Sitting of 11 September 2003

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

    Teacher Recruitment
    Mr. Piara S. Khabra: How many teachers have been recruited by schools as a result of teach first. [128968]
    Dr. Doug Naysmith: What assessment he has made of the number of teachers recruited by schools as a result of teach first [128971]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Stephen Twigg): One hundred and seventy-eight trainees on the teach first scheme began working in London secondary schools last week. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will join me in wishing them well.
    Mr. Khabra: My constituency encompasses people from a wide range of cultural and ethnic backgrounds. May I ask the Minister how successful the scheme has been in attracting teachers from minority groups? Will he tell me how he intends to utilise the national skills strategy to address the imbalance between the skills offered by unemployed Londoners and those that are needed by employers?
    Mr. Twigg: My hon. Friend raises an important issue. As we heard in the education debate earlier this week, we face a challenge in ensuring that our classrooms truly reflect the communities that they serve. I am delighted to be able to inform my hon. Friend that 22 per cent. of teach first students entering classrooms in London over the past fortnight were from ethnic minorities. That sets a very positive example.
    Dr. Naysmith: Teach first is an interesting initiative that has potential in many respects. Does the Minister plan to roll it out in other parts of the country after the monitoring that must, of course, take place?
    Mr. Twigg: I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks. This is a brand new scheme, which started in London because of the particular challenges that it faces with
    454
    recruitment and retention. We will evaluate the scheme closely, as will those who organised it and the Teacher Training Agency. I certainly would not rule out its extension to other parts of the country.
    Mr. Damian Green: May I echo the Minister's delight that teach first is recruiting high-calibre teachers? We have supported the scheme since its launch and will continue to do so. Will the hon. Gentleman reciprocally acknowledge that the numbers recruited through teach first are just a palliative, given that this week the Department issued figures showing that the number of qualified regular full-time teachers is down by 1,400 this year? Will he acknowledge that his Government's constant boasting about rising teacher numbers is bogus?
    Mr. Twigg: I welcome the support for teach first from Opposition Members, including the Liberal Democrats.
    The hon. Gentleman refers only to part of the figures that were published this week. He is correct to say that the figure for full-time qualified teachers fell by 1,300 over the past year. However, that was more than offset by the increase in full-time-equivalent part-time qualified teachers. The overall statistic was a net gain of 200 full-time-equivalent teachers over the past year. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join us in welcoming those extra teachers in schools across the country.
    Mr. Green: I note that it is significant that the Minister does not repeat the bogus number of 25,000 that his colleague, the Minister for School Standards, is fond of repeating. Can he tell the House how many of those teachers are unqualified and how many are short-term appointments from other countries, many of which are poorer than this country, whose schools we are raiding to fill the gaps in our own schools? Does he recognise that the problems have been made much worse by the funding crisis that has led to the loss of 2,500 teaching posts purely because the Department has been staggeringly incompetent in spending its money?
    Mr. Twigg: We are not going to take lectures from Conservative Members on this subject, given that they presided over the loss of 50,000 teaching posts between 1979 and 1997. He is right to say that we have significant numbers of teachers from overseas, but they are not unqualified—they are qualified in their own countries. Some 4,200 teachers are on employment-based training routes. In fact, the majority of teachers in schools today are now qualified; many have qualified since January. Part of the reason why so many teachers are on schemes such as the graduate teacher programme is that we are dealing with teacher shortages by providing other routes for people to get into teaching. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would want to welcome that.
    Jim Knight: I, too, congratulate the Government on teach first as part of their success in recruiting more teachers. May I ask the Minister, when

    455
    considering the roll-out and extension of teach first, not to forget our rural areas, including the south-west region?
    Mr. Twigg: I heard my hon. Friend's comments and I am sure that South Dorset would benefit from such an extension.
    Mrs. Ann Cryer: What success is my hon. Friend having in recruiting ESOL—English as a second language—teachers? Given the changes in the requirements for citizenship, we shall need many more good quality ESOL teachers. The subject should not continue to be the poor relation in education; it is important for our northern cities.
    Mr. Twigg: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who has been assiduous in pursuing the matter. She knows that, last academic year, we published our document "Aiming High—Raising the Achievement of Ethnic Minority Pupils", part of which addressed the precise topic to which she referred. We shall shortly publish our response to the consultation and methods of taking forward our strategy to ensure that every child in this country gets the best possible start in life, regardless of ethnic background.

    Children's Centres
    Mr. Barry Gardiner: If he will make a statement on the progress made in establishing children's centres. [128970]
    Mr. Win Griffiths: What the latest developments are in the establishment of children's centres. [128977]
    The Minister for Children (Margaret Hodge): We designated the first 32 children's centres in June. We intend to designate a further similar number later this month. Local authorities are currently preparing their plans for developing children's centres and will submit them to us by 15 October. We are confident that the children's centre model, which provides care and education for young children alongside community health and family support services, is excellent for ensuring the best start for our children.
    Mr. Gardiner: I am grateful to the Minister not only for her reply but for the £2.3 million indicative figure for capital programmes that Brent has received for children's centres.
    When my hon. Friend examines the submissions, will she ensure that emphasis is placed on the model of multi-agency working? In particular, will she ensure that the incredibly valuable role of health visitors is incorporated in the model so that in the progress from zero to five years the education and health aspects of children's lives are genuinely integrated?
    Margaret Hodge: I agree with the thrust of my hon. Friend's contribution. I draw to his intention the fact that, as well as capital, Brent is getting £1 million revenue to support the development of children's centres.
    456
    The multi-agency approach is crucial and an essential part of our policy to put children at the centre and develop services around their needs rather than around the traditional professional silos. I also accept the importance of the role of health visitors and therefore welcome our announcement on Monday in the Green Paper that my colleagues in the Department of Health will undertake a review of the role of health visitors to ensure that they can contribute to giving our young children a good start.
    Mr. Griffiths: I thank my hon. Friend for the work that is already being done. Can she tell me, on the basis of the centres that have been approved, the extent to which local authorities and other agencies have gone beyond simply integrating existing services and are taking the opportunity to improve the total service for young children and families?
    Margaret Hodge: Many exciting experiments are taking place in the emerging children's centres, as well as much innovation. I could give endless examples of the practices that are being introduced. Much work is being done with families to ensure that parents are supported in the early years with their children. I draw the voluntary organisation Home-Start to my hon. Friend's attention. It is doing a good job in providing peer group support, involving mums visiting other mums in their homes to help them through the difficult early days when they bring their child home.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: I call Phil Willis.
    Mr. Phil Willis: I wanted to come in on the next question, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: I must tell the hon. Gentleman that Question 4 has gone, but perhaps he wants to come in on Question 5.
    Mr. Willis: Yes, I wanted to come in on Question 5.
    Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Unusually, I welcome what the Minister for Children has said. I also welcome the work that has been done on children's centres, because of the help that it will bring to parents of very young children and to families in need of support. But what exactly is the Minister going to do to protect the minority of children who are specifically at risk from criminals who have the intention of harming them? I use the word "criminal" rather than "paedophile" because we must understand that there are criminals who are deliberately targeting young children. While children's centres will help families and children at risk from neglect, they will not help the children at risk from such criminals, and I would like the Minister to give us guidance on that problem.
    Margaret Hodge: In the Green Paper that we published on Monday, we said that the way in which we can best protect children from risk of abuse or harm is to ensure that the universal services provided for children are of a particular quality and that the protection of children is central and integral to them.

    457
    The protection of children must run like a thread through all the services, so that ensuring that children are protected is part of the role of every GP, teacher, nursery assistant and child care worker. Another issue in the Green Paper was that the emphasis must be on prevention. We must try to intervene and to put in place all sorts of levers to ensure that children are prevented from falling into risk of abuse. For example, the sharing of information and the training of the work force—both of which we highlighted in the Green Paper—are two aspects of the policies that we are pursuing to ensure that children are not at risk of abuse or harm.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: Can my hon. Friend tell me whether the children's centres could be the base on which to build a universal provision of child care? Has she seen this week's PricewaterhouseCoopers study which states that investment in a universal child care system would be an enormous boon to our economy?
    Margaret Hodge: My hon. Friend and I have worked together for many years, and he will know that I have long been a campaigner for the universality of early-years services for children, in terms of child care and early-years education. Children's centres have great potential for being a universal model to meet the needs of children and their families, and I look forward to working with colleagues across government to translate that ambition into a reality.

    Specialist Schools
    Andrew Selous: What his policy is on middle schools applying for specialist school status. [128972]
    The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): I know that the hon. Gentleman has been assiduous in pursuing this issue, and I am pleased to be able to give him further information on the review that we were undertaking when he last asked about it. Middle deemed secondary schools are now eligible to apply for specialist school status as part of a joint application. One or more middle deemed secondary schools can apply jointly to the programme with upper schools.
    Andrew Selous: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that there are nearly 130,000 children in middle schools in England alone who are unable to be in specialist schools at the moment because of the current guidelines? Is he also aware that two of the three years' work for key stage 3—the crucial foundation for GCSEs—takes place in middle schools? In my constituency, the upper schools already have specialist college status, so the excellent Priory middle school which wants to apply, cannot do so. Will the Minister make a specific pledge on solo applications for middle schools, so that schools such as Priory can acquire specialist status?
    Mr. Miliband: I do not know about the 130,000, but I do know about the 40 middle schools in Bedfordshire. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that solo applications would be allowed from middle schools,
    458
    because they have primary school pupils as well as secondary school pupils, and the specialist school programme is designed to raise achievement at GCSE and beyond. I can assure him, however, that the middle schools that he is concerned about can apply jointly, either for designation or redesignation, with a secondary school or in a group. That is a big step forward.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr Wills.
    Mr. Phil Willis: Thank you for calling me, Mr. Speaker.
    Does the Minister accept that the principal reason for schools wishing to acquire specialist status is the extra £500,000 that that status brings, and that, had it not been for specialist status, the crisis in schools funding this year would be significantly less serious? Will the Minister guarantee to those schools whose budgets are now in deficit as a result of the funding crisis that their applications for specialist status will not be turned down because of the Government's criterion which states that they have to show prudent financial management?
    Mr. Miliband: I am afraid that there are two pieces of nonsense in what the hon. Gentleman has just said. First, he is running down the efforts of teachers and head teachers who want to make their schools better. That is why they apply to attain specialist school status and to have a centre of excellence in their school. Secondly, while on the one hand the hon. Gentleman says that the schools are getting too much money, on the other he says that the money is what is causing the funding crisis. He is standing on his head.
    Mr. Nick Gibb: What measures is the Minister taking to ensure that the range of specialisms offered by specialist schools correlates with the demands of pupils and parents? Given that the choice of specialism rests with the school itself, is not the approach producer led rather than consumer led?
    Mr. Miliband: I know that the hon. Gentleman speaks with seriousness on these issues, but when a school applies for specialist status it does so with the aim not just of raising its own standards but of providing a real resource for the whole community. That involves schools' working with parents and the community to choose a specialism that is appropriate for the area. I have not observed a problem on my visits to schools, although if the hon. Gentleman has any evidence of problems, I shall be happy to look at it.

    School Nurseries (Leeds)
    Mr. Harold Best: How many school nursery places in Leeds, North-West were available for under-fives in each year since 1997. [128974]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke): We do not have detailed information on the availability of places, but I can tell the House that the number of pupils attending nursery classes in maintained schools in the hon. Gentleman's constituency was as follows: in 1997, 551; in 1998, 588;

    459
    in 1999, 548; in 2000, 538; in 2001, 514; and in 2002, 499. The provisional figure for 2003 is 475. Other publicly funded places for under-fives are available in the private, voluntary and independent sectors.
    Mr. Best: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although that trend is worthy of note, there may be some room for improvement? Can he say something about further funds that might improve the position?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend that the trend is worthy of note. Leeds currently reports an overall participation rate of 90 per cent. among three-year-olds in free early education, which is slightly higher than the national average. We should, however, consider the type of participation involved. The starting point must be to ensure that overall provision is flexible, and meets parental needs. The right approach is that described a moment ago by my hon. Friend the Minister for Children—the securing of a range of forms of provision to meet the needs of children and their families.

