospital bed. Of course we want older people to receive the right care in the right place at the right time, but this Government's obsession with targets and fines runs a risk of more and more elderly people getting the wrong care in the wrong place at the wrong time. As the number of people labelled as bed blockers falls—and it is falling—the number of people returning to hospital as emergencies is rising. The Department of Health's own figures show that there has been a 23 per cent. increase in the numbers of elderly people over the age of 75 returning to hospital within less than 28 days of being sent home. That is a startling figure. Indeed, the last available set of figures for the whole of a single year show that 140,000 people over the age of 75 are now being put through the misery of being discharged prematurely only to return to hospital within 28 days of that discharge. That makes no sense at all. The research that has been done on emergency readmissions shows that two in five could have been avoided. The NHS must do more on that, and the Government, by their fixation on delayed discharge, are overlooking that problem and failing to tackle it.
  Mr. John Horam: Both the hon. Gentleman and I are parliamentary representatives on the Greater London Forum for the Elderly, as he will be aware. As he also knows, the forum is having a community awareness week in October, in which it hopes to bring out clearly the problem of care homes in London, which is particularly acute. I would be glad if he made note of that.
  Mr. Burstow: I certainly do make note of it, and in a minute I shall quote some examples from a report of the National Audit Office that demonstrate clearly that in London and the south-east we have gone beyond meltdown in the care home system. There is an excess of demand over supply when it comes to care home capacity. The NAO report states that
  "for London and the south-east as a whole demand exceeds supply. There is a particular shortage of beds affordable to councils."

  337
  Increasingly, because the capital is funded to a higher level than elsewhere for social services, it can afford to poach places outside London. Increasingly in Kent and other parts of the home counties, London councils are competing with local councils for care home beds, and they are able to outbid local councils, making life even more difficult for many others outside London.
  The problem of demand outstripping supply is not confined to the capital and the south-east. It is becoming a widespread issue. It is not only a matter of a growing shortage of places, for there is also a shortage of staff. Again, the NAO warned the Government earlier this year, when it said:
  "Both residential and home care capacity are constrained by shortage of care assistants in the public and private sectors, who carry out many of the more basic but vital tasks. Potential applicants in some parts of the country are currently able to earn higher wages by working, for example, in supermarkets."
  The reality is that in too many places care home owners fear the day that a new supermarket opens because they know that it will have an impact upon their ability to continue to provide a quality of care for the residents in their home.
  A shortage of places and staff means less choice for older people. It leaves families struggling to find a good care home on their doorstep. For many, the choice is simple: sending granny or granddad miles away or topping up what the council is willing to pay to get into what they hope will be a better home. Not only do the Government expect the elderly to spend their life savings and to sell their homes to pay for care. It seems that they are now content to stand idly by while the children of older people also pay for their parents to be in the right care home. No wonder these people feel that the system is unfair. No wonder so many of them feel insecure.
  Geraint Davies: The hon. Gentleman knows that £4.5 billion of private money is spent on residential care, which is equivalent to 1.4p on income tax. Is his party saying that it would pay that private money? If the hon. Gentleman and his party are not going to fund it, he should shut up and move on to something else.
  Mr. Burstow: So the hon. Gentleman is telling me that a debate about the future of older people and their security should not include care homes and should not pinpoint the key reasons why care homes are going out of business. Is that what he is telling us? Many people outside the Chamber would be appalled to hear that that is what the hon. Gentleman is saying
  Geraint Daviesrose—
  Mr. Burstow: No, I will not give way.
  The hon. Gentleman makes a point about money. I shall deal with funding shortly.
  Richard Younger-Ross: Is my hon. Friend aware that in my constituency two care homes have closed recently? A constituent told me last week that having moved her grandmother to the Gatehouse care home in Dawlish, only for it to be closed six months
  338
  ago, she then moved her to the Kiniver care home in Teignmouth last week, only to discover that it is closing. Is it not the cost of the Government policy that elderly people are moved from care home to care home at a time in their life when they are least able to cope?
  Mr. Burstow: Sadly, what my hon. Friend has described is all too often now the reality for people in care homes. People can be given notice of no more than four weeks that their care home is about to be closed. The trauma of being evicted from a care home can shorten lives and result in people losing their lives. My hon. Friend is right to highlight that concern. There is a fundamental lack of security of tenure, which means that people can easily be passed from pillar to post in the way that he rightly describes.
  I have said that the Government are presiding over a back-door tax on the frail and elderly and their families. As the gap between care home fees and what councils are willing to pay widens, more and more families are forced to choose between eviction or topping up the care home fees. It is no wonder that so many older people feel betrayed by the Government.
  As more care homes close and demand outstrips supply, the problem can only grow. The plain and simple fact is that the market for care homes is still in freefall. Fee levels are at the heart of the matter. Councils cannot or will not pay a fair rate for care. Yet fees must rise if care homes closures are to be halted. That is not only my view, and it is not only the view of a number of organisations from Age Concern and Help the Aged to the King's Fund, as well as many others. It is also the finding of the Government's research last year. The research states:
  "An increase in care home fees paid by local authorities was the change that might have prevented home closures identified most often by providers."
  That was one of the findings of research commissioned by the Government from the Personal Social Services Research Unit. It seems that that finding has not yet landed on Ministers' desks. It certainly has not impacted upon their consciousness to the extent that they have acted to make a real difference.
  Have fees risen enough to make a difference? Earlier this year I received a letter from the National Care Homes Association, which said:
  "This year … Local Authorities have awarded a fee increase of between two and five percent. These fee increases came into effect in April. At the same time care homes have had to face additional 'on costs' imposed by the Government."
  The association goes on to list the 6 per cent. increase in the national minimum wage, the 20 per cent. increase in the fees that care homes must pay to be inspected by the National Care Standards Commission and the 130 per cent. increase in charges for criminal record checks for new employees. None of these increases is wrong in itself, and none of the services is wrong in itself. But for all of them to have been overlooked by the Government in their funding settlements, which means that councils cannot passport the money through to cover the extra costs, means that care homes are increasingly working with a bottom line that does not make any sense to the owners or their bank managers.
  This means increasingly—certainly in my constituency—that those running care homes look at property values and judge that they have been in the

  339
  business long enough and that it is time for them to retire. They close their care homes and realise a profit by selling them for something else. The victims are the people who, as a result, get passed from pillar to post, having been told that they must move from one home to another.
  I want to make it clear that, for us, the issue is not about the livelihoods of care home owners; it is all about the lives of care home residents. A care home can close in just four weeks. A resident has no security of tenure. As I have said, it is a traumatic experience to be told that a home that you have lived in, possibly for many years, is suddenly to be denied to you. That experience can be terrible. It can shorten lives, and in some cases it has cost lives.
  Most of those deaths—those tragedies—go unnoticed and unreported. However, earlier this year two cases widely highlighted the plight of the frail elderly. These were the tragic deaths of Winnifred Humphrey and Violet Townsend in different parts of the country, Kent and Gloucestershire. Winnifred Humphrey was forced to move home because her council was not willing to pay the home's latest care home fees. She died 16 days after her move. Violet Townsend was forced to move when the home she had lived in for eight years stopped subsidising council-funded places.
  The question of charitably run care homes subsidising state-funded placements is a big issue. Two years ago, the charitable sector was having to find more than £184 million a year to plug the gap between what councils were paying and what was necessary to provide a decent quality of care for older people in care homes. As a consequence of being forced to move, Violet Townsend died five days afterwards. I hope that the Minister responsible for these matters at Westminster has had the opportunity to study the report commissioned by Gloucestershire. It was a local inquiry into the events surrounding Violet's tragic death. I shall quote the report's conclusions. It said:
  "The funding required to support the provision of residential and nursing care beds has not kept pace with the growth in the market resulting from improved healthcare and subsequent changes in demography including longer life expectancy. National research and local experience shows that funding initiatives tied to current government priorities do little to address the underlying weakness in the funding structure. When seeking to supplement a shortfall in resources for residential and nursing care, the Council is obliged to balance the risk to its other social care responsibilities, notably in services to children.
  Market forces including recruitment and retention problems, increased care standards and rising expectations are resulting in a shrinking care home industry. The Council, working in partnership with the care home industry, is seeking to secure future provision by developing a mutually acceptable contract strategy. In the longer term the Council may be priced out of the market unless additional funds are available to pay the level of fees required to attract private capital investment in new build provision that is compliant with the improved care standards."
  What will the Government's response be to that report and to many others like it?
  Miss Anne Begg: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and accept what he is saying about the tragedy of those two cases. However, care homes close for various reasons ——not just because of lack of funds, but often because they do not come up to the new care standards. I would expect
  340
  the hon. Gentleman from his political perspective to accept that that is quite right. However, what is the solution to the difficulties caused by the closure of care homes that simply do not come up to the standards that we expect in a modern care service?
  Mr. Burstow: The hon. Lady makes an entirely fair point. At the moment, care home residents have less security of tenure than a council tenant or a private tenant. We are arguing that they need greater security, and we need a procedure for care home closures — there will be closures, because there are bad care homes that should be closed—that is slow-paced and meets the needs of the individuals. It should not be rushed to meet the needs of the social services budget or care home owners' priorities in selling their care homes. That is what we want, as it is not standard practice everywhere. The findings of the inquiry in Gloucestershire show that there are lessons to learned from the way in which the tragic circumstances of Violet's death were handled, and changes in procedure will be required in future.
  The Government's response to the problem is apparent in their amendment — it is simply to pat themselves on the back and to say what a wonderful job they are doing and that everything in the garden is rosy. Good regulations and higher care standards are something that we all want, but the Government, in fact, have managed to pull off a double whammy of botched regulations and, as a consequence of their botched introduction, poor standards. The care standards that were introduced in April 2002, only to be ditched in July 2002, were for many care home owners the final straw. During the passage of the legislation in 2000, the Government said that better standards would be cost-neutral. Larger rooms, wider doors, lifts and many other physical changes are required to bring homes up to standard so that that they are fit not only for today but for future generations. The Minister has stuck to the line that that need not cost more, which was nonsense in 2000 when the legislation went through the House. When the penny finally dropped with Health Ministers, they ran away from higher standards and the higher costs of meeting them, and waved away the physical standard requirements for the care home sector. The standards for care homes for disabled children and adults are in practice and detail higher than the standards that will apply to the care of the elderly. What happens to an adult in a care home who makes the transition to an older persons' home? Suddenly, they are told that they have to start sharing again because standards do not require the provision of single rooms in a care home for the elderly. Such changes are the result of the Government's ill-thought-out approach. Yet again, elderly people face discrimination solely on the basis of age.
  Discrimination does not end there. In February this year, the health service ombudsman published a highly critical report on long-term care. She found that the NHS had adopted unfair, even unlawful, rules for deciding who was entitled to fully funded continuing health care. Despite court judgments and the ombudsman's rulings, the Government have done next to nothing to put that injustice right. They remain in denial about the fact that they have done anything wrong at all. However, the guidance issued by the Department of Health under this Government's watch

  341
  has served only to obscure the legal position and left the NHS locally to draw up its own rules. Those rules amount to age-based rationing of health care. Once assessed—and thousands never even get that far—people who are turned down are directed to social services and are means-tested. It is a scandal that for so long the sick elderly in need of health care have been forced to sell their homes to pay for services that they thought throughout their working and taxpaying lives they would receive free when they needed them.
  We are not talking about personal care or the recommendations of the royal commission on long-term care. We are talking about the law of the land, dating back to the institution of the national health service and the principle that health care is free on the basis of need. For far too many elderly people, that is not the practical everyday reality —they are denied that right and are charged for going into a care home. In too many cases, the rules mean that people only qualify for NHS funding when they are at death's door, yet no law was ever passed to draw the line between what is free and what is paid for. It has been done instead by poorly drafted guidance and neglect. Ever since the ombudsman reported in February, Ministers have stonewalled on the Government's response. I hope that when the Minister stands at the Dispatch Box today, he will offer a sincere apology to the families who have had to battle for so long to get their rights recognised and who had only the ombudsman to rely on to get change and recompense for what they have lost.
  The problem is not just unfairness and insecurity in care — the same goes for pensions. The withering away of the basic state pension started under the previous Government, but it has continued under this one. Today's basic pension is a weak foundation on which to build security in old age. Women do particularly badly, and their relative position in the past decade has not improved. The basic pension should be a strong foundation for income in old age. The oldest pensioners, as we know—indeed, even the Chancellor now accepts this—are the poorest pensioners. We believe that they should receive much more as part of their basic state pension.
  I shall now come on to the questions asked by the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies). If the money that the Government are ploughing into mass means tests for the pension credit were spent on a better basic pension, the figure that my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) reported to the House a while ago would be of great interest. The over-75s would receive an extra £19 week in their basic pension—no questions asked, no forms to fill out. Even the Government accept that the basic state pension is not enough, which is why they are introducing the state second pension. I had the doubtful pleasure of serving on the Committee that considered the legislation introducing that pension. The trouble with that measure is that, after 40 years of making contributions, someone retiring on a full basic pension and a full second pension will be so poor that they will immediately have to apply for means-tested support.
  The basic pension and the state second pension both leave pensioners in poverty, so the Government are introducing the pension credit to fill the gap. However,
  342
  they have introduced more complication and confusion in the system. Complication and means testing lead to lower take-up. The Government think that 3.8 million pensioner households should be entitled to the pensioner credit, but the reality is that by next year Ministers expect just 2.8 million of them to be receiving it-1 million pensioners will, on the Government's own figures, be living below the Government's pensioner poverty line.
  Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: What the hon. Gentleman is saying is at odds with my own experience. Thousands of pensioners in my community are accessing the Pension Service, and I have repeatedly been told that it is as easy as picking up a phone — the work is done for claimants, and they get returns within days. If that is not the hon. Gentleman's experience in his area, may I suggest that he ask some questions, as that service is available in many other parts of the country?
  Mr. Burstow: The Minister may be able to deal with that puzzle in a minute, because the Government's own figures are based on the assumption that they will fail to get 1 million pensioners into the pension credit. It is for the Government to explain why there is such a difference between what the hon. Lady has been led to believe is happening on the ground and the Government's expectations. Our experience of the system leads us to believe that it will require regular reviews, which means that in reality it will be complicated.
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: May I bolster the point that the hon. Gentleman is making by pointing out that as recently as this morning the Secretary of State himself gave evidence to the Select Committee on Work and Pensions? He accepted my figure when I suggested that 1 million pensioners entitled to the pension credit would not be claiming it, and he expressed a blithe confidence that, despite all the problems with tax credits and the Child Support Agency computer problems, things would be done seamlessly and efficiently when the day dawned in October.
  Mr. Burstow: The hon. Gentleman has made a useful point in demonstrating the Minister's acceptance of the figure that I have given. I hope that when Ministers respond to our debate they will do more to allay the concern of many Members about the way in which the pension credit system will operate.
  Kevin Brennan: Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that, by next year, 2.8 million pensioner households will be better off as a result of the introduction of the state pension credit-a measure introduced by the Government which his party opposed? Is that what he is saying?
  Mr. Burstow: What I am saying is that I am more ambitious than this Government. I do not believe that 1 million households should be left in poverty, but the Government seem to be complacent about that and prepared to accept it. They are complacent about the

  343
  situation even in 2006, as they expect 800,000 of our pensioner households to continue to live in pensioner poverty.
  Miss Begg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Burstow: I have been generous in giving way and I have given way to the hon. Lady, so I wish to make some progress.
  That poverty is made worse by huge council tax increases. The most recent Government figures show that the poorest 20 per cent. of pensioners pay almost four times as much of their income, even after benefits, on council tax as the top 20 per cent. Council tax has a disproportionate impact on the poorest.
  Brian Cotter: I support what my hon. Friend is saying about council tax. In May, I presented a petition on behalf of 5,000 residents in Weston-super-Mare who were concerned about the existing rates. We are now talking about next year, when there will be a further whammy. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that people are very concerned about fairness and ability to pay?
  Mr. Burstow: My hon. Friend is right to underscore something that many outside the House feel — council tax has now become the unfairest tax in Britain. It really does hit hardest the poorest and most vulnerable. That is why during the Budget process in this place, we argued that there should be a £100 across-the-board cut in this year's council tax as a way of beginning to alleviate and ameliorate the impact of council tax rises. It is also why the Liberal Democrats still believe that what we need is a fair income tax-based solution to raising local taxes. The Government say in their amendment simply that they are reviewing council tax. Six years after coming into office, they are still reviewing. While they do so, pensioners are getting poorer.
  Our motion also addresses the concern felt by many pensioners about the loss of their pension books and the introduction of what the Government confusingly call direct payments. We now have direct payments in the Department of Health and the Department for Work and Pensions. They are totally different and confusing on the ground. Payments into banks, building societies and post office card accounts may make sense for some people, but the option of keeping the pension book should not be discarded so casually. The Government are introducing the post office card account, but it is difficult to apply for. People have to go through six separate stages to make an application, and the account is difficult to use in practice. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) found back in July that only one in 10 post office card account applications had been processed. Let us hope that the Government have been able to speed that up.
  Even now, it is not clear what happens to pensioners who have an account who fall ill suddenly and have not made any prior arrangements allowing someone else to use their personal identification number. Indeed, if someone else uses their PIN, they will lose their eligibility for a card account.
  Mr. John Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Burstow: I am afraid that I shall not give way at this point.
  344
  The same point applies to those who are relying on a number of different carers. We are still waiting for the Government to spell out the details of their exception scheme. If pensioners feel that the pension book suits their needs, they should be allowed to keep it.
  We initiated this debate because those are the issues and concerns that are on our constituents' minds. They are on the minds of those who are lobbying Members of this House today. On the ground, people are seeing care homes closing, and confronting the difficulties of finding a good care home for their loved ones. People are forking out a fortune to pay for what they believed was free health care and struggling to make ends meet while coping with a meagre pension and huge council tax rises. This Government have had six years to start to deal with those issues. As a result of their failure, thousands — indeed, millions—of pensioners in this country still feel insecure and feel that this Government are not giving them a fair deal.
  1.14 pm
  The Minister for Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "welcomes that from 2004–05 Government will be spending £9.2 billion extra per year in real terms on pensioners compared with the 1997 system; notes this is £5.7 billion more than if the basic state pension had been linked to earnings; recognises that the poorest third of pensioners will be £1,600 a year better off in real terms compared with the 1997 system; applauds Government action for older people on health and social care, fuel poverty, transport and lifelong learning; approves of action to stabilise the care home sector by increasing resources available to councils to increase care home fees where required; supports the Government's commitment to increase resources available for social services by on average six per cent. a year in real terms over the next three years, the expansion of intensive home care support, and the largest ever sustained increase in funding for the NHS; welcomes the real terms increase of 25 per cent. in grant to local authorities since 1997, and the review of the balance of funding between central and local government; further welcomes the successful introduction of universal banking services, giving Post Office access through a number of current accounts, basic bank accounts and the Post Office card account; congratulates Government on its intention to bring in Pension Credit from October; notes eligible households stand to gain on average £400 a year; and applauds the actions of the Government which result in over 1 million people being ready to receive Pension Credit who will gain more money than they had before."
  We very much welcome this debate on fairness and security in old age. Clearly, the ageing of the population is one of the major challenges for societies such as ours. Indeed, it is the major factor behind what I might term the rise of demographic politics, although low birth rates across Europe and much of the western world are another major factor behind demographic politics. We face serious challenges and there are some serious questions to be asked and answered.
  The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) raised many such questions, and many of them have huge resource implications. In debating these matters, however, we must avoid two dangers. The first is an excessive negativism and pessimism about the ageing of our population. Let me turn to the words of a former tutor of mine, Professor Richard Titmuss of the London School of Economics:
  "Viewed historically, it is difficult to understand why the gradual emergence in Britain of a more balanced age structure should be regarded as a 'problem of ageing".

  345
  I think that that is a text for our times, although the book was published in 1963. Let us avoid pessimism about ageing. The second danger is any temptation to suggest that there is some conflict between different generations or that they are in a battle for resources. Incidentally, I am not accusing the hon. Gentleman of falling into either of those traps, but trying to make two broad points.
  In looking at the demography of ageing, we need to address two trends. First, there are many ways in which we can paint a statistical picture of the general ageing of our population. Back in 1901, a few years before Lloyd George introduced the old-age pension at the generous rate of five shillings, the 65-plus population represented some 5 per cent. of the overall population. Those aged 65 and over now represent approximately 16 per cent. By the middle of this century, 2051, that level will rise to24 per cent. However, there is another trend that we need to understand—the ageing of the elderly population itself and the rise in the number of people in their 70s and 80s. Back in 1901, only 61,000 people were over 85, but the figure is now 1.1 million and it will be 3 million by 2051. The ageing of the population has major implications for pensions issues and the ageing of the elderly population has particular implications for the social and health care issues that the hon. Gentleman raised.
  To give another bit of broad context, we also need to recognise the life cycle of the typical 21st century Briton. The Briton of the 21st century may well spend 20 or even 25 years in education and training, preparing for economic activity. That hugely contrasts with the situation of their grandparents and great grandparents, who would have left school at 14. Of course, although when people retire—we all hope that they will be able to retire later if they wish to do so — they may currently face retirements lasting 20 years, as the century progresses, they may last 25, 30 or more years.
  I mention those facts because, in terms of such demography, we need to ask serious questions, as we are doing, about how we will afford education for a long period at the start of people's lives and decent retirements at the end. Although we often have separate debates about those issues, they are linked in terms of resources and life cycles.
  We should also avoid generalisations about "the old". We all fall into that trap, and I shall probably do so today. However, when we consider groups of elderly people—some now talk about ageing starting at 50, which I can hardly believe—we are clearly talking, in the light of the fact that some people are now surviving as centenarians, about different cohorts of people with different needs, and about different financial and social circumstances. Such cohorts have different interests and may not agree with each other about the allocation of resources, and we should recognise that.
  While much of our debate is perfectly properly about the rights of elderly people to decent health and social care, and decent retirement pensions, let us also remember and pay tribute to the fact that this generation takes very seriously not only its rights, but its duties and responsibilities. It takes its responsibilities seriously in terms of volunteering. Many of our volunteer army are the younger old, who are often
  346
  looking after the older old. Many are carers of spouses with dementia or children with serious conditions. We need to recognise the responsibilities taken on by the old, as well as their rights, and obviously we need to combat age discrimination.
  David Taylor: The Liberal Democrat spokesman highlighted one or two cases in which older people had had their human rights breached, which often takes place in a care setting. Does the Minister agree that sometimes older people find it difficult to defend and promote their rights? Is it not about time that they had a human rights commissioner who could work on such breaches, as I suggested to his ministerial colleague a week or two ago?
  Malcolm Wicks: In terms of the broad agenda, I shall focus mainly on incomes and pensions, while the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), will address other issues. We are all sensitive to the fact that when people who may be in their final years of life need to move to various kinds of institutions to be cared for, often by strangers, potential breaches of human rights come very much to the fore. I am sure that that unites all hon. Members, whatever our policy positions. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is very mindful of the issue.
  Mr. Bercow: Given that higher take-up of pensioners' benefits demands greater simplicity in the system, does it in any way trouble the Minister that, as was said of the Schleswig-Holstein question, only three people have ever understood the complexities of Government pension policy, one of whom is dead, while the second is mad and the third has forgotten the answer?
  Malcolm Wicks: I think that I personally knew all three. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point. I shall talk about pension credit, which he may have in mind, in a few moments.
  One of the issues involved in rights is that of outlawing age discrimination. It is extraordinary that at the very time that, demographically speaking, more of our citizens are elders, there remains absurd discrimination against older workers that bars people from the work force. We have several programmes to deal with that, and we are going to outlaw age discrimination. That will come into force in October 2006.
  Mr. Burstow: Will the Minister take the opportunity to confirm on the record that when he says that the Government are committed to dealing with age discrimination, he means that they are focused only on the workplace and will not tackle—in other words, they will tolerate—discrimination against older people in welfare and health services and in many other aspects of their lives?
  Malcolm Wicks: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not pay tribute to the fact that we are the first Government to outlaw age discrimination. In a range of arenas in the private, voluntary and public sectors, we need to be on guard against such discrimination—not least in the national health service, where we have taken major steps in that respect.

  347
  Our strategy for older people involves a number of strands, but I would emphasise the need for all pensioners to have a decent and secure income in retirement, opportunities to remain active in later life—there is a role for employment, of course, but also for education, lifelong learning and community activity—and a better and more co-ordinated health and care system to promote the independence of old people. It is also important at central level—even more so at local level—that we involve older people themselves in running and consulting on such services.
  I turn to incomes and pensions. That is my brief, and it is extremely significant to the debate. We are tackling pensioner poverty and will continue to do so. Our approach strikes a balance between providing a solid foundation of support for all, looking after the needs of all older people through pensions while targeting support at those who need it most. We make no apology for targeting the poorest pensioners. Income support through the minimum income guarantee introduced improvements, which have increased in line with earnings since 1999. Current rates are £102.10 for single pensioners and £155.80 for couples. The winter fuel payment benefits all older people, providing an additional £200 a year for around 11 million pensioners. From this winter, there will be an extra £100 for households containing someone aged 80 or over, benefiting an estimated 1.9 million people. In addition, free TV licences are available for all those aged 75 or over, without any income test.
  In 2003–04, the Government will spend around £8 billion extra a year on pensioners as a result of policies introduced since 1997. Although much of that benefits all pensioners, as I have been at pains to emphasise, it includes £3.75 billion more on the poorest third of pensioners. It is a matter for debate in this House as to whether Opposition parties agree with our determination to target extra resources on the poorest, but we think that that is right in terms of social justice. That figure amounts to almost six times more than would have been provided by an earnings link to the basic state pension since 1998. Those who argue simply for the re-indexing of the pension with earnings must recognise that that would deny extra help to the poorest. As a result of our measures, the poorest third of our elders will be approximately £1,600 a year better off.
  Rightly, it has been noted that many of the poorest among our elderly population are women. There are two reasons for that—women's increasing life expectancy and, more importantly, the fact that their work patterns mean that they are less likely than men to have occupational pensions and their savings may have diminished. About two thirds of pension credit beneficiaries will be women. We need to highlight that in our campaigns on take-up.
  Mr. Steve Webb rose—
  Annabelle Ewing rose—
  Malcolm Wicks: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman first, because I am not a sexist, then to the hon. Lady.
  Mr. Webb: Can the Minister confirm that his statistics on the average gain for poorer pensioners are based on
  348
  his Department's simulation models, which assume, incorrectly, that every pensioner takes up all his or her entitlement?
  Malcolm Wicks: I will deal with the methodology of the statistics in a note to the hon. Gentleman, if that is satisfactory.
  Annabelle Ewing: On the crucial issue of take-up, I want to ask the Minister a question that I asked in a previous debate, when I am afraid that I did not get an answer. Will a specific take-up target for pension credit be set for Scotland, and if not, why not?
  Malcolm Wicks: We have estimated figures on the numbers of people who are entitled to pension credit in Scotland, as well as in the regions of England and Wales. I am coming to the issue of take-up. I hope that even those who oppose the introduction of pension credit will help us in the campaign, and that all people who are entitled to the benefit will claim it.
  Pension credit will be introduced from October this year. For the first time in the history of the welfare state, the Government will ensure that it pays to have saved above the foundation of the basic state pension. Pension credit will reward people aged 65 and over for some of the savings and incomes that they have built up for their retirement. In the past, those who managed to save a little were left no better off than those who had not saved at all. People with capital of £12,000 or more could get no help at all, however low their income. That is the historical situation; no doubt the Conservative spokesman will seek to defend it.
  Pension credit is less complex, less intrusive and less bureaucratic, and will give people more. Around half of all pensioner households will be eligible and stand to gain, on average, some £400 a year. The application process has been designed to be straightforward. It involves a simple telephone call on a free phone number. People are sent a form to check, sign and return to the Pension Service. I say to old people who, despite our best efforts to design a simple form, understandably find form-filling difficult, as many of us do, "Throw it in the bin and make the telephone call. In a 20–minute call, one of our trained staff will fill in the form for you. You simply have to verify it."
  From the age of 65, most pensioners will have their entitlement fixed for five years, during which they need to report only major life events. We are thus doing away with the weekly means test. We need to communicate to elderly people that the pension credit does not mean an old-style means test. Since April, we have issued mail shots to approximately 1.3 million pensioner households and we shall write to remaining households in the next nine months. I hope that hon. Members understand that that is a colossal exercise and it would be wrong to try to write to all pensioners in the same week or even the same month; we do not want to gum up the administrative works. We are therefore undertaking the work gradually and sensibly for public administration.
  People who apply at any time up to October next year will have their credit backdated to this year so that no one will lose out. Of those who have already been through the process—mainly people on the existing

  349
  minimum income guarantee who have been transferred to pension credit, but also others—we estimate that, even at this early stage, more than 1 million will get more money than they received previously.
  Mr. Waterson: Does the Minister agree with the comments of Mr. Mervyn Kohler of Help the Aged that the Department has designed a system so byzantine that no one can understand it?
  Malcolm Wicks: No, I do not. The hon. Gentleman does not appear to understand that the fact that people do not have to fill in the form and that one of our experts can fill it in during a 20–minute phone call — people have only to verify the details — is a major step from old-style means-testing.
  I welcome the Liberal Democrats' choice of pension credit for the debate because they have an interesting track record that should be understood. They opposed its introduction. When the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) was not examining statistical methodologies, he stated on 25 March 2002:
  "The savings credit neither rewards those who save today nor encourages people to save for tomorrow, and I urge the House to reject it outright."—[Official Report, 25 March 2002; Vol. 382, c. 629.]
  Mr.Webb: Very perceptive.
  Malcolm Wicks: The hon. Gentleman clearly stands by his comments, since he judges them to be perceptive. I am glad that someone does.
  If we follow the hon. Gentleman's advice and spend all our pension credit money on increasing the basic state pension, we could increase the maximum rate from £77.45 to approximately £90. However, that would mean losses of around £30 a week for households that receive pension credit. The Liberal Democrats need to explain that to older and poorer people: if the Government foolishly followed their advice, the poorest would be denied £30 or more a week.
  Although I do not agree with the Liberal Democrats' approach, I at least respect it and understand their position. However, it is curious to compare their opposition to pension credit with their comments in the Brent, East by-election campaign. I have a piece of paper which is so interesting that I shall subscribe to future editions. It is called "Focus on Pensions" and discusses pension credit. Since we are considering "honourable gentlemen" in the House and outside, I assumed that the headline might read "Scrap Pension Credit" or possibly "Take Away £30 from the Poorest Pensioners". However, it is: "Are You Missing Out?" The article states that "local Lib Dem"—they call themselves Lib Dems—campaigner Sarah Teather
  "has launched a major campaign to urge all local pensioners to apply for the new Pension Credit".
  She said:
  "I want to make sure that all pensioners in our area who are entitled to the new Pension Credit actually claim it."
  Once again, we understand that being a Liberal Democrat means never having to be consistent. What hypocrisy¡ I hope that the hon. Member for Northavon
  350
  or his colleagues will say whether they are for or against the pension credit, and whether they would back or scrap it. Answer came there none. Liberal Democrat Members opposed the pension credit in Parliament. campaigned for its success at the hustings and soon they will doubtless claim that they thought of it.
  Mr. Waterson: The Minister has been generous in giving way. I promise not to try to intervene on his speech again, unless provoked.
  The virus is spreading, because in my constituency the Liberals are writing to pensioners extolling the virtues of the pension credit and demanding to know whether they will take it up. I am pleased that there is no by-election in my constituency, but I gather that in Brent, East the "local Lib Dem campaigner"—how that phrase rolls off the printing presses—lives in Islington.
  Malcolm Wicks: The hon. Gentleman is looking very well, doubtless with the benefit of a summer holiday, and I am sure that a by-election will be much delayed.
  A major part of the discussion must focus on not only today's but tomorrow's pensioners. The Green Paper and our response to it are crucial to the pensions agenda.
  Mr. David Borrow: Unlike the Liberal Democrats, I strongly support the pension credit. I am pleased that such a policy has emerged from the demand in constituencies such as mine that were let down because small occupational pensions or savings were not properly taken into account. My supporters will deliver 35,000 leaflets to urge my constituents to apply for the pension credit.
  However, having stressed the good points, I wish to raise a technical matter. When I was first elected to Parliament and means-tested benefits were examined, I was upset by the assumption that every £250 in savings resulted in an income of £1 a week. That has been changed and savings of £500 result in a notional income of £1 under the proposed pension credit. I believe that the figure remains excessive.—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. The hon. Gentleman must conclude his intervention.
  Malcolm Wicks: That was an important and complex question. I welcome my hon. Friend's support for the pension credit. The Liberals are in some difficulties if they are honest on the pavement—a rare sight—and say that they are urging people to claim a credit that they would abolish if they came to power. However, that is a conundrum for them. The first £6,000 of savings are not taken into account. We estimate that 85 per cent. of those eligible for the pension credit will not have to bother us with details about savings. As he acknowledges, the withdrawal rate is more generous than it was in the past. We suspect that approximately half of all pensioners will qualify for pension credit, so there must be a cut-off point.
  The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam made some rather negative remarks about payment modernisation and direct payments. There are important reasons why the changes are happening. Order books and girocheques are vulnerable to fraud and theft; about £80 million is lost in the postal system and elsewhere every

  351
  year. Sadly, on average, about 100 pensioners a week have their order book stolen, and some are mugged and seriously assaulted on their way to the post office.
  It is vital that we recognise the importance of the post office network. The Government are putting a great deal of resource into the network: some £2 billion over the next five years, including £450 million earmarked to support the rural post office network. It is not for our Department, or, indeed, the Government, to ensure the future of every post office, but ensuring that the Post Office becomes a modern banking service offering Post Office card accounts and facilities that allow people to draw out their cash using other bank and building society accounts—as I do at our local post office here in the House, using my own bank account—will stop people walking away from the postal service. If we look at the statistics for before the change was introduced, we see that almost six out of 10 people in the newer group of pensioners—those who have retired in the last year or two—had their pension paid into a bank or building society account. That is why we had to transform the system.
  To hear the Liberal Democrats whinge and moan about this issue, one might assume that applying for a Post Office card account was so difficult that only a few dozen people were doing it. In fact, I am advised that 1 million people have applied for one, and our working assumption is that some 3 million people will have them, although there may be more. It is up to the elderly person herself, not the Government, Ministers or the Post Office, to choose. I am sure that the new system will be a success. We are talking to the representative groups and listening to the issues as they arise. For those who find it impossible to access their money through a Post Office card account, or a bank or building society account, there will be a cheque-based exceptions service. We are working on its details, but I would like to assure the House that it will be there.
  Mr. Alan Reid: The Government's amendment to our motion refers to
  "giving Post Office access through a number of current accounts".
  May I draw the Minister's attention to the situation in Scotland, where the current accounts of the three main Scottish banks cannot be accessed at the post office? What are the Government doing to reach an agreement with the Scottish banks so that Scottish pensioners may have the same rights of access to their bank accounts at the post office as other pensioners?
  Malcolm Wicks: I recognise that issue, and discussions with banks are proceeding.
  Given that I am the Minister for Pensions, I have understandably focused on pensions issues, but it is important for us to recognise, as the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam did, that there is a wider agenda. A specific issue that is close to my heart is the need to attack fuel poverty. As a young researcher, I worked on the appalling problem of hypothermia, which became known as the "old and cold" problem. It is a scandal that people die in the winter simply because they are too cold to live.
  I am proud of the way in which we are tackling the problem. There is still some way to go, but the UK fuel poverty strategy, published in November 2001, was the
  352
  first of its kind in the world. It set out a coherent programme to end the blight of fuel poverty for vulnerable households by 2010. What have we done so far? In England, the home energy efficiency scheme—now marketed as warm front—has assisted more than 600,000 households, and more than 30,000 new gas central heating systems have been installed. Grants have been increased to £2,500 for the over-60s. I am sure that all hon. Members who have visited elderly people benefiting from the scheme and seen the joy on their faces as they realised that they could now live in a warm home will back the project. The scandal of fuel poverty must be eradicated; it is a 19th century problem that should not have lingered on into the 21st century.
  In terms of a healthier old age—which will be dealt with by the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet—the extra resources that we are putting into the national health service are absolutely vital, as are the extra resources that we are putting into social services. My hon. Friend will also deal with some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam in that regard.
  We have set out programmes to improve the health and well-being of older people in the national service framework, which was published in March 2001. The framework delivers the commitments to older people made in the NHS plan. It tackles the differing levels of access to services and is rooting out age discrimination in the national health service. The framework will raise the quality and standards of health and social care for older people.
  Richard Younger-Ross: I wonder whether the Minister feels any frustration towards the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, in so far as the pensioners who are here protesting and lobbying today are concerned about the rise in council tax, which is a consequence of decisions made by the ODPM. The increase in Devon was 28 per cent. this year, and is likely to be 11 per cent. next year. Does that not undermine what the Minister is trying to do? Is it not time for him to say to the Deputy Prime Minister that one of the best ways to help pensioners is to axe the tax?
  Malcolm Wicks: It is, rightly, not the job of central Government to set the level of local council taxes. We all want to see more localism. It is, however, the task of central Government to fund local government adequately. In real terms, we have put in an extra £9 billion since 1997, and this year's expenditure settlement was above the level of inflation. These are issues that citizens have to talk to their local councillors about. That is why we have local government. Our job is to fund local government as best we can—I believe that we are doing that—and, in terms of old people's incomes, to pursue the programmes that I outlined earlier.
  When I ask the many elderly people I know about the issues that count, they talk about safety, antisocial behaviour and the fear of crime. I talked to many people in my constituency over the summer about what was on their mind. It is always salutary to talk to people in the real world, as opposed to the world that some of us inhabit for too many months of the year here in Westminster. The issues out there are not always the same as those we discuss here; indeed, they are often

  353
  very different. I have been struck by people's concern about crime and antisocial behaviour. We know that, among old people, the fear of crime is a major issue.
  We are doing many things to address the problem. Eighty-five neighbourhood warden schemes have been developed or extended, working in communities to tackle the fear of crime. There are more police officers across the country. Schemes such as "locks for pensioners" have provided security upgrades for pensioners on low incomes who live in areas where the burglary rate is above average. We are investing £170 million in 683 closed-circuit television schemes across England and Wales to make our towns safer. These things are important. Transport is important, too. Access to public transport is absolutely vital, as are the half-fare discounts that we have introduced since June 2001, which have helped some 7 million older and disabled people in England.
  In regard to adopting a positive approach to ageing, I would place an emphasis on education and lifelong learning opportunities. I once had the honour of being the Minister for Lifelong Learning, and I always recognised, as many elderly people do, that retirement is the new learning zone. Education is not just about younger people.
  Mr. Webb: Yet another cliché.
  Malcolm Wicks: The hon. Gentleman has a lot of learning to do, if I may say so. A good way to do that is to listen.
  To illustrate the point that education is not just for the young, we once held a competition to find England's oldest learner. We found Mr. Fred Moore, who was then aged 107. Those of us who have been to online computer centres, to Learn Direct and to adult education institutions often find that the people sitting in front of the computers are our senior citizens. Why are they doing it? They are doing it to help them run their businesses, to pursue their hobbies as secretaries of various associations or community bodies, or simply to find out how to get into e-mail contact with their grandchildren or great-grandchildren who might live in the Antipodes or in Canada.
  Education is vital if we are to take a positive approach to ageing, and an important component is to recognise that all age groups contain people who do not have basic literacy and numeracy skills. One of my happiest moments as a Minister was visiting an elderly lady of about 73, who, through community opportunities, had learned to read and write for the first time. She had become literate—an opportunity denied her at school and in her working life. Her delight that she could write—she was writing essays and so on—was a wonder to behold. Retirement as the new learning zone is an important theme.
  This is a formidable agenda. Ageing is not a crisis facing societies, but it is a challenge and the Government are facing up to it.
  1.50 pm
  Mr. Patsy Calton: I shall address my remarks to post office closures, as they are particularly apposite to what the Minister said about not being
  354
  pessimistic about ageing. I intend to show that I am not pessimistic about ageing. I want older people to be able to exert their independence for as long as possible.
  So far, three post office closures have affected my constituency: two in the constituency itself, in Fir road in Bramhall and in Grove lane in Cheadle Hulme, and one just outside the constituency in Grosvenor road in Cheadle. We have just passed the so-called consultation period for the closure of Cheadle road post office. My colleagues, local councillors and I invited local people to tell us about their circumstances and to say how the closures would affect them. There was only a short month in which to conduct the investigation, but we did so. Some of the messages we received were poignant. As we suspected, we found that we were dealing with real people living in real, linked, identifiable communities, based around local shopping parades at the heart of which is often the post office—not urban sprawl, as the Post Office terms it.
  In other cases of possible closure, I have had occasion to speak with representatives of the Post Office about their so-called visits to the areas involved to get to know their characteristics. On close questioning and as a result of frequent letter writing, I found that their visits to local areas are based on geographic information systems. Those visits were conducted via computers; they were two-dimensional visits looking at streets and roads, with communities marked as grey shading around roads. Those representatives did not actually visit the area. That is not good enough; it certainly does not allow them to know what truly forms a community.
  The present public consultation is a sham, as the postmaster has already made it clear that he has decided to close one post office, and in the other cases we have heard that he intends to do so. We are not quite holding our breath but we are waiting to see whether we will receive the same standard letter about the closure of Cheadle road post office as was sent about all the other closures.
  We have received more than 100 individual replies about the matter, and many more have written to the Post Office team, and Stockport metropolitan borough council has also responded. The key point people made was that the distances quoted by the Post Office when they engage in consultation are as the crow flies, post office to post office; they do not take into account the additional distances that people often have to travel. The distance to alternative offices from more distant areas of my constituency, such as the lower parts of Buckingham road in Cheadle Hulme, Grange avenue and Warwick close, are much greater than the 0.7 miles quoted by the Post Office in the consultation.
  The distances quoted do not take into account the particular circumstances when the alternatives are examined. The alternative Mellor road post office in Cheadle Hulme may be accessible once people get there, but people in wheelchairs and elderly, infirm people cannot cope with the steep climb up the road to get to it in the first place. It is therefore impractical, and there are no alternatives to get to that post office by bus.
  Older and younger people recognised the valuable contribution that sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses make to the community, and the impossible position that the Government and the Post Office have created for them. My constituents, like

  355
  everyone else, use the post office for drawing their pensions, withdrawing money, buying stamps, paying bills by giro and using their council swipe cards, which the council introduced to make it easier for people to pay their council bills, and for posting parcels.
  Elderly people told us what a difference it will make to their lives if they cannot access the post office. For example, Mrs. Menges of 2 Rosthernmere road can walk to the post office now; she would have to drive to Turves road and Mellor road post offices, where the parking is inadequate; Mrs. Wright, who also lives in Rosthernmere road, has a walking disability, so although she walks to the Cheadle road post office she could not walk to the others; Mr. Ford, of 35 Farley court is an 80-year-old who can walk to Cheadle road post office but would not be able to get to the alternatives; Mrs. H. Scott, aged 92, and Mrs. M. Jones, who is 89, both walk to Cheadle road post office in spite of disabilities, but they cannot be expected to get on the bus to go to the other post offices.
  Dr. Al-Hassani can walk to Cheadle road post office in spite of having a disability but he, too, could not walk to the alternatives; Miss Holloway, who is 86, finds it hard to walk even to Cheadle road post office and certainly could not do so to the alternatives. Mrs. McDonagh of 105 Buckingham road suffers from chronic asthma, osteoarthritis and osteoporosis and is being treated for breast cancer. She could not reach the alternatives except by taxi, which she cannot afford. Mrs. Wellings is 86 years old and suffers from Parkinson's disease. Mr. Bean of flat 10, Regency Court is a younger person who is wheelchair bound and is looked after by his parents, who are in their 80s. They could not wheel him to alternative post offices, nor cope with getting him in and out of a car.
  I could go on. Mr. Masters who, in spite of being 91 and blind still manages to get to the post office—
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond): Before the hon. Lady moves on, I hope she will recognise that decisions on consultation on post office closures or changes are matters for the Post Office. Does she accept that the Government share her understanding of the importance of local post offices to local communities, and especially to older people? Will she also accept, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions said, that that is why we are putting £2 billion into the Post Office network, including £450 million for rural post offices, and why we welcome Post Office discussions with the banking sector to ensure that we can underpin the viability of the post office network by allowing it to offer banking services?
  Mr. Calton: I am extremely grateful for the Minister's intervention, because I hope that such thinking will go into the decision on Cheadle road post office. If it does, that post office will undoubtedly be saved or some alternative arrangements will be made. Unfortunately, that has not been the pattern so far in my constituency, and we await the results of the so-called consultation any day now, which we are concerned will affect real people in real communities. The fact that they do not live in a rural area but, according to the Post Office, in a so-called urban sprawl, means that they do not get as much consideration as people who live in rural areas.
  356
  We should maintain old people's independence, and ensure that they do not lose their links with the community. I tried the House's patience by reading out all those names, butt here are dozens more people in the same position. If this post office closes—and I have no reason to suppose that it will be treated differently from the others—the cost of social services and health care will rise as all those people become isolated and dependent on others. I am delighted that they want to remain independent in their 80s and 90s. I glory in their desire to do so. The post office makes that possible, and motivates them to go out and collect their pensions by whatever means they choose. There is no local bank, and if the post office is taken away many of them will be unable to make the journey on their own. Along with local shops, the post office is central to their independence.
  If the closure is really necessary, what will be done to promote and maintain that independence? It is not sufficient to say that more will be spent on social care and health, for these are people who want to live without those services. Could not post offices, with the Government's encouragement, form an association with supermarkets? Could there not be mobile post offices? They would be a valuable accessory to the mobile library in Stockport, which has made a real difference, although Stockport is an urban area surrounded by suburbs.
  It is simply not right to say that the council tax is applied fairly. In my constituency, which is considered to be affluent, its application takes no account of the fact that 51 per cent. of people in the borough are receiving either pensions or benefits.
  Mr. Annette L. Brooke: What concerns pensioners particularly is that while the state pension is the same throughout the country, council tax levels differ from mile to mile, and do not reflect the level of services. Some people pay less council tax than my constituents although they have free transport. Is there not a case for equal treatment?
  Mr. Calton: My hon. Friend makes my point for me. People in their 80s tell me that they cannot afford to live much longer because the council tax keeps going up. They can cope with everything else, but the council tax is becoming too great a burden. It is not fair to expect older people to retire having made what they thought was reasonable provision, and then find that the council tax is the biggest cost that they must meet each year.
  The Government have a responsibility to communities, not just in regard to decisions on how much grant areas should receive and how much they should raise for themselves. The Government also have a responsibility when it comes to post offices and other small local services. The one thing of which I can be sure is that if those services are allowed to disappear, the Government and local communities will pay more in the long run.
  2.5 pm
  Rob Marris: The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) ended by talking about the council tax. It seems to me that the Liberal Democrats are again being somewhat two-faced on the

  357
  question of whether they want decentralisation or centralisation in the context of equality of services throughout the country. I am in favour of equality, but I am also in favour of decentralisation. I hope that the Liberal Democrats will forgive me if I am wrong, but I do not think I have heard them talk about council tax benefit today. They talk about ability to pay, but that is what council tax benefit is there for.
  The difficulties that exist throughout the country this year, especially in the south-east, have been caused by councils' unrealistic views over the years on the level at which they should set their taxes. In my area of Wolverhampton, in the west midlands, we have had no such problems, because the Government's new formula redresses the historic imbalance affecting the rate support grant—now the formula spending share—that the city council used to receive.
  Let me give an example to bolster my assertion that there was an historic imbalance in England. When I entered Parliament two and a half years ago, I moved into a property in the London borough of Lambeth. Like the property in which I have lived for many years in my constituency, it is in band D. I found that the council tax in London was considerably lower than that in Wolverhampton-not because Wolverhampton council is much more inefficient than Lambeth, as hon. Members probably realise, and not, as far as I can deduce, because the services provided for Lambeth residents are much worse than those provided in Wolverhampton. Given the considerably higher cost of conducting council business in London, I think the differential can only be explained by the historic imbalance of moneys from central Government. The adjustments that have been made surely redress that imbalance, as you may agree, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Neil Turner: The house in Wigan that I have lived in for some time is in band C, but I pay exactly the same council tax as I pay in London, where my property is in band E. Does that not reinforce my hon. Friend's point?
  Rob Marris: Indeed, and we as a Government are now working out how to redress the imbalance. That has caused difficulties in the past year, but it would have been wrong of the Government to back away.
  Should the Government allocate the additional £9.2 billion that they are providing to all pensioners, or only to the neediest? That question has caused a key political division between the parties. Not surprisingly, I support the Government. As a socialist I have always wanted to focus resources on the neediest in society, and that means applying the modern means-testing regime that we are introducing to pension credit and the Government's minimum income guarantee.
  Mr. Roger Gale: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned pension credit and council tax credit. Can he confirm that council tax credit is reduced by the
  358
  award of pension credit, and that therefore the Government are effectively giving with one hand and taking away with the other?
  Rob Marris: I do not believe that council tax benefit, as it is called, will have that effect, and nor will housing benefit, but I stand to be corrected by the expert Ministers present.
  On targeting money on the neediest, figures from the House of Commons Library, which got them from the Department for Work and Pensions, show that expenditure on the minimum income guarantee for the financial year just ended—2002–03—as about £4.5 billion, at this year's prices. The projected expenditure on the pension credit for the next financial year—2004–05—is about £5.3 billion. There are 7.2 million single-pensioner households in the United Kingdom, and 2.8 million couple-pensioner households in which at least one of the couple is a pensioner. That totals about 12 million pensioners. If that pension credit money—the minimum income guarantee and the pension credit, totalling some £9.2 billion—were evenly divided, each pensioner would get £16 a week. That would take the basic state pension for a single pensioner from £77.45 a week to £93.45 a week—in contradistinction to the single pensioner with the minimum income guarantee, who gets £102.10 a week. In round terms, that is £9 a week more for the neediest pensioners. I salute and support the Government for doing that.
  Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman, who is a member of the relevant Select Committee, is thoughtful and knowledgeable, and I have been following his argument with care. How does he reconcile the figure he has just given of £9 a week less for the poorest pensioners, if this money were spread evenly, with the absurd figure of £30 that the Minister quoted?
  Rob Marris: I go by my own figures, although I always stand to be corrected. [Interruption.]I heard the Minister say £30 a week, but I go by my own figures. As the hon. Gentleman will agree, there would still be a considerable gap, even if his party's policy of introducing such a provision across the board were adopted. That is the key political divide, and it is one of the divides that we are debating today.
  I want to move on to something that rarely gets mentioned in terms of this Government's provision for pensioners: the massive increase in spending on the NHS. Two thirds of NHS spending goes on older people, and I support that. Again, that is supporting the neediest, with provision free at the point of use. So, in examining what this Government have tried to do to assist pensioners, we should not overlook that magnificent investment in the NHS, two thirds of which is rightly benefiting pensioners.
  I want to turn to the "pensions crisis", as the Liberal Democrat motion describes it. That phrase is very overworked and does not illuminate what is happening with pensions. In terms of pensioners' average incomes and the average amounts saved by prospective pensioners, there is no crisis whatever. Rather, as ever, there is an imbalance between poorer and better-off pensioners, which this Government are seeking to redress.

  359
  The difficulties for prospective pensioners and for certain recently retired pensioners in company schemes have been highlighted—if not made transparent—by the Government putting forward the financial accounting standard FRS 17 and by the minimum funding requirements for pension funds, which disclosed under-provision in some private companies' works pension schemes. Those difficulties came about partly because the stock market came down, but principally because many private companies—not all—would not put their hands in their pockets to make up shortfalls in private pension schemes arising from pension contribution holidays that they had taken when times were better. In other words, they took the money out in the good times, but did not put it in during the bad times.
  There is also the scandal whereby managers of companies with company pension schemes suddenly retire when the company is about to go bust. They become pensioners three months later, when the company finally goes bust, and are thereby a different category of claimant from the poor working stiff who does not see the writing on the wall or have the inside information, is still employed and gets treated differently, in terms of their prospective pension, from the managers who have jumped ship.
  The final salary scheme debate has been used by companies as an excuse to cut their pension contributions. When companies move to a money purchase scheme for new entrants, they cut their pension contributions greatly—on average, by about half the employers' pension contribution to the works pension scheme. Companies have used this as an excuse to lessen the pension emolument that they pay to their employees. Given what we have experienced in the past three or four years, in the medium term, final salary schemes in the private sector will wither and die, particularly for new pensioners. Such schemes were designed to provide security. People who worked for a company for 40 years, say, knew what pension they would get. If it was an eightieth-based scheme, they would get 40 eightieths on retirement—in other words, a half-pension. Every year they would clock up an eightieth and get a half-pension if they stayed with the company for 40 years.
  However, the countervailing security is whether there is any money in the kitty to pay people out when they have done the 40 years. Those chickens have come home to roost, and in the medium term the work force, whether unionised—as they should be—or not, will not stand for a lack of security, whereby it is uncertain whether there will be any fund at all, or whether it will come anywhere near meeting promises that were made when in employment. Final salary schemes will be able to continue in the public sector because Government backing will be there to top up local authority schemes, for example, if necessary, but that will not happen in the private sector. We must look at this issue, because it is a question of how we view the term "security".
  When we as a society focus, as we should, on the under-provision of pensions for women in particular, we must note that final salary schemes often discriminate against the low paid, many of whom are women. A cleaner, for example, who has been in a local authority final salary scheme for 30 years, doing the same job and paying the same contributions, would get 30 eightieths, but if they were a cleaner for 20 years and worked for the
  360
  final 10 as a supervisor, they would get the 30 eightieths at a much higher rate, even though they had paid only 10 years' worth of higher-rate contributions. So, although there is often sex discrimination, overall we are talking about discrimination against the low paid.
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman is normally a fair man in these matters, but he has come perilously close in the past few minutes to suggesting that such schemes are closing because of the wicked, feckless actions of the bosses, who are grinding the faces of their poorer workers. He will agree that that is not so. Many of these schemes are closing for proper, prudent financial management reasons, rather than for the reasons he came close to suggesting.
  Rob Marris: As a former Select Committee member and a former Minister in the predecessor Department, the hon. Gentleman is very knowledgeable about these matters. However, some schemes have indeed ripped off members, and the employers have been, to use his word, feckless. As he points out, other schemes are closing because it is financially prudent to do so, but what constitutes financial prudence in a given climate depends on how one got there and on how much money is in the kitty. Before he seeks to intervene on me again, I should remind him that I did mention the fact that part of the current difficulty with private pension schemes—but only part—is the downturn in the stock market. However, the stock market, like capitalism, is cyclical, and as I said, some companies that took pensions contribution holidays will not now put their hands in their pockets when times are bad. Instead, they are closing the scheme, which is despicable to say the least.
  The Government are doing what they can in the current climate. We are in a transition phase, in that pensions have moved up the political and social agenda, which is a good thing. The Government are seeking to address some of the historical difficulties that have arisen under Governments of both political colours since the second world war.
  A major step forward is the pension protection fund, which will be designed to help workers who are ripped off and find that their pension scheme has gone bust or is significantly underfunded. Sometimes they find this out very much toward the end of their careers. If a company scheme goes bust, there will be a 90 per cent. kick-in from the insurance. I am delighted to say that the pension protection fund will have a cap regarding the salaries of high earners. Solvent employers—this touches on the issue raised by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell)—who choose to wind up their pension schemes, as they are legally entitled to do, will be required to meet their promises to that pension fund in full, and that will be policed.
  It is a step forward that the Government are looking at the priority order that applies on company insolvency, which has had particularly adverse effects on long-serving members who are nearing retirement and may have decided to work an extra five years, perhaps because their children are in university; but that is another debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. However, if the person at the next desk or bench decides to go and, two years later, the company scheme goes bust, the person who already receives the pension but who may

  361
  have shorter service and may be slightly younger gets much better protection than the person who has worked there longer.
  Finally, I am delighted that the Government are at last making serious noises about the situation for workers when their employment is transferred. Every Member knows that under the acquired rights directive and the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, as amended, pensions are excluded. The EU made a mistake on that and the UK Government made a mistake in continuing that exclusion when we did not need to after the acquired rights directive was translated into domestic legislation in the UK. The Government addressing that issue is long overdue, and I hope that they do so to ensure that someone whose job is being transferred has protection for their pension as well as for their pay and conditions of work.
  2.22 pm
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I fear that I could not possibly bring myself to congratulate the Liberal Democrats on their motion today, but they have done the House a service in following the example of Her Majesty's Opposition yesterday and raising an important bread and butter issue that is of huge concern to our constituents. It is noteworthy that the Westminster village spends its time being obsessed by issues around the Hutton inquiry. However, there are many important issues in education, health, transport and taxation that are of great importance to our constituents on a daily basis, and I am glad to be able to take part in this debate today.
  I agree with the Minister for Pensions, who said that excessive negativism should be avoided. He was irritatingly reasonable throughout most of his speech; not something we usually get from Ministers in this rotten Government. It remains to be seen how the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), winds up the debate.
  The Minister for Pensions is right to inveigh against excessive negativism, to point to the fact that we are all now, thank goodness, living longer and to state that better medicine is keeping us alive and in a better condition for much longer. That is a good thing. I agreed also with the Minister when he set out the Government's policy on age discrimination. As someone already in his mid-40s, I recognise that this is an increasingly important agenda and I approve of what the Government are doing in that respect.
  I want to raise three issues. The first is the crisis in our care homes in Birmingham, a mater that I have raised in the House before and which remains extremely important and worrying. Secondly, I want to follow the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) in his analysis of where the pensions crisis for existing and future pensioners now rests. Thirdly, I want to refer to an important point that was touched on briefly by the Minister—the effect of crime on the security of our old folk.
  Sutton Coldfield, for local government purposes, is a part of Birmingham. I have watched with great concern the way in which the crisis in our care homes has
  362
  unfolded and the apparent inability of Birmingham's Labour council or the Labour Government to do anything about it.
  The issues behind care home closures were well set out by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), who touched on the bed-blocking crisis, which is not directly associated with the problem but is close to it. He referred also to the fiasco of the Government's implementation and consequent withdrawal of the national minimum environmental standards for existing care homes, which caused great distress and anger across the country.
  We know that demand for elderly care is growing. Between 2005 and 2020, over 130,000 more people each year will require residential care than currently receive it, an increase of 25 per cent. The number of people receiving domiciliary care has fallen by almost 100,000 since 1997, a fall of over 20 per cent. The number of care home beds available has dropped by 13 per cent. since 1997, a loss of 70,000 long-term care places.
  According to the latest data published by Laing and Buisson in July 2003, 13,400 elderly care places were lost in the 15 months to April 2003 alone. A net 11,000 places were lost in the independent sector—often small, privately operated and voluntary care homes—in the 15 months to April 2003, an increase on the 9,600 places lost in the same time frame in the previous calendar year. A further 900 places in local authority-run residential homes were lost, along with an estimated 700 continuing care places in NHS hospitals. As a result of this capacity loss, supply has reached dangerously low levels; across the country, the average is 5.7 care home places per 100 people over 65. In the northern home counties, the supply ratio has dropped to 4.6, and in London it has fallen to as low as 3.8, one third lower than the average.
  Despite frequent warnings from industry bodies and the Conservative party, the availability of care continues to decline. Sometimes closure is inevitable, and several speakers have referred to the huge human cost of those closures. The closure of care homes not only causes disruption to vulnerable residents; on the Government's own reckoning, as many as 1,000 people every year may be dying as a result of care home closures. In general, over-prescriptive, expensive and bureaucratic regulation has greatly exacerbated the crisis in the sector and has driven many recent closures, including those of some high-quality homes.
  Hon. Members will recall the early-day motion tabled by me and my hon. Friends in respect of the Birmingham care homes crisis, which said:
  "That this House expresses its grave concern about the crisis in care for the elderly in Birmingham and elsewhere in England; is alarmed that over 80 care homes have closed in Birmingham over the last 18 months; recognises that a main contributory factor to this crisis is the decision by Birmingham Social Services to pay substantially less than the real cost of providing care for the elderly in care homes and that this practice is threatening to force good quality independent care homes out of business, causing grave distress and confusion to vulnerable, frail and elderly residents in Birmingham."
  That remains the case. I have said that I am appalled that Birmingham social services paid private care homes substantially less than the real cost of providing care for the elderly in care homes, a practice that led, obviously, to the closure of many more care homes.

  363
  Mike Gimson, the spokesman for the Birmingham care consortium, which represents care home owners in the city, said that the consortium had been warning the council about the escalating closures. He said that the figures
  "prove what we have been saying. It is a disgrace and there is worse to come as the pressure increases. We are now facing the under-provision of beds in Birmingham."
  Birmingham has been particularly hard hit because of the action of local authorities that have discriminated against the private sector by paying fees way below the levels that they are prepared to pay to their own homes. Birmingham city council pays £570 per resident per week for its own social service places, but for private homes it is prepared to pay between £300 and £310 per week, and for nursing homes only £398 per week. That is an absolute disgrace. Approximately 100 private homes have closed within the past two years and last year Birmingham city council spent some £17 million on agency staff for social services. At the very least, that is indicative of the demoralisation of the department and its inability to recruit and retain staff.
  Even the social services inspectorate has acknowledged that there is a problem with care in Birmingham. The city is officially designated weak and is zero-starred. The Government pump money into social services, but except for domiciliary care and sheltered housing, the money is not ring-fenced. The result is a huge underspent budget for domiciliary and sheltered housing, and money intended for residential care is diverted elsewhere. The situation in Birmingham cannot be allowed to go on. It is an abuse of council tax payers' money and an absolute disgrace. Today I call once again on the Government to take steps to resolve the problem.
  My party has come up with a six-point plan for longterm care, which I have no doubt will be further elucidated by the Front Bench. One point was missing from the proposer's speech. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam accurately described much of the problem in the sector, but he did not go on to explain precisely what Liberal policy would do about it. Our six-point plan will reverse the decline in the number of care homes and remove unnecessary regulation, which is costly and often does not improve care. It will break down the rigid divide between health and social care, and lead to the greater integration of funding streams from health and social services. It will recognise the sacrifice of those who provide for their own long-term care, and make it easier for people to care for their elderly relatives in the home or in their own homes.
  My second theme is the pensions crisis. Nothing could more accurately exemplify how the Government have been caught in the headlights of the pensions crisis than the fact that for a considerable period the Prime Minister did not even deign to appoint a Minister for Pensions. Let us first consider the crisis for those who are already receiving pensions. In spite of the Minister's warm words about his intention to reduce the gap between the richest and the poorest in the pensions sector, that gap has increased—not decreased—by 16 per cent. since 1997.
  Let us examine the gross domestic product figures on how much we as a country spend on pensioners. Ten years ago we spent 6.2 per cent. of our GDP on pensioners, and we are now spending 6 per cent. Above
  364
  all, perhaps millions of people are dependent on means tests. Soon many more will be dependent on them as a result of the pension credit. In 1997 some 37 per cent. of pensioners were means-tested; the figure now is 60 per cent., and it will not be long before it rises to 75 per cent.
  Of course I acknowledge the need for some means-testing—that is right—but not up to 75 per cent. One has only to listen to the words of a former Minister with responsibility for pensions, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who has warned about the debilitating way in which means-testing undermines dignity, when people feel that they have to go cap in hand to the state. Means-testing is unwise and should, where possible, be avoided. I believe that a system in which 75 per cent. of people stand to be means-tested is bizarre.
  We have heard much discussion of the pension credit today, but I warn Ministers that they will find it extremely difficult to implement successfully. They have the example of the tax credit system to warn them of the dangers of implementing such new systems. I thought that the Minister might have been succumbing to the disease that afflicts Ministers of all parties in the social security sector, recalling what the previous Department was called—being persuaded by their brilliant officials that systems introduced through form filling and case management are essential in their complexity, but will work and be easily understood. History is littered with Ministers who believed that, but found to their cost that it was not true.
  On the long-term crisis in pensions, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West was quick to say that he did not believe that there was one. He and I have debated in the Select Committee whether "crisis" is an accurate term. I persist in believing that it is. The Government have as yet failed to respond adequately to the scale of the crisis. They have been advised by the CBI, the TUC and, indeed, the Select Committee, as well as numerous other lobby bodies on the importance of taking action, but, like rabbits caught in the headlights, they appear to find it difficult to know what to do.
  Much talk has gone on in the House about the £5 billion per annum raid on pension funds, but I do not propose—important though it is—to rehash it today. More could have been done to prevent some schemes from closing, but even the stakeholder policy—one of the flagships of the Government's attempts to increase the amount of funded pensions—has been a lamentable flop. Practically no one in the target group has taken up the stakeholder pension, and the company schemes, which must be set up by law, have received very few takers indeed. Perhaps one bright spot for the Government is that they have at least had the wisdom to appoint someone of the calibre of Adair Turner as their pensions tsar. I hope that they will listen carefully to what he has to say when he reports to them.
  The funded pensions policy, which was bequeathed by the last Conservative Government to the present Government, was a great success. At one point we had more funded pensions in this country than all the rest of Europe put together. It is crucial for the Government to produce a sensible policy for future pensioners who will be retiring. They have not yet done so, and it is a travesty

  365
  that it is now nearly two years since we last had a debate on pensions in Government time. Such debates that have taken place have been on Opposition days.
  Finally, I want to quote the right hon. Member for Birkenhead from an article in The Sunday Telegraph,and I hope that the Government will listen. The right hon. Gentleman said:
  "All too many families stand on the brink of financial disaster as they see their pensions snatched away from them. Failure to act will be punished by voters as surely as markets punish cuts in dividends. Government cannot continue to hide behind the claim it is consulting; it has been doing that for the past 6 years. What is now desperately required is action."
  The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right.
  My third point is about the way in which elderly people suffer disproportionately from crime in our society. As many hon. Members do, I conducted a survey on crime and related issues throughout my constituency. I was surprised by the massive response that I received, and particularly impressed by the emphasis on the debilitating effect of fear of crime. Fear of crime can have a massive effect on the quality of life of elderly people. It leads to exclusion from other activities in the community and a sense of isolation, and it certainly has an effect on health. A comparatively minor crime can have a disproportionate effect on elderly people and can be extremely traumatic for victims. The average age of victims of distraction burglary is 81, and it is a significantly under-reported crime because of the embarrassment that elderly people feel—wrongly—at being victims of it.
  We need to see more police on the streets. The popular view that a policeman on the beat stops a crime only once every 33 years misses the point. Having police on the street is reassuring to our communities. The lessons from New York about the success of more precinct policing must be evident to everyone and they are certainly now evident to the Mayor of London. I greatly welcome the decision by my party to pledge to increase the number of police by 40,000, if we are successful at the next election. It is pleasing to know that in that happy event, 2,600 more police would come to the west midlands.
  2.41 pm
  Mr. Neil Turner: I have some experience in this subject because of the previous job of my boss and because I have just had to do some work for my mother. I certainly do not recognise the picture painted by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow). My mother had to move from her home in Carlisle to the Wigan area, to be nearer to me, and I did much of the work involved. I found plenty or choice of residential homes and I managed to get her into a good one. It was brand new and around half full.
  Wigan does not have problems with bed blocking, because many of our old people are cared for at home by our excellent social services department. That may be the answer: we have an excellent Labour-run council, as confirmed by the comprehensive performance review performed by the independent district auditor. The Sutton and Cheam local authority, of course, is not as good.
  366
  I also did not recognise what the hon. Gentleman—or the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell)—said about pension credit. I applied for the minimum income guarantee, as it then was, on behalf of my mother.
  Mr. Webb: Why did she not do it?
  Mr. Turner: She wanted me to do it because she has problems with her hearing. I was happy to do it and it took about 10 minutes. There were no byzantine forms to fill in and the only difficulty was trying to find out her national insurance number. The payment came through in about a fortnight and was backdated. The difficulties outlined by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam do not exist. The form-filling and other obstacles that he described do not happen for the majority of pensioners. They may arise in the Pension Service, but not for the person making the application.
  Mr. Webb: I apologise if I sounded defensive when I asked why the hon. Gentleman's mother did not apply herself. My point was that she had the advantage of having an able and articulate son to deal with the system for her, because she did not feel able to deal with it herself. Had the money been added to the pension, the process would not have been necessary.
  Mr. Turner: I shall deal with that point shortly. My experience is shared by hundreds of thousands of people. Most pensioners in my constituency find the system fairly easy, once they overcome the perception—promoted especially by the Liberal Democrats—that the scheme is difficult. It is not, and it puts people off when they are told that they have to fill in 40 pages of complicated forms.
  My mother was notified a couple of weeks ago of how much she would receive from the pension credit, and it is significantly different from what she would have got had we followed the Liberal Democrats' proposals. According to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, those over 75 would receive an extra £19 a week to add to the single person's pension of £77.45, so she would have received £96.45. She currently receives £102.50 under the pension credit. So according to the Liberal Democrats, my 90-odd year old mother should have her pension reduced by £6 a week. Others would benefit from their proposals. For example, Baroness Thatcher would get an extra £19 a week, and I am sure that she would find a good use for it. However, the Liberal Democrats will have great difficulty explaining to the people of Brent, East, let alone anyone else, why their proposal would mean that the poorest pensioners would lose more than £6, while those who are better off would gain £19 a week.
  Pension credit is important in getting extra money to the very poorest. That is a socialist principle that I am happy to support. It is allied to the recognition that people who have small savings or a small pension should be rewarded for their thrift, not penalised, as in the past.
  We must also face the problem mentioned by the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), which is the difficulty that some people have in accessing various services for pensioners. That is why we have made huge changes to the way in which the Pension Service

  367
  operates. A fortnight ago, I held a forum for pensioners' groups in the Wigan constituency. Members of the Pension Service staff came along to answer questions and give details of the pension credit, including the relevant telephone numbers. I shall visit the town centre again soon with staff from the Pension Service to ensure that people understand the pension credit and how to apply for it.
  The whole point of setting up the Pension Service is so that it can play a much wider role. Far too often, pensioners are passed from one agency to another, from a local authority to the NHS and back again, or from one voluntary body or council department to another. It is a bureaucratic merry-go-round that can be debilitating for pensioners. The Pension Service is designed to be a one-stop shop to ensure that services for pensioners, be they public or voluntary, can be much more easily accessed. Pensioners can also obtain advice about the services to which they are entitled. People with difficulties hearing, such as my mother, seeing or understanding the forms will be able to contact the Pension Service and receive the help they need, perhaps including a home visit. It is important that the Pension Service be seen as part of an overall package with the pension credit to ensure that pensioners get their entitlements.
  I applaud the Government's advances on pensions. We introduced the minimum income guarantee early to tackle pensioner poverty. We have also introduced the winter fuel allowance, free eye tests and free television licences. In real terms, £3 billion has been given to pensioners over and above what they would have received if the pension had been increased in line with inflation. The pension credit will mean an additional £2 billion from October.
  I also welcome the introduction of the Pension Service to ensure that people can access services more readily and obtain the help that, all too often, they need. I welcome the help that the Government have given to future pensioners. We sorted out the problems with the state earnings-related pension, left by the previous Government. We also sorted out the problems with the financial services industry after the desperate mis-selling of private pensions, which left so many people high and dry with the loss of pounds and pounds a week. We have also introduced the state secondary pension, with the recognition that it gives to carers and the help it will give them in the future. Of course, we have also introduced stakeholder pensions. Despite what the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield said, people are taking them up, as they allow those who would not otherwise have a pension to have access to a pension for their future.
  Most important in respect of the immediate future is the pension protection fund. It will guarantee that people whose company pension schemes have gone bust will get protection in the future.
  I shall be happy to support the Government amendment and to oppose the motion.
  2.50 pm
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) in these debates. One thing to have emerged from the debate is that, whereas Sutton and Cheam is clearly a near hell hole for older people's services, Wigan
  368
  is a veritable garden of Eden. It is a place in which we should all aspire to grow old, under the hon. Gentleman's benign leadership.
  I am told that I should begin by declaring an interest, in that I have some private pension provision of my own. This is my first outing, if that is the right word, as the newly appointed official Opposition spokesperson on older people's issues. In modern jargon, my brief is crosscutting, and although there have not been many signs of joined-up government in the debate so far, I can promise joined-up opposition on these issues.
  Lots of important issues have been covered in the debate. I cannot do them all justice, but I shall start with the issue of care homes, which is close to my heart. There are many good care homes in my constituency, and they make up a significant part of Eastbourne's local economy. However, a number of very good ones have closed recently, as a direct result of Government policy. The Government were told—by us, by the Liberal Democrats and by everyone outside the House who knows anything about care homes—that they were making a massive error with their legislation on the matter. However, they blundered on and insisted on their proposals and, as we have heard, the latest figures show that 13,400 care home places disappeared in the 15 months to April this year.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) explained very graphically the particular problem in Birmingham. However, the problem is replicated up and down the country, with many good private care homes being forced to close. All too often, councils insist on paying themselves much more than they pay the private sector, even though the accommodation that they provide is relatively poor.
  In collaboration with the Liberal Democrats, the Opposition attempted not that long ago to increase pensions significantly for older pensioners. We know that older pensioners are those most likely to be living in poverty. I am sorry to say that our attempt was defeated.
  We have heard a great deal about funded pensions. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield reminded us that they are a great British success story, but they are seriously threatened by a combination of factors. My hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) has rightly likened the matter to the film called "The Perfect Storm" The stock market has fallen, and people now live longer-although that greater longevity is of course welcome. However, other matters are within the Government's control, such as the Chancellor's £5 billion annual raid on pension funds.
  There has been an apparent lack of urgency when it comes to tackling the problems. Another Green Paper has been published, but the Government could and should do a lot more to increase and restore confidence in funded pensions. At least one fifth of company pension schemes have closed in the past 12 months. That is all the more worrying, as the Watson Wyatt survey on which that information is based predates the extra burdens likely to be placed on companies by the Government's pension protection scheme.
  The Government's stated aim is to restore confidence in funded pensions, which is vital. A whole generation of young people cannot be persuaded that putting money into pensions is the smart thing to do, because they see stories about problems with pensions every time they open a newspaper.

  369
  The TUC, for example, has spoken about the erosion of the notion of shared responsibility, and has noted the decline of the mixed-economy approach to pension provision. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) outlined an even more dramatic problem that arises when companies go bust and take the pension fund down with them.
  There is a great deal of work to be done. A policy of compulsion appears to be developing through the mists of Liberal Democrat thinking, but the Conservative party does not believe in compel ling people to make particular pension provision. However, we believe that the forces of inertia should be harnessed, so that people have to opt out of that sort of provision for their futures.
  That brings me neatly to the issue of pension credit. As I noted in an earlier intervention, we on the Select Committee on Work and Pensions were privileged to have the Secretary of State appear before us as a witness this morning. When I put it to him, he readily conceded that, even on the Government's projections, a million pensioners will not receive pension credit even though, on the face of it, they are entitled to it.
  Two fundamental matters wholly undermine the Government's approach to the policy, and the crucial one is take-up. As with so many of these benefits, take-up is limited.
  The Government have been very dismissive about criticisms of this flagship policy. Only recently, the Department criticised Mr. Mervyn Kohler, head of public affairs at Help the Aged, for his comments on the system. Clearly unbowed, he said:
  "I'm afraid I rather upset them. It seems ministers are very tender at the moment. But it is not my fault if they design a system which is so Byzantine that no one can understand it."
  That is going to be the reality.
  The Secretary of State was almost alarmingly upbeat about the other matter that I put to him—whether the system can cope. The Child Support Agency offers an example of what happens when an old formula combines with a new technology, and now we have a possibly even more potent combination—a new formula and an old technology. It remains to be seen whether the fiasco of the tax credits, which caused our mailbags to be so full in recent months, will be replicated.
  Some of the claims in the Government's advertising campaign for pension credit are simply wrong and untrue. The central claim—that every pensioner will now enjoy a minimum income of £102.10—is simply untrue. The guaranteed income will be a mixture of existing pensions, savings income and, where necessary, a pension credit top-up. However, any savings will be assumed to generate a notional income of 10 per cent. a year. That is not bad; I wish that I could plug into that sort of return, rather than the more realistic 3 per cent.
  370
  It is no wonder that the Department for Work and Pensions told The Sunday Telegraph that the publicity surrounding the pension credit had been kept "deliberately low key".
  Ms Sally Keeble: Has the hon. Gentleman checked that point? As I understand it, the imputed income of a certain percentage applies only when a pensioner has savings of more than £5,000—
  Mr. Neil Turner: The figure is £6,000.
  Ms Keeble: I thank my hon. Friend. The basic savings level is £6,000. The imputed income applies for every £500 on top of that. Overall, that does not work out at a return of 10 per cent. on the savings total. That is important for people who might be thinking of claiming.
  Mr. Waterson: The hon. Lady merely serves to show how complex the new system is for our constituents. I am sure that many hon. Members will be wondering what it will be like when their surgeries fill up with people who do not know whether they are entitled to make a claim.
  Ms Keeble: I can understand it.
  Mr. Waterson: Well, the hon. Lady has a good degree from a good university, but not everybody is as privileged—[Interruption.]She suggests that I might be able to understand it, but whether everyone will is another matter.
  I said that there were two issues. The second is means-testing. My party believes that the entire system is moving in the wrong direction. In 1997, only 37 per cent. of claimants were on means-tested benefits. This year, with the introduction of the pension credit, that figure could reach almost 60 per cent., and it is projected to grow to 73 per cent. by 2025. There are thus two extremely worrying aspects: take-up and means-testing, which promote a cap-in-hand approach for poorer pensioners.
  I shall touch on some of the other issues, especially those raised by the Liberal Democrat spokesman. We can all testify to the fact that big council tax rises are extremely regressive, especially for older people. In my constituency, the local council—sadly, it is controlled by the Liberal Democrats—put up its share by 38 per cent. this year, a staggering amount. No wonder the Liberal Democrats are dusting off their old proposals for local income tax, on the basis of "Please stop me before I do it again". If a local council, such as Eastbourne, can make such an increase under the current system, imagine what it could do if it could charge a local income tax, quite apart from the Liberal proposals for an energy tax, which would be even more regressive because utility bills are often painful for pensioners, for regional taxes, more taxes through the European Union and the Liberal version of a new inheritance tax.
  Richard Younger-Ross: The hon. Gentleman may be aware that Devon, which is run by a four-party coalition, was led by the Conservatives last year when council tax was increased by 28 per cent., as proposed by the Conservative leader, Christine Channon. He may

  371
  also be aware that, in her speech, Christine outlined the injustice of the council tax; she said that it should be abolished and replaced by a fairer taxation system.
  Mr. Waterson: I should like to hear Christine's views on the matter, but that does not alter the fact that many Liberal Democrat councils, and those in which they participate, are making sharp increases in council tax.
  I endorse some of the comments that have been made about post office closures. All hon. Members should beware: the Post Office has embarked on a scheme to consider closures on a constituency basis. Eastbourne is privileged to be one of the first and the Post Office has come up with five closures in my constituency, so some time soon: "This is coming to a post office near you".
  I feel strongly about age discrimination. The Government have reneged on their pre-1997 promise to legislate on age discrimination. The EU has finally forced them to do so by 2006.
  We hear much from the Liberal Democrats about free personal care for the elderly, despite the fact that it seems to be bankrupting several local authorities in Scotland. Furthermore, some councils run by the Liberal Democrats charge substantial fees, up to £5,000 a year, for care services for the elderly.
  As on so many things, the Liberals are the "Do as I say, not as I do" party. They voted for greater bureaucracy for care homes, causing many homes to close.
  Mr. Burstow: So did you.
  Mr. Waterson: No, we did not.
  Liberal Democrat councils charge heavily for care services for older people. They jack up council tax mercilessly and, in the case of my council, sack older workers merely because they turn 65-turning their birth certificate into their P45. Outside this place, in Brent, and indeed in Eastbourne, Liberal Democrats extol the virtues of the pension credit, but in the House, they say that they want to scrap it. They certainly do not mention the means-testing that is at the heart of its approach to poorer pensioners.
  I hope that the voters of Brent will have taken some of these points on board. Advice from the booklet for Liberal Democrat campaigners is that they should "act shamelessly, stir endlessly" and not "be afraid to exaggerate". That is how they operate throughout the country.
  I urge the Liberals to make the difficult journey from piety to reality and not to mislead people, especially vulnerable pensioners. They should drop their empty rhetoric and their hypocrisy. I shall not urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the motion both for those reasons and because the motion makes the ritual attack on the Conservative record in government. I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to abstain on the motion but to vote against the Government amendment, which is astounding in its complacency, even by the standards of this Government.
  3.5 pm
  Ms Sally Keeble: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson). I congratulate him on his appointment.
  372
  I am glad to see that some of his colleagues have joined him on the Opposition Benches; for a while he seemed to be offering not so much joined-up opposition as a one-man band, which did not say much for the Conservative Opposition's commitment to older people, or for their support for a colleague on his first appearance in his new position.
  I agreed with the hon. Gentleman on one point. Although the Liberal Democrats did us a great service in bringing the issue to the House, some of the ways in which they presented their arguments did not help to tease out the important factors. They presented us with a catch-all set of grievances. There are real pressures and problems facing pensioners and they require long-term solutions, which must be agreed and maintained over time. What we put in place will, we hope, benefit pensioners for many years to come.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) offered us an example. Giving everybody a flat-rate increase of £19 week sounds nice, but we would need to explain two things. First, it would mean taking money away from the poorest pensioners, who would receive only £96 instead £102; and, secondly, because the Liberal Democrats are talking about changing from council tax, which is property based, to a local income tax, it would increase the burden of taxation for pensioners. Rather than going for cheap slogans, we should carefully examine the problems for pensioners.
  My constituency is in a "middle England" area and many pensioners do not fall into the poorest income ranges. However, there are specific historical reasons for pensioner poverty in the region. People worked for companies that have disappeared, such as those in the boot and shoe industry, which is in the process of change. A large number of women have broken employment records, because they took a break for family reasons. A phenomenally high percentage of women worked part-time and had no pension entitlement in their own right. In later life, they have been caught in poverty.
  People think that middle England is extremely affluent, but it is not. Northampton has a high number of people on low incomes. Even if they contributed to an occupational or second pension scheme, those pensions and their savings are now extremely low. I asked a group of pensioners, who were here for the lobby this afternoon, about the rate of their second pensions. They told me what I had heard before—[Interruption.]The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) is nodding. I am sure that he knows the figures: about £15 a week, or £50 month. That is not much, yet people receiving those amounts will not qualify for some of the benefits designed to help extremely poor pensioners. We need to help pensioners who are in that poverty trap and do not have enough to live comfortably.
  The Government have done wonders in systematically considering what has made pensioners' lives so uncomfortable. I am sure that everyone will say, "Well, she would say that", but the Government have put in place very good programmes to tackle the real causes and symptoms of pensioner poverty. First, they have introduced the minimum income guarantee, which deals with the terrible problem of absolute hardship and destitution that existed among an awful lot of pensioners when we first took office in 1997. I am sure

  373
  that all hon. Members had pensioners coming to their advice surgeries in dire straits because they simply did not have enough money.
  Targeted measures have dealt with some of the pressure points in pensioners' lives. The winter fuel allowance is absolutely wonderful. It has made a real difference and has tackled the problem of fuel poverty among pensioners, who used to get so cold during the winter. Pensioners now enjoy free television licences. Concessionary fares have worked better in some areas than in others. They have worked best in Labour areas, where Labour councils top them up and provide free transport for all pensioners, which is wonderful. Free eye tests are now available. One of the cruellest things that the Conservative Government did was to hit pensioners at a point when they were particularly susceptible.
  Measures have also been taken to ease the burden of income tax on pensioners, such as increasing personal tax allowances and introducing the new starting rate of tax. Pensioners will say that everyone on low incomes will get that, but those measures are really important when we consider how many pensioners are on low incomes. I know that many pensioners do not like to pay tax, but they have special tax protection, which I very much welcome.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) mentioned national health service measures, but I want to say a few words about the pension credit. The hon. Member for Eastbourne was quite wrong in his proposals, because the pension credit is an incredibly important benefit for those areas, such as mine, where a lot of pensioners are caught in the poverty trap: they have too much to be entitled to Kate benefits designed for the very poor, but they still do not have comfortable lives. It is important that those people at least feel that they will be comfortable if they claim the credit, and that if they do make a claim they do not feel intimidated; otherwise what the hon. Gentleman says about the numbers not claiming will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
  The hon. Gentleman's point about savings and the interest rate was wrong. I agree that there is an assumption about earnings on savings. Some people might think about such things and say, "If only", but people can get help with making claims. If they do not have statements of interest from their banks or building societies, assumed amounts may be included in the booklets. Of course, as they can use assumed interest, they do not have to dip into their capital. They can keep their capital, which is very important for pensioners because it means that they can keep their nest eggs to pay for their funerals and save for other expenses in their very old age.
  It is quite wrong to frighten people by saying that they will be means-tested, because the system will be much more like filling in a tax form. People will not have to keep claiming, as they do with housing benefit and other benefits. I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but people will have to submit a claim only when their circumstances change—otherwise, there will be a reassessment in five years' time—so the pension credit is not like an ordinary benefit.
  374
  People can phone up, and someone on the end of the line can complete the form and send it to them for signing. I have been running a campaign about that in my constituency. Before doing so, I asked a couple of people to test the phone number, and it works; it is user-friendly service. I congratulate the Pension Service on doing some very good outreach work. People are going out to help those who do not have phones. The benefit has been designed in the light of pensioners' suggestions. Those of us who held meetings on the consultation document know that the policies emerging now are exactly those that pensioners said they wanted. I hope that the benefit will be a big step forward, certainly in areas, such as mine, where a lot of pensioners have some occupational or private pension or savings, but not very much.
  I agree that a good number of things remain to be done to improve pensioners' lives, and I am sure that the Government will continue to take on some of those things. The first thing to do is to ensure that next month's introduction of the pension credit is as smooth as the arrangements have been so far for claiming and outreach work. I am sure that many others will want that to happen.
  The development of home care packages is extremely important. That is mainly a job for local authorities, but such measures need to be in place if we are to provide pensioners with a decent standard of living in the years to come. We also still have to deal with pensioners who are asset rich and cash poor and find ways to secure their home ownership in their old age. That involves people who may have bought their council properties, as well as those in areas such as mine who have always owned their own homes, as it is often not cost-effective for them to move into smaller places.
  The Government must consider ways of supporting equity release—either by making it safer, or by introducing some sort of CAT mark—so that people can afford to pay for repairs, major maintenance and adaptations by releasing some of the capital value. In that way, people could achieve what they often want: to stay on with dignity in their own homes, without their homes deteriorating and failing down around them.
  I want to press a couple of final points. First, the procurement of residential care must be improved. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) should consider the incredibly imaginative work being done in Castle Vale in Birmingham, which has enabled more old people to leave hospital and return to their own homes. The work has involved very clever joint funding, and I commend that model.
  Secondly, we should look at some of the anomalies in the benefits package, so that pensioners who are carers can receive benefits that they should receive, including important mobility benefits that are denied to them.
  I recognise that some important and positive changes are taking place. Pensioners are living longer and enjoying better health, and they have higher aspirations. Female pensioners rightly aspire to be independent. As a society, we need to take on the challenges and to protect pensioners and their standard of living in their older years and give them dignity in their retirement. I believe that our Labour Government have made an incredibly good start, with some very thoughtful and well put together programmes, so I urge the House to support

  375
  the amendment and not to go for cheap slogans, but to go for things that will give people security and dignity in their old age.
  3.19 pm
  Hywel Williams: I welcome this debate on an important subject for older people in Wales, where 60 per cent. of pensioners live at the minimum income guarantee level—on or below the poverty line-and where the health of pensioners is worse than in the rest of the UK. It does not take an analyst of genius to link those two little facts.
  My concern is the centralisation of the Pension Service at the pension centre in Swansea, the perceived lack of a local service from local officers and the problems that have been reported to me with the Welsh language service. I met officials from the Pension Service a few weeks ago to discuss these matters, and personally found them helpful and committed to delivering the best service that could be managed. I do not, of course, hold those individual officers responsible, but the centralisation of the Pension Service in Swansea is by its nature a bad idea for Wales, given the geography of our country and the difficulties of communicating between north and south. I fear and suspect that we will continue to see a complication of the service, which will make it much worse. I am not saying that the problems at Swansea are unique—I would not be surprised to learn that similar problems exist at other pension centres—but it is the only one in Wales and is our national pension centre. As a result, its problems are a national problem in Wales.
  The problems with the pension centre are exemplified by a number of cases, and I hope that I am not being unnecessarily negative by examining the problems, which have been raised in my constituency surgeries. First, I want to mention the problems faced by Mrs. Williams of Porthmadog at the start of year. It took a one-woman campaign on her behalf to secure her pension. After five months of continual phoning, writing and calling the local office, she finally secured the pension. I hope that my intervention also helped her to some extent. It seemed to me that Swansea was unable to cope with the case, despite all the phone calls and the help of the local office. Mrs. Williams is a very determined person and someone who likes a certain degree of formality, as do many older people. She found it very difficult to deal with a different person each time, and she would have liked to call officials Mr. Jones or Miss Hughes—she found it difficult to cope with Dave referring to June, Jane, John or Joe. It is a small matter but an important one for some older people. As I said, she has managed to secure her pension and has received compensation from the special unit in Newcastle. She should not, however, have had to go all that way over five months to secure what should have been a straightforward matter—her own pension.
  The second case is that of Mrs. Harding from the community of Aberdaron, a small village at the very tip of the Llyn peninsula—about as far away as one can get from Swansea. People in Aberdaron would say that they live centrally, however, and that it is Swansea that is far away. I suppose that it depends where one starts. Mrs. Harding's pension, which used to be paid directly into her bank, disappeared. After a good deal of phoning around and phoning Swansea she was told that it had
  376
  disappeared because she was dead. She was not dead—she was phoning them up. It took a large number of phone calls from her and from me, and letters from me, to restore her pension. I was told—the Minister might like to respond to this matter later—that when someone is registered or entered as dead in the computer system, it is very difficult for the computer to reverse that categorisation. I wonder whether a Lazarus programme could be devised to rectify that.
  Again, after a lot of trouble, Mrs. Harding has received a substantial compensation payment from Newcastle. I think that she would have preferred to have her pension paid directly into her bank properly—
  Mr. Webb: And bereavement benefit.
  Hywel Williams: Perhaps.
  I want to refer briefly, given the pressure of time, to two other cases that were brought to my attention this week by a constituent who is an ex-Department of Social Security official, Mr. Ken Jones of Llanberis. The first was of a pensioner who had tried repeatedly to get through to the Welsh language line in Swansea. I should explain to hon. Members that there are two lines in Swansea—a Welsh language line and an English language line—both of which are very helpful at times. The person concerned found it very difficult to get through to the line in Swansea, however, and told Mr. Ken Jones that he suspected that the official eventually phoned from home rather than from the centre, as he apparently heard children playing in the background. Mr. Jones tells me that that would never have happened in his day at the DSS. Perhaps one might look back fondly on one's previous career, but he has a valid point.
  Mr. Jones told me that he often contacts the Swansea centre himself, and he feels that the officials there have to refer to someone else for an opinion rather too often, instead of giving an opinion directly. He also refers to Swansea being at the further end of Wales, and to the fact that the centre workers speak Welsh with a pronounced Swansea accent. He stated that some elderly people have despaired and have turned to the English language. I should tell the House that I tried to get the number of the Swansea pension centre today from our wonderful new directory inquiries system, and I was unable to do so. I eventually got through to a local office in Swansea, which gave me the number. It was the number for the English language line, however, even though I had begun the conversation in Welsh. I suppose that those are the complexities of running a bilingual service, but I would have hoped that the Pension Service would have ironed them out.
  The last case, which was again referred to me by Mr. Ken Jones, was of a widow who waited for payments for five weeks after her bereavement, and who then received a giro rather than an order book. Again, Mr. Jones referred me to earlier practice, whereby that person would have been paid very promptly rather than having to wait for five weeks.
  I can appreciate that this centre, like other centres, has teething problems. The consequences for individual payments and individual pensioners, however, are serious. Even if the majority of claimants get a first-class service, some do not, which is a matter of concern to me and to other hon. Members, as the effects can be

  377
  disastrous. The point that my constituent, Mr. Jones, makes is that a system that was based locally would not have led to such problems. I know that there is a facility for local support and local visits. Is the Minister satisfied that that system is working? Will he tell us what provision exists for monitoring and reviewing the quality of the service from pension centres generally, and specifically from the telephone service in Welsh and English from Swansea? I fear that the complexity of the system will lead to problems, and that the complexity of the telephone system will lead to a disincentive to claim.
  On that point, I refer, finally, to the question asked by the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing) about whether the Government will set specific take-up targets for pension credits for Wales, Scotland and the regions of England. I would be very interested to know that.
  3.28 pm
  Mr. Steve Webb: This has been an important debate. We have covered issues ranging from the closure of care homes and the pensions crisis to the burden of council tax. Those are matters of concern to all of our constituents, but of particular concern to many older people throughout Britain.
  The debate was opened expertly and powerfully, as we would expect, by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow). I will not spare his blushes by mentioning that this morning The Guardian described him as one of the most knowledgeable and effective politicians on older people's issues. He demonstrated this afternoon why he has attained that reputation.
  My hon. Friend highlighted the crisis of closure of care homes. He drew attention to the fact that when a care home closes, those who have lived there have less security of tenure than a council tenant or someone living in rented accommodation. Yet that elderly person can be at their most vulnerable point in life. In some tragic and extreme cases, that disruption can be fatal. My hon. Friend was right to say that in the past 15 months, 13,000 care home places have been lost. That is unacceptable. The Government's amendment to the motion is woefully complacent and inadequate in suggesting what might be done in the circumstances.
  The Minister for Pensions, who spoke to the Government amendment, has a history on some of the issues that we have discussed to which I shall refer later, always assuming that he has wandered back into the Chamber by then.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) referred powerfully to the human cost of post office closures, which is another issue of particular concern to older pensioners. She referred to a number of her constituents who will struggle to an alternative post office when their local one is closed. She said that the exercise of walking to the local office is good for them and that the visit is sociable, but that when the local post office is closed, a lifeline will go with it.
  The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) was right to say in response to our concerns about the burden of council tax on pensioners that there is a council tax benefit, but he failed to say that that means-tested benefit has the lowest rate of take-up
  378
  of any benefit. More than 1 million pensioners fail to claim their council tax benefit entitlement and, therefore, it is an inadequate safety net. Rather than have an unfair and regressive tax inadequately corrected by a failed, means-tested benefit, we would prefer a tax that relates fairly to ability to pay.
  Richard Younger-Ross: My hon. Friend is aware that we have been lobbied today by pensioners, and among those lobbying me was Mr. Cayley. His family has a fairly good income of £17,000, but it is paying £1,900 in council tax. That represents 11 per cent. of the family's income. Even those on better incomes are being hurt by the high levels of council tax.
  Mr. Webb: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Those who are hurt hardest by the council tax are not those who are on the lowest incomes, who may have their council tax met in full or in part, but those who have worked hard and saved hard, and have to face that tax burden in full. When one tax comes to represent 11 per cent. of someone's income, clearly something has gone very wrong.
  The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) suggested that replacing the council tax with some form of local income tax would in some way be unfair to pensioners because that would mean getting rid of a property-based tax. Given that two thirds of pensioners pay no income tax at all, they would be the principal group of beneficiaries in a switch away from council tax to local income tax.
  Ms Keeble: I actually said that if we sloganise and, for example, talk about flat-rate increases, and then talk about changing from a property-based tax to an income-based tax, there will be unforeseen consequences. I think that the two measures have not been thought through properly by the Liberal Democrats.
  Mr. Webb: I recall from the hon. Lady's remarks that she said that, given that many pensioners are property owners, a move from a property-based tax might be to their detriment. Many parts of Europe and the United States run local income tax systems perfectly effectively. Given that two thirds of pensioners pay no main income tax, they would be the principal beneficiaries of such a move.
  Rob Marris: I am not saying that the hon. Gentleman is wrong, but what is the provenance of his statistic? The Library tells me, using the Department for Work and Pensions pensioner income series, that it estimates that 60 per cent. of single pensioners have gross weekly incomes of more than £150, and that 60 per cent. of pensioner couples have gross weekly incomes of more than £250. I would expect that to mean that at least those 60 per cent. of pensioners would be paying income tax. That is a different figure from the one that the hon. Gentleman is giving.
  Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman needs to bear in mind that not all sources of income included in his gross weekly income figures are taxable. It has been understood for many years that roughly one third of pensioners pay tax.

  379
  The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) raised the important issue of care home closures specifically in Birmingham, and drew attention to the pensions crisis, a crisis that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West believes does not exist. Tell that to those who are in company schemes that have recently been wound up with inadequate funds. Tell that to people in their 40s and 50s who now fear that they do not have a secure retirement ahead of them.
  The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), who now speaks for the Conservatives on older people's issues—I congratulate him on assuming that role—quite properly raised the issue of pension scheme closures, and highlighted the missing 1 million pensioners who, on the Government's figures, will not claim their entitlement to pension credit. He also criticised the Government for assuming that pensioners can get 10 per cent. income on their investments as part of the pension credit rules. That is clearly absurd. He glossed over the fact that in 1988 the Conservatives introduced similar rules that assumed that pensioners could get not 10 per cent. income on their savings but 20 per cent. The House and the electorate would do well not merely to look at the Government's performance but to remind themselves of the Conservatives' record of doing precisely nothing when they had the chance to do something.
  The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) quite properly drew attention to his family circumstances, and said that his own experiences of the Pension Service had been positive. I welcome that. However, I intervened to highlight the fact that his elderly mother had found it preferable to ask her son to deal with the authorities. Surely, a system that worked well to maintain the security and dignity of pensioners would guarantee that all pensioners could deal with matters themselves without needing the assistance of family members.
  Mr. Neil Turner: I also referred to the importance of access to the Pension Service; employees of the service can go to people's homes to help them fill out the forms. The Pension Service is a hugely important step forward in making sure that ordinary pensioners get the services that they deserve.
  Mr. Webb: I am sure that everyone in the House would like the Pension Service to succeed and provide a higher standard of service than that which is currently provided. However, its employees would not have to make home visits to deal with applications for means-tested benefits if people got a decent pension in the first place—that would be a better way of operating the system.
  The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) expressed concern about the centralisation of the Pension Service in Wales, and drew the attention of the House to the case of a constituent who had had her pension stopped because she had been told that she was dead. It is understandable that those who write the computer programmes do not normally allow them to reverse such transitions, but it illustrates a problem. When the IT systems of a Government Department are as ropey as those of the Department for Work and Pensions, such things will happen. We are concerned that when the pension credit is introduced next month many pensioners will have experiences similar to that constituent.
  380
  The Minister began with a social policy analysis of the issues affecting older people, which we all enjoyed and took us back to his days as an academic. I was intrigued that he attacked Sarah Teather, our excellent colleague who is fighting the Brent, East by-election and who we hope, next week, will be an even more excellent addition to the House of Commons, for encouraging people to claim the pension credit. A few moments before, he had exhorted us all to encourage people to claim the credit. Am I missing something? One minute, the Minister says that he hopes everybody will encourage people to claim the pension credit, but when the Liberal Democrat candidate for Brent, East does so, that is apparently outrageous behaviour.
  Mr. Eric Martlew: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Webb: If the hon. Gentleman had been here throughout, I would do so.
  Malcolm Wicks: Given what the hon. Gentleman has just said, will the Lib Dems scrap the pension credit, yes or no?
  Mr. Webb: No. We have made it clear that in government we would spend that £2 billion on the pension for the over-75s. That proposal was in an amendment that we tabled with the Conservatives to the Bill that introduced the pension credit. Once the credit is introduced, we will not scrap it. As the next party of government we will replace the dependence on means-testing with greater dependence on the universal state pension, particularly for older pensioners. In other words, as the economy grows and Governments have to decide whether to put money into means-tested benefits or a universal state pension, we will opt for the pensions route. That is the difference between the Liberal Democrats and the Government.
  I suggested that the Minister has a history. He used to be a free thinker. Indeed, some people have unkindly suggested that the delay in his attaining ministerial office—his appointment was long overdue, I hasten to add—was partly attributable to the fact that he had a tendency to free-think rather too much.
  I happen to have with me a copy of an article by the Minister that appeared in the New Statesman a year after the 1997 general election, entitled "Back to Beveridge's Basics." [Interruption.]It was a very good article and I commend it to the House. I am not sure whether I have the authority to place a copy in the Library, but I would like to do so. In the article, he asked himself this very important rhetorical question:
  "Should social security policy abandon notions of universality and focus all available resources on the poor? It is time to give a loud 'no' in answer to this question."
  He went on to write:
  "the notion of citizenship is diminished if the welfare state deteriorates into a mere poverty relief programme. And the main sufferers would be the poor themselves, subject to more means tests.
  That is the dreadful thing to which they would be subject, and they would be "marginalised and stigmatised." The article goes on to state:
  "And it would be a slippery slope: if pensions and child benefits are means-tested, why shouldn't we means-test access to doctors and hospitals and schools?"

  381
  Those are the Minister's words and perhaps that is his agenda—I do not know. I sometimes ask myself what happened to that idealist of a few years ago. Perhaps the House should reflect on his concluding comment:
  "No one of sound mind could advocate wholesale means-testing".
  How right he was.
  To coin a new Labour phrase, I always believed that means-testing should be for the few and not the many, but what sort of policy do we have? It is one in which the majority of pensioners will be allowed to retire into poverty only for some of them to be rescued by a means test. Is that really a vision for 40 years down the line? Should it not be the Government's goal to ensure that the vast majority of pensioners reach pension age with decent pension entitlements in their own right, so that it is the few who have slipped through the net who need lifting out of poverty, not the many? How can a Government have so little ambition for Britain's older people that they allow this situation to persist?
  The Minister did not refer to the council tax at all. I wonder why he did not do so and why he did not accept that, year after year, the council tax, which was created by the Conservatives and has been built on by the Labour Government, is becoming more of a burden, especially for Britain's older people. Those are the people who have modest incomes beyond the reach of the benefits system. They have worked, saved and budgeted hard and expect to have a particular standard of living, but find that, through inadequate central Government funding, the council tax is an increasing share of their income and more of a burden. Who is responsible? Year in, year out, central Government builds in an assumption that revenues from the council tax will rise far faster than inflation. Year after year, Governments and local authorities of all political parties and none ratcheted up the council tax, and what do the Government do about it? They have done nothing to address the burden of the council tax on Britain's older people.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle raised the important issue of post office closures. The Minister is to some extent responsible for that policy. He spoke about giving pensioners choice. He even said that about 60 per cent. of newly retired pensioners opt for payment into a bank account. That is fine, as it is their choice. However, 40 per cent. want an order book. Faced with a choice between payment into a bank account and an order book, they want the latter, but the Government are going to take that choice away from them. I am most concerned not about newly retired pensioners, but about the elderly and infirm pensioners to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle referred, who can just about make it to the local post office and enjoy the social contact, value the order book and have opted to have the book by not choosing payment to a bank account. Why do the Government not respect that choice? They are guilty of a lack of respect of older people.
  We make no apology for the fact that our motion is wide ranging. Older people quite properly have a sense that Britain is an unfair place for them. They have worked and saved hard. They were told that the welfare
  382
  state would be there from the cradle to the grave, not from the cradle to when they really needed it most, when the carpet would be pulled away from under them. That is what the Government are guilty of.
  We have heard no response to the care homes crisis, the pensions crisis, the closure of post offices or the burden of the council tax. The Government's attitude has been complacent; I hope that the Minister will do rather better.
  3.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): The debate has been, as usual, good-humoured and enjoyable. It has also been informative, although I doubt whether it informed us in quite the way that the Liberal Democrats hoped. It tells us that they have not changed their ways—they would rather make a lot of noise and issue a lot of press releases than do any serious thinking about an issue. Although this is their Opposition day, and they started by saying that the issue is one of the most important of the day and absolutely key to their policies, at times they did not even have any Back Benchers in the Chamber and very few tried to contribute to the debate.
  We have heard so many contradictions that it is difficult for me to figure out where to start, but I shall do so with a word that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb)—choice. That represents the key dividing line between what the Liberal Democrats intend for older people and what this Government intend. When the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) opened the debate, he used the phrases, "People stuck in hospital when they are ready to go to a care home," and, "We want elderly people to go to a care home at the right time and the right place." The assumption that the Liberal Democrats make in all their planning is that the right place for older people is a care home. That is the inevitable consequence of everything that they try to do in local government and other places where they have positions of power, such as Scotland, and of what they are trying to do here in Westminster.
  Mr. Martlew: To emphasise what my hon. Friend says, in Cumbria, where the Liberal Democrats are in control of the county council, the first thing that they did when they got power was to increase home care charges, despite having said during the election that they would not. We now have 250 pensioners who cannot afford home care any more because of the Liberal Democrats.
  Dr. Ladyman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing that to the House's attention, because I bet that it is a story that is repeated all over the country wherever the Liberal Democrats are in a position of power.
  Let me give an alternative view of what we should be offering to older people. Primarily, we should assume that older people know best what they want. We should bear it in mind that this is the generation that got us through a world war—in many cases, two world wars. We intend to respect their right to control and make choices about their own lives. We want them to have a spectrum of choices for their old age, ranging from being looked after in their own home to a variety of provision, including extra-care housing, residential care and nursing care. We want to enable them to make practical decisions.