    Tomlinson Proposals
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: What representations he has received on the Tomlinson proposals for changes in the examination system for 14 to 19-year-olds. [128975]
    The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): The working group will report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in July 2004. At this stage, all representations are being made to Mike Tomlinson and the working group, not to my right hon. Friend. I welcome the open and serious way in which the group is addressing the problems involved in 14-to-19 education and training, and we look forward to its next interim report in January.
    Mrs. Gillan: What does the Minister intend to do about the NVQs and GNVQs examination system? While the Government have been obsessed with targets for so-called university education, they have presided over a rapidly declining vocational system, in which fewer people have been obtaining qualifications and standards of work-based learning have been falling. When will Education Ministers stop meddling with our education system, and support practical education that will lead to good jobs for our young people?
    Mr. Miliband: I am very disappointed by the hon. Lady's question. I thought she would know that 28 per cent. of young people are now pursuing modern apprenticeships. That is precisely the sort of education route that she claims is being derided. As for GNVQs and NVQs, I should have thought that the development of a wider range of vocational as well as academic subjects would command support across the House. I am sorry that the hon. Lady decries efforts to deliver that in schools, colleges and workplaces.
    Ms Diane Abbott: As the Minister will know, test and examination results show that when black children enter the school system at the age of five they are doing as well
    460
    as white and Asian children, but when they are aged between 14 and 19 their exam results collapse. That applies particularly to black boys. It is of great concern both to the black community and to anyone who cares about education in the inner city. The aims and values consultation has been widely welcomed, but what practical steps do Ministers intend to take to narrow the frightening achievement gap between black boys and the rest of the school population?
    Mr. Miliband: I genuinely admire the work that the hon. Lady has been doing across London to raise issues such as this, and the way in which she has raised them with my colleagues. She will correct me if I am wrong. but I think it is fair to say that the different minority ethnic groups perform differentially at the 14-to-19 stage. The highest performers are from the Chinese and Indian communities. The collapse in achievement is occurring partly in the Afro-Caribbean community, but also in sections of the white community. Later this term, the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg), will publish the response to the aims and values consultation that my hon. Friend mentioned. I hope that that will provide a chance for the whole House to engage with these issues in a serious way.
    Mr. Charles Hendry: Has the Minister seen the recent research by Hounslow community health council, which shows that by far the greatest health concern for teenagers is stress, one of the main causes of which is constant exam pressure? Does he also understand that one reason why too many students who are not particularly academic simply lose interest at school at the ages of 13 and 14 is that all they can see ahead is a constant stream of exams, to which they know they are not suited? Is not the solution to reduce the number of exams that students face, and to ensure that more is done to support those who need vocational, rather than academic, education?
    Mr. Miliband: I am very sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but the publications of Hounslow community health council have yet to find their way on to my desk.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke): Shameful!
    Mr. Miliband: Yes—as my colleague says, it is shameful, but I shall ask my office to look into the matter. I hope that, in calling for a reduction in exams, the hon. Gentleman is not joining the Liberal Democrats in calling for the abolition of GCSEs. As for AS-levels, teachers throughout the country and Ofsted—it has also reported on this issue—say that the wider range of subjects now available and being pursued by young people has actually strengthened the system, rather than weakened it. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not support that.
    Hugh Bayley: Is it not a mistake to polarise the debate as being between either supporting vocational education, or supporting academic education? In the City of York we have some of the best-performing comprehensive schools in the country, of

    461
    which we are very proud, but a pilot study is also looking at reform of the 14-to-19 system, so that we can meet the needs of the whole population, and not just of those in the academic stream.
    Mr. Miliband: That is a very good point. On my visit to York, I saw the work being done by my hon. Friend, and by teachers in schools and colleges in York. Of course it is right that students are able to combine academic and vocational studies. That is precisely the remit that we have given to the Tomlinson group in its attempt to overcome the two great English problems: an academic track that is too narrow, and a vocational track that is too weak. We want to go beyond those two problems.

    Grammar Schools
    Mr. Paul Goodman: What recent representations he has received about the future of grammar schools. [128976]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke): My Department has received various representations, both written and oral, about the future of grammar schools. These representations have reflected all sides of this debate.
    Mr. Goodman: It is reported that the future of grammar schools will soon be debated at the Labour party conference. If there is a vote on selection, will the Secretary of State vote for or against?
    Mr. Clarke: Actually, I do not want to illuminate the House too much as to Labour party policy making. Labour's policy on education will be determined at next year's party conference—in 2004—not at this year's. There will be a debate, as the hon. Gentleman says, about education, but no decisions will be taken, because decisions on our policy making are subject to long debate. I am glad to shed a little light on how a democratic political party works.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: Our grammar schools and other post-primary schools in Northern Ireland provide an excellent educational opportunity for our children; in fact, the results are the envy of many other United Kingdom regions. Can the Secretary of State give me an assurance today that the Government will not impose an education system in Northern Ireland that would conflict with the clearly expressed wishes of the majority of parents and teachers who were surveyed, who wish to retain grammar schools but want an alternative selection procedure?
    Mr. Clarke: As luck would have it, I was in Belfast last week, speaking to the Association of Commonwealth Universities. I took the chance to meet the Minister with responsibility for education in Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy), to discuss several of these questions. My hon. Friend will reach a decision following lengthy debate—the hon. Gentleman will know about the
    462
    recommendations of the commissions that have considered the issues—and I am not in a position today to give any assurances on her behalf.
    Mr. Robert Key: When the Secretary of State is determining Labour party policy at next year's conference, will he invite me to speak at it, so that I can convince the Labour party and its dinosaurs that education in my constituency is a seamless robe of comprehensive schools, specialist schools, grammar schools and the college, and that the benefits of that proper mixture far outweigh any dogma that involves reduction to the lowest common denominator?
    Mr. Clarke: I am very sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's dilemma, as I know that many Conservative Back Benchers are trying to flee their party's Front-Bench policies. We have a rigorous membership process in our party, so I cannot guarantee that if the hon. Gentleman wants to come over and join us he will be accepted. If he decides to go down that course and participate in our debates, it would be a positive political development, which would reflect the reality of Conservative party weakness at the moment.

    School Redundancies
    Mr. Adrian Flook: What estimates he has made of the number of (a) teacher redundancies and (b) classroom assistant redundancies as a result of 2003–04 school funding. [128978]
    The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): Every year the Department collects statistics on teacher and support staff numbers in January with publication of the first results in April. This has been a difficult year for some schools, as we debated in the House on Tuesday, and we are working with local education authorities and representatives of head teachers to deliver continued growth in the school work force.
    Mr. Flook: I am grateful for the Minister's answer, but it may conceal more than it reveals. According to The Times Educational Supplement survey published three months after the beginning of the financial year, three quarters of the posts lost in this country have been from schools with rising or static rolls. All hon. Members have received representations about redundancies and I want to ensure that the money gets through to Somerset schools. Does the Minister agree that part of the solution may lie with a top-heavy local education authority in Somerset?
    Mr. Miliband: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman wants to see the cash getting through to schools, and he will be relieved to know that £1,060 is allotted for every pupil in Somerset—more in this academic year than in 1997–98. Additionally, he should know that there are 3,400 more teachers in Somerset than there were six years ago. The hon. Gentleman mentioned The Times Educational Supplement survey. If he had read to paragraph 9 rather than stopping at paragraph 6, he

    463
    would have found out that there was a net increase in the number of teachers. He should have read the survey more carefully.
    Mr. Peter Pike: My hon. Friend rightly points out that there are many more teachers. Will he confirm that it remains the Government's priority to improve the teacher-pupil ratio in our schools, which is the main way of achieving a better education for our children?
    Mr. Miliband: We in the Labour party fought the last election on a pledge to recruit at least 10,000 extra teachers into our education service and I am pleased to report to the House that, two years on from that election, there are now 13,000 more teachers in our schools.
    Mr. Richard Allan: Is the Minister concerned that one of the strategies that schools follow in order to avoid redundancies in tight budgetary conditions is cutting spending in other areas? According to the Department's own figures, spending on information technology for schools in 2002–03 has fallen. Will the Minister seriously examine the impact on other areas of spend such as IT as well as the headline redundancy figures?
    Mr. Miliband: Of course I recognise that it has been a seriously difficult year for some schools. I think there may be some confusion in the recording of figures on IT spending. Of course priorities have to be set at school level, but the hon. Gentleman would want to know that there are 1,600 more teachers in his own region than there were six years ago.
    Mr. James Clappison: Will the Minister give sympathetic consideration to the all-party delegation that he will receive from Hertfordshire next month, which wants to draw to his attention the fact that the budget shortfall in the county this year, stemming from the Government's funding arrangements, will result in the loss of funding equivalent to 70 teachers' posts? Next year, as the cushioning from those funding arrangements begins to disappear, Hertfordshire faces the loss of the equivalent of 600 teacher posts. Will the Minister give sympathetic consideration to that all-party group?
    Mr. Miliband: I always give sympathetic consideration to people who come to meet me, so I look forward to that meeting. I do not recognise the figures that the hon. Gentleman quoted on threats of teacher redundancies. However, we are committed to working with Hertfordshire and every other local education authority to ensure that we use the money as well as possible to deliver the highest possible standards in Hertfordshire schools and those across the country.

    Tuition Fees
    Mr. Andrew Mackay: What recent representations he has received on tuition fees. [128980]
    The Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education (Alan Johnson): My Department has continued to receive correspondence on issues relating to tuition fees from a range of organisations and individuals. In addition, I have had meetings with a number of MPs, vice-chancellors and representatives of interested groups in order to discuss and clarify the proposals set out in our White Paper "The Future of Higher Education".
    Mr. Mackay: Will the Minister accept a little friendly advice from a former Government Deputy Chief Whip? The tuition fee legislation will end in tears. It is deeply unpopular in the House as well as among students and parents throughout the country. It would be wise to withdraw the legislation, so will the Minister guarantee that that will happen?
    Alan Johnson: Would the right hon. Gentleman—whose attributes as a former Deputy Chief Whip I very much admire—take some advice from me? The Conservative party ought to be wearing sackcloth and ashes over their approach to the future of higher education funding. I cannot for the life of me understand how a serious political party can argue that the answer to the knowledge-driven economy of the 21st century is to contract and to disinvest in university education. I am amazed that the right hon. Gentleman, who marched through the Lobby in support of the Dearing report and the principle that graduates should make a contribution—an important principle—should now argue against that principle. We need take no advice from the right hon. Gentleman, but I hope that he will take some from me.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Is my hon. Friend concerned, as I am, that top-up fees at some institutions and for some courses will deter the brighter students from those institutions and courses? What action will he take to prevent that?
    Alan Johnson: I do not accept that philosophy. I would accept it in isolation from the rest of our proposals, which are the ending of up-front fees, the reintroduction of a maintenance grant, an income-contingent repayment basis, the threshold for the repayment of student loans going up to £15,000—which halves the amount that students will pay—and various other policies to help poorer students. For the first time, our policy will crowbar open higher education for poorer working-class students.
    Mr. John Bercow: Given that the 2001 Labour election manifesto stated:

    "We will not introduce 'top-up' fees and have legislated to prevent them",
    will the Minister now tell the House in the light of the Government's about-turn, and irrespective of the merits of the arguments, what he thinks that about-turn does for the reputation among the public of politicians for honesty?
    Alan Johnson: Were we to ignore the situation in higher education and the fact that our major competitors—whether in America, China, India or elsewhere—are actively engaged in expanding their

    465
    higher education and concentrating more on their research, it would be total cowardice by the Government. We will not introduce those proposals until after the next election, and I relish the argument on the doorstep—this is the red meat of politics—against the proposals of Her Majesty's official Opposition for retraction and decline, and for our proposals for expansion and investment.
    Rob Marris: The Minister may be aware of my letter in The Guardian yesterday, setting out my calculations as to what might happen with top-up fees. How much do the Government estimate will be spent in the financial year 2007–08 on the new £1,000 bursaries? I estimated that one third of students would receive those, costing about £250 million. I should like clarification from the Minister regarding those figures.
    Alan Johnson: I have not read my hon. Friend's letter in The Guardian. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Indeed; I plead guilty to many failings and that is one of them. My hon. Friend's letters are always worth reading. We expect that at least one third of the extra money coming from fees will go to bursaries. We have calculated that around £300 million extra will go to bursaries, along with the other proposals to help poorer students to get to university.
    Adam Price: Much of the argument in favour of the Government's proposals has been couched in terms of the need to reinvest in the research base of UK universities. In that context, has the Minister seen the comments this week of Professor Andrew Cubie, the author of the Cubie report, who stated that the proposals would have the opposite effect, creating a gilded circle of universities in the south-east and denuding universities in the rest of the country of the staff, students and resources necessary to compete?
    Alan Johnson: I read those comments from Andrew Cubie, who, incidentally, chaired the Scottish inquiry and rejected all Opposition arguments that graduates should not make a contribution. On the specific issue of research, we believe that with an additional investment of £1.25 billion in research and with the actions of our international competitors, we cannot just carry on with business as usual. We have shifted some £25 million, which is 2 per cent. of the research budget, but I accept the fears and concerns about the return to a binary situation because of those proposals. I am keen to debate the issue and to find a shared analysis, because we all want the same thing. We want excellent research and to ensure that we keep the best academics in this country.
    Dr. Brian Iddon: Is my hon. Friend aware that within the past few days several of our senior scientists, including Nobel prize winners, have made representations to the Government about the rapidly declining numbers of students in universities studying science, engineering and technology subjects? Will he consider my feelings and those of many others,
    466
    who fear that if differentially higher fees for studying those subjects are introduced, it will make matters much worse?
    Alan Johnson: I do not accept that final point, but I accept that we have a problem—and a job to do—with encouraging more youngsters to study science. An important element of that will be the new GCSE, 21st century science, on which we are working. Several initiatives are being followed across the board to ensure that we get more students interested in science. The Roberts report said that one of the main problems was that science was perceived as being dull, and we need to work on that as well as the other initiatives to address the important problem that my hon. Friend raises.

    Post-16 Education
    Vera Baird: How many education authorities provide only (a) a sixth-form college and (b) school sixth-form provision for post-16 education; and what plans he has for diversity of supply in post-16 education. [128982]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): There are eight local education authorities in England where 16 to 19 education is provided solely in a mixture of sixth-form colleges and genera further education colleges. There are no local education authorities where post-16 provision is delivered only through sixth forms. There will be no national blueprint for the pattern of learning. However, popular and successful sixth-form provision, whether in schools, sixth-form colleges or new, distinct sixth-form centres in FE colleges, will be encouraged, especially where there is little or inadequate provision.
    Vera Baird: I am grateful for that answer. Will my hon. Friend consider the position in Redcar, which is one of the authorities with only college provision for post-16 education? The take-up rates are very low. A beacon school has now proposed a sixth form with specific outreach into the areas with the lowest take-up rates. Does my hon. Friend agree that that represents progress that we should encourage?
    Mr. Lewis: Our objective in every community is to increase significantly the number of young people staying on in education and training post-16 to achieve qualifications that lead either to higher education or to skilled employment. We have asked local learning and skills councils to conduct strategic reviews in the next two years, to consider post-16 provision in both those areas and to make recommendations for improvement. Alongside that, local education authorities have the right to publish proposals for consultation on the creation of new school sixth forms. I would expect my hon. Friend's local learning and skills council and local education authority to engage fully with her views, in the best interests of her constituents. If she felt that that was not happening appropriately, I would be more than happy to meet her to discuss the matter.
    Mr. George Osborne: In drawing up his plans for post-16 education, will the Minister be guided by the views of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who seems to think that training to be a plumber is less valid than doing an academic degree?
    Mr. Lewis: My right hon. Friend did not make that point. The tragedy of this debate is that the Conservatives are repeating the reason why vocational education and training has never worked before in this country. They want a system of sheep and goats, in which able young people receive academic education and young people from different social backgrounds receive vocational education. We want a system that supports every individual young person in fulfilling their potential. We want a society that has adequate numbers of plumbers and of scientists and lawyers.
    Mr. David Cameron: Will the Minister explain why the No. 10 policy unit—and in particular Mr. Andrew Adonis, who I know is loved by Labour Members—is so keen on delivering sixth-form education through sixth-form colleges, rather than on the more varied approach about which the Minister has just spoken?
    Mr. Lewis: We have made it absolutely clear that there is no national blueprint for appropriate 16-to-19 education. We want the local organisations in every community to look at the best interests of those young people to ensure that far more of them stay on in education and training and progress into higher education or skilled employment. We recognise that between the ages of 16 and 19 young people have distinct needs and are vulnerable. We need a system that can respond to those specific needs. It is for local agencies, such as the learning and skills councils and LEAs, and professionals and parents in each community, to determine the provision that will deliver improved participation and higher attainment.

    Local Education Authority Funding
    Mr. Mark Simmonds: If he will make a statement on the working of the new funding allocation system for local education authorities. [128983]
    The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): The new LEA funding system consists of a basic amount per pupil that is the same everywhere, plus top-ups for deprived pupils and for areas with higher recruitment and retention costs. We are working on the detailed proposals to restore stability to school funding for 2004–05 and 2005–06, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced to the House on 17 July.
    Mr. Simmonds: What response would the Minister give to schools in my constituency and across Lincolnshire, which the LEA predicts are facing an estimated budget cut in this financial year of £2.133 million, based on the new funding formula? Further cuts are predicted in the 2004–05 financial year, affecting 29 out of 63 secondary schools in Lincolnshire. Will the Minister take this opportunity to assure my constituents, and teachers and students in Lincolnshire,
    468
    that those funds will be returned and that school budgets will be increased next year? That would honour the commitments by the Secretary of State, and by the Minister for School Standards himself, that there will be no repetition of this year's funding problems?
    Mr. Miliband: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that this year schools in his constituency are funded to the tune of £1,130 more per pupil than was the case six years ago. If individual schools face particular problems, I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would write to me to explain how those problems have arisen. The hon. Gentleman will be reassured to know that every LEA in the country has been contacted by the Department to help model the options for 2004–05 and 2005–06, to ensure that we have the continued growth in the teacher and support staff work force of which we are so proud.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: Will my hon. Friend say what has happened to the funding formula in the past six months? When it was first announced, the Conservative leadership of Cheshire county council praised the Government for the changes that they had made. Now, however, the council seems to be fundamentally critical of the changes. What has happened in the past six months?
    Mr. Miliband: I can reassure my hon. Friend that the Government have not changed the funding formula in the past six months. The formula for this financial year is the one announced in the House in December.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: Will the Minister agree to investigate the impact on the funding formula of the Greenwich judgment, which is resulting in higher cross-border pupil movements? The needs of those schools in my constituency that are largely populated by out-of-borough pupils are in no way reflected in the formula allocated to the borough.
    Mr. Miliband: The hon. Gentleman raises a serious matter often raised with me by people representing constituencies in Nottingham and Nottinghamshire, where there are also cross-border pupil movements. I should be interested to hear any particular evidence from his constituency and from London that the hon. Gentleman may have. I have not seen evidence before that this has been a particular problem in London. The hon. Gentleman will know that the funding formula and the recommendations for teachers pay from the School Teachers Review Body treat different parts of London in different ways. I had not heard that the Greenwich judgment was having adverse consequences, but I should be very happy to look into the matter.
    Mr. David Heath: Before the Minister repeats the figures that he gave to the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook) about Somerset funding, may I say that I accept that, empirically, we are doing better now than in the dark days of the previous Conservative Government? However, a differential does exist. Counties such as Somerset and other rural shires in the west country, as well as parts of the midlands, are doing extremely badly in comparison with other parts of the country. The difference in per-pupil funding is

    469
    greater than what might reasonably be caused by differences in costs. Will the Minister look at the formula again to ensure that all children in all parts of the country have a basic entitlement to the money needed for their education?
    Mr. Miliband: We are always pleased by the generous even-handedness of the Liberal Democrats. Our commitment is that similar pupils in different parts of the country should have similar amounts of money attached to them by central Government. That is the fair way to act. There is a basic entitlement for every pupil in the country. Every pupil who comes from a family living in poverty gets extra, and those in high-cost areas receive extra too. That funding formula is the right basis for the future, and the funds that go out are based on the nature of local populations around the country, which is the fairest way of distributing them.

  The Solicitor-General was asked—
  SOLICITOR-GENERAL

    Serious Fraud Office
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: How many secondees are working in the Serious Fraud Office; and if she will make a statement. [128961]
    The Solicitor-General (Ms Harriet Harman): Two secondees from the private sector are working in the Serious Fraud Office, and two staff are on loan from other Government Departments. It helps the effective investigation and prosecution of serious and complex fraud if there is a good understanding between the SFO and the private sector and between the SFO and other Departments and agencies.
    Mrs. Gillan: Does the Solicitor-General think that that is enough? Given the recent high-profile collapse of Customs and Excise cases, particularly the London City Bond prosecution, the Butterfield review recommended that there should be more systematic dialogue between Customs and other Departments. Does the Solicitor-General believe that that could be facilitated by more secondments between the SFO and Customs and Excise? If so, what can she do about it?
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. Lady makes an interesting point. Obviously, the SFO must achieve the right balance between permanent staff, those seconded and those employed on contract to increase capacity or bring in specialist knowledge during a particular case. She raises the question of Customs, particularly in the LCB case. A statement was made to the House in July by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury following the report of Mr. Justice Butterfield, who made a number of recommendations for building on progress already made in Customs and Excise investigations and prosecutions. There will be a report later in the autumn on how we intend to take things forward.
    Mr. John Burnett: Every year fraudsters and so-called white-collar criminals rob thousands of victims, causing untold damage. In spite of
    470
    the presence of secondees, there are continuing reports of low levels of prosecution by the SFO. What percentage of cases referred to the SFO resulted in prosecutions in the most recent year for which statistics are available? Is the Solicitor-General satisfied that all cases that deserve prosecution are prosecuted by the SFO?
    The Solicitor-General: Of the cases referred to the SFO, something like 40 per cent. of those that the SFO decides to take on for vetting result in prosecution. Obviously, many cases are referred to the SFO in which people have not realised what the SFO's remit is, and those cases are more appropriate to another prosecutions agency. So, something like 40 per cent. of those taken on for vetting end up being prosecuted. That is quite a high figure.
    On whether all serious fraud that ought to be prosecuted by the SFO is being prosecuted, I think we must all agree—including the SFO—that the answer is no. Something like £14 billion worth of fraud occurs annually in our economy. The Attorney-General and I, like the SFO, are in no doubt that we must take white-collar crime very seriously. The law must be even handed in ensuring that those who are money laundering in the City are dealt with effectively and fairly.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: The Solicitor-General will recognise that there is great concern among the Opposition and outside the House about the collapse of the Customs and Excise cases to which my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) referred. Does the Solicitor-General recognise the need for all-party discussions on the implications of the Butterfield report? Will she meet me, and colleagues such as my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) who expressed concerns to the Economic Secretary when he made his statement, so that we can ensure that fraud prosecutions are much better conducted in future, whether by Customs and Excise, the SFO or any other body?
    The Solicitor-General: Of course, I will arrange for those meetings to take place. We would want to discuss these important issues of prosecuting Customs cases and serious fraud cases with the hon. Gentleman and any other hon. Members who take an interest in them. I will get back to him with a response. With more focus on the issue, with the right framework and procedures and with the right amount of resources allocated to serious fraud, I think that we can take matters forward.

    Public Prosecutions
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What discussions she has had with her European counterparts on common practice relating to public prosecutions. [128962]
    The Solicitor-General (Miss Harriet Harman): Crime is international now and we need to work with our European counterparts and more widely internationally to combat it. To that end, I met other European Justice Ministers in The Hague in April to discuss and support the work of Eurojust, the European network of

    471
    prosecutors. The Attorney-General constantly meets and discusses a wide range of issues with other Justice Ministers—particularly EU Ministers. Both the Attorney-General and I work closely with the Crown Prosecution Service's European and international division, whose work I commend to the House.
    Miss McIntosh: I thank the Solicitor-General for that reply. Does she realise that the criminal justice system goes to the heart of the system in each member state? Scotland prides itself on having its own legal system, as she is only too well aware. It would be entirely inappropriate for the Government to subscribe to common EU standards of evidence and procedure. Will the right hon. and learned Lady resist any attempt to impose on this country a uniform EU standard of criminal procedures?
    The Solicitor-General: We want close co-operation. Crime does not recognise national borders and we have to ensure that if a crime is committed in one country, and the evidence is in a second, it can be prosecuted in a third. That is important for human trafficking, drug smuggling and dealing with money laundering and terrorism, as the hon. Lady will accept. That is one question. The other is accountability. It is certainly the case that while prosecution decisions that are taken in this country are taken independently, I am accountable to the House for them. That is important and it is the way it will remain. Of course, it is important that the House makes the decisions—the substantive criminal law—and decides the procedures. The Convention material reflects the differences between legal systems throughout Europe. We definitely want to keep our own accountability and autonomy, but we must have more co-operation and we must work more closely together. We must work in a harmonised way to get to grips with international criminals.

    Serious Fraud Office
    Hugh Bayley: What additional resources have been made available to enable the Serious Fraud Office (a) to investigate and (b) to prosecute cases of bribery by UK citizens and companies abroad. [128963]
    The Solicitor-General: In this financial year, the SFO budget has risen to £23.41 million and it is due to increase further to £35.34 million by the end of 2005–06. The SFO plans to use some of those resources to expand its permanent staff numbers to approximately 300 by the end of that financial year. Each case referred to the SFO is assessed on its individual merits, including allegations of bribery by United Kingdom citizens or companies overseas.
    Hugh Bayley: One of the consequences of the dreadful attacks two years ago on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon was that the House decided to enact legislation to make international bribery and other international financial crimes offences in British law.
    472
    Naturally, I want to know that the SFO is investigating cases and that prosecutions will follow. I am not asking my right hon. and learned Friend to make a statement in detail to the House but I wonder whether she would be willing for me and a representative from the Transparency International UK branch to talk to her about that matter so that we can be reassured that the legislation is not just gathering dust on the statute book but is actively being used to clamp down on international bribery.
    The Solicitor-General: I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to talk about those issues, which he has done so much to bring before the House. Indeed, I acknowledge his role in raising the issues covered by the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. I would be happy to discuss with him the enforcement of that important Act.

    Sentencing (Rape)
    Vera Baird: What plans the Attorney-General has to refer unduly lenient sentences in rape cases to the Court of Appeal to seek general guidance on sentencing. [128966]
    The Solicitor-General (Ms Harriet Harman): The Attorney-General and I have the power to refer a sentence imposed for a limited number of serious offences, including rape, to the Court of Appeal if the sentence is, in our view, unduly lenient. In 2003, the Attorney-General and I referred sentences in 12 cases involving rape. The Court of Appeal increased the sentences in four, and seven cases of rape that we referred to the Court of Appeal as unduly lenient sentences have yet to be heard.
    Vera Baird: I am grateful for that answer. Is my right hon. and learned Friend satisfied that the courts are implementing the sentencing advisory panel's recommendation that they should sentence as harshly for rape by an acquaintance as they must for rape by a stranger? If she is not entirely satisfied of that, are not unduly lenient sentence applications, appropriately brought, a way forward?
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. and learned Friend reminds the House that a key part of the sentencing advisory panel's recommendations was that rape that is supposedly acquaintance rape should not of itself be regarded as less serious than rape by a complete stranger. That recommendation was accepted by the Court of Appeal in their guideline judgment in the case of Milberry in December and that is what all courts should be following. However, if my memory serves me right, none of the cases that we have had to refer to the Court of Appeal as unduly lenient sentences has involved a stranger rape, so we are looking particularly at how the Court responds to the importance of recognising all the circumstances of an individual case, and that rape by a husband, a partner or a friend can be every bit as violent and traumatising as rape by a stranger.

    Speaker's Statement
    12.32 pm
    Mr. Speaker: I wish to make a statement about identity passes. Members will appreciate that security issues are a source of deep concern and the provision of these passes is a basic security measure, which helps to protect us all.
    Our security staff cannot be expected to identify all those who have access to the parliamentary estate. Although I recognise that it is impractical for Members to wear their passes at all times, it is essential for them to carry their passes and to co-operate with the security staff if they are asked to produce them.
    Members are personally responsible for the consistent wearing of passes by their staff. Members of the parliamentary Press Gallery and staff of all other organisations attached to the House must wear their passes at all times.
    I ask Members to set an example and to give their full support to the Serjeant at Arms and to all our security staff who carry out their admirable work to make the parliamentary estate a safe place in which to work for Members, Members' staff and all the staff of the House.