  383
  Yesterday, I had the privilege of opening Alexandra house in Coventry—an extra-care facility that was created as a result of some foresighted thinking by the Anchor trust and Coventry social services. The council is Labour run, I might add. Every resident has their own flat—not a room, but a flat, with a living room, a bedroom, a bathroom, a kitchen and its own front door. Although the front door opens not on to a street, but on to a corridor, the corridors are named after streets, so people live in, say, 31 Primrose way instead of a numbered room in a house. It is therefore a private home where the individual can close the door on the rest of the world whenever they want. There, I met an elderly lady in a wheelchair who is no longer able to see or feed herself—she is fed through perentaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, or PEG, feeding—and needs total and constant nursing care. Yet she lives in her home with her own space and privacy. She is able to do that because she can plug into the services that she needs when they are required.
  We should like to extend the model of extra-care housing to give additional choice to older people. Some people could choose to rent extra-care housing and others could choose to transfer the equity from their homes to buy it. There would be a range of provision, and people could make the choice when they approached retirement age. They would know that, as their care needs progressed, they could plug into different, more intensive care packages. We want to add such provision to the spectrum of choice. We are realising that by devising an £85 million competition to encourage people to propose ideas for creating such extra-care facilities. We shall not assume that people want to be in a care home. Our planning will be predicated on giving people genuine choice.
  Before considering care home closures, I want to deal with some aspects of pension credit. I shall not do that in depth, because my hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions did so earlier, and I do not pretend to be an expert on it. However, the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) raised some local issues involving the centralisation of the Pension Service in Wales. He made some constructive points that deserve a constructive answer, and I shall ensure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions reads his comments and takes them on board. I shall deal with two points.
  First, the hon. Gentleman said that 60 per cent. of pensioners in Wales rely on the minimum income guarantee. That means that 60 per cent. of pensioners in Wales benefit from our targeting resources on the poorer pensioners—those who need them most—rather than spreading them too thinly.
  Secondly, the hon. Gentleman said that there are two language lines for people in Wales to ring when they claim minimum income guarantee and pension credit. Of course, there should be two language lines and their existence shows the detail into which the Department for Work and Pensions and the Pension Service go to ensure that everybody can easily claim the minimum income guarantee and the pension credit. The fact that people can do that by telephone and that Pension Service officials will go to people's homes to help them to apply for the benefits shows the lengths to which we go to boost the number of claimants and ensure that everyone can claim. The Department and the Pension
  384
  Service should be congratulated on their work, and not encounter the sort of blocking that Liberal Democrats are attempting.
  Events in Brent, East have constituted another sub-theme of the debate. Liberal Democrats in one place claim that they would scrap the pension credit, but in Brent, East they claim that it is wonderful. For the first time, I witnessed a political party changing its policy three times in one debate. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam began with an explicit statement that the pension credit should be scrapped and that we should give £19 extra a week to people over 75. [Interruption.] That is what he said—I am not going barmy and I did not imagine it. Anybody under 75 would not benefit from that Liberal Democrat policy. When he claimed that he would get rid of means-testing, he did not mean it because £19 is not as much as the total minimum income guarantee, which is closer to £26. Anybody who did not benefit from the £19 and remained worse off would have to be means-tested to reach the minimum income guarantee, and anyone under 75 would still have to be means-tested to get the minimum income guarantee.
  The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam sits here trying to give the impression to the pensioners of this country and the voters in Brent, East that if his party were in power, it would scrap means-testing and give everyone an extra £19 a week, but he is going to do neither of those things. By the end of the debate, the hon. Member for Northavon had said, "Well, we did believe in scrapping the pension credit when it first came out, but we've changed our mind now. We're going to keep it." Yet, by the time he had reached the end of his speech, in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions as to whether he would scrap it he said, "No, but if we were in power, we would shift to some other means of providing pensioner benefits." He had changed his policy within 15 seconds of making it, which has to be a record, even for the Liberal Democrats.
  Let us move away from pensions, although that will not involve moving any closer to an issue that the Liberal Democrats have done any serious thinking about. Let us consider the so-called crisis in care homes that they keep talking about. I would be the first to admit that, in some parts of the country, there are some difficulties in respect of capacity in care homes. How are we dealing with that? We have given local authorities substantial extra funding, along with the responsibility to manage care home capacity in their own areas. We have given resources above the level of inflation since 1997. We have given local authorities nearly a quarter more funding for personal social services, and they can use that money in any way they want—to balance provision between domiciliary care and care homes, or to stabilise the care home market, for example. They can do whatever they want with it, because we believe in local government autonomy. That is something that the Liberal Democrats are always telling us that they believe in, yet as soon as local authorities make a decision that they do not like, they want us to intervene from Whitehall.
  Mr. David Heath: Where is it working?
  Dr. Ladyman: It is working all round the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) told us

  385
  how it is working in his constituency. He has a Labour council—that is why it is working there. Why is it that Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members raise the issue of problems in the care home market? It is because most of them have constituencies with Conservative and Liberal Democrat local councils. Labour councils balance these provisions in the way that they were intended to be balanced. Let me give the House one final figure on care home closures. There are 500,000 care home places available in this country, yet only 460,000 people want to use them. There is still excess care home capacity.
  With regard to domiciliary care, we want to give a real choice to older people. No less than 80 per cent. of older people tell us that they want to stay in their own home for as long as possible. The suggestion by the hon. Members for Sutton and Cheam, for Northavon and for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) that there are now fewer domiciliary care packages in place is—dare I say it—a sophisticated use of spin. The reality is that the number of hours of domiciliary care provision is now 14 per cent. higher. The difference is that home care packages are now being properly targeted on the people who need them so that they can stay in their own home, rather than being spread among all elderly people. We are taking practical steps to keep people in their own home.
  We believe in choice, respecting older people and giving them security in retirement. The Liberal Democrats believe in taking away that choice and security. They believe in introducing policies that might help a few pensioners, but at the expense of destroying the economy, slashing the value of pensions overall and taking choice away from everybody. That is not what the Government are about. We are about respecting and valuing old age, and ensuring that people have cash in their pockets when they become older. This Government ensure that people have choice of provision when they get older and we respect their right to choose. That is what the Government are about, and I advise the House to treat the Liberal Democrat motion with the contempt that it deserves.
  Question put,That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 58, Noes 315.

  Division No. 305]

  [4:00 pm

  AYES

  Allan, Richard

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  Baker, Norman

  Doughty, Sue

  Barrett, John

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Beith, rh A. J.

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Brook, Mrs Annette L.

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

  Burnett, John

  Burnside, David

  Harvey, Nick

  Burstow, Paul

  Heath, David

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Hermon, Lady

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

  Keetch, Paul

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Cotter, Brian

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Dodds, Nigel

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  386

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Moore, Michael

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Thurso, John

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Rendel, David

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Willis, Phil

  Salmond, Alex

  Wishart, Pete

  Sanders, Adrian

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

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Richard Younger-Ross and

  Stunell, Andrew

  Alan Reid

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Coaker, Vernon

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Ainger, Nick

  Cohen, Harry

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Connarty, Michael

  Allen, Graham

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Corston, Jean

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Crausby, David

  Austin, John

  Cruddas, Jon

  Bailey, Adrian

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Baird Vera

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Banks, Tony

  Cummings, John

  Barnes, Harry

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Battle, John

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Beard, Nigel

  Dalyell, Tam

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Bell, Stuart

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Benn, Hilary

  Davidson, Ian

  Bennett, Andrew

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Berry, Roger

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Best, Harold

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Blackman, Liz

  Dawson, Hilton

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Borrow, David

  Denham, rh John

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Brennan, Kevin

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Wallsend)

  Doran, Frank

  Brown, Russell, (Dumfries)

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Browne, Desmond

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Bryant, Chris

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Edwards, Huw

  Burgon, Colin

  Efford, Clive

  Burnham, Andy

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Cairns, David

  Farrelly, Paul

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Fisher, Mark

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Caplin, Ivor

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Casale, Roger

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Caton, Martin

  Follett, Barbara

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Foster, rh Derek

  Challen, Colin

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Foulkes, rh George

  Clapham, Michael

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Gapes, Mike (llford S)

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

  Gardiner, Barry

  Pentlands)

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Chryston)

  Gilroy, Linda

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Clelland, David

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  387

  Grogan, John

  MacShane, Denis

  Hain, rh Peter

  McWalter, Tony

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McWilliam, John

  Hanson, David

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Fiavard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Marshall, David (Glasgow

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Shettleston)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Heppell, John

  Martlew, Eric

  Hesford, Stephen

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Heyes, David

  Merron, Gillian

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Hinchliffe, David

  Miliband, David

  Hodge, Margaret

  Miller, Andrew

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Mole, Chris

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Morgan, Julie

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Morley, Elliot

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Mountford, Kali

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Mullin, Chris

  Hutton, rh John

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Illsley, Eric

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  lrranca-Davies, Huw

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead &Highgate)

  Olner, Bill

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jamieson, David

  Organ, Diana

  Jenkins, Brian

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Owen, Albert

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Pearson, Ian

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Perham, Linda

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Picking, Anne

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Pickthall, Colin

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Plaskitt, James

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pollard, Kerry

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Pound, Stephen

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Purchase, Ken

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Purnell, James

  Lammy, David

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Lepper, David

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Rammell, Bill

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Linton, Martin

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

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

  Love, Andrew

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  McCabe, Stephen

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McCafferty, Chris

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Ruddock, Joan

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Salter, Martin

  MacDougall, John

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McFall, John

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Sawford, Phil

  McIsaac, Shona

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Sheridan, Jim

  McNulty, Tony

  Simon, SiÔn (B ham Erdington)

  388

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Truswell, Paul

  Singh, Marsha

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

  Skinner, Dennis

  Kemptown)

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Finsbury)

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Soley, Clive

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Squire, Rachel

  Ward, Claire

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Watts, David

  Stevenson, George

  White, Brian

  Stewart, David (Inverness E &

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Lochaber)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Stinchcombe Pual

  Williams, Betty (Conwy),

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Wills, Michael

  Straw, rh Jack

  Winnick, David

  Stringer, Graham

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Woodward, Shaun

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Woolas, Phil

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Worthington, Tony

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Yarmouth)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Timms, Stephen

  Wyatt, Derek

  Tipping, Paddy

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Touhig, Don (IsIwyn)

  Fraser Kemp and

  Trickett, Jon

  Margaret Moran

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added,put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31
  (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 307, Noes 182.

  Division No. 306]

  [4:14 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Browne, Desmond

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Bryant, Chris

  Ainger, Nick

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Burgon, Colin

  Allen, Graham

  Burnham, Andy

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Cairns, David

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Austin, John

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Caplin, Ivor

  Baird, Vera

  Casale, Roger

  Banks, Tony

  Caton, Martin

  Barnes, Harry

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Battle, John

  Challen, Colin

  Bayley, Hugh

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Beard, Nigel

  Clapham, Michael

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Bell, Stuart

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Benn, Hilary

  Bennett, Andrew

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Berry, Roger

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Best, Harold

  Blackman, Liz

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Borrow, David

  Clelland, David

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Brennan, Kevin

  Cohen, Harry

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

  Connarty, Michael

  Wallsend)

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Cooper, Yvette

  389

  Crausby, David

  Hutton, rh John

  Cruddas, Jon

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Illsley, Eric

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Cummings, John

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Jamieson, David

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jenkins, Brian

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Davidson, Ian

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Dawson, Hilton

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Denham, rh John

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Dismore, Andrew

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Knight Jim (S Dorset)

  Doran, Frank

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Lammy, David

  Edwards, Huw

  Lepper, David

  Efford, Clive

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Linton, Martin

  Farrelly, Paul

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Love, Andrew

  Fisher, Mark

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Follett, Barbara

  McCabe, Stephen

  Foster, rh Derek

  McCafferty, Chris

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Foulkes, rh George

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  MacDonald, Calum

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  MacDougall, John

  Gardiner, Barry

  McFall, John

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Gerrard, Neil

  McIsaac, Shona

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Gilroy, Linda

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Godsiff, Roger

  McNulty, Tony

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  MacShane, Denis

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McWalter, Tony

  Grogan, John

  McWilliam, John

  Hain, rh Peter

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hanson, David

  Mallaber, Judy

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Martlew, Eric

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Merron, Gillian

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Heppell, John

  Miliband, David

  Hesford, Stephen

  Miller, Andrew

  Heyes, David

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hinchliffe, David

  Mole, Chris

  Hodge, Margaret

  Morgan, Julie

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Morley, Elliot

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Mountford, Kali

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Mullin, Chris

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  390

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Soley, Clive

  Olner, Bill

  Squire, Rachel

  O'Neill, Martin

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Organ, Diana

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Stevenson, George

  Owen, Albert

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Pearson, Ian

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Perham, Linda

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Picking, Anne

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Pickthall, Colin

  Straw, rh Jack

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Stringer, Graham

  Plaskitt, James

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Pollard, Kerry

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pound, Stephen

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Timms, Stephen

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Tipping, Paddy

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Purchase, Ken

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Purnell, James

  Trickett, Jon

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Truswell, Paul

  Quinn Lawrie

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Rammell, Bill

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Raynsford rh, Nick

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Bellshill)

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Robertson, John (Glasgow

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Anniesland)

  Ward, Claire

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Watts, David

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  White, Brian

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Salter, Martin

  Wills, Michael

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Sawford, Phil

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Woodward, Shaun

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Woolas, Phil

  Sheridan, Jim

  Worthington, Tony

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Wright, Anthony D.(Gt Yarmouth)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

  Finsbury)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mr. Fraser Kemp and

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Margaret Moran

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Allan, Richard

  Brazier, Julian

  Amess, David

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Burnett, John

  Bacon, Richard

  Burns, Simon

  Baker, Norman

  Burnside, David

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Barrett, John

  Burstow, Paul

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Burt, Alistair

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Butterfill, John

  Bellingham, Henry

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Bercow, John

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Cameron, David

  Blunt, Crispin

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

  Boswell, Tim

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Cash, William

  391

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Lidington, David

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Chope, Christopher

  Loughton, Tim

  Clappison, James

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Collins, Tim

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Conway, Derek

  Maclean, rh David

  Cotter, Brian

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Curry, rh David

  Malins, Humfrey

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Mates, Michael

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham &Stamford)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &Howden)

  Moore, Michael

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Moss, Malcolm

  Dodds, Nigel

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Doughty, Sue

  Ottaway, Richard

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Page, Richard

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Paterson, Owen

  Duncan Smith, rh lain

  Pickles, Eric

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Fortino, rh Michael

  Fabricant, Michael

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &Dinefwr)

  Fallon, Michael

  Field, Mark (Cities of London &Westminster)

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Flook, Adrian

  Randall, John

  Forth, rh Eric

  Redwood, rh John

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Rendel, David

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Robathan, Andrew

  Francois, Mark

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Garnier, Edward

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Gidley, Sandra

  Ruffley, David

  Goodman, Paul

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Grayling, Chris

  Salmond, Alex

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Selous, Andrew

  Greenway, John

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Grieve, Dominic

  Shepherd, Richard

  Hague, rh William

  Simmonds, Mark

  Hammond, Philip

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Hancock, Mike

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

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W &Abingdon)

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Harvey, Nick

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Hawkins, Nick

  Spring, Richard

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Heald, Oliver

  Steen, Anthony

  Heath, David

  Streeter, Gary

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Stunell, Andrew

  Hendry, Charles

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Hermon, Lady

  Syms, Robert

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Howard, rh Michael

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Hunter, Andrew

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Jack, rh Michael

  Thurso, John

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Keetch, Paul

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &Inverness)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Waterson, Nigel

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Whittingdale, John

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Wiggin, Bill

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Willetts, David

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Leigh, Edward

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Willis, Phil

  Liddell-Grainger,Ian

  Wilshire,David

  392

  Winterson,Sir Nicholas(Macclesfield)

  Young, rh Sir George

  Wishart, Pete

  Teller for the Noes: Mr. Alan Reid and Richard Younger-Ross

  Yeo Tim Suffolk)

  Question accordingly agreed to
  Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes that from 2004–05 Government will be spending £ 9.2 billion extra per year in real terms on pensioners compared with the 1997 system; notes this is £ 5.7 billion more than if the basic state pension had been linked to earning; recognize that the poorest third of pensioners will be £1,600 a year better of real terms compared with the 1997 system; applauds Government action for older people on health and social care, fuel poverty, transport and lifelong learning; approves of action to stabiles the care home fees where required; supports the Government's commitment to increase resources available for social services by on average six per cent. A year in real terms over the next three years, the expansion of intensive home care support, and the largest ever sustained increase in funding for NHS; welcomes the real terms increase of 25 per cent. in grant to local authorities since 1997, and the review of the balance of funding between central and local government; further welcomes the successful introducing of universal banking services, giving post Office access through a number of current accounts, basic bank accounts and the post Office card account; congratulates Government on its intention to bring in Pension Credit from October; notes eligible households stand to gain on average £400 a year; and applauds the actions of the Government which result in over 1 million people being ready to receive Pension Credit who will gain more money than they had before.
  Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order,Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am reliably informed that yesterday the official spokesman for No. 10, Downing street told the Lobby that the report from the Intelligence and Security Committee had been handed to the Prime Minister that day. However, when the Prime Minister was asked earlier today in the Chamber why he would not publish the report, he said as far as I can remember hearing —that he could not possibly publish it today because he would not have it until tomorrow. There is a serious inconsistency between what No. 10 told everybody yesterday and, unsurprisingly, What the Prime Minister told the House today. Can you help the House to sort the matter out? It is a matter of the greatest importance and considerable controversy. It is not good enough for the Prime Minister to say something to the House that is in direct contradiction of what his spokesman told the Lobby yesterday. May we have his matter sorted out before much more time passes?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I understand the points that the right hon. Gentleman makes, but I am not in a position to help him because I am not aware of the detailed points he has made. No doubt the House will Have heard his points and they are, of course, now on the record.

  Role of the United Nations in Iraq
  Mr. Deputy Speaker(Sir Michael Lord): I must inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  4.27 pm
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: I beg to move,
  That this House welcomes the publication of the recent draft resolution of the United Nations Security Council on Iraq; calls upon Her Majesty's Government to honour the Prime Minister's commitment to give the United Nations a vital role in the political and economic reconstruction of Iraq through a new Security Council Resolution which would expedite the restoration of sovereignty and democratic control to the Iraqi people, place the process of political transition under the auspices of the United Nations, transfer the whole responsibility for the economic reconstruction and rebuilding of Iraq to an Iraqi provisional government assisted as necessary by the United Nations and replace existing security arrangements with a multinational force under unified command obliged to report to the Security Council.
  Those who have come here today hoping for a partisan debate, like yesterday's, will—I hope—be disappointed. We have chosen to ask the House to consider a serious matter and I begin by thanking the Foreign Secretary for being present. I know that he had other obligations for today that he has cancelled in order to attend the debate.
  The scepticism of me and my party about the military action against Iraq is well documented, but nothing in the events of recent weeks—the Hutton inquiry, the fact that we still have not found weapons of mass destruction capable of deployment within 45 minutes, the Foreign Secretary's memorandum setting out, with admirable clarity, the risks and responsibilities of Government policy towards Iraq or today's allegation of a leak from the Intelligence and Security Committee—has persuaded me that my scepticism was other than well founded. However, we have a duty to deal with events as they are, not as we would like them to have been.
  If I were to allow myself a brief moment of self-indulgence, it would be to point out that on the East river it will not be lost on those who work for the United Nations that the institution that was bypassed in March as part of the problem is being assiduously wooed in September as part of the solution.
  When the force commander on the ground asks for more troops for an operation that the House of Commons authorised by democratic vote on 18 March, there would have to be a very good reason to refuse the request. In my view, no such reason exists. I understand the reluctance of some to acquiesce in the sending of more troops, but it is not realistic or fair to ask forces to fulfil tasks for which they have inadequate resources.
  Some would argue that the logic of refusing more troops is that the forces already deployed should be withdrawn. However, one need only pause and ask what the consequence of withdrawal would be. Would Basra be made safer for its citizens? Would electricity and water flow more regularly? Would aid agencies find it easier to operate? The answer to those questions is self-evidently no.
  The additional forces now being sought are necessary for two principal purposes—to help to achieve the humanitarian objectives to which I have referred, and to keep safe those already there, both military and civilian.
  394
  What would be the military consequences of withdrawal? It would create a vacuum in which disaffected members of the Ba'ath party, the sullen soldiers of the disbanded army and the suicidal jihadists would flourish. The current deterioration that all recognise would accelerate out of control
  However, the deployment of the extra troops can be seen only as a stopgap that allows an opportunity to buy time. The deployment, to be added to in the way that has been suggested and indeed already implemented, cannot go on for an unlimited time, for military and economic reasons. A former leader of the Conservative party asked three questions last September to which no one has been able to provide answers. He asked what the exit strategy was, how many British troops would be required, and how long they would be required to be deployed. Those perceptive questions of 12 months ago remain unanswered.
  Sooner or later, there will have to be an exit strategy. I suggest that it will be based either on a determination that the job has been done and the objectives achieved, or on a recognition that we can no longer do the job and that we should go. However, that is not a matter for today.
  The House and the country are entitled to more detailed information about the financial costs to date. What are the daily and monthly costs? What are the projected costs? I was not satisfied with an answer that I received on 10 July from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and I have written to the Chancellor again today to ask for further information, but it has become overwhelmingly clear that the burden in Iraq has to be shared. I have no doubt whatever that the best way to do that is through the UN, which now enjoys belated recognition among even the most neoconservative elements in Washington. Truly, rumours of the UN's death are shown to have been grossly exaggerated.
  I turn now to the military position. We need a resolution that mandates a multinational force under unified command. In that respect, there is nothing between me and the Foreign Secretary. We must be realistic, and accept that that force will be under US command. The force, and the command that is established, should be modelled on the arrangements for what we might now call Gulf war one. The command should be obliged to report to the Security Council, as happened in Gulf war one.
  I do not know how many hon. Members have had the opportunity to read the draft resolution now circulating in New York. Those who have read it may have noticed that it uses the phrase "all necessary means", in contradistinction to the earlier phrase "serious consequences". If "all necessary means" had been in people's contemplation last October and November, it is possible that some of the difficulties encountered by the UN might have been avoided.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: Earlier, the right hon. and learned Gentleman made the interesting remark that we might have to withdraw from Iraq because of a recognition that we cannot achieve our objectives there. Is that possibility more likely to come to pass if we retain a command structure that is under the control of America and not the UN? If the UN were calling the shots in military terms in Iraq, would the

  395
  withdrawal under the conditions that he describes be Tess likely? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say a little more about how there could be an American command structure that would, nevertheless, be recognised internationally as answerable to the UN?
  Mr. Campbell:I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was a Member of the House in 1990 and 1991; the answer to the second part of his question is that precisely such a structure was established for the purpose of expelling Iraq from Kuwait. It was under the command of General Schwarzkopf, and General Sir Peter de la Billière was the senior British representative. The French were also represented in that command and the representation of other contributing nations related to some extent to the value and degree of their contribution. It is perfectly possible to create such a command. Our motion seeks to establish that the command is authorised by the UN and obliged to report back to the Security Council.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Campbell: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall answer the questions put by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) before I take his intervention.
  On whether we are more likely to succeed through the UN or through existing arrangements, I have no doubt whatever—indeed, it is implied in the motion—that we shall much more easily and effectively achieve the objectives that we regard as desirable through not only a multinational security arrangement, but also an arrangement for the reconstruction and rebuilding of Iraq conducted through the UN. That would enjoy far greater legitimacy than proposals and measures from a coalition about whose right to continue with such measures there must be, at least, some legal doubt as, to some extent, it is stretching its responsibilities under the Geneva convention.
  Mr. Salmond: The right hon. and learned Gentleman examines such things extremely carefully, so he will have noticed that the Government amendment refers to the existing command structure, as did President Bush's "Come and join us" appeal earlier this week. Will he confirm that he is not in favour of the existing command structure being sanctioned by the UN, but rather that he is looking for one that is properly authorised by the UN?
  Mr. Campbell: I thought that I had already said that, but if it is necessary to repeat it, I want a command structure based on that for Gulf war one, which was both legitimate in terms of the legal powers that it created and politically acceptable because it required the command to be answerable to the Security Council. That is why I responded to the hon. Member for Ceredigion by saying that we were much more likely to achieve those objectives through the UN than by following the existing arrangements outside the UN.
  Such a force with such a mandate ought to be able to attract contributors from militarily capable nations such as France, Germany, India, Pakistan and even perhaps Turkey. I used the words "militarily capable" deliberately; it is one thing to have troops assigned from a member of the UN to a command of that kind, but we
  396
  must have troops that are properly led, properly equipped and properly trained. Some hon. Members will remember the lessons of Bosnia where troops were assigned to a UN force—a blue-helmet force—with inadequate provision by all three of the criteria to which I referred. Troops were arriving without personal weapons and without boots. If we are to restructure the command as I have suggested, we must do so in a way that will attract troops from militarily capable nations.
  That of itself will not be enough to attract such support, as some of the preliminary observations made by the representatives of those countries at the UN made clear. There will have to be parallel political development. Even with an expanded and more representative security force, there will be no shortcuts to stability in Iraq. Stability and security will depend on political progress and on the civil administration in Iraq being the responsibility not of the coalition—increasingly seen as occupiers— but of the UN, which would, in my view, enjoy a far greater legitimacy and acceptability.
  For those who are students of such matters, I fancy that the next fortnight in New York would be a most interesting occasion if one could participate, even silently, in all the meetings that will take place, because they will essentially involve that peculiar UN operation of barter and exchange, negotiation, offer and counteroffer. However, any new resolution, as finally agreed, must provide the vital role for the UN promised by both President Bush and the Prime Minister, not just in words, but in substance as well. It must embrace the urgent objective of restoring sovereignty and democratic control to the Iraqi people. It must ensure that the process of transition from the present arrangements comes under the auspices of the UN. We should ensure that the responsibility for economic reconstruction and rebuilding in Iraq is as soon as possible placed with an Iraqi provisional Government, assisted by the UN.
  The deployment of British forces can be justified against such clear objectives. I also want to make it clear that a desire to rescue the deteriorating situation in Iraq, which virtually everyone now recognises, is no endorsement of the action that has given rise to that position. I said at the outset that my scepticism remains undimmed. Analogies in these matters are always deeply dangerous, but let me suggest that the doctor who treats the victim of a serious assault neither endorses nor justifies that assault in so doing.
  I cannot believe that it is in the interests of the people of the United Kingdom, whom we are sent here to represent, that Iraq should further deteriorate and that there should be instability in that country, which would inevitably have consequences for the stability of the whole region. We have a moral obligation, but there is also a deeply pragmatic obligation as well.
  Firmly rooting remedial action in the UN is, in my judgment, an acknowledgement of the UN's preeminence, for which Liberal Democrat Members at least have consistently argued, and far from being an endorsement of military action, which I still believe was unjustified at the time that it was taken, it is in truth an implied rebuke to all those who sidelined the UN. I have said before—I am flattered that the Foreign Secretary has quoted it from time to time—that the UN is no more or less than the sum of its members. It is not a third party

  397
  to whom we can contract out our security or, indeed, that of the Iraqi people. It requires our engagement, and if, as we do in the motion, we set out a series of steps that we regard as essential, we have an obligation to recognise that we have to continue to engage, and, if necessary, we have to engage with further resources in the form of troops and—who knows?—perhaps even in the form of financial support.
  When Sergio Vieira de Mello and Fiona Watson, who was one of my former constituents—incidentally, her coffin was draped with the UN flag at her funeral—were both brutally murdered, they were acting for us and in our name, as much as were any of those in uniform who have been so tragically killed.
  The UN is not and never will be a perfect instrument, but it is the best means available now by which to ameliorate the present condition of the Iraqi people and to improve it to the point at which they can resume full responsibility for themselves. That is why I commend the motion to the House.
  4.44 pm
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "supports the vital role played by the United Nations in Iraq as endorsed by UN Security Council Resolutions 1483 and 1500 (2003); pays tribute to the Secretary General's Special Representative, Sergio Vieira de Mello and his colleagues brutally murdered in the terrorist atrocity of 19th August; welcomes the determination of the United Nations Secretary General to remain engaged in Iraq; further welcomes the initiation of discussions on a new UN Security Council Resolution on Iraq, which aims to reaffirm the United Nations' support for the work of the governing council, calls on the governing council to submit a timetable and programme for the drafting of a new constitution for Iraq and for the holding of democratic elections, proposes a United Nations-mandated multinational force under existing unified command arrangements and encourages UN Member States and international organisations to help the Iraqi people by providing resources for rehabilitation and reconstruction at next month's conference in Madrid."
  I welcome this debate and the tone in which the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) moved the motion. I welcome the spirit of the motion, too. I looked hard to see whether we could accept the motion as stated, and it was only what I described as a little infelicitous drafting here and there, on which I would have been happy to offer prior assistance, that led me to move the alternative. The tone of the debate reflects the fact that, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, whatever views people have had about the wisdom or otherwise of the military action, we all have a common interest in securing Iraq's peace and prosperity as quickly as possible.
  The role of the UN has been at the heart of the issue with Iraq for more than a dozen years. During that time, Iraq achieved the unique distinction of having more mandatory Security Council resolutions against it than any other country in the United Nations' history. Its record of defiance in response to the Security Council's demands put Saddam Hussein's regime into a category of its own. That unenviable record led the House to make the decision on 18 March, by a majority of 263,
  398
  that the only way to deal effectively with that defiance and the threat that the Security Council had already agreed that it posed to international peace and security was through military action.
  This time last year, we were involved with our Security Council partners in an intensive dialogue as to how we could enforce the writ of United Nations resolutions in Iraq. That dialogue became a negotiation, which led on 8 November to the unanimous adoption of resolution 1441. It is worth reminding ourselves of the key elements of that resolution. It declared that Iraq represented a threat to international peace and security, which is a key trigger for the use of chapter VII powers. It gave Iraq a "final opportunity" to bring itself into compliance, and it spelled out how it was to do so in the clearest possible terms. If Iraq failed to meet the conditions, 1441 warned that "serious consequences" would follow. Diplomatic parlance is notoriously ambiguous, but that phrase was understood to have only one meaning—military action. I say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it was understood to be interchangeable with "necessary means" or "necessary measures".
  I do not downplay the significance of the United Nations' subsequent failure to agree on the so-called second resolution in March. Indeed, it was a matter of great personal regret to me. I travelled to New York four times between January and March in an attempt to a secure a consensus on the need to enforce those terms of the resolution. We all worked hard to try to achieve that consensus, but we were unable to do so. Divisions were also apparent in this House in that momentous debate on 18 March. Some took the view that containment was working, or, alongside that, that more time should be granted to the United Nations inspectors. The Government's view was that that would simply play into the hands of a regime that wanted time without end. As I have already mentioned, the House therefore endorsed the Government's position and decided to enforce those "serious consequences".
  In the aftermath of coalition military intervention, the immediate challenge facing the international community is to bring peace and the rule of law to a country that has been brutalised for almost a quarter of a century. Our task is to help the Iraqi people rapidly build a nation from the ashes of Saddam's dictatorship and to do so with the United Nations. In April, at the Hillsborough summit, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and President Bush called on the United Nations to play a vital role in the reconstruction of Iraq. It has been doing so ever since. The World Food Programme, with its Iraqi counterparts, got the public distribution system for food rations fully up and running in June. UNICEF and the World Health Organisation have made major contributions to the restoration of health services, which have included the successful containment of the cholera outbreak in the south of the country, maintaining supplies of essential medicines and resuming child vaccination programmes. The United Nations Development Programme has been helping to restore electricity services, and the Government, through the Department for International Development, have been providing very considerable support. DFID has committed £113 million to the United Nations' work in Iraq, alongside other funds in respect of other programmes.

  399
  In all this work, particularly in the south of the country, the work of the civilian agencies has been supported and in some instances made possible by the exceptional work of British troops. I cannot emphasis often enough—I know that I have the approbation of the whole House—the admiration that we all have for the skill, expertise, courage and determination of our troops. It happens that by chance on Saturday I met a group of service personnel who were literally about to leave for Basra. Some were with their families. Tears were being shed. It was striking in the brief conversations that I had what stoicism our troops were showing, and what commitment to the cause and to the highest traditions of the British armed forces.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Endorsing what my right hon. Friend said about the British troops, where great commitment has been shown, is not there a problem that really should be addressed, which is the labelling of many technocrats who formerly were Ba'athists, in that they had to be to get anywhere in their profession? Could not some change be made in the guidelines as to who can help in reconstruction and who cannot? I think particularly of Saddam's Health Minister, Dr. Mubarrak from Sulammiya—a Kurd, incidentally—who was technically, in the view of many people, extremely efficient. All right, he paid lip service to the Ba'ath party, but he was interested in health. Should not such people be brought back in the reconstruction process?
  Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend makes an important and constructive point. It is one that has been exercising us as well. The point is how sensitively the process of so-called de-Ba'athification can be undertaken in a way that identifies those people who on any analysis were completely committed Ba'athists, and therefore would represent a threat to any subsequent Government within the country, and those whom my hon. Friend correctly said were Ba'athists because they had to be Ba'athists, in the same way as in the Soviet bloc if someone wanted to be a teacher, an administrator or engineer at any level, they had to be a member of the Communist party.
  Quite a lot of the people who are operating at a senior level were members of the Ba'ath party. When I was in Baghdad on 1 July, I met a woman who had been a senior official in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I am quite sure—I am not absolutely certain, but almost certain—that she was involved in the Ba'ath party. People had identified her as someone who was not remotely committed to it. However, she had to be able to follow her career.
  On the gravamen of what my hon. Friend says, he is right. We continue discussions in the coalition provisional authority to ensure that the de-Ba'athification process is handled sensitively and quickly, and that good people who pose no threat to security in Iraq are allowed to continue their work.
  The Government have been committed all the way along to establishing a broad mandate for the UN in post-Saddam Iraq. Thus far, this has been affirmed in two Security Council resolutions. The first, UNSCR 1483, was passed on 22 May.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: I am pleased to hear my right hon. Friend's remarks about the British
  400
  commitment to a UN mandate. Does he agree with me that the American reluctance to bring in the UN at an early stage, and the seemingly reluctant acceptance that the UN has an important role to play now, after a period of violence, does not do their cause very much good?
  Mr. Straw: I do not fully accept my hon. Friend's view. From the very start, the American Government wanted the United Nations to play a vital role. I was present at the discussions at Hillsborough at the beginning of April, when the issue of the vital role was discussed. It was not an issue of words. Everyone recognised, not least President Bush and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, that if the UN was to play a "vital role", those words had to be translated into action. In my judgment, they have been, and I was about to say how that has been done. However, I do not deny for a second that we now have to enhance the UN's mandate.
  Resolution 1483, co-sponsored by the United States and the UK, talked about a vital role for the United Nations, and established a framework for the UN's involvement in all significant aspects of Iraq's reconstruction. It lifted most of the UN sanctions against Iraq. A second resolution—resolution 1500—passed on 14 August welcomed the first steps taken by Iraq towards representative government with the formation of the Iraqi Governing Council. It also created the United Nations assistance mission for Iraq, as recommended by the Secretary-General.
  To pick up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), of course there was scepticism about the question of whether the "vital role" was simply warm words or would be followed by action. I have accepted both in the House and outside that mistakes were made, not only in respect of the role of the United Nations but, more significantly, in not fully anticipating the speed with which the Saddam regime would collapse and the security vacuum that would be left. There were also mistakes in the planning for the coalition provisional authority. That said, after the passage of resolution 1483, in late May, June and July, the role of the United Nations on the ground was accelerating and, on any analysis, becoming vital.
  That was made clear in the Secretary-General's report to the Security Council on 17 July. He said that the
  "UN can begin to assist the Iraqi people…in making a difference … and in helping to pave the way of the restoration of sovereignty to democratic Iraqi institutions."
  Sergio Vieira de Mello referred to the formation of the Iraqi Governing Council on 13 July as a "defining moment" for Iraq,
  "moving it back where it rightfully belongs: at peace with itself and as a full participant in the community of nations."
  As I told the House on Monday, the fact that the terrorists decided to target the Secretary-General's special representative and other United Nations staff at the UN's headquarters, the Canal hotel in Baghdad, speaks volumes about the positive impact that the United Nations was having through its involvement in the political process and its role in reconstruction. It had been helping to establish the conditions for an orderly transition in Iraq, and its personnel became the target of

  401
  those who sought to plunge the country into chaos. It was precisely because those terrorists could see the difference that the UN was making that they decided to target it.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: I do not demur from what the right hon. Gentleman has said in the last moment or two, but another consideration is the fact that the UN was a pretty soft target. The security arrangements for its headquarters were a long way below what was desirable.
  Mr. Straw: I was just about to say that in the wake of the appalling events on 19 August, the United Nations obviously had to scale back its presence in Iraq considerably. I have since spoken to Secretary-General Kofi Annan on a number of occasions, and assured him that we are ready to offer further advice and assistance to help to guarantee the security of United Nations facilities and personnel. However, may I also tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the United Nations had to make its own decisions about security? There was security around the Canal hotel, but the UN—rightly, in my view—judged that it should be separate from the coalition forces and the secure area within Baghdad. It also judged that in the-past it had never been a target, so it was fair for it to assume, even in the more difficult security climate, that it was not going to be a target in future. Obviously, that has to be reassessed, but I say to him from my knowledge that no culpability lies with the security services of either the United Nations or the coalition. The culpability for that terrorist attack lies solely with the terrorists.
  Mr. Edward Garnier: May I infer from the Foreign Secretary's last remark to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) that the United Nations was offered security cover at the Canal hotel by the United States, but thought it proper to refuse it?
  Mr. Straw: The situation is more complicated than that. The United Nations had security cover and the issue is the level of cover. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will excuse me, I am afraid that I shall not go into detail about the confidential discussions that took place between the UN and the coalition.
  Mr. Salmond: The Foreign Secretary said that he thought that the United Nations wanted to be separate from the coalition forces. Might that be the case because it wanted to see a distinction between the United Nations operation and that of the coalition forces, which had been engaged in military action—a distinction between combatant forces and peacekeeping forces? If he acknowledges that distinction, would it not be unwise to blur it by trying to incorporate other countries into an existing command structure instead of setting up a new command structure that would not be regarded as partial and combatant?
  Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is correct that, of course, it was in the mind of the United Nations that it was distinct from coalition forces and wanted to
  402
  reinforce that distinction by locating itself in a different place in Baghdad. Indeed, it had occupied the same headquarters since the Gulf war. I shall deal in a moment with the issue of unified command, but I say now that nobody in the Security Council is arguing for blue-helmeted troops under the command of a UN Secretary-General-appointed commander. Everyone accepts that there has to be a multinational force, but under a unified command, and that that unified commander has to he from the United States, for reasons that the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife readily acknowledged. That is also an element of the resolution.
  The truth that we now know, but did not know before 19 August, is that everybody who is working for peace in Iraq—the United Nations, coalition forces, members of the governing council and ordinary Iraqis—can be targeted by such terrorists, who simply want, in a nihilistic way, to blow up processes that will lead to peace and security. We must take account of that and assist the Iraqis in getting on top of terrorism, just as, in a much more limited way, we have had to do ourselves.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I need to make progress, as this is a very short debate and others wish to speak.
  As I have said, the attack on the UN headquarters was a terrible reminder that all nations share a common interest in ensuring a successful transition in Iraq and have none in allowing the terrorists to succeed. For that reason, over the past few weeks, I have been working closely with United States Secretary of State Colin Powell and my colleagues in the European Union and the Security Council to strengthen the UN's mandate and the joint efforts of the international community in Iraq.
  Let me set out the key elements in the draft that is now under discussion. It reaffirms the United Nations' support for the work of the Governing Council and calls on the council—this is a very important point—to submit a timetable and programme for the drafting of a new constitution for Iraq and the holding of democratic elections. The timetable would be provided in cooperation with both the CPA and the United Nations. It would reinforce to the Iraqi people our determination to move along the path towards democratic government run by Iraqis in a sovereign Iraq. Giving that sense of progress and hope about the fact that the coalition is in the country as an occupying power only temporarily is of profound psychological importance in Iraq. It will give the international community more certainty about the direction that is being pursued in Iraq. The fact of the discussions has already tended to assist the international climate in which the Iraqi Governing Council is operating. I was pleased to learn this morning that at a meeting in Cairo yesterday, the Arab League passed a resolution in which it invited the Iraqi Governing Council to take up its full seat at the league until a representative of a full Iraqi Government could take over. Given how standoffish the Arab League and neighbouring states had been before, that is a very important change.
  Harry Cohen: The Secretary of State says that he wants to give the Iraqi people the

  403
  impression that the occupying forces will be there only temporarily. Will he give an indication of how long they are going to be there? Will it be two years, three years, five years, or 10 years? If he cannot do that, will he give an indication of when he can give an indication?
  Mr. Straw: The purpose of inviting the governing council to propose a timescale is to let the most representative body of the Iraqi people make those proposals, not to have them imposed by others, including the United Kingdom. We do not want to stay, nor will we stay, in Iraq for a moment longer than is necessary. We will ensure that a handover of sovereignty takes place as quickly as possible. Given the uncertainty of the situation, I cannot give my hon. Friend exact dates as to when that will happen, but I can promise him that we are committed to doing so as quickly as is safe.
  The text highlights the UN's role in supporting the constitutional processes in Iraq, drawing on its extensive expertise in this area. The aim is for the UN to be heavily involved in preparing the electoral register and other electoral processes.
  The draft proposes a UN-mandated international force under existing unified command arrangements; that should facilitate the provision of troops by other countries that have so far felt unable to make contributions.
  Finally, the text refers to next month's donors conference in Madrid.
  Mr. Michael Ancram: In answer to some comments that have been made about the commitment of the United States to the involvement of the United Nations, can the Foreign Secretary confirm that the draft text to which he refers was in fact proposed and tabled by the United States?
  Mr. Straw: Indeed. This is a United States proposal, which is constructive and will no doubt be improved during discussions.
  In summary, if a resolution along the lines of the draft is accepted, that will send a strong signal to those forces in Iraq who would deny the Iraqi people a peaceful and prosperous future. It will tell them that the international community's commitment to the establishment of representative government in Iraq was irrevocable and that their efforts to block Iraq's return to the international community of nations were doomed to failure.
  404
  The build-up to military action in March was, sadly, characterised by serious divisions in the international community. By contrast, the period since the fall of Saddam has been characterised by growing consensus that whatever those previous disagreements, we all have a common interest in Iraq's future stability and prosperity and in the role of the United Nations in achieving that. Constructive discussions on the draft have been held over the past 10 days in New York and via direct contact between Foreign Ministers of Security Council members. This Saturday, at the invitation of United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan, I shall travel to Geneva for a meeting with him and my four colleague Foreign Ministers from the permanent membership of the Security Council to discuss both the draft in more detail and the wider issues of United Nations involvement in Iraq. I look forward to that meeting, and I shall of course report the outcome to the House.
  Since the inception of the United Nations, no country has been more committed to it than the United Kingdom. No country has made a greater effort than the United Kingdom to ensuring that the UN is a central means by which the international community deals with the threat from Saddam's regime and the country's rehabilitation. We were the co-sponsor of three UN resolutions in respect of Iraq that have been passed in the past 10 months, and in the coming days we shall strive to secure a fourth.
  The draft resolution that is under discussion is aimed at cementing the UN's presence in Iraq, enhancing Iraq's security and bringing forward the day when the Iraqi people can take full control of their own destiny. I urge the House to accept the amendment.

  DEFERRED DIVISIONS
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I now have to announce the results of the Divisions deferred from a previous day on the motions on Local Government Finance (England).
  On the motion on the Preserved Rights grant, the Ayes were 389, the Noes were 1, so the motion was agreed to.
  On the motion on the Delayed Discharges grant, the Ayes were 255, the Noes were 40, so the motion was agreed to.
  On the motion on the Social Services (High Performers No. 2) grant, the Ayes were 387, the Noes were 1, so the motion was agreed to.

  Role of the United Nations in Iraq
  Question again proposed.
  5.9 pm
  Mr. Michael Ancram: The debate on Iraq and the United Nations takes place at a significant time. Unlike some of the discussions that we have held in past few days, there will be little difference between us. The fact that the subject of Iraq has been raised on the Floor of the House for the third consecutive day shows the concern about the current position that is shared by hon. Members of all parties.
  The concern is not new to me; I encountered it among Iraqis when I visited Baghdad on 23 July. The other day, the Secretary of State criticised me for raising some concerns and criticisms. However, they do not originate with me but with people to whom I talked in Baghdad and other parts of Iraq. They mentioned them because they believed that it was important that we understood them.
  What is happening—to be more accurate, what is not happening in Iraq—is unfair to the Iraqis, who are unsurprisingly growing resentful, and to our armed forces who, through no fault of theirs, sometimes have to face the backlash of the resentment. Our servicemen and women are doing a remarkable job in difficult circumstances and I wish to pay tribute to them. I wish the additional troops who are being deployed to Iraq today every success in their mission. However, we owe them not only moral support but a clear and active civil programme of restoring the basic amenities of water, power and working sewers to the provinces under our control. That will relieve pressure from not only the Iraqis but our armed forces. Government uncertainty about the reconstruction programme helps neither party.
  Since our debate on 24 September last year, I have argued that the involvement of the international community through the United Nations is essential to rebuilding Iraq. A little more than a week ago, the United Kingdom took over the presidency of the United Nations Security Council; the United States takes on the role next month. We are therefore at a critical moment, when together we can promote a positive role for the United Nations. The United States is sometimes portrayed as the obstacle to United Nations involvement, yet President Bush has made it clear that deeper United Nations involvement and the further internationalisation of the coalition in Iraq is essential for the prosperity and security of the region. As I pointed out earlier, the United States tabled the text of the draft resolution. I urge all nations on the United Nations Security Council, especially the permanent members, who have sometimes been the problem rather than the solution, to work constructively towards passing the resolution.
  However, the resolution must not be allowed to complicate the security situation in Iraq. It is clear that, in military terms, a single chain of command and control must operate in that country. The specific circumstances and the disparity in troop numbers between the participating nations mean that it must logically be American-led. To suggest otherwise defies reality and common sense and would be a recipe for confusion. That is why I support the Government amendment.
  406
  The draft resolution, which the Security Council is currently considering,
  "authorizes a multinational force, under unified command".
  There is currently a multinational force, under unified command, in Iraq; the resolution adds the authorisation of the United Nations. That is the right way to proceed and we support that.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: What should be the deciding body on any withdrawal of military force from Iraq? Who should decide when the time is right—America, as head of the unified control that the right hon. Gentleman outlined, or the United Nations? The final arbiter of when military force withdraws is important for whether the Iraqis perceive the forces as occupying or bringing them peace and justice.
  Mr. Ancram: We are talking about practical realities, and about the security of Iraq. Those who are best able to judge the security situation are those who are responsible for securing it in the first place—the armed forces, not the United Nations. It is therefore inevitable that the decision will be taken by the armed forces in consultation with the various participating nations, which is how the matter should be decided. I shall give another example shortly, which will show that that where we should direct our attention.
  Mr. Salmond: The doctrine that decisions on withdrawal from—or, for that matter, entry into—a theatre of combat are made by the armed forces is extraordinary. Such decisions are political decisions made by whoever is authorising the armed forces. The right hon. Gentleman was asked whether withdrawal would be authorised by the American command presumably, the President of the United States—or by the United Nations. If the unified command is reporting to the United Nations, surely it should be the United Nations that makes the decision.
  Mr. Ancram: I do not know how much knowledge the hon. Gentleman has of military matters, but I would say to him that those in charge of security are best placed to decide when changes can be made to security operations. Those who have been responsible for providing the security in the first place should properly take the final decisions on whether the situation in Iraq is secure enough for withdrawal to take place. I shall return to the issue later, but a good example of the principle in operation is to be found in Afghanistan, where decisions on security are taken by the armed forces and the decisions on humanitarian and political questions are taken by the United Nations. That relationship is working well, and it is one that we should look at closely in relation to Iraq.
  The formal United Nations involvement should not be military. The passing of the current draft resolution will create a mandate for the further involvement of other nations in the security of Iraq, which would be welcome. In particular, it could open the door to India's military involvement. Furthermore, I understand from conversations that I have had that some of the Gulf states might be able to provide Arab forces to help in this endeavour, which would be an important extension of the multinational nature of the force that is in place.

  407
  The endeavour should not be a UN peacekeeping force in the sense that we understand it at present, however. Kofi Annan has ruled out a blue helmet—or, indeed, a blue beret—operation for good reasons, not least because it will not be a traditional peacekeeping operation of the kind in which the United Nations is involved elsewhere. At the moment, it is a counterinsurgency mission, which is not, and should not be, the role of the United Nations. For that reason, I believe that the definition set out in the draft resolution text is the correct one.
  In Afghanistan, the United Nations has a significant role to play on the political and humanitarian front, in co-ordination with NATO and the American forces on the security front. It achieves its purpose without seeking to exert control over the military operation. The military, for its part, welcomes the work of the UN, which allows it to concentrate on its security responsibilities. I saw this in action when I visited Afghanistan in July. I talked to the United States and United Kingdom military commanders there, and to Lakhdar Brahimi of the United Nations. There was a clear and important demarcation of responsibilities, which worked well. That was before NATO took over the command of ISAF, which I believe will help still further by creating greater continuity on the security side.
  In Afghanistan, as in Iraq, one of the priorities is to move as swiftly as possible to a democratically elected indigenous Administration. The military coalition accepts its role in training local security forces to provide security across the country, without which a successful election would be unlikely to be held. The United Nations has the vital responsibility of helping to carry out sensitive work on voter registration and other legal technicalities, and advising on constitutional options. Afghanistan provides an example of how that relationship is working successfully on the ground, and it is just such a relationship that is envisaged in the United Nations draft resolution. It is a model that could usefully be adapted and adopted for Iraq.
  If, however, the United Nations is to play a significant role in delivering a bright future for Iraq, two things are needed immediately: first, as far as possible its security must be assured; and, secondly, civilian reconstruction must be stepped up and the contracts to do so must be in place. After the tragic death of Sergio Vieira de Mello and other United Nations personnel, not least our own Fiona Watson, in the bombing of the United Nations building, the question of United Nations security is paramount. I heard what the Secretary of State said, and I do not wish to know about the private and secret discussions that took place. However, when I was in Baghdad, the United Nations was beginning to be aware of a threat and was considering discontinuing its flights into Baghdad airport, because there had been several incidents of missile lock-ons. It was beginning to see that there was a threat, and I still regret that, for the reasons the Foreign Secretary stated, it had kept itself outside the secure area on the east side of the river where the security provided by the security forces was not available.
  Mr. Garnier: My right hon. Friend may not want to know what discussions the Foreign Secretary had with his counterparts, which are necessarily confidential, but
  408
  we are entitled to comment that the safety and overall security of United Nations' personnel can be achieved effectively and practically only with the assistance of United States' armed forces guarding its premises. That may be politically inconvenient and diplomatically uncomfortable, but if we are to avoid tragedies such as those that took place in August, as members of the United Nations we should swallow our pride and allow those who have the means to help to protect us.
  Mr. Ancram: I agree in principle with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), but there was another dimension: the United Nations was in its old building, which was on the east side of the river. That was not part of the secured area in Baghdad. That was its decision. It was not so much that it required American assistance in protecting its premises. I would have preferred it if its premises had been within the secure area, because that would have lessened the likelihood of what happened. It is easy to be wise after the event, but I drove past the United Nations building and, having in my time in Northern Ireland learned that terrorists look for soft, rather than hard, targets, I wondered whether the United Nations was not presenting itself as a soft target and therefore a temptation to terrorists.
  Mr. Garnier: I do not want to labour the point, because it is not central to the debate, but surely there is not much difference between sitting premises in an insecure area, and having them within a secure area but refusing to accept the protection of security forces.
  Mr. Ancram: Ideally—I hope this will happen now—there should be a United Nations presence, but within the secured area, where it can take advantage of the fact that it will be a harder target than in the unsecured area. The United Nations must be brought to understand that if it is to succeed in Iraq, it must accept the security umbrella of what I hope will be reinforced coalition military protection.
  United Nations security will also be enhanced by greater co-operation from the Iraqi people themselves. I say again that that is more likely to be forthcoming if the civilian programme of reconstruction, particularly of basic amenities, progresses apace. The question we must ask is, will it be forthcoming? After three days, I have not yet heard anything concrete from the Government to suggest that there is a clear, structured and timetabled plan for physical reconstruction. As it is five months since the war ended, that is simply not good enough.
  I want to make it clear that I have nothing but praise for the performance of our troops, who have done much to improve the lives of people in Iraq, not least building a new hospital in Basra. However, our troops are not there to act as surrogate civilian contractors, and I was surprised to hear the Foreign Secretary on BBC radio yesterday apparently suggesting that they were. That would be a travesty of their role and of their responsibilities.
  I repeat that the dearth of civilian contracts is not a complaint raised by me but one that was raised with me not only by Iraqis, but also by senior British military sources when I was there. It is difficult, in the absence of a clear and stated programme and schedule of work, to avoid the impression that the Government are confused

  409
  about how that programme will develop. We have been left asking whether there was a post-war plan, let alone what has been described as an exit strategy, but which I like to think of as a completion strategy.
  In June this year the erstwhile Secretary of State for International Development admitted that
  "the preparations for post-conflict were poor and we have got the chaos and suffering that we have got now".
  Those are the words of the person who had been responsible for producing a plan, and that began to fill me with suspicion that a plan might not have been made.
  The present Secretary of State, Lady Amos, admitted
  "we would all say there are things we did not get right with respect to the planning and administration"
  of the post-war regime.
  On Monday, I asked the Foreign Secretary about reconstruction contracts. I now ask him again: how many civilian construction contracts were in place when I visited Iraq on 24 July? How many contracts are now in place? How many are in preparation, and how long is the period between project identification and the start of the work? Those are questions that were put to me, and we have still not had answers to them. I hope that we may have answers today.
  A strong civilian programme of reconstruction will make an enormous contribution to stability on the streets, and will create a stronger environment within which the UN can play the important role that is increasingly open to it in Iraq. The same would be achieved by a demonstration by the Government that there is a strategy for reconstruction, for returning power to the Iraqi people as soon as possible, and—on completion of those tasks—for getting out. That would have a powerful effect on sceptical people in Iraq, and would also enhance stability on the ground.
  Of course the most urgent problem at the moment is the rising wave of terrorism and insurgency. The priority must be to root that out and eliminate it. The Conservatives welcome the deployment of additional troops, although the pressure of overstretch in our armed forces cannot be ignored. We also welcome the programme of retraining and recommissioning Iraqi military and police forces. I believe that their role in combating both terrorism and lawlessness will be crucial. Similar training carried out in Afghanistan has given us some indications of how that can work effectively.
  If reconstruction, political development and the satisfactory provision of humanitarian aid are to be achieved, a secure environment must be achieved and maintained. I have no doubt that the UN can play an effective and vital role in such an environment.
  I believe that a new chapter is opening in Iraq. I believe that what we did in the war was right. What we must not do now is squander the peace for lack of political direction or will. There are positive signs, which must offer hope.
  On Sunday President Bush demonstrated a clear determination to make reconstruction work, and I hope that the Government here will do the same. Through the work that he did in Baghdad, Sergio Vieira de Mello showed that the UN can perform a vital role. We owe it
  410
  to him, and to all the others who have died in the service of securing and building a better future for the people of Iraq, to get the peace right and to give them back their country, free of tyranny and free of the reign of fear. To do that, the Government must show more direction than they have hitherto, and simply get on with the job.
  5.28 pm
  Mr. George Foulkes: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this subject in the House, having had the opportunity to do so elsewhere.
  Like the Foreign Secretary, I thought the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) reasonable and sensible, as most of his speeches are. I believe he genuinely accepts that the Government are taking on board most of his views. Others, however, do not seem to accept that. They do not seem to be listening to what the Foreign Secretary, the Defence Secretary and the Minister of State, Department for International Development are saying. I am reminded of the old phrase "none so deaf as those that will not hear". I think that some Members, and some people outside, do not want to hear of the progress that is being made.
  The most remarkable progress being made, in the circumstances, is the development of political pluralism. We have a governing council, and we now have a Cabinet with, at last, a Foreign Minister who speaks on behalf of Iraq. I have heard him on the radio. He is not one of Saddam Hussein's puppets. That is tremendous. The governing council represents people who used to be exiles, and people who stayed in Iraq under Saddam Hussein in the face of great difficulties—people of all creeds and backgrounds. But of course, we have to make progress, and as the Foreign Secretary rightly said, the United Nations has a vital role in preparing for, supervising and supporting the elections. I was delighted to hear the Foreign Secretary say that the Iraqi governing council will work out the timetable for those elections and for the transition to democracy. That seems right, and it will of course need the support of the coalition, at least in terms of security. So progress is being made on democratic development as well.
  The resolution gives rise to the question of the command structure, and in that regard I again agree with the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife. Yesterday, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) yet again made a fool of himself in his flat-footed way. He believes that everything is black and white. The shadow Foreign Secretary will remember the old days of cowboy and Indian films, in which the cowboys always appeared in white and the baddies always appeared in black, just so that people could identify them. That is the simple world of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan.
  When it became clear yesterday that everyone but the hon. Gentleman agreed that the force will not be bluehelmeted—even Kofi Annan says that the force will be not a UN one but a multinational one—the rug was pulled from under his argument. When I asked him who, other than the Americans, could lead such a multinational force—I suggested that perhaps the Lithuanians or the Poles could—he had no answer. It is a pity that innate anti-Americanism suffuses the views of

  411
  certain Members, who are to be found not only on the Opposition Benches—there are one or two on the Labour Benches as well, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) being one of them.
  Mr. Salmond: Given the right hon. Gentleman's view of the world, I am sure that he always has a white hat on. Some 24 hours after yesterday's debate, even he should have stumbled across the fact that the question is not whether there is a unified command structure, but to whom it reports. If he can, will he tell us now whether he thinks that a unified command structure—whichever the lead country—will report to the White House or to the Security Council? If he can answer that question he will, at last, rise in my estimation.
  Mr. Foulkes: Like many of the critics, when the hon. Gentleman is defeated on one matter, he changes the subject. He has moved the goalposts: yesterday, he was talking about the military command structure, and it is of course sensible that the US lead that. Remember that anything that the hon. Gentleman says must be put in the context of his comments on the liberation of Kosovo, when he described the Government's action as an unpardonable folly. What he said was an unpardonable folly, as he will live to realise.
  Mr. Salmond: Whom will the unified command structure report to: the White House or the United Nations Security Council? That is the question—can we now have an answer?
  Mr. Foulkes: The situation is much more complicated than that. It is a matter for the Government to answer, and I am sure that the able Minister, who is doing the job that I used to do a few years ago, will have a reply.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell rose
  Mr. Foulkes: I shall continue, as a lot of people want to get in. On reconstruction, again, there are none so deaf as those that do not want to hear. On Monday, the Foreign Secretary made a statement on reconstruction—about hospitals, schools and everything that is improving. The shadow Foreign Secretary wants a neat plan to be drawn up. That is the latest soundbite that he has come up with— it is the Conservatives who are the original spinners. I must disagree with his proposal because any plan needs to be flexible. It must take account of the security situation, and of the sabotage of the oil pipelines and water supply. Such incidents have set back some of the existing plans and the progress that needs to be made.
  People criticise the security forces for being unable to deal with some of the atrocities that have taken place. They ask how such things can happen. Of course they can happen in a country with Iraq's history. They even happen—tragically, as we saw yesterday—in Israel, a country with the most sophisticated intelligence system and a strong security and defence system. Israel could not guard against suicide bombers. How can we expect the embryonic state of Iraq to do so?
  Mr. Ancram: This is not an academic question, but one that is real for people in Iraq. Somebody put it to me in this way: how can countries that put men on the moon 30 years ago not turn the lights back on in Baghdad and Basra in
  412
  four months? All people are asking is to be told whether there is a plan. I have asked about something even more fundamental, the contracts for reconstruction that will put the lights back on Baghdad and Basra. That is what people want to know and we in this House must answer.
  Mr. Foulkes: The right hon. Gentleman will get an answer; I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will give it in his reply. Fortunately, when the Americans were putting men on the moon, they did not have terrorists and Saddam Hussein supporters sabotaging their efforts. I welcome the conversion of the shadow Foreign Secretary and the Tories to involving the United Nations, the United Nations Development Programme, the World Food Programme and all the agencies that are doing a good job in the reconstruction of Iraq. It was the Tories who took Britain out of UNESCO—not an indication of co-operation—and it needed a Labour Government to bring Britain back into it. We need no lectures on supporting the UN from the Conservatives.
  Mr. Mark Hendrick: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the fact that if a plan and timetable were made available, it would be an invitation to terrorists to derail that plan?
  Mr. Foulkes: I do not need to add to that extremely good point.
  We have been asked why the French, Germans and Russians should now help in reconstruction. I can understand that they do not want to support any kind of resolution that retrospectively approves the action taken by the coalition; that is logical. But if they are really concerned about the interests of the people of Iraq, they must want to help reconstruct that ravaged country following the decades of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship. Surely any country with concern about poor, under-privileged and disadvantaged people will want to do that and I hope that they will take account of that.
  Like many hon. Members, my attention has been diverted from some of the main issues by the Hutton inquiry. I wish to put on record here, as I have done elsewhere, that most of my colleagues and I voted for action in Iraq not on the basis of one paragraph in one dossier. The 45 minutes claim appeared in only two out of thousands of parliamentary questions. I invite the critics to go back to the debates on Iraq and see how many times that matter was mentioned; it was not put forward as the reason for action. There was a range of other things and not just intelligence information: the continual flouting of UN resolutions by Saddam Hussein, the invasions of Kuwait and Iran and the killings and torture. Regime change was not the legal justification for action, but it is a very desirable outcome of it.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman is correct of course in what he says about the 45 minutes claim in its specifics, but surely even he
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. I remind all hon. Members that the motion deals with the role of the UN in the reconstruction of Iraq rather than the question of the 45 minutes.
  Mr. Thomas: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall bear that in mind. I wanted to remind the right hon. Gentleman of a wider point, which I hoped would be in order—that the resignation speech of the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), the previous Foreign Secretary, absolutely demolished the case for war. Surely the right hon. Gentleman took that into account and we should—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I really must bring hon. Members back to the wording of the motion before the House.
  Mr. Foulkes: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and may I say that the resignation speeches would have been treated with greater respect if they had been made a little earlier?
  As to the decision to get rid of the dictator, I would like to quote an e-mail. E-mails are suddenly becoming dangerous things, but I shall quote one of many that I received in support of what I have said. It says as a postscript at the end:
  "I notice that the media is not talking about Dr. Kelly's view that regime change was the only answer in Iraq."
  That appeared in his sister's testimony to the Hutton inquiry, but as you said, Madam Deputy Speaker, we are now talking about the future.
  Some of the critics ask where the weapons of mass destruction are—[Interruption.]They are doing it again. That implies that Saddam Hussein never had any weapons of mass destruction. That is the logic of what they say. Well, what did he use to invade Kuwait and Iran? With what did he kill the hundreds of thousands of people, many at Halabja? Why did he turn out the weapons inspectors in 1998 and refuse to let them back in? What did he have to hide? Saddam Hussein was very good at hiding weapons, particularly chemical and biological weapons, which are not difficult to hide.
  In conclusion, today's debate is welcome and has been constructive, but I was not sure about the purpose of yesterday's debate. It seemed to me a desperate attempt by the official Opposition to show that they were indeed the official Opposition and would not be upstaged by the Liberal Democrats.
  I finish by dealing with another criticism of those who supported the Government's action—that Saddam Hussein was only one dictator and that there were others around the world. I am just as concerned about Mugabe and about the regime in Burma. I have not heard much from Opposition Members about Burma or much support for Aung San Suu Kyi—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order I hope that we will not hear anything about Burma, because the motion before the House is about the reconstruction of Iraq.
  Mr. Foulkes: You are quite right, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the reconstruction of Iraq would not have
  414
  been possible unless we had got rid of Saddam Hussein. I am proud to be one of those who voted in favour of the action that did get rid of him.
  5.43 pm
  Mr. Edward Garnier: I was amused to hear the speech of the right hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). I have heard a lot of him on the radio and seen him on television throughout much of the summer, and he has loyally advanced the Government's cause. I rather suspect, however, that he picked up the wrong notes when he came to today's debate. He picked up the "Let's support Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair and others in the frame under the Hutton inquiry" notes, rather than the notes that he should have made and thought about for today's debate on the Liberal Democrat motion and the Government's amendment. But there we are: he is an enjoyable Member of the House and we all listen to him with some amusement.
  I have the greatest respect for the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) for the manner in which he advanced his case this afternoon and for the clever way in which he said that this afternoon's debate should not descend into party-political argument. That makes it hugely impolite to be rude about the Liberal Democrat motion. I shall not be impolite, but I will have one or two things to say about it.
  The motion seeks to portray the Liberal Democrats as concerned about Iraq and its future. I have no doubt that they are, but they leave reality behind when it comes to the implementation of those concerns on the ground. It is unreal to expect that the process of political transition, including the restoration of sovereignty and democratic control to the Iraqi people, can be achieved under the auspices of the UN. It is unreal to demand that the entire responsibility for the economic reconstruction and rebuilding of Iraq should be under an Iraqi provisional Government, with or without the assistance of the United Nations, and it is unreal to replace existing security arrangements with a multinational force under a unified command obliged I stress the word "obliged", which appears in the motion—to report to the Security Council.
  I accept that the Liberal Democrats—at least, most of them—did not vote for the US-UK military operation earlier this year that led to the toppling of Saddam Hussein—
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: None of us did.
  Mr. Garnier: Well at least they were consistent. I voted for the Government on that occasion, but I shall not now rehearse the arguments for and against the proposal to take military action, both because it has taken place and cannot be undone and because the facts that we now have to deal with—as those responsible for holding the Government to account—are somewhat different and demand different answers.
  It is true to say that the UK's influence in the Security Council and the General Assembly has always been high, even if not always acceptable to every member of it. We are now in a position to exert even greater influence than before, because we are to assume the

  415
  presidency of the Security Council this month. We are helped by that and by having high calibre professional public servants posted to our delegation in New York. I am reminded that earlier this year, just before the war started, I was part of an all-party Anglo-American parliamentary group delegation to the UN, where I met Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the then UN ambassador, who is now—I am happy to say—posted to our delegation in Baghdad as the Government's special representative. He represents exactly the high level of professional assistance that Governments of all colours have been able to rely on. It was on that occasion also that I was fortunate enough to meet again Fiona Watson, whom I knew from when she worked in the Library. It was clear when I met her in February that she was full of enthusiasm for the work that she was doing as a public servant for the United Nations. It is all the more regrettable that such a star was snuffed out in August this year. It is therefore with some sadness that I take part in this debate, as well as with some happy memories, because it reminds me of that valuable and wonderful person.
  It is also fair to say that our influence in the United Nations has been high historically because we have had the political and diplomatic will to ensure that our national interests are advanced and protected on the world stage, either by ourselves, as for example in the Falkland Islands, or with allies, as in the two Gulf wars. In this Gulf war, we were of course in a much smaller alliance, but that does not mean that our participation in a military operation was entirely selfish. Indeed, there is a powerful argument for saying that what we did with the US this year is what the United Nations should have done—no doubt through the agency of countries such as our own with the military capacity to perform the task—four, five or six years ago.
  It has been said that we have no business becoming involved in Iraq, certainly without the sanction of a Security Council resolution specifically mandating military intervention. Some also argue that everything should be done under the auspices of the United Nations. I disagree. It is not the duty of this Government, or any Government of the United Kingdom, to export the diplomatic or military implementation of our foreign policy to other bodies, no matter how much those other bodies deserve our respect. The United Nations cannot achieve post-conflict success in Iraq, as the Liberal Democrats want, because it does not have the resources, the administration or the civilian and military personnel to do what the motion requires of it.
  It is a truism that the UN works best—that it perhaps can only work at all—when the Security Council is united. In areas where the national interests of its membership do not coincide—as has been the case with Iraq before, during and after the military operation—it is foolish to expect anything much of value to flow from demands that the UN behave as though matters have been agreed when, in fact, they have not.
  I agree with view of Edward Mortimer, the UN Secretary General's director of communications, as expressed in the July issue of "World Today".He said that the UN was
  "a mechanism for mobilising joint action by states and peoples towards agreed goals."
  416
  Merely adding the initials "UN" to any resolution, idea or early-day motion solves nothing.
  Having got that off my chest, I must say that I do not believe that the success of the UN in Iraq—or anywhere else—should be measured only in terms of its relationship with the US, and in particular with the present Administration of President George Bush. Clearly, the UN's effectiveness will be governed to a large extent by its relationship with its most powerful member. However, I deprecate the ritualistic denigration of the US Government and their officials as though that were a well argued and well thought-out position that advanced the cause of peace and prosperity in Iraq.
  The US is not beyond criticism, of course, but its overall record in this matter is worthy of more than begrudging recognition. Praise is due to a country, and a people, that has done and prevented what the UN should have done and prevented some time ago. I for one am happy that the Government recognise that our strategic interests are well served by a close alliance with the US. It is worth remembering that the US has spent more in treasure and human lives on trying to achieve a satisfactory resolution of the problems in Iraq than any other UN member. I say that even though from time to time we have had fundamental disagreements with the US on matters not just of detail but of wider policy.
  Richard Younger-Ross: The hon. and learned Gentleman and I, among others, spent some time in Basra earlier this year, and have seen the Iraqi people's response to our forces. Does he agree that a ritualistic hatred of the US is stirred up in some Arab nations? Does he also agree that one way to undermine that ritualistic dislike is to give the UN a broader role, so that other Muslim and Arab countries can play a part in the peace-making process in Iraq?
  Mr. Garnier: I am not sure that being rude about the US encourages Arab nations to assist in the current problems that we seek to solve. The hon. Gentleman is right: he and I did go to the British sector in southern Iraq, but I did not conclude from what I learned there that it was sensible to denigrate—ritualistically or otherwise—the activities of the US in Baghdad and northern Iraq. The US is doing a tremendously difficult job in tremendously difficult circumstances. Some will say that that serves them right for going there, but I do not think that that is a very helpful attitude. I am sure that that is not what the hon. Gentleman meant by his intervention, but I fear that many outside the House, if not within it, fall into the trap of believing that being rude about the US is enough to salve their consciences when it comes to the problems faced by the Iraqi people.
  I am not against what the UN is doing, or what it seeks to achieve, but we must recognise its practical limitations. By all means let us try to achieve a sensible Security Council resolution, especially if that sets out a timetable for drafting a new constitution and for elections, and if it recognises that the armed forces present in Iraq must be under the overall military command of the US. even though troops and civilian assistance from other interested countries would be welcome. However, all our efforts will be severely inhibited, and might even come to nought, if we cannot

  417
  rebuild the civilian economy quickly. Only when the economy starts working will we see an end to political unrest.
  5.54 pm
  Ann Clwyd: I was last in Iraq in June and I hope to return in a few days' time.
  Yesterday, I held an interesting meeting with someone whom some hon. Members may have read—the internet diarist, the Baghdad blogger. He began his diary in the middle of last year, before the war started, and continued throughout the war, apart from one point when he was disrupted. He is an ordinary Iraqi who has lived there for quite a long time. Anyone who wants to know what everyday life in Iraq is like at present should look him up on the internet. I cannot believe some of the things that I read in the papers compared with what I saw when I was there in June; nor can I believe the general gloom that pervades many of the reports or that the whole of Iraq is in chaos—it is not. Many honourable colleagues have made that point strongly today.
  I agree with those who have said that we need a publicly stated, long-term commitment to the rebuilding of Iraq. The success of such a project will be seen in security, infrastructure and civil society. One of the mistakes that we, or others, made in places such as Afghanistan was to raise expectations and walk away. We must never do that again and certainly not in Iraq, where, on so many occasions, the Kurds, the Shi'a and other groups were left dangling at the end of a string—literally—because of the repercussions taken by the regime against people who rose up after encouragement from the Americans and others.
  I want to talk about Sergio Vieira de Mello for a moment. He was the epitome of the UN. I saw him working in East Timor where he made a magnificent job of restoring that country to democracy. It is tragic that his hand will not be seen in the evolving future of Iraq. I worked with him on the protection of graves in Afghanistan and, at my invitation, he came to the House to speak just after his appointment as head of the human rights division.
  I also mention Ayatollah Hakim. After so many years of exile, it is tragic that a moderate Shi'a leader should come back to his country and be killed. His was a voice of moderation. I met him once, and I am sorry about what happened to him and to the many others who have died in similar attacks.
  There is an urgent need for the Coalition Provisional Authority to improve security in the country. Failure to do so will create problems for all the authority's other policy goals and objectives. The lack of order can be seen in targeted assassinations, the destruction of the infrastructure and the loss of civilian and military life. If the CPA is to regain control of security in Iraq, it must work with the Iraqi population, the vast majority of whom welcomed the end of the dictatorship. Laudable though the policy of de-Ba'athification is, it should be applied with greater flexibility. No one can be better at sorting out the most prominent Ba'athists than the Iraqis themselves.
  418
  One of the first CPA meetings that I attended in June was between some of the women of Iraq and Ambassador Bremer. As I was waiting to go into the room I could hear people inside shouting at one another. Afterwards, I found out that they were denouncing the Ba'athists who were present, which is why the people of Iraq are best equipped to decide who should be in and who should be out.
  As I said on Monday, the disbanding of the former Iraqi army before new structures were in place shows how rigid cleansing could create problems in the future. By discarding all members of the former armed forces, the CPA is losing local knowledge that could help in security matters and is creating potential recruits for those who want to destabilise the new Iraq. That CPA policy should be reconsidered immediately.
  On Monday, I mentioned a general who is the brother of an Iraqi friend of mine who lives in Wales. The general told his brother that he could get between 50 and 100 senior officers to act as liaison between the coalition and the Iraqi people. He had sent a message to Ambassador Bremer, but had not received a reply. He also said that, every morning at 5 o'clock, he joins a queue of ex-army people of all ranks waiting to be paid. There are sometimes thousands of them standing out on the streets in the heat, waiting to get their money. Day after day, most of them come away with no money in their hands. There is no sense at all in getting rid of the army and not paying them the money that they are owed and not ensuring that they understand what is happening to their pensions. The general said that the queue was extremely demeaning because those involved are not even allowed to have refreshments, as the vendors are not allowed to walk down the queue. People of all ranks are standing there, which is, again, a considerable recipe for disaster.
  An army has been disbanded with all its skills and weaponry, but there is surprise when people are shot. At one time, $500 a head was being offered in Baghdad for shooting at American soldiers. If people have no money in their pockets and do not know how they will feed their families, not many of them would turn down that offer, I am afraid. That is the reality, and it is ridiculous that that situation has been allowed to continue.
  Last night, coalition forces—the Americans—burst into the house of the very general whom I mentioned on Monday, and all his family and his house were searched. I found it a curious coincidence that I mentioned that man on Monday and that his house was attacked last night. He is not the only one.
  I do not know what the level of intelligence is, but I am sometimes quite suspicious of it when I hear some of these stories. During the holidays, I was contacted by a person in London who is the daughter-in-law of a woman in Baghdad. Her husband had gone back to Baghdad to find out what had happened to his mother. Exactly the same thing had happened, but she had been arrested. She was aged 73. She was in a house on her own, with no other family around. People burst in at night, took all her money, jewellery and papers, and then took her away. She was kept in custody for more than three and a half weeks, which is illegal.
  That woman has now been released, but only because I spent considerable time during the holidays sending emails—I have them here—to someone on Ambassador

  419
  Bremer's staff in Baghdad to try to find out where the woman was. She was held in Camp Cropper, where the major criminals are being held. People such as Tariq Aziz were taken to Camp Cropper. What was that woman doing there? What was the intelligence that put her there? Why has she now been released—I am very glad that she has been—without any of her papers, her money or her jewellery being returned? I understand from her daughter-in-law that she is quite frail, that she needs help and that her family wants to bring her to this country for a month or so.
  Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend and I have had many deep differences of opinion on this issue, but I am deeply sympathetic to what she has been saying. Will she use her influence with the Ministry of Oil and the people whom she meets, because there is an idea that much of the destruction of pipelines that has taken place has been facilitated by disgruntled former members of the Ministry of Oil who are desperate for employment and doing it out of revenge? Will she also pursue an issue that she has often pursued in the past: bringing people to trial? In particular, whatever anyone thinks about Tariq Aziz, he ought to be brought to trial.
  Ann Clwyd: I shall answer some of the points that my hon. Friend makes. Obviously of equal importance to the things that I have been mentioning is the delivery of basic services to the Iraqi people. The supply of water and electricity should be a priority. Of course, it is true to say that there have been many attacks on pipelines, pylons and the things that bring those services to people. It is incredible that, during the hot weather, people have not been able to get fuel for their air conditioning, fridges or the things that they need to make life more bearable, and something needs to be done about that very quickly.
  On my hon. Friend's second point, I was going to mention that Human Rights Watch has in the last few days called for the draft resolution being discussed by the United Nations Security Council to advance the cause of justice for Saddam Hussein's victims and for those charged with certain crimes. The resolution, which will of course be critical for mobilising international support and assistance for the stabilisation and reconstruction of Iraq, currently makes no mention of justice for serious past human rights crimes. That is a mistake, and I do not know what the argument for that is. The investigation and prosecution of crimes is essential.
  Indict has now been asked to provide victim statements to the CPA, because, over a six-year period, we collected enough such statements to incriminate the 10 leading members of the regime, some of whom are in custody, some of whom are dead, and one of whom is yet to be captured. Those are people on whom we hold evidence. I do not, however, intend to hand that over to the CPA until I know what system of justice will be put in place. We have promised the victims from whom we have taken statements that those will be handed over only to a responsible authority. I do not know who that will be at the CPA. I would be happy to hand that over if an international tribunal were to be set up, of which the UN and several others are in favour, but it has been pushed to one side as being too expensive—that is one reason that I have heard for saying that an international tribunal is not necessary for Iraq.
  420
  Such an international investigation is still important, however. Apparently, there is an idea to pass the matter over to the judiciary in Iraq. Cases of the kind that we envisage would test even the most established judicial system, however, let alone one corrupted by years of international isolation and abuse of power. The existing Iraqi judiciary has little or no experience advocating criminal cases that last more than a few days, which is a far cry from the complexity of trials involving charges of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. I would be glad to hear whether the Government have any idea what is to be done to set up a proper system of justice, because the victims of the regime and their families are owed that for what has happened to them.
  One of the things that I saw working in Iraq, for which I have been able to get help, was the free prisoners association in Baghdad for former prisoners of the regime. Immediately after the war was over, it collected documents from private houses, schools and prisons, and the files and documents in their thousands have been piled up to the ceilings in the house of a former head of the security service—the Mukhabarat—in Iraq. The names, prisons, date of execution and method of execution of all those victims are meticulously being entered into computers. Long lines of people can be seen trying to get into that building to find out whether the person of whom they have not heard for many years is on that list. It is a harrowing scene and I am glad that the coalition, with a lot of push from here, has managed to get that process operating. We must ensure that it continues to operate not only in Baghdad but in other major cities in Iraq where it is hoped that similar free prisoners' associations will be set up. They should be supported in their work of cataloguing the disappeared of Saddam's rule.
  I agree with those who have said that there are many positive signs in Iraq, particularly the Iraq governing council, the naming of Ministers and the first steps in the writing of a new Iraqi constitution. I mention Latif Rasheed, who is now Minister with responsibilities for water. He is a board member of Indict and is well known to us. Hoshyar Zebari is an old friend and he is now the Foreign Minister. There are many others who are now playing their part in the future of their country.
  Latif Rasheed called on the international community only a week or so ago to stop treating Iraqis like children. Let the Iraqis help their own country. Give them the opportunity to do so, and I am certain that we shall see an Iraq that 'we will be proud to say that we had some part in bringing about.
  6.11 pm
  Mr. David Heath: It is a genuine pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), for whom I have a great deal of respect on these matters. The hon. Lady paints a balanced picture of what is happening in Iraq. As the Secretary-General of the United Nations said recently, it is an extraordinary situation when two founder members of the UN—indeed, two Security Council members—find themselves in occupation of another founder member without an express mandate from the UN. In the long term, that situation is clearly not sustainable.

  421
  I opposed military action at the time it was taken. I have not resiled from that view. I still believe that what we saw at that time was a failure of diplomacy. Indeed, it was a failure of diplomacy through the UN. When the Foreign Secretary talks about his genuine efforts to find a consensus on the second resolution, he omits to say that he was seeking a consensus on the way to engage in military conflict rather than a consensus on how effectively to disarm and deal with Iraq with the agreement of other members of the Security Council. That was the basic failure from which so much else has flowed.
  I am delighted to say that some of the consequences that I most feared from the start of the military conflict have not come to pass. I was concerned that there would be a general and rapid destabilisation of the region. That has not happened, and I hope that it will not. I was concerned that we would see the advent of serious inter-ethnic and inter-denominational conflict in Iraq. That may be on its way, but it is not happening at the moment.
  I was worried about the increasing disjunction in international relationships and its effect on international bodies such as the UN and other treaty organisations of which the UK is a member. I think that I am more justified in saying that that did happen and that there is lasting damage—not irremediable damage—to those relationships.
  I thought that there would be an increased likelihood of terrorism. Sadly, I believe that to be the case. I find it an odd and specious argument that somehow it is encouraging that there should be a greater number of terrorists now operating within Iraq than there was because that gives us the opportunity to eliminate them. I believe that the conflict itself has spawned an increase in terrorism, and that we shall regret that in future.
  I was concerned that the international community would be diverted from its fight against international terrorism, particularly the al-Qaeda network. I believe that not only has there been a diversion not only of resources but of attention from an enemy that is a real and present threat. It may indeed strike in 45 minutes, either now or at any other time, and it requires a great deal more attention.
  I believed that there would be difficulties creating and maintaining peace in Iraq. Those difficulties were not only foreseeable but foreseen, not perhaps by those whose supine posture required them to accept anything that came from the White House or the Prime Minister but by people with a more intelligent view, who were asking what the exit strategy was, what the programme for reconstruction was, and how we should regard the transition after the conflict to a democratic Iraq. I am worried that many of those questions have still not been answered.
  We must, however, deal with the position as it is now. Some people argue, both outside and, indeed, inside the House, that we should say no to the military reinforcements requested by our commanders in the field. Indeed, they say that we should remove our forces altogether from the Iraq theatre. I find that position incomprehensible. Even those of us who were desperately against the war because we feared its
  422
  consequences and believed that it was unjustified owe it not only to our forces who are stationed in Iraq in dangerous circumstances and people providing humanitarian support there but to the Iraqi people themselves to provide the greatest possible level of security. The pacification of Iraq is just as important, albeit of a different order, as the initial conflict to remove Saddam Hussein's regime. It takes different skills and different troops—it does not require the elite assault troops who were so successful in the initial stages. It requires different techniques, but it is desperately important that it now takes place.
  Inevitably, some people will engage in a certain amount of schadenfreude at the fact that the United States has had to go to the United Nations to ask for help and support in Iraq, which it earlier spurned. Some people say that the American and British Governments should sort out the problems to which they were party in the conflict. I think that that position is wrong and inappropriate, and is not espoused by nations and people in this country who want a peaceful and democratic Iraq with a reasonable degree of reconstruction. It is essential that that is based on UN participation.
  There have been problems, as the American Administration have periodically changed their position, both before and since the conflict. There seems to be a tug-of-war between the Department of Defence and the State Department, which has not yet been resolved. On some occasions, one Department is in the ascendancy, but on others it is the other. Occasionally, there seems to be a lack of communication within the US Administration and between the United States and the United Kingdom. I was deeply shocked by the Defence Secretary's revelation on Monday that he last spoke to Donald Rumsfeld on 29 July, which is a dereliction of duty of a high order. I am surprised that that has not been alluded to more often in our debates this week.
  Nevertheless, if the American Government are now in the position of needing to take a more multilateral approach, I applaud and encourage that. I want them to be supported by the United Kingdom and other countries, especially on the Security Council.
  That means that we need a new resolution. It should not be imposed by ultimatum, but negotiated in the way in which United Nations resolutions should always be negotiated—by seeking the support of other members and finding common positions. Such a resolution needs to be based on a guarantee of the financial and logistic support that, in many cases, only the United States of America can provide, and that guarantee must be secured for the long and not the short term. As the hon. Member for Cynon Valley said, disruption of a country's civil arrangements has too often been followed by a disregard of the consequences.
  We need the resolution and the engagement of the United Nations because we need a better mix of military forces. We must strongly encourage the involvement of Muslim-based forces in Iraq. It is important that we have an exit strategy and some blueprint for future development in Iraq. That must be based not on opportunities for American, European Union or other business people to make a quick buck at the expense of the Iraqi people, but on a genuine programme for reconstruction that encourages everyone who can

  423
  participate to do so. I believe that we need a new commitment from this Government and from the American Government to genuine co-operation in future.
  I happen to have picked a United Nations tie to wear today. The decision was purely subliminal; I do not think that I consciously intended to choose it. I think that I purchased it the last time I visited the United Nations. I made the visit at the request of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office at the time of the negotiations and met Dr. Blix, which I found extremely useful. I believe in the United Nations. I do not believe that it is a perfect organisation, but I believe that it is probably the least bad organisation to do the job that we want it to do in a very far from perfect world.
  6.22 pm
  Harry Cohen: I thank the Liberal Democrats for allowing some of their parliamentary time for this important debate. They bravely and rightly opposed our going to war in Iraq, but some of my colleagues would say that were wrong so quickly to support the war once it had been declared. They have not proposed any timetable for the end of the occupation and still favour US leadership of the occupation. I think that that is misguided, as is their faith in the puppet, hand-chosen provisional Government involving Mr. Bremer, which has very little legitimacy. That is why I shall not support their motion.
  I think that the war was wrong, and I voted against it whenever the occasion arose. It was started without the clear second UN resolution that we were promised and Iraq was not a threat in any realistic understanding of the term. There was no evidence of a clear connection with al-Qaeda— a diversion from the real war on terror that has to be fought. There were no weapons of mass destruction. If there were any, they would have been discovered long before now. The UN inspectors were doing a good job and should have been given the extra time they asked for. The action was not a liberation, as we were told, but an occupation, as is acknowledged in the latest UN resolution.
  The war has not impacted favourably in terms of finding a solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict, although it was claimed that it would do so. The dossiers were flawed and inaccurate for all those reasons, and were not a proper justification for war. In fact, I think that the war was long planned by the United States and had probably long been committed to in private by our Prime Minister. The outcome has been the killing of about 30,000 people, the overwhelming majority of whom were Iraqis. The war turned a police state into a collapsed state; it was a victory for crime and anarchy and a boost to terrorism. It has made westerners more of a target today than they were previously.
  The security situation is dire, with as many US and British troops being killed as during the war itself. Civilians are being killed—we do not know in what numbers, because very little information is available. Civil liberties and the state of the nation's economy are at the same level, or lower, as they were under Saddam Hussein. Huge costs are being incurred—billions of Pounds — hand we are getting precious little information about how much it is costing us. There is a political cost, too, because it blows the Government, whom I want to succeed, off course.
  424
  Huge resentment is building up in Iraq, as was summarised by the demonstrators who said, "Thanks— now leave." That is the approach that should be adopted. As the cost rises—in terms of lives, as well— the call is for other countries to engage in a significant way, but making that decision would mean risking the lives of their soldiers, and they will not do so unless the operation is under UN auspices and they have a full say in how to deal with the situation. The United States should, therefore, cede control to the United Nations, but President Bush is not prepared to do that, as he said in his speech only a couple of days ago. Those countries will find that many of their people say, "The US and the United Kingdom created the mess — let them get out of it themselves." The neo-cons who are close to the US Administration engaged in a lot of hissing and hurling of abuse at those nations, as well as at the United Nations. US troops are being killed as a result. There is a powerful case for the US ceding overall control to the UN; otherwise, it remains an occupation. That situation is damaging to the UN as well, because it is tied into it and is seen as being synchronised with the US. That puts it at risk.
  I am not in favour of more troops going to Iraq. As I said on Monday, they not only add to the cost, but become additional targets. They act as a crutch by discouraging Iraqis from coming forward to govern and administer themselves. Sending more troops effectively subsidises the United States, particularly its huge defence budget. What is in it for the countries that are being asked to do so" They are liable to be to be abused, dominated or treated as a competitor rather than as a proper partner. Last Friday, I heard a news item about the poor people of Oregon, who suffer from high unemployment, very low family incomes and welfare cuts: they have effectively been abandoned as a result of the policies of the Bush Administration. If we are going to subsidise the United States, let us do it through international aid support to those poor people of Oregon; at least that would not mean loss of life among our troops in Iraq.
  I favour a proper and swift handover to the Iraqis, which means having elections at an early date. If that results in Shi'as being elected, so be it. I cannot see how that would be worse than having puppets such as those in the provisional Government. I admit that some of them are good people, but they are hand-picked by the United States and lack legitimacy. One, Mr. Chalabi, was a proven fraudster in activities involving millions of pounds in Jordan, yet he is the United States' chosen one—the Pentagon's man.
  The Prime Minister talked about a prosperous and stable Iraq. I share that objective, but I am worried about even that, because if it remains a US puppet it could become a threat to its neighbours. I want a prosperous and stable Iraq, but not with such an agenda. Aid must flow into the infrastructure, and the US and the UK must be the principal donors. The electricity and water supplies must be restored. I agree with the shadow Foreign Secretary's comments that there must be work for the Iraqis. It is deplorable that more than 50 per cent. are currently unemployed. Proper rebuilding, which is truly internationalised and not a greed-fest for US corporations, must take place.
  I do not understand why the Liberian model — the solution, not the events of the recent past—should not apply. Liberia requested 15,000 troops to stabilise the

  425
  situation, which was ignored across the globe. However, the troops were African, with the US in the background. Why cannot there be an Arab-led UN force in Iraq, albeit financed by the UK and the US, but with troops from those countries in the background? The solution must be truly internationalised, through the UN, until it is truly "Iraqi-ised". That should happen as swiftly as possible.
  6.31 pm
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: The debate has been interesting and useful. I shall begin by commenting on some of the contributions.
  I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) is not in his place because I should like to ask, "What is he on?" He accused some of us of not listening to the good news from Iraq—perhaps that is because there is so little to hear. However, when Armageddon has come and the world is in tatters, one could imagine him proclaiming, like a latter-day Dr. Pangloss:
  "All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds."
  He never perceives the downside of anything. That makes for a wonderful personality but not always for an honest contribution.
  The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) made a thoughtful speech, which made me think a lot, but he appears to be having a love affair with the USA. As my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) pointed out, the rest of the world is not having a love affair with the USA, and that creates problems when it is in Iraq and running things.
  I welcomed the speech of the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and was interested in her comments. It was a thoughtful contribution from someone who knows Iraq well. She emphasised the terrible lack of security and the disorganisation in the country and rightly stressed the terrible humanitarian position.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said that he was relieved that the position had not affected the stability of the region. However, recent events in respect of the middle east road map lead me to believe that stability has been affected. I shall comment on that in more detail later. The position in Iraq has increased terrorism and the risk of it, not decreased it.
  It is no accident that we have held two debates in two days on Iraq. It reflects the fact that the Opposition and the British people no longer trust the Government, mainly because of their conduct since 11 September 2001 and their perceived — I emphasise that word—adherence to the policies of George Bush and his Administration. That adherence necessitated at least exaggerating—I am being kind today—the need for a war with Iraq. I shall not go into that because many hon. Members have done so.
  Another factor is the Government's failure to understand the need to find a way to peace in the middle east, or to realise that if failing to obey UN resolutions over many years means war on Iraq, the same must
  426
  apply to Israel. That is how the issue is seen in much of the Arab world, whether we like it or not. The middle east problem should have been our first priority, not Iraq. I spent a memorable week in the middle east with the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) earlier in the summer, when the troubles were beginning to escalate again. This is not the time for a debate on the middle east, but I trust that the Government will allow us to have one soon.
  Today, the Prime Minister referred to a "magnificent" victory in Iraq. Yesterday, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin), was very upbeat about the situation. He certainly over-egged it—or should I say "sexed it up" a bit? He told us that reconstruction was taking place all over Iraq and that hospitals were open — never mind what is going on inside them. He said that children were going to school, and that electricity and water were on tap; the lion was truly lying down with the lamb. Whom was he kidding? Why, if everything is so good over there, has the Norwegian Refugee Council withdrawn all international staff from Iraq owing to the difficult security situation and the weak position of the United Nations? Why has the Red Cross announced a reduction of staff in Baghdad? Why has Oxfam withdrawn all its international staff from Iraq and requested that the UN be given a greater role? Why have the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund put their work there on hold, and the World Food Programme transferred its functions from Iraq to Jordan and Kuwait, leaving only core staff in Baghdad? Even Balfour Beatty has said that it is backing off from its construction contracts in Iraq. That does not suggest a very peaceful situation.
  Mr. Foulkes: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Dr. Tonge: Certainly. I am so glad to see the right hon. Gentleman back in his place.
  Mr. Foulkes: May I interrupt the hon. Lady's catalogue of woe, which is very depressing, if not absolutely accurate? I gather that, before I was able to get back into the Chamber, she was expressing concern for my health. I can tell her that the only thing that is inspiring me is naturally produced adrenalin.
  Dr. Tonge: I am glad that we have the answer to that question, but I should warn the right hon. Gentleman that adrenalin causes a rapid rise in blood pressure and can be very dangerous. If he would like to see me afterwards, I will give him a full consultation.
  The situation in Iraq is the result of little planning for the aftermath of the war, despite all the questions asked of the Department for International Development and the Foreign Office in recent months. I want to pay tribute, however, to the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), who led the charge on these issues as long ago as last autumn, despite the enthusiasm of her Front Benchers for the rush to war with Iraq. She was there asking question after question, and holding meetings to discuss what was to happen after the war. She got no answers; I got no answers. There has been a failure to recognise that we had to win the peace. It should have been understood that establishing the rule of law was essential in any post-war situation: security, security, security. That has not happened.

  427
  A recent Channel 4 survey found that 47 per cent. of Iraqis believe that life is worse now than before the war, and that gossip abounds. We might think that gossip is a trivial thing, but it is very important in a country where communications are not good and there is not a great deal of good radio and television. The stories go round. The old one, of course, is that the USA did it for the oil, or that they did it for Israel. A Channel 4 journalist told me last night, up in one of the Committee rooms, that an Iraqi had told her that Saddam Hussein was in league with George Bush and was currently at his ranch in Texas. It is all nonsense; it is all very funny.
  Mr. Foulkes: It sounds like my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher).
  Dr. Tonge: People could be killed any time, accidentally or on purpose, so when all these stories are passed around they make the situation seem even more fragile and dangerous. Perceptions and gossip are all-important. That is why the United Nations must be given more authority. If the whole episode had been conducted under the auspices of the United Nations, the British people might still trust their Government.
  Whether or not the conspiracy theories of the film director Michael Moore in his brilliant book "Stupid White Men", which hon. Members will have read, or of the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) are true, the way to reassure the Iraqis is to return control of the oilfields to them via the United Nations, and to ensure that aid programmes, reconstruction and contracts that are being handed out are handled by the United Nations, not the United States of America. That was promised to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) while the war was being pursued, and was one of the reasons for her resignation.
  The governance of Iraq must be by Iraqis; it is a secular state. I had some sympathy with what the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) said. The Iraqi people do not trust the ethnically balanced governing council of Iraq, because it was handpicked by the Americans. The United Nations should take political control in Iraq as soon as possible in the transition to the election of a proper Iraqi Government.
  It is absolutely essential that the United Nations be given a high profile. I accept that that will probably not lessen guerrilla activity in the short term as it is too late, but it will surely get the support of the Iraqi people and the Arab world, which is what is needed now.
  In a knee-jerk way, I would love to say, like several hon. Members, "UK troops out. The Bush Administration have made their bed in Iraq and now they must lie in it." That was a favourite expression of my mother's—leave them to it, serve them right, teach them a lesson, walk away. However, deep down I know that cannot happen; it is the coward's way out, as was eloquently stated by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell).
  The Government, supported by many Labour and Conservative Members, went into Iraq in our name. They had the majority and we have to live with that, but because of that decision the Iraqi people have had more suffering inflicted on them, to add to that in the 20-odd
  428
  years under Saddam Hussein. I am persuaded that we must allow longer, and try harder, to make life better for the Iraqi people. We cannot abandon them now.
  It is time, however, to teach the George Bush Administration a lesson in world co-operation. They have withdrawn from so many international agreements and treaties. Sadly, the USA is seen as the most selfish nation on earth, and that is not fair on all the good Americans. It is now pay-back time. The Bush Administration must work with the United Nations and the European Union or face the consequences.
  6.44 pm
  The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Hilary Benn): This has been an important and an extremely thoughtful debate about an issue that is of great concern to those on both sides of the House. I welcome the spirit and the tone of all the contributions, including that of the right hon. Member for Devices (Mr. Ancram)— I shall respond to one or two points that he raised—because they reflect the scale of the challenge that we face. As several hon. Members said, whichever Lobby we went into on 18 March, whichever view we took, all hon Members recognise what needs to be done now to help the Iraqi people.
  The second feature of the debate has been the number of contributions reflecting Members' personal experience and commitment over, in some cases, many years, and the visits they have made to Iraq since the end of the conflict. Let me particularly acknowledge the part played by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), who has been tireless in her advocacy of the rights of the people of Iraq. In the context of dealing with past human rights abuses, let me say that she has played a particular role in supporting those who, day after day, are trying to catalogue, uncover, report and bear witness to the reality of the 25 years or so of Saddam's regime. As she knows, it is important for there to be a process enabling the people responsible for those atrocities to be brought to justice. Ultimately, of course, it is for the Iraqi people to determine how that should be done, but as the UN Secretary-General said in July in a report to the Security Council, part of the role of the UN assistance mission is
  "engaging and supporting national dialogue and institutions to address accountability for past human rights violations".
  My hon. Friend's speech also gave us a sense of balance in terms of what is happening in Iraq today. We must not understate the scale of the challenge that we face—no one seeks to do that—but we should acknowledge that, while what is shown on our television screens and described in our newspapers gives part of the picture, the most newsworthy part, other things are going on in Iraq.
  Two constituents with family in Iraq visited my surgery on Saturday. When I asked "What is it like?", I was told "It is not quite as it is reported in the newspapers". The House should recognise that many things are happening at present—that aspects of normal life are being restored. but that there are real difficulties that we must address.
  Reconstruction was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Devizes and others. Of course we all recognise the problems of, in particular, restoring electricity and water supplies speedily. The Iraqi

  429
  people's expectations are understandably high. The infrastructure is old and prone to breaking down— in some cases it has not worked for years — and pylons and pipes are being sabotaged and looted. My right hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) was right to make that point. He asked, legitimately, why the restoration was taking so much longer than it did after what happened in 1991. Part of the answer is that Saddam used very different measures to deal with those who transgressed the rule of his country. That is not a route that we intend to take.
  Let me say to my right hon. Friend in all honesty that the charge that nothing is being done is simply not justified. The Department has supported an extensive programme of practical help and reconstruction, much of which—as my right hon. Friend knows—has been implemented by the UN and other agencies. Why have we provided funds? Because having the UN agencies on the ground is the most effective way of ensuring that the work is done, and done quickly. I shall return to that point later.
  Today I placed in the Library a note giving updated details of our support, including the £20 million programme of investment in the restoration of power and infrastructure in the multinational division southeast area for which we have a particular responsibility a responsibility that we accept.
  Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the Minister for his answer, which takes us forward a little, but what I am trying to ascertain is how many civilian engineering contracts have been issued. We are not talking about work that can be done by soldiers or aid agencies; we are talking about major engineering work. How many contracts have actually been signed?
  Hilary Benn: The right hon. Gentleman anticipates my very next point, on the question of contracts. So that we get a sense of the scale of support, it might help the House if I point out that DFID has made funding agreements with 11 United Nations agencies, which are worth more than £76 million; provided support for the Red Cross and Red Crescent movement, to the tune of £32 million; provided support for 14 non-governmental organisations, which is worth more than £5 million; and established 10 contracts with commercial companies, which are worth more £32 million. Many of those funding agreements and contracts themselves involve multiple subcontracts for work on the ground in Iraq.
  I shall make available further details of the programme that we are embarking on in the multinational division south-east., which is directed at improving the infrastructure. I acknowledge, given today's contributions, the strength of feeling and concern that exists throughout the House that we should be seen to be making progress, particularly in that part of the country in which we have direct responsibility, and in which the people look to us for progress.
  My second point on reconstruction is that a lot more help is going to be needed, as hon. Members recognise. That is why the donors conference, which is scheduled to take place in Madrid at the end of October, will be so
  430
  important. In particular, it will draw on the work of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, in terms of their assessment of Iraq's reconstruction and financial support needs.
  To get a greater sense of balance, it might help if I tell the House what the executive director of the World Food Programme, Mr. James Morris, had to say about DFID's role in a letter to us of 5 September:
  "Since early March 2003, DFID has been an integral partner for WFP in providing specialists in customs and air movement. This ensured that the UN could fully resume its work in Iraq in the shortest time possible.
  On behalf of WFP, I would like again to express our gratitude for the magnificent assistance provided by DFID to our work".
  I put that on the record simply to show that the WFP, a UN agency, has played a really important part — with our support and that of other donors — in ensuring the provision of food to the people of Iraq, a country in which, we should remember, 60 per cent. of the people have been dependent on food aid.
  Finally on reconstruction, in a plea for perspective, balance and understanding I should point out that it is very unfortunate if the charge be laid that somehow nothing is being done. Above all, that is a slur on the hard work and dedication of many DFID and Government staff. They have been working very long hours in difficult conditions in Baghdad and Basra to make things happen, and, as we know since the UN bombing, at some personal risk. They deserve our thanks and support for the work that they are doing and will do, and I want to place on the record my thanks, and that of Baroness Amos, particularly to the staff in our Department.
  When we discuss, rightly, the vital role that we want the UN to play in the reconstruction of Iraq, we need to recognise the vital role that it has already been playing in helping Iraq and the Iraqi people to build a new future. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary emphasised that point in his speech, particularly when he referred to Security Council resolution 1483. The resolution made it very clear how wide-ranging the UN mandate in Iraq should be: including the political process, human rights, humanitarian assistance, economic reconstruction, and reform of the police, judiciary and civil administration. All of those elements need to be in place, alongside the restoration of water and power supplies,if a country is to function effectively.
  The UN agencies were active even while military action was taking place, ensuring the continuity of humanitarian supplies. Since then, the UN and its agencies, particularly the special representative, about whom I shall say more a little later, have done a great deal to fulfil that vital role—until the terrorist attack on the Canal hotel on 19 August that killed so many people.
  The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) talked about the consequence of the current security situation and the impact of the bombing on the UN and other NGOs working in the country. Inevitably, and quite rightly, the UN has had to review its own arrangements for security and its presence on the ground. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear the offer of support that we have given to the UN in that process. I made the same point in a conversation with Ramiro Lopez da Silva, who is in charge of the operation, when I spoke to him in Baghdad three days after the bomb went off.

  431
  Once the UN has been able to deal with those concerns about security and to make appropriate provision for its staff, we need to support those members of staff in their return and to support the many NGOs that have been playing an important role in helping the Iraqi people in practical ways.
  The third and, without doubt, the most important thing that has come out of the debate is the recognition that progress on security and on the political process need to go hand in hand; a point made forcefully by the hon. Member for Richmond Park. Progress on the handover of political power to the Iraqis and on the restoration of basic services depends on improving security, which is why the Government have taken the steps announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on Monday.
  We have to welcome and support the resolve of the international community in the face of the terrorist attacks to contribute further to guaranteeing security in Iraq. That is precisely what the draft resolution—which Members on both sides have welcomed—does in calling for a new mandate with a multinational force coming under a single chain of command with existing coalition forces. Almost all Members recognise the need for that structure. In answer to the specific question about the reporting arrangements, the draft resolution makes it clear that the command structure would report to the Security Council on a regular basis.
  We need to make progress quickly on the political process, and the single most significant event since the end of the war was the establishment of the governing council. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen)—who referred to the council members as puppets—that I have met four members of the governing council. I did not have a conversation with puppets; I had a conversation with men and women who now see, at last, an opportunity for Iraq to have the future that they want for themselves, their families and the people whom they represent at the moment.
  There is no political or democratic process that we can pull off the shelf and put in place instantly. We have to take it a stage at a time. The establishment of the governing council was the single most important step so far because it demonstrates that when we say that we do not want to run the country and that we want the people of Iraq to do so, we mean it. The council members are getting on with the job and have appointed the Ministers to work with them in that process. Increasingly, I hope that we will see more of the decisions being made by them because it is to them that we look to get working the process of getting the country back on its feet. They have now appointed members to take forward the constitutional process, and we look to them to answer the legitimate question about the next steps in the timetable.
  The Iraqi people must have a clear sense of when they will be in a position to take control of their own affairs, and that will help the international community to focus its support on helping the governing council and to hold the latter to its commitments. Again, this is an area in which the UN has an important role to play.
  432
  Everybody—whether it is the Iraqi governing council, the new Ministers, the coalition, the UN, other donors or Members in this House—recognises that our task is to give help, and help now—
  Mr. Andrew Stunell(rose in his place and claimed to move,) That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question: —
  The House divided. Ayes 53, Noes 285.

  Division No. 307]

  [6:59 pm

  AYES

  Allan, Richard

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Barnes, Harry

  Moore, Michael

  Barrett, John

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Öpik, Lembit

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Burnett, John

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Burstow, Paul

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Rendel, David

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Cotter, Brian

  Salmond, Alex

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Doughty, Sue

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

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Stunell, Andrew

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Thurso, John

  Hancock, Mike

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Harvey, Nick

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Heath, David

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Willis, Phil

  Keetch, Paul

  Wishart, Pete

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Richard Younger-Ross and

  Lamb, Norman

  Mrs. Annette L. Brooke

  NOES

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Ainger, Nick

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Brennan, Kevin

  Alexander, Douglas

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Allen, Graham

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Browne, Desmond

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Bryant, Chris

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Bailey, Adrian

  Burgon, Colin

  Banks, Tony

  Burnham, Andy

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Burnside, David

  Battle, John

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Bayley, Hugh

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Beard, Nigel

  Cairns, David

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Bell, Stuart

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Benn, Hilary

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Caplin, Ivor

  Berry, Roger

  Caton, Martin

  Best, Harold

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Blackman, Liz

  Challen, Colin

  Blair, rh Tony

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Borrow, David

  Clapham, Michael

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  433

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Hutton, rh John

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Clelland, David

  Illsley, Eric

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Connarty, Michael

  Jamieson, David

  Cooper, Yvette

  Jenkins, Brian

  Corston, Jean

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Crausby, David

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Cummings, John

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Darling, rh Alistair

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Davidson, Ian

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Dawson, Hilton

  Lammy, David

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Lepper, David

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Leslie, Christopher

  Dismore, Andrew

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Love, Andrew

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Doran, Frank

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  McCabe, Stephen

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Edwards, Huw

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Efford, Clive

  MacDonald, Calum

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  MacDougall, John

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  McFall, John

  Farrelly, Paul

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Follett, Barbara

  McNulty, Tony

  Foster, rh Derek

  MacShane, Denis

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  McWaltar, Tony

  Foulkes, rh George

  McWilliam, John

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Mallaber, Judy

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall s)

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Gerrard, Neil

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Gilroy, Linda

  Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Grogan, John

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Hain, rh Peter

  Merron, Gillian

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Miliband, David

  Hanson, David

  Miller, Andrew

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Mitchell Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Mole, Chris

  Healey, John

  Moran, Margaret

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Morgan, Julie

  Hendrick, Mark

  Morley, Elliot

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Hermon, Lady

  Mullin, Chris

  Hesford, Stephen

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Olner, Bill

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  O'Neill, Martin

  434

  Organ, Diana

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Stevenson, George

  Owen, Albert

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Perham, Linda

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Picking, Anne

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Pickthall, Colin

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Plaskitt, James

  Straw, rh Jack

  Pollard, Kerry

  Stringer, Graham

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Pound, Stephen

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Tipping, Paddy

  Purchase, Ken

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Purnell, James

  Trickett, Jon

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Trimble, rh David

  Rammell, Bill

  Truswell, Paul

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

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

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Ward, Claire

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Watts, David

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Ruane, Chris

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Wills, Michael

  Salter, Martin

  Winnick, David

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Sawford, Phil

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Woodward, Shaun

  Sheerman, Barry

  Woolas, Phil

  Sheridan, Jim

  Worthington, Tony

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Soley, Clive

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Squire, Rachel

  Charlotte Atkins and

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Mr. John Heppell

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House supports the vital role played by the United Nations in Iraq as endorsed by UN Security Council Resolutions 1483 and 1500 (2003); pays tribute to the Secretary General's Special Representative, Sergio Vieira de Mello and his colleagues brutally murdered in the terrorist atrocity of 19th August; welcomes the determination of the United Nations Secretary General to remain engaged in Iraq; further welcomes the initiation of discussions on a new UN Security Council Resolution on Iraq, which aims to reaffirm the United Nations' support for the work of the Governing Council, calls on the Governing Council to submit a timetable and programme for the drafting of a new constitution for Iraq and for the holding of democratic elections,

  435
  proposes a United Nations-mandated multinational force under existing unified command arrangements and encourages UN Member States and international organisations to help the Iraqi people by providing resources for rehabilitation and reconstruction at next month's conference in Madrid.

  STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE
  Motion made,
  That—
  (1) There shall be a standing committee, called the Standing Committee on the Inter-Governmental Conference on the Future of Europe.
  (2) At any sitting of the standing committee, the chairman may permit a Minister or Ministers to make statements on the Inter-Governmental Conference, and questions may then be put thereon by Members:
  Provided that no proceedings under this paragraph may continue after the expiry of a period of one and a half hours from their commencement, except with the leave of the chairman.
  (3) At the conclusion of proceedings under paragraph (2), the committee may consider either of the following—
  (a) when a written report has been laid before Parliament by a Minister or Ministers, a Motion proposed from the chair 'That the committee has considered the report of [date] on the Inter-Governmental Conference'; or
  (b) a Motion for the adjournment of the committee, provided that a Minister of the Crown has given notice of a subject relating to the Inter-Governmental Conference for the debate on the adjournment not later than five days before the sitting.
  (4) (a) The chairman shall put any Questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings on any Motion under paragraph (3)(a), if not previously concluded, when the committee shall have sat for two and a half hours; and the chairman shall thereupon report that the committee has considered the report of [date] on the Inter-Governmental Conference, without putting any further Question;
  (b) in case of a Motion under paragraph (3)(b), the chairman shall adjourn the committee without putting any question, not later than two and a half hours after the committee has begun sitting.
  (5)(a) Notwithstanding Standing Order No. 86, the standing committee shall consist of those Members of the House nominated for the time being to the European Scrutiny Committee (appointed under Standing Order No. 143) and to the Foreign Affairs Committee (appointed under Standing Order No. 152); and
  (b) any Member of the House, not being a member of the committee, may take part in the proceedings of the committee and be counted in the quorum, but shall not vote or make any motion, except that any member of the government may move a Motion under paragraph (3)(b).
  (6) Members of the House of Lords may participate in the committee's proceedings, but no member of that House may vote or make any motion or be counted in the quorum.
  That this Order be a Standing Order of the House until the end of the next Session of Parliament.[Joan Ryan.]
  Hon. Members:Object.

  MACHINERY OF GOVERNMENT CHANGES: AMENDMENTS TO STANDING ORDERS
  Motion made,
  That—
  (1) Standing Order No. 94 (Scottish Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)) be amended in line 2 by leaving out the second 'Scottish' and inserting Scotland';
  (2) Standing Order No. 103 (Welsh Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)) be amended in line 2 by leaving out the second 'Welsh' and inserting Wales',
  Standing Order No. 119 (European Standing Committees) be amended in the table in paragraph (6), as follows:
  (a) in line 5, by leaving out 'Transport, Local Government and the Regions' and inserting 'Transport; Office of the Deputy Prime Minister';
  (b) in line 12, by leaving out 'Lord Chancellor's Department' and inserting Department for Constitutional Affairs (excluding those responsibilities of the Scotland and Wales Offices which fall to European Standing Committee A)';
  (4) Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended in the Table in paragraph
  (2), as follows:
  (a) before item 1 insert

  '1 Constitutional Affairs

  Department for Constitutional 11'; Affairs (including the work of staff provided for the administrative work of courts and tribunals, but excluding consideration of individual cases and appointments, and excluding the work of the Scotland and Wales Offices and of the Advocate General for Scotland)

  (b) leave out the item relating to the Lord Chancellor's Department inserted on 27th January;
  (c) in item 16, leave out 'Welsh Office (Office of the Secretary of State for Wales (including relations with the National Assembly for Wales)); and insert 'Wales Office (including relations with the National Assembly for Wales)'; and
  (5) the Order of 5th November 2001 relating to Liaison Committee (Membership) be amended, in paragraph (2), by leaving out 'Lord Chancellor's Department' and inserting 'Constitutional Affairs'.—[Joan Ryan.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT
  Motion made,
  That Mr Michael Meacher be discharged from the Environmental Audit Committee and Mr Elliot Morley be added.—[Joan Ryan.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
  Ordered,
  That Geraint Davies and Mr George Howarth be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Jon Cruddas and Jim Sheridan be added.—[Joan Ryan.]

  Asperger's Syndrome
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Joan Ryan.]
  7.15 pm
  Mrs. Angela Browning: On 23 October 2001, I introduced an Adjournment debate on Asperger's syndrome and autistic spectrum disorder. I am delighted that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), is on the Treasury Bench, as he also attended that debate. At the time, he was chairman of the all-party group on autism and I cannot think of a better person, one with as much experience and knowledge of the subject, to respond to the debate.
  I want to move on from that debate in 2001 and focus especially on Asperger's syndrome and mental health services. Although many symptoms of autism are present in people diagnosed with Asperger's, there is a difference, as such people generally have good language skills and may be of average or high intelligence. However, they demonstrate many of the traits associated with autism, which results in communication problems and, sometimes, ritualistic behaviour. They can experience difficulty in social relationships, causing a sense of isolation, especially in adolescents and adults.
  Too few appropriate packages of support are available and they can often be obtained only when there is a crisis. However, where health and social services work together, especially with agencies that specialise in the management of autism, the results can be good, not least because stress and anxiety are reduced, thus reducing the patient's mental health needs and an unacceptably high suicide rate among that group.
  Although the causes of Asperger's syndrome and autism have yet to be positively identified, research to date shows that they are related to a physical dysfunction of the brain that may have more than one cause, including a genetic base. What Asperger's is not is an illness, nor are the behavioural symptoms exhibited by people with the syndrome caused by psychosis.
  Management of the condition is best addressed by individually tailored packages of support. They will not cure the condition—it is lifelong—but they will vastly improve the quality of life for the sufferer and maximise their opportunities for living independently. We are talking about a vulnerable group of people, who have a strange mix of abilities, which can mask characteristics that may include obsessive behaviour and lack of imagination, resulting in their not being streetwise, yet can be coupled with a range of educational abilities, up to degree level and beyond.
  Behaviour may be challenging, especially if routines are interrupted or the individual is faced with unexpected changes, such as a break with a familiar environment or people. People with the condition can be quirky at best and, at worst, threatening to those who are not familiar with their behaviour. Such behaviour is almost always triggered by events rather than an emotional response. It is in that context that I shall focus on adults and adolescents who, under stress and perhaps presenting strange or challenging behaviour, find themselves in contact with mental health services, especially in-patient treatment.
  438
  It is true, of course, that people with Asperger's can become mentally ill, as with any other person. Indeed, depression is particularly common in that group. As I pointed out in my debate in 2001, apart from any physiological reason, such as low serotonin levels in the body, it is not rocket science to understand why, by adulthood, people with Asperger's syndrome—desperate for the social and employment opportunities in which they see their peer group participating, but finding themselves friendless, locked out and socially isolated because of their inability to relate to other people—start to become depressed and demonstrate behaviour that, frankly, is quite obvious to those who study the condition and understand it. Who among us would not become depressed if we had tried so hard, as many with Asperger's do, to normalize—for want of a better word—our behaviour only to find that we cannot break through the glass wall that divides us from the rest of society?
  Given my work with autism charities and in assisting those who seek to improve the lives of those in the Asperger's group, I feel prompted to raise the issue again in the House because of the pattern of treatment that has clearly developed throughout this country, particularly in provincial mental health hospitals. Very few provincial psychiatrists have been trained in either the diagnosis or management of Asperger's syndrome and even fewer have gained the experience, as part of their working lives, to be able to distinguish between a mental health condition and what many of us regard as normal autistic behaviour, which even professional psychiatrists may well interpret as something quite different.
  A level of expertise is required. For example, if someone with Asperger's develops symptoms of schizophrenia, very few psychiatrists in this country have the expertise to differentiate between autistic symptoms and a genuine case of schizophrenia. Yet, day after day, people with Asperger's syndrome are admitted to mental health hospitals and find themselves being diagnosed and treated by people with that lack of experience. So they fall foul—I use that phrase quite deliberately—of the mental health services, as inpatients. They are often sectioned under existing mental health legislation.
  All too frequently around the country, we find that those in that group are being treated in a way that would not be tolerated in any other part of health care. It is all too common for psychiatrists even to ignore an existing diagnosis of Asperger's syndrome. That is astonishing. One professional has made a diagnosis, yet all too often another professional, who is responsible for caring for the person with Asperger's, refuses to accept the diagnosis. Behavioural symptoms are not recognised as normal autistic behaviour. They are often treated with strong drugs that have little or no effect on the symptoms, but in themselves cause yet another problem for those with Asperger's. When a drug does not work, psychiatrists work their way through the prescribing lists, building a cocktail of medication that fails to address the symptoms. Why should it address the symptoms if the underlying cause is physiological?
  It is common for people with Asperger's to be misdiagnosed as schizophrenic and given medication on that basis. Many of those cases result in long hospital stays, with all the damage of long-term neuroleptic

  439
  drugs, the effect of which needs to be addressed. I know that I need not emphasise this to the Minister, but those are not isolated cases. The problem is becoming increasingly common, even in the casework that Members of Parliament have to take up on behalf of our constituents. The Minister will be aware that we have held meetings in the House with the carers of people who have been treated in that way, so we know of the absolute distress and pressure on those carers.
  Liz Blackman: Does not what the hon. Lady is saying point to the fundamental requirement for multi-disciplinary teams to be set up early for autistic young people, including those with Asperger's syndrome?
  Mrs. Browning: The hon. Lady has a great deal of knowledge and experience of this subject, and I agree with her. It is necessary for the professionals—the multidisciplinary teams that she talks about—to become actively involved at an early stage in the management of the case. If that worked everywhere—it works in some places—we would not see so many of these people coming under the auspices of the mental health services in the first place.
  When those carers try to make representations and to be advocates on behalf of their adult children or—if they are not relatives—on behalf of the in-patient, the health professionals all too often simply will not listen to them. The House will be aware of a high-profile case that has gone to court and is still pending—R v. Bournewood Community and Mental Health NHS trust. I have the carers' permission to quote their experience. They told me personally that when they tried to become involved, they were described by the psychiatrist as "uncooperative". When they pressed further, the term "abusive" was applied to describe them as carers. Finally, when, at their wits' end, they tried to explain to these so-called professionals how this person actually behaved because of his autism, it was suggested that they had mental health problems themselves. That is outrageous. Their knowledge of the individual concerned and the way that he behaved was key to his management and treatment, yet it was not wanted by the psychiatrist. That is an example of arrogance—not of all psychiatrists, as we could all name some who are doing a jolly good job in this area—that should not be tolerated.
  Most of the damage done to in-patients will occur in the first four to six weeks, through a combination of inappropriate medication, finding themselves in an environment that exacerbates their difficulties in managing their behaviour, and through carers and parents being resisted by professionals and given the minimum amount of access. That cannot be tolerated. I therefore urge the Minister to introduce the following measures as a matter of urgency.
  First, unless a psychiatrist has received an accredited training course and has a recognised working knowledge of the treatment of Asperger's syndrome and autism, a second opinion on the treatment and management of that individual patient must be sought from another professional who has that expertise as an input to the case. Secondly, the Department of Health should set up an immediate investigation into the number of adolescents and adults with an Asperger's syndrome diagnosis who have also been treated for
  440
  schizophrenia, as we should know how many of these people are being misdiagnosed and mismedicated. When an undiagnosed adult is suspected of having Asperger's syndrome, a referral must be made to a professional who has experience of autism. Diagnosis of adults cannot be learned from a textbook. It takes years of work. It is much more complex than the diagnosis of children, and there are people who have reached their 20s, 30s, 40s and even 50s before being diagnosed, as other factors must be looked for. That requires a huge level of expertise.
  Paul Flynn: I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate on an important subject. The doubts that she has raised about the effects of neuroleptic drugs have been experienced by a large number of people in residential homes for the elderly and by many women in prison. Will a call for such an investigation include a general investigation of the effects of neuroleptic drugs among many other people?
  Mrs. Browning: I would not disagree with that at all. We all have concern about this area, and we would like to know much more about it. I know that the hon. Gentleman has knowledge of this area, and I would certainly like to know more.
  On my list of what I would like the Minister urgently to consider is the requirement for all primary care trusts to identify their autism and Asperger's professionals for in-patient care and community care—from community psychiatric nurse level to consultants in hospitals—and to implement a structured training and accreditation programme. They should also draw up a referral list, even if it is out of area, so that those people who do not have the expertise know of a professional on whom they can call for case-by-case referral.
  If I need an operation for a broken leg, I would expect an orthopaedic surgeon to deal with it. If I were admitted to hospital with a heart condition, I would not expect to be medicated for some other condition. It seems that psychiatrists are laws unto themselves. There is an ignorance and an arrogance that permeates their approach to Asperger's syndrome that is all too common.
  In the advice to carers, many of us who are involved in dealing with individual casework, including Members, are not prepared to accept the status quo. It is becoming more common for cases to be tested in the courts. I believe that many more cases will be so tested if the situation is allowed to continue. It is criminal.
  I have many files of heart-rending casework. I will not quote from them because I know that those Members who are in their places will have had to deal with such casework in their constituencies. I know that they will understand the heart break for the individual and their carers when they come up against a system that treats them in this way. It is leading to family breakdown, where increasingly ageing parents and carers bear the strain of lack of provision, of failure to diagnose or even a failure to recognise diagnosis on the part of other professionals. In some cases, this has led to permanent damage caused by inappropriate medication.

  441
  I can think of no other area of health care where this situation would be permitted. These patients are the least able to self-advocate, yet the people who could advocate for them—their immediate carers—are sidelined. It is cruel and it is unjust, and it must stop.
  7.32 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): It is a great pleasure for me—I know that Ministers always say that when they come to the Dispatch Box to respond to Adjournment debates, but on this occasion it is truer than usual—to respond and to congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) on raising the issue again. I know that we are not allowed to refer to Opposition Members as right hon. or hon. Friends, but on this subject I would like to think of the hon. Lady in that way. She has made many constructive suggestions, while speaking with much feeling and compassion.
  Becoming a Minister was a joy for me. The one thing that I regretted, however, was that I had to give up chairing the all-party group on autism. The only consolation is that my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) has agreed to take over. I look forward to working with her and the rest of the group in my new capacity.
  In one fell swoop, I moved from being Chairman of the all-party group on autism to Minister with responsibilities for autism. Although I hope to move the agenda forward as aggressively as possible, I have been a Minister for slightly fewer than 100 days, so I am not yet in a position to make all the decisions that I would like to make, nor to understand all the ramifications of the things that I would like to do in this context. I know that the hon. Lady will accept that I shall reflect deeply on her comments and shall do my best to implement some of her constructive ideas, and that she will not expect me to commit myself this evening.
  As we all know, autism is a complex and distressing condition, not only for those affected by it, but for their families and carers. The hon. Lady was right to emphasise the role of carers, in terms not only of what they contribute to the person with autism, but of their responsibility and their opportunity to help advocate on behalf of autistic people. That is something that we forget when reflecting on the contribution of carers. I wanted to acknowledge that now before I move on any further. I shall certainly look at opportunities to help carers. My portfolio includes all long-term conditions, and I am well aware of the role of carers in all such conditions. I shall take on board the hon. Lady's comments—I am well aware that autistic people often need their carers to be advocates on their behalf.
  Asperger's syndrome, as the hon. Lady said, is a developmental disorder on the autistic spectrum, and is a social disability rather than an illness. In the context of tonight's debate, we need to emphasise the fact that people on the autistic spectrum are more likely than the rest of the population to have a mental health problem that needs to be addressed. The hon. Lady highlighted two issues. First, problems arise when a condition on the autistic spectrum is confused with a mental illness,
  442
  leading to someone being treated for mental illness. However, because they are autistic, the treatment will have no effect and will be entirely inappropriate. Indeed, it may be distressing and damaging, and will not help the autistic person because the things that need to be done to help them are not being done.
  Secondly, when an autistic person has a separate mental condition, we need to make sure that that is recognised and treated. Let me make something clear for the record: if someone in the primary care system or social services believes that an autistic person may have a mental illness, they can be referred to mental health services, and must be assessed and treated for it in the same way as anybody else. People should not sit in their office thinking, "This person's autistic—I cannot refer them to mental health services." If there is any reason to believe that someone has a mental health condition, they should be referred to mental health services because they are entitled to treatment for that condition, as long as the assessment is made, as the hon. Lady pointed out, by people who are skilled in recognising autism as well as the mental health condition.
  The hon. Lady asked how I shall ensure that that is done, and I have to reflect on that. If I were to introduce regulations—my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash pointed this out eloquently in her intervention—that may affect the multidisciplinary teams that need to be set up. I might regulate in a way that hampered the setting-up of those multidisciplinary teams. We may not want to make it mandatory for an autistic person to be seen by someone who is skilled in the treatment of autistic conditions. We may want them to be seen by a multidisciplinary team that includes expertise in autism, rather than by a psychiatrist who has training in autism and mental health issues. I shall reflect on the way in which we can best achieve that, and whether or not regulation is appropriate. I shall reflect on how we make sure that we distinguish between autism and the mental health issue, and how we make sure that we are going the right way about identifying mental health issues.
  The appropriateness of medication is a related issue, and my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) is right that if people are treated with drugs—I am not a clinical professional, so I am not in a position to judge whether drugs are appropriate or not—we must remember that they have side effects. We must make sure that the right drugs are used at the right time. If the autistic spectrum disorder has been confused with a mental health issue, the autistic person may well be getting drugs that are entirely inappropriate, with distressing results for both them and their carers.
  An important time for interventions that may prevent serious mental health issues from developing in adulthood is childhood and adolescence. The standards and targets that we are setting in the forthcoming children's national service framework are intended to help improve services for disabled children, including those with autism. The hon. Lady will be aware that the national service framework for children will include an autism exemplar. We will be developing national standards across the national health service, social care and the interface with education. That will relate to the way in which we handle autistic people and how they are referred for services.

  443
  The NSF will include pathways and exemplar diagrams illustrating the optimum approaches to delivering services in a number of different areas. The all-party parliamentary group on autism sponsored the national initiative on autism screening and assessment report, which is now called the national autism plan for children. That will form an important part of the package of care that we shall build to address issues relating to children with autism.
  We must recognise that children with autism, whether or not they have a learning disability, are more vulnerable to a full range of mental health disorders, both as a result of their underlying neurological dysfunction and the additional social, family and emotional stresses of everyday life. The child and adolescent mental health services see children and young people with autism who also have mental health problems. As the hon. Lady said, however, specialist care from CAMHS professionals with expertise in learning disability, autism and child and adolescent mental health problems are in very short supply.
  As we are aware of the shortcomings of existing provision, the Department published an outline of a comprehensive CAMHS in the "Emerging Findings" document for the children's national service framework. The requirement to develop a comprehensive service was also set out in the CAMHS 2003 circular to health services and local authorities, which was published on 17 January this year. "Emerging Findings" requires a comprehensive service to take account of the full range of needs locally, including those arising from a learning disability or from autistic spectrum disorders. Each local CAMHS development strategy should outline progress towards the establishment of a comprehensive service and refer to children with an autistic spectrum disorder.
  The Department's public service agreement targets set an agenda to improve significantly the services for children and young people with mental health problems. The specific target is to:
  "Improve life outcomes of adults and children with mental health problems through year on year improvements in access to crisis and CAMHS services; and reduce the mortality rate from suicide and undetermined injury by at least 20 per cent. by 2010."
  The priorities and planning framework capacity assumptions underpinning that target are that all CAMHS are to provide a comprehensive service,
  444
  including mental health promotion and early intervention, by 2006; and that all CAMHS will be increased by at least 10 per cent. a year across the service in accordance with agreed local priorities. To support those challenges, the Government will invest an additional £250 million in CAMHS provided by local authorities and the national health service.
  On adult mental health services, it would be naïve to believe that success in improving CAMHS will remove the need for services for adults with Asperger's syndrome and mental health problems. It is also important that we deliver improvements in adult mental health services. When we came to office, we set mental health as a priority for reform, alongside cancer and coronary heart disease. We did so because we believed that the service when we came to power was demoralised and under-supported, and desperately needed to move forward. We had no national standards at that time. Mental health law had been overtaken by developments in services and society. Financial constraints were crippling those with responsibility for providing care, and local services did not have the freedom to make choices that were right for their populations.
  The significance of that situation is difficult to overstate. As many as one in six of the population is affected by a mental health problem, and many more families and children are indirectly affected each year. More than 600,000 people with serious mental ill health receive care from specialist mental health and social care services, and suicide is now the commonest cause of death among young men. I am well aware of the suicidal thoughts to which many people with Asperger's syndrome refer in their conversations, letters and writings.
  Those are some o the reasons why the Government prioritised mental health service reform. Our national service framework for mental health was the first NSF to be published. It set out seven standards for modern health and social care, covering health promotion, primary care, mental health, specialised services for people with severe mental illness—
  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 fifteen minutes to Eight o'clock.

Deferred Divisions

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE (ENGLAND)
  That the Special Grant Report (No. 123) (HC 778) on the Social Services (High Performers No. 2) Grant for 2003–04, dated 16th June 2003, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th June, be approved.
  The House divided: Ayes 389, Noes 1.

  [Division No. 302]

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Casale, Roger

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Caton, Martin

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Challen, Colin

  Allan, Richard

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Allen, Graham

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Clappison, James

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Barnes, Harry

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Clelland David

  Barrett, John

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Bayley, Hugh

  Coaker, Vernon

  Beard, Nigel

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cooper, Yvette

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Corston, Jean

  Bellingham, Henry

  Cotter, Brian

  Benn, Hilary

  Clelland, David

  Bennett, Andrew

  Cruddas, Jon

  Bercow, John

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Berry, Roger

  Cryer,John(Hornchurch)

  Best Harold

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Betts, Clive

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Blackman, Liz

  Curry, rh David

  Blair, rh Tony

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Borrow, David

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Boswell, Tim

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Davidson, Ian

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

  Brazier, Julian

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Davis,rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Denham, rh John

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Bryant, Chris

  Dismore, Andrew

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Burden, Richard

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Burgon, Colin

  Dodds, Nigel

  Burnett, John

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  Burnham, Andy

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Burns, Simon

  Doran, Frank

  Burstow, Paul

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Burt, Alistair

  Duncan, Peter(Galloway)

  Butterfill, John

  Duncan, Smith, rh lain

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Eagle, Maria (L'Pool Garston)

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Edwards, Huw

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Efford, Clive

  Cameron, David

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Fallon, Michael

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

  Field,rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Caplin, lvor

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  446

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Flook, Adrian

  Follett, Barbara

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Foulkes, rh George

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Francois, Mark

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Garnier, Edward

  Lepper, David

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Gerrard, Neil

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Gidley, Sandra

  Lidington, David

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Goodman, Paul

  Linton, Martin

  Grayling, Chris

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Loughton, Tim

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Love, Andrew

  Greenway, John

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Griffiths Win,(Bridgend)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Grogan, John

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Hague, rh William

  McCabe, Stephen

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McCafferty, Chris

  Hammond, Philip

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Hanson, David

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  MacDonald, Calum

  MacDougall John

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  McFall, John

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Hawkins, Nick

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Heald, Oliver

  McIsaac, Shona

  Heath, David

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Maclean, rh David

  Hendry, Charles

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Hepburn, Stephen

  McWalter, Tony

  Heppell, John

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Hermon, Lady

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hesford, Stephen

  Malins, Humfrey

  Heyes, David

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Maples, John

  Hinchliffe, David

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Illsley, Eric

  Martlew, Eric

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Jack, rh Michael

  Merron, Gillian

  Jamieson, David

  Miliband, David

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Miller, Andrew

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Moore, Michael

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Moran, Margaret

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Morgan, Julie

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Mountford, Kali

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Mullin, Chris

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Norman, Archie

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  447

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Oiner, Bill

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Organ, Diana

  Stevenson, George

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Owen, Albert

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Page, Richard

  Streeter, Gary

  Paice, James

  Stringer, Graham

  Paisley, Rev. Ian

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Paterson, Owen

  Stunell, Andrew

  Pearson, Ian

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Perham, Linda

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Picking, Anne

  Syms, Robert

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Plaskitt, James

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Prescott, rh John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Thurso, John

  Purnell, James

  Timms, Stephen

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Tipping, Paddy

  Rammell, Bill

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Randall, John

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Touhig, Don (IsIwyn)

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Trickett, Jon

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Trimble, rh David

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Truswell, Paul

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

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Rendel, David

  Robathan, Andrew

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Ruane, Chris

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Ruffley, David

  Walter, Robert

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Ward, Claire

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Salter, Martin

  Watts, David

  Sanders, Adrian

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  White, Brian

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Sawford, Phil

  Whittingdale, John

  Selous, Andrew

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Shepherd, Richard

  Wiggin, Bill

  Simmonds, Mark

  Willetts, David

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Singh, Marsha

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wilshire, David

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Winnick, David

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

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

  Woodward, Shaun

  Soames, Nicholas

  Woolas, Phil

  Soley, Clive

  Worthington, Tony

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Wyatt, Derek

  Spring, Richard

  Young, rh Sir George

  Squire, Rachel

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  NOES
  Burnside, David
  Question accordingly agreed to.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE (ENGLAND)
  That the Special Grant Report (No. 124) (HC 777) on the Delayed Discharges Grant for 2003–04, dated 16th June 2003, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th June, be approved.
  The House divided: Ayes 255, Noes 40.

  Division No. 303]

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Doran, Frank

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Allen, Graham

  Edwards, Huw

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Efford, Clive

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Barnes, Harry

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Bayley, Hugh

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Beard, Nigel

  Follett, Barbara

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Foulkes, rh George

  Benn, Hilary

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Bennett, Andrew

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Berry, Roger

  Gardiner, Barry

  Best, Harold

  Gerrard, Neil

  Betts, Clive

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Blackman, Liz

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Blair, rh Tony

  Grogan, John

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Borrow, David

  Hanson, David

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Bryant, Chris

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Burden, Richard

  Hendrick, Mark

  Burgon, Colin

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Burnham, Andy

  Heppell, John

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Hermon, Lady

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Heyes, David

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hodge, Margaret

  Casale, Roger

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Caton, Martin

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Challen, Colin

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Hurst Alan (Braintree)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hutton, rh John

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chtyston)

  lddon, Dr. Brian

  Illsley, Eric

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Clelland, David

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Coaker, Vernon

  Jamieson, David

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Corston, Jean

  Crausby, David

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Kemp, Fraser

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Davidson, Ian

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &Bow)

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Denham, rh John

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Dismore, Andrew

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Lepper, David

  Dodds, Nigel

  Leslie, Christopher

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  449

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Rammell, Bill

  Linton, Martin

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Love, Andrew

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

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

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  McCabe, Stephen

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McCafferty, Chris

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Ruane, Chris

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Salter, Martin

  MacDougall, John

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McFall, John

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Sawford, Phil

  McIsaac, Shona

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Singh, Marsha

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Skinner, Dennis

  McWalter, Tony

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Soley, Clive

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh"ton SW)

  Squire, Rachel

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Stevenson, George

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Martlew, Eric

  Merron, Gillian

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Miliband, David

  Stringer, Graham

  Miller, Andrew

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Moffatt, Laura

  Sutcliffe Gerry

  Moran, Margaret

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Morgan, Julie

  Taylor, David (NW Leis)

  Mountford Kali

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Timms, Stephen

  Mullin, Chris

  Tipping, Paddy

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Touhig, Don (IsIwyn)

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Trickett, Jon

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Trimble, rh David

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Truswell Paul

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Olner, Bill

  Organ, Diana

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Owen, Albert

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Paisley, Rev. Ian

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Pearson, Ian

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Perham, Linda

  Ward, Claire

  Picking, Anne

  Watts, David

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  White, Brian

  Plaskitt, James

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Winnick, David

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Prescott, rh John

  Woolas, Phil

  Purnell, James

  Worthington, Tony

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Wyatt, Derek

  NOES

  Allan, Richard

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Barrett, John

  Cotter, Brian

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Gidley, Sandra

  Burnett, John

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Burnside, David

  Heath, David

  Burstow, Paul

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  450

  Moore, Michael

  Stunell, Andrew

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Thurso, John

  Rendel, David

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Shepherd, Richard

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

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE (ENGLAND)
  That the Special Grant Report (No. 123) (HC 778) on the Social Services (High Performers No.2) Grant for 2003–04, dated 16th June 2003, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th June, be approved.
  The House divided: Ayes 387, Noes 1.

  Division No. 304]

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cameron, David

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Allan, Richard

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

  Allen, Graham

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Caplin, Ivor

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Casale, Roger

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Caton, Martin

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Challen, Colin

  Barnes, Harry

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Barrett, John

  Clappison, James

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Beard, Nigel

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Bellingham, Henry

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Benn, Hilary

  Clelland, David

  Bennett, Andrew

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Bercow, John

  Coaker, Vernon

  Berry, Roger

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Best Harold

  Cooper, Yvette

  Betts, Clive

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Blackman, Liz

  Corston, Jean

  Blair, rh Tony

  Cotter, Brian

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Crausby, David

  Borrow, David

  Cruddas, Jon

  Boswell, Tim

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Curry, rh David

  Brazier, Julian

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Brennan, Kevin

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Davidson, Ian

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bryant, Chris

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

  Burden, Richard

  Burgon, Colin

  Davis, rh Terry (B' ham Hodge H)

  Burnett, John

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Burnham, Andy

  Denham, rh John

  Burns, Simon

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Burstow, Paul

  Dismore, Andrew

  Burt, Alistair

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Butterfill, John

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Dodds, Nigel

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  451

  Doran, Frank

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Duncan Smith, rh lain

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Edwards, Huw

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Efford, Clive

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Fabricant, Michael

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Fallon, Michael

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Flook, Adrian

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Follett, Barbara

  Lansley, Andrew

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Foulkes, rh George

  Lepper, David

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Leslie, Christopher

  Francois, Mark

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Lidington, David

  Gardiner, Barry

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Garnier, Edward

  Linton, Martin

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Loughton, Tim

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Love, Andrew

  Gidley, Sandra

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Goodman, Paul

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Grayling, Chris

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  McCabe, Stephen

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  McCafferty, Chris

  Greenway, John

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Grieve, Dominic

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Grogan, John

  MacDougall, John

  Hague, rh William

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Hammond, Philip

  McIsaac, Shona

  Hanson, David

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Maclean, rh David

  Hawkins, Nick

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Heald, Oliver

  McWalter, Tony

  Heath, David

  McWilliam, John

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Hendry, Charles

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Maples, John

  Heppell, John

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Hermon, Lady

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

  Heyes, David

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Martlew, Eric

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Merron, Gillian

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Miliband, David

  Illsley, Eric

  Miller, Andrew

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Jack, rh Michael

  Moffatt, Laura

  Jamieson, David

  Moore, Michael

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Moran, Margaret

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Morgan, Julie

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Mountford, Kali

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Mullin, Chris

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  452

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Soley, Clive

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Spring, Richard

  Norman, Archie

  Squire, Rachel

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Stevenson, George

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Diner, Bill

  Organ, Diana

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Streeter, Gary

  Ottaway, Richard

  Stringer, Graham

  Owen, Albert

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Page, Richard

  Stunell, Andrew

  Paice, James

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Paisley, Rev. Ian

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Paterson, Owen

  Syms, Robert

  Pearson, Ian

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Perham, Linda

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Picking, Anne

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Plaskitt, James

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Thurso, John

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Timms, Stephen

  Prescott, rh John

  Tipping, Paddy

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Purnell, James

  Touhig, Don (IsIwyn)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Trickett, Jon

  Rammell, Bill

  Trimble, rh David

  Randall, John

  Truswell, Paul

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

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

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Rendel, David

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strang ford)

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Walter, Robert

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Ward, Claire

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Ruane, Chris

  Watts, David

  Ruffley, David

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  White, Brian

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Salter, Martin

  Whittingdale, John

  Sanders, Adrian

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Wiggin, Bill

  Sawford, Phil

  Willetts, David

  Selous, Andrew

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Shepherd, Richard

  Wilshire, David

  Simmonds, Mark

  Winnick, David

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Singh, Marsha

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Woolas, Phil

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Worthington, Tony

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

  Wyatt, Derek

  Young, rh Sir George

  Soames, Nicholas

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  NOES

  Burnside, David

  Question accordingly agreed to.

Preamble
[MR. PETER ATKINSON in the Chair]

Accident and Emergency Provision
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
9.30 am
Dr. John Pugh: Mr. Deputy Speaker—
Mr. Peter Atkinson (in the Chair): Order. Before the hon. Gentleman begins his remarks, may I say that I am not a Deputy Speaker. I am simply the Chairman or Mr. Atkinson.
Dr. Pugh: Thank you, Mr. Atkinson. I apologise. I now see the name on the Table.
I have two cases to plead before the Minister—a specific case and a general theme. I am sure that other Members will want to describe their own parallel experiences and add their analysis to the debate. My objectives are quite specific, but I hope that the debate will range more widely than my speech does.
We all accept that accident and emergency departments, which we used to call casualty departments, are probably the most unpredictable and varied sector of modern medicine. They must be ready to field almost anything. They must deal with all ages, all ailments and all sorts of complaint, physical and mental, from the extraordinarily severe and life-threatening to the trivial and, at times, irritating. The key element of any accident and emergency department is that the patients go to it mainly because they require immediate attention and assurance. That is why the Government have stressed the importance of gauging waiting times in different facilities, and have set targets for them in their assessment of accident and emergency provision.
Although our attention is focused on targets, success must be measured to some degree by waiting times and other factors, such as a low rate of re-admission. We must assess the effectiveness of accident and emergency departments in some way. However, the unpredictability of accident and emergency—the fact that anything can happen—has led to several calls in the health service for increased training of staff, and for centralisation and the closure of small units that may be less competent at dealing with the full range of cases thrown at them.
Smaller units lack the full complement of specialists waiting in the wings, should something go amiss or happen out of the ordinary. However, centralisation comes with a price. Patients may have a longer journey, and may experience a delay in finding the reassurance that their problem is not out of control, or that it may not be as severe as they first thought. Centralisation increases social exclusion because more remote facilities mean longer transport journeys and more dependence on public transport, which may not be available. Not everyone has a fast and reliable car.
70WH
Statistics show that 75 per cent. to 80 per cent. of the through-put of A and E is standard, unsurprising medicine that is usually fielded well in any A and E department. Only about 1 per cent. of cases daily are extreme and life-threatening. However, physicians know that things can always go wrong, and I am sure that they would sooner treat patients wherever possible in omnicompetent, large A and E departments and accept the minimum risk, should things go wrong. In this age of medical litigation, one can understand their perspective. However, the vast majority of A and E clients have no need of such an omnicompetent A and E department and generally would rather have a more local facility.
There is a tension that the Government well recognise. That was evident in their recent document "Keeping the NHS Local: A New Direction of Travel", which says several important and encouraging things, such as:
"The mindset that 'biggest is best' … needs to change."
It advocates a "closer to home" model, and discusses evidence that "small can work." It talks of helping local communities to "broaden their options," and it focuses on redesign rather than closure of facilities and relocation. Importantly, it speaks of implementing changes
"with people, not for them,"
and mentions "clinical networks" and "telemedicine links." It also discusses using imagination, thinking differently and involving the community.
I am sure that many people, particularly those with small local hospitals, found the document in many ways to be encouraging, thought-provoking and excellent. It gave comfort to many people who may have feared the total erosion of local services and the total domination of doctors' concerns.
I hate to use the words "producer interests". That is not my language for talking about public services, but I make the point that although doctors have the interests of patients in mind, they are also fully conversant with their own interests. For example, consultants would probably generally prefer that their patients travelled rather than they did because, by and large, they are busy people.
Other factors work against that document and the spirit of it. The agreement on junior doctors' hours constrains what hospitals and accident and emergency departments can do. When the working time directive kicks in, it will affect different specialisms differently. I understand that paediatrics will be affected less because a large number of paediatric specialists are female and have families to attend to, so they are currently unlikely to be working over the hours limit. The training standards and concepts of the royal colleges, which are raised all the time and justifiably so, also work against the document.
There is mixed evidence of differential clinical outcomes between smaller and larger units. Another pressure, to which it may be unkind to allude, is that NHS executives and others running NHS hospitals may gain more prestige from running larger units than a plethora of smaller ones. There is a balance to be struck, which the Minister and the Department of Health recognise. When that balance is wrong, the consequences are quite dramatic. There are scores of case histories to demonstrate that.

71WH
On 17 August, 3,000 of my constituents marched to the local hospital to present a local petition against changes in accident and emergency provision and other changes, which was signed by nearly 14,000 people. In my constituency, the community is at loggerheads with its major health provider. The local council's overview and scrutiny health committee is currently constructing a report in reaction to that, which I expect will soon be with the Minister. I do not think that it will be entirely comfortable reading for the hospital authorities, but it will provide a good deal of evidence, which the Minister might well like to consider.
In my constituency, there have been angry public meetings and scores of stories in the local papers, including poignant human stories about real people who have suffered real trauma precisely because of the confusion surrounding the way in which accident and emergency cases have been dealt with.
I will expand on the problem. We are now implementing the 1999 Shields report on reconfiguring local hospitals. In effect, it recommended a division of spoils between two hospitals, Southport hospital and Ormskirk hospital, which had been merged into one trust by the previous Government. The report concluded that maternity services, children's services and children's accident and emergency should be situated in the neighbouring town of Ormskirk, outside and away from my constituency, Southport. The traffic was not one-way. A number of facilities that were previously in Ormskirk were to come to Southport, including eventually, though not yet, accident and emergency services for adults. So the proposal was that adults go down one road to hospital, and children go in the reverse direction.
The one issue that has lit up public interest and incensed people most is children's A and E. In 1999, when the first proposal was made, I led the opposition to the changes. I am completely unrepentant about that. I said at the time that the myth of the ever-mobile patient and the static doctor was embodied in the proposals. I want to put on record that I am still opposed to the proposals, root and branch. In 1999, protest about the issue was mild, compared with the present situation. There are three reasons for that.
First, the original report recommended that Southport retain some in-patient paediatric provision. That was in the original report submitted by Professor Shields, but was removed by the then Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham). Secondly, the original report recommended that Southport A and E staff should have paediatric training. I am not sure that that has been implemented. Thirdly, there was a fatal ambiguity in the report as to what would happen to patients under the age of 16 who were self-referred, or referred by their parents, to Southport, as opposed to being taken by ambulance. There was much debate in 1999 about blue light ambulances rushing down the road from Southport to Ormskirk. That was contentious in itself, but there was an underlying supposition that if a parent turned up with their child at an accident and emergency department in Southport, the child would be treated.
72WH
I think that everybody recognised at the time that there would be problems. Southport and Ormskirk, for those who do not know, are linked by a winding and largely agricultural road, which is often blocked and suffers influxes of traffic at certain times because Southport is a holiday resort. A prime example would be last weekend, when there was an air show on Saturday and Sunday and it was simply impossible to move at any speed along the road. The case that I am making is not my own; it was embodied in the original Shields report. Shields explicitly recognised that in any reconfiguration of services, the road was an issue. I see that the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) is in his place. He and I have worked hard to advance progress on the road and I would welcome anything the Minister might do.
Last time I initiated a debate on the subject, in December 2001, the then Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears) said:
"The hon. Gentleman's constituency has two good local hospitals but pretty poor road links. I understand that the proposal to upgrade the A570 is in fact the number two priority on Lancashire county council's transport plan, and I hope that even if it is not the top priority, being second will mean some action fairly soon."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 4 December 2001; Vol. 376, c. 66WH.]
The action that the hon. Member for West Lancashire and I wish for is that, when the Lancashire transport plan is reviewed by another Department, there will be a wide acceptance that health should be a contributory issue in the progress of the development of that road.
I initiated a debate on the road link in 2001, and the Minister was reasonably bullish about what may be achieved to mitigate the problems. However, the problems have been compounded by insensitive implementation. That is the accusation that I am making—perhaps it should be called an allegation Perhaps the hospital authority would want to say something about it. I think that it would be widely agreed among informed people that the hospital has not done very well at implementing or defending the proposal on accident and emergency.
When the Minister receives the scrutiny and review report he will see evidence of very poor integration. By that I mean that there is little evidence that the ambulance service has been properly and thoroughly consulted and that the demands on it have been weighed, given that some people who previously would not have moved between hospitals will now be moved. There is some concern about the sudden increase in cases—particularly surgical cases—being received from Ormskirk at the neighbouring children's hospital, Alder Hey, often after being sent from Southport to Ormskirk. Many of my constituents have spoken of being turned away at Southport and sent to Ormskirk, and then being sent on to Alder Hey, because Ormskirk could not field the complaint. It is not only Southport residents who complain—rightly—about that. It would appear that Alder Hey is not delighted, either.
There has been no progress on the linkage between the hospitals, which was mentioned in response to my previous debate by the then Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Salford. She talked about the development of telemedicine and the use of imagination. I have not seen a massive

73WH
amount of telemedicine, and have found little in the way of imagination. We are dealing in this context, and perhaps in others, with a fundamentally confused set of protocols. In the present instance they relate to children's accident and emergency services, but I should not be surprised to find similar confusion in evidence elsewhere.
For the benefit of hon. Members who do not know about this, Southport district general hospital serves a community of well over 100,000 people. It is not a small cottage hospital. It is modern, highly equipped and purpose-built, and it has an A and E department, yet it offers nothing to parents and children. In fact, it has a sign repelling them. Worried, anxious parents with their children must, no matter what the complaint—unless it is so severe that the child must be stabilised in some way—leave their town, where there is a district general hospital and an accident and emergency department, and go to a currently unbuilt and partly understaffed facility in another town. I understand that elsewhere there are even longer journeys to get to A and E, but in some respects what I have outlined takes some beating.
I have asked the Minister whether he could think of parallel instances in other areas in which a fully-equipped A and E department includes no facility for children. I am not sure whether I asked the Minister who is present today, but I certainly asked the Department of Health to give me statistics about that, and I was told that they were not collected centrally, so I sent a researcher to spend a great deal of time phoning a range of hospitals. I found extremely few parallels—perhaps one or two. Many A and E departments had no paediatric unit, but none the less admitted children and dealt with children's complaints.
Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman is raising some interesting points. In my constituency it was proposed three years ago to close the paediatric facilities at Epsom hospital, which would have led to the absurd situation of a parent who had been in a car crash with their child arriving at the A and E department and being admitted and kept in overnight, while the child could not be admitted. That was defeated by the weight of medical and public opinion—medical opinion in particular—so I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should involve local doctors in his campaign. I suspect that they may think that the state of affairs is very unsafe.
Dr. Pugh: The hon. Gentleman's intervention was extraordinarily helpful, but I can cap that story. In my neck of the woods, if a parent and child are in an accident halfway between Southport and Ormskirk, the child, in distress, will be taken to the accident and emergency department in Ormskirk, and the parent, because there will be no A and E, ultimately, in Ormskirk, will be taken to the one in Southport. That is the kind of incident that was cited in the debate on the Shields report, and I thought that it was bad enough, but things have evolved. The situation is, if anything, worse.
To answer the hon. Gentleman's point about medical opinion, having canvassed the GPs in the area, I found them divided on the changes, with the balance against. While it has not always been easy to assess medical opinion inside the hospital, I have not necessarily found every medical expert, including the royal colleges,
74WH
agreeing with my side of the argument as unequivocally as I would wish. I think that they are wrong, but as I am not a medical practitioner, it is difficult for me to say why they are wrong.
I want hon. Members to imagine how it feels for an ordinary person, with a traumatised child, experiencing a major problem, to drive—it might not have been necessary to summon an ambulance—past a purpose-built A and E unit and on to another town. I also ask hon. Members to empathise with the situation that could occur in west Lancashire, where adults might find themselves in similar circumstances. In that area, there is at least the redeeming possibility of a minor injuries department. In Southport, there is nothing.
The system is not what was originally consulted on, it is not humane and it is not intelligible. It has hardly a defender in the town. The Minister might consider that I have already rehearsed the arguments presented by the royal colleges. However, even the royal colleges cannot defend the unintelligible, and the protocols at Southport A and E are unintelligible.
The situation is as follows, and I defy hon. Members to explain it clearly. The hospital authorities say that no child will be turned away—they are not as cruel as that—but that children who turn up will be triaged and only critical cases will be taken in, treated and stabilised. However, when they are asked why ailments that are standard but worrying for parents cannot be treated, they state that that is not within the competence of ordinary A and E staff, as such staff cannot adequately differentiate between minor, serious and critical cases and those that have to be dealt with immediately. That is a slur on ordinary A and E staff. They are said to know and not to know the difference between critical and non-critical childhood cases.
Although there are doctors present, the Minister, like me, is not a medical doctor. However, I know from his background that he will have more than a passing regard for logic, and the position adopted by Southport and Ormskirk NHS trust is incapable of clear expression. I refuse to accept the unintelligible, and I ask the Minister, who knows about seaside towns as well as logic, to think about the circumstances of families in Southport and of visitors to the town who, reporting to the local A and E department with their children because, for example, they have cut themselves on the beach, are told: "Hop it. Get over to Ormskirk."
Having been through such things before, I do not expect the Minister to wave a magic wand today. Nor do I expect him to rush into any sudden commitment. What I want is for the Minister to listen—not to me, as he has done that for long enough, but to my constituents, who are sensible, ordinary, non-political people, and to other hon. Members, whose constituents' case histories might parallel those of mine—and to help us to get the balance right.
We in Southport cannot sustain a situation in which a progressive health agenda is hijacked by a guerrilla war between the community and its hospital. There are better things for people to do than to row with their local hospital, and better things that can exist than a dispute between hospital doctors and their patients. There are signs that the local PCT and the local strategic health authority recognise that, and there are also signs that

75WH
imagination may be stirring. All I ask the Minister to do is look, take counsel, review and, where possible, reverse those changes.
Broaching a general theme—I did say that I would talk about general issues as well as the specific issue—I conclude by drawing on a matter that has dogged the debate over my constituency, which is the position of the royal colleges. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and the Royal College of Physicians will often go so far as to specify an ideal set of requirements from the medical point of view. I am sure if one were to ask about children's accident and emergency, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health would say that it would sooner have a system where every accident and emergency facility had 24-hour paediatric consultants on site, rather than on call.
Those are all ideal standards and they are subject to an important clause—all things being equal. Things are rarely equal and guidance is rarely absolute. The point to be borne in mind is that the royal colleges are not representative of medical concern in total, but they do have an eye on issues that the public do not have in their frame, such as medical litigation and the regulation of their profession. Although they are important bodies to consult, they are not necessarily disinterested and they are not always comfortable with every forward change. I do not want to lapse into any unfortunate talk about producer interest, which my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) and I agree is a completely improper way to discuss public services. The ball falls in the Government's court when striking a balance, and not in the court of the medical authorities.
I applaud the Government's increase in the number of trained paediatric staff and paediatric nurses, their encouragement of flexibility with regard to nurse practitioners, their encouragement of enhanced status for accident and emergency staff, and their preaching of the doctrine of clinical networks. They can have that for free—it is a wholly good move in the right direction. If we are to get the balance of accident and emergency right, all views, including those of the public, must be weighed seriously in the balance. Doctor does know best when it comes to ailments, but the best doctors—I hope that this applies to the Minister—are the best listeners.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Peter Atkinson (in the Chair): Order. Front Benchers' contributions start at half-past 10, and three hon. Members wish to speak before that. With a simple mathematical division, that means about 10 minutes each.
9.57 am
Mr. Colin Pickthall: I will try very hard to keep to that. I want to use the case that was raised by the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) to illustrate the problems of running smaller hospitals and of reconfiguring, or rationalising—whatever the appropriate euphemism is for what goes on. I thank the hon. Gentleman for opening the debate and for the rational and sensible way in which he has presented his case.
76WH
The hon. Gentleman and I share a hospital trust. The hospitals—they were formerly separate—are on two sites six miles apart, with one in Ormskirk in west Lancashire and one in Southport. The trust operates with two different strategic health authorities, two different primary care trusts and two different ambulance trusts, because its two halves are in Lancashire and Sefton. Putting west Lancashire and Southport together, we find that Ormskirk is around about the centre of that catchment area. Skelmersdale and Upholland are on the eastern edge of the area, next to Wigan. That is the most densely populated part of the whole area—about 50,000 people live there.
It is important for the Minister to bear in mind the fact that the main road, the A570, also links Skelmersdale to Southport, so anyone travelling from Skelmersdale to Southport for adult A and E must pass through the middle of Ormskirk, which is one of the worst traffic bottlenecks in the north-west. Debate about an Ormskirk bypass began in the 1930s, but it seems that we are still no closer to getting one.
The hon. Member for Southport and I inherited a long-standing problem that has created enormous public concern ever since the debate began about the amalgamation of the former Ormskirk, Formby and Southport hospitals. The debate began seriously in about 1993. I came into Parliament in 1992 and have spent part of my time during the whole of that period wrestling with the agonies of a hospital in difficulties. Public concern grew enormously at the time of the Shields review in 1998 and 1999, to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
For years, there were outraged discussions about hot and cold sites, and a tendency for the proponents of each site to attack those of the other one, which I am pleased that politicians tried to prevent most of the time, with some success. There were threats that patients would leak out of the district to other areas such as Liverpool or Greater Manchester if the amalgamation went ahead. In fact, many GPs in west Lancashire campaigned actively and said that they would send their patients not to the newly amalgamated hospital but eastwards to Greater Manchester.
After all that, Sir Robert Shields put together a report that was endorsed by the then Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), and approved by the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn). The report was endorsed—uneasily, perhaps—by the communities concerned and by their political representatives: the predecessor of the hon. Member for Southport, my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), local councils, community health councils and me. In outline, the compromise placed all children's services in a brand new centre in Ormskirk hospital.
Dr. Pugh: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the councils. I believe that the record shows that Sefton council opposed the changes—collectively, on a range of issues but, specifically, on transport links. It asked to meet the then Minister but was not granted an audience. Sefton council was opposed to the proposed changes at the time.
Mr. Pickthall: I am sure that that is true, and it is true also of West Lancashire district council, which did not want the changes and fought vigorously against them for a long period. However, the Shields report put together what seemed to most people a compromise that gave something to each side by not benefiting one site entirely at the expense of the other and by trying to work with the grain. However, I understand the hon. Gentleman's comments.
The compromise, which placed all children's services in a brand new building on the Ormskirk site, recognised that the vast majority of children in the overall area were in the traditional catchment area of Ormskirk hospital, particularly Skelmersdale. The services include children's A and E. On the other hand, adult acute services—surgery and, coming shortly, acute medicine and adult A and E—were to go to Southport. Despite all the flaws that the hon. Gentleman has analysed, we could, with difficulty, accept the compromise. I speak for West Lancashire.
There were other reconfigurations in the amalgamation, but the A and E, the children's services and the adult's services going to different sites were the main ones, and those that have caused all the dismay in my constituency as well as in the hon. Gentleman's, especially among people in Skelmersdale and Upholland, who have to travel through the middle of Ormskirk to get to the hospital in Southport, unless they take an enormously circuitous route.
Thanks to huge efforts by the national health service in the area and local politicians to explain reasons and problems, public understanding has been largely secured, if not public support. That was helped at my end—the Ormskirk end—by the primary care trust and the trust agreeing, originally at my suggestion, to build a minor injuries unit in Skelmersdale, where the main concerns were. As I understand it, a parallel minor injuries unit project is mooted for Southport, to meet at least some of the concerns expressed. That is only in the discussion stage, but in my view is a likelihood. The driving force behind all the change was the concern of the Department of Health and the royal colleges that each hospital was too small to guarantee a satisfactory or even safe service. As has been explained, that was compounded by problems with junior doctors' hours and the working time directive.
Shields's brief was to take all those problems into account. In all the public debate that ensued, the Lancashire ambulance trust—I cannot speak for the Mersey Regional ambulance trust because I do not know about that—was reassuring. It attended all the meetings and reiterated that it could manage the new situation. As I understand it, there have as yet been no problems getting people to and from Southport and Ormskirk. The situation now is that blue lamp and acute medicine services are, as we speak, being concentrated in Southport and maternity and paediatrics in Ormskirk, where they will shortly be housed in a brand new state-of-the-art building; it is not far from completion. That has cost many millions of pounds, for which I thank the Government, and I hope that the Minister will find time to visit it when it opens.
Recently, a group has arisen in Southport that has woken up to the fact that those changes, which have been staring us in the face for four years and with which the hon. Member for Southport, I and many others have
78WH
been grappling, have taken place. So politically astute is that group that it wrote to me and to many others in Ormskirk asking us to support the removal of children's services from the hospital in Ormskirk, a very unlikely request.
I can say something that the hon. Gentleman perhaps cannot easily say. The removal of children's services from Ormskirk, to be placed in Southport, which the group proposes, is daft and will not happen. Part of the group—I believe that it has a provisional wing—opposes the proposal to put a Southport minor injuries unit in place. If ever there were a place that would suit such a unit, although I suggest this humbly because it is not my patch, a seaside resort with millions of visitors would seem to be it.
In my remaining two minutes, I shall raise a couple of general issues that arise from the problem.
Dr. Pugh: I would hate the hon. Gentleman to blight the thousands of people who have campaigned against some of the changes in Southport. I am a member of the group that has written to him, but I was unaware that the letter had been sent to him.
Mr. Pickthall: Indeed it was, some time ago. I was very interested by it. My constituency is undergoing a rationalisation of its hospitals. At the same time, it is undergoing a review of its schools to remove surplus places, which will result in the closure of several primary schools. It is hard to judge which of those arouses most concern and, I must say, most local hysteria—there is some of that. There is a tendency to extrapolate. It is well known in Ormskirk that the Government intend to turn Ormskirk hospital into a BUPA hospital and flog it off. It is wonderful where these ideas come from. It is important that all involved in the process speak rationally, and explain and listen carefully, without jumping on some of the local bandwagons.
Hospitals and emergency provisions are changing. Specialisms are becoming more special and vastly more expensive. Many expertises are in short supply. Some reconfiguration is inevitable, therefore, and must be managed with enormous care and some give and take. Areas such as mine, which is bordered on three sides by major metropolitan areas with huge hospitals, some of which are only 20 minutes away, cannot easily sustain small, local general hospitals. Compared with many areas in the country, journeys of six to 10 miles amount to virtually instant access. People think nothing of travelling six miles across London to a particular hospital. People in your constituency, Mr. Atkinson, may well think that a hospital six miles away is fairly convenient.
To secure a comprehensive and modern maternity, paediatrics and children's accident and emergency department such as the one being built in Ormskirk is substantial compensation for additional journey time. Paramedics in ambulances play a pivotal role. They make the crucial initial stabilisation and decisions about where to go for the best possible treatment. One ambulance officer told us in a public meeting that people in an ambulance are far better off being taken to the right place than being taken to the wrong place and having to be bounced off to somewhere else.

79WH
The development of telecommunication—in our case, there are already links with Alder Hey—and of NHS Direct provide new alternatives for children as well as adults, dealing with serious and light problems. The minor injuries units will offer further alternatives.
The matter is important and affects many other constituencies and areas in the country, but few have the complication of being in two different authorities for almost all purposes. It is a difficulty, but the compromise reached by Sir Robert Shields seemed the best that could be arrived at in community and social terms at that time.
10.12 am
Dr. Richard Taylor: I congratulate the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) on securing this crucial debate, which is near to my heart. I will relieve the Minister of any worries: I will not speak too much about local affairs—I will say just a little.
I absolutely agree that the ball is in the Government's court. Like the hon. Member for Southport, I welcome the Government's commitment to real consultation. That is expressed time and again in "Keeping the NHS Local". The establishment of overview and scrutiny committees and the reconfiguration panel are welcome. It is interesting that the first time that the reconfiguration panel was used, in Kent, it came down on the side of patients and citizens. The hon. Members involved must be awfully careful not to be seen to be defending their own patches, because that is exactly the sort of divide-and-rule technique that has been used in our part of the world.
Conventional consultation, as the Government have spotted, completely misses the point. There was a useful article in the Health Service Journal just last week referring to the current consultation on Barnet and Chase Farm hospitals. The hospitals are only five miles apart, yet the pressure has been taken out of the process by guarantees that both accident and emergency departments will remain. There is a crucial sentence in the article—at long last, somebody is realising that access means entirely different things to patients and to health service managers:
"To a manager, 'access' means waiting times, but to an elderly person without a car, it means bus and train services to the hospital."
To the elderly, access is purely and simply about distance and time, and the ease of getting there.
It has been hinted that we are approaching a collision. We have the needs and desires of patients and citizens on one side, and the clinical professions saying what is safe and possible on the other—and the Government are right in the middle. The citizens' wish is to travel for elective surgery, for which they can plan; they do not mind going to the best place for the operation because they can plan for it. However, they want bread-and-butter emergency treatment to be available near to them.
I shall refer briefly to Kidderminster in order to demonstrate to the Minister something that I suspect he already knows—if one takes three virtually equal accident and emergency departments, each with between 43,000 and 45,000 patients per year, and shuts
80WH
one, the other two will be overloaded. That is particularly so if the one that is shut is left with a minor injuries unit but without a doctor, because it will not be able to treat anyone who may need admission. It will lead to queues in A and E departments and to demoralised staff. That was clearly demonstrated by the ambulance service's mileage: one month before the hospital was downgraded, it was 8,000 miles, but 12 months later it was more than 24,000 miles—a step of three times. The medical assessment units put in to take the load off A and E departments do not altogether work if the remaining hospitals are stretched. Only this week—it is referred to in today's papers—local medical assessment units have had to close.
There is a big myth about telemedicine. If a patient who lives in the wilds of Manitoba cannot be moved, telemedicine can be set up to a major hospital, which can take a surgeon through an operation he has not done before. However, experience of telemedicine here is that the machinery is often down and that the people at the far end are often too busy to respond. In my constituency, telemedicine is used less and less.
Turning to the clinical profession, I agree with the hon. Member for Southport that, by and large, doctors like the slightly easier life of working in a big unit. However, although it is much easier to provide a safe service in such big units, there has to be some compromise. I believe that the Government are working hard on the problem. Indeed, I am sure that the Minister takes a copy of "Keeping the NHS Local" to bed every night, because it is so important. It shows that the Government are thinking really hard about the alternatives.
For instance, the European working time directive will make it difficult to maintain many A and E departments. The Government are trialling four solutions in different parts of the country, all of which will retain a certain amount of local emergency work. I am waiting to see the details of the local emergency centre planned for Canterbury and to discover exactly how effective that will be.
The European working time directive is a time bomb waiting to explode. I would like for a few moments to impress the extent of the problem upon hon. Members. Of hospitals that serve fewer than 150,000 people, several have A and E departments. They include those in Bassetlaw, Grantham, Banbury, Weston-super-Mare, Halton general hospital in Runcorn and, I am afraid to say, Mr. Atkinson, the hospital in Hexham. As for hospitals with fewer than 150 beds, according to my sources, 36 apparently have A and E departments, including the Montagu hospital in Yorkshire and hospitals in Llandudno, Bridlington, Newark, Clacton and Louth. I could continue. There is a threat not only to services at those hospitals, but to services at some large units that are close together, which face problems because of the European working time directive. Shrewsbury and Telford are close together, as the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) knows, and we have heard about Ormskirk and Southport, but Falkirk and Stirling, Wakefield and Pontefract, Cheltenham and Gloucester, and Watford and Hemel Hempstead are also threatened. There is a time bomb waiting to explode.

81WH
The Government's job is to provide what patients need and desire and to make it possible for clinical staff to deliver a safe service in those circumstances. Compromises are necessary, but local people need bread-and-butter, local emergency services.
10.20 am
Mr. Peter Luff: I congratulate the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) on securing this debate and on his substantial contribution to it. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) whose comments enable me to curtail my comments because, inevitably, he and I have a similar perception of the issues he raised. I am sorry that he had to curtail his comments to enable me to speak, because his expertise provided a useful contribution. I echo what he said about consultation and keeping the NHS local.
We recently had an unsatisfactory consultation exercise in south Worcestershire, which led to the downgrading of the minor injuries unit at Evesham community hospital. Thanks to a corrected parliamentary answer, something I had not received before, I understand that that consultation was probably illegal, having been conducted during a local government election. I am grateful to the Department for correcting its earlier answer.
I want to make two basic points. Accident and emergency departments are often misused by us, the patients, and over-centralised, as the hon. Members for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) and for Southport said, but they are often put under excess pressure for other reasons. I am making no criticism of local accident and emergency staff. My son was treated at the Worcestershire Royal hospital only a few months ago for a suspected broken back, and the quality of treatment he received was remarkable. That was a genuine emergency to which the hospital and the accident and emergency service responded magnificently. I am glad to say that he sustained only severe bruising, but he had to walk many hundreds of yards with a severely bruised back to the car park, because there is totally inadequate car parking provision at the hospital—but that is another matter.
I broke my finger some weeks ago when boarding a fishing vessel as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. On reflection, I should have gone to the accident and emergency department of Worcestershire Royal hospital, but I did not. The fracture set badly and I cannot get my wedding ring off, which I am sure my wife is pleased about. The psychology is interesting. I was not prepared to go and wait six or eight hours, which is common in accident and emergency departments for routine injuries such as a broken finger. I should have practised what I preach and gone to the minor injuries unit at Evesham community hospital, but I did not think to do so. I regret that mistake, because of the problem I now have with my finger—particularly as I am left-handed—which has lost some of its strength and, more significantly, because minor injuries units have a huge role to play is removing an unnecessary work load from accident and emergency departments.
The tragedy is that the minor injuries unit at Evesham community hospital, as a result of the botched consultation by the primary care trust, has been downgraded and has lost a staff member. That has
82WH
serious consequences. The former matron wrote to the primary care trust to object to the proposal, but it has been implemented. The primary care trust argued that not enough people used it—I freely admit that it is not used enough—and that it could not justify two permanent members of staff. I suggest that the correct solution was to promote the unit more effectively to take pressure off the accident and emergency department at Worcestershire Royal hospital and probably even the Alexandra hospital at Redditch. However, that was not done and the unit was downgraded, which I fear is the first stage of its total abolition. Minor injuries units have a huge role to play in supporting accident and emergency departments. It is a tragedy that that is happening in Worcestershire, and I suspect that the pattern is being repeated elsewhere in the country.
The hon. Member for Wyre Forest also referred to medical assessment units and their important role. The unit at the Worcestershire Royal hospital is a great success and we all welcome it, but sadly it has closed twice during the summer—once in August and once on Monday this week. South Worcestershire primary care trust sent out a fax on Monday 8 September, which was sent to me by a local GP, stating that the hospital was
"requesting four hours of respite for their Medical Assessment Unit."
It is respite care for the health service. The fax concluded:
"Patients requiring urgent medical attention should continue to be sent to the accident and emergency department where they will be tended to as normal."
I have, of course, talked to local GPs, who say that their response was to send more people to the accident and emergency department. The problem was not solved; it was transferred. I do not know whether that has been repeated elsewhere in the country, but the pressures on the medical assessment unit are clearly unacceptable because it has had to close twice during the summer and early autumn, when there are no epidemics, emergencies or crashes on the motorway. There have been no systemic problems, but it has had to close down twice—once for two hours and once for four hours. What will be the impact on the accident and emergency department if we get a flu epidemic in a bad winter?
To his great credit, the former Secretary of State for Health acknowledged that the Worcestershire health economy lacks capacity—a point made by the hon. Member for Wyre Forest. Problems are inevitably created when an accident and emergency department is closed. The capacity problem is made worse by Government targets, which distort local decision making. For example, we would not have downgraded the minor injuries unit at Evesham; we would have upgraded it and promoted it better. However, the primary care trust must meet specific targets laid down by the Government, so it had no choice—I feel sorry for it.
It is a question not only of Government policy and capacity but of ensuring that the accident and emergency departments are used properly. Many of our constituents are confused by titles such as minor injuries unit, accident and emergency and casualty—a word that they still know very well. What are those titles all about? We must work towards a better definition of the use of accident and emergency departments.

83WH
When I made a similar speech commenting on the lack of capacity in the local health economy, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) said that it was outrageous, because I would deter parents from taking children with temperatures to their local accident and emergency department. I replied that children with temperatures should not be taken first to accident and emergency. Yes, they might have meningitis, of which their temperature might be a worrying symptom, but they should start elsewhere in the system.
Parents should probably start with their pharmacist—a much under-used resource. Pharmacists could take pressure off accident and emergency departments. They should talk to their GP. They should talk to NHS Direct, which the hon. Member for West Lancashire referred to. I have my reservations about that organisation, but it is there. It would be better to discuss the case of a child with a temperature over the phone rather than rushing to an accident and emergency department, which denies other people with more threatening conditions access to treatment. GPs have out-of-hours centres, which are better places than accident and emergency to take that kind of ailment. There are also minor injuries units and medical assessment units.
Accident and emergency departments are often confronted with problems that are not medical. Such problems are the concern of the local education authority, the social services department or even the police. We must educate people to use accident and emergency departments better.
We are suffering in our county from a genuine double whammy. There is a systemic problem of people misunderstanding how to access the health service appropriately, which clogs up accident and emergency departments in Redditch and Worcester. Worryingly, ambulances have been queueing outside our accident and emergency department, where six to eight-hour waits are not infrequent. The fine staff in the health service generally, and certainly in our county, deserve better from both the Government and patients.
Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS trust has a fine new chief executive, who has a strong team of clinicians beneath him—some might say above him. Both the state and the citizen have a role to play in ensuring that all accident and emergency departments are used properly and serve the people effectively, and that is certainly the case in our county. I hope that the Minister will find ways to address the serious capacity problem in our county. As we approach the winter, I am fearful of what I will see in our local accident and emergency departments.
10.29 am
Dr. Evan Harris: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) for allowing us an opportunity to debate accident and emergency provision. I applaud the expert way in which he has led the campaign locally, and the rational and effective way in which he has put his case today. He raised some serious questions for the Minister to answer, not least about the logic of the proposed arrangements. Since it was a Minister who altered the
84WH
Shields report, the Government must take responsibility under current arrangements for the decisions that have been made, and be accountable for those decisions to local people and to the numbers of visitors to A and E departments in tourist destinations such as Southport.
We had a helpful contribution along the same lines from the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr, Pickthall), and a characteristic contribution, in its expertise and research, from the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor), who drew attention to the implications of some matters that I shall turn to later, including the working time directive. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) made some important points about the appropriate use of A and E services, which I shall also touch on.
The Government have raised expectations of having accessible A and E departments. They have focused on A and E services under the term "modernisation", which is sometimes a euphemism for interference, although not always. They have also raised expectations by calling a document "Keeping the NHS Local". Many hon. Members have already referred to the sentiments expressed in that reconfiguration document. It leads people to believe that they will be able to access their NHS locally, without some of the problems that we have heard reported in this debate. Again, it will be up to Ministers to defend the standard of service about which they seek to raise expectations when they title documents in such a way. The Government have an alternative: they could call a document "Look, we have a problem here", with regard to the number of doctors per head of population, the European working time directive and the pressure from the Royal Colleges, rightly or wrongly, over critical mass and training. However, they have chosen to stick with the language, "Keeping the NHS Local", and they will need to defend that.
The biggest threat to patient care and to the lives of patients in emergency situations is not the particular configuration of A and E departments, although that is postulated as a factor, but the capacity of our hospitals and, for the sickest patients, the continuing shortage, relative to need, of intensive treatment unit beds. When we heard of the tragic case of the child being ferried around in an ambulance between various hospitals in the north of England a few years ago, the key point was the shortage of ITU beds, not the configuration of A and E departments. Far too much can be made of whether there is adequate back-up of consultant staffing. For the sickest patients, we need to ensure that we have adequate numbers of ITU beds and adequate escorted transfer arrangements.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southport quite rightly said that there were general issues to consider. Those include the impact of the European working time directive and the need to ensure adequate training for junior doctors in all hospitals, not just smaller units. Sometimes their training is worse in larger units because they are there simply for service purposes. Another issue is the changing gender ratios in the medical profession, which will mean that, overall, doctors who have been considered full-time will be spending some time working less than full-time. There are questions over whether there could be too much status attached to working in large units and not enough research opportunities in partnership for those in smaller units.

85WH
I shall spend most of my time today questioning the Government on their approach on targets. The Minister will have heard before my concerns, which I have been raising for six years now, over the way in which they have imposed targets on the health service that work against the best interests of patients and of the service. It would appear that only when the targets are going in the right direction is it in the interests of Ministers.
The Government have imposed targets on A and E departments. The 12-hour maximum wait, which is curiously defined as being on a trolley, and the four-hour target for processing people through the department both use the wrong measures. Even if those measures are not applied as brutally as the Government suggest, with their, "You are a failing hospital; you are a failing manager; you are failing your staff if you do not meet those targets", there is no doubt that they are applied and measured wrongly. That concentration has damaged patient care and distorted clinical priorities. The 12-hour target is not a target from presentation at A and E to finding a bed but between a decision to admit and being denoted to be in a bed; and a decision to admit can be taken many hours after patients arrive at the department, even if they obviously require admission.
When is a bed a bed? That depends on whether the target is about to be breached. The morphological changes that one sees at the 11-hour stage is either the stuff of science fiction or the manipulation of the measures in such a way as to make them practically worthless. The Government declared in advance that they were going to measure the performance of A and E departments during the last week of March, and they gave hospitals ample time to clear the decks so that they could be seen to be meeting the targets.
I raised the matter with the previous Minister, now a Constitutional Affairs Minister, the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy). I asked him at oral questions on 3 June 2003 whether he was embarrassed about the number of trusts that were forced to meet the target. At columns 2 and 3, I quoted a BMA survey showing that a majority of respondents in A and E departments felt that the measures taken
"had distorted clinical priorities … and many said that waiting times for patients with the most serious conditions had increased."
I pointed out that the survey also showed that
"patients were being rushed through A & E, inappropriately admitted, or transferred to the wrong department."
Believe it or not, the Minister's response was that the BMA had surveyed only 30 per cent. of its members. In fact, the survey was of 30 per cent. of A and E departments. For the first time in polling history, it seems that sampling 30 per cent. of a large and appropriate population is not felt to be satisfactory. That will be news for the Labour party's polling operation, which probably manages to poll about 0.003 per cent. of the population before saying, "This is what people want." It is astonishing that the Minister should say that the wrong 30 per cent. had been sampled and that everything was hunky-dory for the other 70 per cent.
Next we see the operation of spin, because the Government recognise that the targets are now associated with negative publicity. What did the Minister say? He said that it is not a target but a "milestone". The target has been rebadged as a
86WH
milestone. I think that hospital staff see it more as a millstone, as it shows that the Government's policy of being "tough on trolleys, tough on the causes of trolleys" is detrimental to the work of accident and emergency departments.
There is now increasing evidence—it was mentioned in the newspapers only this week—that some patients need to stay in A and E, in a lit area with expert staff and resuscitation facilities, while they are being stabilised, especially if they are unconscious. I put it to the Minister that they are not going to protest about the relative discomfort of being in A and E, but instead we see the dangerous practice of transferring critically ill patients to beds on side wards in the ophthalmology department instead of being allowed to be stabilised by A and E departments. That makes A and E departments more like processing units than a speciality of medicine. No wonder morale is so poor.
Certain cases really need to be dealt with in A and E departments, such as people who have overdosed on alcohol and who need to sleep it off in A and E so that any underlying illness or condition can be assessed. If they are put on the wards, not only will they disturb other patients, as can be imagined, but they will not receive the neurological observation that they need. The Government need to drop this whole target culture, and in particular the targets that they have imposed on A and E departments.
There has also been talk of A and E units being run as private ventures. I do not think that the Government can be held responsible for what entrepreneurs do, but it is wrong to assume that they will not create problems for the NHS. They will cherry-pick patients who are not so sick that they require ambulances and will take staff from the NHS—and they will take a higher proportion of staff than they will take patients.
Mr. Paul Marsden: I am all in favour of diversity in health care provision. However, the NHS should be free at the point of delivery. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a danger that patients could be turned away from private A and E clinics or forced to pay money that they cannot afford for services to which they should have a right?
Dr. Harris: Private A and E departments will find it difficult, because although they are offering a £29 initial service, the price will rise steeply if other investigations are required. I do not know what they will do with people whom they find to be ill but who cannot afford or do not wish to pay the additional amount; they will have a difficult job.
The European working time directive creates huge pressures on the Government, and they need to be clear about how they will tackle the problem. They have said that they will not seek an extension, but they have to recognise that there are implications for either the viability of departments or the quality of care delivered in those departments. It could pose a big threat to local services, and we want to hear answers from the Minister.
10.40 am
Chris Grayling: Given the problems that we have heard about, it is ironic that we are having this debate at a time when record amounts of money are going into the NHS. One is forced to ask what is going on and why.

87WH
I congratulate the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) on having secured the debate, which provided an opportunity to raise important local and national issues with the Minister. There have been two themes. The first was local hospitals, smaller units and the future of the A and E departments in such units. We heard about a number of constituency issues, and I crave the indulgence of the Chamber in putting some of my own to the Minister. They illustrate problems that affect many Members of Parliament, and reflect the unease within communities about the future of the health services on which they have depended for many years.
The second theme, highlighted by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), was the way in which staff in our A and E departments are let down by the Government's determined target, or milestone, culture. In accident and emergency departments, we see the NHS at its best, saving people who are seriously ill and putting them back on the road to recovery. Those are the first steps towards turning round situations that may be critical. The staff in A and E departments are fine professionals and do not deserve to have their work distorted, as is happening now, by a Government obsessed with numbers.
Nowhere is that obsession more evident than in A and E. In the past 12 months, the four-hour target has been at the heart of the target culture in the NHS. That is not wrong as an aspiration. None of us wants to see patients waiting for a long time in A and E departments. However, in conversation with health care professionals, we Members of Parliament hear how the target is distorting clinical decisions. A few weeks ago, I spoke to a consultant in a diabetic clinic, who holds an out-patient clinic every week. Sometimes, seriously ill patients need to be admitted quickly to hospital, but it is necessary to phone the A and E department first to ensure that nobody has been waiting for close to the four-hour limit, as they must take priority. That has nothing to do with health or with urgency of care needs. The need is to meet the target.
This time last year, we experienced the absurd situation of ambulances queuing outside A and E departments so that the four-hour wait figures for those departments were not damaged. The departments accepted patients only when they were ready to do so, and people had to wait outside in ambulances until they were taken in. That was ludicrous. Then, as the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon pointed out, there was the absurdity of the last week in March. With one week to meet the target, not surprisingly, hospitals threw in the kitchen sink in order to keep their stars and their reputations. Those that did not, suffered. I think of the example of a hospital on the south coast that lost star ratings because it behaved properly and followed conventional norms, and did not try to distort what it was doing that week.
In the words of the president of the British Association for Accident and Emergency Medicine,
"There is a feeling of panic out there at the moment. All sorts of quick-term fixes are being tried. Money appears to be no object, with staff being recruited and paid whatever necessary for the measuring period."
That is nowhere near a proper and appropriate way to run a health service. Unsurprisingly, most hospitals met, or were close to meeting, the target. The figures
88WH
however, were highly dubious. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest that figures have sunk back to previous levels.
I was fascinated by the figures given to me by the strategic health authority in my area, which showed that throughout most of the first part of this year, the average achievement throughout its hospitals was that some 80 per cent. of people attending A and E got away in under four hours. In week 13, however, the figure went up to 88.4 per cent. We know that it has come down again since then.
The British Medical Association and the medical profession have been outraged by this absurd and disgraceful situation, which Ministers defend in the House of Commons. I do not blame the Minister, who is new to the job of Minister and was not in position when that was happening at the start of March, but I say, as did the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon, that it must not be allowed to happen again.
The BMA's response to the 30 per cent. of its members who took part in the survey is clear cut. An A and E consultant said:
"I am appalled to see how A&E departments have been forced into taking extraordinary measures for a week-long period just to meet political targets. It is completely immoral of the Government to claim that it is raising the standard of performance in the NHS when this is how they measure it. It is quite wrong for patients' expectations to be raised in this way."
He went on to say that
"the Government's obsession with waiting times is nothing more than bean-counting."
That culture must change. Will Ministers undertake to change the obsession with targets? Can we release our professionals from the burden that they must carry? Let us allow them to take clinical decisions in their own hospitals without having to worry about whether they are meeting the numbers target for that month.
The second and equally important issue, which the debate has already touched on, relates to the European working time directive, its potential impact on smaller hospitals and the changes taking place in them. The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) was right to highlight the time bomb, as he called it, represented by the working time directive. There are smaller accident and emergency units throughout the country. We heard from two Members from Worcestershire and two Members from west Lancashire whose constituencies have accident and emergency units that face reconfiguration or closure because of the working time directive. It is costing hospitals millions. They need to employ doctors that the market cannot provide.
I was grateful, in an ironic way, to the chief executive of my local NHS trust, Epsom and St. Helier, who is about to leave his post. In what I can only describe as a stunningly ill-judged decision, he made a public statement, on behalf of the clinical service partnership representing all the local NHS bodies, that he aims to reconfigure services in my area. He chose to issue the statement without telling anyone, and attacked everyone who is challenging the plans. That was very foolish, and it will cause significant problems for the process after he has gone. He did, however, let the cat out of the bag, for which I am grateful, because the process is being advertised as an enhancement to local services.

89WH
The chief executive's statement is headed, "Don't be bullied into second best!" The revealing element, however, is the fourth paragraph, which states:
"As the Working Time Directive comes into force there will not be enough doctors to go round. In future, we will require eight to ten doctors to cover the same shifts where we currently have four or five. So it makes sense not to spread them too thinly by duplicating some services unnecessarily."
That means that throughout the country, including west Lancashire and Worcestershire, as we heard from the hon. Member for Wyre Forest and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), and in Epsom and Ewell and Hertfordshire, where great debates are taking place, smaller hospitals will lose their accident and emergency departments, either full-time or part-time. I say to my constituents that it is likely that in the next few months Epsom hospital will lose its 24-hour cover for proper surgery and accident and emergency, as a consequence of the changes that the directive will bring about.
The directive is costing the NHS millions of pounds. The medical profession describes it as a disaster. It is reported that even the Prime Minister thinks that it is one of the worst pieces of legislation to come from Brussels, yet the Government appear to be doing nothing to stop it. If, in the next few months, the Government cannot find a way to mitigate the directive's impact on the NHS, the consequences for local A and E departments, as well as other services, will be disastrous.
10.50 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) on obtaining the debate, which will, I know, be of great interest to his constituents. It is also of great interest to me. I declare a small interest: I am one of the products of the Ormskirk hospital maternity unit. Whatever other criticisms the hon. Gentleman may level at that institution, it produces damn good sturdy stock.
I shall, if hon. Members do not mind, deal largely with the specific issues that the hon. Gentleman raised about Southport A and E. It is fair to use the limited time that I have to do that. If I have time afterwards, I shall deal with the more general issues, which there will, I do not doubt, be other opportunities to debate.
The reality of modern medicine—the way in which we must meet its demands—will increasingly mean that we have to consider the reconfiguration of hospitals. That will be a continuing process, not something that we do once, after which everything will be right. We shall have to find the best ways we can of carrying out consultation and making decisions on the basis of that consultation, covering all the aspects of the matter that have been raised, such as clinical safety and locality, to meet the demand for a high-quality clinical service.
We heard in the debate, particularly from the hon. Member for Southport and my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall), the range of opinions that are encountered. My hon. Friend showed us a picture of how a community engaged over a considerable period in consultation, led by an expert report by Professor Shields, and clawed towards a compromise solution with which, perhaps, many people
90WH
were not 100 per cent. satisfied, but which met the need for a safe, high-quality service; met, broadly, the local community's needs; and answered many of the concerns of the different people in the community. Reaching such a compromise is an incredibly difficult process, and I congratulate my hon. Friend and those who, when the compromise was reached, were prepared to say, "Well, maybe it isn't exactly what I would have come up with, but it is a compromise. It meets all the demands and has come about as a result of a lot of local discussion and consultation."
On the other hand, the constituents of the hon. Member for Southport obviously feel very upset about part of what has been decided, and are not able to accept that final position. However, sooner or later, the Government and the local health authority must say, "This is what we are going to do. We shall try to make it work." We have reached that stage in Southport and Ormskirk, and we believe that the solution meets the demands of the local population.
I have always said in debates in this Chamber and in the House that I am accessible; I hope that I am a listening Minister. I make the hon. Member for Southport the one promise that he asked me to make—to ensure that everything that he and my hon. Friend spoke about will be reviewed. We shall take a fresh look at the matter, and make sure that the local health trust does too, in the light of his comments. We shall proceed from there. However, I cannot promise that, having listened to him today, I shall unwind all the decisions and take a completely different, fresh view.
The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) touched on some of the difficulties that we must consider in making decisions. They include locality, clinical safety, the working time directive and the need to maintain high standards of training, which we are told can really be offered only in large centres. He said that someone has to find a compromise, and he is right, and we must set our priorities on the basis of clinical safety.
I offer this suggestion to Private Eye, which runs a cartoon called, "Sights you seldom see". When someone appears on television to say that service in the local A and E department has failed their relative, one will never see an Opposition MP leap up and say, "Yes, but that's all right. We had to make a compromise when we were reconfiguring the local hospitals, and we compromised clinical safety, but that's okay, we won't blame this Government for it." We must ensure that clinical safety is a clear priority in making decisions. Often, that will mean that smaller services have to move, and that will always be unpopular with local communities. That is a hard choice that we in government find ourselves having to make, whether we like it or not.
Having said that, I undertake to listen very carefully to all the concerns about the Southport situation and ensure that they are all thoroughly reviewed. I also highlight the fact that the reconfiguration is not taking place without resources, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire pointed out. It will include a major investment in the local hospitals and require the provision of state-of-the-art facilities that will raise the standards for all adults and children in the area. It will produce a sound, clinically safe and very high-quality service, to which people in both constituencies are entitled. If we can do that as well as meeting the points

91WH
raised by the constituents of the hon. Member for Southport, we will. However, at this time, we have not found a solution that meets the needs of both parties and reaches the compromise that the hon. Member for Wyre Forest seeks.
Among the more general comments that have been made, the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) raised an excellent and constructive point, with which I agree. We must find a way of helping people better to determine whether they should go to accident and emergency facilities, a minor injuries unit, a doctor's out-of-hours service, their own GP, NHS Direct, or, as the hon. Gentleman said, a pharmacy. People need to consider which of those perfectly valid options is appropriate at the time.
The hon. Gentleman is right: too many people turn up at A and E units when, clearly, their problem is not the sort of emergency that needs to be dealt with there. We must look for a way to guide people in the right direction. The Government are aware of and trying to deal with that.
The hon. Members for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) and for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) mentioned targets. I shall spend just a few seconds talking about targets. What are they? They are a management tool by which we distil the wishes of the general population. We do not pluck targets out of the air and decide to impose them on the national health service. Instead, we ask ourselves what people want from our NHS. What direction do they want it to take? What important factors do they want addressed? Waiting times is an obvious one.
Dr. Harris: Have the general public been asked whether they want a maximum waiting time of four hours, even if it means that the health of more ill patients will be threatened by doctors pursuing the maximum waiting time for the most stable cases?
Dr. Ladyman: If the hon. Gentleman had waited for me to finish, I would have dealt with that point. The public tell us that they want to be seen quickly in accident and emergency departments. We find a management target that we can give to local trusts to encourage them to put sufficient resources into their accident and emergency departments to deliver on the wishes of the public. That is what the targets are for. There would be a world of difference, if the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon and I were to turn up tomorrow in an accident and emergency unit, and the doctor were to say to him, "You need to stay in this unit for longer than four hours—
Mr. Peter Atkinson (in the Chair): Order. Time is up. We must move on to the next debate.

Energy Efficiency
11 am
Sir Sydney Chapman: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the important issue of the need for energy efficiency in the commercial sector. It is a great pleasure to be speaking under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr. Atkinson. I am particularly grateful that the Minister of State will be replying to this short debate, because that shows the importance that the Government attach to the issue.
The issue was last raised as long ago as January 2001 by the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) in an extended Adjournment debate. I hope that I am not quoting him out of context. He said that energy consumption in offices had been generally neglected and that the rate of growth in energy consumption was
"three times greater in the commercial sector than in the domestic sector."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 23 January 2001; Vol. 361, c. 215WH.]
Replying to that debate, the former Minister for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), recognised that
"We need a major shift in the way that energy is used in commercial buildings".—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 23 January 2001; Vol. 361, c. 229WH.]
Little progress has been made in the intervening 32 months. Energy efficiency policies and programmes have focused on the domestic and industrial sectors and have tended to overlook the important commercial and service sectors, which represent about 17 per cent. of total energy consumption. By way of comparison, it is interesting to note that, whereas energy consumption has halved in the past 30 years in the industrial sector, and is down by almost 10 per cent. in the public sector, in the commercial sector it has grown by more than two thirds—the figure is something like 68 per cent.—and Department of Trade and Industry projections suggest that there will be a further rise. That is an urgent situation that must be dealt with quickly. There is real cause for concern if we are to meet our targets for carbon dioxide emissions.
In the commercial sector, offices are a significant contributor to energy use, but I think that the Minister will agree that they also offer the greatest potential for savings. Offices tend to be the same, unlike industrial processes, so if we can identify a significant cost potential, it will be much easier to put that into a policy, which will be more effective. There is cost-effective potential for savings in the commercial sector that can be readily identified. If we can get the large companies and businesses, which have more office space, on side and active in promoting energy conservation in the commercial sector, that will have a great impact.
The rapid growth in energy use in offices is due to a number of factors. Office space has doubled in the past 30 years. There has also been greater use of air conditioning as well as heating in the past three decades. Another obvious point is that there has been a tremendous increase in information technology equipment. That is why there has been a huge explosion of energy consumption in the commercial sector.

93WH
The Association for the Conservation of Energy—an organisation that I salute, and that prompted me to raise these matters—under its director, Mr. Andrew Warren, published a report in March that estimated:
"Using readily available and cost effective technologies, up to 2.5 megatons of carbon could be saved."
As the Minister will confirm, the Government anticipated in their November 2000 climate change programme, and repeated in the February 2003 energy White Paper, that six megatons of carbon savings annually must be achieved by the business and public sectors by 2010. If we can successfully tackle the problems in the commercial sector, that sector alone could deliver almost half the savings required. The other half—the public sector—involves hospitals and schools, but not exclusively.
The European Parliament and the European Council approved the EU directive on energy performance of buildings in January. That comprehensive directive in part concerns where omissions can be made from the energy performance policy. I have three anxieties about the directive and I would like three assurances from the Minister. The first concerns listed buildings. We should remember that, while many of the 500,000 such buildings are of architectural or historic interest, they include quite a few buildings in the commercial sector. My first job as an architect was based in a listed building—a very fine early Georgian building.
The directive gives allowances to listed buildings that do not meet energy efficiency requirements where, in meeting the requirements of the directive by installing energy efficiency equipment, the character or appearance of the listed building would be unacceptably changed. It would be helpful if the Government sent the right signal to the owners of the 500,000 listed buildings by saying, "You have to show us that it would be damaging to your listed building if you were to put in energy saving equipment," rather than, "You don't have to do anything because you own a listed building." Have the Government estimated the proportion of those listed buildings that will be outwith the requirements of the directive?
The directive gives a dispensation to temporary buildings. It has also been over-generous with its definition of a temporary building as a building with a planned time of two years or less. That is far too long. Our landscapes and urbanscapes are littered with portakabins, and the qualifying period ought to be reduced from two years to, say, six months.
My third specific comment on the directive concerns industrial processes. It refers to "industrial buildings and offices", which is unclear. Will the Minister please ensure that offices in the industrial sector cannot be included in the dispensation?
I have a query about energy performance certificates under article 7 of the directive. As the Minister knows, certificates must be displayed in any office of more than 1,000 sq m, which, in my imperial-preference language, is about 1,000 sq yd. Buildings of more than that size which are visited regularly by the public—that is an indistinct phrase—must display the certificate. I welcome that because it should lead to significant improvement in energy performance in larger buildings. However, the directive also states that
"other relevant climatic factors may also be included."
94WH
I hope that the Minister will look at that to see whether, in the United Kingdom, other climatic factors will be included.
This subject is necessarily complicated and I want to finish by posing a series of queries to the Minister. If he cannot deal with them all in detail now, which is understandable, I will be pleased to hear from him after the sitting.
I can see how, under section 2 of the Building Act 1984, it would be possible to incorporate requirements under the building regulations not just for new build but for refurbishment of owner-occupied properties. It is more difficult to see what legislation exists to facilitate certification for rented properties. I do not want to go too deeply into the rented office sector, but clearly there is a problem when someone owns an office or commercial property and rents it out. There is no incentive for the tenant to put in the energy-saving equipment—why should he? I am not attacking landlords, because there are very good landlords, as well as tenants, but a landlord may say, "Well, I'm receiving my rent, so what incentive is there for me to spend a lot of money to create energy savings?" The rented sector needs careful examination.
Similarly, article 8, which deals with the inspection of boilers, and article 9, on the inspection of air conditioning systems, are relevant. Is the Minister convinced that the Government have the right under existing legislation to require the inspection of boilers and air conditioning systems in rented properties?
My final point is that, despite the directive, building regulations, the Building Act and much other legislation, energy conservation is so important that we need primary legislation to fulfil the requirements of the EU directive on energy performance of buildings and other directives.
I know that space in the Queen's Speech is at a premium, and many Ministers will be disappointed because they cannot get their pet legislative proposals into the Government's programme. I want to be constructive, so I would like to make a suggestion. I hope that the Minister will say—of course he cannot confirm that today—that he will make the most rigorous representations to the Cabinet and his ministerial colleagues to include space for primary legislation dealing with energy conservation. If, by chance, they cannot find room for a Bill, will he look favourably on the possibility of legislation being made available to a Member who is lucky in the ballot for private Member's Bills?
Brian White: The other alternative is to use the regulatory report process, which can help Departments to achieve changes in primary legislation using a different route.
Sir Sydney Chapman: As ever, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) makes a valid point. There are other ways of doing this. I have only once been lucky in the ballot for private Member's Bills, in my very first Session in 1970. I had a Rural and Urban Environment Bill, which bit the dust because of a lack of time. It was to do with listed buildings, trees and other such things. The Guardian reported it biting the dust by saying "Trees bill axed". I am going to put in for a

95WH
private Members' Bill in the next Session. Perhaps, as it will be one of my last Sessions in this place, I might be lucky—or luckier.
There is a need for primary legislation. I hope that that might include a requirement for larger property owners not just to provide energy certificates, but to carry out improvements for energy conservation when the properties are sold, let, re-let or subject to a rent review. I had the great privilege of attending the World summit on sustainable development in Johannesburg, just over a year ago, in my own right as chairman of the Environment committee of the Council of Europe. I had a little competition to find out whether we were sure that we were getting over to our constituents—we all have the best and most far-sighted constituents, which is why we are here—what sustainable development is, and to find out how many of them know what it is. The competition was for somebody to give the best definition of sustainable development in as few words as possible. I came up with a seven-word definition, which I am still waiting to hear bettered. It is "Conserving Earth's finite resources for future generations". That is a major undertaking and we have realised almost too late that we are squandering many of the world's finite resources. We have to turn the tide, and one way of doing that is not just to talk globally but to act nationally and in our own homes and offices to ensure that we achieve sustainable development.
11.18 am
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): I, too, would like to say how nice it is to see you in the Chair for this debate, Mr. Atkinson.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) on his contribution. I thought that it was helpful and constructive and addressed a range of important issues. I can assure him that the Government share his concern in relation to commercial buildings. I share his admiration for the work of the Association for the Conservation of Energy, and he might be interested to know that the Carbon Trust has supported some of its recent reports. That is a good example of how money raised from the climate change levy supports energy conservation.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the office sector has continued to increase in importance. It is of course vital that we continue to address energy issues and, as he said, to ensure that energy is used as efficiently as possible. Energy efficiency is the most cost-effective way to cut our carbon emissions.
We all know that we have signed up to some very important targets in the Kyoto agreement and that we also have national targets. Those targets are demanding but important, given the need to reduce CO2 emissions. All sectors must play a part in that, including the commercial sector.
In the Energy White Paper, the Government committed themselves to publishing an energy efficiency implementation plan setting out in greater detail how to meet the challenge. DEFRA is in the lead on that, but we are working closely with other Departments, the devolved Administrations and bodies such as the Carbon Trust and the Energy Saving Trust through the
96WH
sustainable energy policy network. I will set out what the Government are doing and respond to some of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman.
Commercial offices are responsible for only 2.5 per cent. of the UK's non-transport carbon emissions. We must view the matter in perspective, but of course we cannot ignore what is a big and expanding sector.
There are four main instruments designed to tackle CO2 emissions in the non-domestic sector. First, there are the building regulations, which are due to be revised in 2005. The hon. Gentleman touched on that subject, and I will look at some of the points that he quite rightly raised. The best builders could do better, which we have been encouraging them to do for some time. In the Energy White Paper, we announced that the better building summit and the sustainable construction working group will extend a challenge to all builders to raise their standards. We also declared our intention of raising standards on building regulations over the coming decade, having learned from the standards in comparable European countries and having looked at the best standards that we can apply in this country.
Secondly, there is the climate change levy, which has been in place for more than two years. Customs and Excise is currently conducting a study of its effectiveness in delivering environmental improvements. The Carbon Trust receives money from that levy. Several of the trust's programmes are designed to tackle energy use in the commercial sector, including offices. They include the provision of advice, information and loans through the action energy programme, the low carbon innovation programme, and enhanced capital allowances—the third instrument—which reduce the cost of buying carbon-reducing products from an approved list.
Finally, there is the European directive on the energy performance of buildings. The hon. Gentleman described those provisions and how they will allow member states to have discretion on the buildings that they may choose to exempt from the requirements to set energy performance standards. In response to his questions, I can reassure him about our intentions. Obviously, we want to see what comes from the detailed developments and consultation that are in prospect on that and on all the other articles. I understand that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister takes the view that any exemptions should fall in line with the current building regulations.
The hon. Gentleman raised a number of detailed points that I will try to answer. First, there is the issue of historic listed buildings. The energy efficiency provisions in part L of the building regulations apply to all historic buildings, but reasonable provision depends on the circumstances of each case. For example, we would not expect Windsor castle to put UPVC double glazing in. Nevertheless, an awful lot can be done to improve energy efficiency, even in old and listed buildings, such as modifying central heating systems, draughtproofing and insulation. I live in a listed building and have upgraded the central heating and improved the loft insulation and the draughtproofing, which has had an effect. Old buildings with thick walls are often cool in summer and warm in winter, so they are good on energy efficiency.

97WH
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the percentage that would be affected. It is not possible to calculate the exact percentage until there has been more careful consideration of which regulation should apply to which buildings. That is being considered and the figure will be available in due course.
The hon. Gentleman raised the subject of temporary buildings, which are in fact classed as those remaining in place for not more than 28 days. I can reassure him that the Government do not accept the two-year rule and that, as far as we are concerned, after 28 days the building regulations will apply.
Part L does not apply to industrial and commercial processes that consume energy, nor to that part of the building's environmental energy consumption needed to convey waste heat to the outside air. However, industrial and commercial buildings are not exempt from the building regulations unless they are controlled by other legislation. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, even in industrial premises, there is no reason why the regulations should not apply to office accommodation. That makes absolute sense, but the wording is not clear and we are looking to clarify it.
The hon. Gentleman also described how article 7 requires building energy performance certificates whenever buildings are constructed, sold or rented out, and said that, in certain circumstances, it calls for building owners to display certificates prominently. The article also gives member states discretion to call for additional information to be displayed on the certificates about the building's internal climate. Interpreting the requirement to display information is proving difficult, and officials are in the process of seeking advice from the Commission and other member states. Again, we accept that that is a reasonable point. It will be interesting to see what officials discover in those discussions, but how we implement the directive is a matter for the UK, taking account of what it legally obliges us to do and the constraints placed on us by other policies for better regulation.
A separate issue is what information such certificates should convey. I understand what the hon. Gentleman said, but it may not be practical to convey the range of temperatures and other climatic parameters encountered and expected in larger buildings, which commonly accommodate many different types of activities. Nevertheless, we shall give consideration to those desirable points.
We intend to implement article 8 primarily through the provision of information. However, we shall also consider the energy and safety benefits of regular inspections for fuels with a higher potential for soot formation, the build-up of which could lead to incomplete combustion and the production of carbon monoxide.
The hon. Gentleman reasonably expressed concern about how quickly and by what means the Government intend to bring the directive into effect. Article 15
98WH
requires us to transpose all the requirements into UK law by 4 January 2006. We announced in the Energy White Paper that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister would take the lead in implementing it, for the good reason that the requirements fit well into the framework of the building regulations. We believe that many of the requirements can be implemented through changes to the existing building regulations without having to make changes in primary legislation.
Section 1 of the Building Act 1984 applies to construction work for new buildings and refurbishments on whatever scale, although, as the hon. Gentleman said, section 2 may need extending to oblige building owners to carry out regular inspections of boiler and air conditioning plant. The European Communities Act is likely to be the most appropriate way to implement those parts that cannot be implemented through existing legislation. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will consider whether his suggestion of using a private Member's Bill could be a viable alternative. We shall certainly consider all ways of implementing the directive as quickly as possible. I know that the routes of private Members' Bills are often rocky, as those who have been involved in them over the years know well, but it is a sensible measure that would command widespread support.
Sir Sydney Chapman: I am very grateful to the Minister, and thank him for the way in which he is treating the matter. Let us hope that this debate is the beginning of a dialogue, because the issue transcends normal party politics.
One of the reasons why I was pleased to have been successful in gaining the debate today is that the week after next is energy efficiency week. The debate is a good curtain raiser for that most important event.
Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and his timing is most fortuitous.
I shall certainly look carefully at the hon. Gentleman's speech to ensure that all the points that he raised have been addressed; any that I have not had time to answer will receive a written reply. We in government must look to our own performance. We must also look at heating and cooling product standards. We recognise the importance of energy efficiency overall, which is why I welcome what the hon. Gentleman had to say. His suggestions were constructive, sensible and helpful, and I intend to ensure that the Government respond in kind. Such proposals will be an advantage, not only in terms of our commitment to sustainability but because efficiency savings make good sense for the commercial sector itself.
11.30 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Seaside Town Regeneration
2pm
Chris Ruane: I welcome this opportunity to debate seaside town regeneration, and begin by recognising the good work that the Government have done in helping such towns to regenerate themselves. I shall ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider three proposals. The first is the establishment of a resorts taskforce, perhaps followed up by a resorts trust similar to the trusts established for coalfield communities. The second is the establishment of a Minister with overall responsibility for seaside regeneration, and the third is parity of ring-fenced funding for seaside towns with that ring-fenced for coal, steel, rural and inner-city communities over the years. I shall draw on examples from my constituency to show the need for co-ordinated action.
The current Government have done much to help seaside towns. Most notably, in my area, they have achieved objective 1 status for Cornwall, west Wales and the valleys, Merseyside and South Yorkshire—although I do not think that there are any seaside resorts there. I pay particular tribute to the Secretary of State for Wales, my boss, who, when a junior Minister in the Wales Office, agreed to the redrawing of the objective 1 boundaries at the eleventh hour to include Denbighshire and Conwy. As a result, the towns of Prestatyn, Rhyl, Kinmel Bay, Towyn, Colwyn Bay, Conwy, Llandudno, Llanfairfechan and Penmaenmawr have been able to access objective 1 funding.
The Labour Government's attitude to securing structural funds for areas experiencing economic decline sharply contrasts with that of the Conservative Government, who refused to apply for EU structural funds, and took assisted area status away from many of our towns. I also congratulate the Labour Government on issuing new directions to the Heritage Lottery Fund.
Mr. Andrew Turner: I did not intend to make a political point, but as the hon. Gentleman has done so, I congratulate the Conservative Government on giving assisted area status to the Isle of Wight, and express my regret that it was taken away by the Government of whom he speaks so movingly.
Chris Ruane: It was probably redirected to the Isle of Wight from my constituency, which suffered a loss of £40 million.
On the Heritage Lottery Fund, under the previous Government, £12 million was given to the Churchill family for the Churchill diaries, and £5 million went to developing the playing fields of Eton. When the Labour Government came to power in 1997, they altered those rules and said that money from the Heritage Lottery Fund would be dedicated to places with architectural merit and areas of poverty and decline. As a result, Denbigh and Rhyl in my constituency will both receive approximately £6 million to regenerate their high streets and commercial centres.
The Government have also expanded the further and higher education sectors, and as a result, my home town of Rhyl has its first ever college; the second biggest town in north Wales had always been denied one. Unemployment in my constituency has dropped from
100WH
4,500 under the previous Government to 900 people in 2003. The Government made west Rhyl a policing priority area 18 months ago. That was one of only five pilot projects in the UK, and Rhyl was specifically chosen because it was a seaside town. Through co-ordination and co-operation, crime levels in the west ward of Rhyl have dropped by almost a quarter—24 per cent.—in the past year.
However, despite those success stories, towns such as Rhyl and Prestatyn in my constituency, along with 43 other principal seaside towns around the UK, have specific structural problems that have not been addressed in a co-ordinated way.
Dr. Desmond Turner: I would like to pick up that point. Does my hon. Friend agree that, despite all that the Government have done so far, which is welcome, there is a continuing need to bang the drum for the special problems of seaside towns? They are exemplified in my Brighton constituency. Visitors get an impression of prosperity and economic activity when they see the seafront, which obscures all the problems that we face, including urban deprivation in large enough measure to have a new deal for communities; homelessness, which is some of the worst in the country, and the largest number of drug deaths; very poor housing in the private sector, and intense housing need. Yet, again and again we have to convince people, even those in our own Government, that seaside towns have problems.
David Taylor (in the Chair): Order. That was rather a long intervention. If hon. Members keep interventions short, there is a greater chance of everyone who wants to speak being called.
Chris Ruane: I agree with every word spoken by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner). One of my recommendations, which I hope will have the support of seaside MPs from all parties, is that we need a dedicated Minister responsible for seaside regeneration. Many Departments are currently involved in seaside regeneration. Usually, the Minister with responsibility for tourism responds to these debates. With all due respect to him, I am particularly pleased that the Minister with responsibility for regeneration is responding today. Seaside issues usually form just a tiny part of the role of the Minister for Housing and Planning, a tiny part of the Home Office Minister's role and a tiny part of the role of the Minister responsible for licensing houses in multiple occupation. There is no co-ordination to deal with the issues that face seaside towns.
I do not necessarily believe that all the 43 principal seaside towns will regenerate themselves around tourism. Some will, with 100 per cent. regeneration centring around tourism. All 43 towns will probably have an element of tourism in their local economies in future, but that is not necessarily so. Coal communities have not regenerated themselves around coal. Steel communities have not necessarily regenerated themselves around steel. I am, however, pleased that a Minister with responsibility for regeneration is responding to today's debate. That is welcome.
Whatever happens in our seaside towns around the UK, the jobs that we create must suit our local population, bearing in mind that by 2010 50 per cent. of

101WH
our young people will be graduates. We need jobs in our seaside towns that will attract and keep those graduates. We are looking for high-skilled, high-paid jobs, even if they are in the tourism sector.
Lawrie Quinn: Having described the relatively beneficial climate that the Government are delivering, not only in his constituency but in Scarborough and Whitby and right around the coast, does my hon. Friend agree that the key partnerships that will deliver new jobs, vitality and regeneration must be born out of community partnerships and a local feeling that there has to be a better way for communities that are on the fringe of the mainstream? I am pleased to support my hon. Friend's plea for the taskforce and the initiative from a Minister.
Chris Ruane: I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. I shall expand on his points later.
All seaside towns will have a sizeable tourism sector, but it will not necessarily be as great as it was 20 or 30 years ago. The solutions for seaside towns will involve co-operation between many Departments. That is why a Minister with specific responsibility for seaside towns is needed to co-ordinate, monitor progress, commission cross-departmental research and spread best practice.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am very surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman say that he does not think that the regeneration of seaside towns will come mainly from tourism. Given the fact that the problems of seaside towns have come from the run-down of tourism, and that statistics show that on average 33 per cent. of a seaside town is devoted to tourism, hotels and restaurants, surely tourism will be the major leader in all seaside town regeneration.
Chris Ruane: That is an issue for the local community to decide in light of the local economy. In my home town of Rhyl, there used to be 900 hotels, guest houses, holiday flatlets and bed and breakfasts; now, there are 50 or 60, and we are not going to get back to having 900. The traditional two-week seaside holiday has by and large disappeared. We have to develop new markets and look to the future, not to the past.
Other Departments will play a key role in the regeneration of seaside towns. Previously I mentioned policing, which is a major issue in those towns. As I said before, the west ward of Rhyl was selected as one of five policing priority areas, and we have had great success through co-operation and co-ordination with a whole variety of agencies in the town. I would want the seaside Minister to have strong connections with the Home Office on such matters.
Rail services are likely to be a key issue for many seaside towns; I point specifically to Blackpool, Great Yarmouth, Cleethorpes and Llandudno. Many such towns grew up around the rail network in the 1840s and the 1850s. With the decrease in services in the 1960s under Beeching, and more recently, we must ensure that the rail connections are kept for those towns—not only the connections between the conurbations, but transport within and around those seaside towns. In my constituency, in which 65 per cent. of people do not own cars, people cannot access the 2,500 high quality jobs on
102WH
the St. Asaph business park six miles away and they cannot readily access the 1,000 jobs in Glanclwyd hospital five miles away.
We need to work together and to come up with creative, innovative ideas to connect people who have by and large been cut off from where the quality jobs are. I am holding a conference in my constituency to tackle the issue in two weeks' time.
Mrs. Betty Williams: Does my hon. Friend agree that a good example of how partners can work together to succeed was the foot and mouth outbreak? At the beginning of the outbreak, the only people receiving the attention of the country and the world were the agricultural community. Some of us realised very early that the tourism industry was also going to suffer, because footpaths were being closed, and that attention had to be turned to the people in the tourism industry as well.
My hon. Friend asks for more partnership. As we are talking about ring-fenced money, will he join me in asking the Minister to ensure that if, God forbid, such a crisis happens again, the tourism industry receives attention early on rather than two or three weeks later?
Chris Ruane: I welcome that intervention from my hon. Friend. I will deal specifically with the grants made available in Wales after the foot and mouth crisis later.
A key role for any Minister responsible for seaside tourism will be in higher and further education because many seaside towns have traditionally had a low skills base; they do not have the skills base to attract new jobs, or to maintain existing jobs. That is why, as I mentioned, Rhyl college in my constituency is key to the regeneration of Rhyl and Prestatyn by expanding and supporting existing industries and the service sector, and by making sure that people working in the tourism sector are properly trained. We must look to the future, see what jobs are on the horizon and train for the future, not just for the here and now; in my area, that involves training for the optoelectronics industry based at St. Asaph business park.
A problem shared by almost all seaside towns is that of HMOs. As I mentioned, there used to be 900 hotels, guest houses and holiday flatlets in Rhyl; the vast majority no longer have a role in tourism. Many have been bought on spec by landlords living as far away as London and Birmingham, who have no interest in their tenants or in the town and its people. Their only interest is in maximising their profits or, to quote Cyril Roberts, a former housing chair of Rutland borough council, "making money out of misery." That has led to a concentration of poverty in particular wards in certain seaside towns, where landlords pack as many tenants as possible into substandard accommodation.
Such accommodation does not benefit the tenants, local public services—police, fire, education or health—or local people. The only beneficiaries are the landlords, who pick up their cheques courtesy of the British taxpayer. We need to tackle the issue of benefits. Careful thought has to be given to what the HMOs can be used for and what grant regimes can be put in place to support schemes. In the past 20 years, money has flooded in to Rhyl to improve the housing stock. However, the HMOs have remained as such and have gone back to their former condition, because no thought was given to diversification.