Business of the House
12.33 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): The business of the House for next week is as follows:
MONDAY 15 SEPTEMBER—Commons consideration of Lords Amendments to the Local Government Bill.
TUESDAY 16 SEPTEMBER—Opposition Day [17th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced, followed, if necessary, by Commons consideration of Lords Amendments.
WEDNESDAY 17 SEPTEMBER—Consideration of an allocation of time motion followed by all stages of the Northern Ireland (Monitoring Commission etc.) Bill [Lords] followed, if necessary, by Commons consideration of Lords Amendments.
THURSDAY 18 SEPTEMBER—Second Reading of the Arms Control and Disarmament (Inspections) Bill [Lords]. Followed, if necessary, by Commons consideration of Lords Amendments.
FRIDAY 19 SEPTEMBER—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week after the conference recess will include:
TUESDAY 14 OCTOBER—Remaining stages of the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill [Lords].
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for October will be:
THURSDAY 16 OCTOBER—Debate on the report from the Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on reducing regional disparities in prosperity.
THURSDAY 23 OCTOBER—Debate on the report from the Lord Chancellor's Department Select Committee on the Children and Family Court Advisory Service.
THURSDAY 30 OCTOBER—Debate on the report from the International Development Committee on Trade and Development at the WTO: Issues for Cancun.
With permission, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the whole House will wish to endorse what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said in expressing our shock and horror at the murder of Sweden's Foreign Minister Anna Lindh and in offering our condolences to her family, her friends and the Swedish people. As the Foreign Secretary said, she represented everything that is wonderful about Sweden and about Europe. As Europe Minister, I saw what an inspirational and internationally respected Foreign Minister she was. She was a delightful and warm person, a joy to work with and widely seen as a future Swedish Prime Minister. She will be sorely missed.
Mr. Forth: May I thank the Leader of the House and echo on behalf of the official Opposition his remarks on the ghastly events in Sweden and the loss of the Swedish Foreign Minister? On this day, 11 September, and at this hour, may I also say that our thoughts must surely be with our friends and allies in the United States, bearing in mind how many people tragically lost their lives on

475
this day two years ago—people of many nationalities and many different beliefs? They will surely never be forgotten.
May I ask the Leader of the House to elaborate on the Government's reasoning for insisting that all stages of the Northern Ireland (Monitoring Commission etc.) Bill are to be forced through this House in one day? He has announced that as if it were a fait accompli, yet legislating at that speed is surely one of the things about which we should always be most reluctant. We all know that we legislate in haste and repent at leisure—at least, we do not repent; the citizens usually repent. Will the Leader of the House therefore do us the courtesy of telling us why legislation of this importance, complexity and controversiality needs to be put through the House as quickly as he is suggesting?
I attended this morning's Intelligence and Security Committee press conference, and I am hoping that the Leader of the House will tell us when we will have an opportunity properly to discuss that matter in its own right. I suspect that he will probably say that there is a defence debate this afternoon, as indeed there is, and I would hope that it will not be necessarily pre-empted by a discussion about the Intelligence and Security Committee, which deserves time of its own in this House, not least because, for example, the report includes such phrases as:
"We are disturbed that after the first evidence session … the Defence Secretary decided against giving instructions for a letter to be written".
At paragraph 110, the report continues:
"We believe that this uncertainty should have been highlighted to give a balanced view of Saddam's chemical and biological capacity."
The following paragraph states:
"This should have been highlighted in the dossier."
Paragraph 112 states:
"The omission of the context and assessment allowed speculation as to its exact meaning"—
referring to the famous 45 minutes.
I mention those few extracts almost at random to illustrate the amount of important and controversial material in the Intelligence and Security Committee report that is damning of the Government, their whole approach to the matter and the Secretary of State for Defence in particular. Will the Leader of the House therefore tell us when we will have the opportunity for a proper, measured debate on this document—not just minutes after it has been released, or first thoughts, as I have expressed briefly today—and a measured response by the House and the Government to the absolute dynamite, if I may put it that way. that it contains?
Talking of that, I was somewhat puzzled that in PMEs yesterday—
Mr. John Bercow: PMEs?
Mr. Forth: Prime Minister's evasions. At column 320 of Hansard yesterday, the Prime Minister said:
"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."—[Official Report, 10 September 2003; Vol. 410, c. 320.]
476
That is what he said yesterday. However, funnily enough, the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee wrote to the Prime Minister on 9 September—the day before yesterday—to say, very familiarly:
"Dear Tony,
Enclosed with this letter is the Intelligence and Security Committee's Report".
How is it that the Chairman may write to "Dear Tony" on Tuesday only for "Dear Tony" to say on Wednesday that he would not see the report until today? There is surely some mistake and I hope that the Leader of the House will ask the Prime Minister to come to us this afternoon to explain how he got it so wrong. Perhaps this is another piece of evidence showing that we cannot believe a word that the Prime Minister says any more.
Smuggled in through the written ministerial statements today—it is hidden down the Order Paper at statement No. 8—is:
"Prime Minister: Publication of the Government's response to the Ninth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life."
That is an important matter and an important report and, given its significance, will the Leader of the House guarantee that we will be given the opportunity of a full debate on it and all the material it covers, and that it will not be swept under any carpets or rushed through in any way? I am not asking for his guarantee of an immediate debate, but for time in the House of Commons to deal with the matter.
Finally, I ask the Leader of the House to think again about the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. He will recall that way back in January the Bill emerged from its Standing Committee—those proceedings were truncated and guillotined as, regrettably, they all are these days—after only 30 of its 90 clauses had been debated and only one of its schedules discussed. After a gap of about six months, the Government eventually came back to the House and said that they wanted to carry over this large and controversial Bill and recommit it to Standing Committee. They admitted then that a lot of new material would be imported subsequently to the Bill.
We now learn—the Leader of the House is telling us with his usual insouciance—that the Bill will have only eight further Committee sittings despite the fact that we already know that there will be about 35 new amendments and apparently a lot more material on which to vote. Will he please think again and not follow his predecessors' regrettable habit of being party to the poor and inadequate consideration of such Bills in Committee because of lack of time? We have already been round the track once on this and the scrutiny has been shown to be completely inadequate. Please may we have a lot more time to consider the Bill in the future?
Mr. Hain: First, I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's endorsement of the whole House's horror at what happened to Anna Lindh. I am also grateful to him for reminding us of the terrible terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre on 11 September two years ago. I agree with all the points that he made, and that we should never forget those who died or ever let up on the fight against terrorism.

477
On the Northern Ireland (Monitoring Commission etc.) Bill, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. the truth is that it is urgently needed before the end of the Session. I hope that the Conservative Opposition will start giving us exactly the kind of bipartisan support for bringing peace and stability to Northern Ireland that we gave them when we were in opposition. I am afraid that such support is unfortunately often lacking from Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen.
On the Intelligence and Security Committee report, may I first congratulate the Committee on a thorough piece of work? Many senior Members of the House from all parties sit on it and it demonstrates the value of parliamentary scrutiny. The fact that the Prime Minister asked it to report on the matter is a further example of the importance that we as a Government and I as the Leader of the House attach to parliamentary accountability on such important issues.
May I also attack and deprecate the right hon. Gentleman's criticism of the Defence Secretary? We had a mendacious and misleading leak yesterday from the Committee. [Interruption.] Yes, indeed we did. It was an attempt to pre-empt the Committee's full report. As a member of the Committee said at the press conference this morning, facts have a habit of getting in the way of conspiracy theories. The Leader of the Opposition joined the conspiracy theory in the most disreputable fashion yesterday and he has endorsed that stance again today, to his discredit.
The truth is that we have an outstanding Defence Secretary who provided brilliant leadership in a difficult war against Iraq. I am sure that he has the full support of the House in continuing to combat terrorism and the remnants of the Saddam regime in Iraq. I just want to say this to the shadow Leader of the House: it is wrong to try to pre-empt an independent judicial inquiry as the Opposition are seeking to do. There will, of course, be an opportunity to put questions to my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary this afternoon.
On the Wicks report, the Government have made it clear that we endorse virtually everything in it. [Interruption.] Well, we have said that we cannot accept two things, and I am sure that everyone would agree that it is sensible for the Government to have reservations about them. One is the number of special advisers. It is not sensible to put an arbitrary limit on that. The other is the right of the Prime Minister to appoint key staff to ensure that directions can be given so that the Government's business is conducted in a sensible and orderly fashion. [Interruption.] The shadow Leader of the House is muttering. His colleague, the deputy shadow Leader of the House, was a special adviser—as it happens, to Norman Lamont, although I am not sure that that is a good advertisement for special advisers. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) was also a special adviser, in addition to jumping up and down in his usual enthusiastic way. We should concentrate on the facts and not let the Opposition's allegations get in the way.
On the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, the truth is that it has been given full parliamentary scrutiny, and that will continue to be the case. It has received no more and no less parliamentary scrutiny than Bills received over the years under the old
478
procedure. If any matters need to be considered in that regard, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and his Ministers will do so.
As for the rest of the Session, we will consider the workings of the September sitting. I notice that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) did not criticise it. I take his silence as an endorsement of the policies that we have adopted in the House.
Mr. Paul Tyler: We obviously associate ourselves with comments on the assassination of the Swedish Foreign Minister and the anniversary of the 11 September terrorism attacks.
There is a precedent for handling Intelligence and Security Committee reports, set by the report on the Bali terrorist bombing. In that case, the Foreign Secretary made an immediate statement in the House, followed by an hour's questioning. In denying the need for an early statement on the latest report, is the Leader of the House saying that it is less important, or is no one prepared to make that statement? Surely at the very least, the Prime Minister should come to the House to be accountable in the way described by the Leader of the House a moment ago. The report is about not just one personality—the Secretary of State for Defence—but the whole rot at the centre of the Government.
For example, paragraph 83 raises an important issue. It is apparent that part of the Prime Minister's statement that was intended for his foreword was subsequently excluded. The exclusion of
"The case I make is not that Saddam could launch a nuclear attack on London or another part of the UK (He could not)"
from the eventual introduction to the dossier is very misleading. Paragraph 86 states that there was a tendency for the document to be
"unhelpful to an understanding of this issue."
There is also the extraordinary issue of paragraph 103, which has been removed from the report. The introduction says that if anything has been blocked out by No. 10, it will be marked by an asterisk, but there is no asterisk where paragraph 103 should be. What has happened to it? As it pre-empts what is said in paragraph 104, it is extremely important that we are given an explanation of what was intended, because the Committee concludes:
"We regard the initial failure by the MoD to disclose that some staff had put their concerns in writing to their line managers as unhelpful and potentially misleading."
What was going to be put in paragraph 103? Finally, in paragraph 135, the February dossier and the surrounding publicity are described by the Committee as "counter-productive".
The question still remains whether the House was conned by the two dossiers. Were the public conned by the two dossiers? We know that those on the Conservative Front Bench were not conned, because the leader of the Conservative party wanted to attack Iraq and to follow President Bush come what may, even if the Government did not. The House deserves a full statement now on the issues that have been raised by this important report.
Mr. Hain: The House has had statement after statement from the Government—from my right hon.

479
Friends the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary—on Iraq and all the matters around it. An independent judicial inquiry is under way. Lord Hutton will report, and that report will be fully debated in the House. That is where we should leave it. On issues to do with detail and paragraph 103 and all the rest of it, the hon. Gentleman is obviously able to ask his colleague the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) about that detail. The truth is that many distinguished Members of this place are sitting on the Committee. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not making a criticism of them as to the report that they produced.
It would not have been known from what the shadow Leader of the House and from the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said that the report exonerated the Government from all the main charges that have been made against us and endorsed the thrust and the content of the dossier. That is the central result of the report, although it would never be guessed from the attempt to generate froth and excitement over the past few minutes.
Andrew Mackinlay: May I take my right hon. Friend back to the monitoring commission Bill? It is unacceptable and an abuse that it will be railroaded through the House in one sitting. I remind my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that the House of Lords will have two days on the Bill. That underlines the fact that this place has become a charade in terms of law making. I hope that my right hon. Friend will reflect on that.
The Bill is a major piece of legislation affecting the future of the United Kingdom and the problems of Northern Ireland. If it is right for the House of Lords to have two full days to consider it and an opportunity to digest and reflect over the weekend, how is it right that this place will have the Bill bounced through in one day, bearing in mind the row and the notes left on my right hon. Friend's file by his predecessor, who said that this would not happen again when we had a similar abuse a few months ago involving the Northern Ireland Assembly?
Mr. Hain: I pay tribute to the vigilance with which my hon. Friend always holds Governments and everybody to account. I am sure that he is not using the procedures of the House of Lords as a model for this House. The monitoring commission Bill is a much-needed measure. It is very important, as I know my hon. Friend accepts, in taking forward the Northern Ireland peace process. There will be a late sitting on the day that the Bill is considered—proceedings will run on well beyond the moment of interruption—because it is so important to take the measure through at this stage.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Will the Leader of the House redeem the promise that was made as long ago as January by one of his predecessors that we would have a full-day debate in Government time on pensions? Is he aware that it is two years since we have had a debate on this subject in Government time? Practically everyone apart from the Government
480
recognises the fact that there is a pensions crisis. We want a full-day debate so that we can hear what the Government intend to do about it.
Mr. Hain: I will certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Given the Green Paper that the Government have published and the other opportunities that the House has had to raise the issue of pensions, I do not accept that pensions have been ignored by the House in recent times. The issue has been fully debated. The Government are seized of the worldwide collapse in stock markets, which has had a big effect on pensions worldwide and created many difficulties for pensioners in this country. The Government are giving close and urgent attention to the matter.
Mr. Tony McWalter: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity in the near future to allow the House to consider the mechanisms that it uses for holding to account bodies to which Parliament has devolved powers, which have misused those powers? I have in mind specifically, in the area that I represent, the local Conservative-controlled Dacorum borough council, which has taken no notice at any stage of the new regulations and advice introduced by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister concerning development. As a result, it continues to try to build on the green belt in my area in Apsley. Instead, it should be paying proper heed to what Parliament decided councils should do.
Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend raises an important matter. I understand his concerns. I am sure that the Ministers who have responsibilities in this area will want to note his concerns and perhaps discuss the matter with him.
For the information of the House, I understand from information that has just been given to me that paragraph 103, to which the hon. Member for North Cornwall referred, does not exist in the ISC report.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Will the Leader of the House prevail on the Secretary of State for Health to explain to the House why there is such a notorious scandal over the proposed hospital development at Paddington basin? Is he aware that Harefield hospital in my constituency could be modernised at a cost of about £18 million whereas the new project at Paddington basin is now estimated to cost no less than £800 million, and is already several years late? Is this how the national health service will carry out the NHS plan?
Mr. Hain: I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has been raising this matter consistently, including, if I am right, in an Adjournment debate. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is seized of the issue. I remind the hon. Gentleman that there are more nurses being recruited in his constituency and that more investment is going into hospitals throughout the country compared with massive hospital closures, cuts in health spending and cuts in nurses, doctors and consultants, which was the Conservative record.
Mr. Chris Bryant: I obviously associate myself with all the comments made about the sad death