103WH
What could the houses be used for? We would find a wide range of answers if we thought laterally and creatively. I urge a carrot-and-stick approach: grants should be made available for HMOs, but there should also be inspection, so that landlords understand the message: "Here's the grant. Convert or we'll come after you." The approach needs to be that bold. We should take the themed approach that I have suggested to my local county council. For example, all grants going to a certain district or street could be used to convert HMOs back into family accommodation and to create parks with swings and slides—a nice living environment—so that families return to the area. Alternatively, we could say that a certain street will be a "voluntary sector street", with shared communal facilities, or designate another "quality accommodation street." There should be grants and there should be inspection.
There is good practice around the country. In Conwy, representatives of the police, the fire service, social services, the education department, the Benefits Agency and the environmental health department meet regularly. They lay their cards on the table and discuss premises that are giving trouble and, invariably, the same two or three premises are mentioned. Then, they are able to go in mob-handed to sort those places out. However, even that approach is a bit hit and miss. We need a national licensing scheme for HMOs that leaves nowhere for slum landlords to hide. I urge the Minister to take back to her Cabinet colleagues the message that we should ensure that such a scheme is in the Queen's Speech this November.
My hon. Friend might also take back a message for the Lyons committee, which is considering the feasibility of relocating 20,000 civil service jobs out of London into the regions. I was informed yesterday that that committee will only consider towns with a population of 100,000 or more for the relocation of a Government Department. Of the 43 principal seaside towns, only nine will qualify. We have until Friday to make our submissions. I shall pursue the matter, and I ask the Minister to intervene to ensure that the seaside resorts that have been neglected for 35 years get their fair share of the cake.
We should consider not only public sector investment in towns but whether our seaside towns are getting their fair share of the public bodies that generate wealth by creating secure, steady, white-collar jobs. Again I use as an example Rhyl, where four public bodies are pulling out of the town centre and relocating to the St. Asaph business park. The central division headquarters of North Wales police should have been located in Rhyl, but sufficient land could not be found for it. Clwyd and Alyn housing association, which is supposed to be a social landlord, was located in the west ward of Rhyl, the poorest ward in Wales; that was great, but it has now left for the St. Asaph business park. The Denbighshire health board, which is supposed to look after primary care, is not located in the west ward of Rhyl, which has the poorest health record in the whole of Wales, but in the St. Asaph business park.
104WH
That is the wrong message for public sector bodies to be sending out. What message does it send to the private sector if there is a public sector flight out of the town? I hope that the Minister will take up the point with the Home Office—I will be taking it up with the National Assembly. Instructions should be sent to public services that they should not relocate their headquarters or their personnel from any fragile community without a full assessment of the impact on it.
Lawrie Quinn: Does my hon. Friend agree that the migration or absence of high-skills jobs in seaside community economies compounds the spiral of decline, because the very best young people who go away to get degrees elsewhere in the country simply do not return to the coast? That compounds the stress that many people who work in the social services and health services find themselves under. Does he agree that our towns have ageing populations because of the economic decline that he describes?
Chris Ruane: I concur with everything that my hon. Friend says.
The trend that I describe is a double whammy for our community. It has not only taken high-quality jobs out of our seaside town, but those public bodies now take up valuable space in a business park that is now completely full. There is now no opportunity to create new jobs through inward or domestic investment. A Minister with responsibility for seaside towns, be it in the National Assembly for Wales or in Whitehall, could monitor these trends and, as I say, could intervene and modify or even stop them.
I have dealt with the public sector, but the private sector will create the bulk of new job opportunities in seaside towns. Far more could be done to increase the number of business start-ups in seaside towns. The small and medium-sized enterprise base is low. I refer again to my home town of Rhyl. Not many people know this, but Rhyl happens to be the birthplace of two of our best known high street shops—Iceland and Kwiksave—which were born of an entrepreneurial spirit that existed in that town 30 or 40 years ago. That entrepreneurial spirit is currently dormant. It needs to be brought to life once more. Rhyl, with a population of 27,000, had 24 new company start-ups in 2000, whereas Ruthin, with a population of 5,000, had 44 new company start-ups—a massive difference. Local authorities, regional development agencies and the HE and FE sectors working with the local population and private enterprise can have a huge impact on start-ups.
We should consider best practice for start-ups, especially those involving young people. The Prince's Trust usually deals with people whom the banks have knocked back and gives them £5,000 start-up funding. The key thing that it gives them, however, is a mentor who can help them to develop their business. The trust has an 80 per cent. success rate. In addition, a great deal more could be done to expand the intermediate labour market in seaside towns. There are excellent ways of attracting the economically inactive back into the work force. If the post of Minister for seaside regeneration is created, expanding the SME base in seaside towns will be a critical job for whoever holds it.
The long-term decline of the British seaside towns during the past 35 years has gone largely unnoticed by Governments. Unlike coal, steel and rural communities,

105WH
seaside communities have not had on their side powerful unions that can commission research or exert political pressure. Seaside towns are literally on the periphery of the country. They are not consolidated in any one area, and their political voice has been diluted as a result. To counter that lack of political voice, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) set up the Labour group of seaside MPs six years ago. I congratulate him on his sterling work in the group, and especially on the document that we produced "Supporting Seaside Towns", which would form the perfect basis for a seaside regeneration trust or taskforce. The document promotes an holistic approach to seaside regeneration. I am sure that my hon. Friend will expand on that.
The third issue is the funding that will be required to help us to regenerate our seaside towns. Last year I asked my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for a breakdown of the specific ring-fenced budgets for coal, steel, rural and inner-city communities. He gave me an impressive list—one of which, as a Labour MP, I am proud—totalling £4 billion. There was £380 million through English Partnerships, for coalfield regeneration; £90 million for the Coalfield Regeneration Trust; £60 million through the Countryside Agency for rural programmes; and £120 million from the regional development agencies for rural developments. For the new deal for communities partnership there was £2 billion, and for neighbourhood renewal there was £440 million.
Those are impressive sums, and we in Wales have gone beyond that. When 3,000 steel industry job losses were announced by Corus last year, £92 million was put on the table to help steel communities. Foot and mouth hit Wales particularly hard, and £65 million was allocated to rural communities. I mentioned Kwiksave earlier: in 1998 1,000 jobs were lost in the seaside town of Prestatyn, yet the help that was given to the Kwiksave workers amounted to £250,000. I do not say that coal and steel communities should not benefit: they should. However, I ask for a level playing field, parity, and political recognition of the problems that we have faced, which have gone unrecognised for the past 35 years.
If seaside towns are to be regenerated, ring-fenced funding comparable to that allocated to the other areas that I have mentioned needs to be set aside. More than 3 million people live in the 43 principal seaside towns. Those towns have experienced long-term decline over 35 years. Their plight has been largely ignored. I ask the Minister to do all that she can to rectify that and to look positively on my three requests: for the establishment of a seaside regeneration trust, for the appointment of a Minister for seaside regeneration, and for the allocation of sufficient funding to regenerate those towns.
Several hon. Members rose—
David Taylor (in the Chair): Order. Five hon. Members want to catch my eye in the 34 minutes remaining before I intend to call the three Front-Bench speakers in this important debate. If the hon. Members will confine their remarks to a suitable time, they will all be called.
2.26 pm
Mr. David Amess: In my relatively brief, eight-minute speech, I intend to talk about the present and the future. For the second day running I intend to praise the Government. I shall return to type next week, but credit must be given where it is due. When debates began in this Chamber some years ago, I obtained a debate to which the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson), who was then Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting, replied. She was extremely helpful, and I know that the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), will be as helpful today as she was when she was a Minister at the Department of Health.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane). Except when he was knocking the Conservative Government, I agreed with much of what he said, especially about HMOs. Like him, I hope that the Queen's Speech will contain something to deal with the problem nationally.
We all know what the problem is with seaside resorts. It used to be expensive to travel abroad. The Brits have always moaned about the dodgy weather here, but it is now inexpensive to travel abroad. This year's experience may alter things—we have had unbelievably good weather and people may return to British seaside resorts for their summer holidays—but we must deal with the present situation.
Southend-on-Sea, as one of the 43 premier seaside resorts, suffers the same difficulties that all hon. Members present for this debate are concerned about. I thank the Government for the support that they are giving Southend. We have been delighted by the number of Ministers who have visited Southend. It is pretty convenient, at 40 miles from here, but we are grateful none the less. I shall end my brief speech with a request for just a little more help.
We in Southend have 4.4 per cent. unemployment, which is more or less double the rate for Essex as a whole. In addition, just as things were starting to look good, the cliffs began to slide. That has been a major difficulty for Southend. Where is the money to come from for restoration? We have a huge, very heavy bandstand where tea dances were traditionally held in the summer. It will be difficult to relocate that, but perhaps if I write to the Minister she will be able to come up with some ideas. Approximately 12.5 per cent. of Southend's work force is involved in tourism-related activities, so Southend is very heavily dependent on the tourism sector.
I am delighted that in August the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister announced a £29.6 million funding package. Southend, through public and private finance, was allocated, potentially at least, a decent share of what we were told would be £2 billion. We know that the Deputy Prime Minister intends to deliver 120,000 new homes, but we certainly cannot take them in Southend, because there is no land and areas that were empty have already been built on. We are commited to about 250 new houses. The Deputy Prime Minister also spoke about creating 18,000 jobs in the Thames gateway.
I am very grateful for Southend's £29.6 million. It will be spent on the regeneration of Pier hill, the 250 new houses, infrastructure development for improvements

107WH
to the Rochford business park near Southend airport, and, most excitingly, development of the university campus. We are determined to make Southend a centre of learning. The various projects centre on South East Essex college. We are working with the university of Essex. We also have many tourism projects under way, and new hotels are to be built.
We can all argue about which is the best seaside resort in the United Kingdom, but I know it is Southend. We have the longest pier in the world at 1.3 million miles—
Mr. Andrew Turner: Million miles?
Mr. Amess: I am sorry, I meant 1.3 miles. That was a slight exaggeration, Pinocchio-style.
We have the finest ice cream in the United Kingdom—Rossi's. We have Adventure Island playground, which is a bit like what they have in America; we have the Sealife centre and the Kursaal, and the wonderful Cliffs pavilion. In addition, we have seven miles of shoreline. However, there are problems. The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd talked about the money that his area had obtained from Europe. At the time when I secured a debate on the issue, one ward in my constituency, Westborough, was excluded from that funding. I hope that the Minister will help us to gain extra help for Westborough, which wants to become a village; I also hope for help for Westcliff community centre.
Mr. Andrew Turner: Does my hon. Friend accept that, although the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) was fortunate in that parts of his constituency abutted an objective 1 area, which was relatively easy to extend, the Isle of Wight does not abut an objective 1 area—indeed, it does not abut anything—and the Government found it impossible to extend objective 1 status to it? My constituents feel that that rule is very unfair.
Mr. Amess: I agree with my hon. Friend and I hope to visit the Isle of Wight in October, when I shall see the difficulties at first hand.
In the 90 seconds that remain to me I want to ask the Minister kindly to consider what help can be given for the Palace hotel, which we hope will be used by our new university. We would like a regional college for vocational skills and will need extra money for that. We very much need help with our fisheries project. My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) and I gave evidence at the London gateway inquiry; I can foresee terrible difficulties in terms of the effect on the Thames estuary if that huge project goes ahead.
Finally, I am concerned about Sir Michael Lyons's public sector relocation project, which the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd mentioned. Southend depends on Her Majesty's Customs and Excise being located there. If we were to lose that, it would have a devastating effect on the town. I thank the Government for what they have done so far, and look forward to the help that they will be able to give us in future.
2.34 pm
Mr. Gordon Marsden: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) for obtaining this debate and also for his indefatigable work since his election in raising the profile of seaside and coastal towns. That work has been shared by many members of the Back-Bench group of seaside and coastal Labour Members of Parliament that it is my privilege to convene.
On an all-party basis, I also pay tribute to the work of the British Resorts Association. I happen to have the title of president of that association, but all the real work is done, on a day-to-day basis, by a very small secretariat led by Peter Hampson. Indeed, I pay tribute to the work freely done by councillors of all parties and by officials across the country including this year's chairman, Mr. Les Byrom.
Reference has already been made this afternoon to the work of the seaside and coastal towns group in producing the document supporting seaside towns. I will refer to that, and to the specific proposal for a seaside regeneration trust and taskforce, later. However, much has already been done for seaside and coastal towns. Perhaps I could add to my hon. Friend's list. Many seaside and coastal towns, my own included, have benefited from the operations of the neighbourhood renewal fund. Increasingly, there is potential for business improvement districts. Blackpool has been cited as a pilot for business improvement districts. That is a real way of engaging the private sector in the improvement and regeneration of seaside towns.
Will the Minister take one point back to her colleagues? At the moment there is no mechanism in the proposed pilots for business improvement districts for the freeholders to contribute and participate. That, it seems to me, is a weakness. It has been raised by the Chairman of the Broadcasting Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) who is not here today but is chair of the all-party group for town centre management issues. It is an issue that should be looked at again.
Despite all the good things that the Government have done and, indeed, the funding by lottery organisations such as the Heritage Lottery Fund, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd referred, many problems remain. One of them is a statistical problem. Seaside towns are not only peripheral, but they are highly variable in the employment, accommodation, and everything else that they offer. That can mean that, taken on a constituency basis, pepper pots of extreme deprivation within seaside towns are not recognised by the Office for National Statistics or, indeed, by some of the other agencies involved.
The figures are stark. Many coastal towns are classified in the 100 most deprived areas in the UK in the index of local deprivation. In 1996, eight of the 20 worst deteriorating districts in the UK according to the index were in coastal towns. We need to bear that issue in mind when discussing regeneration. I am sure that the Minister, given her particular responsibilities with regard to social exclusion, will want to bear it in mind as well.
Recently there has been a major and significant report by Sheffield Hallam university on the seaside economy. One of the things that that report has shown is that,

109WH
although seaside towns are bearing up better than was expected in terms of maintaining employment, particularly in the tourism sector, in-migration to seaside towns is outstripping local employment growth, leading to a continuing imbalance in seaside labour markets. There is extensive joblessness, or underemployment, in seaside towns. That is beyond recorded claimant unemployment. One has to think only of the seasonal nature of seaside towns and of the fact that many people often have to do two or three low-paid and low-skilled jobs to keep their family going. Any regeneration policy and activity needs to take that point on board; it needs also to take on board the fact that we need a targeted and focused approach to be successful.
Regeneration must benefit residents as well as visitors. Too often, the balance has not been right, and that has led to local divisions that have hampered regeneration. Blackpool, for example, got its first publicly built sports centre only after electing a Labour authority in the 1990s. If we do not get it right—this applies to resident-friendly design as well as to the detail of balancing project finances between the needs of residents and visitors—we shall regenerate on contentious foundations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) said at a recent Treasury-led seminar, her town centre must be made good and fit for residents to live in before investment in new attractions or infrastructure will have a lasting chance of sustaining new markets and visitors. We should always bear that in mind.
Seaside towns put a strain on the services provided by local authorities and agencies, particularly because of their skewed demography; they have a higher than average number of elderly people and a higher than average number of younger people, often with low skills and low employment prospects. That is particularly true for hospitals, social services and education. For instance, Blackpool has between 12 million and 15 million visitors a year and, as I said to the Minister in one of her previous incarnations when I was pressing the case for a new scanner at Blackpool Victoria hospital in another Westminster Hall debate, those pressures affect services for local residents as well as for visitors.
Such pressures affect all doctors, from those in general practice to those in mental health. An interesting survey in Doctor magazine last year pointed out the pressures and strains placed on doctors in seaside towns. Some of those issues are only just beginning to be addressed by local government funding formulae. Some welcome changes have been made, but we need much more because the drain on local government funding affects the ability of local councils to introduce tourism and regeneration initiatives.
Regeneration needs to be underpinned by adequate planning and up-to-date powers and structures. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd referred to the control of HMOs, and I entirely endorse everything that he said. We need a draft housing Bill in the Queen's Speech to incorporate a national framework.
The Chamber may not be surprised to hear me refer also to the liberalisation of gaming and of casinos. Casinos, not least in Blackpool, have the potential to regenerate employment in the area because of an increase in the number of visitors. To be successful, however, proper planning powers and a strategic
110WH
approach are necessary. That is why I welcomed the August announcement on restricting such liberalisation to casinos of a certain size.
Over and beyond that, regional development agencies and councils have to consider tourism and seaside needs as part of an overall strategy. Some are doing it far better than others. We should also be aware that, unlike Blackpool, not all seaside towns are unitary authorities and that they are therefore dependent on the views of other organisations.
We need action across government. That action should demonstrate the diversity of needs, and to do that we require the voice of a seaside regeneration trust. It does not have to have an enormous new pot of money. By examining existing government work and the adequacy of current regeneration projects, it could act as the champion for the development of seaside and coastal towns. However, it is crucial to monitor and assess the effectiveness of the various initiatives being undertaken by Departments. That is why the coalfields taskforce regeneration trust has been so successful; and that is why I believe a seaside regeneration trust would be successful.
Several hon. Members rose—
David Taylor (in the Chair): Order. Sixteen minutes remain for Members to catch my eye. I ask those who are called to speak to bear that in mind.
2.44 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: I agree with so many of the contributions that have been made this afternoon that I do not propose to replicate or duplicate them. However, I must challenge the point made by the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess). His ice cream may be the best in England, but Cornwall is another country.
I want to touch on another point. While congratulating the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) not only on the way in which he introduced the subject but on his long-standing interest in it and on securing this debate, I also want to congratulate the House of Commons Library. It is now producing an excellent debate pack for debates of this sort. I do not know whether all Members have had the benefit of reading it, but I am particularly struck by the wisdom of the first paper, which starts as follows:
"The debate on Cornwall's lack of affordable homes for local people reached boiling point this week when it was revealed that houses in some coastal areas have more than doubled in the past two years. The news, contained in the nationwide listing of property price increases in seaside towns complied by Halifax estate agents, brought a furious reaction from North Cornwall MP Paul Tyler."
Now, I am an equitable person, so I can tell the Chamber that it was not a furious reaction, except in this sense. The regeneration of our coastal towns, particularly in the south-west, is being completely hampered by the lack of affordable housing. There is no point even providing in Cornwall the full-time, full-year employment that I have been working for throughout my political life if we cannot also ensure that those who are going to work in those towns can find affordable housing. It is not sufficient, for example, simply to try to impose an additional council tax burden on those who

111WH
have second homes. Only when we have planning control over the conversion of a full-time residence to a second home will we be able to give those communities the chance of retaining a reasonable number of homes for local people.
The right to buy was a disaster for these towns, but their ability to survive in future will depend on the continuing availability of a housing stock at a rent and price that people can afford. Unless the rent and purchase price are within the scope of local incomes, we have not a hope of regenerating the employment prospects of these towns. My Liberal Democrat colleagues, most notably my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders), and I have been arguing this issue for so long with the Deputy Prime Minister that I hope that the Minister will recognise this afternoon that this is a particular and very serious problem.
There is some good news, however. I, too, will pay credit to the Government because, frankly, the previous Government did not seem to want to know what was going on in the coastal towns that I represent. The "Shifting Sands" report, which has not been referred to, was very useful and it was commissioned by English Heritage and the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment. We have to provide a quality product. The hon. Member for Southend, West made that point very forcefully. We have to provide a quality product that can compete Europe-wide and worldwide. One way to do that is to make the places that we represent along the coastline of Britain more attractive. As everyone knows, North Cornwall has the most attractive coastline not only in the United Kingdom but in the world, so there is not a problem with the natural advantages of coming to North Cornwall. However, I worry about investment, private and public, in the built environment. This new report is extremely helpful from that point of view.
Again, I give credit to the Government for their response. As the hon. Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams) said, the foot and mouth disaster hit coastline areas such as mine as hard as it hit inland, but help was not available so quickly. However, I give credit to the Government. The market and coastal towns initiative provides a mechanism to assist, and it has advantages over some of the traditional ways in which local communities have been helped because it is very much bottom-up. It is all about local initiative. If there is one point on which I disagree with the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd, it is that I am not convinced that the man in Whitehall or, as I would say to the Minister, the woman in Whitehall knows best in such matters. The more we can give opportunity for local initiative and respond to that and match it with serious funding, the more successful we will be.
My only concern with the initiative is that it tends to concentrate on the larger centres of population. I have in my constituency the worldwide surfing centre of Newquay, but I also have some smaller coastal towns such as Bude, Tintagel, Port Isaac and Padstow, which are famous in different ways. They are not going to benefit in the same way as some of the big towns. Although Newquay, which is here in the list, has one of the worst unemployment rates for 2002—we are addressing that successfully with some effective
112WH
initiatives locally—some of the smaller towns also suffer. My concern is that local initiatives must be given as much flexibility as possible and the opportunity to develop in their own way for their own circumstances and communities. Yes, let us have a dedicated Minister if that will help, but let us not have this top-down approach, but a bottom-up one.
I particularly want to take up the point made by the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden). The British Resorts Association, of which he is a notable ambassador and with which I am also involved, has been effective in galvanising local communities to do their own thing and not just to accept what Whitehall has said. The biggest single way in which we can assist those communities is to ensure that, when they can both meet the requirements of residence and extend their season, nothing should be put in the way to prevent that. Full-time, skilled jobs and a quality product must be the aim.
2.50 pm
Mr. Alan Campbell: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) on securing this important debate, which provides an opportunity to reflect not just on the problems of seaside towns, but on the progress that is being made. It is almost unique to take part in a debate in which hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber acknowledge that.
My constituency includes Whitley bay, which, according to the Sheffield Hallam definition, is the principal seaside town between north Yorkshire and the Scottish border. It is a town of some 37,500 people and to a lesser or greater extent has similar problems to those outlined today. The explanation that is often given is the change in the annual week or two-week family holiday. That is a contributory factor, but on closer reflection there are other causes of the problems.
As well as those structural changes, important as they are, it is important to recognise that seaside towns suffered disproportionately from the big recessions of the 1980s and 1990s. Colleagues who do not represent seaside towns faced complaints, but those of us representing seaside towns in particular faced complaints about the number of for sale and to let signs and the number of charity shops in the high street. Seaside towns must attract people, and local residents were concerned that the wrong impression was being given.
The fact, not just the impression, of a stronger local and regional economy, helped by a particularly good summer, has created the feeling in places such as Whitley bay that perhaps we are turning the corner. We do not know whether that will be a long-term effect, because if one swallow does not make a summer, one summer does not make a strategy. However, although the structural problems remain, there are signs that seaside towns may be turning the corner.
It was announced yesterday that a long-awaited new shopping mall in Whitley bay has started. It was promised more than a decade ago but is being delivered only now. The local authority cabinet, which is a Conservative cabinet—I want to avoid accusations of political point-scoring—was due to make the decision yesterday on which developer will be given the task of

113WH
developing the Spanish City site, and earlier in the summer it was announced that the Government would provide £7.5 million to improve the seafront and to put in some of the infrastructure for the private sector developer.
The Sheffield Hallam study shows that seaside towns have seen a rise in employment, which in many cases is at least the same as elsewhere in the country. More spending power in the high street, low interest rates and rising property values mean that Whitley bay is now a good place in which to invest, and I hope that people will do so. To that can be added the regeneration of the public sector infrastructure with two new first schools—controversially, they are being built close to the seafront—investment in the people who will teach in those schools, the increase in the number of nurses and local and central Government employees, a disproportionate number of whom choose to live in seaside towns because they are nice places in which to live. Public spending is an important factor in the regeneration and redevelopment of seaside towns and there are signs of that.
I want to focus on the balance between public and private regeneration. I welcome and encourage private sector developers, but local government and central Government should retain a role. I shall give a couple of illustrations. First, the Sheffield Hallam study showed that some seaside towns are changing what they offer and are finding a niche in the market. For Whitley bay, that means less emphasis on the annual family holiday and more on the evening economy. If one books into some hotels, one is more likely to find oneself among people on a stag or hen night than among people on a family holiday. That is not to be pushed away entirely, because it brings money into the town and people then develop hotels, bars and restaurants—that is welcome. However, the downside is the tension between residents and visitors over matters such as drink-related antisocial behaviour. A balance must be struck.
Secondly, private developers are too often trying to cash in on rising house prices. As such, development projects often mean a lot of houses, and they will change the architecture and nature of seaside towns if we are not careful. Local government and central Government have a role. I endorse entirely what my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd said about ring-fenced funds. We need a resorts taskforce, and the idea of a Minister has much to commend it.
Another part of the jigsaw, the regional development agency, is underperforming in my region. We need a coastal strategy that includes coastal resorts, which are part of the regional economy. Fishing communities also need help, but I am sure that we can build on the progress that has been made.
2.56 pm
Shona McIsaac: Like others, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) on securing this important debate and on managing to raise the issue at Prime Minister's questions today. That was a marvellous trailer for a marvellous debate.
When I saw that the debate was scheduled for today, I cast my mind back to August 1996, which must have been the only time that Cleethorpes has appeared on the
114WH
front cover of virtually every national daily newspaper. A one-man regeneration whirlwind in the form of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who is now the Deputy Prime Minister, descended on Cleethorpes and brought with him most of the national media. That certainly gave a mini-boost to the local economy that day. I do not think that as much fish and chips and ice cream has ever been sold. The story is there for everyone to see, and I am included as well.
To be fair, Ministers have visited: my hon. Friends the Members for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson) and for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells). However, such visits are few and far between. I believe that many Ministers do not really appreciate the serious nature of the problems in seaside resorts. When people visit on the weekend, they see the wonderful bustle of the seafront at Cleethorpes. Like others, we have a marvellous sandy beach. We also have a steam railway and the east coast's answer to Alton Towers in the form of Pleasure Island. Unlike the seafront in the constituency of the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), Cleethorpes has the shortest pier in Britain, but one can walk almost to the Netherlands when the tide goes out.
It is a marvellous place, but, as others have said today, behind the few hundred yards of seafront there exists phenomenal deprivation in seaside resorts. The statistics show that 10 of the 14 electoral wards in north-east Lincolnshire, of which Cleethorpes is part, are in the top 30 per cent. of the index of multiple deprivation. I live in the ward of Croft Baker, which is the heart of the resort. It is in the top 20 per cent. of the most deprived. Other wards in the local authority also come in very high. One comes in in the mid-200s in the list of more than 8,000 electoral wards in the UK. That deprivation exists. We have more people unemployed, more people permanently sick and more people with disabilities. Young people drift away to universities in other parts of the country and do not come back.
It was mentioned that house prices are rising in Cornwall. House prices are not high in north-east Lincolnshire. My neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell)—Grimsby and Cleethorpes go together like fish and chips—said in The House Magazine:
"house prices are so low you could afford to buy a house for your stay. It will be cheaper than a London hotel room and you'd end up with an investment property."
However, low house prices per se do not bring regeneration. The fact that our house price base is low means that landlords who have been milking the property markets in some of the towns in Yorkshire tend to want to sell those properties and move people into resorts such as Cleethorpes. Those people are being shifted, and that is leading to many problems in the housing markets in our areas.
As has been requested many times this afternoon, we need a coherent strategy pulling together the multiple problems that affect seaside resorts. If it were any other industry, the problems would have been addressed long ago, but because the resorts are dotted around the coast of Britain they have been overlooked. I hope that Ministers will do something. I issue a challenge to the Minister. Her Pontefract and Castleford constituency is probably just under an hour from Cleethorpes. She just needs to go down the M62, on to the M180 and stop

115WH
when she sees the sea. She can bring her children and enjoy the day, but she can also take a look behind the seafront and see some of the severe problems that exist in our seaside resorts. Another Yorkshire MP said to me that he thought that there was deprivation in the mining communities in Yorkshire, but he had not seen anything like the deprivation he noticed when he visited Cleethorpes.
Vera Baird: My hon. Friend was verging on a subject that I want to mention, briefly, in connection with Redcar, which is the other seaside resort between north Yorkshire and the Scottish border. Does my hon. Friend agree that a problem that we have shows that the real difficulty is the lack of a conceptual grasp of seaside towns as a whole? We have a super new town centre and it is a great attraction. The trouble is that mobility patterns have altered, so that peripheral streets at the bottom end of the high street now have 19 empty shops—I counted last Saturday. Seaside towns are quite poor and peripheral. They do not have the money in the local economy to sustain themselves through change such as that. The situation is self-perpetuating and just gets worse.
David Taylor (in the Chair): Order. The intervention is rather long. Will the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) respond and wind up as rapidly as possible?
Shona McIsaac: I totally agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird). She has certainly added to the debate and illustrated the nature of deprivation in resorts.
I hope that the Minister will come to Cleethorpes—a nearby resort—to see the problems. I am sure that, if she does, she will appreciate the sheer strength of feeling among those who represent coastal areas, who know that something must be done to stop the decline.
3.3 pm
Mr. Adrian Sanders: I congratulate the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) on securing the debate. I entirely agree with him about ring-fencing and the need to create a level playing field. He gave the example of Corus, where 3,000 jobs were lost and £90 million paid. In my constituency, 4,300 jobs have gone—I am talking about Nortel high-tech industry—and not a penny was paid, although people were helped through the Employment Service into other work.
Most of our seaside resorts are Victorian in character. Their original infrastructure was created by the Victorians. They grew greatly at the time of the development of the railways as a way of enabling people from inland areas to visit the coastline. Things improved as the working man, and later the working woman as well, were allowed holidays. Statutory holidays helped to develop the British coastal seaside resort. Things changed in the '60s, almost at the height of that development, after people gained more employment and holiday rights. The jet engine came on stream, which guaranteed people decent holiday weather by taking them to the Mediterranean at a relatively
116WH
reasonable price. That industry has got bigger and bigger, and families who used to have a two-week bucket-and-spade holiday in Bridlington, Torbay, or Blackpool, now enjoy the same holiday in the Mediterranean or even Florida.
The whole industry has therefore had to change and adjust. One way it has been able to survive is through people gaining more holiday rights—in many cases, people take a second holiday at a UK seaside resort. The transport infrastructure has improved, which has enabled people to reach holiday resorts more quickly, but it has also meant that they tend to stay for shorter breaks. They no longer depend on the coach or train service that took them down on a Saturday and did not allow them to escape for the next week or two. Today, they go down, and when it starts raining they leave the hotel and go home.
The whole industry has changed, and that has resulted in less money spent by tourists staying in local economies. That point should be emphasised. Today more tourists are needed to generate money that stays in the local economy than were needed in the '60s. Not only are tourist numbers down, but the value of that industry to the local economy is far less than it used to be. Holiday resorts have responded. They have tried to find new attractions, they have invested in their infrastructure, and they have looked for new products and improved existing ones.
The resorts constantly face trends that go against them. The 1960s holidaymaker who stayed in a guest house, which supported a family for 12 months a year, will today come down for a few days, go self-catering and possibly stock up in a Sainsbury's, a Morrison's or a Marks and Spencer's. Visitors do not spend their money in family-owned local businesses. When people went out in a town in the 1960s, they would go to a local restaurant or pub. Today, they spend their money in a branch of a national chain of restaurants or pubs. All the time, less money from tourism stays in the local economy, and that has a big impact on average incomes.
The Fothergill-Beatty report concentrated on unemployment and totally missed that vital point. We have been conditioned to think that unemployment is a dreadful thing—it is, but low incomes depress areas as well, and coastal communities face the problem of low incomes. There can be 100 per cent. employment, but if people are all in part-time jobs they are not earning the money that they used to. In many of our seaside communities, incomes are well below the national average, even if unemployment is only slightly above the national average. The Government have to recognise that and do something about it. It is the single biggest issue.
The Fothergill-Beatty report tended to concentrate on the right statistics but to draw the wrong conclusions. It seemed to take the fact that lots of people want to migrate to coastal towns as a good thing. We tend to accept that: people move to the south-east, the area is popular, house prices increase and therefore the area has a booming economy. However, the type of people who move to coastal areas—as the report identifies—tend to be those who are economically inactive or winding down economically. They are not thrusting entrepreneurs with high qualifications who want to create wealth. They migrate to enjoy the natural environment. There is nothing wrong with that, but the report turns it into a

117WH
positive, when, in fact, it creates problems—it does not solve them. Migration is not, as the report suggests, a positive factor.
What do seaside resorts need? They need their problems to be recognised, which Ministers have begun to do. They also need support. Yes, some grants have been tweaked to help, and yes, word can go out to RDAs that some of the single regeneration budget funding should be skewed towards seaside resorts—I do not know whether that happens in every region. No specific grants are available for local authorities. The Government say, "Well, we have got some European funding." However, communities qualify for European funding irrespective of the fact that they are on the coastline. That is more spin than substance. Specific grant funding is required to help those communities to increase their incomes and economies.
Vera Baird: I intervene to emphasise the hon. Gentleman's point, which returns to the need to view seaside towns as a whole entity. Redcar, for instance, does not have a swimming pool, which is absurd for a seaside town of 40.000 people. No state agency will help us with that project because if one divides the population of the borough by the number of pools, on the face of it there are enough. State agencies do not see that such an amenity is absolutely imperative to a seaside resort. The want of a clear conceptual vision must be pursued.
Mr. Sanders: I cannot but endorse the hon. and learned Lady's comments, speaking as somebody who represents an area with a population of 126,000 that does not have an all-weather running track. We miss out with those grant regimes that do not consider applications holistically.
We are discussing what is behind the facade of palm trees and deck chairs. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said, housing problems can be acute whether house prices are high or low. If house prices are high, local people cannot afford to purchase because they cannot compete with the people migrating in.
We have a problem with absentee landlords. Many social problems, such as antisocial behaviour and drug abuse, occur in areas of private sector rented accommodation where there are absentee landlords. We have an acute shortage of social housing. More money must be put into the Housing Corporation and housing trusts in order to put that right. We need investment in training, even better transport links and, above all, improved infrastructure to build on what the Victorians gave us and to make those communities vibrant, successful and prosperous in the future.
3.12 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am delighted to catch your eye, Mr. Taylor. Surprisingly enough, I have one thing in common with the Minister: she and I are the only two Members present for the debate who do not represent seaside towns. I do not have to be nice to the Government because I have nothing to lose if they fail to give my town any money.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) on securing the debate, which has been extremely useful. Seaside towns have not been given
118WH
enough attention by Conservative Governments or by the Labour Government, and there is a lot more to do. Seaside towns can learn a lot from each other's best practice. I do not agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman said, and I may return to that point if I have sufficient time.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) and the hon. Members for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden), for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) and for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) on their speeches. I have not forgotten the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell), who is nodding his head.
I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West praising the Government, although I hope that he will revert to type soon. I also hope that he manages to persuade the Government that his constituency should get the Palace hotel, that his fisheries project should be supported and that Her Majesty's Customs and Excise should relocate to Southend, West, in which case he will be delighted that he has attended the debate.
As many Members have said, many national problems affect seaside resorts. The hon. Member for North Cornwall briefly referred to the paper, "Shifting Sands", commissioned by English Heritage and the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment. The opening paragraph admirably sums up the debate:
"As an island nation, our relationship to the border between land and sea is unique and deep rooted. Seaside towns share many similarities with their inland cousins, yet remain fundamentally different: climate, remoteness, ageing and transient populations, changing demands, balancing the needs of day-trippers with residents."
That sums up what many hon. Members have said regarding our 43 principal seaside towns. I have spent a good portion of my life in north Norfolk, near Sheringham and Cromer, which are not on the list of 43 principle towns, so it is clear that many other towns need to be considered, too.
Statistics show that seaside towns are often small and diverse. There are 1.3 million people in our 43 principal seaside towns, and such towns tend to be small; roughly half have a population of fewer than 50,000. The excellent statistics prepared by the Library for the debate show that 32 per cent.—almost a third—of the 1.3 million people in our seaside towns are, as one would expect, connected with distribution, hotels and restaurants.
I would have thought that in most, if not all, seaside towns, an increase in prosperity will be led by an increase in tourism. That is why they must be made into attractive places that people want to visit. That includes people in this country, many of whom take a holiday—and particularly, nowadays, a second holiday—to a seaside resort. Also, we need to encourage more inward tourism from abroad. The Government can play a greater role in that. Tourism is now the world's largest business. It employs many people, particularly at the lower-skills end of the spectrum, and so should be taken more seriously by the country.
I should like to plug my area at this point. I do not represent a seaside town, but my constituency, the Cotswolds, has a crucial interest in tourism. I invite all

119WH
hon. Members to go there; we like lots of visitors and tourists. Indeed, I am sure that every other hon. Member here likes people to visit their seaside town.
I do not have many minutes left, but I could not conclude without mentioning some problems that seaside towns have in common with the rest of the nation. I agree with hon. Members who said that regenerating seaside towns is a cross-government, multi-agency problem, but I criticise the Government for having so many different regeneration schemes. The problem is that no one knows what they all are. Statistics show that many funds are underspent, because people do not know what they are. I ask the Government to consolidate those schemes and promote them further, so that everyone can benefit from them. That would be a major step forward.
I also agree with those who say that we need to increase education and skills, not only in seaside towns but for the rest of the country. That does not necessarily mean sending everyone to university—the 50 per cent. target is suspect—however, there are vocational and other courses that people in seaside towns should have the opportunity to take. Education, and persuading people with skills to stay in their home seaside town, is important.
Many have mentioned the lack of affordable housing, which particularly affects seaside towns. The hon. Member for North Cornwall, who is chuntering in the background, mentioned the problem. Unfortunately, the homelessness statistics that have come out today make pretty dismal reading. The number of homeless households with dependent children increased by a massive 8,000 between 1997 and the last quarter of 2003. The statistics show that the number of those in bed-and-breakfast accommodation almost trebled between 1997 and the second quarter of 2003; and, more worrying, that the number of unintentionally homeless in priority need has continued to rise from 102,430 in 1997 to a staggering 129,320 today. Indeed, the Select Committee report on affordable housing said that we now have the highest number of homeless households that this country has ever had.
We need to be building more affordable houses, and more houses throughout England and Wales full stop. We have the lowest number of housing starts at any time since before the second world war. We need to address those problems, and consider how we can build more affordable homes, because young people wanting to get on the housing ladder are simply priced out of the market in a lot of seaside resorts, especially those in the south.
I am surprised that the hon. Member for North Cornwall did not mention what he has said often in the past: that in the south-east and south-west the affordability gap—the gap between what people earn and what they have to pay for a house—is widening alarmingly. The problem is not so bad in some places in the north. That makes it very difficult for young people to buy a house in the area where they were born and where they want to live.
Finally, there is an issue of funding. As well as consolidating their regeneration schemes, the Government should consider other factors. In 1999,
120WH
there was a problem because the partnership investment programme and gap funding was withdrawn by Europe. I want to hear from the Minister whether that funding has now been fully restored to the various projects to regenerate not only our seaside towns, but inner cities. Has the gap been plugged? We want to make sure that, where necessary, seaside towns get investment. It is clear from the statistics produced for today's debate that where there is a thriving seaside town, there is net inward migration—there is a relationship in that the more thriving the seaside town, the more inward migration, growth and employment there is. That is surely what we all want to see.
Seaside towns play a vital role in tourism in this country. We need to pay more attention to them and encourage people to think that a holiday by the seaside is the best possible thing they can do for their health—provided they do plenty of walking by the sea when they get there.
3.21 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Yvette Cooper): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) on securing this debate and on choosing a subject that is of such importance not only to his constituents but to many people across the country. I also thank other hon. Members for their excellent contributions this afternoon. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) and many other hon. Members here on their work as part of the seaside and coastal towns group of MPs. They have undoubtedly done much to raise the profile of seaside towns and the complex issues that they face.
We know that many seaside areas face common problems and issues. First, peripheral location can be reflected in weaker transport links, which can lead to problems in attracting new businesses, especially manufacturing, and inward investment. Secondly, changing trends in tourism, as described in some detail by the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders), have moved faster than local infrastructure. However, visitors still flock to the British seaside. In a summer such as the one we have just had, the British seaside comes into its own. Nevertheless, people seek different kinds of accommodation and breaks. Often, the accommodation provided has been historically developed and does not suit the expectations and demands of tourists today.
Thirdly, as many hon. Members have said, employment in seaside areas is often seasonal and low paid. That can lead to a low and variable skills base with problems in retaining and upskilling staff over time. That is one of the reasons why the Government are backing the establishment of the sector skills council for tourism. Fourthly, seaside towns attract a comparatively large number of people from the young and old age groups. That, combined with a high commuting population, can lead to high levels of non-employment and reliance on local authority services.
Those issues were explored in depth in the recent Sheffield Hallam report, which was conducted by many of the same people who were in the original coalfield taskforce. They examined 43 large and medium-sized

121WH
seaside towns, and their report is a welcome analysis, which will help all of us to understand and tackle the problems of coastal areas. Two main things came out of the report. First, the traditional economic base of the seaside town is very much in place: significant numbers of visitors still go to the British seaside. In 2002, UK residents made 33.7 million trips, which were worth £4.6 billion. We have to recognise the changes in the nature of tourism, which remains a significant industry.
The hon. Members for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) and for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) both gave a strong account of the delights for tourists in their constituencies. I will refrain from discussing the merits of the different ice creams from the different areas, but if the hon. Gentlemen want me to sample the ice cream from their constituencies, I would be happy to do so. I would also be happy to visit the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac).
The nature of tourism has changed, but we should nevertheless be optimistic about the prospects for tourism in our seaside towns. The second important point made by the Sheffield Hallam report was that, unlike coalfield and other traditional industrial areas, seaside resorts have experienced strong population growth, not an exodus of people. Between 1971 and 2001, net inward migration to seaside towns increased their population of working age by 360,000; people want an attractive and enjoyable living environment.
However, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South made an important point: although there has been job creation in many seaside towns, inward migration has often outstripped that job creation. That can lead to problems of non-employment and underemployment, although the Sheffield Hallam report makes it clear that seaside towns as a whole do not suffer from a spiral of decline. Nor should we write off seaside tourism; that is important.
My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury held a seaside town seminar for MPs from all parties on 1 July, following a request from my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South. On 18 September, an official seminar, in which many different Departments will be represented, will be held to discuss the Sheffield Hallam report; I believe that my hon. Friend will be chairing that seminar. The Chief Secretary will host a further seminar in December. Given that so many hon. Members have raised funding issues, and given the discussions in the run-up to the 2004 spending review, I can certainly say that the right host has been chosen for the seminar.
However, I would sound a note of caution on the issue, raised by many hon. Members, of ring-fenced funding. We get pulled both ways; every group or organisation wants ring-fenced funding for their area or concern, but equally everybody argues that we should
122WH
get rid of ring-fenced funding and give local areas and organisations more flexibility to make local decisions about the way in which resources are spent. We are keen to promote greater local decision making, particularly by regional development agencies.
We recognise that there are significant issues that seaside towns have in common; we also have to recognise that there is a wide variety of issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes talked about the housing problem facing her constituency—low housing demand and its consequences. Meanwhile, the hon. Member for North Cornwall referred to high housing demand and high prices. So seaside towns also face very different issues; it is clear that there is not a one-size-fits-all solution. For that reason, we are not convinced that a seaside trust would be an appropriate vehicle to manage the difficulties faced by such towns. However, I am keen that we should continue to look at the issues and have further discussions with the seaside group of MPs.
We need to ensure that regional development agencies, which are well placed to take a local strategic look at the problems facing seaside towns, continue to work with regional tourist boards and with local councils. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell) that local authorities are a critical factor, and have an important role to play. We need to ensure that they look not only at tourism issues—which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams) says, are extremely important—but at other areas of employment and job growth as well.
The social exclusion unit is conducting a project that is looking at the barriers to jobs and enterprise in deprived areas and at some of the huge variations that exist between areas. One of the area studies that it is doing is at a seaside town; I will ask the unit to look particularly at whether there are seaside factors involved in the wide variation in employment and non-employment levels.
Hon. Members have made a series of important points about housing, particularly about the HMOs, which I do not have time to address, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd that we need licensing of HMOs. We want mandatory licensing for HMOs that are of three stories or more and occupied by five or more people, and we want to give powers to local authorities to take further action. There is obviously a wide range of issues in seaside towns that need to be addressed. The broad programme of regeneration and neighbourhood renewal programmes that we have in place across the country forms an important building block, but clearly we have further to go. I look forward to working with seaside MPs to determine what further steps we can take.

Keynsham and Paulton Hospitals
3.30 pm
Dan Norris: May I say how nice it is to be here under your chairmanship, Mr. Taylor? I was not expecting to see you today. It is an unusual situation for us to be meeting here in September. It would not previously have been possible for me to air my constituents' concerns at this time of year. I am very grateful for the changes in the hours and sitting dates, not least because this matter would otherwise have gone unnoticed in this place.
This issue is about fairness, not favours. I want to stress that. It is a justice issue. To allow the Chamber to make sense of it, I shall explain something of the local situation in and around my constituency. The Bath and North East Somerset primary care trust, which is responsible for the decisions about Paulton and Keynsham hospitals that are the subject of today's debate, covers north-east Somerset, which is largely made up of about 80 per cent. of my constituency, as well as Bath. Although that forms one area, there is a distinct difference between how Bath operates and how Bath people see the world, and how north-east Somerset operates and views the world.
One of the most notable factors is that the north-east Somerset part of my constituency covers a very large area—as large as the neighbouring Bristol constituencies and Bath put together. There is a great difference in geography and in how people see the world and relate to it. It has an older population than average, and some of the proposals relate to older people. They have a resonance that might not be understood if one did not know how the population of my constituency was made up.
My constituency has, by and large, an affluent population. Unemployment is incredibly low, and was the lowest in the country six months ago. I think that I am right in saying that that is the first time that a Labour constituency has had the lowest unemployment in the whole country. It still remains very low, but there are areas of significant poverty. It is to people in those areas that Keynsham and Paulton Memorial hospitals are most valuable. If there are great distances to cover and one cannot easily afford to travel, they are all the more important.
I want to stress something that people will not understand without a local knowledge. The hospitals have great emotional resonance and importance for local people. Keynsham hospital is well known to many of my older constituents, not least because they remember it as being on the site of the old workhouse. In some respects, it strikes fear among the very oldest. Paulton Memorial hospital was established to recognise the needs of the mining community. It is centred in the heart of the former north Somerset coalfield area. Although the last pit closed 30 years ago this month, the miners whom I saw at a reunion on Monday were full of their concerns about the hospital. They know how important it is to that community, and what great service it has given over many years, not only in my lifetime but in previous generations.
This is not in any sense a criticism of the Government, because there is a perfect understanding in my constituency that the decision, on which I shall
124WH
elaborate in a moment, to make changes that are in effect cuts to the local service has been made by the local primary care trust, Bath and North East Somerset, which is made up of local appointments and people who should well know the area and the reaction that there will be to the proposals—although I fear that they do not. For example, there is a complete understanding that the Government are investing hugely in the health service in my local area. Bath and North East Somerset primary care trust is to receive £40.7 million over and above what it had been allocated—some £12 million this year, £14 million next year and £14.7 million the year after.
Because such huge and welcome Government expenditure has resulted in extra staff and other improvements, there is consternation and disbelief that there could be any talk of cuts in local hospitals. That seems incongruous with what is seen as the good work of the Government, for which people voted in two successive general elections, and it causes puzzlement and concern. There has also been a welcome for the many millions of pounds of investment in local education.
On top of all that, there has been a particular welcome for the investment that has recognised the toil of and pain suffered by many former miners in my constituency and the surrounding areas. Wansdyke has just received £1.3 million in compensation for emphysema and related issues. That is something that people welcome and understand: they recognise that such huge investment is important, and there is no question but that they appreciate the local NHS staff. What is difficult to understand is my area's unique honour: two hospitals, Bath royal united hospital and Bristol royal infirmary, with its associated trust hospitals, both got zero ratings in the Government's listings. Local people do not perceive that as meaning that they are not doing good things; they recognise that they are clinically excellent and do some wonderful work. By and large, they welcome the scrutiny that went into the compilation of the figures and statistics—they long suspected that things were not of the standard that they should have been—and they recognise the importance of transparency. Unless a problem is identified, it cannot be dealt with.
Having said that, they also appreciate the work of local NHS staff, and that of the extra doctors and nurses who have been available since 1997. They understand that cancer treatment has improved significantly in the locality. Both in-patient and out-patient waiting lists have reduced a great deal, which is very welcome, as they were not satisfactory for a long time, and they also know that since last summer nobody has had to wait beyond the prescribed period of 12 hours on a trolley in Bath. That was not the case in past years, so there is great admiration for the work of NHS staff, not least those in Paulton and Keynsham, who have a good reputation and whose high standards are valued.
However, there is great anger and intense and passionate feeling about the proposals to cut services at hospitals in my constituency, which would involve Paulton's losing six beds and Keynsham 10, and the relocation of Keynsham clinic. People are concerned

125WH
because they recognise the good work that is done there, but most of the anger relates to the bed cuts rather than to the relocation; they understand the need for change, provided that it means better services in the future.
There is also a worry that services to older people are under threat. Most of the population in Wansdyke and north-east Somerset is older than average. People also feel that there is an attack on mental health services and respite care services. Many carers are totally dependent on the respite care provided by the hospitals in one form or another. There is distress about the proposals because people had understood that when the new primary care trust came into being it would address mental health issues, issues for older people and respite care. Despite the opening up of communications, and the understanding that there would be proposals to make cuts if that were deemed necessary to balance the books, they did not expect soft targets to be hit. We are talking about the most helpless people in our communities and, along with the bed cuts, people are mystified as to why they should be targeted in that way. Having attended all four public consultation meetings, I know that they are not persuaded by the plans allegedly to maintain the standard and quality of service by new methods, not least care in the community.
You probably remember as well as I do, Mr. Taylor, that a Government of a different political persuasion set out on the care in the community road many years ago, thinking that it would bring cost savings, but it turned out to be a more expensive way of doing things. I think that, by and large, it was a better way of doing things, but it was not a mechanism for saving money. People are not convinced by the arguments put by the primary care trusts that the moneys that they want to save by making bed closures and other changes will fill the shortfall, although some of the money will be redirected to care in the community; people want to ensure that standards remain the same or, better still, that they improve.
I started by saying that there should be fairness and not favours for my constituents. They are aware of the overspend of £15 million, and they recognise that one has to balance the books. They do not want extra money, over and above their fair share, and they recognise that they are getting a lot more now, in line with many other parts of the country, which is right and just. However, if the books have to be balanced, they believe that the overspend should be corrected where it occurred. That was not in Paulton or Keynsham. Indeed, two thirds of that £15 million overspend took place in or around Bath royal united hospital. My constituents are rightly asking why the remedy is not being targeted at the place where the overspend occurred. The books must balance, but why should good hospitals that did not run up a deficit pay? That is to overlook the main culprit.
There is a history of poor management in relation to the Bath NHS trust under its various names over the years, not least the fact that it was so poorly managed at one time that three chief executives were salaried. Indeed, one of them was successful in obtaining £200,000 for unfair dismissal for being sacked while ill. An awareness of such figures when compared with saving beds does not go down terribly well with those whom I represent.
126WH
Consultation meetings are a great forum for people to express their feelings—they are an important part of the process—but it is fair to say that some of the meetings have been quite stormy. I think that people have not been personally angry at the members of the trust, and although it might sometimes have felt like that to the chief executive, I assure her that that is not the case. However, it is a measure of the intense passion and feeling that has arisen. As a result, the chief executive sometimes thinks that it is being suggested that she does not care and that she is being cold and calculating. I do not believe that to be the case. I have found her to be accessible and prepared to talk at length about her plans. I am not convinced by the plans, although they have some merit because the books have to be balanced; but a range of other cost-cutting options that would be fairer and more just would not have created such a strong public reaction among my constituents.
In one matter, however, I am critical of the Government. I do not expect the Minister to share my view, but when the Government appoint primary care trust chairmen, they should be as partisan as necessary. One of the reasons for the current difficulty in the Bath and North East Somerset primary care trust is that the chairman is not of the same political persuasion as me or you, Mr. Taylor, and the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) is his leader. This Government are clearly committed to extra expenditure, to reform and to a set of values. After all, the Labour party, my party, created the NHS and wants to ensure that it becomes even stronger and better. It is therefore very difficult for many local people to comprehend how someone of a different political persuasion can, in all integrity, properly accept the thrust of Government thinking and want Government policies to be implemented. Clearly there is disagreement, although I respect their right to hold their own views.
We should reconsider how we appoint people to become chairmen of PCTs. There is nothing wrong with appointing people of the same political persuasion as the Government and being straight and open about it. People would understand that completely. They would not like it, however, if someone's political persuasion were somehow hidden or disregarded when it was an important factor. We should know that everyone is pulling together and working together in the same way. That issue has caused consternation among local people.
It did not help that the chairman of the trust missed the first three of the four consultation meetings. Of course, he may have gone on a well-deserved holiday. Who would not want someone to have a holiday in the summer? However, PCT chairmen presumably want to support their staff in the difficult proposals that they are presenting to the public, so when they know that a consultation meeting is coming up and have a choice about the times and dates of consultation meetings, surely they would want to be there to defend them and to explain, even to enthuse, if they felt so minded. I can say, in all charity, that not being present at the first three meetings was not the best way to win friends and influence people. I hope that he will be present at the final meeting in my constituency, so that he will have been present at two out of five meetings at least.

127WH
The strength of feeling is best illustrated by petitions that have been collected in my constituency. At the risk of boring hon. Members, I will read them out, but promise that I will do so quickly. I penned the first petition myself, on behalf of the Wansdyke Labour party. It states:
"We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned by local plans to reduce the number of beds at Paulton and Keynsham Hospitals at a time when the Government is providing £40 million extra funding over the next three years to improve the NHS in our area.
We urgently call upon the Bath and North East Somerset Primary Care Trust to reconsider its ill thought out plans to cut hospital beds, at a time when extra Government funding means there should be improved NHS services."
That petition was also taken up by the friends and users of Paulton hospital, who have done great work in collecting signatures.
The second petition was undertaken by a local newspaper, the Somerset Guardian. I thank Joanna Roughton, its editor, for running it. It says:
"We, the undersigned, strongly believe that there should be no cuts in the number of beds or staff at Paulton hospital."
Another petition, undertaken by another local publication, The Journal, says:
"We oppose the closure of beds at Paulton and Keynsham hospitals, and other proposed economy measures, at a time when there is increasing NHS funding."
I thank George Donkin, its editor, for running that petition.
I want briefly to thank others, such as the friends and users group and everyone involved with it, especially Tony Clements, Mavis Ditte and Sue Padfield. They spent much time on their petition over the summer. I am very glad that it was a good summer, as they were outside for a great deal of time collecting signatures. I mentioned the local editors of the relevant media in and around Paulton. I also thank the local councillors, who have been part of an action group to fight the proposed cuts, especially Keynsham councillors Adrian Inker and Hilary Fraser and Paulton councillors Hattie Ajderian and Brian Barrett. They, too, did tremendous work over the summer with the ward constituents. They have been a source of advice and help to me, for which I am grateful.
I also thank members of Wansdyke Labour party, and all the other people unknown to me, many of whom have worked so hard to collect what is now approaching 10,000 signatures. That is roughly one in six of all my constituents. I am sure that it could be much higher with enough bodies to collect the signatures. It is certainly the biggest petition that I have received since becoming a Member of Parliament in 1997. It is fair to say—I am bound to be subjective—that the issue has created the most intense feeling in my time representing the people of Wansdyke.
The issue is about fairness, not favours. Local people do not want to be let off any financial impediment that would otherwise come their way. They recognise that if there has been an overspend the books must be balanced, but they want the balancing to occur where the overspend took place, which predominantly means the Bath royal united hospital. The Bath and North East Somerset primary care trust has not weighed that up in its proposals to make cuts.
128WH
I believe in devolved decision making. Bearing in mind my proviso about the appointment of chairs, primary care trusts are a good way of making important local decisions in the NHS, but many people—in my view they are wrong—feel that the consultation is a sham. It is not a sham, and I am quietly confident that there will be a compromise because of the strength of local opinion, which is expressed through petitions, public meetings, letters and phone-ins to radio stations and various other media. There will be a compromise, but I ask the primary care trust to be careful not to jump out of the fire and into the frying pan. There may be a strong public reaction if it keeps beds open but changes their purpose.
3.51 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wansdyke (Dan Norris) on securing the debate. I have listened to and appreciated his comments, which he has expressed with concern and passion, about an issue that matters to people in his constituency and thereabouts. I should also like to take this opportunity to join him in paying tribute to all the staff he mentioned in the local health economy. They are obviously committed to the improvement of the local NHS and also to the provision of services to patients.
I shall discuss the local issues in a moment, but it is important that we acknowledge the pressures on the NHS not only in my hon. Friend's constituency but throughout the country. We want not only to increase capacity but to raise clinical standards. We do not want more of the same; we want a radical re-examination of the best ways of providing services for patients both now and in the future.
The NHS plan sets out a challenging 10-year programme for the reform of the NHS. In that context, it is worth saying that far-reaching changes are often necessary to provide the best possible services for patients. We must ensure that services are accessible and flexible and we therefore want to design services around the needs of patients. As part of that modernisation programme, many economies and organisations in the NHS are considering changes in how they organise their services with stakeholders.
Hospital services must change if we are to continue to fulfil patients' needs and to improve access. Services cannot and should not remain static for ever. They should be responsive to local needs and to the changing opportunities for developing services. Local providers of health services have a responsibility to live within their means. My hon. Friend sketched out the balance between those two issues at play in this situation.
As my hon. Friend knows—I will not go into this in great detail—it is obviously for the primary care trusts in partnership with strategic health authorities and other local stakeholders to determine how best to use their funds to meet national and local priorities for improving health, tackling health inequalities and modernising services. They are in the best position to know, because they are closest to the local community.
In my hon. Friend's constituency, the local PCT, Bath and North East Somerset, is recovering from a £15 million deficit, and I appreciate the concerns that he has expressed on behalf of his constituents. The local

129WH
strategic health authority, the Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire strategic health authority, has worked closely with the whole health community to make the necessary savings. Savings are required not only from community and primary care but from the acute sector. My hon. Friend emphasised fairness, not favours. The whole health community needs to tackle the problems that it faces together. That is why the local PCT has published the consultation document, "Living within our Means", which identifies how it proposes to make the savings.
The consultation ends at the end of September. I assure my hon. Friend that local stakeholders have been involved in the process, and he knows that full well from his own close experience. Since the document was published, the PCT has engaged in wide consultation and there have been 30 to 35 meetings with specific interest groups. He has been active in attending many meetings on the subject himself.
My hon. Friend is right to say that the proposals in the consultation document include a reduction of 23 beds across three community hospitals. I recognise the interest in and love for those community hospitals that he expanded on. The plans also include expanding the PCT's hospital at home scheme, and working with social services and other partners to reduce the length of patients' stay in community hospitals to speed up discharge and get people back to their own homes, which is where most of us would rather be at the end of the day.
The PCT has been running the hospital at home scheme since 2000. It provides 24-hour cover, seven days a week and has been extremely successful. External evaluation of the service, which focused on the patient experience, has also been positive. The Commission for Health Improvement considered the scheme on a recent visit to the PCT in March and commented favourably on the extended service.
By extending the hospital at home service, the PCT is confident that it will be able to meet at least some of the needs that are currently being met in community hospital beds. Obviously, under the consultation arrangements, all those hospitals will still exist. It is simply the number of beds that is at issue.
The model of care proposed should provide a much more personalised and local service, tailored to the individual patient. That is in line with our policy on intermediate care, particularly for elderly people. Intermediate care is not an optional extra. It is central to the modernisation agenda. There could be slight confusion concerning both the modernisation agenda
130WH
and the budget deficit. There may be attractions to making the changes in any event. I recognise that people must be more sceptical when there is a deficit, and that is probably part of the difficulty with considering the case and its issues objectively. That is not surprising.
Returning to the local health economy, it is only fair to say that I acknowledge that Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire strategic health authority has inherited serious financial and performance issues. I was pleased to hear the account of the performance of many parts of the NHS. However, Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire is one of the most challenged strategic health authorities in the whole of England. I am pleased to say that in order to assist the strategic health authority to manage the considerable financial pressures that it faces, an additional package of financial support has been agreed.
I recognise the pressures that the strategic health authority is under, but I repeat that our policy is that PCTs, in partnership with the local NHS trust and the strategic health authority, decide the priorities for the NHS locally. That is where local knowledge and expertise lie, and it is not appropriate for Ministers to decide on that direction of travel and how services should be configured. We have made that clear, and I know that my hon. Friend accepts it. It is right that the local NHS should deal with that. I hope that, having secured and driven forward the debate, he will continue to work with the local NHS, as I know he will, to build a better future for the residents in his area.
Whatever decisions are reached locally will involve full and public consultation, and the passion and expression of views that are a part of that. They will be made after much consideration and healthy, open debate.
I hope that hon. Members will understand that it is not appropriate for me to comment further on the issue, in case, following the local process, that pre-empts any future ministerial decision that may be necessary. However, I assure my hon. Friend that the Department and Ministers will continue to work with the local NHS to review the progress of the local economy, to ensure that the difficulties faced continue to he manageable and that changes to the service are in the interests of patients.
David Taylor (in the Chair): The current debate has finished slightly early and a Division is expected in the House, but as the opener of the next debate and the Minister are present, I am obliged to ask the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) to commence his remarks.

Flood Defences (Lewes)
4 pm
Norman Baker: I am sorry to be here again, as I am sure the Minister is, to speak on a matter that I had hoped we had, if not quite put to bed, at least sorted out in a way that would provide good progress for our local community.
The Minister will be only too aware of the terrible floods that hit Lewes in 2000, which we believe were the worst in the country. They were certainly among the worst, and—there is the Division Bell.
Sitting suspended for Divisions in the House.
4.25 pm
On resuming—
Norman Baker: I was musing on the fact that the stop-go arrangements that have characterised the beginning of this debate are not too different from the stop-go arrangements that have characterised the provision of flood defences in Lewes. I said during the half-minute or so that I had at 4 o'clock that the Minister knows only too well that the Lewes floods in 2000 were, if not the worst, certainly among the worst in the country. He visited Lewes, and I am grateful for the interest that he has continually shown in the matter.
The Minister may remember not just houses but upstairs bedrooms that had been flooded—the sight was unbelievable. Obviously, the floods caused huge distress and inconvenience to people living in Lewes. In some instances, they were out of their houses for almost two years. The feeling in Lewes is very much that such floods must never happen again. At the time, the Deputy Prime Minister spoke about a wake-up call. I am here to ensure that the Government have not gone back to sleep but are continuing to try to provide flood defences for Lewes.
People are particularly concerned, given that after the 1960s floods there was, apparently, a similar determination to do something about flood defences, but it ebbed away. In 2000, people recognised that the opportunity after the 1960s floods to improve the defences had been lost, and they are keen that the same mistake is not made again.
As a matter of fact, people in Lewes do not want to talk about floods and would rather put them behind them. They want to come together and move on with their lives after the unfortunate, unpleasant and stressful incidents that happened to them, but they cannot move on as they want to because the situation remains fragile. Yes, they are back in their homes. Yes, they are getting insurance cover now, and I thank the Minister and his colleagues for all the work that they did with the Association of British Insurers to help bring that about. Yes, the Environment Agency and the flood defence committees have produced plans that, by and large, the people in Lewes are happy with, but there is now a real concern that flood defences will not be provided.
The Minister may think that that is over-egging it, but that is what is circulating in my constituency. The local paper, Lewes Life, ran the headline "Anger as Government scraps flood schemes" a couple of weeks
132WH
ago. I hasten to stress that that is not coming from me but is what is being said in local papers. Naturally, the people of Lewes are getting very edgy.
They are made even more edgy by the suggestion that has come from meetings with the Lewes Flood Action Group and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs officials and in comments from the Environment Agency, that a solution may be found for part of Lewes but not for all of it. It would be very unfortunate if that were to be the case. When the town of Lewes was flooded, it pulled together very well as a community. People say to me that the community response and the way in which people helped others were similar to that in the second world war. People expect a townwide solution to a townwide problem, but instead they are offered cells.
The Environment Agency has done its best and has produced plans that will, if enacted, deal with nearly all the town. As the Minister knows, it has not been able to justify action in some areas: the Landport area, which is mostly council housing—there is a possibility that the district council could do something there—and Malling Deanery and New Malling, where there are a few houses. There are a few odd patches that are outside the main Environment Agency scheme, but the scheme, for which I am thankful, should deliver flood defences in Lewes. However, it now appears that it may not happen.
There will almost certainly be flood defences in Malling and probably in the Cliffe cell, but from the information that I have been given it seems unlikely, or at least highly debatable, that flood defence schemes will be produced for the other cells: town centre, west, the Talbot terrace area, North street, and so on. That is very serious. People would once again have the spectre of flooding hanging over them, with no relief in sight. People deserve better than that, after the horrors they went through and the promises that they thought the Government had given.
Insurance companies have, with the Government's help, been quite supportive. The insurance problem has, by and large, gone away because of the schemes; people are being asked to pay a lot more, but can mostly get insurance. However, that problem will recur, because if the insurance companies think that the schemes are off the agenda, they will simply pull the plug. We must not let that happen.
I could spend some time listing constituents who are worried about the matter, but I refer to Minister to just one group, in Lewes new school, a private, progressive school that has had coverage in the national papers for the education style it provides. It is in the Talbot terrace area. The school was badly flooded shortly after it opened. It has scrambled to get itself back together again, with a great deal of parent and community effort. It was flooded by up to 4 ft of water for three days during the 2000 floods. In a letter to me, dated 9 September, its representatives gave their view:
"If the Environment Agency does not flood-proof the Pelts"—
that is in the Talbot terrace area—
"we will be caused distress because:
It is unlikely that we will be able to renew our, or get any, insurance as the current coverage is contingent on the Environment Agency installing flood measures for our area.
The ongoing stress of the threat of winter flooding will be intolerable on our small school, especially as predictions are that more flooding is likely to occur as a result of global warming"—

133WH
the Minister will recognise that as a genuine concern—
"and we understand that flooding of the Pells area is more likely if other areas like Cliffe High St. are protected."
The idea of dealing with flood defences in cells is divisive and nonsensical. I hope that the Minister will say that we will move away from the cell culture to a common community defence standard for the town. Why is there such a cell culture, and is the Environment Agency in favour of it? Has it made representations to say that it should be replaced? My indication, from national conversations, is that the agency does not like the cell culture. I am not convinced that the Minister does, either, although perhaps he will say he does. So who does like it? The Treasury, which wants to control funds? If so, why not say so in the open, so that we can deal with the problem?
It is invidious and inappropriate to have a cell culture, particularly if, by providing defences in one part of Lewes, the risk in other parts is increased, because the floodwater has to have somewhere to go. Will the Minister say directly whether the provision of flood defences in one part of Lewes will worsen the flood risk for parts that are not protected? If the answer is yes, it would suggest that the cell approach is completely wrong, and that in itself is justification for a common community defence standard in Lewes—and indeed in similar towns throughout the country. What is the DEFRA view on cells, and will the Minister answer my question about the relative risk to other areas?
There is genuine concern about how the present arrangements work. Tom Crossett, the flood defences co-ordinator for Lewes Flood Action, drew attention to some of the inconsistencies caused by the present arrangements in a letter to me, dated 5 September. He estimates that the defences for Malling will cost £800,000, and those for Cliffe £2.2 million. He says:
"the current points system, with its emphasis on economics rather than people, sets greater value on the assets protected. (£18.4 million as opposed to £4.5 million in Cliffe.)"
He continues:
"The tragedy of human suffering that flooding brings and you know so well among your constituents is much better represented by the rate of flooding. You will see from the attached tables that every time"
a flood occurs
"in the Brooks…the average Cliffe resident will have had to mop up between 2 and 3 times…In other words the rate of flooding in the Brooks is 1.9 houses per year, whereas in Cliffe the rate is 4/".
The risk to individual people, which is what matters, changes, but the economic calculation that is applied does not take that fully into account. That is a problem.
I recognise that the Minister is sympathetic—I am not buttering him up; he knows me well enough to know that I say what I think. He has tried his best to resolve this matter, and I have confidence that he will continue to do so. However, I need to know what obstacles are slowing things down in providing proper flood defences for Lewes. Is the flood defence review interfering? Is there simply insufficient funding for flood defence? There has been some increase in funding from the Government in recent years, which has been welcome, but if that is not enough I hope that DEFRA Ministers are saying clearly to the Chancellor that more money is needed. It is intolerable if towns such as Lewes—I am
134WH
sure that there are others—continue to suffer major risks of flooding because the Government will not provide the necessary funds.
One of the problems in Lewes is that the cost of dealing with the walls is greater than was originally thought. Perhaps cost will make things more difficult, but Lewes's walls are more than 200 years old in places and they have not had money spent on them for the past 40 years. Is the Government's policy to replace or repair them, or shall we give Lewes back to the river and marshland? Lewes is an historic and special town, and it is recognised by the Government as one of the top 50 towns in the country for urban environment. We must have a townwide solution because we cannot have continued risk hanging over our head.
Downstream storage is not the whole answer, and I do not pretend that it is. However, three years after the floods occurred it seems that no progress has been made on identifying how we can use fields south of Lewes and north of Newhaven as excess storage capacity in the event of floods.
The Environment Agency acknowledges that using downstream storage would, at the very least, take the edge off some of the flooding that would happen in Lewes in the event of a major flood. Why has no progress been made? It seems a relatively simple matter of making environmental assessments, of having discussions with about 12 landowners and farmers and of ensuring that compensation plans are in place. That does not seem terribly difficult to organise. How could it be easier to get planning permission for dealing with major town walls in the middle of an historic town than to sort out downstream storage in a lot of fields? However, every time I raise the question with the Environment Agency I fail to get a straight answer. Will the Minister find out why no further progress has been made on the use of downstream storage to ameliorate the situation and take the edge off any future flood—God help us if that occurs?
I know that the Government would like to use contributions from developers or riparian owners to meet some of the costs of flood defence—who would not? If a Government of any persuasion can find someone else to pay for something that will be of public and private benefit, they will take that opportunity. My concern is that the rules are not clear. When do the Government expect riparian owners to contribute? Is it simply a question of when the Environment Agency is able to lean on people and persuade them to cough up, and if they do not the Government will make up the difference? What rules apply to contributions from riparian owners?
Can the Minister also assure me that we are not seeing a two-tier flood defence system emerging, whereby those areas with rich riparian owners who can contribute have their flood defences mended because they provide match funding, and those areas with no such owners do not have defences provided? It would be intolerable if there were one rule for rich areas and another for poor areas. I hope that he can confirm that that is not the Government's position. He needs to set out the position on riparian ownership. Finally, can he assure me that if riparian owners do contribute, their money is not counted as a windfall by the Government and will not be deducted from the money that DEFRA would otherwise provide?

135WH
I hope that the days of my securing debates on flood defences in Lewes are numbered. I am really sorry to have to return to the matter today, but the uncertainty of the present situation makes that inevitable. I know that the Minister means well and I have every confidence in him. I hope that he can give some answers to reassure my constituents.
4.39 pm
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on securing this debate. I understand his concerns and those of the people of Lewes who were badly affected by a severe flood. He was right in what he said. It is not unreasonable to have an opportunity to explain some of the complications of and reasoning behind flood risk assessment and the analysis of the general principle of flood defences.
I understand that people become frustrated, but it is not fair to go to the papers and say that flood schemes in Lewes will be scrapped. That is not so, and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has given the go-ahead for Malling Brooks, which meets the criteria. It might be delayed by last-minute technical issues that the Environment Agency must resolve, but the scheme has our approval because it meets all the criteria and is not a problem in that sense.
I have been at great pains to ensure that I have been honest when I talk to the local media in the hon. Gentleman's constituency about the problems facing Lewes. Installing a flood defence scheme there is not simple. If it were, it would have been done a long time ago. There are complex technical and engineering issues, with the complication of riparian owners, walls being in private ownership and private contributions. There are all sorts of problems, and many of them can be resolved, but not overnight. I have always made it clear that there must be a proper assessment. A strategy must be put in place and worked up, and that is being done.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the walls, which are a complication in Lewes. As he knows, for many years, houses have encroached on the river because people like to live next to rivers. That means that the walls are part of the foundations of the houses and of the river defences. The Environment Agency is trying to find an equitable split between the contribution that the Government, the agency and the regional flood defence committee are prepared to make towards strengthening those walls for flood defence purposes and the benefits that will accrue from strengthening the structural foundations of the houses. Under the strategy, some of the walls will have flood defences on top, and there is concern that because of their age and condition they will not take the weight and might collapse. There is also concern that when poking about in structures that may be many hundreds of years old an awful lot of problems may be found. That may increase the cost and we must have some idea of the cost implications, because the cost may be a great deal more than has been projected. That is not to say that the scheme will not go ahead. We are not saying that if the costs rise there will be no scheme—I want to make that clear—but we need to know exactly what is involved.
136WH
We expect the Environment Agency to seek contributions from riparian owners for flood defence benefits, as well as the structural benefits from flood defence walls. That is of direct benefit to property owners because of the impact on property prices. If a lot of money is spent strengthening and defending a property, that will be reflected in its value and it is not unreasonable to have a contribution from the owner. That creates all sorts of problems, and the agency is currently trying to find a way through.
I concede that the way in which cells are approached is not ideal. For engineering purposes, it is normal to look at a flood defence scheme in terms of self-contained cells. That is part of the engineering assessment. I will be quite honest and say that it is also the case that an assessment must be made of the cost-benefit ratio. It would not make sense to spend millions of pounds on a cell if that is far greater than the value of the property within it. We have 1.7 millions properties at flood risk, and we face demand for schemes all over the country, including in the Uck catchment. We have to use resources in the most effective way.
To illustrate that point, I can give the hon. Gentleman an indication of the calculations that are made. He is quite right about the Malling Brooks and Cliffe areas. If we take a one in 100-year flood event, which is the kind of protection level that I want to see, there are about 218 residential properties at risk in Malling Brooks and 166 in Cliffe. There are also commercial properties. Town centre, west has a score, but one that is low priority. We have two residential properties at risk there in a one in 100-year event. In North street there are no residential properties at risk in a one in 100-year event. In Talbot terrace there are six. Some schemes may cost millions to defend a tiny number of properties.
I know that that is not much consolation to the people who live in those areas, or to the school in Talbot terrace that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and I sympathise with their situation, but they cannot expect millions of pounds of taxpayers' money for a very poor return on those cells, when that money could go to other schemes, including in Lewes and other parts of the Uck area, where many more people can be defended. My intention is quite simple: I want to reduce flood risk for as many people as I possibly can. We sometimes have to accept that kind of cost-benefit analysis to get the maximum benefits from the available resources. That is why it is done in that way.
Having said that, with the development of new technologies that we are funding and experimenting with, although those communities do not qualify for defence now it may well be that they will in the future. It does not mean that there may not be some form of temporary or portable defences, which are being developed around the country, that could be applied to defending such areas. It does not necessarily mean that they face a future with no possible defence whatever. I do not know all the circumstances, and I do not know at present whether it is possible to use those means there; what I can assure the hon. Gentleman is that we are actively looking at ways of doing so. We are looking at ways all the time of maximising protection for people either through permanent engineered defences, soft defences or new technologies, such as portable, demountable or temporary defences. We are considering all those things, which may have potential

137WH
benefits for people who live in areas that currently do not qualify for a scheme. It is not necessarily the end of the story.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about downstream storage.
Norman Baker: Before the Minister leaves cells, will he say whether the provision of flood defences in some parts of Lewes can worsen the flood risk in others?
Mr. Morley: Yes, I will deal with that point, because I think that I have some stats that I can give the hon. Gentleman. In examining the schemes, we have to take into account the impact on other areas of putting defences in one area. That is a normal part of the assessment. Looking at the defence that is likely to go to Malling Brooks, because the case has been accepted, up to a flood event of one in 50 years there is no change and no impact at all on other parts of the town. If we take a flood event of one in 100 years, there may be a difference in the water level as a result of the schemes of between 30 mm and 70 mm, which is not a very large amount. To put it in perspective, we would get a much bigger wave from people driving through flood waters as, sadly, they are rather inclined to do, not knowing that it creates a bow wave that raises the water level and can cause a lot of problems for people in flood-hit areas. The amount is minuscule. It is not really going to impact on other parts of the town. I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.
I am pleased to say that our discussions with the Association of British Insurers have been very constructive. The insurance companies are taking a perfectly reasonable and pragmatic position. In the case of the school mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, the ABI says that even properties without the short or medium-term prospect of a defence will not be automatically disbarred from insurance. The insurance companies are prepared to examine cases on their individual merits and talk to the people concerned.
Apart from the new technologies, we also give advice on floodproofing and flood mitigation through the Environment Agency. That can help to ensure that insurance is maintained and that people deal with potential risks even when there are no flood defences.
Do not think for a moment, however, that that is our preferred solution. Our preferred solution is, of course, to provide people with proper flood defences, but we must face the reality that we must prioritise. When I was the Minister responsible, I was very keen on the scoring system that we introduced. I want people to see how things are calculated, so that residents are aware of where they are in a calculation. A priority score is a way of ensuring that the maximum number of people most at risk get the priority. That is entirely justifiable. I know
138WH
that it disappoints those who do not qualify. Although they may not qualify now, that does not mean that they will not qualify in the future, nor does it mean that no other measures can be taken to deal with the problem.
The hon. Gentleman asked about downstream storage. He knows that I am very keen on the upstream flood plain reinstatement and downstream soft defence approaches—they both have a role. The Environment Agency is actively modelling the benefits of removing some of the banks downstream from Lewes. As he said, when it models it must consider the impact on other areas, which it must ensure is not detrimental. It also has to model the removal of banks to understand what reduction there would be. One would not want to see the expenditure of large sums, which could be spent elsewhere on flood defences, to obtain only a small reduction. That would not work. The agency has to convince itself that the expenditure would be beneficial, and that work is under way.
I understand people's frustrations—with particular reference to the lady in the newspaper article that the hon. Gentleman mentioned—and I am always keen on getting things done tomorrow, if possible, but sadly, it does not always work like that: one has to go through the correct process. It is worth pointing out, however, that through the agency we have spent about £600,000 so far in the Uck-Ouse river valleys. That includes reinstating the existing defences to their pre-flood standard, and a lot of that money has gone into Lewes. The expenditure also includes improved telemetry and warning systems throughout the river network, and the upgrading of pumps in Malling Brooks. That £600,000 is money on account and is not to be sniffed at. It demonstrates the commitment of the Environment Agency and ourselves. We are committed to reducing risk.
We recognise the case that the hon. Gentleman makes, and he has every right to make it. I hope that he understands that I will not mislead people about the technical and practical problems that we face in areas such as Lewes. It is not the easiest place in the world to install flood defences, but I can assure him that we will install them. We have approved the first cell and I am confident that the second cell will also be approved. We will not stop there. We will continue the research into whole catchment management and continue to support new technology and defence innovation. We will also continue to provide advice for local residents, and to work with local councils and agencies to reduce risk.
I am sorry that progress sometimes seems slow, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that our commitment is unwavering, and that we will find every way that we can to ensure that we improve the defences for the people of Lewes.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Five o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Iraq
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the position of the Christian community in Iraq since the commencement of allied military action earlier this year. [128077]

  Mr. Rammell
  Staff in the British Office, Baghdad and UK secondees in the Coalition Provisional Authority have been meeting representatives of many Iraqi political and religious groups, including the Christian community, to hear their views. These meetings are continuing.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he asked his officials to ascertain the reliability and robustness of the information contained in the UNMOVIC working document on Iraq's proscribed Weapons Programmes, of 6 March. [128597]

  Mr. Mullin
  Yes.

  Palestinian Refugees
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have been held with the governments of(a) Jordan, (b) Lebanon and (c) Syria on the situation of the Palestinian community in their countries; and if he will make a statement. [127814]

  Mr. Rammell
  We have raised this issue on a number of occasions with Arab governments. We do have concerns about the living conditions experienced by some Palestinian refugees. But ultimately this issue is a matter for negotiation between the parties concerned within the context of a comprehensive peace agreement.

  Syria
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have been held with the Government of Syria regarding their involvement in Lebanon; and if he will make a statement. [127812]

  Mr. Rammell
  We have a dialogue with Syria on a wide range of issues, Lebanon included. The relationship between the two countries is close. While Syria has a degree of influence in Lebanon, its presence has the support of the Lebanese Government and is arguably legitimate under agreements made at the end of the civil war. But we welcome the decrease in Syrian troop numbers and urge Syria to reduce numbers yet further.

HEALTH

  Immigrants (Viruses)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to ensure that immigrants are free from easily transmissible viruses, with particular reference to HIV. [128680]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Cabinet Office is currently co-ordinating work between relevant Government Departments, including the Department of Health, to review immigration and infectious diseases and access to National Health Service services. The review aims to establish the facts about health and public expenditure impacts and propose solutions should action be required. The review is ongoing and no decisions have been taken yet.

  Organic Maize
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the average levels of fumicosin and aflatoxin in UK maize grain produced organically; [128695]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the average levels of fumicosin and aflatoxin in UK maize grain used in the human and animal food industry. [128696]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  United Kingdom maize grain is either used as "corn on the cob" or for animal feed, usually as maize silage. There is no data available regarding the average level of fumonisins or aflatoxins in these products, whether conventionally or organically produced.

  The Food Standards Agency is currently carrying out a survey of retail maize products, including "corn on the cob", for a range of mycotoxins, including fumonisins and aflatoxins. It is anticipated that the results of this survey will be available in December 2003.

  Blood Cholesterol
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what progress has been made in encouraging health professionals to provide dietary and lifestyle advice on lowering blood cholesterol; [128540]

  (2) what resources have been devoted to increasing public awareness of the health impact of raised blood cholesterol; and what plans he has for future programmes. [128541]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  A number of lifestyle factors are known to be associated with raised blood cholesterol level, an important risk factor for heart disease, including diet (particularly a high intake of saturated fat), overweight and obesity and low levels of physical activity.

  Improving diet, increasing physical activity levels and preventing and managing of obesity are at the heart of many of the Government's priority areas, as set out in the NHS Plan, Cross-Cutting Review on health inequalities, national service frameworks and the Priorities and Planning Framework.
  377W
  The Priorities and Planning Framework for 2003–06 includes targets for reducing coronary heart disease (CHD). One of these targets requires practice-based registers (for patients with CHD and diabetes) and systematic treatment regimes, including appropriate advice on diet, physical activity and smoking. This also covers the majority of patients at high risk of CHD, particularly those with hypertension, diabetes and a body mass index greater than 30.

  The quality and outcomes framework within the new general medical services contract, being introduced from 1 April 2004, will reward general practitioners who monitor, and can demonstrate control of, the cholesterol level of patients suffering from chronic heart disease.

  Two new initiatives will be key in fostering healthier lifestyles. The Department of Health is leading on the development of a cross-government Food and Health Action Plan. The plan will pull together all the issues that influence what we eat and will address food production, manufacture and preparation, access to healthier food choices and providing information for consumers about healthy eating and nutrition. This is complemented by wide ranging action on physical activity, which will be progressed by a cross-government Activity Co-ordination Team, jointly led by the Department and the Department of Culture, Media and Sport.

  The Department of Health has a range of actions already in place aimed at improving diet and increasing physical activity levels. These include: action to increase breastfeeding; reform of the Welfare Food Scheme; the Five a day programme, including the National School Fruit Scheme in England, to increase fruit and vegetable intakes; a wide range of programmes in schools; joint Department and Food Standards Agency (FSA) work with industry to address the sugar, fat and salt content of the diet; and Local Exercise Acton Pilots. The FSA also has an important role in improving our diets, as outlined in their Nutrition Action Plan. They provide advice on what constitutes a healthy diet and also address food labelling and claims.

  Chauffeur Services
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the annual cost to his Department is of the chauffeur service. [127686]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The contract cost of the core services for 2002–03 from the Government Car Service was £424,100. This includes the cost of Ministerial cars and cars for the Permanent Secretary and the Chief Medical Officer.

  Combination Drugs
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the potential for future use of combination drugs to prevent coronary diseases and heart attacks. [127633]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Dr. Roger Boyle, National Director for Heart Disease, has invited the lead researchers to attend a meeting in October to discuss the 378W
  "polypill" proposals. Although there are some clear attractions, there are significant clinical, practical and financial implications that need to be explored further.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Anti-Semitism
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the trend has been in anti-semitic attacks on(a) property and (b) persons over the last year in (i) England, (ii) the West Midlands and (iii) Coventry. [126941]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  [holding answer 8 September 2003]: The Government publish general statistics on racist incidents and racially-aggravated crime, but do not hold figures on specifically anti-Semitic incidents. However, figures are made available by the Community Security Trust (CST), a body that advises and represents the Jewish community on matters of anti-semitism and security.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Arts Council
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions she has had with the Arts Council on the funding of sexually explicit material. [129504]

  Estelle Morris
  I have had no discussions with the Arts Council on this issue.

  Tourism
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what investment is planned by her Department to help the British tourist industry recover from the effects of the war in Iraq; and what steps the Government proposes to take to boost tourism in the UK in the aftermath of the war. [128573]

  Mr. Caborn
  This year the Government are providing over £50 million to VisitBritain to encourage people in Britain and abroad to take their holidays here. In addition to on-going promotional work in its 27 overseas offices, VisitBritain is running two major overseas campaigns this year: a £2 million campaign launched in the summer with the industry to encourage US visitors to holiday in Britain, and a £4 million "City Breaks" campaign with the industry in Europe to be launched in the autumn. VisitBritain is also promoting domestic tourism in England and ran its first domestic campaign, 'Enjoy England', in April 2003. A further domestic campaign is planned for the autumn.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures the Government is taking to encourage British subjects to spend their holidays in the UK. [128578]

  Mr. Caborn
  This year the Government are providing VisitBritain with £10.4 million to lead and co-ordinate the domestic marketing of England as a tourist destination. VisitBritain's first domestic campaign, "Enjoy England", was launched in April 2003 and a
  379W
  three-year domestic marketing strategy for England will be published in the autumn. We are providing £3.6 million to England's Regional Development Agencies to fund the English Regional Tourist Boards. We are also providing £3.6 million over two years from the Invest to Save budget to support the EnglandNet project, which will create an on-line tourism network for England.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much was spent by her Department, and the agencies for which she is responsible, to promote tourism in(a) the UK as a whole and (b) each of the UK regions in each year since 1997. [128579]

  Mr. Caborn
  The British Tourist Authority (BTA) was allocated baseline grant-in-aid by the Department as follows:

  Grant to BTA (£ million)

  1997–98

  35

  1998–99

  35

  1999–2000

  36

  2000–01

  37

  2001–02

  35.5

  2002–03

  35.5

  In addition, £14.2 million was awarded in 2001–02 and a further £19 million in 2002–03 from the Reserve in

  £000

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Cumbria

  243

  242

  222

  376

  625

  449

  East of England

  493

  393

  397

  597

  840

  806

  Heart of England

  467

  496

  460

  652

  900

  793

  London

  454

  393

  355

  408

  172

  26

  Northumbria

  251

  219

  254

  371

  551

  447

  North West

  293

  293

  292

  413

  594

  575

  South East England

  321

  287

  282

  363

  534

  544

  Southern

  459

  479

  438

  571

  734

  766

  South West Tourism

  439

  488

  476

  535

  814

  663

  Yorkshire

  506

  513

  469

  563

  730

  655

  In both 2001–02 and 2002–03, this Department provided £1.9 million to the Greater London Authority for tourism. Tourism is a devolved matter and is the responsibility of the respective Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to introduce an individual national tourism body for England. [128571]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government have no plans to introduce an individual national tourism body for England. In April 2003 VisitBritain was created, combining the strengths and resources of the English Tourism Council and the British Tourist Authority. VisitBritain has responsibility for the promotion of Britain overseas and England to the domestic market. The England Marketing Advisory Board provides advice on the domestic promotion of England.380W
  order to help tourism recover from the impact of the foot and mouth outbreak and the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001. BTA did not allocate funds for individual regions of Britain, but promoted Britain as a whole in a way which maximised the impact of its campaigns in individual markets overseas.

  The English Tourist Board (ETB), from 1999 the English Tourism Council (ETC), was allocated baseline grant in aid by the Department as follows:

  Grant to ETB/ETC (£ million)

  1997–98

  9.9

  1998–99

  9.7

  1999–2000

  11.8

  2000–01

  11

  2001–02

  9.6

  2002–03

  11.6

  In addition, £3.8 million was awarded in 2001–02 from the Reserve, over half of which was then passed to the 10 Regional Tourist Boards in England, and a further £1 million from the Reserve in 2002–03. In 2002–03, the English Tourism Council was also awarded £3.6 million over two years from the Invest to Save Budget to support the development of the EnglandNet project to establish an online tourism network for England.

  Grant in aid from the ETB/ETC was allocated to the English Regional Tourist Boards as follows:

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  A-Levels
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many A-levels were taken in(a) French and (b) German in 2003; what percentage change these figures represent from 2002; and what estimate he has made of the number of French and German A-levels which will be taken in 2004. [128548]

  Mr. Miliband
  These are provisional figures published recently by the Joint Council for General Qualifications. They cover GCE A-level entries for candidates of all ages in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  GCE A-level

  Entries

  Year

  2002

  2003

  %change

  French

  15,614

  15,531

  -0.5

  German

  7,013

  6,950

  -0.9

  381W
  The DfES has not made an estimate of the numbers taking these exams in 2004 due to unavailability of data.

  Exclusions
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pupils were excluded from(a) primary schools, (b) city technology colleges,

  Number of permanent exclusions by school type and summary of school exclusion appeals

  England 1995/96–2001/02 (Provisional)

  1995/96

  1996/97

  1997/98

  1998/99

  1999/00

  2000/01

  2001/01p

  EXCLUSIONS

  PRIMARY SCHOOLS1

  Number of permanent exclusions

  1,608

  1,573

  1,539

  1,366

  1,226

  1,436

  1,450

  Percentage of school population2

  0.04

  0.04

  0.03

  0.03

  0.03

  0.03

  0.03

  SECONDARY SCHOOLS1

  Number of permanent exclusions

  10,344

  10,463

  10,187

  8,636

  6,713

  7,305

  7,740

  Percentage of school population2

  0.34

  0.34

  0.33

  0.28

  0.21

  0.23

  0.24

  SPECIAL SCHOOLS3

  Number of permanent exclusions

  524

  632

  572

  436

  384

  394

  340

  Percentage of school population2

  0.54

  0.64

  0.58

  0.45

  0.40

  0.41

  0.36

  CITY TECHNOLOGY COLLEGES4

  Number of permanent exclusions

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  20

  32

  Percentage of school population2

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  0.12

  0.20

  EXCLUSION APPEALS

  PRIMARY, SECONDARY AND SPECIAL SCHOOLS5

  Number of appeals lodged by parents

  1,339

  1,455

  1,287

  1,216

  948

  1,095

  1,125

  Number of appeals overturned by an appeals panel

  185

  225

  204

  220

  317

  314

  259

  Percentage of appeals overturned by an appeals panel6

  17.0

  19.9

  20.2

  22.8

  36.7

  31.9

  24.4

  1 Includes middle schools as deemed.

  2 Number of permanent exclusions expressed as a percentage of the number (headcount) of full and part-time pupils of all ages (excluding dually registered pupils in special schools) in January each year.

  3 Includes both maintained and non-maintained special schools.

  4 Information on exclusions from City Technology Colleges was collected for the first time in 2002 (relating to academic year 2000/01). There was no checking exercise to confirm the quality of exclusions data from City Technology Colleges so these figures should be used with caution.

  5 Information on exclusion appeals is collected at LEA-level for primary, secondary and special schools. This information is not available by school type.

  6 Number of appeals decided in parents' favour expressed as a percentage of all appeals heard by an appeals panel.

  p provisional —not available

  GCSE/GNVQ
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the percentage change was between 2002 and 2003 in the number of pupils attaining A* and A grades in all GCSE subjects; and if he will make a statement. [128554]

  Mr. Miliband
  It is not possible at this stage to calculate numbers of 15 year-old pupils achieving GCSEs, how many GCSEs they achieved or at what grade. This information can be made available on a provisional basis in late October.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the equivalent GCSE grades represented by a GNVQ intermediate full award are at(a) distinction, (b) merit and (c) pass; and if he will make a statement. [128552]

  Mr. Miliband
  The contribution to the average GCSE/GNVQ point score is shown in the table below:

  Grade

  Points

  Points per GCSE equivalent

  Distinction

  30

  7.5

  Merit

  24

  6

  Pass

  20

  5

  382W
  (c) other secondary schools and (d) special schools in each year since 1988; how many of these exclusions were taken to appeal; and how many of these exclusions were successfully overturned by an appeals panel. [127901]

  Mr. Miliband
  The available information, shown in the table, relates to permanent exclusions from 1995/96 onward.

  Points awarded for GCSEs range from 8 for a grade A* to 1 for a grade G. A GNVQ intermediate full award is the equivalent of 4 grades A*-C at GCSE, regardless of whether a distinction, merit or pass is achieved.

  The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority has established this equivalence.

  Key Stage 2
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of 11 year-olds in(a) the Taunton constituency and (b) Somerset have achieved Key Stage 2 in each year since 1997 in (i) Mathematics and (ii) English. [127774]

  Mr. Miliband
  The percentage of pupils achieving Level 4 or above at Key Stage 2 in(a) the Taunton constituency and (b) Somerset Local Education Authority (LEA) from 1997 to 2003 is as follows:

  English

  Mathematics

  Taunton Constituency

  Somerset LEA

  England

  Taunton Constituency

  Somerset LEA

  England

  2003*

  74

  74

  75

  72

  72

  73

  2002

  75

  74

  75

  74

  72

  73

  2001

  75

  74

  75

  71

  69

  71

  2000

  75

  75

  75

  69

  70

  72

  383W

  English

  Mathematics

  Taunton Constituency

  Somerset LEA

  England

  Taunton Constituency

  Somerset LEA

  England

  1999

  71

  73

  71

  69

  70

  69

  1998

  66

  67

  65

  60

  58

  59

  1997

  67

  67

  63

  63

  63

  62

  *Provisional

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Solway Firth Wind Farm
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received from Allerdale district council on the proposed Solway Firth wind farm. [127861]

  Mr. Timms
  The Scottish Executive were responsible for dealing with the application for consent for the Solway Firth wind farm. There was no DTI involvement in the consents process and any representations made in respect of the application were dealt with by the executive.

  Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions(a) she and (b) senior members of her Department have had with (i) UK based non-governmental organisations, (ii) EU based non-governmental organisations, (iii) non-governmental organisations based in the Caucasus region and (iv) US based non-governmental organisations on the issue of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline project; when these discussions took place; what the result of these discussions was; and if she will make a statement. [128066]

  Mr. Timms
  The following discussions have been held with NGOs on the issue of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline project:

  (a) The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry: none.

  (b) Officials in the Export Credits Guarantee Department:

  (i) UK based NGOs:
  The Corner House—30 November 2002 (at DFID), 29 May 2003 (at DFID) and 3 June 2003 (at ECGD)
  Kurdish Human Rights Project—30 November 2002 (at DFID), 29 May 2003 (at DFID) and 3 June 2003 (at ECGD)
  Bretton Woods Project—30 November 2002 (at DFID) and 29 May 2003 (at DFID)
  PLATFORM-29 May (at DFID), 3 June (at ECGD) and 11 June (at EBRD)
  Friends of the Earth—29 May (at DFID) and 3 June (at ECGD)
  WWF(UK)—29 May (at DFID) and 3 June (at ECGD)
  Amnesty International—20 May (at Carlton Terrace), 29 May (at DFID), 3 June (at ECGD) and 4 August (at ECGD)
  Transparency International—3 June (at ECGD)
  384W
  (ii) EU based NGOs: None

  (iii) Caucasus based NGOs:
  Society for Democratic Reform, Azerbaijan—30 November 2002 (at DFID)
  Social-Democratic Party, Azerbaijan—30 November 2002 (at DFID)
  Young Lawyers' Association, Georgia—30 November 2002 (at DFID)
  IHD, Turkey—30 November 2002 (at DFID)
  University of Mersin. Turkey—30 November 2002 (at DFID)
  Caucasus NGO Federation, Azerbaijan—29 May (at DFID) and 16 June (in Baku)
  CLEE, Azerbaijan—18 June (in Baku)
  Green Alternatives, Georgia—29 May (at DFID) and 19 June (in Tbilisi)
  WWF (Caucasus)—19 June (in Tbilisi)
  DEHAP, Turkey (Kurdish political party)—29 May (at DFID) and 22 June (in Ardahan)
  RUDF, Turkey—24 June (in Ankara)
  Ankara University—24 June (in Ankara)
  Caucasus Sub-regional NGO Network—18 July (at ECGD)
  Association of Women Scientists of Georgia—18 July (at ECGD)
  Georgian Society of Nature Explorers "Orchis"—18 July (at ECGD)
  Institute of Social Researches—18 July (at ECGD)
  'Save Borjomi'—18 July (at ECGD)
  Ecology of the Caucasus—18 July (at ECGD)

  (iv) US based NGOs: None

  At all of these discussions the ECGD official(s) listened carefully to what was said and confirmed that they would take account of this information in their analyses of the potential environmental and social impacts of the project. The ECGD official(s) also stated that cover would only be offered if ECGD was satisfied that the relevant environmental, social and human rights impacts had been properly addressed and that the financial and project risks were acceptable.

  Electricity Generation (Biomass)
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what targets have been set for electricity generation from biomass; and if she will assess the impact of such targets on industries dependent on the supply of wood residue. [127204]

  Mr. Timms
  The 10 per cent. target for electricity generation from renewables, as set in the Renewables Obligation, will be met by the total generation from all eligible renewable energy sources. The obligation does not specify targets for individual technologies as the obligation is a market-led mechanism with the selection and uptake of the technologies to be used to meet the 10 per cent. target a matter for industry, within the framework set by the obligation.

  Offshore Wind Power
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with the Ministry of Defence over the projected expansion of offshore wind power; and what assessments have been made of the potential interference with its radar system. [128127]
  385W
  Mr. Timms
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Defence wrote to me recently to reaffirm the MOD's full commitment achievement for our target that 10 per cent. of the UK's electricity supplies are to be generated from renewable resources.

  At official level officials in my Department maintain an on-going dialogue with their MOD counterparts on renewable energy issues including offshore wind power. The MOD attends the Wind Energy and Aviation Interests Working Group which is chaired by the Department and which provides a forum where a range of issues can be addressed.

  Companies who intend to submit bids in response to the Crown Estate's July 2003 invitation to tender for offshore wind farm site options have been advised to consult the MOD and the Civil Aviation Authority who will advise whether they would object to development in any particular location on grounds on potential radar interference or for other reasons. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Defence has reassured me that where MOD objects to a development his Department will do whatever is practicable to negotiate with the developer to reach a mutually acceptable agreement that would result in objection being withdrawn.

  More generally, the Wind Energy and Aviation Interests Working Group has commissioned research into the effects of rotating turbine blades on radar. Work is progressing on a computer model that will describe the effects of particular wind farms on individual radar systems. A second study is investigating measures to mitigate the potential effects on radar of wind turbines.

  Wood Panel Industry
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will undertake further consultation with the wood panel industry on the effects of the renewable obligation subsidy on the supply of wood residues. [127173]

  Mr. Timms
  I will be meeting with a number of MPs and representatives of the Wood Panel Industries Federation on 21 October 2003 to discuss this issue.

  On 29 August I launched a statutory consultation paper on the Technical Review of the Renewables Obligation. This consultation outlines a number of changes we propose to make with effect from April 2004 and seeks the views of all statutory consultees and others. One of the key proposals is a set of modifications to the rules on the co-firing of biomass with fossil fuels with a view to enhancing the prospects for the development of a market in energy crops.

  My officials continue to facilitate work between representatives of the UK wood industry and co-firing power stations to explore the opportunities offered by co-firing under the Obligation for UK forestry, and, in particular, the potential for using by-products from existing wood industries. It is hoped that this initiative, if successful, will have the dual benefit of reducing imports and making more biomass available to a larger market in the UK, thereby helping to stabilise prices. We understand from the forestry industry that it can meet demand from power generators from existing surplus forestry material. My officials are obtaining
  386W
  further information on the availability of forestry material used by power generators and wood panel manufacturers.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Affordable Housing
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to increase the amount of affordable homes in rural areas; and if she will make a statement. [128338]

  Alun Michael
  The Rural White Paper published in November 2000 set out plans for delivering more affordable housing in rural settlements. Funding for the Housing Corporation doubled between 2000 and 2003 to benefit both rural and urban areas, and the Government doubled the target for the programme for small rural settlements (below 3,000 people) from 800 to 1,600 homes a year. The 2003 Sustainable Communities Plan White Paper has further increased this target to a total of 3,500 homes over 2 years (2004–05 to 2005–06).

  The Housing Corporation has approved a total of 3,923 homes in small rural settlements (of 3,000 people or fewer) over the years 2000–01 to 2002–03, exceeding their target in each of the years. A further 7,082 homes were approved through other funding sources, Approved Development Programme and local authority funding, in rural settlements of all sizes including market towns.

  Through the Countryside Agency and the Housing Corporation we are funding Rural Housing Enablers jointly with local partners, to work with rural communities, housing associations, local authorities and landowners to help increase the supply of affordable housing in rural settlements. Currently there are 37 enablers in post and we aim to have 47 by 2004–05 to give full national coverage.

  As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Housing and Planning announced on 17 July 2003, Official Report, column 53WS, the Government are consulting on an update of the existing guidance on planning for affordable housing. The update will be supported by practice advice. The update addresses a number of matters including the provision of affordable housing in rural areas. The proposed changes give greater flexibility to local authorities to seek affordable housing on smaller sites where this is justified. It is also envisaged that in rural areas affordable housing provision may be supported by allocating sites solely for affordable housing, on land within or adjoining existing villages, which would not otherwise be released for housing and where this would contribute to the attainment of mixed communities.

  The new Regional Housing Boards, introduced by the Communities Plan (2003), are now taking responsibility for the preparation of Regional Housing Strategies. They have been charged to rural proof their strategies with the assistance of the Countryside Agency. The strategies will then provide the basis for our decisions on strategic housing investment priorities in the regions.

  Broadband
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her department is taking to improve broadband technology in rural areas. [128337]

  Alun Michael
  Defra Ministers and officials are working closely with colleagues at the DTI on the promotion of broadband access in rural areas which we both regard as crucial to the future of the rural economy. Defra officials work closely with the DTI policy team, and cooperation has been strengthened by the inclusion of a Defra official in the recently formed Rural Broadband Team in DTI. The team will focus on the problems and issues of broadband for rural areas including supporting local campaign groups.

  The Government are making £1 billion available over 2003–06 to provide for public sector broadband connectivity. The DTI Broadband Aggregation project will aggregate the public sector demand for this purpose. Defra Ministers and officials are closely involved to ensure that this investment will help extend broadband availability into rural areas for the benefit of rural businesses and communities. Defra will continue to work closely with DTI on rural broadband issues.

  GM Crops
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the Government will allow immediate commercial growing of those GM crops currently being assessed under the farm scale trials programme if the crops are found to be associated with environmental benefits and without any determinable drawbacks. [128697]

  Mr. Morley
  None of the crops being assessed in the farm scale evaluations yet have all the required authorisations to permit commercial growing in the UK.

  To be authorised for commercial cultivation in the European Union (EU), a GM crop would need to be granted a consent on safety grounds under Part C of EU Directive 2001/18. Decisions under this Directive are taken collectively by the European Commission and EU member states on a case-by-case basis. No GM crop would be granted a Part C consent unless it passed a detailed assessment indicating that it posed no unacceptable risk to human health or the environment, and complied with the other requirements of the Directive. To date, only one of the four crops in the farm scale evaluations, a herbicide tolerant GM maize, has a Part C consent.

  The UK will ensure that the results of the farm scale evaluations are taken into account in collective EU decisions on whether or not to grant Part C consent to each of the crops that do not yet have such authorisation—sugar beet, fodder beet and oil seed rape. In the case of the GM maize that already has a Part C consent, the results will inform us on whether the assessment underpinning that consent remains valid.

  GM crops are also subject to other EU legislation. Before any new variety of a crop, including GM varieties, can be grown commercially in the UK, that variety must be entered on either the UK national seed
  388W
  list or the European common catalogue of seeds. To date, none of the GM crops in the farm scale evaluations has such listing.

  In addition, if a crop was intended for use with a certain weed killer—as is the case with all four crops in the farm scale evaluations—it would need a consent under EU pesticides legislation before it could be used in conjunction with that weed killer. To date, none of the four crops concerned have such consent.

  Furthermore, if a GM crop was intended for food use, it must also have a consent under EC novel foods legislation.

  Hunting Bill
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make it her policy to introduce financial aid to those disadvantaged by the Hunting Bill. [128685]

  Alun Michael
  No. It is not normal practice, nor a requirement of human rights legislation, to pay compensation to people affected by legislative change except where the legislation specifically deprives them of property. The Hunting Bill deprives no one of their property, but limits their use.

TRANSPORT

  Aviation White Paper
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the Department will publish the White Paper on the Future of Aviation. [129128]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government intend to publish their conclusions on "the Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom" consultation in a White Paper later this year.

  BAe 146 Aircraft
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a full assessment of international(a) research and (b) investigations into the causes of cabin air quality incidents affecting BAe 146 aircraft, with particular reference to problems with organophosphate jet engine lubricants; and if he will make a statement. [128543]

  Mr. McNulty
  [holding answer 8 September 2003]: The Department for Transport Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) is to publish a report following the investigation of a series of cabin air quality incidents involving BAe 146 aircraft. The report also considers similar incidents involving Boeing 757, Boeing 737 and Fokker F100 aircraft.

  The AAIB report will include details of investigations and research conducted into incidents in Australia, Canada, and Sweden, together with the results of an extensive programme of testing and research conducted in the UK in response to earlier AAIB safety recommendations.

  The AAIB report is expected to be published in December.
  389W
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps have been taken to establish the cause and nature of the emergency in the BAe 146 aircraft, when fumes in the cabin necessitated evacuation of passengers, on Friday 1 August; and if he will make a statement. [128599]

  Mr. McNulty
  [holding answer 8 September 2003]The Department for Transport Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) is conducting an investigation into the incident involving a BAe 146 aircraft on 1 August. The AAIB report will be published as soon as the investigation is completed.

  European Aviation Safety Agency
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the purpose is of establishing the European Aviation Safety Agency; what powers it has in the United Kingdom; what its estimated annual cost is; and where it is located. [128822]

  Mr. McNulty
  The European Aviation Safety Agency has been established under Regulation (EC) 1592/2002. The principle objective of that Regulation is to establish and maintain a high uniform level of civil aviation safety in Europe.

  The Agency has a pivotal role in achieving that objective through the drafting of common safety rules; through monitoring, where applicable, the implementation of those rules by member states' national aviation authorities; and through carrying out itself a number of certification tasks, initially mainly in the field of aircraft and product designs.

  The Regulation gives the Agency all the necessary powers to carry out these duties in the United Kingdom, in particular powers to carry out relevant investigations for issuing certificates to UK applicants and for conducting standardisation audits of the Civil Aviation Authority.

  The Agency is due to assume its certification responsibilities on 28 September 2003, initially outsourcing much of the work to national aviation authorities. The Agency's own staff will be built up over time and its annual costs will depend on decisions yet to be made by the Executive Director about the Agency's structure and working methods. A preliminary draft budget for 2004 of 17.24 M€ has been agreed by the EASA Management Board, of which the majority of the costs will be met out of Community funds.

  A decision about the permanent location of the Agency has not yet been made. It has established a temporary headquarters in Brussels.

  Rail Services (Merseyside)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps have been taken to increase the number of additional park and ride spaces serving the Merseyrail network for 2003–04.[128589]

  Mr. McNulty
  The following schemes are in progress at locations serving the Merseyrail network.
  390W
  Formby
  Refurbishment of the car park, up-grading provision for blue badge holders, construction of a bus interchange and taxi stands. The number of spaces is to be determined. A further phase is being considered for land off Andrews lane.

  Birkdale
  Refurbishment of the car park, up-grading provision for blue badge holders and delivery of a further 14 spaces. A further phase depends on the availability of land.

  Maghull
  Extension of the existing car park, delivering a further 88 spaces.

  Aintree
  A scheme to deliver a further 50 spaces is being considered, subject to planning constraints.

  Kirkby
  Refurbishment of the car park, and up-grading of the bus interchange, taxi stands and provision for blue badge holders. The scheme will deliver a further 10 spaces. A further phase could deliver another 100 spaces.

  Whiston
  Construction of a new car park and bus interchange, delivering a further 45 spaces.

  Prescot
  Refurbishment and enlargement of the existing car park including provision for blue badge holders, delivering a further 32 spaces.

  Seaforth and Litherland
  Refurbishment and enlargement of the existing car park including provision for blue badge holders, delivering a further 20 spaces.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps are being taken to improve standards of station seating, shelter and passenger facilities for the rail services in Merseyside. [128591]

  Mr. McNulty
  Through the Strategic Rail Authority's Modern Facilities at Stations (MFAS) programme, 21 stations in Merseyside will receive improvements. This will involve the installation of real time passenger information at 20 stations and improved waiting facilities (waiting rooms with heating, integral seating and automatic doors) at 16 stations.

  Merseytravel Passenger Transport Authority and Executive is seeking, via its own programme, to deliver improvements at a further 25 stations through the local transport plan. Where shelters, seats and customer information systems are included as part of the improvement the aim is to deliver to MFAS standards were possible.

  Mrs Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of fare irregularities were detected in Merseyside over the past two years. [128592]

  Mr. McNulty
  The percentage of fare irregularities on Merseyside over the last two years was approximately 11 per cent. This figure is for all fare irregularities including passengers travelling with no ticket, those who travelled beyond the validity of the ticket and those travelling in the peak with an off-peak ticket, irrespective of intent. The figure is for the 24 months up to June 2003, being the most recent period for which data are available.

  Ferries
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the Health and Safety Executive to discuss the risks associated with wake from ferries; and if he will make a statement. [127856]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My officials have regular contact with Health and Safety Executive (HSE) colleagues on a range of safety matters.

  Conventional ferries, with relatively slow speed monohulls, do not generate undue wake and routine navigational safeguards are adequate to manage potential risk. However, we have been aware for some time of the hazards associated with the wake from fast ferries, in particular catamarans. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) requires a route risk assessment of passage plans for wake generation, as a pre-requisite to issuing a Permit to Operate for High Speed Craft. This requires the operator to identify circumstances where a hazardous wash may be created and take steps either to reduce the wake from the vessel or re-route the vessel as appropriate.

  Ministerial Visits
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the(a) foreign and (b) UK visits he has made since 1 April; what the cost was to public funds of each trip; who he met; and what gifts were received. [126891]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government publish the overall costs of all ministerial overseas travel and a list of all visits overseas by Cabinet Ministers costing in excess of £500 on an annual basis. The list for period 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003 was published by the Prime Minister on 16 July,Official Report, column 482W. The next list for period 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004 will be published at the end of the financial year.

  Since the 1 April the Secretary of State for Transport has undertaken the following UK visits:
  On 8 April, he met representatives from South Central Trains at the Integrated Travel Centre, Brighton. The journey was made using the contracted Government car and train at a cost of £42.
  On 24 April, he met the French Transport Minister and his delegation in Berkshire. The journey was made using the contracted Government car.
  On 9 May, he met the Chief Executive of the DVLA and local staff at the DVLA, Edinburgh. The journey was made using a hired Government car at a cost of £62.50.
  On 12 May, he met the Chief Executive of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency in Dover. The journey was made using the contracted Government car service and the train at a cost of £30.10.
  On 20 June he met the Manchester and Liverpool Chamber of Commerce at Manchester Airport. He then went to the Stockport station and Edgely signalling Centre and met the Stockport project manager and Network Rail representative and Ann Coffey MP. The journey was made by plane, hired Government car and train at a cost of £453.60.
  On 8 July he met representatives from Chiltern Railways and Laing Rail at Chiltern Railways, Aylesbury. The journey was made by contracted Government car.

  In respect of gifts received, I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 14 March Official Report, column 482W.

  Speed Cameras
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effects of speed cameras upon the number of(a) fatal and (b) other serious accidents. [129238]

  Mr. Jamieson
  On 11 February 2003 the Department published an independently produced evaluation report of the 2-year trial of the safety camera cost recovery system. This showed a 35 per cent. reduction in those killed or seriously injured at camera sites, equating to around 280 people and a 4 per cent. reduction in those killed or seriously injured across the pilot areas, equating to around 530 people.

TREASURY

  Aggregates Companies
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many aggregates companies there are in each region of the UK; and how many there were in 2001. [127198]

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

  Letter from Colin Mowl to Alex Salmond, dated 10 September 2003:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question on the number of aggregates companies there are in each region of the UK. I am replying in his absence. (127198)

  The table below shows the number of companies, broken down by region, who reported aggregate material in 2001 and 2002. This information has been taken from the Annual Minerals Survey (AMRI), carried out by the Office for National Statistics on behalf of the Department for Trade and Industry and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

  Companies, broken down by region, who reported aggregate material in 2001 and 2002

  Region name

  2001

  2002

  North East

  14

  16

  Yorkshire & the Humber

  33

  32

  North West

  29

  28

  West Midlands

  29

  28

  East Midlands

  34

  32

  East of England

  44

  44

  South East

  48

  45

  South West

  50

  50

  Wales

  36

  32

  Scotland

  102

  99

  Total companies

  353

  341

  The data relates to GB only.

  The same company may appear in more than one region.

  The total is the overall number of companies.

  Child Care Vouchers
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps the Government will take in applying the Inland Revenue's salary sacrifice scheme for the purchase of child can vouchers to ensure that low income employees have the same advantages as higher paid employees; and if he will make a statement. [128293]
  393W
  Dawn Primarolo
  It is open to any employer and its employees to enter into a salary sacrifice arrangement linked to the provision of child care vouchers in order to take advantage of the exemption from national insurance contributions that applies to them.

  The Government also provide help to parents in low to medium income families with the cost of child care through the child care element of working tax credit.

  Census
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with the Chairman of the Statistics Commission on the UK census. [127406]

  John Healey
  Treasury Ministers have not discussed the Census with the Chairman of the Statistics Commission. The Statistics Commission, which is independent of both Ministers and the producers of National Statistics, was established to advise on the quality, quality assurance and priority setting for National Statistics, and on the procedures designed to deliver statistical integrity. The Commission has announced that, using the Census results for Westminster city council as an example, it is considering evidence on whether Census 2001 was properly conducted and whether there are lessons to be learned for the future. The Commission has yet to publish its report, but expects to do so, probably in stages, between the summer and autumn of this year.

  Cigarette Imports
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of cigarettes imported from EU countries in(a) 2002 and (b) 2003. [R] [127945]

  John Healey
  The following table shows the number (in thousands) of cigarettes imported from EU countries in 2002 and up to May of this year (the latest month for which figures are available). The figures show cigarettes imported by way of trade and do not include personal imports.

  Period

  Thousand

  January to December 2002

  8,552,145

  January to May 2003

  2,154,815

  These figures are also available on the Customs website www.uktradeinfo.com.

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to introduce on the spot fines for people caught bringing illegal meats and bushmeat into the UK. [128364]

  John Healey
  Customs have no current plans to introduce on the spot fines for people caught bringing illegal meats and bushmeat into the UK.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when HM Customs plan to trial passenger luggage x-ray equipment to detect illegal meat and bushmeat at UK ports of entry. [128365]
  394W
  John Healey
  Customs have already conducted some informal trials using existing equipment to look for illegal meat. They are currently in discussion with suppliers with a view to conducting further evaluation as soon as possible.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many illegal meat seizures have been made by HM Customs in each month since they assumed control of enforcement at UK ports of entry; and what percentage of these seizures are classified as bushmeat. [128367]

  John Healey
  Customs do not normally publish seizure information on a monthly basis. Exemptions 4(b) and 7(b) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information apply. However, annual seizure figures will be reported in the Government's "Annual Review of Controls on Imports of Animal Products" which is published by Defra.

  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many dogs are used at air and sea ports of entry into the United Kingdom to detect illegal imports of food products. [128679]

  John Healey
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Wealden (Mr. Hendry) on 6 May 2003,Official Report, column 618W.

  Online Tax Assessment
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government's UK on-line agenda has met HM Treasury's stated expectations in the transformation of the delivery of its services. [127083]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government recognise that there is considerable potential for electronic government to transform the delivery of public services. That is why the Treasury allocated significant resources in the 2002 Spending Review to further develop electronic services.

  As part of the Spending Review the Cabinet Office reached a public service agreement with the Treasury to ensure Departments meet the Prime Minister's targets for electronic service delivery by Government: 100 per cent, capability by 2005, with key services achieving high levels of use. A growing number of services are now available on-line with more services being added through the UK online portal.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many persons in the Chorley constituency are in receipt of(a) child tax credit and (b) working tax credit; and how many claims are outstanding. [127757]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Statistics on awards of these tax credits are being published today and are accessible on the Inland Revenue website (http://www.inlandrevenue. gov.uk/stats/personal-tax-credits/main-tables-july03.pdf and http://www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats/personal-tax-credits/geographical-analysis-july03.pdf).

  For progress in processing claims, I refer my hon. Friend to my remarks during debate on 7 July 2003, Official Report, column 859. Breakdowns by constituency of the figures that I gave are not available.
  395W
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how applications for tax credits received after the 5 July deadline will be treated; and if he will make a statement. [128671]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Tax credits claims received by the Inland Revenue before midnight on Monday 7 July, the first full working day after the deadline, were treated as meeting the deadline for tax credits to be backdated to 6 April 2003, if appropriate. This was because the deadline fell at the weekend and to ensure that claims made through different channels were treated alike. Claims received after 7 July may be backdated for up to three months.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Northern Ireland Assembly
  6. Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had about the restoration of the devolved Assembly. [128492]

  7. Mr. Ruffiey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent representations he has received regarding the progress of the peace process. [128493]

  12. Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the resumption of power sharing in Northern Ireland. [128499]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan),Official Report, column 314.

  Regulatory Burdens
  10. Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to meet representatives of small business organisations to discuss regulatory burdens on business in Northern Ireland. [128496]

  Mr. Pearson
  I have met representatives of small businesses on several occasions recently and I shall be happy to them again in the future to discuss regulatory and other issues of mutual interest.

  Manufacturing
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress he is making with increasing inward manufacturing investment into the Province; and if he will make a statement. [128497]

  Mr. Pearson
  In common with other regions, Northern Ireland has seen a decline in inward manufacturing investment as a result of the depressed global economic situation. Despite this, I am very 396W
  pleased that in recent months major investment projects have been announced by Seagate and NACCO among others. Furthermore, Northern Ireland continues to be a particularly attractive investment location for service-based industry, as exemplified by the Abbey National's recent decision to open a new customer outreach centre at its Mays Meadow site in Belfast.

  Housing
  13. Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the number of housing voids in Belfast. [128500]

  Jane Kennedy
  At 31 July 2003, there were a total of 6,593 empty properties of all tenures of which 2,181 are Northern Ireland Housing Executive properties and 4,412 are in the private sector. Over half the empty homes in the public sector are undergoing redevelopment or are awaiting demolition. The Northern Ireland House Condition Survey 2001 published in April 2003 shows that the level of vacancies is linked to inner-city decline factors and the emergence of new apartment developments.

  Dangerous Wild Animals Act
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to extend the provisions of the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 to Northern Ireland. [128494]

  Angela Smith
  We are actively preparing proposals for legislation to regulate dangerous wild animals kept by private individuals in Northern Ireland. Legislation will aim to establish an appropriate regulatory regime in the interests of public safety.

  We will be consulting on proposed legislation in the near future.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Joyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the prospects are for agriculture in Northern Ireland following the mid-term review of the Common Agricultural Policy. [128495]

  Mr. Pearson
  The recent agreement on the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy makes for a more stable policy environment and will help put the agricultural industry on a more sustainable footing. It will enable farmers to concentrate on producing for the market and encourage good farming and countryside management practices which society values.

PRIME MINISTER

  Iraq
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Prime Minister what the basis was for his statement on 18 June 2003,Official Report, column 355, that extremists from Chechnya were among the foreign fighters engaging Coalition forces at the conclusion of the war in Iraq. [127913]
  397W
  The Prime Minister
  According to US military sources, US forces engaged a number of irregular fighters from the middle east, North Africa and Chechnya near Baghdad in April 2003. These sources were quoted in several media reports at the time.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) of 9 July 2003,Official Report, column 1156, whether the unsubstantiated reports of Chechens fighting Coalition forces in Iraq have been substantiated. [127914]

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing further to add at the current time.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  High Court (Backlog)
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs what the current backlog is in the High Court. [120827]

  Mr. Leslie
  An exercise is currently underway to provide accurate management information on workload in the High Court Divisions. This work will be completed by the end of October 2003, and I will then write to my hon. Friend with full details. Currently we can estimate the number of outstanding cases in the three main divisions. The estimates are:

  Chancery—7,400

  Family

  Divorce—4,000

  Care—3,500

  Queens Bench—8,000

  Norton Report
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will publish a response to the Norton report. [128010]

  Mr. Leslie
  No. It is not the Government's practice to publish responses to privately commissioned reports.

DEFENCE

  Joint Terrorist Analysis Centre
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representation the Royal Navy has in the Joint Terrorist Analysis Centre. [128658]

  Title

  Additional cost

  1

  The Military Maritime Graves and the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986

  No information available

  2

  Armed Forces Pension Scheme Review

  £13,800 (cost of both together)

  3

  Joint Compensation Review

  4

  Ministry of Defence Police Quinquennial Review

  No additional cost

  398W
  Mr. Ingram
  The Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre is a Government organisation which can draw on the expertise of a wide number of Departments and agencies, including the Royal Navy. Its staff includes personnel from the Naval Service.

  Colonel Tim Collins
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the court martial into the conduct of Colonel Tim Collins last met; when any written statement announcing the verdict was issued; what contacts there were between his Department and(a) the BBC and (b) journalists concerning the matter prior to the issue of the statement; and what the policy of his Department's press office was if asked to confirm or deny the substance of the matter (i) prior to Monday 1 September and (ii) on Monday 1 September. [128816]

  Mr. Ingram
  Colonel Tim Collins was not the subject of a court martial. He was the subject of an internal investigation into his conduct during Operation TELIC, following allegations made against him. This investigation has now been completed and Colonel Collins has been informed that no formal disciplinary or administrative action would be taken against him.

  In response to a specific media inquiry on 20 May naming Colonel Collins and claiming that he was subject to an investigation, the press office confirmed that an investigation was being conducted. Other than confirming this, the press office offered no further comment while the investigation continued. On 29 August, however, once the investigation had finished and Colonel Collins had been informed of the outcome, the press office were advised that, in response to inquiries, they could confirm that the investigations had concluded and that no formal action would be taken. Our records indicate that the first inquiries from the press were not received until 1 September.

  The Ministry of Defence did not issue a written statement announcing either the commencement or conclusion of the investigation.

  Consultation Documents
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the consultation documents issued by his Department in each of the last four years; what the cost was of producing each of these; how many documents were issued in each consultation; and how many responses were received in each consultation. [124567]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Cabinet Office Code of Practice on Written Consultation applies to all formal national public consultation documents issued by Departments from 1 January 2001 and the information requested before that date is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Since 1 January 2001, the Ministry of Defence has issued seven formal national public consultation documents. They are:
  399W

  Title

  Additional cost

  5

  Proposed Introduction of the Voluntary Screening Programme following Health Concerns in Respect of Depleted Uranium

  No additional cost

  6

  The Second Consultation Document on the Introduction of a Voluntary Screening Programme for Depleted Uranium

  No additional cost

  7

  Future of the Defence Diversification Agency

  No additional cost

  The table identifies additional costs of producing the consultative documents. It does not include costs of the personnel who produced the documents.

  Title

  Number issues

  Number of respondents

  The Military Maritime Graves and the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986

  Over 300

  78 replies were received

  Armed Forces Pension Scheme Review

  1,500 Armed Forces Pension Scheme (AFPS) Review and Joint Compensation Review

  203 responses were received in total, with some respondents comments on both the

  Joint Compensation Review

  (JCR) consultation documents were issued. 20,000 leaflets were also distributed to serving members of the armed forces

  AFPS and JCR

  Ministry of Defence Police Quinquennial Review

  Widely publicised by PG, announcement in Government Opportunities and on MOD Web

  Responses were received from all those who were specifically targeted. The Ministry of Defence also received a written response from a member of the public

  Proposed Introduction of the Voluntary Screening Programme following Health Concerns in Respect of Depleted Uranium

  38 documents were issued

  37 replies were received

  The Second Consultation Document on the Introduction of a Voluntary Screening Programme for Depleted Uranium

  No record available

  20 replies were received

  Future of the Defence Diversification Agency

  78 documents were issued

  21 replies were received

  This list does not include reports and other working papers that have been put in the public domain for comment, but which are not put out for formal consultation within the terms of the Code of Practice (e.g. SDR New Chapter public discussion document).

  The Government recommend that policy development should be done in close consultation with stakeholders. Formal consultation documents are only one part of this process, which includes:

  Stakeholder meetings

  Listening events/public meetings

  Web forums

  Public surveys

  Focus groups

  Regional events

  Free phone and freepost surveys and events

  Targeted leaflet campaigns

  Road shows and exhibitions

  Further information on these public consultations can be found on the Internet under http://www.mod.uk/consultations.

  Dr. David Kelly
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what inquiries he has made since the death of Dr. David Kelly concerning Dr. Kelly's record of claims for subsistence allowances or expenses; and for what purposes these inquiries were made. [128817]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Ministry of Defence has examined a number of Dr. Kelly's claims in order to provide the Hutton Inquiry with the details of some of his more 400W
  Information on the number of consultation documents issued and the number of responses received is reproduced in the following table:

  recent overseas visits, and to determine whether money was owed to him at the time of his death as a result of expenses incurred but unclaimed.

  Gulf
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which RAF units are deployed to the Gulf region; what the(a) dates and (b) duration of the last three operational tours were in each case; and if he will make a statement. [128410]

  Mr. Ingram
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.

  Iraq
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when front line units received grenade launchers for SA80A2 during Operation Telic. [125594]

  Mr. Ingram
  Underslung Grenade Launchers for SA80A2 ordered via the Urgent Operational Requirement process were first issued in theatre in early April. In addition, 3 Commando Brigade were already in possession of some Underslung Grenade Launchers, which had been procured earlier for operations in Afghanistan.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total daily expenditure on(a) regular and (b) reserve forces stationed in Iraq is; and what the total expenditure on the maintenance of British forces in Iraq would be between 1 September and 31 March 2004 if spending were to continue at the current rate. [128818]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence identifies the costs of Operations in terms of the net additional costs it has incurred. The costs, which the MOD would have
  401W
  incurred had the operation not been undertaken—expenditure on wages and salaries or on conducting training exercises, for example—are deducted from the total costs of the operation.

  Accounting records and costs are not maintained on a daily basis and to provide such an average would be misleading. The net additional costs of Reserve and Regular force personnel are not kept separately. Maintenance costs for the force includes stock consumption and impairment of fixed assets. These costs continue to be the subject of study and audit by the National Audit Office as does their proper allocation to financial years 2002–03 and 2003–04. I will write to the hon. Member when robust estimates are available and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House. This is unlikely to be before publication of the Departmental Resource Accounts.

  Missile Defence
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the agreement of 5 February to upgrade RAF Fylingdales for missile defence purposes will require amendment to the agreement relating to the establishment and operation of a ballistic missile early warning station at Fylingdales Moor, of 15 February 1960. [128368]

  Mr. Ingram
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said in his Written Ministerial Statement of 5 February 2003,Official Report, column 12WS, the radar at RAF Fylingdales will continue after the upgrade to fulfil its ballistic missile early warning radar role and will continue to be operated and staffed by the RAF. The 1960 exchange of letters, which embodies these principles, will therefore remain the cornerstone of our relationship with the United States in respect of RAF Fylingdales, though we are examining the need for additional detailed operational agreements relating specifically to the use of the radar for missile defence purposes.

  Procurement Contracts
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1)what the forecast in-service date on 31 March 2002

  Forecast ISD as at:

  31 March 2002

  31 March 2001

  31 March 2000

  31 March 1999

  31 March 1998

  31 March 1997

  ASRAAM

  Already in service

  N/R

  N/R

  N/R

  N/R

  N/R

  ERO/MCS

  July 2005

  N/R

  December 2003

  October 2003

  February 2003

  February 2003

  Hercules C-130J

  June 2000

  N/R

  N/R

  N/R

  N/R

  N/R

  LPD(R)

  March 2003

  N/R

  N/R

  N/R

  N/R

  N/R

  Merlin Mk3

  Already in service

  N/R

  N/R

  N/R

  March 2000

  March 2000

  Merlin Mk1

  Already in service

  N/R

  N/R

  N/R

  N/R

  N/R

  Seawolf

  August 2006

  N/R

  N/R

  N/R

  N/R

  N/R

  Swiftsure and Trafalgar Update

  May 2002

  N/R

  N/R

  N/R

  N/R

  N/R

  Tornado GR 1

  Already in service

  N/R

  Already in service

  Already in service

  N/R

  N/R

  Challenger 2

  Already in service

  Already in service

  N/R

  N/R

  N/R

  N/R

  FJCA

  2012

  2012

  N/R

  N/R

  N/R

  N/R

  A400M

  N/R

  2009

  N/R

  N/R

  N/R

  N/R

  ALSL

  N/R

  October 2004

  N/R

  N/R

  N/R

  N/R

  BVRAAM

  N/R

  2012

  N/R

  N/R

  N/R

  N/R

  Eurofighter Aircrew Synthetic Training Aids

  N/R

  2004

  N/R

  N/R

  N/R

  N/R

  Short Term Strategic Lift

  N/R

  December 2001

  N/R

  N/R

  N/R

  N/R

  Sonar 2087

  N/R

  Dec 2006

  N/R

  N/R

  N/R

  N/R

  April 2004-

  SIFF

  N/R

  September 2005

  N/R

  N/R

  N/R

  N/R

  Trojan and Titan

  N/R

  2005

  N/R

  N/R

  N/R

  N/R

  Type 45

  N/R

  November 2007

  N/R

  N/R

  N/R

  N/R

  402W
  was for the (a) Advanced Short Range Air-to-Air Missile, (b) Extended Range Ordnance/Modular Charge System, (c) Hercules C-130J, (d) Landing Platform Dock (Replacement), (e) Merlin HC Mk 3 Helicopter, (f) Merlin HM Mk1 Helicopter, (g) Seawolf Mid-Life Update, (h) Swiftsure and Trafalgar Class Submarine Update, (i) Tornado GR1 Mid-Life Update, (j) Challenger II and (k) Future Joint Combat Aircraft; [127605]

  (2) what the forecast in-service date on 31 March 1998 was for the (a) Extended Range Ordnance/Modular Charge System, (b) High Velocity Missile System, (c) Merlin HC Mk3 Helicopter and (d) Multi-Role Armoured Vehicle; [127601]

  (3) what the forecast in-service date on 31 March 1999 was for the (a) Extended Range Ordnance/Modular Charge System, (b) High Velocity Missile System, (c) Multi-Role Armoured Vehicle and (d) Tornado GR1 Mid-Life Update; [127602]

  (4) what the forecast in-service date on 31 March 2000 was for the (a) Extended Range Ordnance/Modular Charge System and (b) Tornado GR1 Mid-Life Update; [127603]

  (5) what the forecast in-service date on 31 March 2001 was for the (a) Challenger II, (b) A400M, (c) Alternative Landing Ship Logistic, (d) Beyond Visual Range Air-to-Air Missile, (e) Eurofighter Aircrew Synthetic Training Aids, (f) Future Joint Combat Aircraft, (g) Short Term Strategic Airlift, (h) Sonar 2087, (i) Successor Identification Friend or Foe, (j) Trojan and Titan and (k) Type 45 Destroyer; [127604]

  (6) what the forecast in-service date on 31 March 1997 was for the (a) Conventionally Armed Stand-Off Missile, (b) Extended Range Ordnance/Modular Charge System, (c) High Velocity Missile System, (d) Merlin HC Mk3 Helicopter, (e) Spearfish Heavyweight Torpedo and (f) Sting Ray Lightweight Torpedo. [127600]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information requested is set out in the following table. Boxes labelled N/R indicate that forecast in-service dates were not requested for these years.
  403W

  Forecast ISD as at:

  31 March 2002

  31 March 2001

  31 March 2000

  31 March 1999

  31 March 1998

  31 March 1997

  HVM

  N/R

  N/R

  N/R

  Already in service

  Already in service

  1 September 1997

  MRAV

  N/R

  N/R

  N/R

  March 2008

  March 2008

  N/R

  CASOM

  N/R

  N/R

  N/R

  N/R

  N/R

  December 2001

  Spearfish

  N/R

  N/R

  N/R

  N/R

  N/R

  Already in service

  Stingray

  N/R

  N/R

  N/R

  N/R

  N/R

  May 2004

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1)what the estimated cost was of the demonstration and manufacture phase on 31 March 2002 for the(a) Advanced Short Range Air-to-Air Missile, (b)Extended Range Ordnance/Modular Charge System, (c) Hercules C-130J, (d) Landing Platform Dock (Replacement), (e) Merlin HC Mk3 Helicopter, (f) Merlin HM Mk1 Helicopter, (g) Seawolf Mid-Life Update, (h) Swiftsure and Trafalgar Class Submarine Update, (i) Tornado GR1 Mid-Life Update and (j) Challenger II; [127620]

  (2) what the date is of the initial gate approval or equivalent for the (a) Advanced Air-Launched Anti-Armour Weapon, (b) Advanced Short Range Air-to-Air Missile, (c) Astute Class Submarine, (d) Attack Helicopter WAH-64 Apache, (e) Conventionally Armed Stand-Off Missile, (f) Eurofighter, (g) Extended Range Ordnance/Modular Charge System, (h) Hercules C-130J, (i) High Velocity Missile System, (j) Merlin HC Mk3 Helicopter, (k) Multi-Role Armoured Vehicles, (l) Nimrod Maritime Reconnaissance & Attack Mk4 and (m) Seawolf Mid-Life Update; [127606]

  (3) what the target date is for main gate approval or equivalent for the (a) Merlin HM Mk1 Helicopter, (b) Multi-Role Armoured Vehicle and Seawolf Mid-Life Update, (c) Spearfish Heavyweight Torpedo, (d) Sting Ray Lightweight Torpedo, (e) Swiftsure and Trafalgar Class Submarine Update, (f) Tornado GR1 Mid-Life Update, (g) Future Joint Combat Aircraft, (h) Short Term Strategic Airlift and (i) Type 45 Destroyer; [127609]

  (4) what the estimated cost is of the demonstration and manufacture phase at initial gate or equivalent for the (a) Nimrod Maritime Reconnaissance & Attack Mk4, (b) Seawolf Mid-Life Update, (c) Spearfish Heavyweight Torpedo, (d) Sting Ray Lightweight Torpedo, (e) Swiftsure and Trafalgar Class Submarine Update, (f) Tornado GR1 Mid-Life Update, (g) Challenger II, (h) A400M, (i) Future Joint Combat Aircraft and (j) Short Term Strategic Airlift; [127613]

  (5) what the estimated cost is of the demonstration and manufacture phase at initial gate or equivalent for the (a) Advanced Air-Launched Anti-Armour Weapon, (b) Advanced Short Range Air-to-Air Missile, (c) Airborne Stand-Off Radar, (d) Astute Class Submarine, (e) Conventionally Armed Stand-Off Missile, (f) Eurofighter, (g) Extended Range Ordnance/Modular Charge System, (h) Hercules C-130J, (i) High Velocity Missile System, (j) Landing Platform Dock (Replacement), (k) Merlin HC Mk3 Helicopter, (l) Merlin HM Mk1 Helicopter and (m) Multi-Role Armoured Vehicle; [127612]

  (6) what the estimated cost was of the demonstration and manufacture phase on 31 March 2001 for the (a) Challenger II, (b) A400M, (c) Alternative Landing
  404W
  Ship Logistic, (d) Beyond Visual Range Air-to-Air Missile, (e) Eurofighter Aircrew Synthetic Training Aid, (f) Future Joint Combat Aircraft, (g) Short Term Strategic Airlift, (h) Sonar 2087, (i) Successor Identification Friend or Foe, (j) Trojan & Titan and (k) Type 45 Destroyer; [127619]

  (7) what the target date is for main gate approval or equivalent for (a) Advanced Air-Launched Anti-Armour Weapon, (b) Advanced Short Range Air-to-Air Missile, (c) Astute Class Submarine, (d) Attack Helicopter WAH-64 Apache, (e) Conventionally Armed Stand-Off Missile, (f) Eurofighter, (g) Extended Range Ordnance/Modular Charge System, (h) High Velocity Missile System, (i) Landing Platform Dock (Replacement) and (j) Merlin HC Mk3 Helicopter; [127608]

  (8) what the date of the initial gate approval or equivalent is for the (a) Spearfish Heavyweight Torpedo, (b) Sting Ray Lightweight Torpedo, (c) Swiftsure and Trafalgar Class Submarine Update, (d) Tornado GR1 Mid-Life Update, (e) Challenger II, (f) Alternative Landing Ship Logistic, (g) Beyond Visual Range Air-to-Air Missile, (h) Future Joint Combat Aircraft, (i) Short Term Strategic Airlift, (j) Sonar 2087, (k) Successor Identification Friend or Foe, (l) Trojan & Titan and (m) Type 45 Destroyer; [127607]

  (9) what the (a) approved cost of the the assessment phase at initial gate or equivalent and (b) actual cost of the assessment phase is for the (i) Extended Range Ordnance/Modular Charge System, (ii) Merlin HC Mk3 Helicopter, (iii) Sting Ray Lightweight Torpedo, (iv) Tornado GR1 Mid-Life Update and (v) Short Term Strategic Airlift; [127611]

  (10) what the estimated cost was of the demonstration and manufacture phase on 31 March 2000 for the (a) Extended Range Ordnance/Modular Charge System and (b) Tornado GR1 Mid-Life Update; [127618]

  (11) what the date for main gate approval or equivalent is for the (a) Merlin HC Mk3 Helicopter and (b) Spearfish Heavyweight Torpedo; [127610]

  (12) what the approved cost is of the demonstration and manufacture phase at main gate for procuring all three tranches of the Eurofighter Aircrew Synthetic Training Aids programme. [127599]

  Mr. Ingram
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  RAF
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the rates of separated service were for the RAF, broken down by unit, for each of the last two years; and if he will make a statement. [128411]
  405W
  Mr. Caplin
  Information on Separated Service is not collated by individual unit and could be provided in that format only at disproportionate cost. However, the

  Personnel on Separated Service spending

  Incidences of Separated Service for operations and training1

  Average Trained Strength

  Less than 28 days

  28–89 days

  90–139 days

  140–279 days

  280+ days

  Total personnel spending time on Separated Service

  Percentage of average trained strength who were on Separated Service

  Total days spent on Separated Service

  FY 200 1–02

  49,266

  13,455

  11,322

  6,514

  2,432

  87

  33,810

  69

  1,999,168

  FY 2002–03

  48,690

  12,668

  13,798

  6,830

  2,858

  48

  36,202

  74

  2,207,041

  FY 2003–042

  48,516

  13,427

  8,744

  912

  0

  0

  23,083

  48

  695,963

  1 August 2002-

  31 July 20033

  48,606

  12,638

  12,812

  7,026

  2,951

  61

  35,488

  73

  2,204,507

  1 An incidence of Separated Service is recorded when an individual is absent from their parent unit on duty for three nights or more and a permanent order has not been issued. The table shows Separated Service for operational and training commitments excluding resettlement and expedition training.

  2 Information up to 31 July 2003 only.

  3 Latest 12-month period available ending 31 July 2003. Information from April 2000 excludes weekends where personnel are able to return home while on detached duty.

  The rates of Separated Service have shown an increase over the last two years due to the increased operational tempo as a result of the RAF providing
  406W
  following table shows the rates of Separated Service recorded by the RAF for the last two years.

  support to the civil authorities during the fire-fighters strike, Exercise Saif Sareea and deployments to Afghanistan and the Gulf.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefit Fraud Inspection (London Borough of Hackney)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond)
  On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI) follow-up inspection report on the London Borough of Hackney Council was published today and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  Following the housing Green Paper "Quality and Choice: A Decent Home for All", published in April 2000, the Department for Work and Pensions developed a performance framework for housing benefits. The performance standards for housing benefits allow local authorities to make a comprehensive self-assessment of whether they deliver benefit effectively and securely. They are the standards that the Department for Work and Pensions expects local authorities to aspire to and achieve in time.

  The BFI inspected the London Borough of Hackney Council against the performance standards to assess progress since the first BFI inspection report published in March 2001, and a direction update report published in March 2002.

  The report finds that the council is not at standard for any of the seven functional areas of the performance standards—strategic management, customer services, processing of claims, working with landlords, internal security, counter-fraud, and overpayments. However, the council had made real progress since the first inspection but had much work to do, particularly in the area of speed of claims processing.

  The BFI was impressed with the professionalism and enthusiasm of staff and the support members showed for the benefits service. The council had fully or partly implemented 67 per cent. of the recommendations made in the first BFI report.

  The report finds that the council's average number of days to process housing benefit claims has improved by 34 per cent. since the first inspection but it was still taking on average 136 days to process a claim. Performance for processing renewal claims without a break in payment had improved from 19 per cent. to 55 per cent. but this still falls well below the performance standards target of 83 per cent.

  Performance for customer services and working with landlords was commendable and overpayments work had improved significantly since the first inspection. In 2002–03 the council recovered £3 million through its debt recovery work. This represents a major improvement on its previously poor performance in this area.
  26WS
  In 2001–02, the London Borough of Hackney Council administered some £181.4 million in housing benefits, about 21 per cent. of its total gross revenue expenditure.

  The report makes recommendations to help the council address weaknesses and further to improve the administration of housing benefit and council tax benefit, as well as counter-fraud activities.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for its proposals in response to the BFI's findings and recommendations.

  In October 2001, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State applied a direction on the benefits service of the London Borough of Hackney Council. The BFI published a direction update report in March 2002 confirming that the direction had been met.

HEALTH

  Sexual Health (Select Committee Report)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson)
  The Government's response to the Third Report of the House of Commons Select Committee on Health, on sexual health, Cm 5959, has been published today.

  Copies have been placed in the Library.

DEFENCE

  Logistic support
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram)
  The Ministry of Defence has recently completed a detailed review of the way in which we provide logistic support to land and air forces (including naval air and the royal marines). The End to End Review (E2E) was prompted by the recognition that today's expeditionary operations demand enhanced flexibility and responsiveness in the support of joint forces. Experience form various operations over the past decade, most recently in Iraq, has shown that there is scope to provide better logistic support to the front line.

  The E2E Review is a fundamental and wide-ranging piece of work examining the totality of logistic support from industry to the front line. The process of assessing and implementing its recommendations is now under way but it is essential that we maintain momentum to ensure that the front line is supported most effectively and efficiently within the resources available.

  As the work progresses there will be full consultation with the Trades Unions and any proposals which impact on civilian jobs or which require major investment will be subject to investment appraisal to establish costs and benefits of the options before decisions are taken. Changes to operational logistics will be tested before implementation. The ability of our forces to deliver operational capability remains paramount.
  27WS
  The E2E Review proposes that our future support strategy should configure logistic support for the most likely operational scenarios, but retain the flexibility to meet other eventualities; concentrate support materiel and resources to best effect and maintain and improve the effectiveness and reliability of the supply chain, whilst streamlining processes.

  To achieve this a number of key changes are needed:
  Support infrastructure in the air environment must be concentrated in key locations and rationalised from four to two levels of Forward and Depth support.
  Support activity in the air environment should be concentrated where it can be carried out most effectively. This means some Forward support activities can be moved back into Depth support decreasing deployed infrastructure.
  Land environment logistic support must be tailored for two states; peacetime support in barracks and deployed logistics, with robust arrangements for transition between the two.
  A better focus is needed to ensure the arrival of materiel in the theatre of operations in the right order, at the right place and at the right time. A permanent, joint organisation is needed to establish and prioritise a joint supply chain that will be driven by the needs of the joint commander of operations.
  Our approach to contracting must improve to maximise the role that industry can play and realise the benefits of competition.
  The cost of logistic support must be made clearer to budget holders who should own the corresponding funding. The Chief of Defence Logistics must own the process from industry to the front line.

  A summary of the conclusions of the report has been placed in the Library of the House. This is a wide ranging set of conclusions and more work is needed in some areas to determine how best to achieve these goals. The House will be kept fully informed of progress.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Reducing Regional disparities in Prosperity (Select Committee Report)
  The Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire (Mr. Nick Raynsford)
  Today we are publishing the Government's response to the ODPM Select Committee report "Reducing Regional Disparities in Prosperity". Copies of the response have been deposited in the House Libraries and it is available on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's web site http://www.odpm.gov.uk/regions.

  We welcome the Select Committee's report. It makes a number of important points which we are already attempting to address and others which will need to be considered in the context of work being undertaken to deliver the regional economic performance Public Service Agreement.

  The Government's economic policies already provide a solid basis for the development of the regions. Interest and inflation rates are now lower and more stable than in any other period for a generation. There are more people in work than ever before and unemployment is at its lowest for a generation.

  But we acknowledge the persistent disparities in regional economic performance. We have a work programme in place to deliver our regional economic performance public service agreement, which will be monitored through data on gross value added (GVA) and other indicators. Progress will be reported in July 2006.

  Our strategy is not to set one region against another. It is focused on enabling every region to perform to its economic potential. That is the key to a successful British economy.

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

Clinical Trials: EU Directive
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I remind the House of my non-financial interest as chairman of Cancer Research UK.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress they have made in resolving the problems highlighted by medical charities and National Health Service clinicians in relation to the implementation of the European Union Directive on Good Clinical Practice in Clinical Trials.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, a joint Medical Research Council/Department of Health project is exploring in depth the challenges identified by those undertaking publicly funded trials in the consultation on the draft implementing regulations. The Government are considering changes based on all the responses to the consultation. My noble friend Lord Warner has written to my noble friend Lady Hayman.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging reply, particularly given the seriousness of the situation before the intervention of my noble friend Lord Warner. Will my noble friend confirm that the Government recognise the crucial role that non-industry funded clinical trials play in this country as distinct from the rest of the EU? Will he give an undertaking that the extended timetable that I believe is now available will be used to ensure that high quality publicly funded or charitably funded clinical trials, which have been of such benefit to patients in this country, will be safeguarded?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I recognise the importance of non-industry-funded health research carried out in this country. There is now a somewhat deferred timetable with regard to work on the directive. That provides additional time to take on board the very forceful representations made by Cancer Research UK and, indeed, by other bodies, and to get the matter right.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, clearly very great concern has been expressed by the medical and research community, not least by Cancer Research UK and the MRC. This is yet another example of an EU directive where the Department of Health has been
288
caught on the hop. Is it not high time that the Department of Health got a rather better radar screen so that it can pick up these directives when they come through via UK representation in Brussels and make representations while a directive is going through, not afterwards?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I do not accept that the Department of Health is not sufficiently sensitive to issues as they arise in respect of European Union directives. A directive that seeks to protect patients across Europe, and is highly desirable in those terms, is relatively straightforward in the majority of countries where most research is carried out by commercial organisations. As my noble friend indicated in her Question, the directive has particular implications and difficulties for the very substantial amount of research that is carried out by non-commercial organisations in this country. Therefore. we have a particular interest in the matter and have made forceful representations on it. In the additional time that is now available we are taking on board the representations that we have received. We are extremely hopeful that we shall arrive at a directive which is fully consistent with the needs of this country.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, recognising the justified excellent reputation of non-industry funded clinical trials in this country, will the Minister assure us that in future all clinical trials, whether publicly or industry-funded, will include all age groups because at the moment many exclude people of 65 and over with terrible results?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that is an important point. We are aware that research can be skewed if not all age groups are represented. I fully take on board the point that the noble Baroness makes.
Earl Howe: My Lords, despite what the Minister said, is this not a prime example of an EU directive hat brings with it massive burdens for those who carry out clinical trials and no benefit whatever for patients? Will the Minister explain what the point is of a harmonisation measure if it adds nothing either to the validity of trials or, indeed, to patient safety?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I contest the noble Earl's point that the directive fails to add to patient safety. The directive is driven by the needs of patients. As has been indicated, in other countries the need for the directive may be even more pressing than in this country. However, we do not wish to be complacent about research in this country. We have the most excellent record. The noble Earl will recognise that ID per cent of the world's advanced medical research is carried out in this country. It is a very important part of our provision. But that does not mean that in all forms of medical research we do not make the needs of the patient a priority. The measure we are discussing will help in that regard.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, if the Minister noticed that there are defects in our system that may endanger patients and if he was aware of that, why on earth did not the Government bring forward domestic legislation to deal with it instead of waiting to be bossed around by people in Brussels who are mostly concerned with defects in other countries?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, when a defect, as the noble Lord identified it, occurred with regard to our own circumstances in the case in North Staffordshire some two years or so ago, we took appropriate measures to rectify it. But, as he will recognise, research is carried out on a European-wide basis, and other countries too have enviable records with regard to their work. It is appropriate that we should have harmonisation across Europe, given the fact that the medical profession contributes to European-wide medical advance through such research.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, will the noble Lord remember that every clinical trial in this country is looked at by local medical research ethics committees, which approach it from the point of view of the people who will take part in the trials? Have the Government pointed that out to the European Union—because I do not think that every country in the EU has that type of protection? I should have thought that that alone should make us exempt from the directive.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I cannot go quite so far as the noble Baroness wants in assuring her that such a contribution would then make us exempt from the directive. But she is absolutely right: our concern about ethics, through the local control that she has identified, is an enormous strength in our provision of medical research. We have presented to Europe, in the discussions on the directive, all those facets of our outstanding record with regard to medical research.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, given the rigours with which clinical trials are conducted in this country, and the evidence that patients in trials do better overall than those who are not entered into trials, are the Government taking on board the representations from intensivists and others dealing with critically ill patients, where there are very real problems in obtaining consent to entrance into a trial by routes other than the conventional one; namely, the prior consent of patients? That group of patients, if not included in clinical trials, may well not receive advances in care in the long term.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Baroness has introduced an additional point of considerable importance. It is not directly covered by the directive; nevertheless, she is right—we do need to pay particular regard to that group of patients. I can assure her that the department does so.

BT: Queries and Complaints
2.45 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshieasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider BT's system for answering queries and complaints by way of recorded voices to be in the best interests of the consumers.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, like many companies, BT uses automated call management systems. Companies believe that this is the most efficient way of dealing with incoming calls. Oftel has no powers to control how businesses operate their call management systems and so any complaints should be brought to the attention of senior management within the company concerned—in this case, BT.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that expected reply. However, I cannot think that the Government can absolve themselves from all responsibility for the public service which has been privatised. This Question arose, of course, from personal experience. I arrived home on a Thursday to find that both telephones were not working. After an hour and a half, I got through to an unfortunate man in Cardiff—who, I regret to tell your Lordships, had never heard of Forfar. He assured me, however, that on Monday—this was Thursday—someone would come along to see what was wrong with the line. This duly happened. I found out that the engineer lived half a mile away and could have come on Thursday had he known about the problem. So it is quite obvious that these systems are not working and the Government need to take an interest in the matter. I do not know whether they have a golden share, but I can assure the Minister that they still have some influence.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, if the noble Lord has not drawn this issue to the attention of the senior management of BT, as I advise him to do, he has taken my advice very rapidly indeed through his Question. I am sure that we all sympathise with the difficulties that he faced, which I imagine are not a unique experience in this House. However, BT has been a privatised company for a considerable period of time. Its senior management must answer for the ineffective service that he has identified on this occasion.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, could the explanation for the noble Lord's terrible experience be that the call centre operative who said he was in Cardiff was really in Bombay?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that then presumes that the call centre in Bombay would have understood Forfar rather better than Cardiff. That may not be the case.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I suggest to the Minister that there is a public issue here; namely, the mental health of the nation, given the number of

291
people ringing up and getting totally frustrated. This is seriously deleterious to the mental health—not to speak of the spiritual health—of the nation. Best practice is for the caller to be told where he is in the queue and how long he has to wait. It is a simple procedure. I do not know whether BT does that, but it helps to lower the aggression level a little.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the whole House clearly appreciates the right reverend Prelate's constructive suggestion. Let us hope that more companies involve themselves in relieving this pressure—although I would counsel the right reverend Prelate against suggesting that our mental health is too fiercely damaged by these trials and terrors, because I fear that we have probably all experienced them.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, perhaps I may remind the House that I was a director of British Telecom for some years. I also carried through the provisions of its denationalisation, which led to better services and lower prices and included a provision for competition. Surely the Minister should have reminded the noble Lord that in a competitive, free-market situation, which there is in telephony in this country, there are enormous choices for consumers. Perhaps he will also intervene on my behalf with the right reverend Prelate to see whether I may be informed as to where I shall be in the queue in having my prayers answered next Sunday when I am on my knees in one of his churches.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, with regard to the first part of the question, the noble Lord is right that there is competition in the provision of such services. But I believe that most of us who have trouble with a company believe that it should be for that company to improve its procedures, not only on our own behalf but on behalf of all its customers, rather than go through the sometimes laborious exercise of transferring our custom elsewhere.
As to the competition between the efficacy of British Telecom management and higher powers, I give way to the noble Lord and his experience in that matter.

BBC Charter Renewal
2.51 p.m.
Lord McNallyasked Her Majesty's Government:
How they will ensure that both Parliament and public are fully involved and consulted during the process of BBC charter renewal.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey): My Lords, the Government will announce how they intend to conduct the charter review before the end of the year. I can give a commitment now, however, that the process will be
292
both wide-ranging and thorough, that public debate will form a critical element of the review and that there will be opportunities for parliamentary scrutiny.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I welcome that reply and hope that the statement of how the Government intend to conduct the review will be made in the form of a parliamentary Statement so that it may be scrutinised in both Houses. Is the Minister aware that there is considerable public concern that charter review in the hands of this Government needs to be fully transparent? There are grave public concerns that it may well be a combination of payback time by politicians with a grievance and "pay-for" time for commercial interests. Therefore, the BBC and its integrity need to be fully protected during the process.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord was good enough to write to me on this subject at the end of July and to issue his letter to the press. Therefore, I assume that he can take some credit for fomenting public concern. But the basis on which he wrote to me and the concerns that he expressed are entirely inappropriate. There is no question of there being a payback time. The Secretary of State has at all times made it entirely clear that she rejects any attempt to confuse our desire to correct any statements made by the BBC with the charter review process. We shall maintain the BBC's independence and we shall not be influenced by matters taking place now. In answer to the noble Lord's other questions, our process, of course, will be entirely transparent.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I appreciate what my noble friend has just said about the crucial importance of the independence of the BBC. However, assuming that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is not asking for a referendum to obtain public support for any renewal of the charter, is there not a danger that the renewal may occur during the course of a general election, which at present is supposed to take place in about 2006? In those circumstances, will the Government consider bringing forward the date of the charter renewal rather than risk it being involved in the type of party-political conversation that we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord McNally?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I know even less than my noble friend Lord Barnett about when the next general election will be. However, the last charter was granted in 1996 for a period of 10 years. We have made commitments, particularly in relation to the licence fee, for that period until the end of the charter review. I do not believe that any strong reasons exist for changing that period now.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, when the charter is renewed, would it be possible to slip into it a little piece requesting the BBC to return the main news bulletin to nine o'clock every evening?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there are two documents: the charter, which is about eight pages

293
long; and the agreement, which is about 16 pages long. I do not believe that either of them goes into the type of detail to which the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, refers; nor do I believe that they should.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: My Lords, that leads beautifully to my question. Granted the overwhelming importance of the charter in constitutional terms, the agreement is none the less the document that deals with the nitty-gritty of day-to-day broadcasting. Can the Minister give us any assurance about parliamentary discussion of the BBC agreement?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords. I can certainly say that there will be parliamentary discussion of the BBC agreement. It is a constitutional oddity that, although there is no requirement for the BBC charter to be considered by Parliament, there is a requirement for the agreement to be considered by the House of Commons because their Standing Orders require anything which affects communications across the sea—that is, the BBC World Service—to be considered by Parliament. But, of course, we intend to go very much further than that.
The detail of parliamentary scrutiny is at least in part a matter for Parliament. However, we certainly recall that in 1996 the previous government said that there would be an opportunity for each House to debate the document. They undertook that if either House were to demonstrate that it found the charter or the agreement unacceptable as drafted, the government would consider whether changes were necessary and, if so, would withdraw the documents and prepare new drafts.
Earl Russell: My Lords, in his first reply to my noble friend, the Minister—I believe that I quote him correctly—made a reference, first, to correcting mistakes by the BBC and, secondly, to preserving the independence of the BBC. Does he agree that there is, if not a contradiction, a certain potential tension between those two remarks? Does he also agree that the Government are not an impartial judge of impartiality?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my remarks about correcting mis-statements were a direct response to an accusation made publicly by the noble Lord, Lord McNally. I made it clear that they have nothing to do with the charter review process or the independence of the BBC.
Lord Elton: My Lords, will the charter or the agreement define the balance of power and authority between the governors and the executive of the BBC, and can we be assured that that matter will be a subject of discussion in this House?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the question of what detail is a matter for discussion in this House is, at least in part, as I said, a matter for this House—a matter for Parliament. My understanding—I could
294
be wrong on this; I have not read the documents recently—is that the issue of the role of the governors is a matter for the charter and not the agreement. However, I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, if I am wrong about that.
Lord Sheldon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the BBC is the only one of our media which is not beholden in some way to proprietors, advertisers or the government? As that is so, is it not clear that it is the only truly independent voice—one of our few successful institutions—and that any aspect of charter renewal must preserve that distinct position, which has been of outstanding benefit to our country over the past 80 years?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I entirely agree with what my noble friend Lord Sheldon has just said. That is why I have already said that we shall, at all costs, maintain the independence of the BBC. That is why, in relation to the charter review, I also said that the process will be wide-ranging and thorough and that it will include a public debate and opportunities for parliamentary scrutiny. I believe that those are the assurances which my noble friend seeks.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, does the Minister have some sympathy with the BBC with regard to its charter requirement to maintain a proper balance and to be even-handed in all respects? For example, with regard to the Prime Minister's speech yesterday to the TUC, which version would the BBC have been correct in reporting—the robust version handed out in the official statement or the weaker, wetter version, being what was actually said to the TUC?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not believe that it would be at all appropriate for me to comment on the BBC's treatment of the Prime Minister's speech. But my understanding is not the same as that of the noble Lord, Lord Eden.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, in looking forward to charter renewal, do the Government agree that if the BBC was fully under the remit of Ofcom—an independent regulator—the current row leading to the Hutton inquiry would not have escalated in the way that it has?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is a hypothetical question on which the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, is entitled to form her own views. I shall not anticipate the form which the charter review will take or the role of Ofcom in any final BBC Charter or agreement.
Lord McNally: My Lords, do not the Minister's replies make an unanswerable case for the recalling of the Puttnam committee, particularly because the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, is extremely good at sequels?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I realise that sequels are often very popular but, on the whole,

295
sequels tend to be poorer than the originals. That is not in any sense a criticism of my noble friend Lord Puttnam or of any of his colleagues.

Asylum Seekers: Legal Aid
3 p.m.
Lord Aveburyasked Her Majesty's Government:
What responses they have had to the consultation papers issued by the Lord Chancellor's Department on 5th June and the Legal Services Commission on 2nd July on proposed changes to the general civil contract for both private solicitors and not-for-profit organisations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin): My Lords, we received some 250 responses to the department's consultation paper on the future of publicly funded immigration and asylum work. The Legal Services Commission received 17 responses to its paper on proposed contractual changes. We are currently collating and analysing the responses.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, would it be fair to say that the opinion of the organisations representing asylum seekers, including the Law Society and learned counsel instructed by the Refugee Legal Centre and by the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association, was that the proposed limits of five hours' advice on preparation of an application and four hours on an appeal are wholly unrealistic and irrational; and that the manner in which they were prepared may have been unlawful?
Does the Minister agree that because of the procrustean time limits imposed on representatives. some genuine refugees will be sent back to their countries of origin to face torture and possible death? Does he accept that some of the best practitioners are likely to give up because they will not be able to deliver an adequate service; and if that happens that the LSC may be in breach of its duty under the Access to Justice Act? So will the Government withdraw these proposals and get the LSC to enter into consultation with providers on setting benchmarks and on other means of reducing the costs of legal aid?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I shall seek to pick about two questions from the five asked. The noble Lord is quite right on the first point, that the proposal to put a cap on the level of legal aid expenditure on individual asylum cases did not meet with strong support from lawyers. That was perhaps not surprising. Nevertheless, it opens up a serious issue that must be looked at by the Government and by the legal profession as to how one copes with the fact that legal aid expenditure on immigration and asylum has doubled since the year 2000 and that the average cost of each case of legal aid has doubled since the year 2000.
296
There was no illegality whatever in the process by which that consultation paper was put out. Of' course, as ever, we are giving serious thought to the responses. But there is no doubt that government have to act in this area in order to fulfil their responsibility both to the taxpayers ill giving value, to ensure that the legal aid system is protected for the benefit of others and to ensure that there is a fair hearing for people who claim asylum in our country.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, while accepting the need to ensure value for money, has my noble friend grasped that the cases which solicitors will hesitate to accept will be the more complicated ones because they will not be able to do justice to those under the new regime? Will that not be likely to lead to the more complicated cases falling to the non-profit-making organisations; and does my noble friend consider that that will contribute to speeding up the hearing of asylum cases, which is the very laudable intention of the Government?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, clearly where remuneration is on an average cost basis there is always a question as to whether work is displaced to other providers. Obviously, the Government were aware of that kind of issue when they put forward the proposals for consultation. I come back to the essential point that it is not just the level of spend that has been rising on legally-aided immigration and asylum work, there has been clear evidence of abuse of over-claiming, some evidence of touting for business and some evidence of poor quality work and advice.
As well as the points addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, the consultation paper also looked at how to bring in accreditation for lawyers in order to ensure that the work of those firms which provide first-class, high-quality advice services to asylum claimants is replicated and that those who do not provide good quality work do not continue to be state-funded in this way.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, during the passage of the Access to Justice Act 1999 we on these Benches pointed out the undesirability of having a single pot of money to fund all forms of legal aid. Does the Minister accept that we have been proved right and that increases in criminal and immigration spending have led to real cuts in civil legal aid, which has been cut in cash terms by 15 per cent over the past three years? Is it not right that this should be funded separately and that civil legal aid should be ring-fenced from the increases which have resulted from increased spending on criminal and immigration cases?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I do not, because the realities of life are that, whether or not one puts things into separate pots, there is ultimately one pot which is the Government's overall resources from taxation and other sources; and governments have to make judgments about how to deploy that. The reality is that it is not just legal aid on immigration and asylum that has been rising but legal aid expenditure generally. We

297
now spend £1.9 billion per year on immigration and asylum; only a few years ago—in 1997–98—we spent £1.5 billion. So there has been general pressure.
The other point in this respect of which the House should be aware—lest there is any danger of an impression that we are mean, cheap or resistant to supporting appropriate justice and hearings for asylum claims—is that I cannot find another country in Europe with anything like the quality of legal aid and advice given at initial hearings compared to this country. Austria, France, Germany and Italy provide no effective legal aid system at initial hearings.
So, while there is a need for reform, we should not get carried away with the view that we are looking to, in a sense, do other than uphold justice and fairness for asylum seekers while fulfilling a duty to getting economy out of the system.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. Is the noble Lord aware that there is a very noticeable difference between efficient and inefficient firms? Some clearly run a case for as long as possible even though it is absolutely hopeless while others deal with matters very smartly in a very short period of time and probably save taxpayers a huge amount of money. Is not the answer proper supervision by the Legal Services Commission?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the noble Countess is absolutely right. There are some instances—I shall not detail the firms—where it is quite clear that the quality of work is not good, there is over-claiming and unmeritorious cases are being pursued. She is also right that a proper system of regulation—the accreditation system I referred to previously—must be part of the answer. Therefore, we are moving towards implementing that aspect of the proposal in the consultation paper, which found substantial support from many who responded to the invitation to consult.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, does the Minister realise that his answers work in exactly the opposite direction to the object he has just enunciated; namely, proper and good legal advice? My own firm—I declare an interest—has a legal aid franchise for immigration and asylum work. In a typical case, it takes my colleagues 10 to 12 hours to deal assiduously with an immigration application. The maximum amount of time to be permitted, if these proposals go through, is three hours. I put this dilemma to the Minister. In that position what would he do? Would he abandon legal aid—and a great many firms are on the point of doing that—or would he skimp the work, which the good firms are unwilling to do?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I would look at some of the current practices by which legal time is spent on immigration and asylum cases. For example, if someone is a minor or has some mental incapacity
298
there is a real benefit in having a lawyer present at the initial interview. However, we have not been able to identify much added value provided by having a lawyer sitting watching an interview between a Home Office official and an applicant for asylum. The research evidence does not show that that provides much benefit. Indeed, in most cases firms that claim for time put in on such cases often send a junior person rather than a qualified lawyer but, of course, claim the full rate.

Iran: IAEA Report
3.11 p.m.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I remind the House that I chair the British Committee for Iran Freedom.
The Question was as follows:
To ask the Government what is their response to the report of the International Atomic Energy Agency into Iran's nuclear weapons development.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the United Kingdom has long-held concerns over Iran's nuclear ambitions. So do others, as was made clear recently in the statements by the G8, the EU and EU/US summits. The House will wish to know that the report of the International Atomic Energy Agency is currently under discussion by the board of governors in Vienna. Her Majesty's Government hope that the board will adopt a robust position on this issue.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Can there be any doubt that the mullahs' regime in Tehran, which uses terror at home and sponsors it abroad, is trying to deceive the world over its nuclear weapons programme, which was revealed to the world last year by the National Council of Resistance of Iran? May I take it from what my noble friend said to me that the United Kingdom is going to back demands by the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency that the mullahs honour their international obligations and immediately permit intrusive and unannounced inspection of their nuclear facilities?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hope that my initial Answer made it clear that the fears expressed about Iran's nuclear capability have not been allayed. I can tell the House that I met Dr El Baradei, the director general of the IAEA, in Vienna only last week and naturally we discussed this matter. He has, as the noble Lord indicated, grave concerns. I hope that a robust response will come forward from the governors. I can also tell the House that I have agreed to meet the director general again, if possible, to discuss the matter further before the next governors' meeting, which is due to take place in November this year.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, did the noble Baroness note the statement by Foreign Minister Kharrazi asking for unspecified assurances from the IAEA before Iran will agree to sign the additional protocol which is necessary to allow the thorough inspections which are clearly warranted? This is in spite of the fact that this is a standard text that has been adhered to by some 35 other countries without difficulty. In the meanwhile, have there been any sites that the agency would like to have inspected to which a visit has been denied in the absence of the protocol? In the light of Iran's withdrawal of the ambassador in the United Kingdom, what influence does the noble Baroness think the UK can have in persuading Iran to comply with her international obligations?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I have noted the points made in relation to Dr Kharrazi and it is our view that Iran should sign the additional protocol forthwith and without any conditions. I have made that clear to Iranian ministers when they have visited this country. As to the withdrawal of the ambassador, that was on a matter quite unconnected with this issue but I can tell the House that the ambassador is now back in London and I am very pleased that he is.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, is right—I hope that he is—and this leads to an ultimatum to Iran to allow in the inspectors, and if that produces no co-operation from Iran, can the Minister tell us what would then be the next step? What sanctions are there to bring to bear on Iran? Would the British Government be prepared, for instance, to draft and propose a resolution at the United Nations raising the question of Iran's non-compliance with the non-proliferation treaty?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I wish to be very careful on this matter because, as I have indicated to your Lordships, this is under active discussion in Vienna at the governors' meetings. I do not want to anticipate the outcome of a meeting which is clearly one where a number of different countries have differing points of view and we must try to reach international consensus.
Let me try to be a bit more helpful. If we do get a robust response from the governors, and if Iran continues to take no notice of the points of view put by the IAEA, there will be a further meeting of the governing body in November this year. That was why I indicated that I hoped I would be able to have further meetings in the intervening period between now and then. Of course there is a possibility that this matter might be referred to the Security Council but I and, I am sure, others hope that Iran will do the sensible and right thing and engage properly with the requests of the IAEA.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, I strongly support the robust line being taken. Does the noble Baroness agree that if, in the case of North Korea, it is
300
felt necessary to address some of the security concerns of that extremely disagreeable regime at the same time as pressing very hard on its nuclear ambitions, when dealing with a much more sophisticated government like the Government of Iran it might be a good idea if the United States was also prepared to address some of their security concerns? Does she have any idea what the United States might be prepared to do in its relationship with Iran if Iran were to sign the additional protocol?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it is always very difficult to draw direct comparisons; nobody knows that better than the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. If the Government of Iran have particular points that they wish to raise that are matters of genuine concern about their security, it is only right and proper to listen to those concerns. There is no secret about the fact that we have a different analysis of the way in which to encourage Iran to be part of the international community from that held by our friends in the United States. Where we disagree with the United States we try to persuade them that the role that we are adopting of engagement with Iran—critical engagement, certainly, but still engagement—is a better way of encouraging it to comply with international norms. Of course we will try to persuade the United States to encourage rather than disengage in the way that, regrettably, has perhaps been the case.

Business
Lord Grocott: My Lords, a very brief word about business a week this Thursday, that is 18th September. The usual channels have agreed that Starred Questions will be at 11.00 am.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Deceased Fathers) Bill
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Baroness Pitkeathley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government Bill
3.18 p.m.
The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Local Government Bill, has consented

301
to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill. at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Bill read a third time.
Clause 3 [Duty to determine affordable borrowing limit]:
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 39, at end insert—
"( ) The power under subsection (7) is not to be read as limited to the specification of an existing document."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 4 have a similar purpose. They relate to Clauses 3, 15, and 21 which all include powers for the Secretary of State to make regulations referring to published codes of practice to which authorities are to have regard. These powers are crucial to our aim of basing the new capital finance system on independent codes of practice and accounting standards. The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that any revised editions of such codes are also covered by the regulations and thus apply immediately and automatically.
Much attention has already been focused on Clause 3 during Parliament's consideration of the Bill. It is the clause that underpins the prudential borrowing system. Authorities are required to determine their own affordable borrowing limits, and, in doing so, may be required to have regard to codes of practice specified in regulations. In the draft regulations under the power, we have of course specified the Prudential Code for Capital Finance in Local Authorities, an often-read document. which is being specially prepared by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, CIPFA.
The regulations under Clauses 15 and 21 also refer to CIPFA codes. Clause 15 is a power to specify general guidance and in this case we have named CIPFA's Treasury Management code. The code is already widely used by authorities and sets out practice in such areas as investment and the management of debt.
Clause 21 deals with the accounting practices to be followed by authorities and enables the Secretary of State to specify proper practices. Here the regulations identify two other well established CIPFA codes: the Statement of Recommended Practice and the Best Value Accounting Code, which together lay down the basis of local government financial management and accounting.
We always intended that the regulations should refer automatically to new editions of these codes as they are published. It would be undesirable to have to make amended regulations whenever one of the codes was reissued. That could create uncertainty about the legal status of a new edition of a code. Also, any need for each revised edition to be approved by the Government might cast doubt upon our commitment to accounting practice as the basis for the capital
302
finance system. Our policy here has the full support of local government and has been endorsed in another place.
This is an important issue, and we have recently reviewed the drafting of these three clauses. We now consider that the treatment of new editions of the codes should be clarified. These technical amendments therefore expand each clause to state that the references to codes are not limited to the existing editions. They simply ensure that the original policy intention is properly and effectively implemented. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I have no objection to the amendments. But the more a Bill lists what might be included in provisions, the more one is in doubt about the things that are not listed. Although I understand what the Minister is saying, I find the approach quite difficult. If the Secretary of State specifies that an order or provision is wide open, let it be so, rather than suggest that it is in some way limited. Sometimes I find this approach more confusing than helpful.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I know that the noble Baroness rarely gets confused. We think that we have clarified the situation. I take the point that she makes, but I do not think that it has great bearing on the issue.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Use of capital receipts]:
Baroness Hanhammoved Amendment No. 2:
Page 5, line 35, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we have discussed the amendment twice: in Committee and on Report. My final remarks on Report were that I thought it likely that we would return to the matter, so here we are; we do not like summer holidays to get in the way of a good discussion. On Report the Minister said that the difficulty with the same amendment being tabled was that he had nothing new to say. But it seems to us that if you have a simple formula, you should stick to it. That is why we have made no attempt to look for different words.
Clause 11(2)(b) would enable the Secretary of State, by regulation, to snatch all or any part of a local authority's capital receipts. We know that the purpose behind that would be to pool those resources and redistribute them to other authorities not prudent or fortunate enough to have access to their own receipts.
There are three reasons for our concerns about that. The first is that debt-free councils could lose only what they have been able to raise from disposal of their housing stock. There are not many of them, but they feel very strongly that they have managed their affairs well and should not be penalised in that way, by ministerial whim.

303
Other local authorities which are not in the same position may still need to support the provision of affordable housing or to maintain property that they still own. We made the point previously that to strip local authorities of such capital receipts jeopardises their ability to maintain their own property.
Under the Government's plans to create thousands of new homes, the money collected from these authorities is a drop in the ocean. But for small-scale development these receipts, in good hands and prudent councils, would potentially provide great flexibility.
The Minister has made the point on several occasions that some local authorities—those that would benefit from the redistributed resources—do not have such capital receipts, to which we must ask: why not? The policy for discounted sales to tenants, which the Labour Party did not much like for quite a long time but then embraced, has been available to all authorities for many years now. It seems hard that those who have implemented the policy vigorously and obtained capital receipts should have to support those who may have been less enthusiastic and more dilatory in their ability to do so. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we support the amendment because we oppose the provision that it would ameliorate. To continue the theme of my earlier remarks, and to he utterly clear, we would have preferred to say that the Secretary of State may not make provisions through regulations that the whole or part of a capital receipt be paid to him. Perhaps that does not affect the thrust of the amendment.
The Bill is about freedoms and flexibilities. The clause seems to give with one hand and to take away with the other. I am aware that the Government said during the passage of the Bill that the provision is perfectly reasonable on the basis that receipts arise because the grant originally came from the Government. But some authorities received negative housing subsidies for decades and many have invested in their housing stock the income that they have received from lettings.
My analogy is that, if I give a gift, I do not expect to be able to say after 15 years or so, "You did jolly well: the stock market went up, you invested and got more than I thought you might get, so give me some back". If you make a grant and hand over money, in an environment where noble Lords on all sides say that local authorities should have greater freedom, autonomy and discretion, let the money follow what the mouth says. We support the noble Baroness's amendment.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Hanham and what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said. I support particularly the point that the Bill is supposed to be about freedoms and flexibilities for local government. Although it gives some flexibilities and freedoms, there are one or two issues on which local government, as a united front across all parties, feels that more is being taken away
304
than is given. This is one such issue. I hope that the Government, even at this late stage, could think again about this aspect of the Bill.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is quite right, tlt, theme of the Bill is freedoms and flexibilities. Although we are dealing with the same issue as we dealt with previously, and my answers will be the same, the arguments in favour of amendments are getting slightly weaker. My arguments are as robust as ever. The noble Baronesses would have difficulty arguing the case that they have just made to certain local authorities, and certainly to the tenants of some local authorities. But this is an important part of the Bill and I welcome the opportunity to discuss the amendment.
The amendment seeks to remove the Secretary of State's power to pool capital receipts. This would mean that many authorities would not get the resources they need to meet pressing demands for housing. Therefore, it is plainly unacceptable to the Government. My noble friends and I have said before that the redistribution of housing capital receipts has been, is, and will continue to be, a fundamental principle of housing capital finance. We believe that it is right that a portion of the proceeds from the sale of council housing be recycled for use in areas where housing need is greatest.
As has been explained before, the current arrangements are that local authorities are required to set aside a portion of their housing capital receipts. The flaw in that arrangement is that debt-free authorities are exempt from the requirement to set aside any portion of their right-to-buy receipts. Not having to set aside a portion of the housing capital receipts means that they are not contributing to the redistribution system that lies at the heart of the housing capital finance regime. Indeed, they may retain the receipts and use them for whatever purpose they wish.
For the avoidance of doubt, I repeat that an authority with debt is not necessarily good and an authority that is debt free is not necessarily bad—and vice versa. There is nothing intrinsically good or bad about being debt free: it is sometimes an historical accident of finance. The fact remains that debt-free authorities have been able to use certain money more than once and for expenditure other than on housing. We are determined to channel that money into housing.
I also wish to make the point, which I believe was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, that these funds are not necessarily generated by good management of the council—by good planning, for example. They are raised because tenants are exercising their right to buy. As the noble Lady said, some authorities are more dilatory than others. However, if the local authority stops people exercising their right to buy, there is an adequate system of appeal. The local authority must obey the law, and rightly so.

305
On the other hand, some authorities have not done as well as others because their stock is rubbish and their tenants do not want to buy it, even at the knock-down prices that they are offered. It is therefore not fair to say that authorities have not done well if they have not generated enough receipts. That is an unfair portrayal of local authority housing, which is very uneven throughout the country. The authority has no influence on the disposals. It does not manage them. Therefore, the authority should not be able to claim credit for them. The disposals are solely in the hands of tenants who exercise their right to buy.
We believe that redistribution must apply to all if it is to be fair to all. It is unacceptable that some authorities should have more access to resources than others, regardless of their need, simply because they happen to be rich in right-to-buy receipts and are debt free. Without redistribution, local authorities with debt, lower capital receipts and a greater housing investment need will lose out. That is irresponsible and it would be quite indefensible to allow that to happen.
The current means of redistribution based on set-aside will cease to be available when the new capital finance system is introduced. Pooling is the mechanism that will replace it and redistribute housing capital receipts for all local authorities.
I am aware—and I make no apology for this—that these are exactly the same arguments that I used on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said, the case is virtually the same, although I believe that the noble Baroness introduced a weakness by chastising authorities with low capital receipts by saying that it is their fault because they were dilatory in the selling. The selling is not theirs to control; it is the tenants'. Perhaps the stock is rubbish and the tenants will not take it off the local authorities' hands.
My arguments have not changed, because we think that it is right that the resources generated by the sale of council housing stock be recycled and made available for the areas of greatest need. The amendment would remove our ability to do that. The alternatives, as I have told the House before, are higher taxes, less investment in housing or cuts in other programmes. I have not heard from either of the proponents of this amendment which one of those three they recommend. Clearly, they are not prepared to put their names to higher taxes or to stand up in this House and say, "Let's have less investment in certain areas". They are certainly not prepared to stand up in this House and name the areas of local expenditure that should be cut to pay for their amendment—and I am not surprised.
If the amendment is pressed, the noble Lords who tabled the amendment are duty bound to say which alternative they would put in its place. They are not prepared to do that, so I hope that they will not press the amendment. It has been round the course several times. Some parts of local government think that the measure does not offer 100 per cent freedom of flexibility but there is a general view that it is very close to that. It is good governance and good use of public
306
funds placed in areas based on housing need. That is all that this is. It is not confiscation, but a method of re-directing money to areas of the greatest housing need. With all due respect, I do not understand how anyone can seriously oppose that policy.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I can and I do, and this is the third time that I have said that. I used very similar arguments in my speeches about this matter on other occasions. "Redistribution" is a word that probably falls better from the Minister's lips than from mine, as does "pooling".
The Minister's case for redistribution is that the money goes to authorities with greater need, but we would argue about where that is. In these days, local authorities need key workers, and key worker accommodation. There are many areas that are perhaps not quite as destitute as others, but where key worker housing is absolutely imperative. It is important that they have the capital for that and we would expect to see capital receipts used for that purpose.
The measure removes a flexibility. It removes the flexibility for authorities that have receipts to use them for affordable housing for specific needs. I am almost certain that, under the Deputy Prime Minister's mantle—his sustainable communities—everything in the future will go one way. The decisions about where key worker housing goes will have little to do with individual local authorities and everything to do with the Deputy Prime Minister. The little pot of gold that might helpfully be used by local authorities would be taken away by paragraph (b).
I disagree with the Minister about some authorities being more dilatory than others, because some authorities never promoted the right to buy and the sale of housing stock. It should have been promoted, because many people needed the issue to be put before them so that they could consider it. Some authorities are still not as energetic as others. Sometimes that is with good reason—blocks of flats, for example. Some authorities have not been as assiduous as others. They have not recouped the capital receipts that they might otherwise have done.
We have trotted round this field now on three occasions. All that I can do is to seek the opinion of the House on this matter.
3.38 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 133; Not-Contents, 118.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Addington, L.

Ashcroft, L.

Alderdice, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Barker, B.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

307

Biffen, L.

McNally, L.

Blatch, B.

Maddock, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Marsh, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Burnham, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Buscombe, B.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B

Byford, B.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Caithness, E.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Moynihan, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Carrington, L.

Noakes, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

Northesk, E.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Northover, B.

Courtown, E.

Norton of Louth, L.

Crathorne, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Deedes, L.

Palmer, L.

Denham, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Parkinson, L.

Dundee, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Elles, B.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Plumb, L.

Elton, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L

Erroll, E.

Quinton, L.

Ezra, L.

Rawlings, B.

Falkland, V.

Reay, L.

Feldman, L.

Rennard, L.

Fookes, B.

Renton, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Geddes, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Rogan, L.

Goodhart, L.

Roper, L.

Hamwee, B.

Rotherwick, L.

Hanham, B.

Russell, E.

Hanningfield, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Henley, L.

Sandberg, L.

Higgins, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Selsdon, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Sharman, L.

Hooson, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Howe, E.

Sharples, B.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Hylton, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kimball, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Swinfen, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Thatcher, B.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Tordoff, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Trumpington, B.

Lucas, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Luke, L.[Teller]

Ullswater, V.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Wakeham, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Walmsley, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Blackstone, B.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Boothroyd, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Borrie, L.

Armstrong of Ilminster, L.

Bridges, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Barnett, L.

Carter, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Christopher, L.

Berkeley, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Billingham, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

308

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Crawley, B.

McCarthy, L.

David, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Dixon, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

Donoughue, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Dubs, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Elder, L.

Mitchell, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Nicol, B.

Orme, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Filkin, L.

Pendry, L.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Peston, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Gale, B.

Puttnam, L.

Gavron, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Golding, B.

Richard, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Richardson of Calow, B

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Rooker, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Sawyer, L.

Greengross, B.

Sheldon, L.

Greenway, L.

Simon, V.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Slim, V.

Harrison, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Haskel, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Haskins, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hayman, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Thornton, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Turnberg, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Varley, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Walpole, L.

Islwyn, L.

Warnock, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Whitaker, B.

Jones, L.

Whitty, L.

Judd, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord President of the Council)

Kirkhill, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Lipsey, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
3.48 p.m.
Clause 15[Guidance]:
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No.3:
Page 7, line 7, at end insert—
"( ) The power under subsection (1)(b) is not to be read as limited to the specification of existing guidance."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Cluase 21 [Accounting practices]:
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No.4:
Page 9, line 28, at end insert—
"( ) The power under subsection (2)(b) is not to be read as limited to the identification of an existing document."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hanningfieldmoved Amendment No. 5:
Before Clause 25, insert the following new clause—
"APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS OF THIS PART
The provisions of this Part may only be applied to those local authorities that have been identified by the Audit Commission as at risk of overspending their total budget by more than 10 per cent."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we object to Part 2 because it potentially applies to all authorities, although the problems it would address affect a tiny minority. The amendment would restrict the potential effect of Part 2 to those authorities identified by the Audit Commission as likely to overspend their budgets by more than 10 per cent. According to the Audit Commission's latest report, Stewardship and Governance, that would bring 6 per cent of local authorities into the possible remit of these provisions. The amendment does not say that these provisions will apply to those 6 per cent of authorities; it says that these provisions can only apply to those 6 per cent of authorities.
I should like to remind your Lordships of some of the reasons as to why we are so concerned about Part 2. Throughout the passage of the Bill we have argued against the inclusion of these provisions. We have argued on the basis of principle; we have argued on the basis of practice. Both those lines of approach have failed to make any impact on the Ministers opposite, who have refused to recognise the disastrous message that this provision sends out to local authorities. If Ministers do not believe that to be the case, perhaps I may quote from the evidence of the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives to the Select Committee on the draft Bill.
"The prevailing attitude of mistrust of local government, however, is revealed once again in the Bill's clauses on financial administration".
In previous debates, the Minister went so far as to describe as irresponsible the suggestion that this provision should be challenged. He said that it was irresponsible of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to suggest that just because an authority does not get into trouble does not mean that it should not have a higher level of reserves. I refer your Lordships to Hansard, 16th July 2003, col. 901.
But that is precisely what it means. That is why we argue that these are local judgments. In its evidence to the Select Committee, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA)—to which the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, referred in his first amendment—stated:
"specifying a 'minimum level of reserves' for local authorities is impracticable and should be left to local judgment and good professional practice".
In making that statement it was well aware of the findings of the Audit Commission. The point was directly addressed in evidence to the Select Committee. CIPFA stated:
"I think the latest Audit Commission figures which have come out show that approximately 90 per cent of local authorities have adequate balances, the other ten per cent are judged by the auditors to have inadequate balances. However, when you look at the pattern of local authority spending … between 20 to 40 per cent of local authorities do overspend on individual directorate
310
levels in a year, virtually none of the local authorities actually end up having to reduce services as a result i.e. they have enough in their balances to cover those in year differences against actual budget".
Whether what is defined by the Audit Commission as an inadequate reserve actually leads to problems in practice is not relevant; it is key. The evidence is that in the vast majority of cases there are no problems. That is the evidence given by CIPFA. But it is not just CIPFA that has a problem with this provision. The Society of County Treasurers, in its evidence to the Select Committee stated:
"The proposals for the Secretary of State to specify that local authorities maintain their reserves at a minimum level would seem to be particularly problematic and unnecessary".
What about the Audit Commission? Surely, it must be in favour of this power. Its evidence to the Select Committee stated:
"To date Auditors have resisted making recommendations about minimum levels because it is rightly the responsibility of local authorities to determine this for themselves based on a risk assessment of their operational and business models".
Remember those words from the Audit Commission:
"rightly the responsibility of local authorities to determine this for themselves".
On these Benches, we agree with the Audit Commission. On these Benches, we agree with the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. On these Benches, we agree with the Society of Country Treasurers; we agree with the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives; and we agree with the Local Government Association.
We have tried a number of lines of argument with the Government. Most of the time they have failed to address the specific arguments that we have put forward. For example, in Committee and on Report, we suggested that the provision in Clause 26(2) would be ineffective because it only enables intervention at the end of a financial year—after the damage has been done. The Government have not addressed that.
We also queried the suggestion that the powers would be held in reserve. How does that commitment square with the insistence of the Government that they are taking these powers to deal with a large number of authorities identified by the Audit Commission as having inadequate reserves? If the powers have been taken to address that particular problem, surely they will be deployed against a large number of authorities, even if we know that, in practice, the vast majority will come to no harm.
We put the argument that making short-term decisions to protect a level of balances could cost local authorities an enormous amount of money in the long term. Ministers have not addressed that. There are so many arguments against this provision that we could come up with new ones all day.
Clause 26(2) states:
"In the case of a controlled reserve, it shall not be regarded as appropriate for the balance of the reserve at the end of the financial year under consideration to be less than the minimum amount determined in accordance with regulations made by the appropriate person".

311
Throughout the debates on these clauses, Ministers have insisted that local authorities must have adequate reserves to meet unforeseen problems that might emerge during the year. But what they are committed to here is a minimum level of reserve at year end. Why do they need a minimum level of reserve at the end of the year? What if local authorities decided that problems over school funding were so severe in a year that they wanted to do something about it? They may have no particular spare cash, but they may have money in reserves which they may want to give to schools during that year. However, as the year progresses, the risk declines and they do not have to call on their reserves. Therefore, at the end of the year, if they chose to, some money could be given to schools from reserves. That is the freedom for local government. Whose judgment should it be that that money is better kept in councils' coffers than spent on services that they are there to deliver?
In our previous debates, the Minister said that this provision will come into play only where an authority ignores the advice of its chief financial officer. But it is quite within the bounds of possibility for that to happen. A chief financial officer's duty is to protect the financial standing of the council. A leader's duty, for example, with regard to children's services, is to ensure appropriate levels of funding. Money is extremely tight. These judgments are finely balanced. At the end of the day, because the Government lay different responsibilities on councils, they might reach different views.
I am trying to be helpful by showing that these issues are not quite as black and white as they are presented. We think that this clause should be removed. We disagree with it fundamentally. It is against local authorities of all parties. This is Third Reading and the amendment would put in the Bill a restriction on the possible scope of the exercise of this provision. People in local government object to the breadth of a power that even the Government admit they do not wish to apply generally. Why not limit the scope of the power to those authorities that are on course to overspend? On that basis, on the latest Audit Commission figures, that would bring about 6 per cent of authorities within the scope of these powers.
Ministers opposite have a great deal of experience and political wisdom. I hope that they will accept the amendment in the spirit in which it is tabled. It moves the argument forward in a practical way and makes the best of a bad job. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we support this amendment. The noble Lord listed those organisations and individuals with whom his Benches agreed in their criticism of the provisions. I would add to that list the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh. I am sorry he is not in his place. At an earlier stage of this Bill he asked whether the Government really wanted this power because it would he so difficult to exercise. However, difficulty for the Government is not one of the problems I seek to address in supporting the amendment and opposing the provision in the Bill
312
which it seeks to dilute. I said at Report that autonomy in local government, as elsewhere, requires capacity building. The more provisions in place which say, "Here is your freedom and flexibility but we retain a reserve power to take it away", the more that undermines autonomy. It undermines the capacity of individuals whom we seek to attract into public service which as we know, is a huge issue.
Chief finance officers do not get where they are through being irresponsible. If anything, they are a pretty cautious breed. I prefer to see authorities relying on the judgment not just of the politicians but also of the professional officers—I use the term professional in every sense of the word. I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, thinks that as many as 6 per cent of authorities might be on course to exceed the 10 per cent limit. I thought that this was a pretty smart clause because it will probably mean that almost no authorities will come within it. This is based on my limited experience of observing other authorities. This amendment is an interesting and fruitful way to reduce the impact of this clause, with which we, the LGA and CIPFA do not agree. We support this amendment.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I appreciate why noble Lords have tabled this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, has made the point that it is perceived as an unnecessary burden on well managed authorities. I shall explain very carefully why we are continuing to resist this amendment to the new clause. I must set out why Part 2 needs to remain of general application and—this is important—why the particular form of the new clause makes it an undesirable addition to the Bill.
We have argued throughout that the powers and duties in Clauses 25 to 29 should apply to all authorities. I will come to Clause 30 later. We are not doing this because we wish to impose additional duties on authorities. These duties need to apply to all authorities because no criteria for selection will reliably identify the authorities that are in danger. The well run authorities with sound finances and sound procedures will automatically be complying with these duties and will feel no extra burden. The authorities that the noble Lord leads and the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, has worked so tirelessly for, like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and many others, will experience no additional burden. But authorities change, and we regard these requirements as too important for their application to depend on anyone's assessment of the past performance of the authority or forecasts of its future.
All these clauses do is require authorities to comply with good practice. Most authorities already do so, but we have set out on a number of occasions during these debates the evidence that has led us to conclude that this good practice must be backed by statute. The need for sound finances is all the greater when major new financial freedoms are being given. Let me say again that the Government regard the provisions of Part 2 as an essential complement to the freedoms given elsewhere in the Bill and in particular to the prudential system.

313
Turning now to the specific requirements of the new clause, the trigger for the application of Part 2 will be identification by the Audit Commission that the authority is at risk of overspending by more than 10 per cent. Assuming that was a practical proposition for the Audit Commission—and that is a very big assumption—what would be the implications of this risk for the finances of the authority? Say there was a risk of overspending by less than 10 per cent—say 8 per cent—but the authority only held reserves of two per cent of its budget. The authority would be at serious financial risk, but the new duties and powers of Part 2 would not be available.
Perhaps a real life example would help noble Lords to focus on this issue. When the chief finance officer of Hackney issued his Section 114 report in October 2000 he estimated an overspend of between £14.5 million and £22 million. The reserves were £6.5 million. The general fund budget for the year was £264 million. The reserves were therefore insufficient, but the projected overspend was less than 10 per cent of the budget. The Audit Commission, even if it could have foreseen that development, would not have identified Hackney under the new clause. So the Part 2 provisions would not have applied in one of the most serious financial crises to have hit a local authority in recent years. On the other hand, authorities at risk of overspending by more than 10 per cent might hold reserves adequate to cover this risk. There would be no reason to put them on what would certainly be seen as an Audit Commission blacklist.
The amendment runs into precisely the objection to crude rules of thumb that we have been accused of in Government. The advice on reserves that a chief finance officer will give under Clause 25 will be tailored to the circumstances of the authority. As the noble Baroness said, these chief finance officers are very wise people. And we have made clear that Clause 26 will not be used to impose blanket minima, but will be applied only to specific authorities. If a minimum was set under Clause 26, we would only do that after considering the advice of the chief finance officer and any observations of the auditor.
I would now like to turn to Clause 30. Clause 30 is a facility that helps authorities in serious financial difficulty deal with their problems. It has received a warm welcome in local government and from the LGA in particular. But the new clause says that it would only be available to authorities on the Audit Commission blacklist. Yet unforeseen financial crises can hit any authority. A major legal case, for example, might be lost unexpectedly and the authority be unable to cope with the damages awarded. It would be absurd to deny an authority the benefits of Clause 30 because it had not been put on the blacklist. This is another example of the perverse effects of this amendment. I seriously caution the noble Lord to think long and hard about those perverse effects.
314
To sum up, this amendment does not achieve its aims. It does not accurately identify the authorities in financial danger. It risks prejudicing the financial reputation of authorities with sound finances, and it denies most authorities the benefit of Clause 30. It would be a highly undesirable change to introduce into the Bill, and I hope the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will rethink this carefully and agree to withdraw their amendment. I fear its consequences.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I am very disappointed in the Minister's reply. It shows how out of touch he is with local government since he came to the Government Front Bench. Local government has changed a lot in the last two or three years, due to the policies of this Government. We have comprehensive performance assessment. I am a leader of a local authority as well as a Member of your Lordships' House. I see an auditor who looks after Essex County Council and all the district authorities in the county and meets with them about once a month. This is something new. We discuss the finances and the problems of that authority with the Audit Commission, so a report goes straight back all the time. Therefore, all the authorities in the land have a regular assessment of what they are doing, almost monthly. That is very new and operates in such a way as to make one feel that one is having an exam every month by the Audit Commission, which I do not feel is necessarily the right way to run local government.
This is the part of the Bill that local authorities dislike the most. Local authorities are increasingly being told by the national government how they should spend their money and what they should do. That has inevitable consequences for council tax. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, argued in his first response about higher taxes, but this clause means higher taxes. Once we start off with one or two authorities, all authorities will be affected. Authorities are told how much they have to give schools and how much they have to have in their reserves, and the consequences are higher council taxes. Judgments about council taxes are much better left to the local authority. Decisions on levels of reserves are better left to the local authorities and their professional advisers, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said.
The Minister's reply was disappointing. It shows that he does not really understand the unhappiness that local government feels about this part of the Bill—which is supposedly about freedoms and flexibilities—or the effect that CPA has had on the monitoring of local authorities, or how different the situation is now.
The amendment that we have tabled would at least limit the scope, and one hopes that it would be less than 6 per cent. The scope that the Government wish to take in the Bill is very dangerous. The amendment would limit the possibility of damage. I wish to test the opinion of the House on the amendment.
4.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 145; Not-Contents, 126.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Addington, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Alderdice, L.

Lucas, L.

Allen by of Megiddo, V.

Luke, L.[Teller]

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Lyell, L.

Ashcroft, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Avebury, L.

Barker, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Blackwell, L.

McNally, L.

Blatch, B.

Maddock, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Bridges, L.

Marlesford, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Buscombe, B.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Byford, B.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Caithness, E.

Montrose, D.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Moynihan, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Chadlington, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Chalfont, L.

Noakes, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Northbrook, L.

Courtown, E.

Northesk, E.

Crathorne, L.

Northover, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Deedes, L.

Palmer, L.

Denham, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Parkinson, L.

Dundee, E.

Patten, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Elles, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Elton, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Falkland, V.

Plumb, L.

Feldman, L.

Quinton, L.

Fookcs, B.

Rawlings, B.

Freeman, L.

Reay, L.

Geddes, L.

Redesdale, L.

Goodhart, L.

Rennard, L.

Greenway, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Hamwee, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hanham, B.

Rogan, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Roper, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Rotherwick, L.

Henley, L.

Russell, E.

Higgins, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Hooper. B.

St.John of Bletso, L.

Howe, E.

StJohn of Fawsley, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Sandberg, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Hylton, L.

Selsdon, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Sharman, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Kimball, L.

Sharpies, B.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Laird, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

316

Smith of Clifton, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Tordoff, L.

Stewartby, L.

Trumpington, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Ullswater, V.

Swinfen, L.

Waddington, L.

Taverne, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Wakeham, L.

Tebbit. L.

Walmsley.B.

Thatcher, B.

Warnock, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Alli, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Islwyn, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Barnett, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Jones, L.

Berkeley, L.

Judd, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Billingham, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Blackstone, B.

Layard, L.

Boothroyd, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Borrie, L.

Lipsey, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Burlison, L.

McCarthy, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Carter, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Christopher, L.

Mclntosh of Hudnall, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Marsh, L.

Crawley, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

David, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Mitchell, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Morgan, L.

Desai, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Dixon, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Donoughue, L.

Nicol, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Orme, L.

Dubs, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Elder, L.

Pendry, L.

Erroll, E.

Peston, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Pitkcathley, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Puttnam, L.

Radice, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Filkin, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Fitt, L.

Richard, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Richardson of Calow, B.

Gale, B.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Gavron, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Rooker, L.

Golding, B.

Sawyer, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Sheldon, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Simon, V.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Grocott, L.[Teller]

Smith of Leigh, L.

Harrison, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Haskel, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Haskins, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hayman, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Turnberg, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Varley, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Walpole, L.

317

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord President of the Council)

Whitaker, B.

Whitty, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.24 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Rodingmoved Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 43, insert the following new clause—
"REVIEW OF PROPERTY OWNERS' CONTRIBUTION TO BIDS
(1) It shall be a duty of the Secretary of State to appoint an independent person to conduct a review of property owners' involvement in, and financial contribution to, BIDs.
(2) Such a review should be completed by September 30th 2005.
(3) The Secretary of State shall no later than three months after the completion of the review lay before Parliament a report—

(a) summarising the results of the review; and

(b) stating, with reasons, whether or not legislation should be introduced to require property owners to make a financial contribution to BIDs."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am sure that this amendment is of some discomfort to the Minister and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Maddock.
Lord Peston: My Lords, before the noble Lord proceeds, perhaps I may say that we are at Third Reading. The Companion to the Standing Orders is very clear on what it is permissible to do at that stage. We have been breaking that rule for the past hour. There are several amendments in the Marshalled List which cannot remotely fit in with what is said in the Companion. To bring in an entirely new clause tests the patience and the general proprieties of your Lordships' House beyond endurance.
Could someone advise us on whether we have abandoned the Companion and self-regulation and that a free-for-all is permissible at all stages of a Bill or do we have rules in this House? Could we have an answer to this question before we proceed?
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, the answer to the question is that there is no one who can stop it except the House itself. We are a self-regulating House, which is not doing so at the moment. This may be a matter to be considered by your Lordships' Select Committee, which is looking at certain matters regarding the speakership.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I am becoming increasingly fed up with the fact that Third Reading is being turned into Committee: the same arguments are being deployed. Unless some really new matter has arisen, to introduce a new clause seems to be outside the terms of the Companion.
Earl Russell: My Lords, if Third Reading is being turned into Committee, is that not in part because we are not exercising our right to vote at that stage so that business is not disposed of at an earlier stage?
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I support what the noble Earl has said. I remember that there were far
318
more votes taken at Committee in the old days so that one disposed of most of the material then. Report stage involved tidying up and Third Reading was a formality. Because so much material is being introduced, people are now keeping the real fight to Report stage: everything is being delayed by one stage. I believe that is where some of the problem lies.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I point out that Paragraph 6.132 of the Companion states that,
"The principal purposes of amendments on third reading are: to clarify any remaining uncertainties; to improve the drafting; and to enable the government to fulfil undertakings given at earlier stages of the bill".
It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, can tell us how his amendment fits into any one of those three points. It is not clear to me.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, perhaps I may now proceed. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, he might have waited to see what the amendment was about. He used the phrase "a totally new clause". In the first two or three lines I am going to explain the past history of the matter in Committee, on Report, and why it is entirely reasonable that we should suggest this proposed change at Third Reading having regard to the fact that the Committee stage was held in the Moses Room where no votes are taken. Report introduced a new element when the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, gave a commitment to a review. It is simply now a question of trying to make the review statutory. I believe that it is an entirely appropriate point to raise at Third Reading and I hope that I shall be allowed to get on with it.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am truly sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. I am sure he believes that he is acting in our best interests, but unless the English language has lost all meaning it is incompatible with the Companion and with self-regulation and proceeding in a proper way, to which most of us have devoted our time
I apologise to the noble Lord in one respect. His amendment arises at a relevant time to raise a matter generally. The point I make is even more general. Several other amendments are about to be moved which also break the rules. I am totally in agreement with the noble Lord. Lord Tordoff. The trouble is that there is no one in the House who appears to be willing to take responsibility for dealing with the matter. It is ridiculous that Back-Benchers such as myself and the noble Lords, Lord Tordoff and Lord Barnett have to raise the issue. There should be someone else who pronounces so that the House can return to its proper way of behaviour. All I can do is to go on record as deploring what appears to have happened to your Lordships' House.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, the amendment almost certainly falls within Paragraph 6.132 of the Companion, which states,
"to clarify any remaining uncertainties".

319
There have been uncertainties about this matter throughout and we have had to continue to adapt to them. Noble Lords have raised a very valuable point about not being able to vote at Committee. One stage of the Bill is truncated in terms of testing the response of the House.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Peston may have been referring obliquely to me when he said that someone should stand up. If I had any marginal uncertainty, the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, urged me vigorously to stand up.
I was not prepared to give any advice on this amendment to your Lordships, should it have been wanted, but my noble friend Lord Peston referred to two subsequent amendments. On this amendment, would it he a prudent course to note the various stances adopted and to bear in mind that there is currently a Committee on the Speakership of the House? If my noble friends Lord Peston and Lord Barnett feel it appropriate, they might wish—if they have not already done so—to make representations there. It may be convenient for your Lordships to hear the advice I am tendering on the basis of advice that I have received from the Clerks.
The other two amendments that might have been challenged—perhaps it is convenient to deal with them all now—are Amendment No. 13 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and Amendment No. 19 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. The Clerks have given careful attention to the matter and they have come to the conclusion, and advised me, that neither Amendments Nos. 13 nor 19 fall foul of the rule in paragraph 6.133 on page 126 of the Companion.
Amendment No. 13 introduces a new issue. It has not been disposed of at an earlier stage, so it does not fall foul of paragraph 6.133 on the advice I have received because it deals with the conditions of local authority workers. Amendment No. 19 is different from the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on Section 28. Some of your Lordships feel that Third Reading is not the time or place for amendments, but that is a different view.
That is the advice I have received from the Clerks, which I am transmitting to your Lordships. It does not relate to the amendment or point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, but I respectfully suggest that if one got to the substance of the matter, recording and inwardly digesting the view of my noble friends Lord Peston and Lord Barnett, which might be taken up by the Committee on the Speakership, that might be a convenient way of attempting some progress.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House for recognising that the strictures probably do not apply to Amendment No. 6. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, who indicated briefly that he was prepared to accept the same view. In the course of moving the new clause I hope to justify the view he took.
320
This is the third attempt on this side of the House with the support of the Liberal Democrats to remedy what is widely seen as a major lacuna in Part 4 of the Bill which deals with business improvement districts. Almost all of those concerned with the issue have welcomed Part 4, which was heralded by the Prime Minister in a major speech to local government in April 2001. It is certainly welcomed on all sides of the House.
Part 4 establishes a new procedure whereby business ratepayers can vote to pay an extra levy to fund specific improvements in a defined area of their town. If the vote is carried, then all will pay, subject to any exceptions spelt out in the scheme; that way there are no free riders. But only the occupiers of property have such a vote. If the vote is carried then only occupiers—that is to say ratepayers—can be made to pay.
Part 4 does not give any vote to the occupiers' landlords; the property owners. They can contribute, and those who choose to pay do so, but those who choose not to pay are free to enjoy any benefits of the improvements without contributing to the cost. That is a familiar problem, which I call "free riders".
Yet it has been comprehensively acknowledged by the Government at every stage of the Bill that property owners are often the prime movers in BID schemes. It has been perfectly clear that most schemes would not get off the ground without substantial owner leadership and financial support.
I come to the point that I believe is behind the complaint of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. In Committee amendments were tabled and debated at length to include property owners in Part 4. They were resisted by the Government—I hope I shall summarise the arguments fairly—because they were seen as a new tax on property owners, the introduction of which would require a considerable new administration that would fall mainly on local authorities, which collect the rates and the occupiers' levy. They would have to set up registers of land ownership and establish who should pay the BID levy and so on. I hope that that is a fair description of Ministers' arguments.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, went further, and threatened that if the amendment were carried and the House insisted on writing it into the Bill, the Government would simply move to remove Part 4 altogether and the BID proposals would be stillborn. So we did not press the amendment; indeed one would not have been able to do so in the Moses Room.
On Report, another tack was tried. It was accepted that the provision could not be introduced in the Bill for the reasons spelt out by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, but amendments were tabled to give power to add to the owners' levy by order so as to avoid having to come back to Parliament for fresh primary legislation. Ministers liked that even less; introducing a new tax by statutory instrument appeared to offend them grievously.
Instead, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, offered a review of the experience of BID schemes with the implication that if it is established that the exclusion of

321
owners from any statutory rights and obligations under the BID scheme is harming the scheme, and if a case is made out for including them, that could be the subject for further legislation. The promise of a review was reinforced in a full letter of 25th July from another Minister in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Nick Raynsford to Sir Ian Henderson, who is the chief executive of the British Property Federation.
The prime purpose of the new clause is to make the review a statutory obligation, so in a sense it follows directly—if I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Peston—as a consequence of what was offered on Report. I hope that it would be held to fall within the Standing Orders. It also takes the opportunity to provide for an independent person to conduct the review and for a shorter timescale for the review than that set out in Mr Raynsford's letter.
Mr Raynsford's letter spelt out the timetable envisaged by the Government. I hope that the House will bear with me, because it needs to be spelt out in full:
"The review … will have three stages. Firstly it will examine the ways in which the BID pilot projects have engaged property owners in the setting up of the BID and how effective this has been. This first stage will take place in the autumn of 2004 when we believe some of the BID pilots will be established. However, the review cannot simply examine lessons learned from the pilots because the pilots are receiving particular support and advice. Therefore the second stage of the review will examine how successful BIDs are at engaging property owners when they are evolving independently. This part of the review will take place throughout 2005 when we expect to see some BIDs established which have not been involved in the pilots … the third stage of the review will seek to measure the continuing involvement of property owners in BIDs once the initial results from their investment are evident. This means that BIDs that have already been established will be monitored throughout 2006, with the review drawing to a conclusion in January 2007".
That is gold-plating the review and taking an extended period before there can be any question of coming back to legislate to fill what many see as a great lacuna in the Bill. It is not acceptable to the property interests, who are the people who are primarily developing the BID process. I am very grateful to Mr Raynsford and to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for arranging a meeting on Monday at the ODPM where those matters were discussed with some of the representatives of the organisations involved. At the meeting, the property and retail sectors told the Minister that a large number of BIDs are planning to start collecting their BID levies from April 2005, covering the billing year 2005–06. From that date, it should therefore be apparent whether landlords are being involved and involving themselves in the BID planning process. Clearly, they told Ministers, that would give a good indication of whether a broad cross section of landlords are contributing funding, sitting on the BID boards and generally participating. If they are not, it was said, surely it would be prudent for the Government to take remedial action as quickly as possible rather than waiting until 2007 for the conclusion of the extended review process. One must also bear in mind the inevitable delay after that while
322
legislation is considered, while there is consultation on it, and when it can be introduced and taken through Parliament.
So what this new clause is proposing is that the review should be complete by the end of September 2005, compared with the Minister's date of January 2007. That would be followed by a report within three months. I feel that that is a perfectly adequate time to conduct a proper review.
The second point is that an independent review seems to me desirable to avoid any suspicion that the review would be coloured by the department's much-trumpeted reluctance to envisage having to introduce an owner levy. It seems to me—although I am sure that whoever is appointed by the ODPM to carry out the review will do his best—that it has taken a very firm view on this and would in effect be reviewing its own decisions.
The third point—and this is the one that I think Ministers really do have to take on board—is the question of making it a statutory review. This proposal reflects the fact that occupiers—which include, for example, the retailers and the occupiers of offices and bodies such as the British Retail Consortium—are deeply disappointed that there is no formal mechanism for requiring property owners to contribute to BIDs. They say that a statutory review would carry more weight in occupiers' negotiations with landlords to make voluntary contributions. The message would he that there is to be a statutory review. If landlords do not contribute voluntarily, then Parliament and the government of the day will consider whether they should be required to contribute compulsorily.
The strength of the message that a statutory review conveys would also provide those enlightened landlords who are prepared to participate with a greater degree of comfort that the issue of landlords' contributions remains one that the Government and Parliament are monitoring. The British Property Federation reports that many landlords in its membership are looking for a clear steer from Government that they will monitor the problem of free-riding from other landlords. A statutory review provides the clearest signal that that would be the case.
None of us mistrusts Ministers' good intentions, and there is no suggestion to that effect; not a bit of it. It is that with this new clause incorporated in what will be the Act, it will be much easier to convince doubting owners to stick with the BID process. That will help to ensure that the Prime Minister's aspirations for BIDs will actually be delivered. If those seem familiar words, they are quite deliberately put. It is turning aspirations into action and delivery.
I cannot for the life of me see why the Government should not accept this new clause as it stands. I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend on Amendment No. 6. He has been very consistent through the course of these proceedings in trying to find a way whereby landlords can be harnessed into the BIDs process. I say to the

323
noble Lord, Lord Peston, that a consistent theme throughout our consideration of the Bill has been how to harness owners into the BID process so that they are a committed part of it. A number of ways have been tried. This proposal seems to have all but the Minister's blessing for the review to be completed by an earlier date. I very much hope that the Government will accept that this is a sensible and time-rational way forward and accept the amendment so that we can move on with the support of everyone, including the landowners, who are very willing to be involved.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, as the noble Baroness has just said, property owners—landlords—are offering to pay money. I hope that the Minister, on behalf of the Government, will accept that offer with open arms. To do anything else would be bizarre.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, notwithstanding the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, it would probably be bizarre to accept the amendment at this late stage of the Bill. Although it is a very seductive proposition—all these people queuing up wanting to pay money—at the end of the day, I do not think that it would work out quite like that. I shall not go over the issues that we addressed previously. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, stuck to the issue—that the new clause has been tabled essentially because, not to put too fine a point on it, no one takes my word in Hansard. As Ministers' statements in this House are obviously not acceptable to businesses, they want this provision on the statute book. On the other hand, on the issue of owners and taxation, as I hope I made clear in Committee and at Report stage, one cannot introduce a new tax by way of statutory instrument. That would require much more fundamental legislation and major changes in, for example, the sanctions which we discussed in Committee.
We do not think that the amendment is necessary simply because, as I said, I gave assurances both in Grand Committee and on Report that the Government will undertake a review of the role of property owners in BIDs. Conversely, we would be stupid to look a gift-horse in the mouth if, as a result of introducing the BIDs—which everyone fully accepts is a first-class idea—there were a way of including property owners. The idea was not in the Bill initially, but to exclude it would he to look a gift-horse in the mouth. So we want to have a review, and we will have a review.
I detected a certain tone in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. I should perhaps say that my ministerial colleague Nick Raynsford is the policy Minister responsible for this matter. As the noble Lord is a former Secretary of State, he knows how the system works. I am not the policy Minister on this; I am simply here to speak for the Government on behalf of my colleague in another place. Nick Raynsford met the noble Lord during the week, and he has written to interested parties outlining the review process. So the lead policy Minister has written to the industry, and I have made statements in this House.
324
I have been told to my face that we may not be in government when the review comes round—but so what? The civil servants are going to be there. The policy enunciated will still be there—the policy will not change. The Government have given a firm commitment on the Floor of this House. That can always be repeated in another place by means of Parliamentary Questions; there is no problem about that. There has also been a firm commitment in writing to the industry. We think that that is sufficient. We do not believe that a statutory obligation to do that should be necessary to persuade property owners that we are telling the truth and mean what we say.
The amendment seeks to limit the time period for the review to September 2005. We believe that that would undermine the credibility and effectiveness of the review. The British Property Federation, in previous discussions, has pointed out that the review must examine the way in which property owners are engaged in BIDs—or business improvement districts, for those watching us on the telly, which I suspect is nobody.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the BBC keeps telling us that the House of Commons is back. To the BBC, the House of Commons is Parliament. That is how it works, is it not? I should not have said that. I did so only because I did not want to use the jargon. I shall repeat the sentence. The British Property Federation, in previous discussions, has pointed out that the review must examine the way in which property owners are engaged in BIDs—business improvement districts—over a couple of years to ensure that they do not renege on promises of support when the initial wave of enthusiasm dies down.
The form of the review that we have proposed seeks to meet those concerns. The first phase of the review will evaluate the BID pilot projects and other voluntary BID schemes to see whether property owners are being effectively engaged with business improvement districts at an early stage. We are already preparing to begin this first phase which will start in the autumn of 2004 and conclude in 2005. During 2005 and 2006 the review will focus on the business improvement districts that are up and running and that are preparing to begin. We do not realistically expect that more than a handful of business improvement districts will be up and running until 2005. One must be realistic. This is quite new. Therefore, that phase shall be vital to ensure that a thorough review takes place. The noble Lord's amendment would make that time too short.
The third stage of the review will focus on BIDs that have been up and running for 18 months to 2 years to check that property owners are still involved. However, if after stage two of the review, or even stage one, it becomes clear that there is almost no proper engagement of property owners in BIDs, continuing with stage three may not be appropriate. We are willing to be flexible in that respect. However, we are

325
not willing to commit to a timetable before the outcome of the first stages of this review can be anticipated.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, asked, as does the amendment, that an independent person be appointed to conduct the review. I was present at the meeting on Monday. I have not checked any of the notes, but so far as I know we did not discuss the independent person, because nobody offered to pay for them. I note that the appointment would be made by the Secretary of State—the Deputy Prime Minister. The argument could be, "Well, if we have appointed him, we are going to have to pay the salary and the fees". Where is the independence? I have to be careful. Nobody offered to put a kitty together to pay. Already our word is not taken on the Floor of the House that we will conduct the review. There is an insistence to put that into the Bill. Our faith is being questioned. This is not a personal matter between myself and the noble Lord, but that is the bottom line. The industry wants the matter on the face of the Bill. We could argue until the cows come home over how independent this person should be and who should pay for him. It should not be ourselves, because we would be held to be paying for that independent review, which would, therefore, not be independent.
The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will have overall responsibility for co-ordinating the review, but a steering group of interested parties will be convened to oversee its progress. The representatives on this steering group have yet to be confirmed but I can assure the House that they will include property interests, business interests, as well as those with regeneration and town centre management experience. We will be happy to publish progress reports at the end of each stage of these reviews, a copy of which will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and will be made available to the public.
We have every intention of conducting this review methodically and fairly. I have said before that at the end of the day we would be stupid to look a gift horse in the mouth if there was a way of allowing the property owners to be involved. It was impossible to do that in this Bill because it would be a new tax involving the whole system of collection, whereas the existing system based on the rates of the people who tenant the properties is already there. We are building on an existing system with no new infrastructure. My right honourable friend the Minister for Local and Regional Government, Nick Raynsford, and I have both given clear assurances. I repeat them today on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister. I see no need for this amendment. I make no criticism of the effort to put these views on the record. Therefore, I hope that this will be taken as gospel by the property interests in that I mean what I say. If I go tomorrow, the person following me will say exactly the same things.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, in a brief reply I wonder if the Minister would go just one stage further? Would he offer to publish interim reports as the review proceeds, so that if after the first wave it appeared that
326
there was a serious problem of keeping property interests involved, at least that would become apparent? If the noble Lord could meet us in that way, perhaps we might save him some embarrassment.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall repeat what I said. We have talked about a three-stage review, where we publish progress reports at the end of each stage. I cannot promise any more than that. I believe that I am being wholly reasonable. We will have representatives on a steering group to oversee the way the review is going—with property interests, business interests, and those with town centre management experience. What more can I offer?
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I recognise, as a former Treasury Minister, that, subject to the inevitable Treasury constraints on this sort of matter—we had a brief word about that in Monday's meeting—the noble Lord and his colleague Mr Raynsford have gone probably about as far as they can. I hope that the Minister will recognise that the importance of this matter is all about putting the argument to doubting property owners. With the reinforcement that he has given, and with his putting the name of the Deputy Prime Minister behind it, I hope that the property interests concerned might be prepared to take that as a sufficient guarantee that their interests will be properly safeguarded by the review. In these circumstances it would be churlish to press the matter to a Division, although I came into the House firmly prepared to do just that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 63, insert the following new clause—
"RELIEF FOR REGISTERED COMMUNITY AMATEUR SPORTS CLUBS
(1) In section 43 of the 1988 Act (occupied hereditaments: liability), in subsection (6) (calculation of chargeable amount where ratepayer is a charity and hereditament is occupied for charitable purposes)—

(a) the words after "on the day concerned" become paragraph (a) of that subsection, and

(b) after that paragraph there is inserted ", or

(b) the ratepayer is a registered club for the purposes of Schedule 18 to the Finance Act 2002 (community amateur sports clubs) and the hereditament is wholly or mainly used—

(i) for the purposes of that club, or

(ii) for the purposes of that club and of other such registered clubs."