481
of Anna Lindh. I note that many pro-euro and pro-European campaigners will be particularly saddened because they feel that they have lost an eloquent, persuasive and attractive colleague.
May I point out to my right hon. Friend the fact that today is another anniversary, namely the 30th anniversary of the coup in Chile, when Salvador Allende's legitimately elected socialist Government were thrown out by Pinochet with the support of the CIA of the United States of America? Chile is now rebuilding itself as a democratic country and is trying to find means of bringing together an understanding of its past. Is it not time that we had some debate in the Chamber, or in Westminster Hall, about the changes in Chile and other countries that have suffered dictatorship over the past 30 years?
Mr. Hain: I very much agree with my hon. Friend's views on Chile and its transformation since the fascist coup, the anniversary of which we are noting today. He is right to draw the attention of the House to it. We are seeing Chile moving forward under a social democratic Government towards a new future and a new hope for the future. We shall certainly consider whether there will be time for a debate, and my hon. Friend has opportunities to raise the matter in other ways.
Sir Sydney Chapman: May I ask the Leader of the House to think again about his reply to my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House, on the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill? As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have elected to return the Bill for consideration in Committee with some extra clauses, but only those extra clauses can be discussed, quite apart from the fact that they will have an influence on the 90 clauses of the first Bill. Fewer than 30 of those 90 clauses were discussed in Committee, and there was no prevarication or filibustering by the Opposition parties. In the name of not only democracy but good government, will the right hon. Gentleman please ask the appropriate colleagues to reconsider this important matter?
Mr. Hain: I take serious note of those concerns, coming as they do from the hon. Gentleman. I will look into the matter. As he knows, the Bill has been considered in Committee. The normal procedures have been followed by the Government in general and by Ministers in particular. Nevertheless, we shall have another look, given the points that he has made.
Julie Morgan: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate about the growing trend whereby British companies put some of their jobs overseas? Is he aware of Tesco's plan to relocate 350 jobs from the UK to Bangalore, 230 of them from Tesco house in my constituency? The main reason seems to be the low wages that are paid in Bangalore; as a result, jobs are being lost among my constituents and those from other constituencies.
Mr. Hain: I very much understand my hon. Friend's concerns and appreciate the diligence with which she reflects the interests of her constituents, including the Tesco staff. We are part of a global economy in which such movements are a fact of life: the relocation of call
482
centres and similar activities to India and elsewhere is a challenge that we all face. I am sure that Tesco will want to bear my hon. Friend's remarks in mind. She reinforces the Government's determination to create new high-quality jobs for the future. As she knows, 72,000 new jobs have been created in Wales over the past year, even as globalising pressures reduce the number of jobs in certain sectors.
Mr. John Bercow: In view of the imminence of the intergovernmental conference, may we have a further debate on the draft European constitution? Given that the Prime Minister told this House on 18 June 1997 that the Amsterdam subsidiarity protocol would have "real teeth"; given that the Foreign Secretary told me on 21 May this year that in practice subsidiarity had proved unsatisfactory; and given that the latest draft proposal imposes no obligation whatsoever on the European Commission to withdraw inappropriate legislative proposals, why does not the right hon. Gentleman now concede that subsidiarity in the future will be what it has been in the past—not a protection of the rights of nation states, but thin cover for the legislative imperialism of the European Union?
Mr. Hain: On the procedural matter of whether we should have another debate, of course there will be opportunities to debate the intergovernmental conference negotiations. Indeed, the Foreign Secretary has been more forthcoming than any of his predecessors in ensuring that this House has every opportunity to debate the progress of such conferences. May I ask the hon. Gentleman why he and his colleagues blocked a motion that was going through the House the other night that would for the first time have set up, as the Government intend, a proper Standing Committee to monitor on the House's behalf the progress of the European treaty negotiations? I should have thought that they would welcome that and nod it through so that we can get on with it.
Subsidiarity was a very important achievement for Britain: it was a British proposal that, for the first time, allowed national Parliaments across Europe to vet any new proposal from the Commission. If more than a third of national Parliaments object, the Commission is obliged to reconsider and withdraw. [Interruption.] Indeed—to reconsider. It is inconceivable that Brussels would seek to railroad through a proposal in the face of such national parliamentary opposition, which is likely to reflect the Government's position. [Interruption.] Instead of nodding his head in the kneejerk fashion to which we have all become accustomed, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) should welcome that democratic advance and celebrate it—but of course that does not fit the script of Tory anti-Europeans.
Mr. Barry Gardiner: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the monopoly that has been established by the Parliamentary Communications Directorate, the parliamentary computer provider, on the supply of computing equipment within the House, and of the sub-standard service that it has been providing to those who do not have what it calls standard equipment—by which it simply means equipment that it has provided. I raised the matter with my right hon. Friend's illustrious predecessor in

483
business questions in May, and the then Leader of the House referred it to the Information Committee on 2 June. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend has received a reply, but I certainly have not. Will he investigate why, three months and one week after receiving a letter from the then Leader of the House, the Committee has made no response to a matter that concerns many Members? Indeed, I know that one of his Cabinet colleagues has mentioned it.
Mr. Hain: You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, as am I, that there is great concern about the matter among right hon. and hon. Members across the House. I have not yet had a response from the Information Committee, but the situation is being investigated and progress is due to be made soon. I am worried about the fact that Members with non-standard equipment are barred from accessing the parliamentary video and data network. It is vital that Members and their staff have full access to the PDVN, and a sufficient quantity of standard equipment must be issued to ensure that that is the case. The House authorities need to take the matter forward urgently.
Pete Wishart: Can this House follow the example of the Scottish Parliament in having an urgent debate about the Dungavel detention centre and the policy of locking up the children of asylum seekers, especially given that we are told that this House is responsible for that policy? Although we welcome the concessions forced out of the Government by the Scottish people and the SNP, many people will have seen how unsatisfactory the devolution settlement has been in this respect, especially in terms of the shameful silence that has emanated from Scottish Ministers. Does the Leader of the House agree that there can be no grey areas in devolution when it comes to locking up the children of asylum seekers?
Mr. Hain: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's accusation of shameful silence on the part of Scottish Ministers, who are well aware of the situation and are addressing it. As for the substance of the issue, I shall make sure that the Secretary of State is aware of it.
Keith Vaz: I join my right hon. Friend in paying tribute to the life of Anna Lindh, whom he and I met on numerous occasions—as did my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson)—when I held a Europe post in the Government. It is a terrible blow not only for Sweden, but for Europe, because she was a great internationalist. My right hon. Friend will know that the Prime Minister of Sweden has made it clear that the referendum will go ahead on Sunday despite her tragic death. Whatever the result, it will have enormous implications for Britain's euro campaign. Will my right hon. Friend make time for a debate immediately after the referendum so that we can discuss the implications of the result on our strategy?
Mr. Hain: I very much echo my hon. Friend's sentiments. Anna Lindh was a doughty campaigner for human rights, going right back to her early days in the
484
struggle against apartheid. As well as being a lovely person and a great internationalist, she reflected with great integrity a range of commitments to social justice, civil liberties and international justice worldwide.
As for the Swedish euro referendum, I am not aware of any statement by the Swedish Prime Minister, but I hope that fanatics, whether politically inspired or not, realise that murder will not derail the democratic process.
Sir George Young: Further to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House, the Government published today their response to the ninth report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, in which they explicitly reject two of its central recommendations on the number and role of special advisers. As that matter has caused the Government considerable difficulty, would it not be advantageous to have an early debate to allow the House to assist the Government in avoiding further embarrassment?
Mr. Hain: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's interest in and concern about such matters. The truth is that despite the fact that many Conservative Governments over the years employed special advisers, this Government are the first ever to publish a model contract and code of conduct for special advisers. We accepted the report's recommendations, including the setting up of an ethics adviser, in their entirety but for two specific points, which I do not accept as being central—namely, that the number of special advisers should be subject to a statutory limit and that the Prime Minister should not have the ability, through an Order in Council, to appoint certain members of staff who are able to give directions and thereby to run his office properly. Notwithstanding the right hon. Gentleman's views, that does not detract from the Government's central commitment to accept the report and proceed in a way that enjoys full public confidence.
Mr. Roy Beggs: My colleagues and I wish to be associated with the tributes paid to the Swedish Foreign Minister. We also remember the horror of the terrorist attacks in the United States two years ago.
The Leader of the House may know that the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in Northern Ireland is sponsoring a conference on broadband in Belfast early next month. However, does he know that no local broadband companies will be represented? A local company, KBL-Online, was refused both a platform and space at the conference, yet at one of the main sessions, NTR-Broadband, a Republic of Ireland-based company with no operational capacity in Northern Ireland, is being afforded participation. Will the Leader of the House therefore find time for a statement on the broadband conference so that assurances can be given that no local companies have been unfairly disadvantaged or disregarded during the Government-sponsored event?
Mr. Hain: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks about Anna Lindh and 11 September.

485
I must confess that I am not aware of the representation at the conference, but given the points that the hon. Gentleman raised, I am sure that the organisers will take note of them.
Mr. Andrew Miller: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on enforcing civil judgments? I want to draw his attention especially to the conduct of Preston Beaumont Interiors, which operates in and around Cheshire. There are civil judgments against it but it is ducking and diving and avoiding them. That is an unacceptable effect of the court process, and such appalling business practices leave legitimate customers high and dry.
Mr. Hain: Obviously, I am concerned about my hon. Friend's remarks, especially since, with his long service in the House, he does not raise such matters lightly. I shall ensure that appropriate Ministers deal with those issues.

Points of Order
1.12 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have heard the Leader of the House say in response to my question that it would be inappropriate for a Minister to make a statement at this stage on the report from the Intelligence and Security Committee. despite the fact that Ministers are accountable to the House. I have the lobby briefing from No. 10, which states:
"Downing Street said the Defence Secretary Geoffrey Hoon would make a statement to the House of Commons today on the Intelligence and Security Committee report on the lead-up to the Iraq war."
That directly contradicts the Leader of House's response of a few moments ago. Have you received any indication from Downing street or the Secretary of State for Defence that a statement will be made? Why were we not forewarned?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. For clarification, are you saying that you have received no requests from the Secretary of State for Defence for the opportunity to make a statement specifically on the Intelligence and Security Committee report? Otherwise, it would imply that the Secretary of State would try to do what he attempted the other day, when you correctly stopped him, and subsume a statement in a debate. Such matters should be kept properly separate. We must not allow them to be merged for the convenience of the Secretary of State or anyone else, must we? Can you clarify the exact position?
Mr. Speaker: Let me clarify the position as far as I know it. I am not responsible for ministerial statements; they are a matter for Ministers. I have received no notification of any statement from the Secretary of State for Defence. However, we are about to hold a debate on the Adjournment of the House. If the Secretary of State is in order, he will be able to say what he wants. When he was not in order the other day, I stopped him. If other hon. Members are out of order, I shall not be long in telling them so.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Let me make it clear what I said. In recent months, the Defence Secretary has made more statements to the House and been more accountable for the war in Iraq than any Defence Secretary in similar circumstances in parliamentary history. He will appear immediately after points of order, as the Opposition know. I do not know how the Defence Secretary could be more accountable to the House.
Mr. Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Apart from the fact that the Foreign Secretary has already made a statement to television cameras and not to the House, were the Secretary of State for Defence to make a statement, it would enable hon. Members to question him properly under your guidance. However, if he decides to attempt to make a

487
statement in the guise of a speech in a debate, it is up to him whether he accepts interventions. That undermines one of the important processes of the House whereby we hold Ministers to account. They cannot duck a statement because it takes place under your guidance, but if they are making a speech, they can refuse interventions.
Mr. Speaker: These are the rules of the House, which the right hon. Gentleman knows. I think that he is clear about what I am saying—any hon. Member who is in order when speaking during the debate, whether the Secretary of State or a Back-Bench Member, even the newest Back Bencher, will be allowed to continue.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned interventions. It is up to individual Members' discretion to decide whether to take interventions. Although that may be a problem, provided that all hon. Members who are called are in order during the business before us, they will be able to speak. Those are the rules that the House has given me.
I do not wish to prolong the matter because hon. Members know that there is a 12-minute limit on speeches for Back-Bench Members. We are in danger of squeezing out a Back Bencher.
Andrew Mackinlay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that today's debate is about homeland defence? It has been much sought because we have not held a ring-fenced debate on the subject. If we trespass into international affairs, it will be open season and we shall have another general foreign affairs and defence debate.
Mr. Speaker: It is a debate on the Adjournment, entitled "Defence in the United Kingdom". Hon. Members can read the Order Paper. It is a while since I have looked at it because I have been so busy taking points of order.
Mr. John Wilkinson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We look to you to protect not only our interests but the good processes of the House. Is it not normal practice that when a ministerial statement is anticipated—we have been led to believe that one is forthcoming from the Secretary of State for Defence—hon. Members should receive proper prior notification so that they can attend? Cannot the Secretary of State make clear now from the Dispatch Box the time when he will make a statement—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. Clearly, the Speaker has not led anyone to believe that there will be a statement. That is the important thing.