(2) In section 45 of the 1988 Act (unoccupied hereditaments: liability), in subsection (6) (calculation of chargeable amount where ratepayer is a charity and hereditament will next be used for charitable purposes)—

(a) the words after "on the day concerned" become paragraph (a) of that subsection, and

(b) after that paragraph there is inserted ", or

(b) the ratepayer is a registered club for the purposes of Schedule 18 to the Finance Act 2002 (community amateur sports clubs) and it appears that when the hereditament is next in use—

(i) it will be wholly or mainly used for the purposes of that club, and that club will be such a registered club, or

(ii) it will be wholly or mainly used for the purposes of two or more clubs including that club, and each of those clubs will be such a registered club."

(3) In section 47(2) of the 1988 Act (first condition for discretionary relief), after paragraph (b) there is inserted —
"(ba) the ratepayer is a registered club for the purposes of Schedule 18 to the Finance Act 2002 (community amateur sports clubs), and the hereditament is not an excepted hereditament and is wholly or mainly used—

(i) for the purposes of that club, or

(ii) for the purposes of that club and of other such registered clubs;".

(4) In section 48 of the 1988 Act (discretionary relief: supplementary), after subsection (2) there is inserted—
"(2A) A hereditament not in use shall be treated as wholly or mainly used for the purposes of a club that is a registered club for the purposes of Schedule 18 to the Finance Act 2002 (community amateur sports clubs) if it appears that when next in use it will be wholly or mainly used for the purposes of a club that is then, or two or more clubs each of which is then, such a registered club."
(5) In section 67 of the 1988 Act (interpretation of Part 3 of that Act), after subsection (10) there is inserted—
"(10A) The times at which a club is a registered club for the purposes of Schedule 18 to the Finance Act 2002 (community amateur sports clubs)—

(a) shall, where it is registered with retrospective effect, be taken to have included those within the period beginning with the date with effect from which it is registered and ending with its registration; but

(b) shall. where its registration is terminated with retrospective effect, be taken not to have included those within the period beginning with the date with effect from which its registration is terminated and ending with the termination of its registration.""

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I can see happy, smiling faces around the Chamber. I wonder why that is.
In Committee, the issue was dealt with by my noble friend Lord Rooker. He congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, on a brilliant amendment. He also said that that was followed by five brilliant speeches in support. As noble Lords are now well aware, the Government have now tabled our own amendment to that brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sheppard of Liverpool, to reflect the all-party support that there appeared to be behind the thrust of those amendments.
I shall speak briefly to the amendments that we are proposing and then say a few words, hoping that I shall do the subject justice. Amendment No. 7 would amend the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and provide mandatory rate relief at both the occupied and unoccupied rates for registered community amateur sports clubs—CASCs—under Schedule 18 to the
328
Finance Act 2002. Registered CASCs can also have this relief increased at the discretion of local authorities. That means that in many local authorities there will effectively be 100 per cent relief.
Sports clubs that do not meet the requirements for CASC registration and therefore mandatory rate relief will still remain eligible for discretionary relief. The decisions on those matters will rightly be a matter for individual local authorities. This will be good news for CASCs that play a valuable and influential role in promoting the health and social cohesion of their local communities, but have been unable to receive mandatory rate relief because of the complexities of charitable registration. I am sure that registered CASCs will welcome—and have already welcomed—the certainty that mandatory rate relief would provide through this much simpler route.
I am delighted that the Government have taken the initiative here. We deserve credit for recognising the important part that sports clubs play. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, on their role in highlighting and underlining the importance of the matter. I also congratulate and thank my noble friend Lord Pendry. He discovered the important precedent that set us on this course. The move has been welcomed by the chief executive of Sport England. It has been recognised and welcomed by the Central Council for Physical Recreation. I pay tribute to their efforts over the years in arguing that case. I have volumes of correspondence going back over many years when I was leader of a local authority. The authors of that correspondence tried to persuade me to do something about the matter. The Government have acted decisively and great benefit will flow from that.
This morning I talked to the treasurer of St Peter's Cricket Club, a humble organisation which pays some £1,200 a year in rates to Brighton and Hove Council. Next year the £1,000 that it will save will be invested in its pavilion. I hope that that is replicated across the country. Derek Betts, the club's treasurer, a very careful man, tells me that the £1,000 will bring enormous benefit and enable the club to expand and extend its "colts" activity, from which my son benefits.If replicated country-wide, that kind of activity would be of enormous benefit. Credit is due to all those involved in the matter. I thank all those who argued the case for the measure. On this occasion we ought also to thank the Treasury for its magnanimity. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, this is a red letter day for amateur sport in this country, not just because many millions of pounds will he retained by clubs such as St Peter's Cricket Club, Hove, as the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, indicated, but, much more importantly, because it will encourage tens of thousands of amateur sports clubs to register as CASCs.
It is worth reminding the House that this has been a four-year campaign and that this is the crowning of it. The first and crucial achievement occurred in the

329
Finance Act 2002 when, for the first time ever, a new category of body was created—community amateur sports clubs—with exemptions from tax closely akin to those of charities. As we know, the one thing that was left out was mandatory 80 per cent rating relief. The amendment is not merely beneficial in itself—the measure will, of course, go on from year to year—but it will also unlock the uncertainty and scepticism that have, as I say, held back tens of thousands of small clubs from registering. I believe we all agree that amateur sport is not only one of the crowning cultural achievements of this country but is perhaps a greater source of local and communal pleasure than anything else.
I, too, give unstinted thanks to the noble Lords, Lord Bassam and Lord Rooker. The amendment has no enemies and at previous stages of the Bill they dealt with the matter extremely adeptly. I thank the civil servants who were involved in the matter. We have had an extremely fair and constructive hearing from the DCMS and, latterly, the Treasury. I thank the Treasury. As has been said, it had to agree to the measure and it must safeguard the public purse. I thank all noble Lords in this House, not a single one of whom has been anything but supportive of the measure. Finally—in many ways this is the most important thanks to give—I thank the sports fraternity, led, as the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said, by CCPR. I should like to mention Nigel Hook. All in all, this is a great day and, what is more, it is a better amendment than mine because it deals with the extra 20 per cent above the 80 per cent mandatory relief and makes clear that CASCs will be entitled to the extra 20 per cent. I shall not move my amendment when we reach it. I vent a small cheer and give considerable thanks.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I also wish to congratulate all those involved in the long-running campaign, especially my predecessor, John Greenway, whose tireless work on the issue in another place has paid dividends today. I, too, congratulate the Central Council of Physical Recreation and add to the tributes paid to Nigel Hook, who is retiring. This is a red letter day for him. His encyclopaedic knowledge of sport and his enthusiasm are second to none. I pay tribute to noble Lords on all sides of the House, not least to the important work done over the years, characteristically diligently, by the noble Lord, Lord Pendry. I also pay tribute especially to the work done by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. I thank the Ministers and the officials who accepted our case. It is a classic example of the maxim that if at first you don't succeed, try, try and try again.
This is, I hope, the first in a series of campaigns to raise the profile of sport. From these Benches we want to ensure that the importance of sport and recreation is re-established at the centre of the political agenda and is recognised as relevant to the objectives of every government department. That is why I am deeply grateful to my noble friend Lady Hanham and her
330
team in local government for working so constructively to support 80 per cent mandatory rate relief for CASCs.
Today's victory goes to the heart of our vision for sport at the local level. It is about volunteer retention; engagement with local communities; youth involvement; the participation of the disabled in sport. It is about social inclusion and the goal of a healthier nation. It is not about today's Olympians; it is about where tomorrow's Olympians are to be found. It is an important step towards wider participation at a time when, despite, £1.6 billion going into sport from the lottery over the years, participation over that time has risen by only 0.3 per cent. That is why the litmus test of this amendment and this initiative is to increase the active membership of community amateur sports clubs. I hope that we shall be able to rectify the now unusual position that Northern Ireland faces of being worse off than the rest of the United Kingdom in respect of rate relief for amateur clubs.
In the spirit of welcoming the Government's U-turn, perhaps in conclusion the Minister can continue the spirit of co-operation and of cross-party support which should always be in the nature of the links between sport and politics, and announce today that the Government do not intend to pocket the tax from the proposed London Olympic lottery game but reinvest that tax directly into the success of the Games in London.
Lord Pendry: My Lords, I support this important amendment and I add my voice to those who have congratulated the Government on listening to those of us who have argued for years for mandatory rate relief for voluntary sports clubs.
I was particularly pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, confessed at Report stage that he was,
"not aware of the 65 per cent mandatory relief in Northern Ireland"—[Official Report, 16/7/03; col. 932.]
with regard to voluntary clubs. He said that he would review the situation, which he did. I pay tribute to the excellent work of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, who has been a great campaigner on the issue for many years, as has the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. Our congratulations must go to them. The CCPR and Nigel Hook have also been mentioned. His voice has been loud and clear on the matter. I do not wish to say much more except that common sense has prevailed. I refer to the benefits that accrue to the people of Northern Ireland as a result of this mandatory rate relief and to the local and wider communities. As the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said, Northern Ireland now has some catching up to do as a result of the amendment. I welcome it wholeheartedly.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, while supporting the amendment, I should like to ask the Minister one technical question. Who will pay for the rate relief? Will it be the general taxpayer or business?
Baroness Billingham: My Lords, before the Minister replies to that I add my congratulations to everyone who has been involved in what is, as has been said, a

331
red letter day for sport. When I joined the House relatively recently, I found that a huge campaign had been mounted by people who are present in the Chamber today. I pay tribute to them and recognise the work that has been done by noble Lords. I pay tribute also to the Ministers. The measure is an important example of co-operation throughout the House. The House has shown me what a good friend it is to sport. Every debate we have ever had has shown a complete consensus on all sides. Not only do we realise that sport is fun—many of us have enjoyed it and continue to enjoy it, surprisingly, far past our teenage and our early years. We also know the other benefits that accrue from it, such as health and social inclusion. For all those reasons, this is a marvellous piece of work.
I do not want people outside this Chamber to read Hansard and think that this issue is of interest only to men. I want to say thank you on behalf of all the women and girls. They, too, love their sport, and I want it to be seen both in this Chamber and outside that they welcome the amendment. It is a marvellous achievement and I congratulate everyone concerned.
But the next thing I want to say to the Minister is: now we must make it work. We have had some bad press on community amateur sports clubs and we have to put that to rights. People have been disheartened, discouraged and frightened by what they have seen as the red tape involved in setting up community amateur sports clubs. Let us join together and make sure that we send this message out now: that is in the past. The future is much simpler, much more proactive and much more likely to benefit all our communities. I thank everyone who has been involved.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is nice, as a Minister, to be the recipient of congratulations, and the congratulations that have been generally disbursed are well merited. I, too, wanted specifically to mention Nigel Hook. He is to retire shortly and, in a sense, this is almost a parting gift. I know from contact with him that he is extremely grateful for what has occurred.
I take the point that this provision must be made to work. I suspect that those in the local authority sector, the CCPR, Sport England and everyone else will want to see it work, and work well. It deserves to. It will bring immense benefits to those clubs that operate at the lowest possible level. In my local authority area, some 20 sports clubs will benefit from this. This is a city with a population of a quarter of a million. We can see, if we extrapolate that, the enormous benefits that will accrue across the country.
The question was asked: who will pay for this? In the end, does it much matter? I can tell the noble Earl that there will not be a cost to business. The money will come from general taxation. But, in general, business has a role to play in sponsoring and supporting sport, and it does that very well indeed. That will be reflected financially, I suspect, in the way in which the formula works. That is how these matters usually operate, and certainly that is how we intend to see it work.
332
This is a great day for sport. It speaks volumes for what can be achieved when intelligent and rational debate takes place and when people put their point at exactly the right stage of a Bill. I am grateful for all the congratulations that have been expressed. They are certainly well merited.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Clause 64 [Transitional relief]:
5.15 p.m.
The Earl of Caithnessmoved Amendment No. 9:
Page 32, line 26, leave out "be the same as or different from" and insert "subject to subsection (10A) below, be less than, but not greater than"
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 10.
Governments of all persuasions have accepted that rating revaluations may produce significant increases in rate bills for individual ratepayers and that, therefore, a cushion should be introduced to avoid sudden and significant increases in such hills. That concept is not opposed by the amendments that I have tabled.
The Government are tightening the current rating system by introducing self-financing for transition within each financial year. The Bill also calls for any shortfalls in any year to be recovered by changes to the unified business rate in later years, thus removing; any chance of predictability ratepayers may have for their forthcoming rate liabilities. That makes the system a whole lot more complicated.
The Government intend to achieve this precise balance for transitional arrangements through two mechanisms, or through a combination of the two. The first mechanism is to balance the cost of cushioning rate bill increases by delaying reductions in rate bills when a ratepayer has not experienced an increase in rateable value. That is otherwise known as downwards transition.
The second mechanism is to make a simple, overall surcharge on the uniform business rate in order to pay for the cost of transition for ratepayers. I believe that this second approach is fairer to ratepayers if the cost of the surcharge is spread over the lifetime of a rating list rather than set every year.
The amendments do not—and never have done—fundamentally challenge the notion of self-financing. They merely seek to redress the unfairness of the means of making transitions self-financing—which the Government have admitted will include the system of downwards transition. Downwards transition means that, following a revaluation, ratepayers whose rateable values change by less than the national increase in rateable value will find themselves subsidising more successful ratepayers whose rateable value has increased, often as a result of their location in a growing business area. Independent research suggested that this policy cost ratepayers £1.3 billion in denied rate reductions between 1995 and 2000. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that that is

333
fundamentally unfair and that it affects most harshly the very ratepayers, estimated by independent research to be in the hundreds of thousands, who are for the most part in small or medium-sized enterprises which find rates a disproportionate burden.
The amendments instead seek to facilitate alternative arrangements for transitional arrangements in England, identified by the independent report, The future of business rating transition in England, produced in time for this Bill, in February of this year. The report concluded:
"Compared with the current system, implementing any one of these schemes"—
the schemes that I have put forward—
"would have the advantages of speed of implementation, robustness, fairness, transparency and affordability",
in comparison to the Government's proposals.
The amendments would enable a government to avoid "downwards transition" through allowing a surcharge in the uniform business rate to be phased in over more than one year. That gives the flexibility that the Government need to avoid making transitional self-financing in each and every financial year and allows the Government a practical opportunity to avoid downwards phasing.
I wish to stress that my amendment would address the lack of flexibility that the Bill imposes on the Government. I was party to a mistake in 1988, when we did the same thing and left no flexibility at all. That had to be corrected in 1992; the Government had to redress the situation. I fear that the present Government are making the same mistake as we made in 1988.
My final point relates to the question that I asked on the previous amendment. For months, in the negotiations that we have had with the Government, they have turned round to us and said that there can be no money from the general taxpayer. The system that I have proposed is self-financing over a five-year period together with interest. It requires some investment from the general taxpayer in the first one or two years, which is then recouped; so at the end of the fifth year there has been no cost to the general taxpayer.
In his response to the previous amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, confirmed that the general taxpayer would be the person who bore the cost of the relief for sports clubs. That is a new and important step forward. It means that the Government will use general taxation for the benefit of some sectors. I also refer the noble Lord to the local retention of business rates. That, again, is being supported by the general taxpayer. Here, I propose a system that is not going to cost the general taxpayer any money over a five-year period. It will initially, but all that money will come back. It is better for business; it is more equitable for business. The amendment is strongly supported by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Rating Surveyors' Association and the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation. I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I briefly want to support my noble friend Lord Caithness as regards the
334
amendment. I remember very well the last revaluation of business rates that took place. All I can recall is that not only was the issue terribly complicated, but it was very widely misunderstood and resented by business.
Having seen the four pages in the Bill that deal with this matter I think that there will be even more resentment. I do not suppose that anyone will be able to understand it. however hard they try. This seems to be an easily understood method of ensuring that a revaluation involving changes to people's tax, either up or down, is implemented in a way which shows fairness—which I do not think that the previous revaluation of rates ever absolutely managed to demonstrate. So I think this is a very neat way of dealing with the issue, and I very much hope that it will have the Government's support.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, we, on these Benches, at previous stages of the Bill supported the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in his efforts to deal with this very difficult issue. We continue to do so at this stage of the Bill.
The situation is particularly disappointing because the House of Commons' Select Committee inquiry into this Local Government Bill warned the Government about fettering their ability to contribute to the costs of transition. It pointed out the difficulties that the Government could get into if there was a downturn in business. But this Bill completely removes their ability to support transitional relief.
As the noble Earl said, it is disappointing that the Ministers at ODPM have not been able to persuade the Treasury as they did with sport because I consider this to be a similar kind of issue: it is about local matters, it is about small local businesses. We all know that our successful large businesses started as small businesses. I regret that the Government feel unable to keep an open mind and to give themselves the ability always to support small businesses.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, Clause 64 assures ratepayers that there will be a transition scheme to accompany future revaluations. The existing provision in the Local Government Finance Act 1988 simply confers a power to establish a scheme, but does not impose a duty to do so. Business, including the CBI, has stressed the necessity of transition schemes.
The details of a future scheme—the annual increases and decreases in bills—will be decided in the run-up to the revaluation concerned, when the impact on individual rateable values will be known and more certain. But, as we stated in the White Paper Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services, any future transition scheme will need to be self-financing. There is no reason why the general taxpayer, as opposed to the ratepayer, should meet the cost of transitional relief. Accordingly, Clause 64 requires that the total rate yield for any year is not to be affected by a transition scheme.
The clause allows for flexibility in how schemes may be structured so as to be self-financing. The methods likely to be used include having a transition scheme

335
which balances the rates lost through phasing in increases in bills against the rates gained by phasing in decreases. Such phasing of decreases in bills as well as increases has been a feature—as I am sure all noble Lords will acknowledge—of past schemes.
In addition to providing for a scheme which balances rate income lost through phasing in increases and rate income gained through phasing in decreases, this clause allows for an addition to rate bills generally as a means of making good the loss of rates resulting from phasing in increases in bills.
This clause also allows for a scheme which is funded by a combination of phasing in decreases and an addition to rate bills generally. This will allow us to put in place a fair and workable scheme.
The effect of these amendments is to make transition revenue neutral over a five-year period—instead of year by year as set out in the Bill—with the Treasury making a contribution to the cost of the scheme in the first years. The Treasury would need a way to recover in later years what it had paid in the early years. The Exchequer would also need to recover interest on what it had paid out in the early years of the scheme, and would need to recover a sum to offset the effects of inflation between paying out the sums concerned and recovering them. All this would make for a complicated calculation—the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said that it would be simple—which would also introduce an element of uncertainty for ratepayers.
A five-year revenue neutral scheme would be much more complicated to operate and far less intelligible to the ratepayer than a scheme which was revenue neutral year by year. Furthermore, it is our view that it is difficult to see any reason for such a scheme. Why should the general taxpayer in effect give a loan to ratepayers at the start of each transition scheme?
Transitional relief means that we are easing the burden on ratepayers. We do not believe that the general taxpayer should cover the cost of this. It seems fair to us that ratepayers in general should pick up that bill.
An attempt to make a scheme revenue neutral over the five-year life of a list would mean that at each revaluation complex estimates would need to be made in advance of announcing any transition scheme. If at the end of the fourth year it was discovered that the Treasury had not recouped the money it had contributed in the early years, rate bills would have to be increased to balance the scheme. That would create uncertainty for the ratepayer.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, asked why the general taxpayer should not pay for the transitional relief. As I have made clear, this scheme could cost billions of pounds. That would be a heavy burden on general taxpayers. He cited the previous amendment in aid of his case. The cost of relief to sports clubs will of course be far less; more importantly, it will be of tremendous benefit to non-profit-making bodies. Businesses, by their very nature, do not fall into that category. The cost of the relief granted is significant
336
but minuscule by comparison to the potential costs of the general taxpayer funding the transitional relief proposition contained within the amendments.
I hope that, having listened carefully to what I have said—although we may still disagree on this issue— that the noble Earl and the noble Baronesses who have spoken in favour of the amendment will think again and withdraw it today.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I listened with great care to the noble Lord. I have to say to the noble Lord that it is only the Government—not the practitioners, not industry and not businesses—who think that their proposal will he less complicated than the one that I have submitted. Virtually everything the noble Lord said refers to the Government scheme and not to our scheme. Our scheme is more certain for businesses. It is much fairer for businesses. The Government's scheme will certainly cause mayhem. As a chartered surveyor I would say to the Government, "Thank you very much". Many of my colleagues will make a huge amount of money out of this by advising businesses. I want to do them out of some of that money. I want to make the scheme simpler, more straightforward and more transparent. I want to get rid of the uncertainty that the Government are creating.
The noble Lord said that the general taxpayer should not contribute. Overall, I totally agree. The general taxpayer will not contribute under my scheme. By the end of the five-year period, all the money, together with interest and inflation, will he reclaimed by the Treasury.
I am very grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, and my noble friend Lady Hanham. This is now the occasion to test the opinion of the House.
5.29 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 9) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 139: Not-Contents, 119.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Caithness, E. [Teller]

Alderdice, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Carlisle of Bucklow. L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Attlee, E.

Chalfont, L.

Barker, B.

Colwyn, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Biffen, L.

Crathorne, L.

Blackwell, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Blatch, B.[Teller]

Dahrendorf, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Deedes, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Denham, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Burnham, L.

Dundee, E.

Buscombe, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

337

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Murton of Lindisfame, L.

Elton, L.

Newby, L.

Falkland, V.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Feldman, L.

Noakes, B.

Flather.B.

Northbrook, L.

Fookes, B.

Northesk, E.

Freeman, L.

Northover, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Norton of Louth, L.

Geddes, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Onslow, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Palmer, L.

Glentoran, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Goodhart, L.

Parkinson, L.

Hamwee, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Hanham, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Hanson, L.

Plumb, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Henley, L.

Rawlings, B.

Higgins, L.

Reay, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Redesdale, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Rees, L.

Hooper, B.

Rennard, L.

Howe, E.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Roper, L.

Jacobs, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Russell, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Kimball, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Sandberg, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Seccombe, B.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Selsdon, L.

Liverpool, E.

Sharman, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Lucas, L.

Sharpies, B.

Luke, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Lyell, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Stewartby, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Taverne, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

McNally, L.

Tordoff, L.

Maddock, B.

Tugendhat, L.

Magjnnis of Drumglass, L.

Ullswater, V.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Waddington, L.

Marlesford, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Wakeham, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Wallace of Saltaire.L.

Montrose, D.

Walmsley.B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Warnock, B.

Moynihan, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Alli, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Barnett, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Berkeley, L.

Crawley, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

David, B.

Blackstone, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Boothroyd, B. Borrie, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Burlison, L.

Desai, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Dixon, L.

Carter, L.

Donoughue, L.

Chandos, V.

Chester, Bp.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Chorley, L.

Dubs, L.

Christopher, L.

Elder, L.

338

Evans of Parkside, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Mallalieu, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Filkin, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Mishcon, L.

Gale, B.

Mitchell, L.

Gavron, L.

Morgan, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Golding, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Nicol, B.

Goudie, B.

Orme, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Pendry, L.

Grocott, L.[Teller]

Peston, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Harrison, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Haskel, L.

Radice, L.

Hayman, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Rea, L.

HollisofHeigham, B.

RendellofBabergh, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Richard, L.

Hoyle, L.

Rooker, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

St.JohnofBletso, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Sheldon, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Simon, V.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Islwyn, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Jones, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Judd, L.

Tomlinson, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Tumberg, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Layard, L.

Varley, L.

LeaofCrondall, L.

Wedderbum of Charlton, L.

Lipsey, L.

Whitaker, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Whitty, L.

McCarthy, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord President of the Council)

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Mclntosh of Hudnall, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.40 p.m.
The Earl of Caithnessmoved Amendment No. 10:
Page 33, line 5, leave out subsection (10) and insert—
"( ) In making regulations under this section the Secretary of State shall have regard to the object of securing (so far as practicable) that the aggregate amount payable to him and all billing authorities by way of non-domestic rates as regards a relevant period is the same as the aggregate amount which would be so payable apart from the regulations.
(10A) For the purposes of subsection (10) above, the Secretary of State shall estimate the difference between—

(a) the aggregate amount which would apart from the regulations, all billing authorities by way of non-domestic rates as regards a relevant period, and

(b) the aggregate amount which will be payable having regard to rules prescribed under subsection (4) above,

and any shortfall in aggregate amount shall be recovered by applying a surcharge of the non-domestic rating multiplier for each relevant financial year."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 77 [Power to change number of valuation bands]:
Lord Hanningfieldmoved Amendment No. 11:
Page 43, line 7, at end insert ", provided that such change does not alter the ratio between the top and bottom band.
(4B) The power under subsection (4A) shall not be used to alter the ratio between the top and bottom bands set out in subsection (1).""
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment would not restrict the Government's power to vary the number of council tax bands. It would simply retain the current ratio between the top and bottom bands. That would mean that householders in the top band would continue to pay three times as much council tax as those in the bottom band.
The purpose of the amendment is to provide householders with a degree of protection against steep rises in council tax, which is escalating to unprecedented levels. In 2003, council tax breached the £1,000 average. Even the Government have now recognised that council tax rises of the level that we have witnessed over the past three years are unsustainable.
In Committee, we debated at length the motivation behind the introduction of council tax. It was originally devised as part property tax and part tax on services. It was never designed to be based solely on the capital value of a property. That is why there is a structure of discounts based on the number and type of occupancy.
The discounts have nothing to do with the value of a property; they are based on an assumed reduced take-up of services. It is important that some consideration of service uptake is retained when planning any alterations to the tax system, so that we do not burden council tax payers with inflated charges based solely on property values. That is why the 3:1 ratio was originally introduced and why it is important that we make provision to ensure that it is retained. Let us also be clear that any threat to the existing 3:1 band ratio is a threat not necessarily to the wealthiest but often to those carrying the largest levels of mortgage debt or the lowest levels of disposable income.
On Report, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, agreed that there is no direct correlation between the capital value of a property and the householder's income. Many properties with a high capital value might be owned by elderly retired people with low levels of disposable income, or by families with large mortgages and therefore relatively high levels of debt.
Property is a poor indicator of ability to pay. If variations in the number of bands mean a shift in the tax burden on to those householders occupying properties of higher capital value there will be problems—particularly with the elderly, who already find it very difficult to meet their council tax bills. Several groups of elderly people have got together to oppose council tax.
The amendment does not seek to inhibit the Government from shifting around the balance of council tax payments through the introduction of new
340
bands. It simply seeks to put a cap on the Government's tax-raising powers. We believe that householders will appreciate that measure of protection. We do not believe that householders living in the same billing authority area will welcome the prospect of paying five times as much council tax as their neighbour because their house is five times more valuable. If that is what the Government have in mind, I think that there will be some very concerned people out there. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we discussed the issue at various stages of the Bill. We do not support the amendment. As many know, we do not particularly support council tax. I do not see that it will help at all. My main concern as regards revaluation is to consider some of those at the bottom end of the scale, particularly those in park homes and so on, who have had tremendous problems. If the Government are trying to look at bands, I do not think that the amendment would be very helpful or that it would ameliorate any of the real problems that we have with council tax. I am afraid that we do not support it.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, having just heard the three key words "ability to pay" from the Tory spokesman, if I had a sense of humour I would wish that the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, had been here. "Ability to pay"—from the party that brought in poll tax. Come off it. I know that a decade is a long time in politics, but one must remember that council tax was introduced because of the absolute disaster of poll tax, where there was nothing like ability to pay. Now I am being lectured by the Conservative spokesman about ability to pay and local government finance. I am not taking that, for a start.
Having got that off my chest, I shall address the noble Lord's points. I accept that the amendment is narrow. There is not much new to say about the matter, but we must put it on the record. The amendment relates only to the Secretary of State exercising his powers to change the valuation ratio of 3:1 between the bottom and top bands. As I said previously, most people who pay council tax do not have a clue about the ratio between the top and bottom levels of council tax.
The amendment would mean that however council tax was fixed, the person with the biggest house in the area—at the highest band, well above the lowest band—would never pay more than three times the amount paid by the person in the house with the lowest value. There could be an argument about the issue; it has never been seriously debated. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, there are not too many cases of people in the top band and those in the lowest band living next to one another. I do not think that it is generally the case, so it is not a question of people paying five times more than their immediate neighbour.
When we discussed the issue on Report, I said that there was nothing new to say. I shall make the point in figures, which the noble Lord did not use. I fully accept what I said previously: occupancy of a property is not

341
a sign of the ability to pay or of a person's income. I do not retract those points, which are valid. A person whose house is, say, at the bottom of band H, valued at £320,000, would pay three times the council tax of someone whose house was valued at the top of band A at £40,000. Much to my regret, in some ways, there are thousands of dwellings worth much less than £40,000, and much less than £20,000, in parts of this country. Where someone in a dwelling valued at £20,000 or £40,000 lives a few streets away from a house valued at £320,000—it need not necessarily be next door£the poll tax ratio would be only 3:1 but the property value ratio would be 8:1. It could be a lot higher than that.
I repeat on the record that we have no plans to change the ratio. If the amendment were agreed, we would not be able to change the ratio to reflect more closely the relative values of the bands. We would be stuck with the ratio established in 1992. On Report, the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, conceded, at column 983, that he was not fully wedded to the existing ratio of 3:1, which he now seeks to set in concrete. The noble Baroness. Lady Hanham, said, at the same column, that there needed to be a careful review of the number of bands and the ratio between them. It was a duet. By and large, the message was, "We are not fully wedded to the status quo". Noble Lords did not come up with an alternative, although the alternative offered today is highly restrictive.
On Report, noble Lords expressed concern about the owners of houses in band H. But we are also concerned, as we must be, about those in houses in the current band A that are worth very little—a lot less than £40,000. Even if no additional bands were created above the current band H. the amendment would prevent us creating an additional band below band H, for which the tax payable could be less than one third of the amount paid by those in band H.
Although, from the noble Lord's perspective, the amendment looks satisfactory, it would be highly restrictive if we wanted to propose going below the £40,000 level for the many thousands of people who, rightly, see their property as bearing no relation to the upper figure for band A.
I understand noble Lords' concerns about the exercise of powers, but constraining them in such a way is not a sensible way to proceed. Any change to the banding schemes, whether by re-valuing the bands, adding new bands or changing the ratios between bands, must be made by order, which is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in the House of Commons. If the Government were minded to do that, it is not something that could be slipped through without a debate and a vote. That would be the right way and would provide proper parliamentary scrutiny.
I repeat, however, that we have not yet decided whether we will change the ratio. It does not make sense to limit our powers in this area, especially as we know that the existing ratio does not reflect the relative spread of values.
342
Although it is churlish for Ministers to say this, I must put on record the fact that the amendment is technically defective, because the actual power to change the ratios is Section 5(4)(a) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, not the new subsection (4A) inserted by Clause 77 of this Bill. That is a minor matter because if the will of the House were such that we should proceed, we could put that technical matter right. I make the point only in passing for the information of noble Lords. By the way, that is not an invitation to nip along and table a manuscript amendment.
No decision has been made to change the ratio, but the amendment would be highly restrictive as drafted because it would prevent us from introducing a band below £40,000. It is right for us to be concerned, as we all are, about property owners at all levels. I understand the Opposition's concern about people in big houses who may be on poor incomes. I fully accept that. Nobody would argue that people should move from their family house, which may be full of memories. There is no reason for that to happen if people can maintain the property. Nevertheless, people with low incomes present a real problem.
I fully accept that living in bigger, more expensive houses does not necessarily indicate an ability to pay. Nevertheless, I do not think that this is the way to go about changing the situation because it would stop us doing something for people living in really poorly valued properties. That is one area that we certainly want to examine, but no decisions have been made.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I do not think that we should go over old history, but I want to return to why we introduced the community charge or poll tax. It was because there was a revolt against rates. I remember going to meetings where 500 or 600 people were unanimously jumping up in protest against the rates. We are reaching that stage with the council tax. In great chunks of the country, the community charge or poll tax was actually lower than the rates—although not everywhere, which was one of the problems. However, in some parts of the country, people were actually paying less than they were under the old rate system. That was certainly the case in Essex.
There were problems. People were outraged about rates. I accept that people did not like the community charge, but we are now getting the same thing about council tax. The Government do not realise that. I attended a meeting with 200 or 300 people aged 65 and over, all of whom were revolting against the council tax. This legislation could gradually push council tax higher and higher, not only through extra expenditure, but through revaluation or a change in the bands.
I was minded to table a rather more complicated and sophisticated amendment. I thought that I should keep it simple, but perhaps I should have tabled a more sophisticated one, because then the Minister would not have been able to make the same comments.

343
It is vital for the Government to realise how unpopular council tax is becoming and that something must be done about that. If we are to have new bands, putting some people into the higher bracket, after seven years of a Labour Government, it could be that the Conservative Party now cares more than the Government about people's ability to pay. That is why we are trying to protect those people. It is important to test the views of the House on this issue.
5.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 11) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 105; Not-Contents, 149.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Liverpool, E.

Blackwell, L.

Lucas, L.

Blatch, B.

Luke, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Lyell, L.

Brooke of Sutlon Mandeville. L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Burnham, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market,

Buscombe, B.

L.

Byford, B.

Mancroft, L.

Caithness, E.

Marlesford, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Montrose, D.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Colwyn, L.

Moynihan, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Craigavon, V.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Crathorne, L.

Noakes, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Northbrook, L.

Deedes, L.

Northesk, E.

Denham, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Dundee, E.

Onslow, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Palmer, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Elton, L.

Parkinson, L.

Feldman, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Flatter, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Fookes, B.

Plumb, L.

Freeman, L.

Plummerof St. Marylebone, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Rawlings, B.

Geddes, L.

Reay, L.

Glentoran, L.

Rees, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Renton, L.

Hanham, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Hanson, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Henley, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Higgins, L.

Selborne, E.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Selsdon, L.

Howe, E.

Sharpies, B.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Tebbit, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Kimball, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Ullswater, V.

Laird, L.

Waddington, L.

344

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Warnock, B.

Wakeham, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Jannerof Braunstone, L.

Addington, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Alderdice, L.

Jones, L.

Alii, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Barker, B.

Levy, L.

Barnett, L.

Lipsey, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Berkeley, L.

Lofthouseof Pontefract, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

McCarthy, L.

Blackstone, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L

Borne, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Burlison, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Carter, L.

McNally, L.

Chorley, L.

Maddock, B.

Christopher, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

MarandKellie, E.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mashamof llton, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Massevof Darwen, B

Crawley, B. Dahrendorf, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

David, B.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Mitchell, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Morgan, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Desai, L.

Newby, L.

Dixon, L.

Nicol, B.

Donoughue, L.

Northover, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Orme, L.

Dubs, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Pendry, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Peston, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Peterborough, Bp.

Pitkeathley, B.

Falkender, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Falkland, V.

Radice, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rarnsay of Cartvale, B.

Filkin, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Rea, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Redesdale, L.

Gale, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gavron, L.

Rennard, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Richard, L.

Golding, B.

Richardson of Calow, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Rochester, Bp.

Goodhart, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Goudie, B.

Rooker, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Roper, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Russell, E.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Sandberg, L.

Hamwee, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Harris of Richmond, B.

ShuttofGreetland, L.

Harrison, L.

Simon, V.

Haskel, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Hayman, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Strabolgj, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Symons of Vemham Dean, B

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hoyle, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Turnberg, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Islwyn, L.

Varley, L.

345

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Williams of ElveI, L.

Walmsley, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord President of the Council)

Walpole, L.

Whitaker, B.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Whitty, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.4 p.m.
Clause 92 [Power to charge for discretionary services]:
Lord Hanningfieldmoved Amendment No. 12:
Page 52, line 7, at end insert "except in cases where a surplus is generated and reinvested in the discretionary service for the purposes of increasing provision of the service or to raise the quality of the existing discretionary service"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment would deal with some of the practical, not to say philosophical, difficulties thrown up by the current drafting of the clause. The clause prevents a local authority from making a profit from charges for a discretionary service. That is wrong in principle and difficult to police in practice. We listened to the arguments made at other stages of the Bill's progress, and we remain convinced that there will be substantial practical problems with giving effect to the provision as it stands.
The amendment would address some of those concerns. It would enable local authorities to over-recover the costs of provision of a discretionary service but only for the purpose of reinvestment in the service, in order to improve it or widen take-up. After all, the bottom line for all of us is service improvement. Let us not close off one obvious avenue to achieving that.
I remind your Lordships that we are talking about discretionary services, services that local authorities are under no obligation to provide and consumers are under no obligation to purchase. We welcome the introduction of a power to charge for such services. Without that power, the services would probably not exist. Local authorities are hard pressed to meet their statutory commitments, without the added pressure of delivering non-statutory, loss-making services.
My strong belief is that local authorities would be inclined to make much greater use of a power that enabled them to improve a service, without having to subsidise it from somewhere else. They would be able to use the power more effectively. We accept that the purpose of the power is, primarily, to promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of our communities and that it is not intended to provide a further income stream for local authorities. However, in order for local authorities to remain a high-quality service and meet the requirements of promoting the well-being of our communities, it is clear that, in some instances, they may wish to over-recover their costs in order to invest in service improvements, either to raise the quality of service provision or to increase the capacity of the service.
We should not miss the opportunity in the Bill to enable local authorities to improve the quality of their discretionary service provision. The message that the
346
Bill sends to local authority managers is that they must make a loss and guard against the prospect of creating a surplus. That seems nonsensical.
In Grand Committee, the noble Lords on the Government Front Bench suggested that amendments previously tabled had been designed to push local authorities into unrestricted commercial activity. I hope that those noble Lords will not construe the new amendment in that way. We seek to make clear and explicit the freedoms that are hinted at in the Bill. On Report, there was a suggestion, born of experience, I think, from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, that flexibility in defining "costs" could provide sufficient room for manoeuvre in the clause. There was, undoubtedly, a good deal of truth and practical sense in that proposition. However, given that it is primary legislation, finance people, however clever they may be, will find it difficult to change new investment to costs. We are concerned with improving service delivery and widening provision. I cannot see why we should not make explicit what is implicit and say to local authorities that they may over-recover their costs, but only for the purpose of improving the service. That is a more honest and straightforward way of dealing with the power.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, mentioned the dangers of allowing authorities to enter into unrestricted commercial activity. On the face of it, it is a reasonable argument. None of us wishes to see local authorities putting themselves into financial difficulties because they have lost money as a consequence of delivering discretionary services. However, that is not the danger that the Minister sees. He seems to be content for local authorities to lose money, and the clause does not prohibit that. Perhaps the Minister is alert to a more subtle danger that some of us may have missed. Perhaps there is a danger in allowing local authorities to make money. That is ruled out in this clause. Again, let us remind ourselves that these arc services which no one has to purchase and which local authorities do not have to provide.
As well as the principal objections that we have to this measure, we are also concerned about how it will work in practice. What will happen if the take-up of the service is greater than predicted and local authorities make a surplus? Will they be penalised? Will they have to pay back any profit? To whom will they pay the money? Surely, the most sensible and practical way forward would be to oblige any profit to be reinvested in the service. That is what we are suggesting in this amendment. I hope that noble Lords will support this pragmatic approach. I beg to move.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, we have a great deal of sympathy with the principle underlying the amendment. As the noble Lord said, it would be quite difficult to guarantee that no profit will be made on a service over a year. It may be that the Minister can tell us that regulations will deal with that situation should it occur. At this stage, I wonder whether the wording is

347
sufficient to carry out the intention of the amendment. However, we support it in principle. I shall listen with interest to what the Minister has to say.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, I began to feel that probably there was not so much difference between us. However, I shall go through the issue carefully. It was interesting that the noble Lord addressed some of the points we made at earlier stages of the Bill. I am grateful to him for that.
Amendment No. 12 appears to allow authorities to invest in their discretionary services with the aim of increasing both the take-up and the quality of the service concerned. We have no problem with that. Under the power, as currently drafted, any such reinvestment would count as a cost of the service and would reduce any surplus, thus helping the authority to achieve the duty in the clause. In other words, standard accounting practice already achieves one of the objectives which perhaps lies behind the amendment. If it is the case that it is seeking to allow only such investment, the amendment would be unnecessary.
However, the amendment goes further than that. It would absolve authorities of the need to comply with the duty in Clause 92(3). It would allow all best value authorities to engage in a restricted form of trading, irrespective of performance—not something that I think we, across the Chamber, would agree with—and without the necessary checks and balances envisaged in the trading powers set out in Clauses 94 and 95. It would permit something without those checks and balances which I think we are agreed should be in place. It would permit a form of trading by the back door.
The provision on charging at Clause 92 is not about allowing authorities to enter into commercial activity in their discretionary service provision. The purpose of providing a new general power to enable best value authorities to charge for discretionary services is to encourage them to enhance their existing services and to develop new ones that will help to improve the service provided to their community. That is probably a shared objective. It is not our intention, through this new power, to provide a new source of income for authorities, but it should allow them only to cover their costs.
I appreciate that in Committee some concerns were expressed about whether an authority would be acting ultra vires— point, I believe, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock—if its income exceeded its costs by only a very small amount. Clause 92 gives local authorities flexibility in terms of costs and charges. The concept of,
"taking one … year with another",
is well precedented—for example, with NHS trusts and in the Audit Commission Act 1998—as a way of establishing the idea of balancing the books without having detailed prescription either in the Bill or in secondary legislation. Any over or under recovery, resulting in a surplus or deficit of income in relation to costs, would be addressed by an authority when setting its charges for future years, so that, over time, income equated to costs.
348
We do not want this clause to operate in a heavy-handed way at all. I made that point at an earlier stage. We understand the spirit behind this amendment, but it does not address the issue properly—again, a point on which I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, was uncertain. I can give an assurance that we do not want the clause to operate in a heavy-handed form. The heart of the proposed amendment is defective, despite the noble Lord's efforts to ensure that it would work properly. We cannot permit a form of trading to be established by a back-door route. We permit that in other parts of the Bill.
Having heard that explanation. I hope that on this occasion the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment because we are not a million miles apart on this.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, for that reply. I agree that we are not many miles apart. At an earlier stage I quoted—I shall not quote again—the situation regarding archaeologists, who are being withdrawn from local authorities because they are unaffordable. If costs can be recovered through commercial activity when houses are being built and so forth. that service could continue. That is the type of instance to which I referred.
I have noted carefully what the Minister said today and on previous occasions. Obviously, it is all on the record. It is important and I believe that the Government acknowledge the problem. I was interested to hear the Minister say that reinvestment in the service is obviously a cost and that it can therefore go down as a cost in the way in which it is presented. With those assurances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 13:
After Clause 111, insert the following new clause—
"ADOPTION: CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTIONS

(1) No person employed by, working for or acting as an adviser to a local authority shall he under any duty whether by contract or by any statutory or other legal requirement to participate in—

(a) any placement under section 18 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (c. 38) (placement for adoption by agencies); or

(b) any application under section 49 of that Act (applications for adoption), to which he has a conscientious objection on either of the grounds specified in subsection (2).

(2) The grounds referred to in subsection (1) are that the placement is with, or the application is made by—

(a) a couple who are not a married couple;

(b) one person who is in fact part of a couple within the meaning of section 144(4)(b) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (general interpretation etc.).

(3) In any legal proceedings, the burden of proof of conscientious objection shall rest upon the person claiming to rely on it.

(4) A local authority shall not treat less favourably any person who relies on subsection (I) above."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 13, I shall clarify what has been a serious misunderstanding at previous stages of what it is that I am trying to achieve. The amendment simply extends the right of social workers to exercise their conscience in a situation which seriously compromises their profound belief that children should be adopted by a mother and a father.
I implore those who oppose my amendment—who may speak against me today—to give reasons why some professionals are protected by a conscience clause and why this particular group of professionals cannot enjoy the same freedom. Dawn Jackson and Norah Ellis are the cases that I cited in previous debates. Of course, there are others; I heard of another only today. They worked for Sefton Borough Council Social Services Department. Between them they have 46 years experience of childcare. They are specialists in adoption; they have dealt with the most complex and difficult cases over all those years, and they have exemplary records.
As mothers, as very practised social workers specialising in adoption and as committed Christians, based on practical evidence they believe profoundly that a child fares better and is more secure when placed with a mother and a father, who, preferably, are married. There has been considerable misunderstanding during earlier stages, but absolutely nothing proposed in my amendment invalidates gay adoption. Parliament has decided that issue: gay and lesbian people may adopt children. Although I oppose that proposal, I nevertheless accept the will of Parliament. I repeat, my amendment does not invalidate that change in the law.
However, just as teachers can refuse to teach religious education or take a religious assembly, just as medical professionals can refuse to carry out or assist with abortions, why cannot a social worker enjoy the same right? Nor will my amendment result in stigmatising anyone. Doctors exercising their conscience about not performing abortions does not stigmatise those who have abortions. Teachers exercising their conscience do not stigmatise children. Social workers exercising their conscience who in every other respect are doing an excellent job, would not stigmatise others. At a time when there is a serious lack of good experienced social workers, those two ladies—and we know of others—have been hounded out of their jobs in a specialist area of adoption. The Green Paper presented to Parliament yesterday referred to the need to do more to attract good, experienced social workers. Norah Ellis and Dawn Jackson had exemplary careers in adoption services. My amendment is too late for them—they were hounded out of their jobs—but it would prevent others from experiencing the same cruel fate. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on her tenacity in relation to this question. However, I am sorry that she has brought this matter to the House at this late stage and I hope that the House will reject her amendment. I know that the noble Baroness disagreed with the
350
decision of Parliament in relation to the Adoption and Children Act passed last Session although she has said she accepts the decision. The issue is expressly about the issue of a clause of conscience for social workers rather than whether unmarried couples—whether of the same or the opposite sex—may adopt. One must consider the issue she has raised in the overall context of why Parliament passed the Adoption and Children Act in the previous Session. We had a very serious consideration of these issues.
The outcome for many children in care has been very poor. The statistics seem to show that half of young people in prison under the age of 18 and 26 per cent of all prisoners have been in care at some stage. Up to 20 per cent of all care leavers experience some form of homelessness within two years of leaving care. More than half of young people leaving care at the age of 16 and over are unemployed. Some estimates put that proportion as high as 80 per cent. We know that for many of those young people adoption would have been a much better option. The outcome for adopted children is so much better than for those children left in care despite the enormous work of those in the care setting. We also know that there have been long problems with the adoption process. Thankfully, the Act passed last year together with associated changes has improved the system of adoption no end. In 1996, the total time spent in care before final adoption was three years and four months. That is a long time in anyone's mind but in the experience of a young person, it is often an eternity.
The question of unmarried couples was a very crucial issue in the debate on improving adoption procedures. The fact was that before the passage of the previous Act, single people could and did adopt. In such circumstances, if a single person was in a relationship with another person, whether of the same or opposite sex, that person was also assessed by social workers. Before the Act of last year was passed, that partner could not adopt. As a Minister responsible for that Bill at the time, I was impressed with the views of young people who had been adopted in such circumstances. They argued that they would feel more secure if both partners could adopt jointly. This House agreed and passed the necessary legislation. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, may shake her head but it is important to set the context in which to make a judgment as to whether her amendment ought to be accepted. One cannot consider the question of a conscience clause in isolation from decisions that this House made after intense and passionate debate less than 12 months ago.
No one has the right to adopt. The paramount interest must be the child. I am convinced that the changes we made were in the interests of the child. Frankly, this amendment is retrograde and against the interests of the child in adoption procedures. Whether one considers an issue of conscience by social workers in this regard to be on the same level as that of doctors in relation to abortion or teachers in relation to the teaching of religious education is a matter of individual judgment that each noble Lord must make. If we look at the history of adoption, for many years

351
single people have been able to adopt. Whatever the sexual orientation of their partner, if that person applied to adopt a child, their partner would also be assessed. I do not believe that the issue of conscience in relation to social workers is of the same order as the two examples she gave on doctors and abortion and teachers and the teaching of religious education. The amendment of the noble Baroness would set a worrying precedent and make administration of the law on adoption very difficult for the relevant public authorities. I have no doubt that if it were passed, it risks reducing the pool of prospective adopters. For the sake of children for many years to come, this House should reaffirm the decision made in the previous Session and reject this amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I oppose this amendment for the very close reasoning given by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. I shall not reiterate parts of the reasoning. This is advanced as a conscience clause. It is a conscience clause that qualifies implementation of those provisions of an Act of Parliament contrary to the spirit of the enactment. As such, it is indeed the motivation. It is a wholly unacceptable position. That Act was brought in after a pretty tough dispute in your Lordships' House. I supported the provisions. My noble friend opposed them and we both have an interest to declare. I certainly declare mine. The reasons for retaining my position could not have been better put than by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. The amendment expressly recognises an aversion to homosexuals as adopters or unmarried couples.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it does not.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, it does. In terms. If my noble friend would like me to give way, I shall give way.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, indeed it does not. Just like the doctor who does not wish to be involved in aborting babies, the amendment refers to the profound beliefs of social workers in the way in which children should be placed. I made a specific point when I said it does not stigmatise homosexuals in any way. My amendment just protects the right of the social worker not to be given that work to do.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I hear what she says and shall try to deal with it in a moment, but I really cannot deal with interruptions from a sedentary position—they make it quite impossible to make a speech.
If one looks at the terms of the amendment, it is manifestly plain that it recognises an aversion to unmarried couples as adopters which extends, against the background of the whole debate in this House, to homosexual couples. Before this, a single homosexual could adopt. The amendment totally ignores the absence of any evidence of any untoward conduct by a single homosexual adopter in the past. That was a
352
matter that carried some credence when your Lordships considered the subject in a strenuous debate, argued by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, with my noble friend Lady Blatch arguing against him.
The amendment also ignores the stringency of the vetting procedure, and another matter that was of considerable importance in the debate—the plight and interests of those thousands of children in care who seek the benefit of a home, education, prospects for a happy life and so forth.
It is understood that it is the intention to take the opinion of your Lordships' House with a free vote on these Benches. That is why I have spoken at a little length today, and I seek your Lordships' indulgence for having done so.
Baroness Richardson of Calow: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment. Your Lordships will know that I wholeheartedly agree with the adoption provisions, and I have spoken many times on the matter in this House. Some people have very strong convictions and I believe that their employment should not be put at risk because of them, although I do not share that viewpoint in any way.
My primary reason for supporting the amendment is to safeguard the rights of those couples described under proposed subsection (2)(a) and (b) who offer themselves for assessment. They have a right to be assessed without prejudice, whether acknowledged or unacknowledged, by those who do the assessment. They have a right to be judged by criteria that are as objective as they can be, and which would be better preserved if those with strong conscientious objections over the matter were allowed not to be put in the situation of having to make that judgment.
I support the amendment, which would benefit not only those with strong religious convictions but, primarily, those who need to be assessed in a proper way.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I join the debate with some regret, as these matters have been debated at considerable length on many occasions.
I shall deal with two points. First, in moving her amendment the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said that those of us who oppose her do so on a misunderstanding of her intent. I believe that we do not do so, but that we understand entirely what the amendment seeks to do. It seeks not to overturn your Lordships' decision on same-sex couple adoption but to undermine it in practice. That is as unacceptable as seeking to overturn it.
We all know that principles have to be put into action. Anyone who has read at length the Climbié report will know what life is like in a social services department, particularly in a children's unit. The amendment would enable social services departments, which are already working beyond capacity in many cases, particularly in children's work, to keep on their staff people who absent themselves from part of their work. The net effect would be that all children would suffer.

353
The most dangerous thing about the amendment—as I said when we discussed it in previous debates—is the precedent that it sets that the beliefs of staff and social services departments take precedence over the needs and wishes of users. If noble Lords have read the Climbié report at any length, they will know what a dangerous precedent that would be. Tremendous work is being done in the social work profession to move in a way that is completely contrary to that.
Secondly, I want to address a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson of Calow. I hold her in high regard, as I have done throughout all our decisions, and I have had similar thoughts to those that she has expressed. Ultimately, much though it pains me to disagree with her, I believe that she is wrong. I came to my conclusion after spending time reading a lot about the history of adoption and fostering in this country. During the passage of the adoption Bill, I spent considerable time talking to people who were coming to terms as adults with the effects of decisions made on their behalf by people who thought that they were acting with the best of intentions.
Adoption is always an expression of the views and philosophy of the society of the time. If one goes back into the history of fostering and adoption, one comes across instances where people of undoubted good faith and intentions made decisions because of their beliefs on matters of race and religion. From our standpoint now, we can see that those decisions have had the most damaging effect on children.
I am haunted by many of the letters that I received throughout the passage of the adoption Bill, but one in particular sticks in my mind. A man was trying to figure out why as a child he was moved on from a very happy placement. He said that the only reason he could possibly think of was that his foster parents were Jewish and that he was not: he wished that he had been left in that happy situation, Christian though he was—and still was when I spoke to him—rather than being moved.
I have no doubt that in the course of our debates we were right to stick with the principle in Clause 1 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 that it is the best interest of the child that is paramount. That is why I believe that the amendment moved by the noble Baroness is not only wrong but dangerous. I therefore hope that noble Lords will retain the decision that we have made on at least six occasions when we have discussed the matter.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the question of the rights of the individual conscience against the state is one that has absorbed some of the finest minds in our cultural tradition over some 2,000 years and more. Distilling all that into a few words is something of a challenge, but I believe that I can see something of a distinction, to which my noble friend Lady Barker referred.
Where, as an individual, one is commanded to do something that one thinks is sinful, one must not do it. But when one is taking part in the provision of a public service, as my noble friend Lady Barker said, the users
354
also have rights. There the principle of the rights of conscience, although it cannot ever be extinguished, must be handled with a good deal more caution and balance.
I have had to think quite hard about this because a great many of the changes imposed on universities by successive governments have involved me in doing things against which my conscience protested. In some cases I have managed to make the cup pass from me by the exercise of some ingenuity. But I have taken the line throughout that a public service is to an extent a seamless robe, and if one cannot do what is required in that service, then one must resign from it. Since the Education Act 1988 I have been several times very near doing that myself. But I would not have claimed the right to exercise my individual conscience to refuse to perform a service which I then knew had to fall on long-suffering colleagues who were desperately overworked already and who in many cases might dislike it almost as much as I did.
The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson of Calow, was one of great brilliance, but not therefore necessarily a point of truth. It is a point which only a very great and sensitive mind could have made. But if one thinks, for example, of the first women to attempt to enter public and political life, they also had to face assessment from people who took a very dim view indeed of the political powers of women. I believe that they were right in deciding—and my grandmother was among them—that it was much better to face down these dangers at the earliest possible stage because equality would never be achieved until one took the bull by the horns, faced down the dangers and the hostility and defeated them.
I believe that the women who took that attitude were right. They suffered a good deal in doing it, but I believe that the suffering was shrewdly and deliberately chosen. I wonder whether these cases have some parallel element.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this has been a valuable discussion, revisiting an issue which has been debated twice already within the confines of this Bill, in Grand Committee and on Report. It would be unkind of me not to join in the congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Batch, on her tenacity. I appreciate that and also her sincerity in these matters. But, like the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is clear in her intent. She accepts the will of Parliament in these matters. She well understands that the impact of her amendment, were it to be carried by the House, would undermine the will of Parliament. I believe that is the case and that that view is generally shared in your Lordships' House.
At each stage of this Bill we have explained why the clause is inappropriate. We continue to resist the amendment for reasons that I intend to spell out very clearly. As we all appreciate, Amendment No. 13 would ensure that no person working for or on behalf of a local authority shall be under any duty, whether by contract or by any statutory or other legal

355
requirement, to participate in adoption placements or processing adoption applications to which they have a conscientious objection.
This refers to cases where children are to be placed for adoption with an unmarried couple or with one person who is in fact part of a couple living together as partners in an enduring family relationship. It also covers the processing of these adoption applications.
The Adoption and Children Act 2002 allows for the first time unmarried couples, regardless of their sexual orientation, to apply to adopt a child jointly. However, as we all understand, it has long been possible for a person in an unmarried relationship to apply to adopt as a single person.
The Adoption and Children Act does not therefore raise any fundamental new issues, so we do not believe that there is any need to make special provision for conscientious objections as a result of the change to enable unmarried couples to adopt jointly. Arguably, the key benefit for children of the change in the 2002 Act is that it enables a child adopted by an unmarried couple to have the permanence and security of having two legal parents. I believe that all Members of the House would welcome that.
The new clause raises employment issues that are more suitably addressed by the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations 2003, which were approved by both Houses on 17th June. These regulations will prohibit discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief in employment and vocational training.
Local authorities have a duty to maintain an adoption service in their area that meets the needs of those who may adopt a child. This includes unmarried couples and individuals who are in fact part of a couple. As many noble Lords have said, the clause would make it more difficult for local authorities to provide a service and to meet their duties and could well lead to delays in the assessment of prospective adopters able to meet the needs of children waiting for adoption. I do not believe that anyone sees that as a desirable outcome. The Government believe that it is unacceptable to risk vulnerable children losing out on the chance of, or experiencing delays in, finding a new family.
I believe that the comparison drawn with conscientious objection to abortion in earlier debates is unhelpful in that conscientious objection to participating in an abortion procedure often raises strong ethical issues around the sanctity of life whereas objecting to non-married couples adopting is about judgmental attitudes on the lifestyle of individuals and their personal choices. There is a profound difference in that, which seems entirely inappropriate to the present.
As I said at the outset, I do not doubt the noble Baroness's sincerity and I certainly do not doubt her tenacity. But I hope that, having listened to the arguments, the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw the new clause.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank the Minister most strongly for at least not doubting my sincerity and motivation for tabling the amendment. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, do doubt my sincerity. They have attributed to me motivations which I find deeply hurtful and which are simply wrong. I want to protect people like Norah Ellis and Dawn Jackson, the lady I heard about today, and others whose jobs are now at risk. In fact, what those two ladies experienced was frightful. It was discrimination against them because of their beliefs, which I understand from what the noble Lord has just said gave—
Earl Russell: My Lords, I speak on behalf of my noble friend Lady Barker. I never understood her to be referring to the noble Baroness's intentions. I have checked this reading with my noble friend. She acknowledges the noble Baroness's sincerity completely. What was being discussed was the effect of the amendment. Even after Pepper v Hart the mind of the mover is not the sole guide of the courts to the intention of Parliament. I believe that my noble friend Lady Barker is right about what will be taken to be its intention. I admit that the noble Baroness believes otherwise, but this is simply a difference of opinion between us.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Earl will receive a very apologetic letter from me tomorrow if I am wrong, but I remember the noble Baroness saying that she did not think that I was invalidating the previous Act of Parliament, but that my intention was to undermine it. That was personal against me. I shall read Hansard and I promise a profuse apology if I misinterpreted the noble Baroness.
My motivation is that, just like medical professionals, the professionals involved in adoption have a strong belief on two grounds. One is practical, and is supported by evidence that my noble friend. said does not exist. I have not chosen to engage that argument because it was lost when the decision was taken by Parliament to allow same-sex adoption. However, I invoked the other argument: that their religious beliefs are such that they would find it in all conscience difficult to engage in processing and/or assisting in same-sex adoption.
I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson, and I are not usually on the same side, but I thank her for what she said because she introduced a different argument. It would be difficult for someone holding strong views who was well known in the authority—as indeed they were in Sefton Borough Council—to be assessed knowing that someone had a prejudice or a belief. We can argue about the words. They would not feel secure that they were being judged or assessed fairly. That is a powerful argument for which I am grateful.
Many of the comments made are not acceptable as arguments. There are no fewer abortions simply because some doctors do not perform them and some professionals in the medical world do not assist with

357
them. That is managed in the health service, just as it could be managed in the world of social services. There is always more work than there are people to carry it out, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said. Therefore there is always a choice of work for these fine, exemplary workers to be put to and to allow them to exercise their conscience not to be involved in such work.
It was not my intention to undermine the will of Parliament, but I oppose this level of intimidation against good, honest people; highly experienced social workers working in the interests—as they feel—of children. They should not be discriminated against simply because of their belief. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
6.52 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 13) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 63; Not-Contents, 142.

Division No. 5

CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Kimball, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Blatch, B.[Teller]

Laird, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Liverpool, E.

Burnham, L.

Lyell, L.

Byford, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Caithness, E.

Mancroft, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Montrose, D.

Colwyn, L.

Northbourne, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Northesk, E.

Craig of Radley, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Onslow, E.

Denham, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Peterborough, Bp.

Eden of Winton, L.

Plumb, L.

Elliott of Morpeth.L.

Reay, L.

Elton, L.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Flather, B.

Richardson of Calow, B.

Fookes, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Geddes, L.

Rochester, Bp.

Glentoran, L.

Selsdon, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hanham, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Hanson, L.

Tebbit, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Howe, E.

Ullswater, V.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Wakeham, L.

Hylton, L. [Teller]

Waldegrave of North Hill, L

Jopling, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Addington, L.

Berkeley, L.

Alderdice, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Alli, L.

Bhatia, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Blackstone, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Borrie, L.

Barker, B. [Teller]

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Barnett, L.

Burlison, L.

358

Buscombe, B.

McCarthy, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Carter, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Chandos, V.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Chorley, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Christopher, L.

McNally, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Maddock, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Craigavon, V.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Crawley.B.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

Mitchell, L.

David, B.

Morgan, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Newby, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Nicol, B.

Desai, L.

Northover, B.

Donoughue, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Orme, L.

Dubs.L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Elder, L.

Pendry, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Peston, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.(Lord Chancellor)

Pitkeathley, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Radice, L.

Filkin L

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Gale, B.

Razzall, L.

Gavron, L.

Rea, L

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Golding, B.

Rennard L.

Goldsmith, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Goodhart, L.

Richard L.

Goudie, B.

Rooker, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.[Teller]

Roper, L.

Russell, E.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Sandwich, E.

Greengross, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Grocott, L.

Sharp of Guildford B

Hamwee B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Hams of Haringey, L.

Simon, V

Harrison, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Haskel, L.

Stern B

Hayman, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Hollick, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Tope, L

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Tordoff, L.

Hoyle, L.

Turnberg, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Walmsley. B.

Islwyn, L.

Warnock, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Jones, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Whitaker, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Whitty.L.

Levy, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Lipsey, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord President of the Council)

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.3 p.m.
Lord Hanningfieldmoved Amendment No. 14:
After Clause 112, insert the following new clause—
"PARISH COUNCILS (MODEL CODE OF CONDUCT) ORDER 2001
(1) The Parish Councils (Model Code of Conduct) Order 2001 (S.I. 2001/3576) shall cease to have effect.
(2) This section shall come into effect on the day on which this Act is passed."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now return to an amendment that we first debated on Report. We do so because, as that debate showed, at stake are some interesting issues which we believe require further consideration. I should hope that we would all agree that parish councillors do an enormous amount of good work for their communities, often for little recognition or reward. They do this because they are public-minded citizens with a real sense of community who wish to make a positive impact on their localities. The bottom line is that we need more people like that. We want to encourage people to become parish councillors and not frighten them off.
As it currently stands, the parish councils' code of conduct requires all parish councillors to register interests, including their property, their employment and their business interests. It also requires them to register the interests of their spouses and relatives. Registering an interest is different from declaring an interest. It involves making a written and public statement of interest up front and in advance regardless of the likelihood of those interests ever having any bearing on any issues ever discussed or likely to be discussed within a parish council.
Parish councillors are not parliamentarians dealing with major issues of state; they are for the most part responsible for important but very strictly local issues. A comprehensive register of interests is ridiculous over-regulation. That is why we object to it. Perhaps the Minister will tell us that parish councils are seething hotbeds of corruption and fraud doing major damage to the economy and infrastructure of this nation. On Report, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, quoted some examples of misconduct. No one would minimise the seriousness of any form of misconduct in public life, and I unreservedly support him in condemning those activities. However, if I remember the figures correctly, after investigation, 83 councillors were subjected to a period of disqualification. That means that, in a 12-month period, of approximately 20,000 parish councillors, less than half of one per cent were found guilty of any, and sometimes minor, misconduct. I may have the numbers slightly wrong, but I think that the point is clear. That is the scale of magnitude of wrong-doing with which we are dealing.
No one disputes at all the need for probity in public life. The question is whether noble Lords believe in the concept of balance. Should we regulate to eliminate the possibility of any risk under any circumstances and in every situation? Or should we try to make regulation proportionate to the risks involved? I favour the latter option, first, because there are costs involved in regulation, and those costs must be balanced against the level of risk against which they seek to offer protection. Secondly, all regulation potentially has the capacity to damage the institution or body regulated. In the case of parish councils, that is an outcome that we should all deplore.
In May 2002, the University of Aberystwyth published an ESRC report on community governance in England and Wales. That report found that nearly 40 per cent of parish councils did not have enough councillors to fill their seats and that the situation had been in decline for more than a decade. However, the report concluded:
"It has been suggested to us that one factor behind the lack of candidates is that being a parish councillor is seen as an onerous task with little reward, and the introduction of the new code of conduct may prove a further disincentive".
For the most part parish councillors are giving up their time for free to address very local issues. They do so because they are committed to the community ethic. We need to encourage more people to take that view. What the Government have done through the introduction of this code has had the opposite effect. It has made a bad situation worse and threatens to undermine one of the oldest institutions of government in this country. I hope that the Minister will consider this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, we made our position very clear at other stages of the Bill. We on these Benches believe that if one puts oneself forward in any way for public office, one opens oneself to public scrutiny. I have listened to the arguments time and again, such as the fact that it may be a small council and councillors are not paid. With respect. I do not think that that is relevant. The important thing is that one is speaking and making decisions on behalf of others. All we are asking is that people use their common sense and declare where they are coming from and what possible interests they might have in the matter they are discussing.
Earlier this week, this House again addressed the issue of what one should declare as an interest. I think that a certain amount of common sense comes into this. I have briefly reread the requirements. A lot of fuss has been made about this. but I am clear that if someone wants to make decisions in public service on behalf of others, then the public have the right to know exactly where that person is coming from and what their interests are. If people are not prepared to do that. then it seems to me that they are not really very community-minded.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, having served in the past on a parish council, for about 20 years, in one small Somerset village, I strongly support the amendment. In moving it, the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, drew the key distinction between registration and declaration of interests. I hope that the Government listen to all his other arguments.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, essentially the new clause seeks to remove parish councils from the ethical framework of behaviour that was established in the Local Government Act 2000. I am astonished that at Third Reading the matter is on the Order Paper. It seeks to remove parish councils from the model codes of conduct that followed that legislation by simply revoking the code that currently applies. I agree that

361
separate codes have been established for local authorities, police authorities, national park authorities, the Broads authorities and the parishes. They cover everybody. Why should there be an exemption for one group of people who have put themselves forward to serve on those bodies? That could not possibly be justified. We would almost be saying that any level of behaviour goes for that sector. That would be unacceptable to the public. It should be unacceptable to Parliament. Also, the public would not have a test by which to judge the behaviour of people whom they elect.
I accept that there are difficulties. Earlier this year I was hoping to vote for the first time in a town council myself, but there were only 10 candidates for 13 places, so there was no possibility of voting. I am not aware—I have not inquired—and I have seen no evidence that it was this code that was the cause of that. The public have the right to expect that all the people who are taking decisions on their behalf that may affect their daily lives observe the highest standards of conduct. I cannot see the problem about operating the code. All parish councils are statutory consultees on planning issues. Some parishes have budgets of tens of thousands of pounds. I appreciate that the variation in parishes and the size of their budgets is enormous. However, some are very large, but why should the small ones be exempt? They are making the same kind of decisions—true, for a smaller area—but there is no good argument that they should be exempted.
It is astonishing that when that legislation was before Parliament and I was elsewhere in the Government—this was not the key matter that I was dealing with—the National Association of Local Councils, which represents the parish councils, pressed for their inclusion within the new ethical regime. I have not read the debates so I do not know whether that was opposed in this place, but the idea that the parishes should be pulled out now, just as the code is starting to operate, is nonsense. Much of the new code is similar to the previous code that was put in place in 1990. I have not personally checked that, but that is my information.
The main difference is that the new code requires registration of interests and the standards board provides an effective means to enforce it. In some ways the introduction of the standards board should probably have solved all of the problems for people in public life. When allegations are made against them for all kinds of spurious reasons, the standards board is there as a back-stop to make sure that we have a proper independent judgment over the operation of the codes. I understand that half of the allegations so far sent to the standards board relate to parish councillors. I cast no aspersions about parish councillors on that matter—there are an enormous number of them compared to county councillors and district councillors. I do not know the precise figures.
362
The effect of the amendment would repeal the current order. It does not repeal the power of the Secretary of State to introduce an order. If the amendment were pushed—I sincerely hope it is not—I hope that it will not be carried. If it were, I suspect the Secretary of State would introduce a new order the following day, because his powers to produce an order are not affected by the amendment. There might be an argument over the will of Parliament et cetera, saying that parishes should not be covered. The other place would smartly send the matter back here. It is true that there are people who do not like the idea of answering a few personal questions as a result of seeking public office. The balance has to be made by them. It is their personal judgment. That is why the overwhelming majority of people have accepted the code. I have no figures about the number of parish councillors who have been removed for refusing to sign—but it has to be a tiny percentage. It is the norm to sign up. To remove it for only one part of public life would send completely the wrong signals to the public. All of the other types of councils are covered, including the police authorities, the national park authorities and the Broads authorities. Why do we not have an amendment to exempt some of those bodies? Why just the parish councillors? We have had no explanation for that.
It is true that there have been a few noises, but people should not become the mouthpieces for a few noises. We are dealing with legislation. The proposal would send the wrong impression to the public that there was an ethical code of behaviour that people in public life were expected to operate, but with certain groups exempted. That cannot be justified. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, one cannot justify that across the garden fence or in the local shop one could say "it does not matter with our councillors. We do not have to know where they are coming from, what their interests are, irrespective of the decisions that they might be taking". I repeat that they are statutory consultees on planning applications. That is in some ways one of the most sensitive areas that people can deal with.
I find it difficult to believe that the Conservative Opposition is serious in this matter, because it would send wholly the wrong signals to the public in exempting parish councils from the ethical codes of behaviour. I hope that it is not pushed to a vote, and if it is I hope that it will be voted down.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I made it clear in proposing the amendment that no-one should be absolved from declaring an interest—that is what the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said in her contribution. People should always declare an interest if they have any kind of involvement in the subject that is being talked about—whether it is here a parish council, or wherever.
I was pleased to hear the Minister say that he was not the Minister at the time. When the Labour Party was first elected I was the vice-chairman of the Local

363
Government Association. I spent much time with the then Minister, Hilary Armstrong, discussing this legislation. At that time no-one envisaged a virtual castle in London with the national standards board presiding over very minute complaints—mostly about people calling each other four letter words. If there was an issue of real corruption then it should be considered by the board. The process was set up differently from that which was expected by local government. That is why parish councils and others did not mind coming in—they thought that there would be some local mechanism. In fact the measure does enable in other parts of the Bill more local discussion of very small complaints—which is what should have been done from the beginning. There were problems with the legislation from the start, which this Bill rectifies. I am content with that.
However, parish councils are different. I am now an elected county councillor. I have 10 parish councils in my patch. They are much like the "Vicar of Dibley". The matters that they discuss are mainly litter and the sports field. The borough council normally takes planning decisions contrary to the views of the parish council anyway. It is the borough council that takes the planning decisions. The legislation that affects the parish councils was a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It has put people off from standing for parish council. No-one should be absolved from declaring an interest in any subject in which they have some involvement. But for parish councillors to have to list every asset that they have, when they are never going to be discussed at a meeting is ridiculous. Therefore I wish to test the opinion of the House.
7.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 14) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 55; Not-Contents, 121.

Division No. 6

CONTENTS

Astor of Hever, L. [Teller]

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Blatch, B.

Hanham, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Burnham, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Buscombe, B.

Hurd of Westwell.L.

Byford, B.

Hylton, L.

Caithness, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Jopling, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Kimball, L.

Chalfonl, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Coe, L.

Liverpool, E.

Colwyn, L.

Lyell, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Mancroft, L.

Craigavon, V.

Montrose, D.

Denham, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Northesk, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Elton, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Flather, B.

Onslow, E.

Fookes, B.

Plumb, L.

Geddes, L.

Reay, L.

Glentoran, L.

Rees-Mogg, L.

364

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Tebbit, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Selsdon, L.

Ullswater, V.

Wakeham, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Warnock, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Islwyn, L.

Addington, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Alderdice, L.

Jones, L.

Alli, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Levy, L.

Barker, B.

Lipsey, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Berkeley, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

McCarthy, L.

Blackstone, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Borrie, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Burlison, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Carter, L.

McNally, L.

Chandos, V.

Maddock, B.

Chorley, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Mitchell, L.

Crawley, B.

Morgan, L.

David, B.

Northover, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Orme, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Pendry, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Peston, L.

Desai, L.

Pitkeathley.B.

Dixon, L.

Radice, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Dubs, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Elder, L.

Razzall, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Rea, L

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Rennard, L.

Renwick of Clifton

Richard, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rooker, L.

Filkin, L.

Russell, E

Gale, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Golding, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Simon, V.

Goodhart, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Goudie, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Grocott, L.[Teller]

Tomlinson, L.

Hamwee, B.

Tope, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Tordoff, L.

Haskel, L.

Turnberg, L.

Hayman, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Walmsley, B.

Hollick, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Whitaker, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Whitty, L.

Hoyle, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.(Lord President of the Council)

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Hamweemoved Amendment No. 15:
After Clause 114, insert the following new clause—
"GOODS, FACILITIES AND SERVICES
In section 19 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (c. 50) (discrimination in relation to goods, facilities and services), after subsection (3) there is inserted—
"(3A) In subsection (3)(h), the services of a local authority shall include those it provides to its elected and co-opted members.""
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment would insert a new clause pursuing a matter that was dealt with at a previous stage of the Bill. As one noble Lord said earlier, it would avoid embarrassment by seeking an assurance from the Government.
The amendment proposes to extend the Disability Discrimination Act to local authority members. My noble friend Lord Addington has tasked me to state why I have not extended the proposal to all elected representatives. I take his point that this is a local government Bill. However, I hope that in his response the Minister can give us some hope on this point.
The amendment implements the outstanding recommendation of the Disability Rights Task Force that local councils should be placed under a duty not to discriminate against disabled councillors, including a duty to make reasonable adjustment. The Government have said that they will address the matter as soon as legislative time allows. I hope that legislative time is galloping towards this.
I am surprised to learn from the Disability Rights Commission, which supports this proposal, that over 13 per cent of local councillors in England and Wales have a disability. It must be a given that we want to encourage the involvement in the public services of all who have a contribution to make and that, by failing to ensure that those with a disability can overcome that disability through facilities and services, society itself risks losing out by putting barriers in the way of tapping all available talents. It is also a given that discrimination is wrong.
I refer to such matters as communications support— providing materials in accessible format. I am told of one town councillor who could not hear debates properly after renovations to his council chamber. The other two noble Lords who, like me, have experience of a new chamber, not at local government level, will know that it can present a considerable problem if it is designed so that the public can hear but members cannot hear one another.
I hope that the Government will soon publish a draft disability Bill. I know that at a previous stage the Minister said that this issue would be a matter for the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and proposed to raise the matter with him. I hope that we can be assured today that the draft disability Bill will include provision to plug that loophole. If we receive that assurance, I shall be happy to accept it and shall not need to take the matter further on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I have not put my name to the amendment, but I want to make it clear
366
that we support it. Had I been quick enough, I would have added my name, but I was not. I want to make it clear that it receives all-party agreement.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I hope that my remarks will be welcomed. It is certainly my intention to be helpful on this amendment.
We argued earlier, and we stick to the point, that we feel that the amendment is unnecessary. But we understand and appreciate the motive behind it. Like the noble Baroness, I have been in council chambers which have appalling audio systems. They are a positive barrier to debate and are very unhelpful, particularly to those with a hearing difficulty. It is right that local authorities address the needs of those members of the authority who have any form of disability. We recognise and support that point.
As the noble Baroness has said, the issue of discrimination against disabled councillors was raised in 2000 by the Disability Rights Task Force. In responding to its report, the Government undertook in 2001 to extend the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to local councillors.
We believe that it would be wrong to make piecemeal changes to the disability legislation. As the House is now aware, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions intends to publish a draft disability rights Bill later this year. We gave a commitment at Committee stage that my right honourable friend the Minister of State would write to those who raised concerns during the course of that debate. I am happy to say that, in response, the Secretary of State has confirmed his intention to legislate on this matter.
We believe that the disability rights Bill will be the correct legislative vehicle to consider extending the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act. The Disability Rights Commission agrees with us in that regard and has made it plain that it prefers that as the best means of addressing the issue. So we are at one with the spirit behind the amendment. We accept the points that have been made and we intend to deal with them in the forthcoming disability rights Bill. Obviously, we hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am grateful for that response. Part of the way through the Minister's speech, I thought that I should have to ask whether he had intentionally put a full-stop between "we will legislate" and "there will be a Bill". But he said at the end, as I understand it—I say this in terms so that he can contradict me if necessary—that the draft disability rights Bill will be the vehicle to deal with the issue. Yes, the Minister is nodding his acknowledgement that that is the case. On that basis I am glad to enable us to move on. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 115 [Local polls]:
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 17:
After Clause 118, insert the following new clause—
"REGULATION OF COSMETIC PIERCING AND SKIN-COLOURING BUSINESSES
(1) Section IS of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 (c. 30) (regulation of tattooing, ear-piercing and electrolysis businesses) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) (requirement for person carrying on business to be registered), for paragraph (b) (ear-piercing) there is substituted

"(aa) of semi-permanent skin-colouring;

(b) of cosmetic piercing; or"

(and in the side-note for "ear-piercing" there is substituted "semipermanent skin-colouring. cosmetic piercing").
(3) In subsection (2) (requirement to register premises where business carried on)—

(a) for "ear-piercing" there is substituted "semi-permanent skin-colouring, cosmetic piercing", and

(b) for "pierce their ears" there is substituted "carry out semi-permanent skin-colouring on them, pierce their bodies".

(4) In subsection (5) (local authority may not require particulars about individuals whose ears have been pierced etc.), for "or whose ears he has pierced" there is substituted ", whose bodies he has pierced or on whom he has carried out semi-permanent skin-colouring".
(5) After subsection (8) there is inserted—
"(9) In this section "semi-permanent skin-colouring" means the insertion of semi-permanent colouring into a person's skin."
(6) Schedule (Section (Regulation of cosmetic piercing and skin-colouring businesses): transition) (which makes provision about transition) has effect."
The noble Lord said: These amendments are to meet a government commitment to give local authorities outside London specific powers to regulate cosmetic body piercing and micropigmentation businesses. London local authorities already have such powers under private legislation.
The new clause would amend the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 to bring cosmetic body piercing and micropigmentation businesses under the regulatory framework of registration arid by-laws that already apply to ear piercing, tattooing, acupuncture and electrolysis.
Under that framework, local authorities would be able to require cosmetic body piercing and micropigmentation businesses to register with them and observe by-laws on hygiene and cleanliness for preventing the transmission of infection. For example, businesses would be required to use sterile instruments for each client. It would be an offence to trade without registration or breach by-laws.
The term "cosmetic piercing" is used to include cosmetic body piercing and ear piercing as these are both forms of skin piercing to allow the insertion of jewellery into the skin. This is the approach taken in the London legislation. "Semi-permanent skin colouring", which means the insertion of semipermanent colouring into a person's skin, is used to include micropigmentation and related activities such as semi-permanent make-up and temporary tattooing. The use of this umbrella term should stand the test of time should further activities of this kind come into fashion.
The schedule allows a smooth transition when the new legislation is adopted by local authorities. In brief, the transitional provisions provide that the amendment does not affect persons and premises already registered for activities under Section 15 of the 1982 Act—for example, tattooing, ear piercing and electrolysis; the amendment does not affect pending local authority resolutions to apply Section 15 of the 1982 Act in their area; where a local authority has already resolved that Section 15 of the 1982 Act should be brought into force in their area for tattooing, ear piercing and electrolysis, the local authority will he automatically enabled to apply the registration and by-laws regime to cosmetic piercing and semi-permanent skin colouring; and a person and premises already registered for ear piercing shall be counted as registered for cosmetic piercing unless cosmetic body piercing is subsequently provided when a new registration would be required.
This is a serious issue and it is only the lateness of the hour that prevents me giving your Lordships some samples from my The Wildcat Collection catalogue of sophisticated body adornments, which has been on my bookshelf for a considerable number of years. I can show noble Lords that there is no part—and I mean no part—of the human anatomy that cannot have fitted to it a sophisticated body adornment. I do not have the guts to read out some of the details, but my noble friend on the Front Bench has been having e look. I have only one copy of this and I shall not put it in the Library.
I just want to make clear that we are talking about a very serious issue. I once did a TV programme, which is where I picked up this catalogue, and one consultant at one hospital—Wolverhampton I believe—gave examples of having to dig out of bodies some of these sophisticated body adornments—which is the phrase I shall always use—from the most unlikely places. He had been quite surprised himself but he knew that it did not all stop at nipple rounders or spiked nipple collars. There were polo locks and nostril studs arid all kind of things. There is a warning on some of the items that they are not suitable for genital piercing—although most of them are—which applies to both males and females. It requires the utmost care. In this case one can take one's own CD and they will do the piercing for you in air-conditioned premises. The prices are obviously a little out of date—I would not dream of reading out some of the prices—and quite modest. As I say, the catalogue has been on my bookshelf for some years.
People choose to do this. One issue I raised on Report was that of young children whose mothers were having them pierced, probably for their own gratification in a way. There is nothing intrinsically wrong or unhealthy in that as long as it is done under proper conditions. There is no question about that; no one says that anything is wrong. The evidence is that the legislation can work in London and we think that the time has come for premises to be more regulated, hence the Government have tabled this amendment. I am only sorry that there is not time to say where all the

369
pear-drop and nuclear weights can be fitted on the body, and the ultimate necklace—I have to say—is not intended for the neck. I beg to move.
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the very welcome reception of this amendment. It was originally moved in the House of Commons by my honourable friend Philip Hammond. After vague promises there we reintroduced the amendment here to see whether we could get those promises firmed up. I am delighted that the Government have seen the sense and, indeed, the necessity of ensuring that these various piercings are carried out under regulated circumstances.
On Report I cited the case of a young man who had diabetes. No medical history was taken because there was no necessity to do so. And because no one was performing particularly capably in the premises where the piercing was carried out, he died. He got septicaemia. That was a desperately unhappy outcome of his trying to make himself look better.
I am delighted that the regulations will be put in force. The Minister was kind enough to write to me about the perplexing question of consent. As the Minister said, not only can mothers have their children's ears pierced, but on the other hand it would be the mothers who would give consent if they were asked for it. So that is a difficult area. I understand that this issue is covered by common law—for example, the assault of a person. So that if there was a complaint made it would, by definition, be something that could be dealt with, although it would probably have to be dealt with by civil prosecution. None the less, this is a huge step forward. I thank the Minister on behalf of my honourable friend, who has been sitting up there for a very long time. I think it is fair to say that he has given up at the one moment when he might have been given credit for the actions that he has taken. I thank the noble Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Northbournemoved Amendment No. 18:
After Clause 118, insert the following new clause—
"EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS OF LOCAL AUTHORITY EMPLOYEES
(1) No employee whose employer is a local authority or local authority company shall be required to work on both a Saturday and the immediately following Sunday if that person has the care and control of a school-age child.
(2) On whichever day the employee is not required to work under subsection (1). he shall not be required to work at any time during that day.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulation provide for—

(a) exemptions or exceptions to cover emergencies;

(b) rights of enforcement and redress for employees through courts or tribunals either already existing or to be established for this purpose;

(c) criminal sanctions.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (1), any adult with whom a school-age child customarily lives as part of his or her family has the care and control of that school-age child and where more than one adult qualifies under this test each of them has the care and control.
(5) In this section—
"employee" and "employer"—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, and Scotland, have the same meaning as in the Employment Rights Act 1996 (c. 18), and

(b) in relation to Northern Ireland have the same meaning as in the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996;

"local authority" means a local authority in any part of the United Kingdom, including the Common Council of the City of London but excluding a parish or community council;

"local authority company" means a company through which is exercised a power conferred under section 95;

"school-age child" means a person who has attained the age of five but has not attained the age of eighteen."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have brought back Amendment No. 18 because a number of your Lordships have indicated that they feel it to be important; indeed, some have even suggested that it should be tested against the opinion of the House.
The amendment has now been revised by the addition of a subsection (3), which addresses some of the objections raised at earlier stages of the Bill, especially those relating to emergencies and emergency services. Those noble Lords who support the amendment believe two things: first, that local authorities should be setting a good example in respect to family friendly employment practices and that it is entirely appropriate that they should be asked to give a lead by Parliament in doing so; and, secondly, that children of school age should not be deprived of the time, love and care of their parents on both of the only two days of the week when they are not in school.
Research shows that children of school age, on average, will do better in school and in later life if they have the opportunity to spend time with their parents, doing things together, learning by example and having a normal happy family life. Surely, one day a week is not too much to ask for.
Children of school age who are left on their own all day when they are out of school are vulnerable. They are liable to join the gang at the end of the street or to get into trouble in one way or another. These things can, through boredom, be precursors to substance abuse and anti-social behaviour. Children need time with their parents. Yet there is clear evidence that family life is under increasing pressure today from the seven-day week. There is an increasing consensus among working fathers and mothers and their children that parental time at weekends, when the children are not in school, is an important issue which needs to be addressed quickly by the Government.
That is emphasised by the comprehensive summary of research published last week by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. I give your Lordships one quotation from that research:
"Despite the plethora of new legislation and policy on families and work, and the need for some of these new employment laws to 'bed down', there are two areas where Government needs to consider further interventions. Long hours of work and Sunday and weekend work by parents of school age children need further consideration".
On Report the Minister said, sadly, that my amendment is inconsistent with the Government's general approach to better regulation. That is, we regulate only when there is an identified problem that cannot be solved in any other way. Well we now know, since last week, that this is an identified problem, a serious problem that has been identified by thorough research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in conjunction with London University. Will the Government either accept the solution I propose in this amendment or else come up with some other solution to the problem?
I know the Government are under pressure from local authorities to reject this amendment and I understand that some local authorities are so short-staffed that they have enormous difficulty in servicing all the demands of their care services including, particularly, those involving young people. But surely the solution is to staff the social services properly rather than to damage the nation's children? Damaging the nation's children is what we are doing by depriving them of family life.
Of course this will cost money, but if the present situation is leading to damage to the nation's children, albeit that that damage may not show for many years, is it not economic good sense to make the necessary investment now? The harm done to children by parental deprivation does not show up immediately but that does not mean that it will not come back to haunt us in the future. The effective care and education of the nation's children is crucial to the future of our society. I urge the Government and the House to take this amendment seriously.
I want to make one more point. The Government have already made a commitment to monitor how existing legislation is working and to commence a review in three years' time. However the existing law relates only to parents of children under six years old, it does not specifically cover families with children of school age. I sincerely hope the Government are prepared to take action on weekend working for families with school-aged children long before 2006, but whether or not they do, will they at least undertake to widen the monitoring and the reviewing of these issues so that it includes all families with school-aged children? I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, enthusiastically and to congratulate him on his persistence. He listened to the arguments throughout the Committee stage and he has modified his amendment, which allows for those occasions when emergency services or unavoidable events require somebody to work Saturday or Sunday.
372
One argument that has been made to me is that almost nobody is required, I mean forced, to work on a Saturday or a Sunday. For those who believe that argument then the amendment is harmless. But if it is not the case and parents of young children are forced, required by the local authority, to work on Saturday and/or Sunday and are given no right whatever not to do so, then it seems to me that the amendment has force, and in that case it has my support.
There is much wringing of hands about young families, dysfunctional families, families that are not coping very well. Governments have set up endless committees, think tanks and task forces. The noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, is constantly telling us about what the Government are doing to make life easier for parents bringing up children and how children should be our prime consideration. That is what the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has said throughout, that the consideration should be for the health and well-being of young children. For some the weekend, Saturday and/or Sunday, is very precious time with their children and it does seem to me that the amendment is a permissive amendment asking, for the right of parents of small children not to be required and/or forced to work on one of those two consecutive days, Saturday and/or Sunday.
There are many families where those are the only days they can work and, indeed, want to work. There are many people who live alone, and working at weekends is one way of getting out and meeting people. There are ways and means of covering it. For areas such as care homes, which I know are particularly sensitive areas, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday are as critical as Saturday and Sunday. Every day of the week is a critical day, and we are saying simply that parents of young children should not be forced. If they are, then it means that they would be denied and discriminated against for employment if they could be required to work on one of those days. They could not take the job unless they were allowed the right not to accede to that request. They would be discriminated against in the workplace and that would be wrong. I support the amendment wholeheartedly.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I rise to ask a question. I have followed this debate and I have been puzzled about it throughout. I understand why the amendment refers to a local authority, because we are discussing a local government Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has also referred to local authorities giving a lead, which is a quite separate matter.
Am I to understand that what the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is really saying is that this ought to apply to all firms in the British economy'? Is that what he really wants? I assume he must be arguing that because I cannot imagine that it would only be the children of local authority employees who would suffer if their parents were not there. So what he is really asking for is something much more fundamental; namely, that all firms in the British economy should have to have a law of this kind applied to them. That may well be right.

373
Certainly I am as sympathetic to the care of children as anybody could possibly be. In the case of my own children—well, I had an easy life as a professor—I was always available. Students got neglected but my children always came first. But the fact is that if our economy is to have any hope in the world whatsoever, to start to move in this direction would be a devastatingly costly exercise. It is all very well to put it forward, and I am as sympathetic as one can be, but to do it within the context of a Bill of this sort, given the fundamental principles involved, seems to be entirely inappropriate, not because the aim is not what we would like to achieve but simply because we are talking about massive costs. I would be very interested in what the Institute of Directors and the CBI would say.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, does the noble Lord, Lord Peston, have any evidence of what those costs would be?
Lord Peston: My Lords, I believe, and I know from speaking to noble Lords opposite—the Tories—that there was a time when they believed in the working of the free market, and essentially I take the view that when we live in a free market economy the free market outcome is prima facie the correct outcome. Every so often when I say that to them they all look at me with horror, but the fact is that that used to be at least the Conservative view. I do not commit the CrossBenchers to anything.
My general view is that imposing burdens on the economy, bearing in mind that the overwhelming majority of people in this country work in the private sector, is something that we ought at least to be careful about.
As I said, I rise not because I do not accept the argument, I am extremely concerned about parents not being there for their children, but the consequences of this proposal are absolutely massive and I would wish to pause before we place this on the statute book in a local government Bill simply because we are discussing a local government Bill. I do not want to be negative in the sense that I do not agree with the sentiment. I do agree with it wholeheartedly, but I am genuinely concerned about the principle rather than the specific.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I rise to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Peston, on the skill and elegance with which he evaded the question asked of him by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, which was where was the evidence for the massive cost to which he said this would give rise.
Lord Peston: My Lords, is the noble Lord, Lord Elton, actually saying that this would be costless? Is he saying that the business firms that do employ people over the weekend are idiots, that they do not know what is in their best interests, and they are somehow going out of their
374
way to ill-treat their employees? The argument is ridiculous. All I am arguing is that the free market outcome is prima facie the correct outcome.
Lord Elton: My Lords, that was not actually the point on which the noble Lord was addressed. The question was, what was the evidence for the massive nature of the costs to which this gives rise. I am being prompted, but I cannot hear the prompts, so I shall continue unsullied by help or hindrance.
I support the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, in a crusade that he has pursued for decades. It started in the days of "Keep Sunday Special", when he attempted to keep free an area of the week when people could count on being free at the same time as the others in their family. That attempt failed. The noble Lord is now trying to secure a time when children at school can be free at the same time as one of their parents, if one of their parents wishes.
I follow the noble Lord, Lord Peston—to his surprise—in thinking that, in principle, the proposed measure is a good thing. I would like to see it as accepted practice among all employers. The Bill applies only to local authorities, but, on the grounds that it is good to pilot any such innovation, this is a good, concise, contained area in which to do so.
I regret that the issue has arisen so late this evening, because my noble friend opened his remarks by saying that he had been advised to test the feeling of the House. I suspect that, on this matter, there is more dirigisme on the other side of the House than there is on this, and that it will be directed at seeing that the amendment fails. I would not like it to do so without recording my warm support for any move that strengthens the bond between parents and children in a society that is becoming increasingly corrosive of that link.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly, and without repetition, support the spirit of the amendment. For the very same reasons as were so well put by my noble friend Lady Blatch, which need no repetition, I hope that the opinion of the House shall not be sought tonight on the amendment. There are problems of costs to the local authorities. The essence of the problem arose when the House accepted Sunday trading—this is a spin-off.
There is a wider dimension, to which the noble Lord, Lord Peston, referred, that requires consideration. If the noble Lord divides the House, I will go with him, but I hope that he does not. I will go with him as a humanitarian gesture which is worthy of support. But I think that it is premature, if I may say so.
I ask the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, to consider one matter to which I draw attention. Look at subsection (3)(c). Why on earth should the criminal law be introduced as a sanction for enforcement when the funds go to the wretched Treasury? What you want is a process of civil law compensation whereby, if the local authority breaches the code or regulations, the person involved says, "Look here, I have suffered damages worth x—say £50, £100 or £150—will you

375
pay me?" If they say "Yes", that is the end of it. If they say "No", he goes to the registrar of the local county court and says, "I want more". The registrar would listen to it all and say, "No, they have given you quite enough; you must pay all costs; so there is a sanction" or "They have not given you enough; I will give you more" and then pay all the costs. The injured person gets compensation by a civil process.
What on earth is the use of giving the Secretary of State powers to introduce criminal sanctions? I ask that that may be taken into account. I have given notice to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, by his series of secretaries in Cambridge or somewhere, that I was going to take this point, so I hope that it does not come as a surprise. If he divides, I will support him as a humanitarian gesture, but, with respect, I think that he would be unwise to do so.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, as I said on Report, in principle I support the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. That was the attitude taken in the House of Commons. I do not think that any noble Lord, particularly those who have children. would not say that weekends are extremely precious, and that they are a very precious time to be with one's children. But to start by saying that all local authorities will have to agree to any request not to have to work on both Saturday and Sunday, without us having some idea of the implication, seems too far-stretched to be included in legislation.
It is well worth exploring the implications of the proposal. My noble friend Lord Hanningfield, the leader of Essex County Council, who has canvassed the idea, believes that the measure would cost potentially millions. He said billions—I have changed the "b" to "m"—but he may well be correct, and I may be wrong as a former leader of a local authority. Under the circumstances, it would be unwise for the measure to be embarked upon in that way.
Somebody needs to take a grip on the matter and see whether the measure is possible. It ought to be possible within the terms of flexible working, which is already part and parcel of employment law. Good employers, under special circumstances, ought to be able to grant such freedom. But I do not know whether they can grant it perpetually to people who have taken on a job that says they will work at weekends. We need to consider that.
I told the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that I would agree in principle—I did so during the previous debate. I hope that he will accept that as a sensible stance by someone who is basically very supportive of the measure but worried about the practicalities. Like my noble friend Lord Campbell, I hope that the noble Lord does not push the amendment to a vote today. But I hope that it does not get lost in a welter of ministerial bromides, and that it is taken seriously. If possible, in the not-too-distant future, someone—not only the Rowntree Trust, which is a valuable organisation—should investigate the implications of
376
this proposal. We could then balance them with the cost to local authorities of children being on the streets. That work needs to be done.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we on these Benches have difficulty with this amendment. My noble friend Lord Russell dealt with it at a previous stage and I will not follow him in referring to the Irishman's pig. At some point, I will ask him what that was all about. However, I follow him in his comments. Our preferred approach is not to look at the prescriptive allocation of particular days of the week. I would he far happier to see what is clearly an important issue addressed in the round.
This matter does not only concern weekdays and weekends. There are hours during the week when many parents operate in an almost child-free or childless zone. They hardly see their children during the week. The issue is much broader than just weekends.
Although local authorities should set a good example, I am unpersuaded that it would be appropriate to impose this arrangement on a sector that is actually a pretty good employer. Earlier in this debate, the noble Lord, Lord North bourne, mentioned local authorities being against the proposal. Certainly, as others—especially the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham—have said, there should he a huge investigation into the implications.
I cannot resist mentioning an article about the French school system that I saw in the Independent two or three days ago. Many French schools still require attendance on Saturday mornings, and many children prefer that, because the alternative is spending time with their parents going to the supermarket. I am sorry that we cannot support the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, before the Minister replies, I would like to say that I am very happy to support at least the principle of the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Northbourne. He has frequently spoken about the need for quality time for the whole family. He was too modest to mention his admirable speech on the Second Reading of the Anti-social Behaviour Bill, when he drew attention to the "Dad-deficit for boys". That is an important factor in keeping them—or not—on the straight and narrow path. Neither did he mention the importance for a significant minority of the Jewish Sabbath on Saturday.
Good employers are already doing what my noble friend wants in many cases. That is particularly true of small employers and farmers, with whom I am more acquainted than with most other types of employer. As has already been said, it is most desirable that local authorities should give what lead they can. I suspect that some of them up might actually find themselves saving overtime payments. The policy would also give

377
trade unions a lever with which to improve the situation of all employees. With those words, I hope that the Minister will give us a favourable response.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, does not the essence of the problem lie with these wretched supermarkets?
Lord Hylton: Indeed, my Lords, shops and other sales outlets are the ones most likely to require their workers to work both Saturday and Sunday.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, before I get into the meat of the issue, it is worth reminding your Lordships that we are discussing the Local Government Bill. I echo the words of congratulation that have already been given to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for his tenacity in bringing forward this amendment. It has already been debated twice—in Grand Committee and on Report. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is a tireless campaigner in this field and he should be congratulated on that. As a parent with three young children, I certainly approve of and endorse his campaigning. Listening to what he and other noble Lords have had to say on this subject, I have a great deal of personal sympathy for his position.
It has been a mature debate. As it has moved on, all the other important considerations have been introduced into it—considerations such as whether it is right that it should apply only to one sector of employment and whether it is right that it should be imposed on the sector of employment that is best conducted—local authorities. Local authorities are good employers and are flexible in their working practices. We all know from our rich years of experience—in Kensington and Chelsea, Essex or wherever—as local authority representatives that local authorities have been very good about introducing innovation in childcare and support for those who care for young children.
This has been an important debate, but issues such as cost, impact and the perversities of the proposition, which were well aired on Report, I think, or in Committee, when the noble Earl, Lord Russell, made a telling intervention, must be taken into account. I am one of those who would like, in principle, to be able to support the amendment but find that I cannot. We need to see how the current legislation works. As the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said, it has not been in place long. As a government, we are well on the road to introducing and ensuring that there are flexible working arrangements and ensuring that nobody is discriminated against unfairly and that family-friendly practices are put in place. It is right to see how those things work in practice and progress, as we always should, on the basis of evidence. It is for that reason that I look forward to 2006, when there will, no doubt, be a thorough review of the way in which the legislation has worked. It is at that stage that some of the considerations to which the noble Lord has drawn attention in moving his amendments will be best addressed.
378
I appreciate that that is some time off, but it is right that we have a monitoring strategy in place. We ought to work closely with the employers, whether they be in the local authority or the private sector, so that we can assess the impact of the legislation and how it has worked and see how best practice has operated and how flexible working practices have worked.
I do not think that I will tread on the toes of too many ministerial colleagues if I say that we would welcome the opportunity at that stage to see whether the matter is an important consideration. That, in itself, will enable the local authority sector to review the impact and consider whether it is an appropriate way forward and will provide the opportunity for employers generally to consider other issues, such as cost, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, referred. Cost is not an insignificant matter. My noble friend Lord Peston made the point forcefully that, although it is a highly desirable direction for public policy to follow, we must balance it with the cost of implementation and the perversities that occur occasionally through implementation.
I hope that the noble Lord does not feel that he needs to press the matter to a Division this evening. That would be unfortunate. However, as Ministers, we have the issue at the front of our mind. We undertake to consider it at a later stage, and we keep it under review at all times. I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing us back to the matter with his trenchant persistence, on which he is to he congratulated, and for his tireless campaigning in the field. I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, may I say to the noble Lord, before he sits down—he cannot reply after I have spoken—that he did not deal with my point about whether the Government would extend the monitoring and review process in 2006 to cover school-age children?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords. that is a fair point. I did not respond to it. It goes without saying that it would make good sense to do that. It would be in the spirit of the legislation that we have introduced in the past few years.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I shall follow the lead given by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and make a humanitarian gesture, by telling your Lordships that I do not intend to test the opinion of the House. The reason, simply, is that I do not think that I should win.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, referred to the immense cost. Everybody talks about the high cost, but I think it is just a question of good management, although the matter needs considerable research. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, introduced the interesting idea of having a civil remedy, rather than a criminal remedy. That needs exploring further.
I do not want to delay the House. I am extremely grateful for contributions made by noble Lords, which will assist in arriving at a better way of achieving this

379
objective. I hope that the noble Lord's department might be prepared to enter into discussions with noble Lords and others who are interested to determine whether the matter can be moved forward over the next months and years. I promise I shall come back on this subject—unless the Lord takes me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 120 [Repeal of prohibition on promotion of homosexuality]:
Lord Brightmanmoved Amendment No. 19:
Page 75, line 40, at end insert—
"(2) Subject to the general principle that the institution of marriage is to be supported, a local authority shall not encourage, or publish material intended to encourage, the adoption of any particular sexual lifestyle.
(3) This section does not prohibit the provision for young persons of sex education or counselling services on sexual behaviour and associated health risks."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, although it may not be very obvious at first glance, this amendment is. in substance, a drafting amendment, but it is an essential one. The only purpose of the amendment is to clarify what would otherwise be an ambiguous situation. Section 28—to use the familiar description—prohibited a local authority from promoting homosexuality. What was meant by promoting is irrelevant for present purposes. I believe that it has a dictionary meaning of encouraging, but that does not matter.
Clause 120 states that Section 28 "ceases to have effect". The question arises: what exactly is the result? Let me take a simple analogy. Suppose that there is a notice on a garden lawn: "It is prohibited to walk on the grass". Suppose that notice is removed. What is the result? What are walkers being told? They are being told that it is no longer forbidden to walk over the grass.
So with Section 28, which states that a local authority is prohibited from promoting homosexuality. Section 28 is repealed. What is the message? A local authority is no longer prohibited from promoting homosexuality. That is clearly not the intention of the Government. The Government try to meet the ambiguity point by saying that local authorities can undertake only those activities for which they have specific powers. Therefore, no more need he said.
But that response is flawed. It overlooks the fact that, as a matter of law, rights and powers—I do not mind which word is used—can be created not only expressly but also by implication. If a course of action is prohibited by statute and then the prohibition is removed, what was previously prohibited is, by implication, sanctioned. If Clause 120 stands on its own, without any explanation, the result is that what was previously prohibited—the encouragement of homosexuality—is, by implication, now sanctioned.
If the situation is not clarified and there is a law case, I can see the case wending its extensive way to the House of Lords— all for the want of a few words of clarification, which Parliament can so easily provide. Perhaps I may take your Lordships to the wording of
380
my amendment, for my suggestion of a way of resolving the ambiguity point. I have done it in a way which I hope will cause no offence to anyone. It does not alter one line of the Bill. It begins with the words:
"Subject to the general principle that the institution of marriage is to be supported."
Those words are lifted verbatim from Section 1 of the Family Law Act 1996. They can be removed by the Commons if the Government do not like them. The amendment continues:
"A local authority shall not encourage, or publish material intended to encourage the adoption of any particular sexual lifestyle."
The Government may say that the words "sexual lifestyle" lack definition. I do not mind. The Commons, with their highly experienced parliamentary draftsmen, can no doubt think of a better terminology. My wording, or their better wording, will preclude the implication that what was previously prohibited is now sanctioned.
My amendment concludes with the important words:
"This section does not prohibit the provision for young persons of sex education or counselling services on sexual behaviour and associated health risks."
That is inserted merely to make sure that I am not interfering with sexual education.
I am not a politician. I have no experience of local government. I am only in your Lordships' House ex officio because I have spent my life in the law and ended up as a judge. I am convinced that it is my duty to advise your Lordships that an uncertainty exists. If the Bill is returned to the Commons with my amendment, they can resolve the ambiguity in whatever way they please. I must advise your Lordships that the ambiguity should be removed.
I may be asked why I am moving an important amendment so late in the day. The answer is that that is what the Companion tells me to do. Third Reading is the proper time to clarify any remaining uncertainties in the Bill. I do not know whether there will be a Division on my amendment, but if there is, a vote for the amendment is a vote for clarity. A vote against—and I intend no offence—would be a vote in favour of ambiguity.
I conclude by reminding the House of the words of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, in debate on the drafting of statutes. He said:
"It is essential for reasons of legal certainty and the rule of law, that legislation should be drafted as clearly as possible and in a manner which reflects the objects and purposes of Parliament in using its sovereign power to make the law of the land".ֵ[Official Report, 21/1/98; col. 1591]
I ask your Lordships to support the amendment, which I only put forward in what I believe is the best interests of the promoters of this legislation. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I have difficulties with this amendment. I speak with utmost deference and respect, having appeared befDre the noble and learned Lord when he was a High Court judge, in the Court of Appeal and in the Appellate

381
Committee. He is one of the best equipped legal draftsmen whom I have known in my experience at the Bar, but I have problems with his amendment.
My problem is that, if the amendment had said, in ordinary language, that the local authority should say that the right way of living is with a family in marriage, I would have been content. That would have been in accordance not only with the Christian faith, of which most of us are members, but with the Islamic faith and the Jewish faith. The amendment, as I read it—though I may be totally inept—does not ordain that the encouragement for the children should be to understand the importance of marriage, whether they be Christians, Islamic, Jews or whatever. That is my problem. Therefore, I have a difficulty with the amendment, but perhaps my difficulty is ill conceived.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, on having shown the patience of Job in waiting for the right moment for the amendment to come out. He has been waiting for the resolution of the debate on Section 28 and has had the amendment on the Order Paper without moving it all through the progress of the Bill. He has sat through many hours when his amendment has not come out and, so far as I know, has not breathed one word of complaint. That is an example to us all.
However, I am not convinced that the noble and learned Lord is setting out to meet a genuine danger. If one considers the Learning and Skills Act 2000 and the guidance drafted by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn in conjunction with a great many other people, one can see that a great deal has already been done to plug the gap that the noble and learned Lord believes is there. However, I shall leave the detail of that to the Minister.
The second part of the amendment says that,
"a local authority shall not encourage, or publish material intended to encourage, the adoption of any particular sexual lifestyle".
I would not have chosen the word "lifestyle", but the sentiment is exactly right. It is not the business of schools to do that. How we should live is a matter that is to be resolved by individuals and by collective conscience in groups. It is not the business of schools to teach that one way of living is right and another is not. If that had been the whole of the amendment, even though I believe it to be unnecessary, I would have been perfectly content to see it on the statute book.
However, my problem is with the first words of the amendment, that,
"the institution of marriage is to be supported".
Your Lordships know my own personal views on marriage. One thing that I have against it is that "till death do us part" is not long enough. But I do not feel entitled to take legislation to enforce my particular preference and conscience on other people. A great many people, among whom I would include my two sisters-in-law, for whom I have great affection, have a genuine conscientious objection to the state of marriage. However, they live together in a union—or,
382
in one case I regret to say used to live together in a union when she was alive—as true, as loving and as faithful as any that I can think of. Qualitatively I can see no difference between those types of union.
It is very dangerous to start using the law as a kind of hortatory device to support marriage. In fact it sounds very often as though in medieval theology marriage had been not a sacrament but a penance. The more people think of it as a sacrament the more I would have thought that they would have had reservations about using the law and financial incentives to support it. To use financial incentives to spread a sacramental grace is simonious and that, metaphorically, expresses some of the objections that I feel about the idea of using the law to encourage marriage. It is a matter for the individual conscience and it ought to be undertaken with a whole heart, complete will and genuine intention or not at all.
The amendment could possibly have the inadvertent effect of discouraging things which need to be done in cases where marriages have not worked; for example, the provision of women's refuges for people who have had to leave marriages which very patently are not working. I am certain that never for a moment was that the noble and learned Lord's intention, but without an exhaustive trawl through statutes, for which I have not the resources, I cannot be sure that that would not be its effect. If it is, I hope that it will not happen.
I said at earlier stages of the Bill that people feel committed to each other in unions by different things, not necessarily by the ceremony of marriage, even if they have gone through it. One or two noble Lords may possibly remember that I mentioned a couple with whom we had dinner 15 years ago and who were both coming out of a failed first marriage and hesitating before commitment to a second. They discussed with each other at some length what would make them feel that they had made a commitment to each other. They decided that it would be when they took one subscription instead of two to their favourite learned journal.
It so happens that by sheer chance I met that couple again at a party last Sunday evening. I asked them what they had done about it. They said that they had taken out a single subscription to that journal and that the editor had been furious. Here, what stands in the way of family values is not liberalism but commerce. That is a point which we could all afford to take. They had got married but they said that it was not the marriage which gave them their sense of commitment and the sense that they were a union; it was that they had only the one copy of the journal so if they ever parted one of them would be without the back numbers and without one of the basic resources of living.
I do not know how many other ways there are in which people may feel that they are committed to each other, but they are truly legion. If one looks at people who have gone through the ceremony of marriage one may see two complete strangers. By contrast, as recently as last weekend I was having dinner with a couple who were obviously, in any inward and

383
spiritual sense, as completely a married couple as I have ever seen. They had a private language; they understood each other instantly; they would react to something I said as one person. Both of them are still in the process of freeing themselves from marriages to other people, but in any inward and spiritual sense, those people are as married as any couple who have been through a ceremony I have ever met.
So I believe that simply enforcing, encouraging or even using the power of the state to give primacy to a ceremony is a mistake. It is taking the letter and not the spirit. There are many instances that the letter killeth and the spirit gives it life which, not being a Christian, I quote in a metaphorical sense. But in a metaphorical sense I believe that it is a truth and that is why we on these Benches have difficulty with this amendment. For a party with liberalism in its philosophy, it is a matter for the individual conscience.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I rise to ask a question. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, said that his purpose was to produce clarity where there would otherwise he confusion. In my case he has produced confusion where, until he spoke, I thought the matter was clear. As I understood it, some years ago a reactionary House of Lords passed an amendment, Clause 28, which was viciously anti-homosexual and prohibited what it called the promotion of homosexuality. The law was changed.
As I understood it, a few weeks ago the House removed that provision and returned the law to where it was. That is the whole story as far as I am concerned. There is no confusion whatever. Will the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, tell us whether, if he passes his amendment, we will return to banning the promotion of homosexuality? I read his amendment as reintroducing Clause 28 in a different form of words.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, I hope that the point about lack of clarity in the Bill will not be overlooked. Probably not lawyers, but ordinary people tend to think that if one removes a prohibition one gives a permission. Since Clause 28 was so notoriously antihomosexual—I entirely agree with that point, it was a disgraceful clause—removing it, of which I am greatly in favour, suggests an ambiguity about the entitlement of teachers.
I was persuaded by my noble and learned friend in his exposition of that ambiguity, but I find a certain contradiction in proposed subsection (2) between,
"Subject to the general principle",
and,
"shall not encourage, or publish material intended to encourage, the adoption of any particular lifestyle".
Marriage is a particular sexual lifestyle. If it is to be supported then that is to encourage a particular sexual lifestyle.
I would he happy with the amendment removing any possible ambiguity if it started after the comma, so that it read,
"a local authority shall not encourage, or publish material",
384
and so on. That would rule out any preference that a teacher might have, whether for marriage, homosexuality or any other sex style we would like to imagine. I am a believer in marriage, but I do not make any distinction among my five children between the two who live with partners unmarried and the three who are married. They are all my children and sons-in-law and daughters-in-law, although I never know quite how to refer to them.
The first proposed subsection is the trouble. Nevertheless, there is an ambiguity in the Bill as it stands.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, is right in one of his assumptions: if in law there has been a prohibition measure—like him I scanned the dictionary, and it subsumes encouragement of homosexuality—and it is removed and there is no substitute, that means that it is a legal activity. The promotion of homosexuality becomes permissible and legal. To that extent the noble and learned Lord is right.
I believe that I was wilfully misunderstood when I tried to put something in place of accepting. the abolition of Clause 28 to give the power to parents to make judgments about the materials used and the content of sex education outside the national curriculum and the degree to which they believed it was appropriate for their children. That was denied me. As I say, I believe that it was wilful misinterpretation. I have read and reread the debate, which was all about my subverting Clause 28 and reinserting it by the backdoor and all the rest of it. I thought that it was straightforward support for parents and a straightforward provision to protect children from the worst form of sex education and the worst form of materials used for sex education.
I have one difficulty which has already been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. I very strongly support the first line of subsection (2), which states:
"Subject to the general principle that the institution of marriage is to be supported".
However, there is a difficulty with the second part of the subsection, which equates marriage with all other lifestyles. Consequently, the two parts of the provision almost contradict one another.
I unashamedly want to distinguish marriage from other forms of sexual lifestyle. Not only do I think that marriage should be supported; the Government and the Prime Minister believe it should be supported. The Foreign Secretary is on record as making very strong statements of support for marriage and as advocating marriage as the best arrangement, not only for bringing up children but for ensuring the cohesion of society. I support it very strongly and I should like to see the distinction. If no such provision goes to the other place, the other place will have no opportunity to consider the basic dilemma. A prohibition has been removed but nothing has been put in its place.
So I want to put on record my view that there is a difficulty and ambiguity in subsection (2) of the amendment. However, if the noble and learned Lord,

385
Lord Brightman, wishes to seek the opinion of the House, I should like to think that there will be support for it. He will have my support because I think that the provision will keep the debate alive in another place and that it will allow further thought to be given to what should be put in place of the abolished Clause 28. That is why I shall support the noble and learned Lord.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I have put my name to the amendment. I do not wish to delay the House. I am sorry that this debate has, in my view, degenerated into another ongoing discussion about homosexuality, because I do not think that that is what this amendment is about. For me—one may think rather naively—the problem is much simpler. I believe that this amendment is about a tolerant and inclusive society. We know from the enormous lobby that many of us received that there are many in this country who are very deeply worried about the abolition of Section 28. I do not happen to be one of them. However, those people, whether they were right or wrong, were terrified that their children and grandchildren were going to be put in a situation where there was some sort of promotion of homosexuality or other kind of sexual lifestyle indoctrination.
We know that that is not the case. However, I believe that every government have the responsibility to act not only for those who vote for them but also, once they are elected, for all citizens. I think that the Government should show more concern for that enormous chunk of the population who are deeply worried about this situation. That was one of the reasons why I wanted to support the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. I also support the point that he made about the uncertainty which was created by negativing a positive statement without in any way making clear what we mean.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I rise briefly in support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and in search of illumination. I would be grateful if he would tell me if I am not right in thinking that the first line makes the rest of subsection (2),
"Subject to the general principle".
In other words, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway can be reassured that the principle is already established, as the noble and learned Lord told us, in the Learning and Skills Act. So the noble Earl, Lord Russell, can be reassured that this is no new introduction in law of proselytization for marriage; it is a repetition.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am well aware of that. I think I made the point in 1996.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I regret that I was not perhaps awake at the moment that the point was made, or perhaps my memory is not as good as the noble Earl's. As it is not a new point, there is no point in objecting to it as though it were. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, has achieved what he
386
set out to do—to remove an ambiguity. If that were not removed there would be an inequality of treatment between different potential lifestyles. I am glad that there is a prohibition, subject to the provision in the first line of paragraph (2), for the promotion of particular lifestyles, because nobody has talked about the lifestyle of young people who count sexual conquests as Red Indians used to count scalps.
This is a heterosexual as well as a homosexual matter. There are all sorts of lifestyles which are bad, not merely medically—as covered by paragraph (3) —but spiritually, and I would not wish to see them promoted. Therefore, to prevent all such promotion, subject to the general principle that the institution of marriage is to be supported, is an admirable clarification of the intention of the law.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, this has been a useful debate and many noble Lords have contributed. I hope that my notes will cover all of the issues raised. This amendment comes a little late in the day. That is not a criticism, but just in the sense that we are at Third Reading. The arguments on this amendment seem to have changed since Committee stage.
Amendment No. 19 concerns the repeal of Section 28 as we know it. It seeks to place a broad duty on local authorities to prevent them from, with the exception of supporting the principle of marriage, promoting any particular sexuality across any of their functions. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, said quite clearly in Committee that his only purpose in tabling the amendment was to avoid a difference of opinion between this House and the other place, which would delay the Bill and mean further argument about Section 28. I am very glad to say that that is not the situation in which we find ourselves.
I remind noble Lords that we saw at Report that the view of this House is quite clear on the repeal of Section 28. The amendment to repeal was defeated by 180 votes to 130. In view of such a majority, it seems odd that we are again debating the noble and learned Lord's amendment given that it was originally put forward as a compromise. However, I shall turn now to the substance.
Over the summer we have considered the amendment carefully, but as we explained in Committee, we do not believe that it offers advantages beyond the straightforward repeal of Section 28, which is currently enshrined in the Bill in Clause 120. Indeed we believe that the amendment has some disadvantages.
As we made clear in Committee, the new clause is unnecessary as far as sex education is concerned. The main responsibilities fall to schools and we have in place an adequate framework of protections. Indeed, the approach in the new clause with regard to sex education closely reflects that of the existing sex relationship education guidance which says, in paragraph 1.21, that:
"pupils should be taught about the nature and importance of marriage for family life and bringing up children, but that there are strong and mutually supportive relationships outside marriage".

387
Paragraph 1.30 states that,
"teachers should be able to deal honestly and sensitively with sexual orientation, answer appropriate questions and offer support and that there should be no direct promotion of sexual orientation".
There are, however, wider considerations. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, pointed out one of the problems with the proposal in his contribution in Committee when he questioned what he described as the "monopolistic provision" for marriage in the proposed new clause. I appreciate that the promoters consider that the new clause simply repeats provisions in the Family Law Act passed under the previous administration, to which reference has been made. I also recall that in Committee the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, said that his intention was to avoid causing offence to anyone. I believe him entirely. However, it is clear to us that this new clause would in fact be offensive to many people—not just homosexual couples but unmarried heterosexual couples as well.
It is also worth pointing out—this reinforces the points that have been made—that the Family Law Act had as its primary purpose dealing with the fallout from breakdown and disputes in marriage and domestic relationships. The general principle regarding the institution of marriage is arguably relevant in dealing with divorce and separation and legal aid for mediation—the matters with which the 1996 Act deals. It does not follow that it is a "freestanding" provision that should underpin all of a local authority's functions, which is what the intent of the amendment appears to be.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. My understanding is that the Family Law Act has never been implemented. Is that right?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I cannot answer that question: I shall take advice on it.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I believe the position is that Part 3 of the Act has not been implemented.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I was just about to say that several Acts have parts that are never implemented. I shall certainly check whether that is the case with the Act we are discussing. However, that does not alter the point that I am making and does not obviate the paragraph that I have just read out which I shall repeat. As I said, it is worth noting that the Family Law Act had as its primary purpose dealing with the fallout from breakdown and disputes in marriage and domestic relationships. The general principle regarding the institution of marriage is arguably relevant in dealing with divorce and separation and legal aid for mediation—the matters with which the 1996 Act deals. But it does not follow that it is a "freestanding" provision that should underpin all of a local authority's functions, which is what the intent of the amendment appears to be.
I also appreciate the efforts that the promoters have taken in order to ensure that the measure would not obstruct local authorities in their responsibilities for
388
sex education and sexual health. However, the very fact that they have done so in the second limb of the amendment indicates the main problem associated with their approach. It is a recipe for confusion and uncertainty for local government about what would fall inside or outside the prohibition. That is very important. There is a seductive argument that would lead us along the path of saying that if we accept that authorities should not be promoting a particular lifestyle choice—and we do—we should not object to the law saying so. As I say, it is a seductive argument but I believe that it is one we should resist.
We have given local authorities the powers to be community leaders—a role that we have asked them to develop for the benefit of all the people living in and using their areas and services. Local authorities know that they should act responsibly. They should, indeed, not be promoting any specific lifestyle choice. But equally they should be able to provide services that meet the needs of all members of their communities, including those who may already feel quite marginalised. We should be wary of inadvertently making that task more difficult. We believe that despite its good intentions the amendment has the capacity to cause unnecessary confusion about exactly those kind of issues. For those reasons I hope that the noble and learned Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
9 p.m.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, one lesson that I have learnt this evening is the danger of leaving a drafting amendment to Third Reading. Then, there is no possibility of meeting by means of a few words objections to the actual terminology involved. Leaving a drafting amendment to Third Reading means that you have burnt all your boats except the one that you are in, which is sinking. So, in future, I shall always introduce my drafting amendments on Report, whatever your Lordships may say about it.
I did think of doing that during the debate on Report, but the clock said 11 o'clock and there had just been a Division which had taken up a great deal of time. I felt that it would be unfair to burden your Lordships with a debate on drafting at that stage. I intimated, as your Lordships can read in Hansard, that I intended to introduce this proposal al. Third Reading. I have learnt my lesson.
I said again and again in introducing the amendment that I was not wedded to any particular wording. I made it absolutely clear, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, pointed out, that my only purpose was to get the amendment to another place so that Members there could put their skilled draftsmen on to it and achieve a terminology that would suit both Houses.
If the amendment were rejected, as I said earlier, that would be a vote in favour of ambiguity. If I divide the House, a vote in favour of the amendment will at least be a vote in favour of certainty, because the whole of this can be put right in the Commons.

389
I know that there have been innumerable Divisions already and it is nine o'clock, but I think that I would be letting down many of my friends if I did not seek the opinion of your Lordships. I wish to press my amendment.
9.2 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 19) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 25; Not-Contents, 100.

Division No. 7

CONTENTS

Blatch, B.

Kimball, L.

Brightman, L. [Teller]

Kingsland, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

McCarthy, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Marlesford, L.

Byford, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Cooke of Thorndon, L.

Northbourne, L.[Teller]

Dixon, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Palmer, L.

Elton, L.

Seccombe, B.

Fookes, B.

Waddington, L.

Glentoran, L.

Warnock, B.

Hylton, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.[Teller]

Addington, L.

Alderdice, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Alli, L.

Greengross, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Grocott, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Hamwee, B.

Barker, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Haskel, L.

Berkeley, L.

Hayman, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Blackstone, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Borrie, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Burlison, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Hoyle, L.

Carter, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Chandos, V.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Jones, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Layard, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Crawley, B.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

David, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Mclntosh of Hudnall, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Desai, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Dubs, L.

McNally, L.

Elder, L.

Maddock, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Filkin, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Gale, B.

Mitchell, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Morgan, L.

Golding, B.

Norton of Louth, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Parekh, L.

Goodhart, L.

Pendry, L.

Goudie, B.

Peston, L.

390

Pitkeathley, B.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Radice, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Rea, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Richard, L.

Tordoff, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Richardson of Calow, B.

Walmsley, B.

Rooker, L.

Whitaker, B.

Roper, L.

Whitty, L.

Russell, E. [Teller]

Williams of Crosby, B.

St.John of Bletso, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord President of the Council)

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.12 p.m.
Clause 126 [Commencement]:
Lord Rookermoved Amendments Nos. 20 to 24:
Page 77, line 33, after "71," insert "72,"
Page 77. line 33, after "103," insert "109,"
Page 78, line 17, leave out "sections 22(2) and" and insert "section"
Page 78, line 30, leave out "109 to" and insert "110,"
Page 78, line 38, after "67" insert ", 67A"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 25: Page 79, line 6, after "58," insert "65A(2),"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment we will briefly debate Amendment No. 27, which inserts the words on the Order Paper into Schedule 6, page 114, line 10.
During the conclusion of the Report stage in the summer I indicated that the statement being made that day by the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on education funding would include a proposal relevant to this Bill, involving a minor amendment to education legislation. I wrote subsequently to the noble Baronesses, Lady Hanham, Lady Hamwee and Lady Maddock, and to the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, explaining the Government's intention in more detail, and my letter was placed in the Library of the House. The amendment as now presented for consideration by your Lordships' House has since been extended, as I shall explain. Representatives of local education authorities and head teachers have also been consulted about the amendment over the summer.
The amendment is concerned with Sections 45A and 45B of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, as amended by the Education Act 2002. Under those provisions, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills and the National Assembly for Wales have a reserve power to set a minimum schools budget for a local authority where the authority's proposed schools budget is considered inadequate in all the circumstances.
First, as advised in my letter, the amendments bring forward by one month to 31st December the schools budget deadline by which local education authorities in England are required to notify the Secretary of State for Education and Skills and their schools of their proposed schools budget for the following financial

391
year. We intend to announce the provisional local government finance settlement in the middle of November. That will make it possible for local authorities to decide by the end of December what schools budget they will propose. The effect will be to give schools much greater certainty about their funding earlier in the year, so that they can plan more effectively for the following year.
Secondly, these amendments change the deadline by which the Secretary of State for Education and Skills or the National Assembly for Wales must give notice of their intention to use the reserve power, to 14 days from the schools budget deadline instead of 14 days from the date of each individual authority's notification of its proposed schools budget. That will ensure a common timetable for the consideration of all authorities' proposed schools budgets.
In short, it is a technical adjustment to the calendar for making the very important decisions on the large expenditure— by both central and local government—of the schools budget for this country. I beg to move.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comments. Unfortunately, I missed the first part of his speech. We have reservations about the timetable. All governments—there is no difference between Conservative and Labour governments—often give promises about the timetabling of announcements of the grant to local authorities. There have been many years when, for example, Parliament has closed for a week before the Queen's Speech in the middle of November—that is very likely to happen—so announcements for local government finance are made 10 days later than originally planned. I gather from officers of the Local Government Association that already there are discussions about the statistics used in making the grant announcements.
Given such factors, it could be early December before the announcement is made—for reasons that the Government might say they cannot control. It will then he impossible to deliver school budgets by the end of December. We all want to support schools as much as possible. But a 1 per cent increase in expenditure in local authorities means a 4 per cent rise in council tax. Most authorities are determined to do all they can to avoid increasing council tax. That might mean not being able to pass money to schools, because it depends on how the grant settlement works out. In Essex last year, council tax had to be increased by 5 per cent virtually to reach the target for schools alone. We are not prepared to do that again, so the schools budget will depend very much on the settlement.
There is also a technical problem as regards local authorities: their budget meetings do not take place until early February. Although they might indicate what they will give schools, they must decide the rest of the budget, and it will not become council policy until early February. Although there will be government indications of what they expect to give schools, it will not be a cast iron guarantee unless the Government expect all councils to change the dates of their total budget processes before Christmas.
392
We would like those issues clarified. What happens if the Government cannot give the grant settlement at the time that has been mentioned? What happens if the grant settlement means huge increases in council tax, which councils will not agree easily? What happens to legal procedures in councils when the final budget decisions are not taken by a full council until early February? I see that the Minister has been joined by a Minister from the education department and I would be grateful for some clarity about how the system will operate, especially if the Government cannot keep to the deadlines that they have announced.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the Minister is lucky that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is not behind him waving the Companion.
The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, raised important points about the practicality of the policy, which I shall not repeat. We have always opposed this reserve power for the Secretary of State to intervene in the education budget. However, in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said, I acknowledge the additional time that local authorities will have to prepare their budgets. Perhaps the key issue is the one that has not been addressed—whether the Government will follow through on their assurance to give local authorities more guaranteed, longer-term funding and fewer year-to-year changes.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I will read this. It says,
"For use if pressed only. Question: How can this amendment work if there is a delay to the provisional local government financial settlement? Local authorities will not have time to decide their proposed schools budgets",
which is exactly the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield.
I will now read the three paragraphs that follow:
"The Government is firmly committed to bringing the date of the provisional local government finance settlement earlier. We will be doing everything possible to ensure that the provisional settlement for 2004–5 is made as early as possible this year. We plan to announce the provisional settlement by the middle of November.
In addition, well in advance of the provisional settlement, we will also be providing local authorities with key information on the minimum increase in funding per pupil to be provided and the floor increase in resources for local authorities which will underpin that guarantee.
By bringing these announcements forward, we will be providing authorities with adequate time to set their proposed schools budgets by 31st December".
I cannot make it any clearer than that. That is as firm a commitment as I can possibly give and I think that it answers the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, as I said, what happens if the opening of Parliament happens at that crucial time? The figures are crucial. They must be available in mid-November; otherwise it will not he possible to set budgets.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, as I have discovered in the past six years, Parliaments may recess, but

393
governments never do. However, the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, raised a fundamental issue—I am now thinking on my feet. He made a point about the proximity of the announcements and the Queen's Speech, the date of which I do not have a clue about. It is right that these announcements are made to Parliament; otherwise, there is a row, because large amounts of public expenditure are involved. I would hope that in a commonsense world, with the type of change that we are proposing—bringing information to school heads and local authorities earlier—we could make whatever announcements were necessary to the relevant people at the right time to enable them to do their job of budget planning.
I am not saying that we would usurp Parliament, because that would be ridiculous, but I quite understand the problem of proximity. I would hope that it would not stand in the way of wrecking what would be a new system. Obviously, getting the information by the middle of November is crucial for local authorities making their budgets by the 31st December deadline. I fully accept that December is not a full working month because of Christmas and the New Year. However, these are practical problems for which the Government are duty bound to find solutions, rather than saying, "We couldn't do it".
If the information is available, we have to make sure that it is published. We must do that for the sake of the 24,000 or so schools in this country, so that their heads have more certainty and clarity and so that the budget planners in the local authority can organise their budgets. I fully accept that.
I have taken the problems on board. I will make sure that I put to my colleagues in the ODPM responsible for this side of local government—as opposed to the education department—how fundamental it is that we keep to the points that I made in the three paragraphs earlier, which were headed,
"For use if pressed only".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 26:
Before Schedule 6, insert the following new schedule—

SCHEDULE SECTION (REGULATION OF COSMETIC PIERCING AND SKIN-COLOURING BUSINESSES): TRANSITION
Commencement not to affect existing application of section 15 of the 1982 Act
1 The coming into force of section (Regulation of cosmetic piercing and skin-colouring businesses) shall not affect the descriptions of person in relation to whom section 15 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 (c. 30) applies in an area in which that section is already in force.
Commencement not to affect pending resolutions about the application of section 15 of the 1982 Act
2 (1) This paragraph applies where immediately before the coming into force of section (Regulation of cosmetic piercing and skin-colouring businesses)—

(a) there is in force a resolution under section 13(2) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 (c. 30) that section 15 of that Act is to apply to an authority's area, and

(b) the resolution specifies as the day for the coming into force of that section the day on which section (Regulation of cosmetic piercing and skin-colouring businesses) comes into force, or any later day.

(2) The coming into force of section (Regulation of cosmetic piercing and skin-colouring businesses) shall not affect—

(a) the validity of the resolution, or

(b) the descriptions of person in relation to whom section 15 of that Act applies in pursuance of the resolution.

Additional powers of commencement in relation to section 15 of the 1982 Act as amended
3 (1) This paragraph applies where an authority has before the coming into force of section (Regulation of cosmetic piercing and skin-colouring businesses) passed a resolution that provides, or resolutions that between them provide, for section 15 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 (c. 30) to apply to the authority's area in relation to all of the existing descriptions of person.
(2) Section 13 of that Act shall have effect for the purpose of enabling the authority to bring section 15 of that Act into force in its area—

(a) in relation to persons carrying on the business of cosmetic piercing, and

(b) in relation to persons carrying on the business of semipermanent skin-colouring.

(3) In sub-paragraph (1), the reference to the existing descriptions of person is to the descriptions of person specified in section 15(1) of that Act immediately before the coming into force of section (Regulation of cosmetic piercing and skin-colouring businesses).
Effect of existing ear-piercing registrations following extension of control to cosmetic piercing
4 (1) This paragraph applies where, immediately before section 15 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 (c. 30) comes into force in an authority's area in relation to persons carrying on the business of cosmetic piercing—

(a) that section is in force in the area in relation to persons carrying on the business of ear-piercing, and

(b) a person is registered under that section by the authority to carry on a business of ear-piercing at premises in the area which are registered under that section for the carrying-on of that business.

(2) From the coming into force of that section in that area in relation to persons carrying on the business of cosmetic piercing, the registrations of the person and the premises in respect of ear-piercing shall have effect as registrations in respect of cosmetic piercing, subject to sub-paragraph (3).
(3) Sub-paragraph (2) ceases to apply when the business of cosmetic piercing carried on by the person at the premises subsequently first involves cosmetic piercing other than ear-piercing.
Interpretation
5 In this Schedule, except paragraph 2(1)(a) and 3(1), any reference to section 15 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 (c. 30) includes a reference to section 16 of that Act so far as it has effect for the purposes of that section."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Rookermoved Amendments Nos. 27 and 28:
Page 114, line 10, at end insert—
"School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (c. 31) and Education Act 2002 (c. 32)
65A (1) Sections 45A and 45B of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (which provide for the setting of a local education authority's schools budget) are amended in accordance with sub-paragraphs (3) to (6).
(2) In sections 41 and 42 of the Education Act 2002, the sections 45A and 45B inserted into the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 are amended in accordance with those sub-paragraphs.
(3) In section 45A(5) (authority to set, and give notice of, its schools budget before the end of January), for "end of January" there is substituted "schools budget deadline".
(4) In section 45A, after subsection (5) there is inserted—
"(6) For the purposes of this section and section 45B "the schools budget deadline" is—

(a) the end of December in the case of an authority in England, and

(b) the end of January in the case of an authority in Wales."

(5) In section 45B(1) (appropriate person may serve counter-notice within period of fourteen days beginning with giving of notice), for "day on which the notice was given" there is substituted "schools budget deadline in the financial year preceding that financial year".
(6) In section 45B(2) (power of appropriate person to act where authority has not given notice under section 45A(5) by the end of January)—

(a) for "end of January" there is substituted "schools budget deadline", and

(b) for "the end of that January" there is substituted "that deadline"."

Page 114, line 17, at end insert—
"67A (1) Section 52 (meetings of the London Assembly) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (4) there is inserted—
"(4A) There must be at least 21 clear days between a meeting under subsection (3) above and the last such meeting before it, but this does not apply to the gap between the first such meeting after an ordinary election and the last such meeting before that election."
(3) In subsection (6)(b) (notice of meeting under subsection (3) to be given at least 28 clear days before meeting), for "28" there is substituted "14".
(4) Subsection (7) (notice of meeting not to be given during currency of a notice already given) is omitted."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Repeals and revocations]:
Lord Rooker: moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 118, line 46, column 2, after "Sections" insert "52(7),"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

European Union (Accessions) Bill
9.26 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: 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.—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause I agreed to.
Clause 2 [Freedom of movement for workers]:
Baroness Symons of Vernham Deanmoved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 16, leave out from "instrument" to the end of line 17 and insert—
"(5A) Regulations may not be made under this section unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(5B) But, in the case of regulations other than the first set of regulations under this section, subsection (5A) does not apply if it appears to the Secretary of State that by reason of urgency they should be made without being approved in draft.
(5C) Where by virtue of subsection (5B) regulations are made without being approved in draft, the regulations—

(a) must be laid before Parliament, and

(b) cease to have effect at the end of the period mentioned in subsection (5D) unless they are approved during that period by resolution of each House of Parliament.

(5D) The period referred to in subsection (5C)(b) is the period of 40 days—

(a) beginning with the day on which the regulations are made, and

(b) ignoring any period during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both I-louses are adjourned for more than four days.

(5E) The fact that regulations cease to have effect by virtue of subsection (5C)—

(a) does not affect the lawfulness of anything done before the regulations cease to have effect, and

(b) does not prevent the making of new regulations."

The noble Baroness said: This is the Government's sole amendment to the Bill. It is the response to the reports by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. I am grateful to the Select Committee and, in particular, to its chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, for the committee's work on the Bill. The Committee will see, in the Select Committee's 21st and 23rd reports, that we have had several courteous and reasonable exchanges about the appropriate level of parliamentary control of regulations made under Clause 2 on freedom of movement for workers.
The amendment is a compromise between the Government's position and the Select Committee's original recommendation. The amendment takes up directly a suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, in his letter to me dated 9th July. Because of that, I hope that the Government's amendment will be generally acceptable to the Committee. For the benefit of those who may not be familiar with the issues, I shall briefly explain the Government's position on the compromise suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, and accepted by me in the form of the amendment.

397
It is the Government's intention, in line with our declared policy, to bring regulations under Clause 2 into force on 1st May next year. The regulations will grant the right to freedom of movement for work to nationals of all eight states affected by the treaty's transitional provisions. The regulations will take the form of an amendment to the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2000.
The Government took the view that the negative procedure was the appropriate level of parliamentary control for two reasons. First, the EEA regulations were adopted under the negative procedure, and, secondly, Parliament will have the opportunity during the passage of this Bill to debate the issues of principle underpinning the regulations. Nevertheless, the Government are willing to accept the Select Committee's judgment that the freedom of movement of workers will continue to be an issue of political interest. In turn, that justifies a greater degree of parliamentary control over the regulations than the Government originally envisaged. However, as I made clear in my published response to the Select Committee's recommendation, the Government are concerned that the procedure chosen should not impair our ability to react appropriately, if it becomes necessary—contrary, of course, to expectations—to apply safeguards. If we encounter disturbances in the labour market or find that the regulations are being abused, the Government may need to act swiftly. The affirmative procedure is not compatible with that swift action.
Public and parliamentary interest is likely to be most acute when the regulations are first made, since these will fully liberalise access to our labour markets for citizens of the eight states concerned. Subsequently, regulations are likely to be of a technical nature. Even if those subsequent regulations were used to apply some form of safeguard, that safeguard could only be temporary. I am sure that your Lordships will recall that the accession treaty limits the application of safeguards to a maximum period of seven years after the date of accession.
At its most extreme form, the safeguard would simply return us, for a temporary period, to the immigration regime operating today for workers of the eight states concerned. However, a safeguard might well take a more limited form than that. It is for that reason I suggested, in my response to the Select Committee, that the first regulations might be subject to affirmative procedure with subsequent regulations subject to the negative procedure. The most important incidental effect of this would be to allow the Government to apply those safeguards swiftly should the need arise.
Although the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, was not attracted to this compromise proposal, his letter to me conceded that some account could be taken of situations where that swift action might be necessary. The mechanism that he suggested—the so-called delayed affirmative procedure—is acceptable to the Government. It is embodied in my amendment, which proposes that regulations under Clause 2 would be
398
subject to the affirmative resolution of both Houses. However, where, by reason of urgency, the Government need to act swiftly, my amendment would allow the Secretary of State to bring regulations into force prior to the resolutions of both Houses. The Secretary of State would then need to secure resolutions within 40 days. Without them the regulations would lapse at that point.
In drafting the amendment, we have followed closely the recent precedents in the European Parliament(Representation) Act 2003, Sections 13 and 18. Subsection 5(B) of my amendment makes clear that the urgency procedure cannot be used for the first set of regulations. In proposing the amendment, I have sought to meet fully the concerns of the Select Committee while retaining in situations of urgency the ability of the Government to apply safeguards swiftly. That is a good compromise. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, for suggesting it. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: We are agreeable to this amendment with just one or two caveats which I should like to explain. The Minister has helpfully set out the background, which is that they want to allow nationals from accession states to come here and work freely. They expect that there will be no considerable impact from that decision. However, the Government are prudent. Just in case they are wrong—I refer to the explanatory memorandum and the Minister's letter—and the proposed regulations give rise to market difficulties, they want powers to make new regulations. The excellent Select Committee on delegated legislation examined the issue closely and said that at first flush these powers should be by affirmative resolution.
The Minister has explained that flexibility is needed "to act swiftly". Hence, this compromise, with the first regulations being subject to affirmative procedures and subsequent regulations being subject to the negative procedure. However, I notice that the chairman of the Select Committee, in his last letter to the Minister, suggested a late approval formula. I am unsure as to whether that coincides exactly with what the Government are now proposing, but it sounds near to it.
That is how we have reached this position and why the amendment has been proposed. I just need to ask about the word "swiftly". Will the Minister describe the circumstances of "urgency" and "swiftly"—she has used those words several times—in which suddenly it becomes necessary for the Secretary of State to say that there are market difficulties, and so forth? It is quite a difficult situation to envisage and I just wonder how it would shape up. We hope that the Government's relaxed attitude is the right one even though other countries are not following it. An influx of skilled workers is enormously welcome and greatly helps the growth and dynamism of this country.
The general view seems to be that numbers will not be large. However, some elaborate research by reputable think tanks is coming to different views.

399
Lombard Research says that the UK could become the target destination for a wave of East European workers and that there would be surging immigration, which it welcomes. So do I, if they are skilled people. They are less welcome if they turn out to be the Mafia. The Government are taking a bold view and one that we support. However, I hope they turn out to be right and that they are also right to have these prudent backup arrangements. They are right to monitor closely the situation as it unfolds.
In agreeing to this amendment I would like reassurance that the monitoring will be real and constructive and that Parliament will have an opportunity to see how things unfold. My wish would be that regular reports from this monitoring should extend not only to job movements and job flows but also to trade flows and investment. I say that not to hinder or protect our own arrangements against the new accession states. I say it to encourage and reinforce their position so that we do not forget their interests and do not allow them to be too battered down by the European Commission's rather threatening intention to monitor them to see that they have complied with the 80,000 page acquis.
We should be their friends and their supporters. I have always wanted this country to be much more of a champion of the smaller states than it has been so far. We do need to be kept informed. There needs to be real monitoring to justify the powers given and taken under this Bill. In order to keep the Government up to the mark and to fulfil these aims we may need to put down an amendment at Report. In the mean time, we are content with this compromise. We believe it is a sensible one and should go forward.
Lord Roper: From these Benches we have already welcomed the Government's imaginative decision to ensure that the nationals of the states which accede next year will have freedom of movement into the UK. This is something of a gamble but we believe it is an intelligent one which will benefit this country. Quite clearly though, as the Minister has indicated and the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford has suggested, things could go wrong. Therefore we understand why the Government put forward a safeguard.
I am not sure how the monitoring to which the noble Lord referred would be undertaken given the flow of people across the boundaries of the European Union after accession. I am not sure what sort of statistical information the Government will get as to flows from the new member states. It may be that the Minister can tell us something about that today or will write to us to give us some indication to enable us to think about this before we return at Report.
I wish to commend the Minister and our own Delegated Powers Committee on the way in which the interaction between the committee and the Government in the last few months has led to this amendment. It is to the credit of the House, to its committee and to the Government that we have been able to find a solution which has ensured a safeguard but which has also
400
ensured that a proper measure of parliamentary control shall remain. That is why I have great pleasure in supporting this important amendment.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I thank both noble Lords for their welcome of the government amendment. The fact is that we want nationals to he able to move freely; we do not believe that there will be a considerable impact, but if something unexpected were to happen, we have to have the ability to act quickly.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked whether I had met the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf. The answer is yes. When the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, said that he wanted affirmative procedures, the Government felt that it was appropriate to have those procedures initially but that we might find it more appropriate to have negative procedures should we need to reimpose any restrictions. The noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, believed that that would represent a loss of parliamentary control, and it was he who suggested the so-called delayed affirmative procedure. The Government accepted the suggestion made by the noble Lord, as the chair of the committee.
I take the liberty of telling your Lordships that I have spoken to the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, on the matter. Although he was unable to speak on behalf of his whole committee, on an individual basis he believed that the Government had met the points that he raised. Of course, he has not been able to consult his committee on the matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, wanted to know in what circumstances the problems we are discussing might occur, and raised a point about monitoring. Research suggests that it is very unlikely that there will be a large-scale influx following enlargement. The establishment of new formal mechanisms to monitor the labour market is probably disproportionate; instead, it is proposed to make use of existing sources of data and information, and to use largely informal mechanisms to consult stakeholders inside and outside government.
I understand that the Department for Work and Pensions will continuously monitor a range of existing statistics of labour market performance—of GDP, numbers claiming benefits and other such relevant material—which would indicate a possible disturbance to the UK labour market that might be sufficient to justify considering reintroducing restrictions. I hope that that answers the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. If there were a real disturbance in our labour market, we would monitor it through those mechanisms and we would hope to track it in that way. If necessary, we would then be able to use the suggestion of the delayed affirmative procedure.
I do not have any specific examples for the noble Lord. I hope that he will forgive me, but specific examples might be taken to represent a definitive list, whereas I hope that the indications that I have given are sufficiently broad and flexible to meet the exigencies that might arise. I hope that the House

401
agrees that the Government have done their best to meet the points made by your Lordships' committee, and that the amendment will be acceptable to your Lordships.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with an amendment.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 10.5 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 9.45 p.m. to 10.5 p.m.]

Fire Services Bill
10.5 p.m.
Report received.
Baroness Turner of Camden: moved Amendment No. 1.
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
"ORDERS MADE UNDER THE ACT

(1) The powers of the Secretary of State to make orders under this Act concerning conditions of service or directions to fire authorities shall be exercised only after a declaration published by him that an emergency exists or is likely to exist.

(2) In this section, "emergency" means a natural disaster or other event or series of events affecting the fire service or its operation which is or may be, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, likely to disrupt supplies of energy, or which presents any other serious threat to human welfare, the environment, the political, administrative or economic stability or the security of any place or locality, or in which the use of troops is permitted.

(3) In his declaration the Secretary of State shall state the nature of the emergency."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I regret having to deal with this rather important issue at five minutes past 10 tonight. I believe it is a very important amendment.
My noble friends and I would like this new clause included in the Bill at the very beginning. The Minister is well aware of the fact that I and a number of other noble Lords do not much like this Bill. The Minister knows perfectly well why we do not like it. That was made very clear on Second Reading. As it stands, the Bill gives the Secretary of State power to impose terms and conditions of employment on members of the fire service workforce. These powers are required, apparently, despite the fact that the recent dispute has been settled by an agreement acceptable to both sides.
On Second Reading the Minister referred to Article 6 of the European Social Chapter, which requires states to take steps to ensure the effectiveness of the right to bargain collectively. He also referred to Article 8 of the ILO Convention 151 which states that settlement shall be sought through negotiation between the parties. He argued then, and has since
402
argued throughout the passage of the Bill, that although its terms do indeed give powers to the Secretary of State to impose terms and conditions— something which my noble friends and I regard as a breach of the Government's commitment under the European Social Chapter and ILO conventions—the Government would use these powers only in extreme emergency if, as he put it, it was necessary to do so in order to maintain or enhance public safety.
Moreover, the Bill has a sunset clause: it is time-limited. At the end of the time it will be consigned, as he put it, "to the rubbish bin".
I say at the outset that while I may not like this Bill I have no doubt at all about the right of the Government to get their legislation through Parliament. In the light of what the Minister said in Committee, we acknowledge that in certain circumstances it could well be necessary for the Government to have powers of the kind envisaged in the Bill.
Despite our concern to try to maintain workers' rights—particularly the hard fought-for and won right to have terms and conditions decided by collective bargaining by the union to which most belong—we are not endeavouring to wreck the Bill. We believe the Minister when he says that the Government hope never to have to utilise the powers in the Bill; that it is entirely a temporary measure and simply will not be there when the sunset is reached.
The problem is that that is nowhere stated in the Bill except for the sunset clause. We want to ensure that the Government have the emergency cover that they need while at the same time ensuring that there is adequate protection for the rights of the workforce. It seemed to us that the best way of doing that would be to spell out the circumstances in which the powers in the Bill would be used. So our amendment says that the powers will only be exercised after a declaration is published by the Secretary of State that an emergency exists or is likely to exist. In his declaration he would state the nature of the emergency. Subsection (2) of our amendment spells out as clearly as we can, utilising wording which I believe exists in other legislation, precisely what is meant by an emergency such as,
"a natural disaster or other event or series of events affecting the fire service or its operation which is or may be, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, likely to disrupt supplies of energy or which represents any other serious threat to human welfare",
and so forth.
That seems to me to give the Secretary of State the emergency cover that he needs and is in line with what the Minister said in Committee was required. As I have said, we do accept what the Minister has said about the limited nature of the Bill and the extreme reluctance of the Government to utilise the exceptional powers that it gives the Secretary of State.
Good intentions may be fine, but nothing like that appears in the text of the Bill. This is legislation and governments and Ministers change. A future Minister, perhaps not of this Government, may feel quite differently and he would then have at his disposal powers which he possibly would be only too happy to use. An external event plus media clamour and the

403
sunset clause could disappear. These seem very unlikely events, but we are concerned to safeguard employee rights while at the same time meeting the valid points that the Minister made in Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I apologise to the House for not being here earlier. I had forgotten where my speaking notes were; fortunately I happened to find them. In opposing the amendment, the sincerity and motivation of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, who is perhaps the only Member of your Lordships' House with extensive practical experience of the bargaining procedures and who has sat judicially under the chairmanship of the High Court judge on the Central Arbitration Committee, is not called into question; nor indeed is that of any noble Lord disposed to support the amendment.
At the outset, may I seek to establish common ground? The Government must have their business—yes—but only after due scrutiny by both Houses. There was no due scrutiny of the Bill in another place, as was spoken to with total accuracy by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, on Second Reading. None of the amendments on the Marshalled List was considered in Grand Committee, at which the usual attendance—apart from the odd Minister—was six for three days, which is not a very satisfactory method of due scrutiny.
There will be insufficient time today, through no one's fault, for due examination of the amendments. Clause 1 as drafted fails to express, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, sportingly and fairly recognised in Grand Committee, the true intention of government as he explained it to the House regarding the exercise of powers of the Secretary of State. It is therefore common ground that Clause I cannot stand unamended. If not amended, must it be left out under Amendment No. 27, which, if moved—which I hope will not be necessary—could well attract the support of noble Lords in favour of Amendment No. 1?
The question arises—to which I shall not speak at this stage—whether Clause I should be amended to apply only to emergency situations as proposed by Amendment No. 1, or whether two regimes should be set up: one for an immediate emergency and another where there is no such emergency, as proposed by Amendments Nos. 2 to 7, and Amendment No. 13, to which I do not speak. But the conflict between those disparate approaches inevitably involves my opposition to Amendment No. 1.
Putting that aside for a moment, let us deal with the substantive objections to Amendment No. 1. As such they are serious, and, with respect, they warrant your Lordships' attention. The amendment limits the powers of the Secretary of State to make orders and give directions only in an emergency situation. It heralds the introduction of a novel, intricate, complex structure of amendments—Amendments Nos. 10 to 18, 14 to 18, 20, 22 to 25—which would inhibit the due exercise of requisite, plenipotentiary powers of a Secretary of State having instant effect in the event or likely event of a terrorist attack, and that is not
404
acceptable. It also heralds Amendments Nos. 28 and 29, which inhibit enforceability of orders and directions given by the Secretary of State in a state of emergency, which is wholly inept. Of course they must have immediate effect. It precludes the Secretary of State from giving directions on the essential reorganisation and restructuring of the fire brigade services which must ensue when there is no state of emergency, to prepare against the state of emergency of terrorist attack or the likelihood of such attack, when one day it shall inevitably arise.
The requirement as to a declaration of an emergency such as a terrorist attack or the likelihood of such attack to be made by the Secretary of State, based on advice and intelligence which may not he disclosed, would not be in the public interest. In such a Situation, which could occur at any time and any place, the Secretary of State must retain plenipotentiary, emergency power and must be trusted. Speaking for myself, I trust him or his successor, whoever that may be, of whatever party, to exercise such powers in good faith and with propriety.
Amendment No. 1 and the implementation proposed in the amendments under the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, afford no effective means and no attempt at any effective means to seek to avoid disruption of the fire brigade services by collective action in any emergency situation as defined by subsection (3).
I said that I would make a shortish speech. I end with one question which I believe is a fair one. On any objective analysis, could any government accept Amendment No. 1 as it stands or as proposed to be implemented?
10.15 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, we clearly failed dismally in Committee to make clear to the Government how unusual and unique we find this Bill. This Bill is presented almost as though it were an extension or a return to the 1947 legislation passed by the 1945 Labour government. It is not that in any way. It introduces into industrial relations a set of particular and special provisions which are at this moment to apply to a section of the fire service. That is again something unique. As far as I know, all previous general restrictions of this character, for example in the First World War and the Second World War, applied across the board. However, the Government are selecting the fire service—members of the National Union of Fireworkers—for these special provisions. It is that argument, as much as anything else, which we have been trying to press upon the Government. We have dismally failed.
The amendment is one of a series which asks the Government to look more closely at what they are doing, and to see if they cannot postpone the measure, giving a general consideration to their purpose, which is what we tried to do at Second Reading. Will the Government look at particular aspects of the Bill and limit its application in various ways? The Minister, when talking about the Bill at various stages, made a

405
number of replies in answer to our attempts to make him describe the circumstances in which the powers under the Bill would be invoked. It might be that he would rule out certain circumstances, if not rule them out on the face of the Bill, but that was not the case; or he might say that the Government were thinking more of using the Bill in certain areas.
The Minister made a number of statements. We are asking him to think again about those statements. Most of those responses suggested that there would be some kind of emergency in existence before the Government would use the Bill. We have taken from his statements to that effect—if one looks at subsection (2)—a range of circumstances which cover virtually every kind of emergency. If we have left some out, then let the Minister tell us, and we shall put them in. We say:
"In this section, 'emergency' means a natural disaster or other event or series of events affecting the fire service or its operation which is or may be, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, likely to disrupt supplies of energy, or which presents any other serious threat to human welfare, the environment, the political, administrative or economic stability or the security of any place or locality, or in which the use of troops is permitted.".
So we try in this amendment to spell out what would be the broad circumstances in which one could reasonably argue, in the light of what he had said, that there was an emergency situation. I asked the Minister to look at that, and he said that he was thinking that,
"a crisis situation will have required the Bill to be used".
Unfortunately, at that stage I thought that he might continue and define what that crisis would be, but he clearly reflected on the awful matters that he had in his mind and thought that he should not tell us. He said:
"If I started thinking aloud and giving examples of what might happen, I could be accused of giving horror stories".—[Official Report, 3/7/03; col. GC 266.]
That is extreme, is it not?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is the noble Lord, when he refers to the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, referring to col. 50 of the Grand Committee, where, from memory—I have it noted somewhere—the Minister said, "Look, it isn't the intention to use this Bill, other than in a state of emergency. We don't want to have to use it".
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I am talking about col. 262 of the Grand Committee Hansard. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, stated that the Bill was about taking,
"prompt action in order to protect the public".—[Official Report, 3/7/03; col. GC 262.]
He also stated at col. 265:
"I am not saying that there is a legal use of the word 'emergencies', but the Bill is a temporary measure. It is time-limited and would be used only"
in a crisis situation.
I do not suppose for a moment that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, would deny that most of the circumstances in which he considered the Bill might be used fit our definition of an emergency. The trouble is
406
that that is not the only thing he said. In responding to the question of whether the use of the Bill was to be confined to an emergency, he said that,
"it is a long stop designed for a quite specific purpose of dealing with the recent dispute … if the timetable that has been negotiated is not maintained".—[Official Report, 3/7/03: col. GC 261.]
In other words, such a situation could occur next week or the week after if the Government decided that the union was not co-operating sufficiently with the timetable of negotiations for the next stage of the 2003 agreement, or if the Audit Commission decided that insufficient savings were being made. That seems to me to be a quite different set of circumstances. There might not be a dispute. There certainly might not be industrial action. I say all this in the hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, will reassure me. The Bill could be invoked because the Government considered that insufficient savings had been gained in the next stage of the productivity deal. That is a quite different set of circumstances from a crisis.
The amendment is an attempt to get the Minister to tell us something more about the extent to which, in any meaningful sense of the term, the Government intend to invoke the Bill solely in an emergency. If that is the case, why cannot they accept our amendment?
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I should like to say four things about the nature of this amendment, which has been very carefully thought about and, in fact, argued about, among the movers of it. First of all, on our express wishes, it stands alone in the groupings because it has nothing to do with most of the other amendments to Clause 1. It is nothing to do with ballots. It is nothing to do with abolishing the right to strike and so on. It stands alone and it refers to a series of defined emergencies, disasters or crises—whatever one likes to think of them as—which have been built on a certain amount of study of previous statute. It refers to disasters which in the opinion of the Secretary of State are likely to occur, which we thought included terrorism but also a whole series of other things. We ask in the third part of the amendment for a declaration which need state only the nature of the emergency in general terms. I am happy to give way.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, how can it stand alone if it makes no provision for resolution of a terrorist attack? How can it stand alone without the means of resolution?
10.30 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. He will understand the point when he reads Hansard and will see that the amendment stands alone. It covers threats of terrorism, but a great many other things too:
"any … serious threat to human welfare, the environment, the political, administrative or economic stability or the security of any place"
in the jurisdiction, or a situation in which the use of troops is permitted.

407
The reason why the amendment contains those various elements is as follows. The Water Act 1989 gives emergency powers where there is a threat of disruption of energy. The civil contingencies Bill which the Government are gradually putting into the processes of Parliament—and which I hope will be enacted fairly soon—includes the serious threats referred to in the amendment, very carefully set out; and the position in which the use of troops is permitted is covered by the Emergency Powers Act 1964, and indeed by powers under the prerogative. Those, we thought, were proper precedents to which we could implicitly refer in building up some description of emergency. Some of us thought—I am not sure that we all agreed on this—that the restructuring of the fire service was for the big Bill that is to follow the White Paper, although it will be in the Government's mind. The White Paper having been published, it cannot be absent from the Government's mind and policy.
Having reached a broadly common position on those matters, we then looked with enormous care at what had been said in Grand Committee—about which the populace at large is, unhappily, largely ignorant—and at what happened in the other place, which to us is in a way the most important.
When the Bill was presented for Second Reading in another place on 8th May, my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister said that he was reluctant to produce it. I want to refer to government statements in another place and in this House, because the amendment is a genuine attempt to understand the Government's position in the light of what they have said about their wishes—not from snippets; if I quote any matter which is thought not to be in context I shall be happy to read out the context. The Deputy Prime Minister said, quite naturally at the time, that although he would have preferred not to introduce the Bill,
"after 12 months of negotiations and three separate pay offers, the fire dispute has reached deadlock. Legislation is therefore necessary in the public interest and to protect public safety".—[Official Report, Commons, 8/5/03; col. 856.]
On 1st May, he wrote to the Joint Committee on Human Rights:
"I would even now prefer the matter to be settled by agreement and without my intervention. However this appears unlikely …. I am seeking the powers in the Bill because settlement cannot be achieved through negotiation".
That was the first position.
The second position, when the Bill came to this place, was that a settlement had been reached. Government spokesmen—if I may put it in this phrase—accentuated the fact, which in our view is a normal fact of life in collective industrial agreements, that a large number of matters still had to be worked out under the settlement. It would be a remarkable settlement that did not have to have matters worked out under it. The settlement referred to the procedure for doing that in the national joint council Grey Book.
I want as fairly as I can to quote what has been said by my noble friend the Minister in this connection. I shall not repeat at length the quotations cited by my noble friend Lord McCarthy. My noble friend Lord Rooker
408
has been the government spokesman on this Bill on all important matters, and therefore I can only quote him. At Second Reading on 19th June, he said that the Government preferred a negotiated settlement. He went on:
"This is so that they can move forward in partnership to help deliver a modern fire service, which can prevent fires from starting in the first place and save more lives when responding to fires that occur".—[Official Report, 19/6/03; col. 1015.]
We entirely accept that statement of policy. My noble friend went on to say that the settlement was dependent on further negotiations on some key issues. He later said that one primary object was to,
"ensure that the public is properly protected. That is why we intend to proceed with the Bill".
Then he put the issue slightly more widely, as my noble friend Lord McCarthy said:
"I can assure the House that the Government would exercise the powers that the Bill would confer in respect of conditions of services only if we considered it necessary to do so in order to maintain or enhance public safety; and if negotiations failed to produce an agreement". —[Official Report, 19/6/03; col. 1015–6.]
When the issue came to Committee my noble friend Lord Rooker made the two propositions that my noble friend has referred to. I want to quote him exactly. He said:
"I am not saying that there is a legal use of the word 'emergencies' but the Bill is a temporary measure. It is time-limited and would be used only in circumstances that would almost amount to an emergency".—[Official Report, 3/7/03; col. GC 265.]
Then at col. 266 he referred, as my noble friend said, to the Bill being used and orders being made in,
"a crisis situation which will have required the Bill to be used".
Then he said:
"I have to repeat the fact that it would be quite exceptional circumstances in which we had to operate the Bill. We make no bones about it. I have used the words that the Secretary of State would have to impose a solution to a dispute because he would consider that to be in the public interest".
He said that if the parties agreed to arbitration,
"it would be extremely unlikely that the Secretary of State would want to intervene at that point to exercise his powers to fix or modify conditions of service if there was a realistic prospect that the parties could, by seeking arbitration, resolve their differences".—[Official Report, 3/7/03; col. GC 282–31.]
Then in col. 204 on 14th July, he said:
"The point I am making is that the Bill would be activated only if a disaster arose of another dispute occurring with no sign of being settled in which case the Secretary of State—he has made this absolutely clear and we make no apology for it so there is no surprise in that regard—would impose a settlement as a way of drawing a line under the dispute".
I pause to point out that the likelihood of a disaster arising is quite clearly covered by our amendment. We took account of that passage when we drew it up.
In col. 205 the Minister said that,
"it would take several months to process the current agreement so that it becomes fully operable. Therefore, we need this as a backstop. I am not saying that there are any blank cheques here. It is not an agreement just because two parties agree that we pay the Bill; that is a conspiracy against the public. To that extent, we would not actually foot the Bill".

409
That passage came after—and this is what I think the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, was perhaps implicitly referring to; I apologise if I am wrong, but I thought it was—an intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. He said:
"But if the parties do not agree with what we"—
meaning the Government—
"want them to do, we shall impose the Bill".
My noble friend Lord Rooker said:
"That is entirely the case. The noble Lord expressed the matter perfectly".
He said that,
"parties could have a sweetheart agreement",
and that if they did and that it offended government financial arrangements they would say,
"Sorry, we are not paying the bill".
But in that same context he said that,
"if they reached an agreement which was absolutely contrary to the financial settlement for the department and went against what had been agreed previously, we would say, 'Hang on a minute'. As I say, the Bill is intended for use in an emergency situation".—[Official Report, 14/7/03; GC 204.]
He also added they would allow the Secretary of State to ensure fire authority assets paid for by the public are available to those providing emergency fire cover in the event of further strikes.
I appreciate the point that the Minister of course had a view about the serious matter of the parties reaching an agreement of which the Government did not approve. We come to that in a later amendment. In that sense, there is a link with that later amendment but no other. Most of those passages rely on the intimation that the Government would wish to use their orders under the Bill in a crisis or emergency or—to use the exact words—"almost an emergency" situation. If we have got it wrong in subsection (2) of our amendment and the description of likely emergencies or forthcoming emergencies is inadequate, I will be happy to accept any manuscript amendment now from the Government, or indeed to have them put down their own form of words on Third Reading.
I think that the amendment is a fair representation of, at least, the core of the Government's position. We do not think—we will come to this on later amendments—that that being absent from the Bill is satisfactory. Nor do we think, especially in the light of a decision, to which I shall refer, in your Lordships' Judicial Committee on 10th July, that statements of Ministers as to the Government's intention, however genuine, proper, honest and straightforward, are the same as legislation. The House of Lords judicially has recently had great moment, in a constitutionally vital case, to refer to that difference. I do not go further with it now; it will come later. I support this amendment and I hope it will be taken seriously as an attempt to bridge a gap which otherwise makes the Bill a very dangerous precedent as far as industrial peace is concerned.
Lord Northbrook: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway in his opposition to
410
this amendment. It seems to be restricting the powers of the Secretary of State in the Bill to an emergency situation. This is unnecessary in this particular case and therefore I support my noble friend.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, without seeking to wind anybody up, this is the second time today, on the second Bill today, that words I have used in Hansard are not taken at face value and there has therefore been an attempt to put them on the face of the Bill. The previous attempt was by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, on business improvement districts. It is exactly the same point: "Minister's words are not worth tuppence ha'penny; we are all not serious; and what is more, we come and go, other people take our places, and therefore our words are worthless".
I want to be able to address the points in the amendment, which I do not think is necessary at all. We have looked hard at this over the summer—or what has passed for a summer. We cannot see any justification for amending Clause 1 in this way. I recognise that the amendment responds to some of the discussions in Grand Committee. Inevitably it would, because of the quotes that have been used. Obviously the amendment introduces a trigger that would mean the powers in the Bill under Clauses 1(1)(a) and 1(1)(b) could be used only after the Secretary of State had declared that an emergency existed or was likely to exist. The definition of emergency runs wide, as we have heard explained: natural disasters, threats to human welfare, administrative or economic stability, and circumstances in which the use of troops is permitted. I can see that there is a common thread and I acknowledge that the definition would cover many, some might even claim all, of the circumstances we have faced over the past year.
However that points up the problem with that kind of provision. It is difficult to be really sure that it covers all eventualities and therefore it inevitably leads to uncertainty and the opportunity, I might add, for unreasonable arguments and challenge at the time it is used. That is what is at the root of this amendment: it provides an opportunity for unreasonable arguments and challenge to stop the operation of the Bill. The Government have been quite clear: we want to be able to take practical action if the dispute flares up again. Good progress has been made in the negotiations, so far as I am aware. I checked today: there are amicable discussions going on. That is good; that is what we expected from professionals on both sides. However, we believe that it is in the public interest for us to be able to take action if it does flare up again. There are strong arguments against allowing any dispute to drag on without conclusion—arguments that run from the possible effect on public safety to the demands placed on those in the Armed Forces who have been deployed to provide alternative emergency cover. We believe that it is not necessary to put those issues in the Bill.
There are strong arguments for allowing the Government to determine the terms on which a dispute of the kind that we saw earlier this year should be settled. That is not to say that the Government know best, but that it is they who must pick up the bill.

411
We have responsibility for public safety and public finances. That is why we think the Government are in the best position to determine the kind of situation in which a dispute could be settled.
Only in a very serious situation, taking all those factors into account, will we use the powers. As my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister said, we do not want to use the powers in the Bill, but we feel that we need to have them just in case. We have said all along that we hope we will not have to use them. We have no secret plans to use them; nor have we plans to bring about circumstances causing us to use them. We have no agenda whatever, but we think it would be irresponsible not to have the powers, in the light of the circumstances of the past 12 months
Defining in advance every possible circumstance that might constitute a sufficiently serious situation—what the amendment calls an emergency—is a step too far. We do not want to get anywhere near an emergency before taking action. If there were an emergency, people would ask us why we had not taken action sooner. I cannot therefore accept the amendment and I invite my noble friends to withdraw it.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I do not know whether my noble friend has sat down, but perhaps I may ask him a question. He said that the words of the amendment would allow for a successful challenge in the courts. If, in the terms of the amendment, the Secretary of State made a declaration, which may be no more than one or two lines, about the likely disaster, emergency or crisis that he foresaw—that is all he has to do—what would be the nature of the likely successful challenge in the courts? I am sure that my noble friend has had advice on that.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, first, I do not know, and, secondly, I had already sat down.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who contributed to this short debate on what I regard as one of the most important items of the Bill's Report stage.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, I would have thought that the wording that we have produced, particularly in subsection (2), entirely meets his problem about the possibility of a terrorist attack. The amendment was deliberately worded to do precisely that.
I am very disappointed by the Minister's response. He says that the amendment indicates that we do not take the Minister seriously, but we tabled the amendment in the first place because we have taken him seriously. I moved similar amendments—perhaps not so precise—in Committee. When the Minister told the Committee that it was necessary to have these emergency powers, I said quite precisely that I understood that it was necessary to have emergency powers but that was nowhere stated in the Bill. I said that for that reason my noble friends and I would
412
consider the matter and try to table an amendment to meet the valid argument that there must be powers to deal with an emergency.
Throughout the Committee, the Minister referred repeatedly to the possibility of a crisis or emergency. It was in order to meet those points that we drafted this amendment and decided to proceed on that basis. I am very sorry to learn that, although our intentions were clearly to meet the Government's position, they have not been acknowledged by the Minister. However, I fear that there is no point in pressing the issue further at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Campbell of Allowaymoved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 3, at end insert "if requisite in the public interest of immediate implementation in a state of emergency"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I will also speak to Amendments Nos. 3 to 7 and Amendment No. 13 as a package. I acknowledge with gratitude the support of my noble friend Lord Northesk on this occasion from these Back Benches.
The object of this package of amendments is to set up two regimes, as already explained. The first regime, in a state of immediate emergency, affords plenipotentiary powers to the Secretary of State to impose conditions of service and to give directions to fire authorities. It also removes inhibitions as to the exercise of such powers under subsections (3) and (8) of Clause 1 of the Bill. In other words, it makes a more extensive exercise of power in an emergency than exists at present. In that context, Amendment No. 9 would appear to delay the exercise of such powers in an emergency and could well appear to warrant clarification.
In the other regime, when there is no such state of emergency, conditions of service may be imposed only by virtue of Amendment No. 6 in implementation of the regime proposed by Amendments Nos. 4 to 7, and the powers to make orders under Clause 1(5) are removed. The giving of directions to the fire authorities is made subject to consultation as provided by proposed new paragraph (b) in Amendment No. 4.Of course, that is when there is no state of emergency. When there is a state of emergency, there is plenipotentiary power.
Why the need for these amendments? The main objection to Clause 1 is that, when there is no state of emergency, the Secretary of State may impose or threaten to impose conditions of service by decree without having had any resort to collective bargaining. According to the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights—not when I was a member of it—House of Lords Paper 118, a significant risk of violation of Article 6 of the European Social Charter and Article 8 of the ILO Convention No. 151 is involved, of which the Deputy Prime Minister was informed by letter on 8th April this year. That is the main objection.
The subsidiary objection is a matter more within the remit of my noble friend Lady Hanham than myself. It arises from the giving of directions to the fire authorities, if there is no state of emergency. My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith said at Second Reading that, since the 1970s,

413
"the fire service has ossified".—[Official Report, 19/6/03; col. 1035.]
It is wholly requisite that directions be given as to reconstruction of those services in the public interest, if only to ready ourselves for the inevitable attack that, one day, shall come.
There is a muddle. It is no fault of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that there is a muddle, but the fact is that it relates to the means of implementation under this Bill and the Local Government Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, frankly conceded on the second day in Grand Committee that he could understand that,
"from a reasonable standpoint we are open to criticism". —[Official Report, 7/7/03; col. GC 49.]
He said that the Local Government Bill stood on its own and that the Government did not wish to use the Fire Services Bill. I hope that the noble Lord will understand that paragraph (b) of Amendment No. 4 is designed merely to try to avoid that muddle by introducing consultation before such directions are given, when there is no state of emergency.
It is late at night, but if noble Lords take the Bill in one hand, they will see that Amendment No. 2 would limit the emergency situation by inserting the phrase,
"if requisite in the public interest of immediate implementation in a state of emergency".
Amendment No. 3 would remove the inhibiting provisions of subsections (3) and (8) of Clause 1, which should not apply in a state of emergency but should apply if there is no state of emergency. Amendment No. 4 makes it plain that,
"Save and except in a state of emergency to which subsection (1) applies, the Secretary of State may not by virtue of this Act fix or modify conditions of service"
other than as provided in the exceptional situation set out in Amendment No. 6. In that event, the inhibiting provisions in subsections (3) and (8) should not apply. Amendment No. 6 relates to the only situation in which the Secretary of State may make an order by decree, if there is no state of emergency—that is if,
"collective bargaining has failed and no application has been made to a mandatory arbitral tribunal for the resolution of the dispute, or the award of the tribunal established under subsection (1C)" —
Amendment No. 7—
"has been ignored or rejected".
Those are requisite enforcement provisions for the orders of the Secretary of State where, in those exceptional circumstances, there has been no actual immediate emergency.
In order to provide effective means to avoid disruption of these services, Amendment No. 5 states:
"Collective action, whether primary or secondary, taken at the instigation of a trade union which—
(a) disrupts fire brigade services, or
(b) inhibits due performance of an order of the Secretary of State under subsection (1),
or Amendment No. 6—to which one returns again—
"shall be unlawful".
414
That is requisite for the judicial enforcement of the regime of the orders of the Secretary of State.
Amendment No. 7 states:
"(1C) There shall be established a mandatory arbitral tribunal … independent of government, for the resolution of disputes concerning the conditions of service of members of the fire brigades.
(1D) No dispute shall be referred to the tribunal unless there has been a failure of collective bargaining, and such failure has been certified either by—

(a) the parties to the dispute, or

(b) ACAS".

Indeed, the origins of subsection (1D) in Amendment No. 7 really stem from an intervention made by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, who has some experience in these matters, which I do not have.
Subsection (1E) states:
"Any award of the tribunal shall be binding on the parties and on government".
That is the essential essence of the proposals as a package, which are made in support of the proposal to set up two distinct regimes. In other words, the proposal is to strengthen the powers of government—totally plenipotentiary powers—in an emergency without qualification, but, with the sole exception of Amendment No. 6, if there is not an emergency, to put it simply, to retain the excellent bargaining structure. That is the simple idea. I am afraid that it was not quite so easy to draft simply.
I shall conclude. One must accept that Clause 1, as drafted, does not truly represent the Government's intention and may not stand unamended. Intentions of government as to implementation must be set out in the Bill. Of course, we all accept what the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, says in good faith. There is no question of that. I am not getting at that. We have here a duty of due scrutiny. We must take a Bill as we find it. I do not think that we need to bother very much about what any other Secretary of State would do. To be perfectly frank, I think that whatever they did they would do it very well, honestly and fairly. We have got a job to do. The Bill must be drafted to represent the actual and true intention of government. The main reason why I am insisting on this, is not for the purity of draftsmanship, it is because of the putative resort to the imposition of conditions of service where there is no immediate emergency. It is against my whole erstwhile professional background of appearing sometimes for trades unions, sometimes against them. It just will not do as it stands. Although it may not be used, the threat is a form of a Sword of Damocles hanging over the whole process of collective bargaining. This is why I assert that the Bill must be amended.
I just want to say one more thing. The broad sense of the debate in the other place on the 20th March which heralded the introduction of this Bill, would appear to favour further consideration of amendments, of arguments deployed in your Lordships' House. If one reads it carefully, inevitably there was unease about this. This is no exercise in confrontation with the Government or with the other place. One has to accept that the Bill has not yet commended itself to the

415
Opposition parties in either House or to old Labour in either House. Let us not forget old Labour; it is still a very honourable and important force. They are not all determined to wreck the economy or to do this or that. They are perfectly ordinary people and their views have not been sufficiently attended to for quite some time.
No informed representative opinion has been as yet discussed. We have had this rather odd Grand Committee sparsely attended and largely occupied with very esoteric academic discussions most of which I did not understand and which went on for three days. I do not wish to take the opinion of this House before having read what is said in this debate and entertained consultation so that at least when we come back, a representative opinion may be achieved. I apologise for taking rather a long time. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall seek to do justice to the noble Lord's group of amendments. I am not seeking to jump the gun, but I may touch on Amendment No. 5, to which he referred and which is linked with Amendment No. 8, although that amendment is the property of the Conservative Front Bench.
This group is largely concerned with placing conditions on the Secretary of State's power to make orders under the Bill. Noble Lords will be aware that the purpose of the powers is that in the event of a further dispute the Secretary of State can take action to remove the cause of the argument. If it becomes necessary for the Secretary of State to use the powers—and we very much hope that it will not—he must he able to intervene decisively and without undue delay so that the argument does not drag on, as it did in the past 12 months. Placing preconditions on the powers, however well intentioned, would make that more difficult and could even call into question the Secretary of State's ability to exercise the powers, as I shall explain.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 4 are in part concerned with restricting the use of Clause 1(1) to states of emergency. They would allow the Secretary of State to use his powers under that subsection in a state of emergency, but the recent fire service pay dispute was not deemed a state of emergency, even when the country was at war. Local disputes that may stem from the dispute are certainly unlikely to constitute a state of emergency.
The Emergency Powers Acts 1920 and 1964 allow the Queen to issue a proclamation of a state of emergency if it appears to Her Majesty that there have occurred, or are about to occur, events of such a nature,
"as to be calculated, by interfering with the supply and distribution of food, water, fuel, or light, or with the means of locomotion, to deprive the community, or any substantial portion of the community, of the essentials of life".
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, will my noble friend read the rest of the Act, which is only a very short paragraph?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, no. I am sticking to the notes that I have.
416
We do not want a state of emergency to exist at all. If it were to do so, for example, as the result of a chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear attack, I would hope and expect firefighters to act responsibly regardless of whether they were engaged in an industrial dispute and to protect the public. I know from his remarks on Second Reading that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, shares that view. Noble Lords will recall that there were numerous occasions during the dispute when firefighters left their picket lines to attend emergency calls when lives were in danger. We would expect nothing less, and we pay tribute to the work done in that respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has previously indicated that he believes that powers such as those in Clause 1(1) should be exercised only in a state of emergency. During the Second Reading debate, he recalled the emergency legislation passed during the Second World War and indicated that the Bill could have been justified by the circumstances pertaining at the time of its introduction in the other place—that is, the conflict in the Gulf. Circumstances have clearly changed since the Bill's introduction in the other place, although our Armed Forces are of course still at risk.
As I said in Grand Committee, it would not he right for us to have to wait for a state of emergency before the powers in the Bill could be exercised. It would not be acceptable to the House or to those outside this place if the dispute were to flare up again, further strikes were threatened, and all that the Government could say was, "We can't sort this out because there isn't a war on". As I have explained repeatedly, this Bill is to tackle a specific circumstance, which is not a state of emergency.
With respect to collective bargaining, in relation to Amendments Nos. 4 and 6, the other conditions under which the Secretary of State may make an order under Clause 1(1)(a) are when collective bargaining has broken down and mandatory arbitration has either not been applied for or the results of the tribunal have been ignored or rejected.
The difficulty with the proposition that collective bargaining would have to have failed before the Secretary of State could exercise his powers is that it is a matter of judgment whether collective bargaining has failed. There is not necessarily one single point in a dispute that marks with absolute certainty the point at which collective bargaining can be considered to have failed. For example, it could be argued strongly that collective bargaining did not fail during the recent dispute, given that the two parties eventually reached an agreement. Most reasonable people would accept that there were a number of occasions during the long dispute when the prospect of a negotiated settlement seemed extremely remote and where the sort of decisive intervention that the Bill will allow would have been appropriate.
Amendments Nos. 6 and 4, if accepted, would theoretically provide an opportunity for the employers or the union to challenge the Secretary of State's exercise of power on the grounds that in their view

417
collective bargaining had not failed. At the very least that could delay the Secretary of State's intervention with the result that a potentially damaging industrial dispute could drag on or that firefighters would not get a pay rise.
As regards the other conditions suggested in Amendments Nos. 6 and 4, namely, the issue of the award of a mandatory arbitral tribunal, that should have been ignored or rejected before the Secretary of State can use his powers. Amendment No. 6 refers to Amendment No. 7, which would provide for the establishment of an independent mandatory arbitral tribunal for the resolution of disputes concerning the conditions of service of members of the fire brigade. Disputes would be referred to the tribunal only if collective bargaining had failed. The failure of collective bargaining would be determined by the parties or ACAS. The award of the tribunal would be, as the noble Lord said, binding on all parties and the Government.
The issue of arbitration was raised by a number of noble Lords during Second Reading debate and in Grand Committee. We indicated then that the Government had some difficulty with it. That is still the case. It would go against the whole purpose of the Bill. If the two parties to negotiation cannot agree, the democratically elected Secretary of State with responsibility for the provision of an effective fire service and for the public funding of that service, should step in and make a settlement. I agree that that would require some hard decisions and those could not and should not be handed over to a third party.
The issues which caused the most difficulty in the fire dispute are those such as how the fire service should move from a prescribed national fire cover standard to a locally risk-based approach to fire cover; and what are the implications for staff, especially shift patterns? These are not necessarily issues for arbitration. Ultimately, one cannot arbitrate about policy questions such as the right basis for fire cover. One can arbitrate about some of the implications, but it is hard to see how even the best independent arbitrator would be better placed to make informed judgments than those directly involved in managing the fire service or those in government who have the policy responsibility for it. We are prepared to make the hard decisions ourselves if we have to, not just hand them over to someone else.
Amendment No. 7 also states that any award of a tribunal would be binding on the Government. That raises the question of whether the Secretary of State would still be able to discharge his powers under Clause 1(1)(a) to fix or modify conditions if this interfered with the decision of a tribunal and the award of the tribunal was binding on the government. However, as the Government are not a party in the resolution of disputes concerning the conditions of service of members of the fire brigade, it would be impossible for the award of a tribunal to be binding on them. The drafting in this respect is flawed.
418
As regards Amendment No. 4, it also requires the Secretary of State, save in states of emergency, to consult before directing fire authorities in the disposal and use of their facilities and property under Clause 1(1)(b). If it became necessary for the Secretary of State to use the powers, he must be able to intervene decisively and without undue delay so that lives are not put at risk. He may need to do that in circumstances which do not amount to a state of emergency as defined in other legislation mentioned earlier, but where the public are still at risk. However well-intentioned, and I accept the good intentions on this point, placing pre-conditions on the powers would make that much more difficult.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 13 would effectively remove the provisions in subsection (3) which require the Secretary of State to submit any proposals on the conditions of service for fire brigade members to any negotiating body that appears to exist. I assume that the noble Lord wishes us to read this amendment in conjunction with Amendments Nos. 2 or 4, which makes it impossible for the Secretary of State to use these powers in subsection (1) save in a state of emergency.
I explained earlier why we cannot accept the amendment, which restricts order-making powers to a state of emergency, and, as Amendments Nos. 3 and 13 would not be desirable without this pre-condition, I regret that I cannot accept them either.
I have a final point to make about Amendment No. 5, to which the noble Lord referred. It takes a different, more direct approach. It seeks to make collective action taken at the instigation of a trade union unlawful, first, if it disrupts fire brigade services, and secondly, if it inhibits performance of an order made under the Bill.
I can only repeat what I have said on numerous occasions. We do not intend to change the general law on industrial action in relation to the fire service. Whatever the cause of any collective action, if the proper steps are taken the existing legislation will offer some protection for those taking the action. That will remain. The Government do not intend to use the Bill, which we have consistently said is limited in its purpose, to make changes to industrial relations law. With that in mind, I hope that the noble Lord will reflect on the matter and withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, since the matter has been mentioned in your Lordships' House both on my part and elsewhere, Section 2 of the Emergency Powers Act 1964 states—most commentary regards this as perhaps the most important part of the Act—
"The Defence (Armed Forces) Regulations 1939 in the form set out in Part C of Schedule 2 to the Emergency Laws (Repeal) Act 1959 (which regulations enable the temporary employment in agricultural work or in other work, being urgent work of national importance, of members of the armed forces of the Crown to be authorized) shall become permanent".

419
That should be placed on the record when the Emergency Powers Act 1964 is being discussed. The powers under the defence regulations that were then made permanent are extremely extensive.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for the care with which he dealt with the amendments. Assuredly I would wish to reflect on much that he said. There is one matter where it would have been right on an old brief. but the question of whether collective bargaining ends has been dealt with as a result of a discussion some time ago.
Amendment No. 7 states:
"(1D) No dispute shall be referred to the tribunal unless there has been a failure of collective bargaining, and such failure has been certified".
That is a small point, but the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, took it. If it is not certified by the parties, as I am told is the usual practice in collective bargaining, it could be certified by ACAS. I am taking that small point to correct it.
Of course I wish to consider the substance of the Minister's remarks. I will withdraw the amendment on that basis so that I may return to the matter if so advised at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 3 to 7 not moved.]
Baroness Hanhammoved Amendment No. 8:
Page 1, line 6, at end insert—
"( ) The provision that may be made by virtue of subsection (1)(a) includes the power to make provision about conditions of service relating to—

(a) membership of trade unions by fire brigade members: and

(b) disciplinary offences by fire brigades members."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I hope that I can be reasonably brisk. The Minister will know from our discussion in Grand Committee that we have a number of considerable concerns about the Bill, not least of which is how it would be implemented if it had to be implemented in the face of some considerable intransigence from the Fire Brigades Union. If the Bill has to be used it will not be used with co-operation but as a result of lack of co-operation.
At the end of the day it seems that there is nothing to stop the unions from striking yet again. Nothing in the Bill gives the Government any comfort at all about how to react if the worst comes to the worst and no one pays any attention to what the Bill says.
It has long been argued that the fire service ought to be in the same position as the police and the armed services. There ought to be no-strike clauses in relevant procedures or legislation to reinforce the Government's hand if they have to use this legislation. Perhaps the Bill is currently not the right place for such provision. I know that the matter has been considered and may be dealt with in the White Paper, but that will not help if this legislation has to be used. The two provisions in Amendment No. 8 specify that there should be no-strike
420
provisions in this legislation and that disciplinary offences concerning those who breach not only these but other regulations should be included.
Amendment No. 5, moved by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, was never part of my proposals but it neatly complements them. My amendment is effectively more extreme than his, but it foresees the possibility of a more disastrous situation than the Government may have envisaged in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, before the, noble Baroness sits down—and I hope that she will not follow the earlier innovation of saying, "I have sat down already"—does she agree that if the Government introduced an order and an employer were to say, "I can't carry out that order because the workers are on strike; they are not co-operating", and if it were taken to the point where the employer sacked those workers, and if they went to an industrial tribunal and said, "But this is unfair dismissal", that tribunal would be bound to say that they were not protected if they were sacked on the grounds that they were frustrating the performance of a statutory duty? That is the first way—there are other ways—in which it is not true that the measure does not affect the right to strike. They could be sacked and a tribunal could say that it was fair to do so. Breach of contract will apply and that will he the end of that.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I cannot answer any of that. What I am trying to build into the Bill is a means of dealing with the reality of the situation. It is currently a completely toothless tiger.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I put this not as a question but as two clear points. First, we now have repeated on Report what was said in Grand Committee—that the Opposition's official policy is to militarise the fire service, place it in the same position as the Armed Forces and abolish its right to strike.That is now clear and I am grateful that it has been made clear because it is a distinct difference from the Government, whose intention is not to affect the right to strike—although, as we shall later argue, unhappily, their Bill does not reflect that intention. However, the Opposition are clear: they want to conscript the fire brigade. That is the first point.
The second point is very serious for the noble Baroness. She made very similar points in Grand Committee—where we had a jolly little debate on one of her amendments. I asked her then more or less the following: "Does that mean that you denounce the ILO conventions which plainly state that, apart from the police and the Armed Forces, it is an offence against international law to abolish the right to strike of other groups of workers?" It is true that there is extensive ILO jurisprudence on the matter—jurisprudence in the sense of the Committee on Freedom of Association.
I asked that question some time ago, and the noble Baroness has had time to think about it. Yet she does not mention the ILO. Presumably, however, impliedly, she

421
now confirms that it is Opposition policy to denounce that right in international law under the ILO. And it is not just under the ILO; it is also the Council of Europe, the European charter and a number of United Nations documents as well.
The noble Baroness has also had the chance to do some reading. It just so happens—and I want to refer to this work later, not in extensor but in general terms—that she has had the opportunity to read a piece of scholarship that sets this all out in enormous detail. I refer to the book, published this July by Oxford University Press, which seems to take the Minister's fancy, by Dr Tonia Novitz, called The International and European Protection of the Right to Strike. I do not suggest that the noble Baroness should have read it. One of the marks of these debates is that people do not read things. It is not her fault and she is not alone, but she might have considered the point. She wants to militarise the fire service and denounce the ILO. That is a clear distinction from government policy and, whatever I say about this Bill, I recognise that distinction. I think it deplorable that the Opposition of this country, who believe—well, they may not believe it, but who think—that they may one day form a government, come out with that stuff. It is disgraceful.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the noble Lord refers to the concept of my party, or the party to which I adhere, of conscripting the fire brigades. I know of no such policy. I have always made it plain that the individual right to withhold or withdraw labour would always be maintained and preserved. I made it plain, although it may not have suited the noble Lord to understand, that I was referring to collective action taken within this union because of the danger to the public and the public interest. It had nothing to do with conscription and I was totally prepared to accept the imposition of service in any time of emergency because it would be necessary—but not otherwise. It is not fair of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, to have read out all sorts of passages from the Oxford book on the matter to my noble friend Lady Hanham. Neither she—I suspect but do not know—nor I know of any policy of our party as was suggested by the noble Lord.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall concentrate on Amendment No. 8. I dealt with Amendment No. 5 in the context of the noble Lord's views, but as the noble Baroness said, Amendment No. 8 is the key amendment. It provides that an order under Clause 1(1)(a) could include provision about membership of trades unions and about disciplinary offences. Since firefighters currently enjoy an unfettered right to join a trade union, this amendment could only constrain that right. I understand that the intention behind this amendment is to put members of fire brigades on the same or similar footing as police officers.
Police officers are prevented joining a trade union by virtue of Section 64 of the Police Act 1996. Police officers are also subject to the Police (Conduct)
422
Regulations 1999, which include a code of conduct covering various matters such as attendance at work. Any breach of the code—for example, taking strike action—could ultimately lead to dismissal. The central issue here is the so-called right to strike. I remind noble Lords that there is no statutory right to strike in the UK. However, there is no practical way to prevent someone withdrawing their labour or to force them to work. So a ban on strike action would be pointless. The so-called right to strike is given by the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. This provides statutory immunity for striking workers and their trade unions so that they are protected from legal action for breach of contract provided the industrial action is in response to a trade dispute and has been subject to the proper balloting and notification procedures. In addition, the ability to strike is seen as an important part of the freedom to associate under Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
I accept that it is a matter of judgment whether firefighters, like the police, perform a role which makes it necessary to interfere with the basic right of any working person to withdraw their labour. Our judgment remains that they do not. We have made our views on this point absolutely clear in our White Paper, Our Fire and Rescue Service, which stated in paragraph 7.25 that,
"employees' ability to take lawful strike action should only be withdrawn in exceptional circumstances. While some may well argue that the experience of the recent fire strikes provide precisely such circumstances, the Government has no plans at present to remove from employees in the fire and rescue service existing freedoms under the law to take industrial action. But it will keep the position under close review".
Under any circumstance, I do not think the kind of powers that would be conferred by Amendment No. 8 would be an appropriate way to deal with these matters. I could certainly not support the idea of the Secretary of State legislating in an order about such fundamental things as trade union membership.
So far as the second limb of this amendment is concerned, the Secretary of State already has the power to make regulations about discipline in the Fire Services Act 1947 (Section 17). The recent White Paper explained that we intend to abolish the current military style regulations and replace them with a new framework based on ACAS best practice guidance. We do not need another power here. Therefore, Amendment No. 8 is unnecessary and I hope that, on reflection, the noble Baroness will not press it.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, on a point of information I ask about a straight question of fact. Are the Government planning to abolish those regulations and the promotion regulations before the end of the year?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, we shall legislate following the White Paper. We have produced a White Paper which precedes legislation. There will be a Bill but I do not know when it will come before the House.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn,

423
and my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway for their interventions. Irrespective of what happens with this amendment, the question still remains of how the Government will implement their legislation if they have to. The right to strike remains and therefore a strike can take place whether or not the Government decide to implement the Bill. A strike can take place if the Government decide to implement the Bill. Therefore, the Bill remains unimplementable in the face of intransigence. That is one of the big flaws in the legislation. If people do not agree with what the Government are saying and do not want to go along with that, it is almost impossible for the Government to have their way.
However, I hear what the Minister says—
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the Bill is a means for the fire-fighters to get the money in the event of a dispute. In certain circumstances we want to pay them the money. The argument that the Bill is unimplementable is abject nonsense. It will give the Secretary of State the power to get the payments to the fire-fighters.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I did not intend to end on a note of disagreement. However, under the Bill the Secretary of State could put forward any scheme at all. The Bill states that he can impose pay and conditions of service, but it does not say what they are unless there are to he further Explanatory Notes attached to the Bill stating that the Secretary of State would implement only the pay as agreed at the present time. However, that is not stated in the Bill. As I read the Bill, the Secretary of State could decide not to accept a pay deal and to impose a completely different pay deal and try to implement other conditions of service. That might not he at all acceptable to the Fire Brigades Union, but that is how I read the Bill.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the whole point is that if there was a deal, there would not be a dispute. We laboured this point in Grand Committee. I said that the Secretary of State would not be using the power to reduce firefighters' pay. We discussed this. It would be a means of his being able to get money to the firefighters which the dispute was stopping.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, on the basis of what the Minister has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hanhammoved Amendment No. 9:
Page 1, line 6, at end insert—
"(1A) Before making an order under subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall conduct a postal ballot of all fire brigade members on his proposals.
(1B) In relation to subsection (1A) above, it shall be the duty of any fire authority to supply the Secretary of State with any information he requires to enable a ballot to be conducted."
424
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I hope that I can introduce this amendment even more briefly. Again, it goes to the heart of whether, and how, the provision would be implemented. It is clear that the Bill will he implemented only at the end stage, when everyone is exasperated and has lost the plot.
At the end of the day, it would be worth the Secretary of State testing the views of the Fire Brigades Union by a postal ballot before implementing the deal. That is what the amendment suggests. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am worried about this amendment. I have let my noble friend know my views. Irrespective of whether my amendments hold or fail, this amendment has to be qualified. As it stands, it would delay plenipotentiary powers of immediate effect in the event of a terrorist attack. So it would require a drafting qualification to make certain that these provisions should not apply in the event of an emergency.
Then, we are getting again towards the two regimes, which at the moment the Government are not willing to accept. But if the Government are not willing to accept that, I suggest that they have to take on hoard my concern about the amendment.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for his intervention. That is precisely the Government's argument: that the postal ballot would take time without getting anywhere.
The powers in the Bill, as we have said on many occasions, are designed to deal speedily with a situation in which the normal process of negotiation has broken down. We also made the point in Grand Committee that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not have available the up-to-date information to carry out such a detailed ballot. Although the latter part of the amendment requires fire authorities to supply the Secretary of State with relevant information to carry out a postal ballot, the amendment gives no time limit within which the fire authority should comply. Should the tire authority wish, it could delay the process to such an extent as to render it useless.
Even if the Secretary of State did carry out a postal ballot on an order modifying or fixing conditions of service, it is not clear what we would do with the results of the ballot. The amendment does not say what should be done with the results, and to that extent it has little meaning.
If the purpose of Amendment No. 9 is to seek consultation from fire brigade members, that is already provided for through consultation with the negotiating body, which will include representatives of fire brigade members, under Clause 1(3).
As I have explained previously and as we have said on many occasions, the powers in the Bill are not for generalities but to deal with a specific set of circumstances surrounding the strikes earlier this year. Against that background, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
11.45 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, if one gets to the stage of needing to use this Bill, it is possible that negotiating bodies will no longer be the people with whom one is considering doing any deals. That will have all broken down. It might very well be that what the Secretary of State wants to introduce could be perfectly acceptable to members of the Fire Brigades Union. There has always been a question about how many people support the action. The only way that the Secretary of State will ever be able to find that out is in a non-emergency situation. I accept that it is technically a fault on that basis, if we are now accepting that there are two sides to the Bill.
The fact of the matter is that one might get very different results from postal ballots than from negotiators. It seems to me perfectly proper for the Secretary of State to have that ability if he wishes. One could easily limit the period in which the information had to be provided about the personnel. If that is a technical hitch, it could easily be amended. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McCarthy movedAmendment No. 10:
Page 1, line 6, at end insert—
"(1A) The Secretary of State shall publish a code of guidance explaining the conditions under which or situations in which he is likely to wish to make use of his powers to make orders under this Act, and such code of guidance shall create no legal rights or duties but shall be taken into account by the courts in relation to any order."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now change the emphasis. We have been trying to get the Government to say a little about the circumstances when they would bring the Bill into action and when they would say that it was an emergency. We have been concentrating on emergencies. Now, we shall try a slightly different approach in the hope that we might get somewhere. The amendment talks not of limitations but of a code of guidance, explaining the conditions in which the Secretary of State is likely to make use of his powers to make orders under this Act and that,
"such a code of guidance shall create no legal rights"—
so it is different in that respect—
"or duties but shall be taken into account by the courts".
That is an attempt to transfer into the field of the fire service the concept of guidance, advice or statutory codes of practice.
There are many statutory codes of practice which specify all kinds of things. For example, there is the code of practice that deals with how to conduct legal ballots or what to do to comply with the health and safety law or to avoid discrimination. Many codes of practice tell the parties, the individuals, the employers and the workers concerned what their legal rights and liabilities are and a very great deal about how the Act is designed to work.
Strangely enough, so far as I know—and I should be very pleased for the Government to get up and say that we have this wrong—the Government do not propose to provide guidance to the parties on this quite
426
unusual, if not unique, experiment in legislation. Therefore, we are suggesting that they might like to do that. For example, they might like to say something. They might reprint the words of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, about what an emergency situation is. I was very surprised to learn that he did not think that the last fireman's strike was an emergency. I do not know what an emergency would be. The way the Government criticised the union—and of course they are perfectly entitled to do that—one would have thought that it was an emergency situation. After all, there was a sense in which the country was at war. The problem, the Government said at the time, was that it was time that the soldiers who had been sent to Iraq came back or that it was time they were circulated around. We could not go on like that. That was a very large part of the Secretary of State's argument.
Therefore, if we could have a return to those themes and be told the circumstances in which the Government would think it was an emergency, that would be extremely useful for the parties. It would certainly be of use to the parties if there was something—not on the face of the Bill—about the circumstances in which the Government would use these orders if there was no sign of industrial action. I had thought, before the Minister made his speech in Committee, that we could more or less assure ourselves that government would not use this Bill, which is to deal with an emergency situation, if there had been no sign of a strike. In most of the ways in which he developed the argument, there is a strike, the strike has been going on for quite some time. They may even have got to the point where they have made a settlement, but that is not enough. We would like to know why it should be that, when there is no industrial action in prospect, this legislation should be introduced. Would it be introduced only in the sense that the Minister might propose something, but would not necessarily bring out an order until he could size up the situation?
There is, of course, the question that has been raised—and again I think it would be very useful for the parties involved to be told—as to how far and in what circumstances the Secretary of State might bring out his orders, even if there was an agreement. I know that the Minister referred in Committee to circumstances where the parties had got together and there was some settlement that was a carve-up, in which the two sides were agreeing things and expecting the Government to pay. But surely something more could be said about the kinds of ways in which an agreement would produce not peace, quiet, placidity and acceptance, but an order?
As I said in Committee, there can be occasions, very often there are, when the parties to a complex negotiation agree two-thirds of it, but they cannot get the last bit done, they cannot get the words done. Those words are not necessarily critical, they may be thought to be more important by one side or the other, but what they really want is time, and they might take that dispute, that issue, out of the negotiations. They might say, "We will come back to that in six months. It is something that we do not want to discuss any

427
further. We will sign what we have got." Is that the kind of situation—surely not—in which the Secretary of State could suddenly say, "Well because you have not agreed everything, I will introduce my order."? I would not have thought so, but maybe it is, and if it is, then I think it is possible that we ought to have an understanding.
I go back to the point that I made in answer to the previous amendment. The Government go on about the fact that this is not changing the right to strike. You can argue about whether it is changing the right to strike and the extent to which it is changing the right to strike in relation to the trade union. We are talking about whether the trade union is inducing a breach of contract. But as I say, think of the worker. How can the Minister say this, if he is paying attention?
Suppose the employer says, "I will sack these people. This is a statutory duty. I can sack people if it is a statutory duty because it is not a breach of contract. It is unlawful. They are preventing me from carrying out the statutory duty." He sacks them. They then have to crawl all the way to an industrial tribunal. It takes a long time with conciliation and mediation. They are on the stones. You cannot say these people have not had their right to strike abridged. They are on the stones, they have lost their jobs. Eventually they go to a tribunal and the tribunal says, "That is perfectly true, we have authority for this, after all Lord Denning said that there is no immunity for an authority to break its statutory duty. So if that is the case then there is no immunity for the workers who forced it to fail in its statutory duty." So the union loses. So the union goes to the EOC and the union goes to the Court of Appeal and it keeps going and all this time the workers are sacked and if more workers come out in support of these workers they are sacked as well. The strike has been broken by dismissals, by sequential, growing dismissals. How can you say that that does not abridge the right to strike? That problem does not arise for any other group of workers in England. Of course you cannot say that.
A Noble Lord: My Lords, what about the Armed Forces and the police?
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, yes, but are we saying that they are in the same category as the Armed Forces and the police? If that is the case, then say tonight that you are putting them in the same group as the Armed Forces and the police, but do not dare to tell me that you have not abridged their right to strike. Of course you have.
One could go on finding things on which something should be said, and about which the Government ought to come clean. In particular, the Government should come clean about how the Bill seriously undermines workers' right to take industrial action. I do not think that they are prepared to say anything, or to put anything in the Bill, but surely they ought to say
428
that they will produce some explanation—call it a code of guidance or something else—that will tell those poor devils what is in train for them. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I support my noble friend's amendment. As I am sure the Minister is well aware, it is usual to have codes of practice issued in connection with legislation. That is all that the amendment proposes. As he is well aware, the legislation is not terribly popular. I have received letters from the FBU opposing it. If a code of practice is issued indicating how the Government see their powers under the Bill and how they intend to proceed, it might render the whole exercise slightly more acceptable, which needs to happen.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I support the amendment. However, the problem that my noble friend put involving industrial action will be very simply remedied, because the Government can easily accept Amendments Nos. 11 and 25—I hope that the Minister will—and put the matter right. It is a very simple point, but we shall come to it then.
I wish to address the golden thread of merit in the amendment that appears in the last few words:
"such code of guidance shall create no legal rights or duties but shall be taken into account by the courts in relation to any order".
I hope that the Government and their Chief Whip will understand the importance of those words. They are the normal formula that has appeared in many statutes. I shall not go over the same ground as my noble friend; there are all sorts of merits in a code of guidance. He outlined perfectly well the role that they can usefully play in negotiation. To be "taken into account by the courts" is the normal formula that means the court can take judicial notice of the code and solve any evidential problem, just as it does with the ACAS code.
The thread of merit goes further in view of what the Minister has said earlier about challenge in the courts. He said that Amendment No. I could be challenged in the courts. When I asked him how that could he done, he said that he did not know. This is a very important constitutional moment. If I were a critical chap, and if the Minister were paying attention to the point, I might say that when a Minister of the Crown tells the House that a form of words could be challenged in the courts and is then asked how that would be, to which he replies, "I do not know"—of course I have sympathy with him as it was not in his brief—that would usually be the occasion for a Statement at a later stage.
The great merit of this amendment is that it cannot possibly meet that objection. It has been well recognised that such a code of guidance is not creating rights or duties, which means that it is not legally binding on the Minister, but that the courts may take judicial notice of it. Therefore, there is no question of a challenge in the courts for the code of guidance and it would, as has already been said by both my noble friends, also have the great merit of being able to resolve situations that might otherwise lead to a more provocative dispute.

429
I therefore hope that the Minister will take very seriously the idea that, once again, instead of merely telling us the Government's intentions, all of which we totally believe, they will put something about those intentions in the Bill. What the Government say is not law, but what the Bill or Act states is. We shall return to that in other amendments.
I very much hope that on this occasion my noble friend the Minister will give a favourable view towards doing something of the kind suggested by the amendment.
Midnight
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am afraid that I am going to disappoint my noble friend Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, because we believe that the amendment is unnecessary.
The Secretary of State is under a general duty to act reasonably and proportionately and the Secretary of State has made it clear—as have we, on many occasions—that the powers the Bill would confer are designed for a very specific set of circumstances. The Secretary of State is not going to decide suddenly to use the powers for an alternative purpose. Even if he did, the Bill places a duty on the Secretary of State to consult with either the negotiating body for orders under Clause 1(1)(a) or with persons affected by an order under Clause 1(1)(b) before using his powers. So the Secretary of State can respond to new, developing or unforeseen circumstances but no one can be taken entirely by surprise.
As the code of guidance suggested in Amendment No. 10 would create no legal right or duty, if the Secretary of State decided he did want to exercise his powers outside the code of guidance, he could simply amend the code. So the amendment would introduce a very blunt and ineffectual tool in curtailing the use of his powers—which I assume is what is intended—compared to the existing duty to consult.
The amendment states that the code could be taken into account by courts in relation to any order made by the Secretary of State, but as noble Lords know, any order made by the Secretary of State under this Bill would be open to judicial review anyway, whether a
430
code of guidance existed or not. It is right that judicial review remains the ultimate safeguard against an unreasonable use of this power.
We suggest that this amendment adds nothing helpful to this Bill and request that the noble Lord withdraw it.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, that is not entirely a surprise, but it is remarkable. The Minister says that the amendment is unnecessary because the Secretary of State is a reasonable man. Are we not all reasonable men? However, he cannot tell us the criteria that he will use to apply his reasonability. He is just a reasonable man. If he were unreasonable, he could be taken to court. However, people want to know what is going to happen before it happens. They do not want suddenly to be told that this or that is happening.
The Minister says that people will not be taken by surprise entirely, and that they will have some idea, because the Bill has a specific purpose. We have often been told that in the course of this debate, but we are not told whether that specific purpose comes in when there is a strike, when there is no strike or when any of the many and variable situations that will take people entirely by surprise occur.
So I do not see how, when the Bill is an Act, the Government, whether or not they accept the amendment, will not have to produce something. Every Bill that I have ever got involved with has had something from some ministry—itis usually highly glossy and expensive—telling us what the Bill will do and giving some guidance. This will be a unique—and reasonable, of course—Bill. Not only will there be no code of practice, for the first time; there will be nothing but silence, while we wait for the reaction of the reasonable man.
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at six minutes past midnight.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the

  Extradition Bill
  (Ninth Day)
  Wednesday, 10th September 2003.
  The Committee met at half past three of the clock.
  [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill) in the Chair.]
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): With the agreement of the Committee, I do not propose to waste time reading out something which we have now heard eight times over; we may proceed straight away to Clause 163 and Amendment No. 245.
  Clause 163 [Entry and search of premises after arrest]:
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 245:
  Page 88, line 42, leave out subsection (9).
  The noble Baroness said: As the Deputy Chairman has rightly reminded us, we now have the joy of a ninth day in Committee on the Bill, which I think we all hope will be the last such day.
  Clause 163 provides for the entry and search of premises after the person in question has been arrested. The clause lays out conditions for search and entry, the relevant offences that relate to the power to search and details of what may legitimately be seized during that search. Subsection (8) states:
  "The powers conferred by subsections (2) and (5) may be exercised only if a police officer of the rank of inspector or above has given written authorisation for their exercise".
  As one might expect, we entirely support that subsection. It seems sensible for authorisation to be given before any entry and search is made after the person in question has been arrested. In such circumstances, there is none of the urgency of the type that we have already discussed in relation to searches at the time of arrest itself. However, our query relates to subsection (9), which states:
  "But the power conferred by subsection (2) may be exercised without authorisation under subsection (8) if—

  (a) it is exercised before the person arrested is taken to a police station, and

  (b) the presence of the person at a place other than a police station is necessary for the effective exercise of the power to search".

  I should be grateful if the Minister would tell the committee what sort of situations that provision is intended to address. Why does the Bill include one subsection ensuring that a search after arrest must he by authorisation only and then, in the following subsection, allow a search without senior officer
  GC 2
  authorisation? We read the Explanatory Notes, but they took us no further forward, so I hope that we may receive some clarification today from the Minister. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie: It is popular when discussing such criminal justice matters to object to anything that might authorise a fishing trip. In fact, it is a hit of a ritual to do that, so I shall do so now. I am also interested that subsection (10) states that subsections (8) and (9) do not apply in Scotland. Presumably, that is because the matter is already dealt with in Scotland.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin): I shall be glad to give the clarification that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, seeks through this probing amendment. Let me turn directly to her question of why, having provided the basic power of prior written authorisation, subsection (9) appears to allow for exceptions.
  Let me give an instance of why we think that to be necessary. One can envisage the circumstance in which the police find a person who is wanted for, say. a hank robbery in Portugal, at address A and the person indicates that he is willing to co-operate with the police and that there is further evidence or money at another address—just further down the road, for example. In those circumstances, as a consequence of having to obtain prior authorisation, one would significantly reduce the likelihood of being able to seize the evidence or proceeds of crime.
  However, although such a power is necessary, there must clearly be safeguards against it. In drafting the clause, we have again sought to follow provisions in our domestic legislation. Section 18(5) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 makes almost identical provision allowing a constable to conduct a search before the person is taken to the police station, without obtaining authorisation. There must he safeguards against the abuse of such a power, and there is therefore a further safeguard in the police code of practice, which has been open for consultation during the summer.
  Chapter 3, paragraph 4.4 of the draft code states:
  "If authorisation has not been obtained…an officer of the rank of inspector or above must he informed that a search has been made, as soon as practicable after it has been conducted".
  That information will be supported by the normal action after a search, which includes making and filing a record of the search and explaining the grounds under which it was made. That is spelt out in the code of practice in paragraph 4.13. For those reasons, we believe that the provision is necessary, albeit circumscribed in the way I described.
  As for the question posed by the noble Earl. Lord Mar and Kellie, there is no legality for the undertaking of fishing trips in such circumstances. He is of course absolutely right to say that the situation is different in

  GC 3
  Scotland; I shall speak in considerably more detail to that later when we discuss subsequent amendments, if the noble Earl will bear with me.
  Lord Goodhart: I understand that there may be circumstances in which it is desirable to have a power to search without obtaining previous authorisation, but should it not be on the face of the Bill that that should be done only where it is impracticable to obtain authorisation? Otherwise it would leave too much open if you could simply go ahead and then notify the inspector. Where it is practicable to consult an inspector before a search is carried out—that may even be done orally rather than in writing; an inspector will surely be at least at the end of a radio or mobile telephone—should it not be a requirement that such consent should be obtained?
  Lord Filkin: It would clearly be technically possible to do what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, suggests, but one of the themes running throughout the Bill is an attempt to use and to build on police and criminal evidence procedures. This is not only for the purpose of reducing parliamentary draftsmen's time—which is not an issue—but it is essential that, as far as possible and where it is appropriate, to have similar codes and practices so that the police may deal with a matter using similar procedures. It will increase the likelihood of errors not being made where there is no need to do so if one follows PACE practices and a code which is built on PACE. For that reason—particularly when it is reinforced by the commitment that the Government have given to clarification—I do not believe there is a danger.
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: Is there not a possibility of obtaining authority retrospectively? If this exception is not to lead to fishing expeditions, why could it not be approved by an authority subsequently that it was necessary in the circumstances to conduct a search expeditiously and without prior permission? That would ensure that it was an exception and that some discipline was placed on an authority; otherwise it could make the excuse that it was in a hurry.
  Lord Filkin: In practice, as regards the requirement to notify an inspector or a more senior officer after the event has happened, in a sense it will be difficult to authorise something that has already happened. It is germane that if circumstances arose in which there did not appear to be any good reason for a subsequent search taking place without authority—I am thinking on my feet here—the inspector or other senior officer would have to draw attention to the fact that the evidence was possibly suspect because it had not been carried out necessarily in compliance with PACE.
  If, on reflection, I can add anything further, I shall be happy to write to the noble Lord, Lord Lamont.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: Does my noble friend agree that it is quite impossible for a Bill of this kind, which we hope will become an Act, to specify all the possibilities
  GC 4
  that could arise? What is happening now so far as the Bill is concerned is that a possibility is being covered by a number of subsections. This is most important.
  [The Sitting was suspended Or a Division in the House from 3.40 to 3.50 p.m.]
  Lord Clinton-Davis: I was put off by the constant ringing of the Division Bell. My simple question is whether my noble friend agrees that it is quite impossible in a Bill of this kind or any Bill to rehearse all the possibilities that may exist. Here, there is a certain degree of implicit understanding of the procedure. Having said that, does he agree that the Bill establishes a practice and, from that, certain events follow? I believe that what has been expressed here is the possibility that constables will not be able to follow the procedure envisaged earlier in the Bill and that is why this particular provision has been inserted.
  Lord Filkin: I am not sure that I can agree with my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis because good scrutiny sometimes makes one feel that one is not trying to answer every single eventuality, which we sometimes seek to do, as we should.
  Speaking more seriously, the inspector will clearly have a duty to write down the grounds for the search on notification of the search and he would also check that against the officer's report of the search. I was saying that officers would be used to following those procedures as they are the same as those in PACE and the PACE codes of practice. We are currently consulting on the code of practice, but as yet we have not sensed that anyone feels that it was inappropriate to mirror PACE in those circumstances. I return to the initial point that, although this is a rarely used power, it is necessary to have such a power for the kind of circumstances that he instanced.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister. He is absolutely right to say that there should be some consistency between the practice of PACE and the practice within this Bill in the sense that it is helpful for the police to know the correct form of procedure so that they follow it. It is equally important for there to be consistency in order to assist practitioners and those who may fall foul of the law to know what good or bad practice may be.
  It was important that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, raised the issue about areas where it may be impractical to achieve consent. Those areas are the only ones governed by this. I want to look further at that, but I assume that it would be the case that if evidence were gathered in a way that contravened the PACE rules, one would not be able to use that evidence anyway in a court of law. We have been trying to obtain the explanation from the Minister and to ensure that we have considered the issues properly, as he said. The Committee stage provides the opportunity to probe and seek clarification. I believe that he has given us that. I shall look more carefully at the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, but, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 246 not moved.]
  Clause 163, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 164 to 169 agreed to.
  Clause 170 [Other treatment and rights]:
  Baroness Anelay of St Johnsmoved Amendment No. 247:
  Page 92, line 26, leave out subsection (2).
  The noble Baroness said: I tabled Amendment No. 247 because we have some concerns about the provisions of subsection (2) which states:
  "In relation to those cases the Secretary of State may by order apply the provisions mentioned in subsections (3) and (4) with specified modifications".
  That seems rather curious. It seems to imply—we assume this is wrong—that Sections 54, 55, 56 and 58 of PACE will not otherwise apply to persons arrested under the Bill. Presumably the protections contained in those provisions should be set out specifically in the Bill. They would include, in particular, access to legal advice and to translators—Section 58—where necessary in the interests of justice. Therefore, I am unclear why in extradition proceedings the arrested person does not have the same protection under PACE as anyone normally arrested. I assume that that is simply a case of misreading the Bill or of thinking that there is a meaning that is not there at all. Perhaps the Minister can shed some light on what appears to be an alternative procedure unique to extradition hearings. I beg to move.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for introducing this amendment because it gives us a chance to clarify the position. I should like to reassure her that the concept of "with specified modifications" is very minor in the context of the Bill. The noble Baroness is right to query the point as, indeed, did the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, although it is important to point out that the Committee's comments were made in respect of a completely different part of the Bill which we have yet to reach. We regard the issues in this part of the Bill as very minor indeed.
  Clause 170 allows for some specific provisions in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and its Northern Ireland equivalent to be applied in extradition cases. The power to apply these provisions with specified modifications is necessary simply to take account of the fact that we needed to distinguish between extradition cases and normal domestic ones. All these sections in PACE and the Northern Ireland equivalent refer repeatedly to the terms "offence" and "serious arrestable offence". Sections 54(4)(c), 52(6)(a), 58(a), (b) and (c) of PACE are just a few examples.
  One of the key findings in the judgment of Rottman, which is the case that has caused us to spell out police powers on the face of the Bill, was that PACE in its unmodified form could refer only to offences committed in the UK or over which the UK takes extra-territorial jurisdiction. A reference to an offence in PACE cannot refer to offences committed overseas.
  GC 6
  Accordingly, unless we make these minor modifications, these sections of PACE cannot apply in extradition cases, which would deny important safeguards to fugitives, as the noble Baroness indicated.
  That is why we believe that we need the power to apply the relevant sections of PACE with specified modifications. However, I can reassure your Lordships that we will be applying the appropriate sections with only the minimum of modifications required to make them work in the extradition context. I can say that with considerable confidence because if your Lordships care to look at the police code of practice which we put out for consultation earlier this month, you will see that all of it is covered in Chapter 1.
  The draft codes cover all these areas—including the right to have a person informed when arrested and the right to legal advice—in considerable detail and mirror very closely what happens in domestic cases. We would, of course, welcome any comments on the draft code, but I hope that the Committee will be reassured that by the inclusion of the words "with specified modifications", we are not seeking to make any substantive changes.
  The sections in PACE and the Northern Ireland equivalent that we are talking about provide important safeguards for those arrested. The right to legal advice and the right to have a person informed of your arrest are clearly very significant. Similarly, it is very important that all searches—intimate or otherwise—are conducted in accordance with approved procedures, and that a proper record is kept of them.
  It would be a pity if these provisions could not apply in extradition cases. That would be the position unless we could make the necessary modifications. I hope the Committee will therefore see why the amendment is not attractive. Nevertheless, it has given rue the opportunity to clarify the position, I hope to the satisfaction of the Committee.
  4 p.m.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister for casting some light on that and, in particular, for giving the commitment that the Bill means that the Government would not be making, as he said, substantive changes while providing the protections required. That is important. He referred to Chapter 1 of the code of practice. I will not respond to that at the moment, as we deal with the code of practice as a separate matter in the next amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 170 agreed to.
  Clause 171 agreed to.
  Clause 172 [Codes of practice]:
  Lord Filkinmoved Amendment No. 247A:
  Page 94, line 29, at end insert—
  "(8) If the Secretary of State publishes a draft code of practice in connection with a matter specified in subsection (1) before the date on which this section comes into force—

  (a) the draft is as effective as one published under subsection (2) on or after that date;

  (b) representations made to the Secretary of State about the draft before that date are as effective as representations made to him about it after that date;

  (c) modifications made by the Secretary of State to the draft in the light of any such representations before that date are as effective as any such modifications made by him on or after that date."