Standards and Privileges
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House—

(i) approves the Fifth Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges (House of Commons Paper No. 947); and

(ii) accordingly suspends Mr Clive Betts, Member for Sheffield Attercliffe, from the service of the House for seven days.—[Derek Twigg.]

1.18 pm
Sir George Young: I commend the motion to approve the Committee's fifth report, which it agreed unanimously on 15 July, and the related recommendation to suspend the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) from the service of the House for seven days. I shall speak briefly.
The report, which found that the hon. Gentleman's conduct had fallen well below the expected standard, was published on 17 July. The hon. Gentleman made a personal statement to the House on that day in which he acknowledged and accepted the Committee's conclusion that he had made two errors of judgment. He had already apologised unreservedly to the Committee in respect of those matters.
Hon. Members will recognise the readiness with which the hon. Gentleman came to the House to accept the report's conclusions and to apologise for his conduct, and the terms in which he did so. His prompt statement to the House was particularly welcome as the Committee's inquiry was completed on the eve of a recess, and there was consequently no opportunity for an early debate.
The background to this case is unusual. Following the appearance in the press of a series of allegations about the circumstances in which the hon. Gentleman had employed a personal friend, Mr. José Gasparo, a Brazilian national, to work for him temporarily at the House of Commons, and the circumstances of Mr. Gasparo's return to the UK after the two of them had travelled abroad together, the hon. Gentleman wrote to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards seeking an investigation of the propriety of his actions. This is the first occasion on which a Member has sought to initiate the investigative process, rather than wait to see whether a complaint materialised. That was no soft option. The Commissioner has investigated the matter in precisely the same way as he would have investigated a complaint from a third party.
I pay tribute to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the sensitive way in which he conducted this investigation. Both he and my Committee were solely concerned with whether any aspects of the hon. Gentleman's conduct in relation to the events in question were in breach of the code. We were not concerned with matters relating to his personal life.
The Commissioner's report highlighted three areas of concern: first, whether Mr. Gasparo had the skills and experience to do the job for which he was recruited, and whether his employment represented a proper use of public funds; secondly, whether the hon. Gentleman should have taken account of any factors besides Mr. Gasparo's skills and experience before employing him; and, thirdly, the events surrounding Mr. Gasparo's re-entry into the UK following his holiday with the hon. Gentleman.

489
My Committee concluded that, on the evidence available, the hon. Gentleman had not contravened any rules of the House relating to the staffing allowance in employing Mr. Gasparo. We did, however, conclude that the hon. Gentleman had been unwise to employ him, given Mr. Gasparo's history of work as a male escort and that he did not have leave to remain in the UK for the full period envisaged for his employment. However, the most serious of the allegations was that the hon. Gentleman had been party, while on holiday abroad with Mr. Gasparo, to copying an altered letter of enrolment for Mr. Gasparo's proposed further course of study. That alteration had removed words which Mr. Gasparo considered might be prejudicial to his securing readmission to the UK, his previous leave to remain having expired during the course of the holiday.
While my Committee recognised the psychological pressure under which the hon. Gentleman acted, it concluded that he should not have agreed to be party to a course of action which might have led to the immigration officer being deceived as to the facts on which to decide on Mr. Gasparo's re-entry to the UK. We concluded that, in doing so, the hon. Gentleman's conduct fell well below the standard expected in terms of maintaining and strengthening the public's trust and confidence in the integrity of Parliament.
Having been furnished with a full copy of the report, the hon. Gentleman made a written submission to the Committee, to which we gave careful consideration. We welcomed his recognition of the fairness of the Commissioner's report, and his willingness to apologise, should the Committee agree that he had made the errors of judgment identified by the Commissioner in his report. We none the less took the view that Mr. Gasparo's intentions were clear in relation to why he wanted an altered copy of the letter of enrolment for his proposed new course, and that the hon. Gentleman should not have been party to them, given the risk of immigration offences being committed as a result.
This was, in many respects, a difficult case. The Committee none the less reached a unanimous conclusion. I commend our report to the House.
1.23 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: I would simply like to say that, every time we have one of these cases before us, it highlights the difficulty and sensitivity that often arises. It also puts us to the test in terms of our ability to regulate ourselves. I believe that, on this
490
occasion as on all others, our Committee has performed its task and considered the matter properly, and come to what is always in these cases a rather painful conclusion. I certainly support the Committee and would want my colleagues to do so as well. I do so in the knowledge that this is yet another example of how we are capable of regulating ourselves, and are prepared to do so. I hope that it will reassure those outside that we are doing so, and that we are constantly capable of doing so.
1.24 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: I wish to associate myself and my colleagues not only with the comments of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) but with those of the Chairman of the Committee.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Phil Woolas): It is generally accepted that the House should move quickly to resolve recommendations from the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. The Committee reported on 17 July, and the Government have provided time today for debate at the earliest possible opportunity. I thank the Committee for its careful examination of this matter, and for its considered and balanced report. I also thank the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards for his thorough investigation, and for the clarity of his report.
It is important to note that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) referred the allegations made against him to the Parliamentary Commissioner and co-operated fully with the investigation, as has been accepted. He has apologised unreservedly to the Committee and to the House, and has acknowledged and accepted the Committee's recommendations. Many of us will have sympathy with the personal situation that the hon. Gentleman has had to face. It is important that we make it clear, as the Committee and the Commissioner have done, that these related personal matters are not the concern of the House.
I hope that the House will endorse the Committee's report and accept its recommendation unanimously. In thanking the distinguished Chairman of the Committee for its report, I can say that matters of this kind reflect on the integrity of the House as a whole and on each of us individually. It is, therefore, important that we should show unity in responding to such matters fairly but robustly. I commend the motion to the House.
Question put and agreed to.

Defence in the United Kingdom
[Relevant documents: The Seventh Report from the Defence Committee of Session 2002–03, Draft Civil Contingencies Bill (HC557), the Sixth Report from the Defence Committee of Session 2002–03, A New Chapter to the Strategic Defence Review (HC93 I-II), and the Third Special Report of Session 2002–03, A New Chapter to the Strategic Defence Review: Government Response to the Committee's Sixth Report of Session 2002–03 (HC975).
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Derek Twigg.]
1.26 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Before moving to the specific subject matter of this debate, I would be grateful for the opportunity to respond directly to the criticisms of the Intelligence and Security Committee's report which was published earlier today. I ask the House to allow me the opportunity to set out in full what I have to say on this issue, but I will certainly take interventions at the end.
The ISC report is measured and detailed. First, it clearly finds that there was no attempt by anyone in Government—whether in Downing street, the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign Office or elsewhere—to sex up the dossier published on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in September last year. Secondly, it finds that the dossier was a fair and accurate summary of the intelligence. Thirdly, it finds that, in respect of the so-called 45-minute claim, no one in Government interfered with the intelligence assessment, though the Committee finds that the Joint Intelligence Committee could have put the wording of that particular piece of intelligence in a different and more detailed way. I appreciate that the ISC was concerned about the initial approach of the Ministry of Defence, and I want to make it quite clear that I had no intention whatever of being other than open and straightforward with the Committee. I regret any misunderstanding that may have arisen.
So far as my own position is concerned, the Committee states fairly that I did inform it of the dispute within the defence intelligence staff about the way in which the 45-minute claim was described in the dossier. In fact, I volunteered the information in my first evidence session on 22 July that there were people in defence intelligence who had made proposals for amendments and who indicated that they thought that the language in places could be tightened up. I outlined the substance of the dispute as to whether the intelligence showed or indicated particular conclusions, and how this was resolved before it ever reached the Joint Intelligence Committee, let alone any Minister.
The essence of this debate was set out by two DIS staff, who took the view that the wording on three points in the dossier—including on the 45-minute claim—should have been expressed differently. The disagreement was resolved by the then Chief of Defence Intelligence and his deputy, who concluded that the dossier wording was sound. It cannot be stressed too strongly that even the two DIS members who took the view that they did were not against the inclusion of the 45-minute claim in the dossier. They simply proposed different wording, reflecting the intelligence that they had seen.
492
The Committee, however, believed that the failure to disclose specifically that the views of the two DIS staff had been recorded in writing was unhelpful, and that it could potentially have misled it as to the seriousness of the dispute. Given the focus on these issues, I recognise that it would have been helpful to the Committee if I had mentioned specifically that the dispute was recorded in writing. I did not say specifically that points made by the two staff members had been put in writing, since these were detailed drafting points on the language of the dossier which were seen at the time as contributions to the normal healthy debate in the DIS about assessments. It did not seem so unusual for such suggestions or amendments to be made in writing.
The Committee also comments on my decision not to have a letter written to it outlining the concerns. The Committee has had the advantage in this case of seeing a briefing note prepared for me by officials before my appearance. It suggested that a letter should be sent to the Committee if the matter did not arise during the session on 22 July. As I had raised the dispute in the DIS voluntarily at that session with the Committee, I judged that there was no need to write subsequently.
I hope that the Committee accepts that I did not, in fact, mislead it. I note that the Committee finds in the final words of its report that it agrees with the conclusions of the Foreign Affairs Committee report that
"Ministers did not mislead Parliament".
I believe that this is a fair assessment of the issues, and I thank the Committee for what its Chairman said this morning.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: It would be churlish of the House not to recognise the contrite way in which the Secretary of State has approached it this afternoon, but it should be noted that a Committee of this stature has written that, in giving evidence to the Committee—evidence of which he personally took charge—his Department was unhelpful and potentially misleading. Does he regard that as a ringing endorsement of his reputation for departmental competence, or should he not do the honourable thing—accept responsibility and resign?
Mr. Hoon: I have accepted that the Ministry of Defence—and I am not in any way avoiding my personal responsibility—could have been more helpful. I have made that clear. The essence of the criticism, however, is this. The Committee is saying that, having indicated or volunteered to the Committee the information that there was a dispute, that amendments had been tabled and that the process had been followed through in the DIS in the assessments made about the intelligence, I should have indicated to the Committee that that had been recorded in writing. That seems to me to be the difference between us.
Mr. Paul Keetch: The Secretary of State is a football fan, so he will understand what I mean when I say that I intend to play the ball, not the man. In the context of the other important aspects of today's report, however, may I ask him some questions?

493
Does the Secretary of State believe that if the Prime Minister's original foreword had not been taken out of the dossier, if the intelligence showing that there was no connection between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein had remained in the dossier, if the dossier had contained intelligence that war with Iraq would increase the threat to the United Kingdom because of the dispersal of weapons of mass destruction, and if it had been made clear in the dossier that the claim about 45 minutes related to battlefield rather than strategic weapons, the Government would still have won the vote on 18 March?
Mr. Hoon: I do. The hon. Gentleman has asked a series of hypothetical questions which I believe the ISC dealt with properly in what I have described as a fair and balanced report. I do not intend to take up more of the House's time by discussing the matter in detail, as I am sure there will be further opportunities for us to do so in the future.
Mr. John Redwood: Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to tell us why he thinks Dr. Kelly died, given that Dr. Kelly was a member of his staff? I think it would help the Secretary of State to give Parliament his view clearly today, as he has been the subject of so much adverse briefing and comment—often, probably, from his own friends and colleagues—which has done a lot of damage to his reputation in the press.
Mr. Hoon: I hope that I do not appear unhelpful to the right hon. Gentleman, but I am sure he understands why, as Lord Hutton's inquiry is continuing, it would not be right or proper for me to respond to that question in any way at all.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Does the Secretary of State agree that the picture would be fuller and clearer if he indicated that he did of course volunteer the information he has described properly in response to a question, but that the report records that after he had left the room his staff were pressed further on the matter, and we still did not discover the names or the nature of the two people involved?
Has the Secretary of State noted the recommendation in the report that the DIS needs an arrangement whereby people who have minuted dissent know what procedure to follow, and the fact that they have done so is recognised and communicated to the Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee?
Mr. Hoon: During the further discussions we had when I attended the Committee on a second occasion to consider these matters, the right hon. Gentleman made a number of telling points about procedures that needed to be adopted in the DIS. I assure him, as I assured the Committee, that those points will be taken fully on board.
Mr. Michael Portillo: I am trying to put myself quite sympathetically in the position of the Secretary of State, because it is a position that I held. I am trying to understand. Perhaps the Secretary of State can help.
494
Given the allegation that some dissenting elements in the intelligence services had objected to the 45-minutes claim being in the dossier, and given that that was central to the Andrew Gilligan accusations that have been given such tremendous publicity, I cannot quite understand how the Secretary of State reached the judgment that he would not make a full disclosure that there had been written correspondence from intelligence officials which, on the face of it, clearly matched the accusation that Andrew Gilligan had made.
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the fair way in which he put his question, but I invite him to look again at its a premise. As I said a few moments ago, the suggestions from the two individuals in the DIS were not that the material should not be included in the dossier. They constituted, essentially, a linguistic analysis of what the intelligence either showed or indicated. In each of their proposed amendments they wanted, in effect, to draw a distinction between the intelligence showing that Saddam Hussein's regime had the ability to deploy chemical or biological weapons within 45 minutes and the intelligence indicating that.
As I suggested earlier, there was no suggestion from those individuals that the material should not be included. It was simply a case of the placing of the emphasis in the assessment. Given an indication of that kind, I judged that it was not necessary to provide the ISC with the specific amendments in writing; but I did give a very full account of the fact that there had been amendments and discussion, and that these particular linguistic discussions were resolved by the Chief of Defence Intelligence.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State must indicate to whom he is giving way.
Mr. Hoon: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes).
Mr. Kevin Hughes: I have had a look at the report, and I watched the Committee's press conference. I see nothing in the report that is either a resigning issue or a sacking issue, and I believe that that view was confirmed by the Committee's members at the press conference. Unfortunately for my right hon. Friend, that does not fit in with what the Opposition wanted to be in the report, or what the media, in their feeding frenzy, wanted to be in it. The media will continue with that feeding frenzy, baying for my right hon. Friend's resignation or sacking. And may I say—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The intervention is too long. I think the Secretary of State has got the drift of the support that he is being given.
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support.
Mr. Michael Mates rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope the hon. Gentleman is not going to criticise the Chair. He had better not do that, or he will be in trouble.
Mr. Mates: The Secretary of State has given way to me, Mr. Speaker.