  The noble Lord said: I hope that this will be seen as an utterly procedural amendment by the Government. Its purpose is to provide that the consultation exercise on the code of practice on police powers in extradition cases will be valid even though it will have taken place before Royal Assent. When the Bill was debated in another place, the Official Opposition spokesman asked that publication of the code of practice be as early as possible, and we were certainly pleased to make it so. The code was published on 9th June and has been distributed widely for comment to every police force, the Court Service, the Bar Council, the Magistrates' Association and others. The consultation closed two days ago on 8th September, although as discussed we have 12 weeks for people to comment.
  The thrust of the purpose of the amendment is to put beyond doubt that the consultation and the draft code of practice are still valid, even though they took place before Royal Assent. The amendment is no more and no less than that. I beg to move.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I certainly welcome the amendment and, of course, the publication of the draft codes that took place this summer. As the Minister stated in his letter of 4th June, that meets the requests made by my honourable friend Nick Hawkins. It is right that the codes should be ultimately subject to affirmative procedure when they come before this House. I am glad that the Government have made that clear.
  The Minister mentioned that the consultation finished on 8th September, two days ago. I understand from the Government's press releases and the draft code of practice itself that the Government's response is expected to be published in October. Is that still the Government's intention? Obviously, it would be very helpful to the Committee to know that the Government will give a response before the Bill leaves this House, because we will be able to take that into constructive consideration before it passes to another place.
  In the meantime, might the Minister be able to answer one or two administrative questions on the code of practice that occurred to me as I read through it this summer in our so-called holiday, before we came back to the joy of this Bill? When will the responses of the consultees be made available on the Internet? I confess that I have not looked today, so they may
  GC 8
  already be there and I shall be given good news. I notice that, as always in these cases, the Government made it clear that if any consultees did not wish their responses to be made public they should so signify. Are the Government able to tell us whether any consultees have given that indication, or whether we are likely to see all the responses?
  I was intrigued by some of the questions in the code of practice, particularly that on clarity on page 8. The Government said that they would welcome comments on whether the distinction between,
  "investigation of the extradition offence",
  and,
  "obtaining evidence for the prosecution of the extradition offence",
  in Chapter 2, paragraph 1.4, needs further explanation. That is in respect of search-and-seizure warrants and production orders. Paragraph 1.4 states that:
  "Searches under warrant should only be conducted for the purposes of obtaining evidence for the prosecution of the extradition offence and officers may not conduct searches which in any way constitute investigation of that offence".
  The Minister will be well aware that I raise the matter because of the strong discussions that we had on the point earlier in the Bill, when Members of the Committee expressed concerns about it. The way in which Clause 2 is drafted makes it possible for proceedings to be launched when the overseas authority seeks extradition for a process that in this country would not readily be recognised as one where the accused faces charges. To us it always appears as though there is an ongoing investigation. That lack of certainty of prosecution has been translated into the consultation document, we think, in Chapter 1, paragraph 2.1.ii, which states that an officer may make an arrest under Section 4 where the warrant contains information that the person has been accused or convicted of an offence in the category 1 country.
  The whole point at issue, both in another place and here, has been that more than accusation must be required. That is a detailed query on the code of practice. I raise it now because we are in Grand Committee, where we can probe. I do not expect the Minister to give me a full answer today. I do it because we have a two-week break in which I hope that his Bill team can consider the matter. I am certainly not doing it simply to prove that I have read the document during the lovely summer holiday, but it is something that we will need to consider very carefully when we come back to such matters on Report.
  I wonder whether the Minister will be able to indicate—it is unlikely today, but at a later stage and before October—what the response has been to the issue in chapter 2, paragraph 1.4, regarding the clarity of the difference between obtaining evidence of prosecution as opposed to investigation, and whether responses have acknowledged the different systems of judicial procedure overseas in that respect. That is

  GC 9
  something that we will need to home in on when we come to Report. However, I repeat the welcome that I gave to the amendment.
  Lord Filkin: We are still receiving some responses but they have slow delivery dates. As is usually the way, one is not officious about those things. They will therefore he available on the Home Office website by the end of September.
  To date, we have received about 22 responses and given what I have just said that number may have risen. Of those, two have stated that they wish to preserve their confidentiality.
  With regard to the noble Baroness's last point—I have sufficient recollection of the issues which arose before the summer holidays—it was rightly an important one in Committee. We are concerned that officers do not conduct fishing trips or investigations, as we have signalled. We recognise that this requires further clarification. Almost all respondees have requested this. We will certainly give the matter consideration. I am therefore pleased to accept the thrust of the noble Baroness's questioning, to take it away and to come back when we produce the draft. We should be able to show our likely responses before the Bill leaves the Lords, which I hope will be helpful.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 172, as amended, agreed to.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lourmoved Amendment No. 248:
  After Clause 172, insert the following new clause—
  "CODE OF PRACTICE IN SCOTLAND
  (1) The Scottish Ministers must issue codes of practice in connection with—

  (a) the exercise of the powers conferred by this Part;

  (b) the retention, use and return of anything seized or produced under this Part;

  (c) access to and the taking of photographs and copies of anything so seized or produced.

  (2) If the Scottish Ministers propose to issue a code of practice under this section. they must—

  (a) publish a draft of the code;

  (b) consider any representations made to them about the draft;

  (c) if they think it appropriate, modify the draft in light of any such representations.

  (3) The Scottish Ministers must lay the code before the Scottish Parliament.
  (4) When they have done so they may bring the code into operation by order.
  (5) The Scottish Ministers may revise the whole or any part of a code issued under this section and issue the code as revised; and subsections (2) and (4) apply to such a revised code as they apply to the original code.
  (6) A code issued under this section is admissible in evidence in proceedings under this Act and must be taken into account by a judge or court in determining any question to which it appears to the judge or the court to be relevant.
  (7) The power conferred by subsection (4) on the Scottish Ministers to make orders shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.
  (8) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (4) shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, the Scottish Parliament."
  The noble Baroness said: We have been discussing Clause 172, which requires the Secretary of State to issue codes of practice relating to this part of the Bill. But elsewhere, the Bill states that Clause 172 does not apply to Scotland. I can find no explanation of that either in the Government's Explanatory Notes on the Bill as a whole or in the Home Office notes on Scotland which the Minister kindly supplied for us.
  The Law Society of Scotland feels that there should be a code in Scotland in much the same way as for the rest of the United Kingdom. I expect that the Minister may refer to the reply he gave at the end of business on the eighth day at col. GC164. He explained in another context that in all cases other than under Clause 5, police officers will be required to act directly under the instructions of the Crown Office and the procurator fiscal and that that will include questions of search.
  If that explanation were part of the Minister's reply today, I feel that the Law Society of Scotland must be aware of it. I had not spotted his answer until recently because I had gone home and my noble friend Lady Anelay moved the amendment. However, the Law Society may feel, as do I, that it might be helpful for the police in Scotland to have a code of practice in their hand when dealing with this part of the Bill.
  There is no reason why a code of practice should not exist. Obviously, it would not be that which appears in the amendment, because that assumes that the supervision is not carried out by the procurator fiscal. Is it impossible to require a code of practice under the circumstances prescribed in the Bill for Scotland? In such a tricky operation, the police will need something to refer to. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie: In the context of devolution, it is becoming increasingly important to make certain that everyone knows exactly what is to happen. It is not directly relevant to extradition, but I cite the false crisis that has blown up over the use of Dungavel House, part of the Home Office's immigration system and a former semi-open prison now used as—I think this is the terminology—a removal centre. In the past fortnight or so, many Scottish parliamentarians have clearly got themselves into a considerable tangle about that.
  Hoping that we will not get ourselves into a tangle over the Bill in future, I think that it would be very useful if a code of practice had to, first, be constructed for Scottish use and, secondly, go through the Scottish Parliament. That would mean that there was less chance of muddle, misunderstanding and false crises in future.
  [The sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 4.12 to 4.22 p.m.]
  Lord Filkin: In practice, this is a matter for the Scots. Under the devolution settlement, it is for them to decide how they want to undertake these issues.
  The fuller answer is that Clause 172 extends only to England, Wales and Northern Ireland for that reason. In Scotland, the power in Part 4 of the Bill will be exercised under the power of the Crown Office and the procurator fiscal service. Section 17(3) of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 makes it clear that police officers must comply with the lawful instructions of the procurator fiscal in the investigation of crime. The procurator fiscal must apply to the sheriff for a warrant to search under Clause 155 and is responsible for the decision to deliver up any evidence seized to the requesting state. By virtue of Section 17 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967, the chief constable of any area, in directing the constables of the police force in relation to the investigation of offences, must comply with the lawful instructions of the procurator fiscal.
  Secondly, Section 48(5) of the Scotland Act provides that any decision of the Lord Advocate, in his capacity as head of the system of criminal prosecution is to be taken by him independently of any other person. Therefore, there might be an area of debate about whether a code of practice issued by Scottish Ministers to the police might be seen as an interference in the role of Lord Advocate.
  At the practical level, I should signal that there are relatively few extradition requests to Scotland. For that reason, the tendency has been that the Lothian and Borders Police Force carries out the work for all of Scotland. One can see the sense in that: one force develops out of a limited case the experience and expertise in the matter.
  In short, the issue is one for the Scots to decide whether a code of practice is necessary. We have received no indication that they think that, but no doubt this debate will alert them to consider the matter. I would doubt that that were the case.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I thank the Minister for that answer. This is an interesting issue. As my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie said, devolution is gradually being worked through and that involves tight, complicated arrangements.
  I am a little surprised to learn that the Lothian police will search a house in North Uist. I am not sure whether that is the case, but perhaps it is.
  Lord Filkin: I am so advised.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: That is interesting. I had not caught on to that point. It is understandable because in law the arrangements of the police in these and most circumstances are made by the Crown Office through the procurator fiscal. That clears up the matter.
  I would like to go back to the Law Society of Scotland to see why it put forward the amendment. It may believe that the police, whoever they are, may need a code of practice. However, it sounds as though it should not be prescribed in the Bill. I shall return to
  GC 12
  them and if there is a further issue to raise I shall do so on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clauses 173 to 175 agreed to.
  4.30 p.m.
  Lord Davies of Oldhammoved Amendment No. 248A:
  Before Clause 176, insert the following new clause—
  "EXTRADITION FROM BRITISH OVERSEAS TERRITORIES
  (1) This section applies in relation to extradition—

  (a) from a British overseas territory to a category 1 territory;

  (b) from a British overseas territory to the United Kingdom;

  (c) from a British overseas territory to a category 2 territory;

  (d) from a British overseas territory to any of the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man.

  (2) An Order in Council may provide for any provision of this Act applicable to extradition from the United Kingdom to apply to extradition in a case falling within subsection (1)(a) or (b).
  (3) An Order in Council may provide for any provision of this Act applicable to extradition from the United Kingdom to a category 2 territory to apply to extradition in a case falling within subsection (1)(c) or (d).
  (4) An Order in Council under this section may provide that the provision applied has effect with specified modifications."
  The noble Lord said: In moving government Amendment No. 248A, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 248B and explain why we seek to remove Clauses 176 to 180 from the Bill.
  These are drafting amendments. At present, Clauses 176 to 180 provide for extradition arrangements between British Overseas Territories and the rest of the world. The effect of these amendments is to replace five clauses with two. I can assure the Committee that in seeking to make these changes we are not in any way changing the policy or effect of the legislation as it would apply to the overseas territories.
  For the record, I should explain the policy. Gibraltar, as a party to the European arrest warrant, will apply Part 1 procedures. All our other overseas territories will apply Part 2 in all their extradition arrangements, including those with the UK. We simply concluded that, in the name of clear and concise drafting—which I am sure the Committee will appreciate—what was already in the Bill could be improved upon. This is the result of our improvement. I beg to move.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation and for the letter that we were sent explaining these amendments. The letter stated that the amendments make no substantial difference. We obviously share the Minister's wish to shorten legislation wherever possible and two clauses for five seems a good exchange. We are content with the changes on the understanding—as he has stated and as was stated in the letter—that it is the drafting rather than the substance that is being altered.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Davies of Oldhammoved Amendment No. 248B:
  Before Clause 176, insert the following new clause—
  "EXTRADITION TO BRITISH OVERSEAS TERRITORIES
  (1) This section applies in relation to extradition—

  (a) to a British overseas territory from a category 1 territory;

  (b) to a British overseas territory from the United Kingdom;

  (c) to a British overseas territory from a category 2 territory;

  (d) to a British overseas territory from any of the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man.

  (2) An Order in Council may provide for any provision of this Act applicable to extradition to the United Kingdom to apply to extradition in a case falling within subsection (1)(a) or (b).
  (3) An Order in Council may provide for any provision of this Act applicable to extradition to the United Kingdom from a category 2 territory to apply to extradition in a case falling within subsection (1)(c) or (d).
  (4) An Order in Council under this section may provide that the provision applied has effect with specified modifications."
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I am required to take the proposal to remove the next five clauses individually. If the Minister would indicate his wish that they should not stand part of the Bill, I shall proceed in that way. It may take rather a long time, but it requires the Minister to say that he wishes to delete the next five clauses.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: Yes. I beg to move that the next five clauses of the Bill should be deleted.
  Clause 176 negatived.
  Clause 177 negatived.
  Clause 178 negatived.
  Clause 179 negatived.
  Clause 180 negatived.
  Clause 181 [Competing claims to extradition]:
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbottsmoved Amendment No. 249:
  Page 97, line 36. leave out from beginning to third "a"
  The noble Lord said: It will not take long to explain the thinking behind Amendment No. 249, which is tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns. It has been grouped with the debate on Clause 181 stand part in the interests of not rehearsing the arguments twice over. Both Amendment No. 249 and the clause stand part debate focus on ensuring clarity of drafting in the interests of workability when the Bill becomes an Act.
  Clause 181—"Competing claims to extradition"—deals, as one would expect, with the occasions when conflicting claims for extradition occur between category 1 and category 2 territories. Amendment No. 249 may at first sight seem somewhat pedantic but it is intended to draw the Government's attention to the different drafting adopted in the two paragraphs of subsection (1).
  GC 14
  We believe that the words in subsection (1)(a),
  "there is a Part 1 warrant in respect of a person",
  are superfluous. The situation which is being addressed is where a certificate under Clause 2 and a certificate under Clause 69—that is, from a category 1 and category 2 territory respectively—come into conflict in relation to the extradition of the same person. As a certificate under Clause 2 cannot be issued unless there is a Part I warrant in existence—that is, a European arrest warrant—which has been presented to the relevant authority in this country from a category 1 territory, the existing phrase,
  "there is a Part 1 warrant in respect of a person",
  is unnecessary; the fact is implicit in the provisions of the Bill. In the interests of tidier drafting and to make paragraph (a) correspond more closely to paragraph (b) in its wording, we believe that Amendment No. 249 should be adopted.
  Let me now address our concerns about Clause 181 as a whole. We understand the necessity for including a clause in the Bill which addresses the problem of conflicting simultaneous requests from a category 1 and a category 2 territory. We have tabled the debate on clause stand part in order to probe the Minister and to give him a chance to explain the workability of the clause.
  Subsection (2) gives a number of options to the Secretary of State in terms of how he should proceed when faced with two warrants. He may order proceedings on one of them, the warrant or the request—be it a Part 1 or a Part 2—to be deferred; he may order an extradition in respect of a warrant to be deferred until the request has been disposed of; and he may order an extradition in pursuance of a request to be deferred until the warrant has been disposed of. In other words, all options are open. This offers no advice or help to the Secretary of State; it merely states that all options are open to him.
  However, subsection (3) sets out what the Secretary of State must take into account, and his decision must be based on the criteria set out in paragraphs (a) to (d) of that subsection. These include the relative seriousness of the offences; the place where each offence was committed; the date when the warrant was issued and the date when the request was received; and whether, in the case of each offence, the person is accused of its commission or is alleged to be unlawfully at large after conviction.
  I understand the reasons for those paragraphs, but does the Minister consider that the list of criteria is exhaustive? Surely other factors should be taken into account. Is there any reason why there should not, or could not, be a new paragraph which might include "any other factor which is deemed relevant"?
  The European arrest warrant seems to support such a non-exhaustive approach in terms of the criteria on which the Secretary of State should make his decision. Article 16 of the framework decision—entitled "Decision in the event of multiple requests"—states:
  "If two or more Member States have issued European arrest warrants for the same person, the decision on which the European arrest warrants shall be executed shall be taken by the executing

  GC 15
  judicial authority with due consideration of all the circumstances and especially the relative seriousness and place of the offences, the respective dates of the European arrest warrants and whether the warrant has been issued for the purposes of prosecution or for execution of a custodial sentence or detention order".
  I note here that it refers to a consideration of "all the circumstances". This might include, for instance, considering the date of the alleged offence, which is not currently mentioned in the Bill. This perhaps should also be considered when deciding between two requests.
  The clause relies on the discretion of the Secretary of State to come to the decision he thinks best in relation to two conflicting extradition requests. We want to ensure that the clause is workable in order that the Secretary of State may reach his decision with the best possible ease.
  The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, has on frequent occasions—during the Second Reading debate and thereafter—referred to the delays in the current procedure caused by potential judicial reviews of the Secretary of State's discretion. I should be grateful for the Minister's reassurance that he feels this clause has been sufficiently well drafted in the light of the difficulties experienced by the Home Secretary under the present regime when faced with conflicting simultaneous requests. It would be helpful to the Committee if he could explain how often such requests occur and how, if at all, the clause has been redrafted from the corresponding provisions in the existing Acts. I beg to move.
  Lord Filkin: As the Committee knows, Clause 181 is concerned with the important area of competing claims to extradition. We discussed this matter in some detail earlier when we considered an amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie.
  The Bill deals with competing requests in three separate places. Where there are two Part 1 requests in respect of the same person, it falls to the district judge to decide which one should be given priority. That is set out in Clause 43. Where there are two Part 2 requests in respect of the same person, it falls to the Secretary of State to decide which one should be given priority. That is set out in Clause 124. Clause 181, which we are currently considering, is concerned with the third possible combination-—that is, where we receive a Part 1 and a Part 2 request in respect of the same person. In that case, it is the Secretary of State who decides which one should be given priority.
  The noble Lord is right that in each of the three situations that I have described the factors which must be decided between the two requests are the same: the relative seriousness of the offences; the place where the offence occurred or was alleged to have occurred; the dates when the request was made; and whether the person is accused of the offences or is alleged to be unlawfully at large after conviction of them. For completeness, in Scottish cases, Scottish Ministers perform the function of the Secretary of State.
  GC 16
  At first, we believed that the amendment was seeking to remove the reference to a Part I warrant in subsection (1)(a) of Clause 181. We tended to jump to the slightly paranoid assumption that that was part of the effort to remove Part 1 from the Bill. But we understand the Opposition's position on that and no doubt we shall return to the matter at another time and place.
  I turn to the first point in relation to the drafting. I believe I would be wise not to seek to engage in debate on this issue now but, instead, to say that, in essence, we believe that subsection (1)(a) corresponds to the wording in subsection (1)(b) in respect of a request for a certificate for a person not yet extradited. But we are happy to consider whether the drafting can be improved and we shall take it away with an open mind to see whether that would be helpful.
  I turn to the point concerning criteria and whether there is a need to add to them. The criteria in Clause 181(3) are not exhaustive and the Secretary of State can consider any matter. The clause simply requires that he must consider the matters listed in paragraphs (a) to (d). It does not prohibit him from considering other matters.
  To the question of how often competing requests occur, the answer is: very rarely. We should be happy to go back and carry out research if further details would be helpful. In fact, there is nothing in current legislation under the Extradition Act 1989. Therefore, these are new provisions, which seek to lay down some clearer and tighter rules of process. I hope that, with the undertaking that I gave to consider the drafting. my response has been helpful.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I am grateful to the Minister and am very happy with his reassurance that he will reconsider the wording of Clause 181(1)(a). I am also grateful for his assurance that the list is not exhaustive. I believe that failure to include the date when the offence is committed is a strange omission. The date when the warrant is issued is one thine. but it seems to me that the date of the offence is probably more important.
  Lord Filkin: This may be an issue to which we shall return later. There can be confusion, argument or doubt as to when an offence is committed. There can be circumstances when it is not clear when an offence was committed. We shall return to that matter later. Therefore, the order—that is, when a warrant is made—is a certainty, whereas, in some circumstances, there can be considerable confusion about exactly when an offence occurred.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I am grateful to the Minister for that further comment. I take comfort from the fact that, in any case, the list is not exhaustive. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 181 agreed to.
  Clauses 182 and 183 agreed to.
  4.45 p.m.
  Lord Davies of Oldhammoved Amendment No. 249ZA:
  Before Clause 184, insert the following new clause—
  "LEGAL ADVICE, ASSISTANCE AND REPRESENTATION: ENGLAND AND WALES
  In section 12(2) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 (c. 22) (meaning of "criminal proceedings") for paragraph (c) substitute—
  "(c) proceedings for dealing with an individual under the Extradition Act 2003,"."
  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 249ZA on behalf of my noble friend, I shall speak also to the other amendments in this group—albeit very briefly.
  As the Committee will be aware, the Bill was amended at Report stage in another place to provide that our existing legislation—the Extradition Act 1989 and the Backing of Warrants (Republic of Ireland) Act 1965—will he repealed in their entirety. That has avoided any suggestion of a Henry VIII power, and I am sure that that is welcome to the Committee.
  However, the consequence is that we now need to pick up, and repeal, references to those Acts in other legislation, and that is the purpose of this group of amendments. As I said, I do not want to go into detail but I should probably explain why I shall shortly invite Members of the Committee to remove Clause 190 from the Bill.
  Clause 205 repeals the 1965 and 1989 Acts outright. That was not the case when Clause 190 was originally included in the Bill. As consequential amendments to existing legislation are required as a result of Clause 205, the amendments to the International Criminal Court Act 2001 arc best addressed, with the other amendments. in the schedule. Paragraph 13 of the new schedule replaces the existing Clause 190 in the Bill, amending Schedule 2 to the 2001 Act. With that explanation, I beg to move.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: These are fairly technical amendments and we should like the chance to read what the Minister said rather than react too extempore. With regard to the question of bringing the definition of "criminal proceedings" within the Access to Justice Act, throughout the Bill we have had a great deal of discussion about access to legal advice and assistance. I believe the overwhelming view on all sides of the Committee has been that we should ensure that the defendant has access to independent legal advice at all stages of the extradition process. It seems to me that, if that is what will now happen, that is a welcome development and obviously it is in line with the ECHR. Therefore, we would support the amendment if that is what it achieved, but perhaps we may have the opportunity to look through what the Minister said.
  Perhaps I may ask the Minister one question in relation to Amendment No. 267B on page 18 of the Marshalled List. This point may be too detailed and the Minister may like to return to it later. In the wording of the amendment which relates to Section 5 of the Suppression of Terrorism Act, there is a
  GC 18
  substitution under the heading, "Power to apply section 4 to non-convention countries". What caught my eye was Section 5(1), which states:
  "The Secretary of State may by order direct that section 4 above shall apply in relation to a country".
  Where we have orders on important matters such as this, I should like to know what the implications are. Perhaps the Minister can either provide an explanation—if his officials can give him a briefing now—or write to us. In addition, can he tell us whether the order is to be made under the positive or the negative procedure?
  Lord Davies of Oldham: My expertise was exhausted after the first sentence of the noble Lord's contribution. I am unhappy to say that I am not sure whether my officials can respond quite that quickly to a very technical point. The noble Lord will recognise that in moving the amendment I sought to assert clearly that this is merely a drafting position. However, I recognise the noble Lord's anxieties and we shall of course write to him so that he is fully reassured on that point.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clauses 184 to 188 agreed to.
  Lord Davies of Oldhammoved Amendments Nos. 249A to 249D:
  After Clause 188, insert the following new clause—
  "RE-EXTRADITION: PRELIMINARY
  (1) Section (Re-extradition hearing) applies in relation to a person if the conditions in subsections (2) to (6) are satisfied.
  (2) The first condition is that the person was extradited to a territory in accordance with Part I or Part 2.
  (3) The second condition is that the person was serving a sentence of imprisonment or another form of detention in the United Kingdom (the UK sentence) before he was extradited.
  (4) The third condition is that—

  (a) if the person was extradited in accordance with Part 1, the Part 1 warrant in pursuance of which he was extradited contained a statement that it was issued with .t view to his extradition for the purpose of being prosecuted for an offence;

  (b) if the person was extradited in accordance with Part 2, the request in pursuance of which the person was extradited contained a statement that the person was accused of the commission of an offence.

  (5) The fourth condition is that a certificate issued by a judicial authority of the territory shows that—

  (a) a sentence of imprisonment or another form of detention for a term of 4 months or a greater punishment (the overseas sentence) was imposed on the person in the territory;

  (b) the overseas sentence was imposed on him in respect of—

  (i) the offence specified in the warrant or request, or

  (ii) any other offence committed before his extradition in respect of which he was permitted to be dealt with in the territory.

  (6) The fifth condition is that before serving the overseas sentence the person was returned to the United Kingdom to serve the remainder of the UK sentence."

  GC 19
  After Clause 188, insert the following new clause—
  "RE-EXTRADITION HEARING
  (1) If this section applies in relation to a person, as soon as practicable after the relevant time the person must be brought before the appropriate judge for the judge to decide whether the person is to be extradited again to the territory in which the overseas sentence was imposed.
  (2) The relevant time is the time at which the person would otherwise be released from detention pursuant to the UK sentence (whether or not on licence).
  (3) If subsection (1) is not complied with the person must be taken to be discharged.
  (4) The person must be treated as continuing in legal custody until he is brought before the appropriate judge under subsection ( 1 ) or he is taken to be discharged under subsection (3).
  (5) If the person is brought before the appropriate judge under subsection (1) the judge must decide whether the territory in which the overseas sentence was imposed is—

  (a) a category 1 territory;

  (b) a category 2 territory;

  (c) neither a category 1 territory nor a category 2 territory.

  (6) If the judge decides that the territory is a category 1 territory, section (Re-extradition to category 1 territories) applies.
  (7) If the judge decides that the territory is a category 2 territory, section (Re-extradition to category 2 territories) applies.
  (8) If the judge decides that the territory is neither a category 1 territory nor a category 2 territory, he must order the person's discharge.
  (9) A person's discharge as a result of this section or section (Re-extradition to category I territories) or (Re-extradition to category 2 territories) does not affect any conditions on which he is released from detention pursuant to the UK sentence.
  (10) Section 139 applies for determining the appropriate judge for the purposes of this section."
  After Clause 188, insert the following new clause—
  "RE-EXTRADITION TO CATEGORY 1 TERRITORIES
  (1) If this section applies, this Act applies as it would if—

  (a) a Part 1 warrant had been issued in respect of the person;

  (b) the warrant contained a statement that—

  (i) the person was alleged to be unlawfully at large after conviction of the relevant offence, and

  (ii) the warrant was issued with a view to the person's arrest and extradition to the territory for the purpose of serving a sentence imposed in respect of the relevant offence;

  (c) the warrant were issued by the authority of the territory which issued the certificate referred to in section (Re-extradition: preliminary) (5);

  (d) the relevant offence were specified in the warrant;

  (e) the judge were the appropriate judge for the purposes of Part 1;

  (f) the hearing at which the judge is to make the decision referred to in section (Re-extradition hearing) (1) were the extradition hearing;

  (g) the proceedings before the judge were under Part 1.

  (2) As applied by subsection (1) this Act has effect with the modifications set out in Part 1 of Schedule (Re-extradition: modifications).
  (3) The relevant offence is the offence in respect of which the overseas sentence is imposed."
  GC 20
  After Clause 188, insert the following new clause—
  "RE-EXTRADITION TO CATEGORY 2 TERRITORIES
  (1) If this section applies, this Act applies as it would if—

  (a) a valid request for the person's extradition to the territory had been made;

  (b) the request contained a statement that the person was alleged to be unlawfully at large after conviction of the relevant offence;

  (c) the relevant offence were specified in the request;

  (d) the hearing at which the appropriate judge is to make the decision referred to in section (Re-extradition hearing) (1) were the extradition hearing;

  (e) the proceedings before the judge were under Part 2.

  (2) As applied by subsection (1) this Act has effect with the modifications set out in Part 2 of Schedule (Re-extradition: modifications).
  (3) The relevant offence is the offence in respect of which the overseas sentence is imposed."
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Filkinmoved Amendment No. 249DA:
  Before Clause 189, insert the following new clause—
  "CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE: ROLE IN EXTRADITION PROCEEDINGS
  (1) The Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (c. 23) is amended as follows.
  (2) In section 3 (functions of the Director) after subsection (2) insert—
  "(2A) The Director may—

  (a) have the conduct of any extradition proceedings;

  (b) give, to such extent as he considers appropriate, and to such persons as he considers appropriate, advice on any matters relating to extradition proceedings or proposed extradition proceedings."

  (3) In section 5(1) (conduct of prosecutions on behalf of Crown Prosecution Service) after "criminal proceedings" insert "or extradition proceedings".
  (4) In section 14 (control of fees and expenses etc paid by the Service) in subsection (1)(a) after "criminal proceedings" insert "or extradition proceedings".
  (5) In section 15(1) (interpretation of Part 1) in the appropriate place insert—
  ""extradition proceedings" means proceedings under the Extradition Act 2003;"."
  The noble Lord said: The amendment simply seeks to put beyond doubt that the Crown Prosecution Service can act in extradition proceedings. The Committee may ask why, the Crown Prosecution Service having done so for many years, we are now spelling this out. It is merely because it has been pointed out that there is nothing in the statute to indicate that the CPS can act in extradition proceedings and we believe that it is prudent to put the issue beyond doubt by making a specific reference to it. Amendment No. 249E makes a similar provision for the Lord Advocate in Scotland and Amendment No. 249EA for the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Crown Solicitor in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: We have no particular problem with the amendments. Obviously extradition proceedings will involve co-operation between our legal system and that of the requesting

  GC 21
  state and we welcome provisions in the Bill which state explicitly the role that the CPS may play in assisting such extradition proceedings.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Filkinmoved Amendment Nos. 249E and 249EA:
  Before Clause 189, insert the following new clause—
  "LORD ADVOCATE: ROLE IN EXTRADITION PROCEEDINGS
  The Lord Advocate may—

  (a) conduct any extradition proceedings in Scotland;

  (b) give, to such extent as he considers appropriate, and to such persons as he considers appropriate, advice on any matters relating to extradition proceedings or proposed extradition proceedings, in Scotland."

  Before Clause 189, insert the following new clause—
  "NORTHERN IRELAND DPP AND CROWN SOLICITOR: ROLE IN EXTRADITION PROCEEDINGS
  (1) The Prosecution of Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 (S.I. 1972/538 (N.I. 1)) is amended as set out in subsections (2) to (4).
  (2) In article 2(2) (interpretation) in the appropriate place insert—
  ""extradition proceedings" means proceedings under the Extradition Act 2003;".
  (3) In article 4(7) (conduct of prosecutions on behalf of DPP) after "prosecution" insert "or extradition proceedings".
  (4) In article 5 (functions of DPP) after paragraph (1) insert—
  "(1A) The Director may—

  (a) have the conduct of any extradition proceedings in Northern Ireland;

  (b) give to such persons as appear to him appropriate such advice as appears to him appropriate on matters relating to extradition proceedings, or proposed extradition proceedings, in Northern Ireland."

  (5) The Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 (c. 26) is amended as set out in subsections (6) to (8).
  (6) After section 31 insert—
  "31A CONDUCT OF EXTRADITION PROCEEDINGS
  (1) The Director may have the conduct of any extradition proceedings in Northern Ireland.
  (2) The Director may give to such persons as appear to him appropriate such advice as appears to him appropriate on matters relating to extradition proceedings, or proposed extradition proceedings, in Northern Ireland."
  (7) In section 36(2) (conduct of criminal proceedings on behalf of DPP) after "criminal proceedings" insert "or extradition proceedings".
  (8) In section 44 (interpretation) after subsection (6) insert—
  "(7) For the purposes of this Part "extradition proceedings" means proceedings under the Extradition Act 2003."
  (9) The Crown Solicitor for Northern Ireland may—

  (a) have the conduct of any proceedings under this Act in Northern Ireland;

  (b) give to such persons as appear to him appropriate such advice as appears to him appropriate on matters relating to proceedings under this Act, or proposed proceedings under this Act, in Northern Ireland."

  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 249F had been retabled as Amendment No. 249DA.]
  Lord Filkinmoved Amendment No. 249G:
  Before Clause 189, insert the following new clause—
  "SPECIAL EXTRADITION ARRANGEMENTS
  (1) This section applies if the Secretary of State believes that—

  (a) arrangements have been made between the United Kingdom and another territory for the extradition of a person to the territory, and

  (b) the territory is not a category 1 territory or a category 2 territory.

  (2) The Secretary of State may certify that the conditions in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) are satisfied in relation to the extradition of the person.
  (3) If the Secretary of State issues a certificate under subsection (2) this Act applies in respect of the person's extradition to the territory as if the territory were a category 2 territory.
  (4) As applied by subsection (3), this Act has effect—

  (a) as if sections 70(4), 72(5), 73(10)(b), 83(6) and 85(6) were omitted:

  (b) with any other modifications specified in the certificate.

  (5) A certificate under subsection (2) in relation to a person is conclusive evidence that the conditions in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) are satisfied in relation to the person's extradition."
  The noble Lord said: The amendment is very similar in purpose and drafting to our existing legislation and, in particular, Section 15 of the Extradition Act. What that section does, and what this new clause will do, is to enable the UK to respond to ad hoc extradition requests from countries with which we do not have general extradition arrangements. Such ad hoc requests are very rare indeed, and successful ones even more so. Indeed, to be blunt, we can find no record of a successful ad hoc request.
  The reason for this is that we have extradition agreements with more than 100 countries but the ones with which we do not have them—often for good reasons—are the kinds of country which we believe are unlikely to meet our standards and tests in regard to human rights. Nevertheless, we believe that it is important to preserve the ability to deal with ad hoc requests because they may arrive from countries with which we feel it is possible to agree extradition.
  We also believe that it is useful to have such a provision in our legislation because it may help us in a reciprocal situation where we make a request: to another country. There have been occasions when ad hoc requests from us to other countries with which we do not have extradition agreements have been acceded to. Therefore this provision may slightly bear on and assist such a situation. It is for those reasons that we feel it wise to include this provision in the Bill. I beg to move.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation and for the comments I hat he has made by letter. He commented that he originally thought he would deal with this issue by order, but we entirely support the view that it is better to make explicit provision for it on the face of the Bill. We also support the provision that any ad hoc requests must be accompanied by prima facie evidence.

  GC 23
  As the Minister said both in his letter and this afternoon, such requests are very rare. It would be helpful to know whether the similar provisions in Section 15 of the Extradition Act 1989, to which he referred in his letter, have ever been used. We would be reluctant to support the inclusion of these provisions in the Bill if there is no evidence that they have ever been used. Why accept something merely because it has precedent in legislation?
  The colleagues of the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, recently managed to remove three clauses from the Bill by replacing five clauses with two. During the Second Reading debate and in Committee, many noble Lords have spoken graphically about the fact that this legislation is far longer than the legislation it seeks to replace. There is a view that we need to be diligent in cleaning off the barnacles of outdated, unused and irrelevant clauses.
  No doubt officials have said to the Minister, "Come on, Minister, put it in. Belt and braces. It is a jolly good idea to have it there. We may need it. You never know", but that is not good enough. We should like to be convinced that the new clause is necessary. For us, good evidence of that would be the fact that the provision has been used to good effect in the past under the existing Section 15 of the Extradition Act.
  Lord Goodhart: Simply on a drafting point, why is a reference to the belief of the Secretary of State in subsection (1) of the proposed new clause? Surely whether arrangements have or have not been made is a question of clearly ascertainable fact. Why do we not simply leave out the words,
  "if the Secretary of State believes that"?
  Lord Filkin: I was asked whether the powers under Section 15 of the 1989 Act have ever been used. The answer is yes. An outgoing request to Morocco was successful under this provision in a large fraud case in 1999. Even if that had not been the case I would nevertheless—despite advice from officials—have felt that it was prudent to keep the power given a joint wish for adequate powers to combat international crime.
  As to the word "belief", I suspect the issue turns on its defendability, but I am racking my brains and hoping that an idea comes to me. I am advised that the Secretary of State certifies the arrangements. We shall have to give the matter more thought and more time. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, will bear with us. I apologise for not being sufficiently inspired at this point.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  On Question, whether Clause 189, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: Perhaps the Deputy Chairman can advise me. The previous amendments related to new clauses. Are they incorporated in this or not, or are we on different numbers?
  5 p.m.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: No, if I have understood the noble Lord's question correctly. That is why I made them go through the rigmarole for each clause.
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: There is not a separate debate?
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: No. This is a separate matter now, referring to the previous amendment that was moved by the Minister. If you wish to debate clause stand part, you can do that.
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: I think I would be out of order. Unfortunately, I had a point on a previous new clause which was proposed as an amendment and I was wondering whether there was a "clause stand part" opportunity for me to raise the issue that I omitted to raise earlier because I was not quick enough.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If I may say so, the noble Lord had an opportunity to do that, and that is why I raised each one separately.
  Lord Filkin: If it would help, outside the Committee we would be pleased to have a conversation with the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, on the point to see whether we can deal with it through correspondence.
  Clause 189, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 190 negatived.
  Clauses 191 to 193 agreed to.
  Clause 194 [Bail: Scotland]:
  The Earl of Mar and Kelliemoved Amendment No. 250:
  Page 107, line 14, at end insert—
  "( ) In the application of the Extradition Act 2003 to Scotland, references to granting bail shall be read as references to admitting to bail."
  The noble Earl said: This amendment is not a difficult one and does not distort the Bill in any sense at all. I suggest that the context for this amendment is the long-standing habit of United Kingdom Bills riding roughshod over Scottish legal terminology. This is not a devolution issue, but a pre-Union issue that has been running for a while and I believe that we should draw it to a close.
  This is a United Kingdom Bill that focuses on all three legal jurisdictions. There is no reason why we should not get right the terminology for all three, particularly as Clause 194 deals only with bail in Scotland. The amendment clarifies that where the Bill refers to "granting bail", which I believe is the correct expression in England and Wales—it may be in Northern Ireland but I am not qualified to say so—the expression in Scotland is "submitting to bail". The amendment ensures that that expression is recognised by the Bill so that this part of the Bill will read more easily in Scotland. It merely concerns getting right the terminology. I beg to move.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: I understand that this point was raised at the very useful meeting held on 21st May

  GC 25
  with the noble Earl, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Anelay and Lady Carnegy. At the end of that meeting my noble friend asked the Scottish Executive officials who were present to consider whether an amendment was necessary to meet the point. Since then we have considered the issue carefully indeed. I am mindful of the modest way in which the noble Earl presents the charge that the legislation often rides roughshod over Scottish sensitivities. I certainly do not want to be a party to that. The amendment is a minor one, but it concerns the correct legal terminology in Scots law for the liberation of a person on bail. The amendment would have the effect that where references are made in the Bill to "granting bail", such reference will be construed in Scotland as references to "admitting a person to bail".
  We do not believe that the amendment is necessary. As we understand it, the Scottish courts would have absolutely no difficulty at all in understanding the term "granting bail". I am advised that the expressions "granting bail and "admitting a person to bail" are both used in the legislation setting out the law in relation to bail in Scotland. Neither expression is definitive; they are interchangeable. There is certainly no great point of principle here and we do not believe that both references need to be put in the Bill. I hear with the greatest respect the point made by the noble Earl, but in this area I feel that we are discussing a matter that is very acceptable in Scottish courts, so I hope he will not press the amendment.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: On this occasion, I think that the Government have done extremely well in setting the Bill into Scots law. We had a meeting, which is unprecedented, at which they explained everything and they then wrote to us. I see no offending phrase referring to bail in the wrong way; the noble Earl may have spotted one. but I cannot see it.
  We must give credit where credit is due on the matter. It is not easy to legislate for England and Wales and for Scotland at the same time when so many devolved matters are included. Personally, I very much appreciate what has been done in that respect. I realise that the noble Earl is using the amendment to make an important point which I am sure will come into play in future, but on this occasion, we really cannot pick holes in the way in which the matter has been dealt with. I have been rather disappointed not to have been able to score a single direct hit during the Committee, because I rather enjoy doing that.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: And you usually do.
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I certainly acknowledge the use of the meeting which we had beforehand and hope that that may become part of the more normal format for legislation. The Minister's answer only heightens for me the corrupting effect that UK legislation has had on Scottish legislation. I agree that as in both Scotland and England we all attempt to speak English, we can of course understand the difference between granting bail and admitting to bail.
  GC 26
  I am unhappy with the Minister's answer. I draw his attention to the corrupting effect in Scotland which has led to our appearing to have three verdicts: guilty, not guilty and not proven. The origins of that in Scotland are that, historically, cases were either proven or not proven. But juries then started coming in with the English words "not guilty", which was not the correct terminology. So we have ended up with an unsatisfactory situation. Based on the corrupting effect of that, I should have liked the correct terminology to be used. However, we are in Grand Committee, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 194 agreed to.
  Clauses 195 and 196 agreed to.
  Clause 197 [Extradition for more than one offence]:
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbottsmoved Amendment No. 251:
  Page 110, line 2, leave out "with specified modifications"
  The noble Lord said: I tabled this probing amendment and asked for a stand part debate on Clause 197 at the same time in order to elicit a little more detail from the Ministers on the provisions and effect of the clause. Clause 197, entitled:
  "Extradition for more than one offence",
  is remarkably brief. I am concerned—I think I have cause to be—that in only four lines, the Secretary of State is given power by order subject to the negative procedure to modify the provisions of the Bill in relation to a extradition requests for more than one offence. The Explanatory Notes are hardly more helpful or explanatory, because they consist of only three lines. They give no comprehensible explanation of what is intended.
  At first glance, it seemed to me that there was a dangerously fine line between providing for modifications for multiple offences and overriding the speciality rule, which we have discussed at great length during various debates in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. I was heartened by its comments when it stated:
  "This clause allows the Secretary of State to modify the provisions of the Bill in cases where there is more than one offence for which extradition is requested. The extradition procedure will be the same as it is set out in the Bill. There will be a procedure for accommodating multiple requests which will be laid out in the order. It is possible for an extradition request to be submitted for multiple offences and provision should be made for that. An order made under this power will be subject to the negative resolution procedure by virtue of Clause 209(5). This is felt to be the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny given the technical nature of this provision".
  I take it, then, that the purpose of the clause is to allow for one extradition request to be made for someone accused of multiple offences committed at the same time. It would clearly be nonsense for five individual requests to be made for a number of offences committed simultaneously on one occasion. It would be helpful for the Committee if the Minister would clarify what form those "specified modifications" might take. That is why I tabled

  GC 27
  Amendment No. 251 on a probing basis. The clause would benefit from some proper explanation. The Minister may be able to give us some examples in which the clause would be necessary.
  Finally, as far as I can see, the European arrest warrant makes no provision for such circumstances. I should be interested to hear whether the Minister knows of any other countries that have adopted or proposed similar provisions in their domestic legislation. I beg to move.
  Lord Filkin: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for tabling this probing amendment; I understand the need for it and its purpose. I also thank all Members on the Opposition Front Bench for their co-operation on groupings today, which has allowed us to hold this debate together with that on clause stand part.
  It is not uncommon for extradition requests to cover more than one offence. A person who has robbed one bank may well have robbed two. Although those are separate charges, the requesting state will want to put the person on trial for all of them at once. So the extradition request we receive may well cover more than one offence.
  In the vast majority of cases, all the offences in the request will succeed or fail together. For example, if we judge that a person is unlikely to get a fair trial, that is likely to cover offences A, B and C, rather than just one of them. If we think that a person's state of health is a bar on his extradition, that will apply to all the offences rather than only to one.
  However, it is possible to conceive of circumstances in which one offence on a request is extraditable and another is not. For example, one offence could be covered by the double jeopardy bar even if the other was not. It is precisely to cover this situation—rare though it may be—that we need Clause 197 and the ability to apply the provisions of the Bill with "specified modifications" to make it workable.
  Indeed, the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform was concerned about the use of the phrase "specified modifications" in Clause 210 and suggested that the Government should provide a fuller justification, which I am happy to do today. However, the Committee made no comment or criticism about Clause 197—that applies to both its wording and the order-making power it contains.
  Perhaps I should set out in broad terms how we envisage the system working in cases where a request covers more than one offence. In cases where all the offences either succeed or fail, the Bill can apply without any modification, except possibly very minor linguistic ones.
  We are concerned with where one or more offences are thrown out at some point in the process while others survive. A number of principles then apply. The first is that the person should not be extradited until all the legal proceedings in respect of all the offences have been completed. What is the effect of that? Imagine a person's extradition has been sought in respect of two offences. The judge orders extradition in respect of
  GC 28
  offence A and the person decides not to appeal. However, the judge decides that extradition is barred in respect of offence B and the requesting state decides that it wants to appeal. In such circumstances the person should not be extradited for offence A—although there is strictly speaking no legal impediment to doing so—until a final decision has been reached in respect of offence B.
  There are two reasons for that. First, we think it important that at the time when a person is actually handed over, it is clear to all concerned the totality of the offences for which the extradition is taking place. That of course is made particularly important because of the existence of the rule of speciality. As the Committee knows by now, that rule is a long-standing feature of extradition and provides that a person cannot be tried for an offence other than the one for which he was extradited. That being so, we need something in the Bill that enables us to deal with an incoming extradition request which is concerned with more than one offence. That is the purpose of the clause.
  The second reason for not extraditing the person, even though it was cleared to do so on the first offence, is that it is desirable for the person to be present at the hearing in respect of offence B. So the second principle is to preserve the notion, which the Bill enshrines, that there should be a single appeal hearing rather than the many that we have under the present system.
  Again, let me set out what that means in practice. Imagine that a request covers four offences, just to make life really complicated. The judge may decide that extradition is barred for offence A because of double jeopardy; he may decide that extradition is barred for offence B because of the passage of time since the offence occurred; however, he may order extradition in respect of offences C and D.
  In that situation, the requesting state may want to appeal against the judge's decision in respect of offences A and B while the fugitive may want to appeal against the decision to order extradition in respect of offences C and D. We therefore envisage a single appeal hearing before the High Court where each side can argue about the particular decisions that went against it.
  In Part 2 cases where the matter has had to be considered by the Secretary of State, this single appeal will be held after the Secretary of State's consideration so that the decisions that he has taken can also, if necessary, be subject to appeal.
  That is broadly how we envisage the system operating. As I hope is appreciated, so far as is possible we have sought to preserve the essential features of the extradition system as provided for in the Bill. Equally, however, we need some modifications to cover the situation where a request contains offences which meet a different fate. Although that explanation has been extremely long, I hope that is has been helpful.
  The modifications also allow one offence to be withdrawn or discharged without affecting other offences contained in the same Part 1 warrant or Part 2 request. The amendments are therefore technical.

  GC 29
  Some EU states will issue Part 1 warrants for more than one offence; others will not. All states will therefore need to be able to accommodate a request for more than one offence and each state will do so in its own way. I do not yet know how they have sought to do that in practice.
  I apologise for speaking at length. I hope that my explanation has been helpful.
  5.15 p.m.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I am grateful to the Minister for that long reply. We shall read carefully what he said but I think that he has answered our concern about the latitude that could be implied by the use of the phrase "specified modifications". Bearing in mind the reassurances that he has given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 197 agreed to.
  Clause 198 [National security]:
  Lord Filkinmoved Amendment No. 251A:
  Page 110, line 13. leave out "pursuant to" and insert "for the purpose of assisting in the exercise of"
  The noble Lord said: On the next amendment, we shall have to engage in an important debate about the scope of Clause 198. I shall not seek to pre-empt that discussion. Let me say that we all recognise that there needs to be protection when issues of national security arc at stake whatever view we may take about how much wider we should go, if at all. We need to be able to protect those who are employed by the security and intelligence agencies as they undertake their work to protect national security.
  However, we also need to recognise that, on occasion, the people involved will not be direct employees of the agency but people working on its behalf. Such people also need to be protected when carrying out lawful acts operating on behalf of the security services. That is the purpose and effect of the amendment. I therefore hope that the Committee will agree to it. I beg to move.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I need say no more than that we agree with the amendment and the principle behind it and support the altered drafting.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbottsmoved Amendment No. 252:
  Page 110, line l9, at end insert "(including, in particular, the protection of the United Kingdom against threats from espionage, terrorism and sabotage, from the activities of agents of foreign powers and from actions intended to overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy by political, industrial or violent means and the safeguarding of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom against threats posed by the actions or intentions of persons outside the British Islands)"
  The noble Lord said: As the Minister said, Amendments Nos. 252, 253 and 254, which are grouped, relate to the use of the term "national security" in Clause 198. That was extensively debated in Committee in another place. We should like to raise it again this afternoon hut in a slightly different form
  GC 30
  from that in which it was debated at the other end of the building. The wording used in our amendments comes directly from two statutory sources that already use the concept of national security. The wording in Amendment No. 252 comes from the Security Service Act 1989 and that in Amendments Nos. 253 and 254 from the Intelligence Services Act 1994.
  Amendment No. 252 seeks to insert after the words "national security" almost exactly the same words that appear in Section 1(2) of the Security Service Act 1989 after the words "including, in particular". 'We seek clarification from the Government of what they understand by the term "national security". I anticipate that the Minister will respond to that question by saying that "national security" means "national security", but as the 1989 Act includes similar words to amplify the meaning of the words "national security", I should be grateful for reassurance from the Government that they believe that all the issues raised by the wording of Amendment No. 252 are already covered by the broad term, "national security", namely:
  "the protection of the United Kingdom…from espionage, terrorism and sabotage, from the activities of agents of foreign powers and from actions intended to …undermine parliamentary democracy …and the safeguarding of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom".
  Amendments Nos. 253 and 254 seek to insert two criteria additional to national security to trigger the operation of Clause 198: namely, the economic wellbeing of the United Kingdom and the prevention and detection of serious crime. These amendments replicate Section 1(2)(b) and (c) of the Intelligence Services Act 1994, which set out the grounds on which the intelligence services may operate. We have tabled them simply because in that Act the intelligence services are given three alternative grounds on which they may operate: namely, national security in Section 1(2)(a) and the grounds in Amendments Nos. 253 and 254.
  The question for the Government is, therefore, if the term "national security" is the sole ground for the exercise of the Secretary of State's powers under Clause 198, are the other two criteria excluded? As I said, they are given as alternatives in the 1994 Act. I therefore take it that they fall outside the term "national security", at least as far as that Act is concerned, or they would not need to be separately specified. If I am right in that assertion and the position is as I have described, have the Government intentionally excluded them from Clause 198 even though they are closely related to the concept of national security, given the wording of the Intelligence Services Act 1994?
  I should especially welcome the Minister's comments on why the Government have not chosen to include the words specified in Amendment No. 254: namely, "the prevention or detection of serious crime". The Minister has reminded us about that several times. Indeed, during an earlier debate this afternoon, a 1999 fraud case involving Morocco was mentioned.

  GC 31
  In relation to the economic well-being of the United Kingdom, will the Government make clear whether they think that that is already covered by the term "national security"? I note that the wording of Section 1(2) of the 1989 Act that I cited appears to imply that national security includes economic well-being, whereas the 1994 Act gives economic well-being as an alternative to the concept of national security. Plainly the two are closely related, but the Committee would welcome clarification of the Government's position.
  I have no doubt that the Government have already considered those points and that the Minister will have the answers to hand and be able to reassure the Committee about these important issues. I look forward to hearing his response. I beg to move.
  Lord Filkin: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for the clarity with which he spoke to his probing amendment and hope that I can be equally clear in my response. Although I may occasionally be slightly more reticent, given the nature of some of the national security issues on which we are touching, I hope that I shall not be unduly so. Let me first address Amendment No. 252 and then the wider questions raised by Amendments Nos. 253 and 254.
  Clause 198 essentially allows the Secretary of State to intervene in any extradition case in Parts 1 or 2 to prevent extradition taking place. He can do so only if a person was acting pursuant to a statutory function or acting following an authorisation from the Secretary of State. We are here discussing where the conduct that forms the extradition request was being carried out in pursuance of one of the statutory functions conferred on the security and intelligence agencies themselves. Additionally, if the Secretary of State wants to intervene to halt the extradition process, he must decide that extradition would be contrary to the interests of national security. So in a sense there are two tests.
  Amendment No. 252 would amplify what is included in the term "national security" and make an addition about economic well-being. As the noble Lord said, the definition comes from an amalgamation of subsections 1(2) and (3) of the Security Service Act 1989. The question is whether it is necessary and appropriate to include that clarification. My first point is that the 1989 Act was breaking new ground, so no doubt the Government of the day thought it useful to illustrate what the term "national security" included, but in no way was that illustration exhaustive nor, importantly, was there any intention to define or limit the term "national security". The description was illustrative, not definitive. Subsequent legislation that employs the term "national security", notably the Intelligence Services Act 1994, has not included that amplification.
  More broadly, as I think the noble Lord suggested, we have always felt that national security is something that one recognises when one sees it—which leads us into a tautological situation. Under the Bill, it is the Secretary of State who determines whether national security issues are raised by an extradition request. I
  GC 32
  suggest that the Secretary of State is well-placed to perform that task without the need for further clarification or embellishment. The present formulation gives the Secretary of State the broadest possible discretion, a margin of discretion recognised by both domestic and European courts. There are good reasons for that, and we should be unwise to disturb it. I think that answers the specific question: are we fettering ourselves in any way by not including more specific detail? The answer is no.
  [The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 5.30 to 5.41 p.m.]
  Lord Filkin: I think I had spoken to Amendment No. 252 and was just about to start on Amendments Nos. 253 and 254.
  The Security Service Act 1989, as amended by the Security Service Act 1996, and the Intelligence Services Act 1994 gives the intelligence agencies three statutory functions, broadly summarised as protecting national security, safeguarding the economic well-being of the United Kingdom and supporting the prevention and detection of serious crime.
  These amendments seek to extend Clause 198 to cover cases in which an extradition would be contrary to the interests of the United Kingdom's economic well-being or the fight against serious crime. We contend that since Section 7 of the 1994 Act, which is concerned with the agencies' operations abroad, covers all three of the statutory functions, the amendments do not appear to be necessary. The reason for this is that the methodology, operating techniques, personnel and resources employed by the agencies are common to each of their statutory functions.
  Revelations about their economic well-being or serious crime work would, therefore, inevitably damage the work which they do to protect national security and therefore could endanger national security itself. So it would be perfectly possible for the Secretary of State to take the view that it would be contrary to the interests of national security to prevent anyone connected with the work of the agencies being questioned in a foreign jurisdiction. This would therefore allow him to intervene in any case where we receive an extradition request which relates to any of the activities of the agencies, even if the activity was in connection with the economic well-being or serious crime function. I think that goes to the heart of the purpose of the probing amendment.
  This would be the case under the Bill as it is currently drafted, which is why, as I have said, we believe the amendments are unnecessary.
  I can assure the Committee that the Government are very conscious of the need to safeguard the work of the security and intelligence agencies and, in particular, to ensure that those acting on behalf of the agencies do not inadvertently find themselves subject to extradition processes.
  Clause 198 has been very carefully drafted to ensure that it offers protection to the agencies and those working on their behalf. We are satisfied that it offers

  GC 33
  the requisite degree of protection for all the activities which the agencies are permitted to engage in. No doubt your Lordships will infer from that that it will be after the fullest internal consultations.
  I hope, therefore, on the basis of what I have said, that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, will feel reassured that the important issues he raised in his probing amendments are adequately covered by existing legislation.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said because we are all pulling on the rope in the same direction. He talks about the danger of exposure, the inadvertent risks—exactly the matters that we are trying to get at. That having been said, I am not sure whether what was in the response quite answered the points we made.
  The Minister said that it would be a mistake to accept Amendment No. 252 because as the existing provisions were not exhaustive and there was no fettering in the existing provisions, Amendment No. 252 therefore represented a restriction rather than a freedom. But our amendment contains the words "including. in particular. It is not meant to be exhaustive, but focused. I am not sure that the Minister's response went to the heart of that matter.
  The Bill will give additional clarity about economic well-being and prevention of financial crime. However, I am not clear why mentioning those matters in the Bill, as suggested in Amendments Nos. 253 and 254, would lead to the dangers of exposure or inadvertent risk. They would make it clear beyond peradventure that the Secretary of State has powers to act in the full definition of existing legislation, the 1994 Act.
  I accept that the Minister gave a long and helpful reply; I accept that what he was aiming at was what we were aiming at. I would like to read through what he said and consider it further. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 253 and 254 not moved.]
  5.45 p.m.
  Clause 198 agreed to.
  Clauses 199 and 200 agreed to.
  Lord Davies of Oldhammoved Amendment No. 254A:
  After Clause 200, insert the following new clause—
  "ARTICLE 95 ALERTS: TRANSITIONAL PROVISION
  (1) This section applies in a case where an article 95 alert is issued before I January 2004 by an authority of a category 1 territory.
  (2) In such a case, this Act applies as if—

  (a) the alert were a Part 1 warrant issued by the authority;

  (b) any information sent with the alert relating to the case were included in the warrant.

  (3) As applied by subsection (2), this Act has effect with these modifications—

  (a) in sections 2(7) and (8), 28(1), 30(1) and (41(d), 32(2)(b), 33(6)(b), 35(4)(h), 36(3)(b), 46(3)(b) and 48(3)(b), for "authority which issued the Part I warrant". substitute "authority at the request of which the alert was issued";

  (b) omit section 5;

  (c) in sections 33(4)(b), 41(2)(a), 42(2)(a) and (4) arid 60(1)(d) and (e), for "authority which issued the warrant" substitute "authority at the request of which the alert was issued";

  (d) in section 65(2), for the words from "believes. to the end substitute "believes is the authority at the request of which the alert was issued".

  (4) An article 95 alert is an alert issued pursuant tc. article 95 of the Convention implementing the Schengen agreement of 14th June 1985."
  The noble Lord said: The amendment gives effect to a commitment we made previously in the Bill. At our third meeting on the 18th June, the Committee agreed to remove Clause 211 from the Bill, and we were grateful for that co-operation. The reason we asked the Committee to do so was because Clause 211 was a transitional provision, relating to pre-existing Alerts on the Schengen information system, or SIS. We took the view that, on reflection, it would be better to have a free-standing provision for that purpose. Thai t is why we have tabled this amendment to replace that clause.
  The reason we think we need a special provision is that while requests on the SIS require there to be a previous judicially issued domestic warrant, they may, on rare occasions, be placed on the SIS at the instigation of police officers. We therefore wanted to forestall arguments as to whether such warrants had come from a judicial source. Our view is that hey do, but your Lordships can imagine all the legal fun and games that could be had on this point.
  The new clause is very limited in its scope. It applies only to alerts issued under Article 95 of the Schengen Convention and only to those issued before 1st January 2004. The Committee will recognise that this is purely a short-term measure, since the problem will not arise once the EAW is in operation. On that basis I hope that, as before, the Committee will support the amendment. I beg to move.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I am grateful to the Minister for this explanation. We appreciate the problems that may occur during the transitional period in relation to pre-existing alerts on the SIS system. We also appreciate that, as with any new system, it is important to have special arrangements during the transitional period until all outstanding requests from the old system have been dealt with.
  I hope, however, that the Minister does not think that we have actually dealt with commencement in this amendment. There are more issues to be dealt with, and we will come to those in Amendment No. 257, which will be spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. With that proviso, we are happy that this is a short-term measure to provide some meshing between the old and the new system, and we are content.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbottsmoved Amendment No. 255:
  After Clause 200, insert the following new clause—
  "COMPATIBILITY WITH CRIME (INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION) ACT 2003
  The Secretary of State shall certify that the provisions of this Act are compatible with the provisions of the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003."
  The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 255 inserts a new clause concerning compatibility with the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003. It is designed to ensure that there is compatibility between the provisions of that legislation, which is being debated in another place, and the Extradition Bill, which we are debating here today.
  My noble friend Lady Anelay already raised the issue when debating the Crime (International Cooperation) Bill in your Lordships' House earlier this year. There was an extensive debate on the 3rd February in col. 41 of Hansard. At that time, my noble friend tried to delay the commencement of the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill until the Extradition Bill had come into effect. In answer, the Minister suggested that delaying commencement was not the right way to go about things since the two Bills dealt with,
  "entirely different circumstances and powers"".—[Official Report, 3/2/03; col. GC41.]
  The same point was raised on the 21st January in another place during a Committee debate on an amendment to the Extradition Bill. We have used the same wording of that amendment in our Amendment No. 255. The wording meets the Government's point about not imposing linked commencement dates for either Act but requires the Secretary of State to certify that the two are compatible.
  I share the unease of my noble friend Lady Anelay at the response of the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, that the powers in the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill and the Extradition Bill are unconnected. We are agreed, I think, that only British law enforcement personnel can make an arrest following a European arrest warrant. The Minister has been adamant on this point on several occasions during our debate, although we have at times been less convinced that the actual drafting of the Bill reflected this intention. However, that is an issue we have been over before and to which we will no doubt return.
  As I understand it, the Crime (International Cooperation) Bill is concerned only with surveillance by foreign police for up to five hours when following a suspect across a border in hot pursuit. It is this that gives rise to concerns about the compatibility of these two pieces of legislation. The two sets of provisions are slightly at cross purposes in their interaction. For example, presumably French police can pursue a suspect for surveillance purposes for up to five hours, but if at that point they feel they have sufficient grounds for an arrest for the purposes of prosecuting the suspect, they presumably have to withdraw, and the process for issuing a European arrest warrant to the UK must then be started. That might take some time and then must presumably be handed over
  GC 36
  entirely to British police to enforce. Perhaps the Minister could explain to the Committee if this is how he sees the two pieces of legislation meshing together and operating.
  In answer to the amendment put forward in another place, the Minister, Mr. Ainsworth, said that both Bills were in Parliament at the same time. He said that the Government had obligations that they had entered into that they must try to enact in a reasonable period of time. However, they wanted to ensure that both Bills went into Parliament at the same time so that nothing would be hidden.
  Of course I accept that this was the Minister's intention, but it is probably confusing rather than enlightening for both Bills to be debated before two Houses of Parliament at the same time because both parts of the machinery are moving around and being changed. In the interests of clarity, it would have been helpful to have included a positive obligation on the Secretary of State to ensure compatibility.
  I have no doubt that the Minister will, in his courteous way, dismiss the amendment, as was done in another place, and give us an assurance on the record as to the compatibility, which he will deem to be a sufficient guarantee. Both Bills are about foreign jurisdictions pursuing suspects who have fled to our country. One is about surveillance by foreign officers for a limited period; the other about the arrest of suspects by our officers. I believe it is important to have this debate at this stage of the Bill; we would all benefit from a more detailed clarification about the interaction of the two Bills. I beg to move.
  [The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 5.55 to 6.6 p.m.]
  Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful for the way in which the noble Lord presented the case before the adjournment, and I hope that I can give him some reassurance about the matter. He referred to the debate in another place, where the focus was on an anxiety about foreign police officers coming to this country to make arrests using European arrest warrants. I am glad to say that a government amendment on Report assuaged those anxieties.
  It remains the case that we have never intended to extend any coercive powers such as the power of arrest to anyone other than those who already enforce the law in this country. I am pleased to say that this aspect of the matter ought therefore not to trouble the Committee today. I would like to add my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for her acknowledgement of that, putting the question beyond any doubt. I am glad that we have been able to make progress in Committee on that understanding.
  Given that it is understood in Committee that the two Bills, when read in tandem, do not and cannot represent that thin end of the wedge that would see foreign police officers arresting people on these shores, I am a little puzzled as to why the amendment has been moved. After all, Acts of Parliament are necessarily compatible with each other. Any later legislation would amend that which preceded it, were there to be any incompatibility.

  GC 37
  Of course, as the noble Lord indicated, I cannot say at this stage which Bill will receive Royal Assent first. Those questions are matters for the business managers as the two Bills proceed through both Houses of Parliament. I can say that, whatever way round it is, the two Acts will indeed be compatible. Such are the burdens on parliamentary time that we all have to deal with various pieces of legislation that are being processed through these buildings at one and the same time. Nevertheless, the Government are mindful of that and the need to ensure that no Bill contradicts or counteracts another. That does not mean that every Bill in any way connected to another debated during the same Session contains a clause such as that sought in the amendment. That clearly would be excessive. We believe that it is superfluous in the Bill. If it were necessary here, we would have to put it into a number of Acts where consideration was carrying on in parallel in any parliamentary Session.
  I assure the Committee that provisions of the two Bills will be compatible, as will all other Bills that have been passed or are passing through Parliament this Session. We do not believe that there is any need to set a precedent here by asserting that fact in the Bill. I recognise the anxieties. However, the Committee has made progress on the recognition of the broad intent of the Government behind the measures and the fact that we are not seeking to extend coercive powers. I hope that the noble Lord will recognise that it would not be appropriate for us to make the amendment to the Bill. With those assurances, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw it.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Of course Bills have to be compatible, and my noble friend was merely trying to make sure that that was the case. However, can the Government assure us that there is no circumstance in which a person could use the powers in one Bill for the purposes of the other? That seems the question that really has to he asked. Having taken part in debates on both Bills, one realises that they are in a sense about the same subject. I cannot give an example, but that is my anxiety, because we are dealing with concepts unfamiliar to us and taking into account the various international arrangements.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: I would not have made my earlier remarks if they did not give the obvious intent that that assurance should be able to be given. The noble Baroness has asked quite specifically for it, but I am not really in the right position. We will reflect on that representation and look very carefully at the matter. We have time, with regard to the Bill, and will be able to respond. She will recognise that my request that the amendment be withdrawn is against the background that such an assurance could be given.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I am grateful to the Minister, and indeed to my noble friend Lady Carnegy for her important point. We were trying to stress that there was an inherent danger of crossover. Once there was hot pursuit for one, information there gained could be used in the other. We did not see how that could be avoided or eliminated. The Minister made a
  GC 38
  valiant attempt to deal with that concern by saying that this was not the thin end of the wedge, and I accept his stricture that if we are to ask about compatibility there are all sorts of clauses in all sorts of Bills requiring compatibility. That is perfectly fair.
  I shall leave the matter by saying that we are grateful for the Minister's undertaking to reflect with the Bill team and come back to us if he can take our discussions any further forward. I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbottsmoved Amendment No. 256:
  After Clause 200, insert the following new clause—
  "ANNUAL REPORT
  The Secretary of State shall publish, and lay before both Houses of Parliament. an annual report on the operation of this legislation."
  The noble Lord said: The amendment takes us hack over further familiar ground, which is the provision of an annual report on the operation of the legislation. The purpose of the amendment is perfectly straightforward. The Bill is a new and supposedly streamlined piece of legislation that, in effect, is a roo-tand-branch overhaul of our existing extradition system. We have, for the first time, a situation where our extradition partners are divided into two categories, with very different procedures for each. Moreover, in the case of category 1 territories, we have an added complication in that Part 1 implements the framework agreement on the European arrest warrant and brings it into our domestic legislation.
  It is fair to say, however, that during the Committee it has become clear that our category 1 partners may choose to implement the same framework agreement in their own domestic legislation slightly differently. We may find ourselves in the situation where we agree to the framework decision but discover that our standards—for example, in terms of the one-year/three-year argument for dual criminality—are different. That is both confusing and problematic.
  Alternatively, I have to accept that we may find, contrary to the concerns of those of us on these Benches, that the new extradition arrangements are efficient and highly satisfactory and do not give rise to public controversy. Whatever way the cookie crumbles, we are embarking on a new policy on the sort of co-operation on—one might say the beginnings of an attempted harmonisation of—judicial decisions within Europe of which we have not seen the like before. In addition, as we have mentioned and will mention again in a moment, there are important issues about transitional arrangements and the integration of the old and new systems of extradition.
  In the light of those important considerations, do not think it too much to ask the Secretary of State that an annual report be prepared on the operation of this legislation and laid before Parliament. However, I am not so naive as to fail to anticipate what the Minister's reply will be—that the Secretary of State is always accountable before Parliament for any legislation

  GC 39
  stemming from his department, and that at any time he can be called to account by parliamentary Question or other means to comment on the operation of this extradition legislation or indeed any other legislation. We all know that that is true in theory and indeed practice, but if there is no positive obligation, defects in the operation of the Bill may slip through the net.
  I understand why the Government may have some hostility to the amendment. We were talking about compatibility a minute ago and it could be argued that, if we included an annual report for the Bill, on every other piece of legislation in future there would be calls for an annual report using the Extradition Act 2003, assuming it becomes that, as a precedent. There are Members on our Benches who believe that the Sexual Offences Bill and what is now the Licensing Act deserved an annual report for similar reasons.
  It could be argued, however—and I do argue—that in the special circumstances of this Bill, incorporating this particular piece of European legislation into our domestic law for the first time, an annual report would he one way in which the Government could make some positive move to alleviate the very real fears and concerns that abound, particularly in respect of the operations of Part I and how the proposed legislation would work in practice. It would be helpful. It might even be possible to do it for a few years, perhaps four or five, while the legislation was settling down.
  Given the importance and the groundbreaking nature of the European arrest warrant, there is enough here for us to have some special report on the operation of the Bill, at least for the first few years. I beg to move.
  6.15 p.m.
  Lord Goodhart: I have some sympathy with the thinking behind the amendment. This is a Bill of a good deal of importance, and it would be very helpful were it possible to bring together in one place the principal statistics related to it. It would be a matter of great interest to see whether the simplified Part 1 procedure led to a substantial increase in the number of extraditions and, if so, to which countries. It would also he very interesting to see whether the average time for extradition proceedings was reduced, as is the intention of the Bill. There are other matters that would also be of interest.
  Having said that, speaking for myself and I hope for those on our Benches, we would be content with an undertaking to put that information into the annual report of the Home Office, or possibly into the judicial statistics. I would be satisfied with an undertaking that the material information on the progress of the then Act would be published, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for a period of year—at least until it has bedded down. I hope that the Minister will be able to say something on that point.
  Lord Filkin: I feel again that it is a shame that my noble friend Lord Bassam is not with us today but is downstairs, because this is his territory. In a sense, to
  GC 40
  show the danger of his not being present to deal with questions on annual reports, I shall say something slightly different from what he normally says.
  The Committee would expect me to say, as signalled by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, that we are resistant to a formal annual report. It has not been the tradition that even major and contentious legislation has had annual reports. An annual report could not cover some of the issues that might be of interest as to whether cases could have been resolved differently under the old system, as that could be only speculation, and it could not indicate what effect the absence of the Secretary of State's role had in Part 1, as that again would be pure conjecture.
  The argument given in the past against annual reports is that for ever and a day one sets up a bureaucratic commitment and costs that lead to more paper being produced and consumed, and that is why the Liberal Democrats have often supported us on the matter. We also say on such occasions that, clearly, there is a retinue of mechanisms—Starred Questions, Unstarred Questions, PQs and debates—that allows proper scrutiny of the Government on such issues.
  Having said all that, I think it would not be unhelpful if, after a period that allows enough cases through the system to make some analysis and reflection possible, one put into the public domain some of the monitoring information that we will undertake. I do not know quite what the period would be; there must be time to allow enough through the system, so I do not want to give a commitment by saying, "After one year", or, "After 18 months". That might be foolish. Am I going to be told to resign? No.
  The information that I mean is on the operation of the legislation, particularly in relation to the number of requests received, the operation of time limits in the Bill, especially in Part 1, and the numbers extradited and discharged. There could be an analysis in some form of the time taken from request to fulfilment for both incoming and outgoing requests for Part I and Part 2 cases, because that goes to the heart of some of the issues about which we have talked. Officials are considering what additional categories of information they will gather, and how that can best be achieved.
  I am happy to give a commitment that we will cover that information—we may go a little further if it seems sensible—on the operation of the Act after a period with the intention of putting it before Parliament if' it so wishes to use it. I do not want to commit to doing that every three years, because that takes us hack to the same trap from which we are trying to escape, but it would not hurt for us to find a mechanism for putting the information into the public domain. How to do that—whether through a PQ or the annual report—is a second-order issue on which we can reflect.
  I do not wish that to be seen as precedental. I recognise the strength of feeling on the issue. Because of that concern, I am happy to say that in this circumstance we will be pleased to put into the domain, in a suitable form and after a suitable period, the sort of information about which I have talked.

  GC 41
  However, I hope that I will not have this quoted back at me or other Ministers in future, but I am a naïve optimist.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for his practical contribution in support of what we are trying to achieve. The Government set some very ambitious objectives for the Bill, on Second Reading here and in the other place, as to how we would radically transform the extradition procedure and the reasons for doing so. It is not unreasonable for us to see to what extent we have achieved those objectives. The noble Lord's points about simplicity, time and so on are issues well worth pursuing.
  My second point is that the Minister has said several times during our debates that there is a balance between what we get and what we give up. We want to be able to check that the balance is maintained. Of course there are worthwhile objectives in the legislation that we should pursue, but we are giving some things up as a result—that is in the order of things—and we want to make sure that the balance works properly.
  Thirdly. the Minister talked about cost implications and said that something should not go on for ever and a day. I said at the end of my remarks that the report was not meant to be for ever and a day. I can see how the provisions would bed down and the report would then drop away once we had some confidence in how the system was operating. That said, he was kind enough to offer half a loaf—perhaps a quarter of a loaf, or a slice or two—and on that basis, and promising that I will not quote his words to him, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clauses 201 to 205 agreed to.
  Lord Filkinmoved Amendment No. 256A:
  After Clause 205, insert the following new clause—
  "AMENDMENTS
  Schedule (Amendments) contains miscellaneous and consequential amendments."
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 206 agreed to.
  Clause 207 [Commencement]:
  Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 257:
  Page 114, line 25, at end insert—
  "( ) This Act shall only apply to requests relating to acts committed after 7th August 2002."
  The noble Lord said: For the first and only time today, I have moved an amendment. I am afraid that I have to start with an apology. It is entirely my fault that the drafting of the amendment is defective. It was intended to read:
  "( ) Sections 63(2) and 64(2) of this Act shall only apply to requests relating to acts committed after 7th August 2002".
  Sections 63(2) and 64(2) are, of course, the subsections that apply the abolition of the dual criminality rule for the 32 listed offences. I have notified the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, of the intended
  GC 42
  wording, and I hope that I will be excused. I have discussed it with the Bill Office, which says that given that this is a Grand Committee it is not necessary to table a manuscript amendment.
  We believe that it is wrong in principle to allow extradition for an offence that was not extraditable when it was committed because of the absence of dual criminality, which was a requirement at that time but had subsequently ceased to he a requirement. Under Article 32 of the framework decision, the European arrest warrant is required to come into force on 1st January 2004. However, Article 32 provided that, at the time of the adoption of the framework decision by the Council in June 2002, any member state might make a statement indicating that it would continue to deal with requests relating to acts committed before a specified date in accordance with the extradition systems applicable before 1st January 2004. The specified date had to be not later than 7th August 2002.
  Had the United Kingdom made a statement in June 2002 to that effect, therefore, the result would have been that the dual criminality rule would have continued to apply to offences on the list if committed before 7th August 2002. So far as I am aware, the United Kingdom did not make such a statement and it is now too late to make it. I strongly believe that the Government should have made such a statement. I would have had no objection to backdating the restriction to the 7th August 2002, which is the latest date up to which such a restriction could have been applied. By that date the framework decision had already been adopted, so any offenders, if they chose to take legal advice on this, could have been on notice of a prospective change in the law. Of course, that principle does not apply to offences committed before the date of the adoption in 2002.
  Given the failure to make the statement, I recognise that the amendment is now inconsistent with the framework decision and I realise that the Government will not be willing to accept it. Nevertheless I move the amendment as I believe that this is an issue on which the Government should have taken action. Retrospective legislation creating a new criminal offence, of course, is forbidden by Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The retrospective extension of the power to extradite is not itself a breach of Article 7, but in my view it comes pretty close to it. For that reason I regret that the Government have not taken the option offered to them by Article 32 of the framework decision. I beg to move.
  6.30 p.m.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees(Lord Haskel): Page 114, line 25, at end insert—
  "( ) Sections 63(2) and 64(2) of this Act shall only apply to requests relating to acts committed after 7th August 2002".
  That wording is slightly different from the wording in the Marshalled List.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: In this group we have Amendments Nos. 259 and 260. We have a good deal of sympathy with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. Having just been told

  GC 43
  about the change when I arrived this afternoon, I am not sure that I have understood the full import of it all, but as he explained it, it seemed to have a good deal to commend it.
  Amendments Nos. 259 and 260 would require that any commencement order made by the Secretary of State that applied the provisions of the Bill to extradition proceedings which had already been commenced under the Extradition Act 1989 should be approved under the affirmative resolution procedure.
  In essence, the amendments seek clarification from the Government on the way in which they propose to manage the transition from the procedures set out by Parliament in the Extradition Act 1989 to those that are in the Bill. Will extradition proceedings that have already started when the Act comes into force continue under the provisions of the 1989 Act, or will the provisions of this Bill be applied to such proceedings in any way, with or without modifications? Do the Government propose any kind of specified cut-off date, as envisaged in Amendment No. 257, and will that be in relation to the date on which extradition proceedings commenced or to the date on which the extradition offence was alleged to have been committed?
  We do not seem to be able to find any provisions in the Bill setting out the arrangements that will govern this transitional period other than the traditional Henry VIII provision that orders made by the Secretary of State, including commencement orders, may,
  "include supplementary, incidental, saving or transitional provisions".
  The Minister will be aware that this is not always the case, and that the Government often set out on the face of Bills, in some detail, the way in which they intend transitional arrangements to operate. For example, Schedule 18 of the Criminal Justice Bill, which we are currently discussing, sets out the transitional arrangements that will apply when the new sentencing regime for murder is introduced. Given that extradition law and procedures can be quite complex, even the streamlined procedures introduced by the Bill—the operation of the European arrest warrant is potentially controversial, particularly until the procedure has bedded down—can the Minister explain to the Committee why the Government do not appear to have placed any such clear transitional provisions on the face of the Bill? I hope that the Minister will be able to provide clarification on those points as well as dealing with the important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
  Lord Filkin: I shall do my best, but I do not believe that it will necessarily be easy, given the complexity of some of these issues. If I do not fully satisfy both Opposition Front Benches, my noble friend Lady Scotland will have an opportunity at a later stage in the passage of the Bill when I am no longer here.
  The amendments are concerned with the important question of to which particular cases the new arrangements, for which the Bill provides, should
  GC 44
  apply. Clearly, the new legislation should apply to all requests received after the point when the new Act is brought into force. There is a slight gloss on that to which I shall return shortly.
  So if the new Act comes into force on 1st January 2004, for example, a request received on 31st December 2003 will be handled under the 1989 Act procedures while a request received on 2nd January 2004 will be handled under the new procedures. We think it is much better, and less confusing, that the procedures to be used should be determined by when the request was made rather than by reference to when the alleged offence took place, as I trailed earlier in our discussions.
  The reason for that is that it is not always apparent at precisely what point an offence was committed. Earlier I referred to a new Act coming into force on 1st January. Imagine that a person has gone away for a few days over New Year and comes back to find that his house has been burgled. In those circumstances it might not be clear whether the crime had taken place on or before 31st December or after 1st January, in which case the new procedures would apply. Similarly, a complicated fraud case might straddle the cut off date. The other difficulty with determining what procedures should be used by virtue of the date of the offence is that we may get requests many years after the event.
  The amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, provides that Sections 63(2) and 64(2) of the new Act's procedures will apply only to acts committed after 7th August 2002, although we had not spotted the significance of that date about which he enlightened us. We understand that the effect of this amendment would be that someone wanted for a "list" offence in another EU country could not be extradited where the conduct occurred prior to 7th August 2002 and where the dual criminality test is not met.
  I appreciate the position from which the noble Lord proposes this amendment and his concern for the rights of those who are the subjects of extradition requests. However, the fundamental principle remains that, regardless of when the conduct occurred, it is incumbent upon the individual to act within the laws of the country where he is present. As we have previously explained from these Benches, the Government do not believe that a person should be able to escape prosecution simply by crossing a border within the EU, whether the conduct occurred before or after 7th August 2002. I hope that the Committee will see why this is not desirable and instead agree that the date of the request is what should determine which procedures are used.
  I now turn to the two amendments standing in the name of the Official Opposition. Those seek to provide that any order that has the effect of transferring existing cases already in the system to the new arrangements should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Perhaps I can set out the Government's position on the whole issue of transferring existing cases to the new arrangements. I

  GC 45
  do not believe that I can do any better than to quote from the Government's response to questions that were posed by the Home Affairs Committee in another place in its first report of 2002–03. The response is appended to the committee's report on the Bill. The Government's response stated:
  "In principle the new arrangements will apply to all European arrest warrants received after the new Act has been brought into force even if the conduct to which the warrant relates occurred before that date. However, the Bill also contains a power to transfer existing cases to the new arrangements. It is the Government's intention that this power should only be used very sparingly and only if it is justified and there would he clear benefits in doing so".
  For the avoidance of doubt I should make it clear that the passage I have quoted referred to the EAW simply because the question to which it was a response did so. Exactly the same principle applies to Part 2 of the Bill. So the position is, I hope, clear. The power to transfer cases, if it is used at all, will be used only sparingly and if it is in the interests of justice.
  Fugitives whose cases are transferred will no doubt seek to challenge the transfer through judicial review and I am sure that the courts would be very alive to any abuse of process arguments. If they felt that the fugitive was being seriously disadvantaged they would no doubt uphold his challenge.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: Perhaps the Minister could answer one question. Do his officials have information on what is now the longest outstanding extradition case? How long might we have a transitional period? If a case has been outstanding for four or five years, as I believe could occur, then if something is received on 31st December 2003—that is, the day before the coming into force of the Act in his example—we could be talking about 2008, 2009 or 2010 before the old procedure dropped away. Is that what the Government envisage?
  Lord Filkin: I pause while cogitation is taking place on that—cogitation has been very fast. The longest outstanding case is approximately seven years.
  Turning to the specifics of the amendments, I am sure that Members of the Committee are aware that it is virtually unprecedented for commencement orders to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. There is good reason for that. Parliament has expressed its wishes by enacting the legislation, and it should then be brought into force as soon as practicable without the need for further parliamentary debate. Therefore, we see no need to depart from established practice in this respect, and that is why we cannot support the amendments.
  However, I repeat that we do not expect many, if any, cases already in the system to be transferred to the new arrangements. That will happen only if it is clearly in the interests of justice.
  I have done my best to explain why we believe that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, would be impractical. Similarly, I have sought to explain why I do not believe that we should take the unprecedented step of making commencement orders subject to the affirmative
  GC 46
  resolution procedure. I hope that, in the light of what I have said, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Goodhart: I obviously feel unhappy with the fact that the Government are unable to shift their position on Amendment No. 257. Of course, I recognise that they have now put themselves in a position where they cannot do so without breaching the international obligations entered into by not making a declaration at the time when they agreed to the terms of the framework decision. Having said that, I shall of course beg leave to withdraw the amendment today. I shall consider how far, and whether or not, it would be desirable to bring hack this matter on Report for further discussion. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 207 agreed to.
  Clause 208 agreed to.
  Clause 209 [Orders and regulations]:
  [Amendments Nos. 258 to 260 not moved]
  Clause 209 agreed to.
  Clause 210 [Orders in council]:
  [Amendments Nos. 261 to 266 not moved]
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbottsmoved Amendment No. 267:
  Page 115, line 26, leave out subsection (4).
  The noble Lord said: I believe that this is the last amendment at the end of nine hard days. It takes us back to one of the early days in Committee and the vexed issue of Orders in Council. It seems to be a long time since we discussed this matter on our first day in Grand Committee. I want to repeat our thanks, which we gave then, to the Minister for his commitment to making Orders in Council under Sections 1 and 68, designating category 1 and category 2 territories, subject to the affirmative rather than the negative procedure. We were very grateful to him for that.
  My purpose in moving Amendment No. 267 is simple. It is to query the power in Clause 210(4), which allows orders for such designations to have specified modifications in relation to specific territories. That seems to be a wide-ranging and potentially dangerous power to propose. I am not clear, and should welcome an explanation, as to what the purpose of such a clause is and what "specified modifications" might be.
  I appreciate that we are nearing the end of our lengthy discussions on the Bill but I should like some clarification from the Minister as to why we should not strike out Clause 210(4). I beg to move.
  6.45 p.m.
  Lord Filkin: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for his probing amendment that seeks clarification on this issue. There are various references in the Bill to specified modifications on which, understandably and rightly, the Opposition have probed.

  GC 47
  The Ministers responding have generally pointed out that the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform queried only the use of the term in one place and that we would provide the explanation when we got to that point, and we are now here.
  The first point that I should put on the record is that the Delegated Powers Committee did not consider that Clause 210(4) was inappropriate. All that the committee suggested was that the Government should provide an explanation as to why it was necessary, which I shall endeavour to do. We expect to designate all of our existing extradition partners as either Part I or Part 2 countries under the new legislation, as one would expect. There is no obvious reason why, broadly, the new Act cannot apply to all of them in the form that Parliament has enacted it.
  The only likely problem is that, as we have already discussed at some length, we may need to vary the period in which papers have to be supplied following provisional arrest to take account of the terms of our various bilateral extradition treaties. However, we have specially catered for that by means of Clause 73(10). So, to put it simply, I do not believe that we will need to make any great use of the "specified modifications" provision when it comes to designating our current extradition partners under the new legislation. However, that provision is necessary to enable us to cope with the future.
  The Committee may recall that at the seventh sitting of the Committee, my noble friend Lady Scotland read onto the record the list of the UK's extradition partners. It is a pretty comprehensive list so, currently, there are no plans to extend it or to negotiate any new bilateral treaties. Nevertheless, there are gaps. To cite one interesting omission, we do not have extradition relations with Japan. That has not given rise to any problems but were it to do so in future and the Japanese to approach us about the possibility of a treaty. it would obviously be sensible to proceed. I am sure that Members of the Committee could not be opposed to that in principle.
  As part of that treaty, we may want to insist on a two-year threshold when negotiating a treaty with a new country, because the sentence thresholds in that country were much lower than elsewhere, so that a two-year sentence there was equivalent to 12 months in the rest of the world, to give an instance. Again we would want to use Clause 210(4) to ensure that the operation of the Act reflected the terms of a treaty. That, in a nutshell, is the purpose of Clause 210(4)—to allow us to ensure that the peculiarities of any future treaties can be accommodated.
  I remind your Lordships that as a result of an earlier concession, all orders designating countries, as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, indicated, as extradition partners will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure so Parliament will know fully what is happening and have the fullest opportunity to consider whether any such modifications are appropriate.
  GC 48
  I repeat that we would not expect to use this facility very often, but equally I do not think that we should put ourselves in the position where our future room for manoeuvre is unnecessarily limited. I hope that this explanation answers the concerns that lay behind the probing amendments to which the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, spoke.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I am grateful to the Minister for that fairly full reply. As I expected, he said, "It's in there but we don't expect to make any great use of it". That always begs the question why it is needed. I accept that he then went on to raise issues concerning the peculiarities of the extradition system, and I consider that the example of Japan was a very good one.
  I believe I am happy with what he said but, without going over other ground that we have discussed this afternoon, this type of matter could be dealt with usefully in an annual report. One talks about some of the places where specified modifications have had to be made because at issue is the liberty of a subject and the subject being moved to countries around the world. The kind of issues mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and which I raised, come up again when one looks at Clause 210(4). We shall return to that matter but, in the meantime, I am happy to accept the Minister's explanation and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 210 agreed to.
  Clause 211 agreed to.
  Clause 212 [Extent]:
  Lord Filkinmoved Amendment No. 267ZA:
  Page 115, line 35, after "Sections" insert "(Restriction on bail where undertaking given by Secretary of State),"
  The noble Lord said: I shall be brief in moving this amendment. It relates to Clause 212, which specifies the constituent part or parts of the United Kingdom to which certain clauses do or do not apply. The need for the amendment has arisen from the amendment of the Bill in another place to insert a new clause—Clause I94—modifying existing Scots law—
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Is the noble Lord not speaking to Amendment No. 267ZB?
  Noble Lords: Yes.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Amendment No. 267ZA has already been spoken to.
  Lord Filkin: I am so sorry. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Filkinmoved Amendment No. 267ZB:
  Page 115, line 36, leave out "Section 184" and insert "Sections 184 and 194"
  The noble Lord said: I thank the Deputy Chairman for giving me a further opportunity to speak to this amendment. It relates to Clauses 212, which specifies the constituent part or parts of the United Kingdom to which certain clauses do or do not apply. The need

  GC 49
  arises from the amendment in another place to insert Clause 194 modifying existing Scots law on bail in relation to extradition proceedings.
  The effect of Clause 194 is that Scots law on bail applies to persons facing extradition in so far as this is consistent with the Bill. Obviously as Clause 194 applies only to Scotland, it is necessary for it to be added to the Scotland-only provisions listed in the extent provisions in Clause 212. The intention of the amendment is to do so. I hope that your Lordships will understand and welcome the amendment and I now invite the Committee to agree to it.
  As this may he the last occasion on which I shall speak on this Bill—I sincerely hope that it is—I should like, although it is improper, to thank all Members who have taken part in the nine days of proceedings. It has been a good process and, as the temperature has reduced, the quality of exploration has improved and increased. Perhaps I should not have said the latter.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Clearly this is simply a draft amendment. However, I want to suggest that it is not absolutely correct. It should read,
  "leave out 'Section 184 extends' and insert 'Sections 184 and 194 extend'".
  The word "extends" should read "extend".
  Lord Filkin: I give an undertaking to look at that point and I shall write to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, about it before we reach Report stage.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 212, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 213 agreed to.
  Lord Filkinmoved Amendment No. 267A:
  Before the Schedule, insert the following new schedule—

  Extradition Bill

    RF-EXTRADITION: MODIFICATIONS PART 1 CATEGORY 1 TERRITORIES
    1 In section 11(1), omit paragraphs (c), (g) and (h).
    2 Omit sections 14. 18 and 19.
    3 In section 21(3), for "must" substitute "may".
    4 In section 31(2), for paragraphs (a) and (b) substitute "would (apart from section (Re-extradition hearing) (1 )) be released from detention pursuant to the UK sentence (whether or not on licence)".
    5 In section 39(2)(a), for "a certificate is issued under section 2 in respect of the warrant" substitute "the person would (apart from section (Re-extradition hearing) (1)) be released from detention pursuant to the UK sentence (whether or not on licence)".
    6 In section 43(2)(a), for "following his arrest under this Part" substitute "under section (Re-extradition hearing) (1)".
    7 In section 44(1), for the words from "arrested" to "issued" substitute "brought before the appropriate judge under section (Re-extradition hearing) (1) may consent to his extradition to the territory in which the overseas sentence was imposed".
    8 In section 187(2), for the words "a certificate is issued under section 2 or 69 in respect of the extradition claim" substitute "the person would (apart from section (Re-extradition hearing) (1)) be released from detention pursuant to the UK sentence (whether or not on licence)".

    PART 2 CATEGORY 2 TERRITORIES
    9 In section 77, omit subsections (2), (3), (5) and (8).
    10 In section 77, for subsection (4) substitute—
    "(4) The judge must decide whether the offence specified in the request is an extradition offence."
    11 In section 77(6), for "any of the questions" substitute "the question".
    12 In section 77(7), for "those questions" substitute "that question".
    13 In section 78(1), omit paragraph (c).
    14 Omit section 81.
    15 In section 86(3), for the words from "must send the case" to "extradited" substitute "may order the person to he extradited to the category 2 territory".
    16 In section 86, after subsection (3) insert—
    "(4) If the judge makes an order under subsection (3) he must remand the person in custody or on hail to wait for his extradition to the territory.
    (5) If the judge remands the person in custody he may later grant bail."
    17 In section 101(1)—
    (a) for the words from "sends a case" to "extradited" substitute "orders a person's extradition under this Part"; and
    (b) for "the relevant decision" substitute "the order".
    18 In section 101(2), for the words from "the person" to "the Secretary of State" substitute "the order is made under section 126".
    19 In section 101, omit subsections (3), (5), (6) and (7).
    20 In section 101(8), for the words from "the Secretary of State" to "extradition" substitute "the order is made".
    21 In section 102, omit subsections (1)(b), (6) and (7).
    22 In section 104, omit subsections (1)( b), (7) and (8).
    23 In section 115(1)(a), for "the Secretary of State" substitute "the appropriate judge".
    24 In section 115(1)(b). for the words from "permitted period" to "extradition" substitute "period permitted under that section".
    25 In section 115, after subsection (1) insert—
    "(1A) But this section does not apply if the order is made under section 126."
    26 In section 115(2), for "the Secretary of State" substitute "the judge".
    27 In section 117(1)(a), for "the Secretary of State" substitute "the appropriate judge".
    28 In section 117, in subsections (2), (3) and (4) and in each place in subsection (5), for "the Secretary of State" substitute "the judge".
    29 In section 118, after subsection (1) insert—
    "(1A) But this section does not apply if the order for the person's extradition is made under section 126."
    30 In section I 19(2)(a), for "a certificate is issued under section 69 in respect of the request" substitute "the person would (apart from section (Re-extradition hearing) (1)) be released from detention pursuant to the UK sentence (whether or not on licence)".
    31 In section 125(1), for the words from "arrested" to "requested" substitute "brought before the appropriate judge under section (Re-extradition hearing) (1) may consent to his extradition to the territory in which the overseas sentence was imposed".
    32 In section 125, omit subsections (4) and (5).
    33 In section 125(3), before paragraph (a) insert"—
    "(aa) must be given before the appropriate judge;".
    34 In section 126, after subsection (I) insert—
    "(1A) The judge must remand the person in custody or on bail.
    (1B) If the judge remands the person in custody he may later grant bail."
    35 In section 126(4), for the words from "send the case" to "extradited" substitute "within the period of 10 days starting with the day on which consent is given order the person's extradition to the category 2 territory".
    36 In section 126, after subsection (5) insert—
    "(6) Subsection (4) has effect subject to section 126B.
    (7) If subsection (4) is not complied with and the person applies to the judge to be discharged the judge must order his discharge."
    37 After section 126 insert—
    "126A EXTRADITION TO CATEGORY 2 TERRITORY FOLLOWING CONSENT
    (1) This section applies if the appropriate judge makes an order under section 126(4) for a person's extradition to a category 2 territory.
    (2) The person must be extradited to the category 2 territory before the end of the required period, which is 28 days starting with the day on which the order is made.
    (3) If subsection (2) is not complied with and the person applies to the judge to be discharged the judge must order his discharge, unless reasonable cause is shown for the delay.
    126B EXTRADITION CLAIM FOLLOWING CONSENT
    (1) This section applies if—

    (a) a person consents under section 125 to his extradition to a category 2 territory; and

    (b) before the judge orders his extradition under section 126(4), the judge is informed that the conditions in subsection (2) or (3) are met.

    (2) The conditions are that—

    (a) the Secretary of State has received another valid request for the person's extradition to a category 2 territory:

    (b) the other request has not been disposed of.

    (3) The conditions are that—

    (a) a certificate has been issued under section 2 in respect of a Part 1 warrant issued in respect of the person;

    (b) the warrant has not been disposed of.

    (4) The judge must not make an order under section 126(4) until he is informed what order has been made under section 124(2) or 181(2).
    (5) If the order under section 124(2) or 181(2) is for further proceedings on the request under consideration to be deferred until the other request, or the warrant, has been disposed of, the judge must remand the person in custody or on bail.
    (6) If the judge remands the person in custody he may later grant bail.
    (7) If—

    (a) the order under section 124(2) or 181(2) is for further proceedings on the request under consideration to be deferred until the other request, or the warrant, has been disposed of, and

    (b) an order is made under section 182 for proceedings on the request under consideration to be resumed,

    the period specified in section 126(4) must be taken to be 10 days starting with the day on which the order under section 182 is made.
    (8) If the order under section 124(2) or 181(2) is for further proceedings on the other request, or the warrant, to be deferred until the request under consideration has been disposed of, the period specified in section 126(4) must be taken to be 10 days starting with the day on which the judge is informed of the order.
    126C EXTRADITION FOLLOWING DEFERRAL FOR COMPETING CLAIM
    (1) This section applies if—

    (a) an order is made under section 126(4) for a person to be extradited to a category 2 territory in pursuance of a request for his extradition;

    (b) before the person is extradited to the territory an order is made under section 124(2) or 181(2) for the person's extradition in pursuance of the request to be deferred;

    (c) the appropriate judge makes an order under section 183(3)(a) for the person's extradition in pursuance of the request to cease to be deferred.

    (2) The required period for the purposes of section 126A(2) is 28 days starting with the day on which the order under section 183(3)(a) is made."
    38 In section 187(2), for the words "a certificate is issued under section 2 or 69 in respect of the extradition claim" substitute "the person would (apart from section (Re-extradition hearing) (1)) be released from detention pursuant to the UK sentence (whether or not on licence)"."
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Lord Filkinmoved Amendment No. 267B:
    Before the Schedule, insert the following new schedule—

    AMENDMENTS
    Introduction
    1 The amendments specified in this Schedule shall have effect.
    Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (c. 13)
    2 In Schedule 3 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (c. 13) (matters not subject to investigation) for paragraph 4 substitute—
    "4 Action taken by the Secretary of State under the Extradition Act 2003."
    Criminal Justice Act 1967 (c. 80)
    3 Section 34 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (c. 80) (committal of persons under twenty-one accused of extradition crimes) shall cease to have effect.
    Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978 (c. 26)
    4 Sections 1 (offences not to be regarded as of a political character) and 2 (restrictions on return of criminal under Extradition Act 1870 or to Republic of Ireland) of the Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978 (c. 26) shall cease to have effect.
    5 For section 5 of the Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978 (c. 26) substitute—
    "5 POWER TO APPLY SECTION 4 TO NON-CONVENTION COUNTRIES
    (1) The Secretary of State may by order direct that section 4 above shall apply in relation to a country falling within subsection (2) below as it applies in relation to a convention country, subject to the exceptions (if any) specified in the order.
    (2) A country falls within this subsection if—

    (a) it is not a convention country; and

    (b) it is a category I territory or a category 2 territory within the meaning of the Extradition Act 2003."

    Criminal Justice ( International Co-operation) Act 1990 (c. 5)
    6 Section 22(1) of the Criminal Justice (International Cooperation) Act 1990 (c. 5) (offences to which an Order in Council under the Extradition Act 1870 can apply) shall cease to have effect.
    Computer Misuse Act 1990 (c. 18)
    7 Section 15 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 (c. 18) (extradition where Schedule 1 to the Extradition Act 1989 applies) shall cease to have effect.
    Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 ( c. 31)
    8 Section 49 of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 (c. 31) (extradition by virtue of Orders in Council under Extradition Act 1870) shall cease to have effect.
    Criminal Justice Act 1991 (c. 53)
    9 In section 47 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (e. 53) (persons extradited to the United Kingdom) subsection (4) shall cease to have effect.
    United Nations Personnel Act 1997 (c. 13)
    10 Section 6(1) of the United Nations Personnel Act 1997 (c. 13) (offences to which an Order in Council under section 2 of the Extradition Act 1870 can apply) shall cease to have effect.
    Terrorism Act 2000 (c. 11)
    11 Section 64(5) of the Terrorism Act 2000 (c. 11 )(offences to which an Order in Council under section 2 of the Extradition Act 1870 can apply) shall cease to have effect.
    International Criminal Court Act 2001 (c. 17)
    12 Section 71 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 (c. 17) (extradition: Orders in Council under the Extradition Act 1870) shall cease to have effect.
    13 (1) Part 2 of Schedule 2 to the International Criminal Court Act 2001 (c. 17) (delivery up to International Criminal Court of persons subject to extradition proceedings) is amended as follows.
    (2) For paragraph 7 (meaning of "extradition proceedings") substitute—
    "7 In this Part of this Schedule "extradition proceedings" means proceedings before a court or judge in the United Kingdom under the Extradition Act 2003."
    (3) In paragraph 8 (extradition proceedings in England and Wales or Northern Ireland) after sub-paragraph (5) add—
    "(6) References in this paragraph to a court include references to a judge."
    (4) In paragraph 9 (extradition proceedings in Scotland) after sub-paragraph (3) add—
    "(4) References in this paragraph to a court include references to a judge."
    (5) In paragraph 10 (power to suspend or revoke warrant or order) for sub-paragraph (1) substitute—
    "(1) Where a court makes a delivery order in respect of a person whose extradition has been ordered under the Extradition Act 2003, it may make any such order as is necessary to enable the delivery order to be executed."
    (6) In paragraph 10(2) omit the words "by a court or judicial officer".
    Enterprise Act 2002 (c. 40)
    14 Section 191 of the Enterprise Act 2002 (e. 40) (offences to which an Order in Council under the Extradition Act 1870 can apply) shall cease to have effect."
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    [Amendments Nos. 268 to 269 not moved.]
    Schedule [Repeals]:
    Lord Filkinmoved Amendments Nos. 270 to 276:
    Page 116, line 5, at end insert—

    "Criminal Justice Act 1967 (c. 80)

    Section 34.

    Criminal Jurisdiction Act 1975 (c. 59)

    In Schedule 3, paragraph 1."

    Page 116, line 11, column 2. at end insert—
    "In Schedule 2, paragraph 33."
    Page 116, line 13, at end insert—
    "Suppression of Terrorism Act Sections 1 and 2.

    1978 (c. 26)

    In section 8—

    (a) subsection (5)(a);

    (b) in subsection (6) the words from "an order made under section 1(4)" to "or"."

    Page 116, line 14, at end insert—

    "Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 (c. 5)

    Section 22.

    Computer Misuse Act 1990 (c. 18)

    Section 15.

    Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 (c. 31)

    Section 49.

    Criminal Justice Act 1991 (c 53)

    Section 47(4)."

    Page 116, line 18, at end insert—

    "Criminal Justice Act 1993 (c. 36)

    Section 72.

    Section 79(7).

    Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (c. 33)

    Sections 158 and 159.

    United Nations Personnel Act 1997 (c. 13)

    Section 6.

    Justices of the Peace Act 1997 (c. 25)

    In Schedule 5, paragraph 9.

    Access to Justice Act 1999 (c. 22)

    In Schedule 11, paragraphs 18 and 31 to 36.

    Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (c. 6)

    In Schedule 9, paragraph 124.

    Terrorism Act 2000 (c. 11)

    Section 64."

    Page 116, line 19, column 2, at beginning insert "Sections 71 to 73."
    Page 116, line 20, at end insert—

    "Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (c. 29)

    In Schedule 11, paragraph 18.

    Enterprise Act 2002 (c. 40)

    Section 191."

    On Question, amendments agreed to.
    Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
    Bill reported with amendments.
    The Committee adjourned at four minutes before seven o'clock.

  House of Lords: Peers' Reimbursement Allowance Scheme
  House of Lords: Peers' Reimbursement Allowance Scheme
  Northern Ireland: ECJ Cases
  Northern Ireland: ECJ Cases
  Northern Ireland: Paediatric Renal Isotope Scans
  Northern Ireland: Paediatric Renal Isotope Scans
  Peace II Funding
  Peace II Funding
  North/South Language Body
  North/South Language Body
  Cross-Border Implementation Bodies
  Cross-Border Implementation Bodies
  Ulster-Scots Agency
  Ulster-Scots Agency
  Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission
  Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission
  Cross-Border Implementation Bodies: Provision of Cars for Chief Executives
  Cross-Border Implementation Bodies: Provision of Cars for Chief Executives
  Belfast Education and Library Board: DVD Language Policy
  Belfast Education and Library Board: DVD Language Policy
  Lough Neagh: Water Quality
  Lough Neagh: Water Quality
  Northern Ireland Civil Service: Equality Officers
  Northern Ireland Civil Service: Equality Officers
  Immigration: Identity Fraud
  Immigration: Identity Fraud
  Diplomatic Missions and International Organisations: Offences Committed by Staff
  Diplomatic Missions and International Organisations: Offences Committed by Staff
  India: Welfare of Women
  India: Welfare of Women
  Age Discrimination
  Age Discrimination
  National Radiological Protection Board
  National Radiological Protection Board
  Food Supplements
  Food Supplements
  Sexual Health: Government Response to Select Committee Report
  Sexual Health: Government Response to Select Committee Report
  Children: Performance Prospects and Economic Background
  Children: Performance Prospects and Economic Background
  Science Teaching: Fieldwork
  Science Teaching: Fieldwork
  Mini Roundabouts: "Filter in Turn" Signs
  Mini Roundabouts: "Filter in Turn" Signs
  Speed Limit Signs
  Speed Limit Signs
  Heathrow Airport: Third Runway
  Heathrow Airport: Third Runway
  Heathrow Airport: Air Quality
  Heathrow Airport: Air Quality