495
Is it not the case that when anyone comes to the House and says that a mistake has been made which he regrets, and that he will see that it does not happen again, the House is generous? The real answer to all this is that, ultimately, the Committee was not misled. There will be plenty of opportunities to debate this matter, because the Government are required to respond to our report, and there will then be a debate about it. I suggest that that is the time when we shall be able to go over this ground again.
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have always felt that I have an extremely good relationship with the Committee. I have sought at all times to be open and straightforward with it. I intend to learn whatever lessons are necessary from this period.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Hoon: If I may, I shall turn to the subject of today's debate: defence in the United Kingdom. It is timely that this debate should take place today, 11 September, since it was the tragic events of that day in 2001 that caused us to re-examine, together with other issues, the United Kingdom's ability to respond to a mass-effect terrorist attack. Our thoughts today are with the families and friends of those who died on that tragic occasion. The re-examination was set out just over a year ago with the publication of the new chapter to the strategic defence review, which dealt with the defence contribution to the Government's wider consideration of their strategies and their preparedness to deal with disaster, in the light of the events of two years ago.
Our conclusions in the light of the 11 September attacks have been the subject of rigorous scrutiny by the Defence Committee. Its reports on defence and security in the United Kingdom and the SDR new chapter, together with the Government's responses, provide a sound backdrop to today's discussion. It is entirely right that the House should take a keen interest in defence activity in the United Kingdom, but in doing so our debates must avoid perpetuating an outdated understanding of the role of the armed forces. By that I mean that the armed forces alone do not ensure the security and defence of the country; nor can we secure and defend ourselves independently of events in the wider world.
Our interdependence with the rest of the world is self-evident. We do business with the rest of the world, we go on holiday all over the world, and the rest of the world comes here for the same reasons. Fifty-one British citizens died in the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre, 26 died in Bali and two died in Saudi Arabia. Our national security and prosperity is dependent on international trade and the flow of materials and services, which in turn rely on international stability.
Mr. Andrew Dismore: My right hon. Friend is giving a timely reminder of the British victims of the 11 September tragedy and of other tragedies. Will he join me in condemning the conference being held today by al-Mujaharoon, known as "the magnificent 19", which purports to praise the "heroism" of those who committed those despicable crimes? Is it not about time
496
that firm action was taken against these people, who have nothing whatsoever to do with the British way of life, and who should be rightly condemned throughout this House and throughout the country?
Mr. Hoon: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and I could not put the criticism more strongly than he has. He is quite right.
We have responsibility for our overseas territories, including the Falkland Islands, South Georgia, the South Sandwich Islands and Gibraltar. Some 10 million Britons live as expatriates across the globe. Millions more are vulnerable as they travel overseas for business or pleasure. Our diplomats and armed forces, and a range of United Kingdom non-governmental organisations and charities, operate around the world, often in tough environments. In short, wherever terrorists strike, the effects are likely to impact on UK citizens or on their interests. It is right, therefore, that we play a leading role in the international community through the United Nations Security Council, the Commonwealth, the European Union, NATO and coalitions of the willing. The defence of the United Kingdom must involve operations overseas as much as at home. There is no isolationist option for the United Kingdom.
The 1998 strategic defence review set out that analysis in detail. Its conclusions helped us to deliver armed forces to meet the challenges of recent years: the Balkans, Iraq, Sierra Leone and Afghanistan. Last year, the new chapter focused on the consequences of the 11 September attacks for us and our friends and allies, and, indeed, for our adversaries. The scale and nature of terrorism shocked the world that day, and the world certainly seemed to change.
Mr. Mark Prisk: Two years on from the dreadful events of 11 September 2001, can the Secretary of State tell the House which Minister is in charge of defending the UK?
Mr. Hoon: I shall explain that in some detail in a moment, but it has always been the case that, essentially, responsibility for security in the United Kingdom falls to the Home Office and therefore to the Home Secretary. However, I shall point out the way in which the armed forces, especially in light of the challenges raised by 11 September, can make a particular and distinctive contribution.
Derek Conway: The Secretary of State has set out the scale of operations that the forces under his control are involved in, which everyone accepts and respects, but he will be equally concerned about overstretch of the armed forces. Will he tell the House what he plans to do about the 6,000 shortfall in manning levels and its effect not only on morale but on overstretch and training, as I gather that recruitment is currently frozen?
Mr. Hoon: I am delighted to be able to repeat to the House that there is significant progress in recruitment, and I shall deal with the general issue of the impact on our armed forces towards the end of my speech.
Fundamentally, our security priorities remain as set out in the strategic defence review, although the balance of the armed threats has shifted. The new chapter

497
concluded that the primary capability required of the armed forces to respond to armed threats remains expeditionary operations overseas. The United Kingdom needs strong defence to help protect our own interests, to support the promotion of human rights and democracy the world over, to be a reliable and powerful ally, and to be a leader in Europe and the international community. We are preparing a White Paper, which I hope to publish towards the end of the autumn, setting out in more detail how we see continuing change and the consequent continuing adaptation of the armed forces' and Ministry of Defence's contribution.
Mr. Beith: On a completely different matter from the one I raised earlier, in the context of the review of priorities, does the Secretary of State note that the correspondence sent to Members and local authorities about four RAF stations has caused considerable anxiety, probably in all four locations? At RAF Boulmer, in Northumberland, there is certainly huge appreciation among personnel of that station's strategic value and various functions. There is also enormous support in the local community for its remaining there.
Mr. Hoon: I appreciate that, and it is vital that I reassure those people that no such decisions have been taken. I certainly do not want those people to be disturbed, particularly when their loved ones are serving in often difficult and dangerous circumstances.
Mr. John Burnett: As the Secretary of State says, the cornerstone of our defence policy is the expeditionary capability—I have spoken to him before on this matter—so it is surely time that we send another helicopter carrier to join Ocean. She is overstretched and cannot always be on station because she frequently has to go into refit.
Mr. Hoon: I do not accept that Ocean frequently goes into refit; indeed, it is a remarkable ship that I have had the privilege of visiting on several occasions, most recently last week. If I may, I shall take the hon. Gentleman's observation as a direct submission to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I turn to the specific theme of today's debate: home defence or home security? The old military paradigm of home defence addressed the threat of a sustained attack by conventional military forces on the United Kingdom itself. It is fair to say that the threat of military invasion by a hostile nation has probably gone. The focus is now on a different sort of threat: that of the terrorist. The focus is on home security, rather than on the old concept of home defence. The armed forces cannot and do not provide that security for the people of this country on their own. They contribute widely and in a number of important ways, many of which are unique, but they do not do that job on their own.
That is especially true of responding to terrorism. There is no simple military solution to terrorism—no simple application of armed force that will achieve the Government's goal of removing international terrorism as a force in world affairs. It is essential that in considering defence in the UK today, the House take account of this fact. The Government's strategy is wide ranging, but it recognises the importance of tackling the causes of terrorism, as well as of seeking to bring
498
terrorists to justice, denying them the capability to operate freely in the UK and overseas. It recognises that the international community must tackle this problem collectively and co-operatively.
We acknowledge the difficulty of ever achieving absolute security, but the core of the strategy is to make the United Kingdom a harder target through better protective security at home, and through measures to enhance our resilience, should we fail to deter or otherwise prevent attacks from taking place. In doing this, the Government remain committed to the principle that the United Kingdom's civil authorities are responsible for crisis and consequence management, under the ministerial direction of the Home Secretary. The police and the intelligence services are the front line against terrorism at home. Terrorism is a crime, and it is entirely right that we treat it as such.
Andrew Mackinlay: I have pointed out before in this House, to the Home Secretary, the total absence of a police profile in the vast majority of our sea ports. Can the Secretary of State tell us what discussions he has had with the Home Secretary, who undertook to reconsider this issue? Can I urge him, together with his ministerial colleagues, to recognise that there is a compelling need for a dedicated police force along the lines of the British Transport police—or comprising the British Transport police—in our sea ports? Currently there are no immigration officials, no police, no Customs and Excise in our ports. We really need a front-line, high-profile presence in order to combat crime and, above all, combat terrorism.
Mr. Hoon: I shall certainly refer in a few moments to the contribution of the armed forces to the problem that my hon. Friend identifies. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's words are passed on to the responsible Ministers. As he suggested, more than one Minister is involved in the matters that he raised.
It is a matter of regrettable necessity that we in the UK have had to develop considerable expertise in fighting terrorism. While the events of 11 September 2001 and more recent attacks have focused minds on international terrorism, it is vital to remember that we still face a threat from domestic terrorists. Even with the ceasefire in Northern Ireland, there remains a threat from dissident terrorist groups. Consequently, for as long as the Chief Constable there requires it, we will provide support to the police in Northern Ireland. However, as I have already acknowledged, we must respond to the changing nature of the threat from elsewhere. Our arrangements are constantly reviewed to ensure that they take account of that change. Those reviews include the contribution that is made by defence assets in support of the police.
More widely, the Government attach a high priority to being prepared to deal with a major terrorist attack. We have re-examined and refined the machinery for managing the central elements of a crisis response and have put in place a wide range of practical civil protection measures to build capabilities.
The Government issued for public consultation a draft civil contingencies Bill on 19 June. In line with Government practice, the consultation period was 12

499
weeks. Coincidentally, that ends today, on 11 September. The draft Bill proposes the way forward for civil protection in the UK, by providing a single statutory and regulatory framework, designed to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
A Joint Committee of both Houses has been established to examine the draft Bill. It is due to report at the end of November, having taken into consideration the results of the public consultation and evidence from its own witness sessions. The Select Committee on Defence has already published its observations on the draft. The Bill has been largely and generally welcomed by the wide range of organisations that will be affected by its provisions.
The draft civil contingencies Bill will, in particular, improve the UK's ability to deal with the consequences of incidents by improving the planning process at local level, by improving the linkages between local areas and the centre, and by building up a regional civil protection tier. That new regional tier will draw together activity already organised on a regional basis as well as providing a strong bridge between the centre and local levels. It will be a key point of contact for the armed forces in the future.
Against that background, the armed forces are shaped to make their distinctive contribution. At home that means that they provide the capability to detect, deter and ultimately destroy a determined attack by a renegade aircraft. We have made no secret of the fact that we have that air defence capability and will use it if necessary.
Mr. John Wilkinson: The House has been informed and many Members are delighted to hear about the order for 20 new Hawk aircraft to train interceptor and other fast jet pilots for the future. However, does the small size of the order mean that the number of aircraft in the front line, particularly interceptor squadrons, is to decrease in future?
Mr. Hoon: No, it does not. The hon. Gentleman anticipates a point that I shall make in a few minutes. If he has further questions after I have made my remarks, I will certainly give way to him again.
Typhoon, our next generation high-performance fast jet, will serve as the cornerstone of the Royal Air Force's air defence capability in the future, replacing our current Tornado F3 aircraft, which will be phased out between 2006 and 2009. The project achieved a major milestone this June with delivery of the first of these highly capable aircraft to the UK.
It is in part to meet the new demands of training pilots for front-line service for Typhoon that I have selected the BAE Systems Hawk 128 as the next advanced jet trainer for our armed forces. Subject to the successful completion of contractual negotiations, we intend to make an initial purchase of 20 of the new training aircraft, with options to buy up to another 24. The value of a full order for 44 aircraft is expected to be worth some £800 million. It will enter service from 2008. It is the right choice for training pilots for our future advanced fighter jets. It is also the right decision for our
500
defence industrial capability; for BAE Systems and its employees at the Brough factory on Humberside, where Hawk 128 will be designed and built; and for the several hundred people involved in the UK supply chain for the aircraft.
Hawk 128 is an excellent aircraft. More than 800 are currently in service with some 17 customers. In a highly competitive global market, Hawk variants have won the last three advanced jet trainer competitions and have demonstrated their status as one of the UK's finest exports. The future sales prospects for Hawk are extremely bright, as demonstrated by the recent news that the Indian Government have selected Hawk as their new advanced jet trainer.
Annabelle Ewing: The Secretary of State alluded a moment ago to the supply side, which also poses repair issues. Given that he appears to have faced a summer of uncertainty about his own job security, he will no doubt sympathise with the uncertainty faced by the loyal and skilled work force at the Defence Aviation Repair Agency, Almondbank. In the light of the impact of the interim review, will the Secretary of State give an assurance today that the Ministry of Defence will not pull the rug from under DARA?
Mr. Hoon: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State with responsibility for the armed forces visited the facility only two weeks ago to open a £5 million facility. I hope that that demonstrates our commitment. I understand that the hon. Lady was present, so she could see that for herself.
The armed forces are also ready to play a key role, should the need arise, in countering terrorism at sea. The Royal Navy can act in several ways to support the police and Customs and Excise, the most visible of which will be intercepting a renegade ship or ships suspected of carrying terrorist-related materials, as we demonstrated with the MV Nisha in 2001. We remain prepared to undertake similar operations, should it become necessary, both within UK territorial waters and elsewhere. The reach of the RAF's Nimrod patrol aircraft and the capability of the Royal Navy's surface fleet are undoubtedly a significant deterrent to terrorism.
The armed forces also represent a hugely flexible resource for the Government in times of emergency. They provide a pool of trained, disciplined, organised and highly capable personnel who can and will assist the civil authorities when necessary. The overt presence of service personnel at Heathrow in February this year represented an excellent example of that. Such a visible presence, in response to credible intelligence about a specific threat, demonstrates not only the ample deterrent effect that military assistance can have, but that we are able to respond quickly and very effectively when circumstances require it.
It is wrong, however, to underestimate the capacity and capability of the civil agencies. As they so ably demonstrated in last weekend's exercise, the civil agencies have a significant and well practised capability to respond to a wider range of disruptive elements. The emergency services will be at the front line of responding to emergencies. The police will take the lead in

501
responding to a terrorist incident, drawing on the expertise of other agencies as demanded by the precise details of the event.
As part of the new chapter assessment we considered both the nature and quantity of military assistance. We did not do so in isolation, but in consultation with other Departments and in parallel with their own work on improving the mechanisms that deliver security and resilience. The conclusions drew on the lessons of previous emergencies, particularly foot and mouth and the fuel crisis.
We decided to invest in three main areas: command and control arrangements, specifically to allow the armed forces to engage fully in local contingency planning and undertake 24/7 operations; communications equipment, which will be compatible with that used by the police; and giving existing members of the volunteer reserves an opportunity to volunteer to serve in civil contingency reaction forces.
The enhanced regionally based planning and command capability will make it easier for the authorities dealing with civil contingencies to get rapid support from the armed forces, both regular and reserve. That reinforces what exists already: it does not create a new or separate civil contingency chain of command.
Patrick Mercer rose—
Mr. Hoon: Before I give way to the hon. Gentleman, I am about to talk about civil contingency reaction forces, which I anticipate might be the subject of his intervention. There will be 14 CCRFs, each comprising some 500 volunteers drawn from among existing reservists. Each will be based on a Territorial Army infantry battalion, and new posts have been added to each battalion to support the CCRF role directly. Their establishment increases the likelihood that we will be able to meet requests for support, but we are not creating a separate or self-contained force for this purpose. The volunteers will retain their existing military roles and CCRFs are not intended to be the first or only source of assistance we can provide locally.
Patrick Mercer: The resource that has been created for the CCRFs is slender; only 7,000 from all ranks are to be drawn together for it. Why has it taken so long to draw together the force? Why are the CCRFs not yet operationally effective? How hard hit have they been by crucial members being called up to help the overstretched regular Army in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq?
Mr. Hoon: I agreed with most of what the hon. Gentleman said until he reached his conclusion. I do not believe that any assessment of the role of reserves in recent times suggests that they are there to relieve so-called "overstretched" regular forces. At the time of the strategic defence review, we developed a concept that built on work previously done in the MOD to ensure that our reservists were usable and trained for a specific contribution in the time of conflicts of the kind that we have seen in Iraq. They were being used for that purpose.
502
I recognise and accept the first part—or, at least, the implication—of the hon. Gentleman's observations; inevitably, during a period in which we are calling on reservists to the extent we have seen in Iraq, there must be implications for the kind of reorganisation that I have just set out. I am not pretending that Iraq has not had an impact on that change. It must have and it has.
Patrick Mercer: Unfortunately, the Secretary of State misses my point. When we need forces here to defend this county—people who are dedicated to this task—no provision seems to have been made among the reserve forces to prevent them from being called to operational theatres such as Afghanistan and Iraq. Surely that is a contradiction?
Mr. Hoon: I am tempted to describe this as a new role for reservists, but many with longer memories than mine will say that it is a return to a more traditional role. The role recognises the new kind of threat that we face, which was my theme at the start of my remarks. I accept that with the challenges of Iraq and the mobilisation of large numbers of reservists, it has been harder to carry out the reorganisation than it would have been but for that commitment. That is an inevitable consequence of the times in which we live.
Mr. Mike Hancock: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman must forgive me; I must make progress. I have given way on a number of occasions.
The principle of military assistance remains that regional commanders will advise Defence Ministers of the best means available to meet a particular request. This may involve the use of regular or reserve personnel or it may require deployment of some more specialised capability. Nor is it the case that CCRFs will only be used when regular manpower is not available.
The CCRFs are an important strand of the assistance that we are able to provide in an emergency and have the potential to bring very useful qualities to a deployment, such as local knowledge. They will also boost our ability to sustain a longer-term operation by adding to the pool of resources available to regional commanders. Recruiting and training for the CCRFs is proceeding well and we are on track to achieve our target of full operating capability by the end of this year.
Although I have addressed defence in the UK in the context of the armed threat from terrorism, the principles that I have set out apply across the whole spectrum of resilience. If an aircraft crashes into an oil refinery—whether that is caused by a terrorist bomb or by mechanical failure—the consequences are the same and the mechanisms for providing support from the armed forces are the same.
Mr. Prisk: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Hoon: I have given way a great number of times and I recognise that a considerable number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak in the debate.
We can draw on the armed forces in response to any emergency, national or regional, that goes beyond the normal capacity of the emergency services. We did so in

503
the foot and mouth outbreak, and we did so during the firefighters dispute. But there was a penalty. The personnel involved—some 19,000 at the peak—had to be withdrawn from their primary military duties. Training and preparations for Iraq were disrupted. Some ships were unable to go to sea.
An extra burden was placed on the individuals concerned. Even though the strikes themselves were not continuous, personnel involved in providing the cover remained on standby to deploy. That meant that they could not take planned leave and, in some cases, post-operational tour leave had to be cancelled. Because we could not predict how long the dispute would continue, training and other normal military activities could not be planned while the possibility of further strikes remained. Nor could the commitment have been maintained indefinitely. At the outset, we recognised that the effort necessary to provide emergency cover would impact upon other military operations and training activity. But the increasing level of military commitments during the early part of this year meant that in order to meet the demands of other operations—most notably Iraq—we had to progressively reduce the number of personnel engaged in the operation. Ultimately, it would have become impossible to maintain the same level of cover as had been provided during the early strikes.
The success of the operation is an excellent example of the flexibility and commitment that our armed forces bring to any operation they undertake, but it also serves to remind us of the limitations of working within what is essentially a finite resource.
We recognise explicitly in our planning that earmarking units for more than one contingency imposes limitations. When a contingency unfolds—whether it is an operation in Sierra Leone or a fire strike in the United Kingdom—any forces committed to that contingency become unavailable for other operations. This applies to the CCRFs and reserve units as it does to regular units. Simply put, no one can be in two places at the same time. It is not possible to act and still be able to meet every possible contingency. That is the core challenge of managing our commitments. It applies at home and overseas and is ultimately a matter of a decision on the priorities of particular circumstances of the moment. It cannot be any other way, principally because our human resources are not unlimited.
This works because of the hard-earned flexibility and commitment of our armed forces. That flexibility and commitment flow from the time and effort spent in the training of the highest quality of the men and women who make up our regular and reserve forces.
I am confident that we have put in place the capabilities and structures that will allow our armed forces to make an effective contribution to maintaining the defence and security of the United Kingdom, whether that is through responding to a terrorist incident here or conducting expeditionary operations overseas to prevent a threat materialising as an attack on our home territory.
2.7 pm
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: This is not a good day for the House of Commons. The Secretary of State may have observed the letter of the procedures of the House, but he has abused the spirit of the House by effectively making a statement about a Committee report that was published this morning without advertising it in advance and without giving Members an opportunity to learn in advance that he would be making a statement. To debate a Committee report so soon after its publication is a most unusual procedure for the Government to pursue. It was also discourteous for the Foreign Secretary to make a statement about the contents of the report outside Downing street, instead of to this House.
At the outset, the Government have shown little respect to this House, certainly to those who might disagree with them on this question. This situation underlines how elaborately the spin operation has worked in relation to the publication of the report. It is now clear that there has been briefing from Whitehall officials on the contents of the Intelligence and Security Committee report in advance of its publication, precisely to enable the Secretary of State to manage this occasion. It remains to be seen whether the effect he feels he has created in this House is sustained in the media tomorrow and in the commentary that will undoubtedly follow. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman's attempt to brush aside the question of his conduct will in the end serve him ill.
What it would be most appropriate to concentrate on today, the second anniversary of the terrible attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon on 11 September, are those terrible attacks, those who died on that terrible day and those who displayed such heroism. Here in this House of Commons, it would be appropriate to concentrate on the Government's defence policies and the responses to 11 September 2001 in the context of the title of today's debate, "Defence in the United Kingdom." The Government should remove anything that distracts us from that vital task.
We take this opportunity to pay tribute to the UK's overstretched armed forces and intelligence services for all that they have achieved since that terrible day. They have worked harder than ever. They have performed superbly, despite shortages of manpower and equipment, despite cancelled leave and unduly long separation from families and loved ones, and despite the risks and dangers that they face. Indeed, we have seen conspicuous acts of gallantry and bravery that are the hallmark of all three armed services. And there have been sacrifices. I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to our armed forces on this occasion.
This should be an occasion on which to concentrate on the Secretary of State's policy failures: I would wish to explore the failure to provide a more coherent policy for the security of our homeland; the failure to appoint a single Minister responsible for homeland security—as we have appointed an Opposition spokesman to shadow that task; the failure to deal with the erosion in the numbers of the Territorial Army and the reserves; and the failure to create an effective and operational civil contingencies reaction force, which my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) has just pointed out.

505
The Secretary of State has also failed to recruit effectively for all three of our armed services. How can he tell us that all is well, when the armed forces are more challenged and more overstretched than ever before and when he has cut the target size of the armed forces by 3,500 from April 2001 to 1 July 2003 so that he can claim that we are less under-recruited than before? Not only has the right hon. Gentleman failed to meet his recruitment targets: he has cut the target size of the Army. He has signally failed to fulfil the promise in the strategic defence review to increase the size of the Army to 108,500. The spending crisis in the Department is an open secret in Whitehall and among defence contractors. Other problems include the state of the accommodation. I visited Blandford camp last Friday and saw accommodation not fit for a student, with mould on the walls—[Interruption.] I saw bedsits not fit for students, where we expect 40-year-old senior NCOs to live for two years while on a training scheme at the Royal College of Signals.
Mr. Julian Brazier: Disgraceful.
Mr. Jenkin: It is an absolute disgrace. There should be nothing distracting us from that and other issues, yet we are being distracted. What is the point of conducting such a debate with a Secretary of State who is now so widely expected not to be in office for very much longer? How can the Secretary of State be capable of conducting his Department with regard to defence in the UK if he is so obviously being hung out to dry by his own Prime Minister? How is he meant to command the confidence and respect of the armed servicemen and women in his care, whose whole command philosophy is about taking control of and accepting responsibility for those answerable to them, when he never accepts responsibility for anything?
How can the British people or the armed forces have trust in the conduct of the Secretary of State's Department after he told the Hutton inquiry that he was not aware of key events taking place in his own Department? He was apparently not even aware of the discussions taking place at meetings at which his special adviser said he was present. That compounds his record in the Ministry of Defence.
The Secretary of State never takes responsibility for the shortcomings in kit and equipment for the armed forces. Whenever things go wrong in his Department, like the sudden need to send reinforcements to Iraq, he hides behind his military advice, as though he is simply a messenger for the chiefs of staff, yet he was ready to overrule his permanent secretary when his political reputation was on the line.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Is not the hon. Gentleman being inconsistent in criticising the Secretary of State for referring to the report published today but now doing the same thing himself?
Mr. Jenkin: It was the Secretary of State who raised the issue of the report. I shall not debate the 45-minute issue or discuss the breadth of the report, but the Secretary of State has brought his personal reputation to the fore in this debate and I simply point out what is at stake.
Mr. Christopher Chope: Will my hon. Friend deal with this issue? The Prime Minister told the
506
House on 4 June that he would produce all the evidence for the ISC, yet paragraphs 96 and 97 of the report make it clear that the Secretary of State deliberately and wilfully suppressed vital evidence that the Committee wanted.
Mr. Jenkin: I shall come to the question of whether the ISC can really fulfil the function the Prime Minister promised it would.
Now the Secretary of State disclaims any responsibility for the ISC's finding that he and his Department were "unhelpful and potentially misleading" in the evidence given in the recent inquiry. The report continues:
"We are disturbed that after the first evidence session, which did not cover all the concerns raised by the DIS staff—
the defence intelligence staff—
"the Defence Secretary decided against giving instructions for a letter to be written to us outlining the concerns."
The Secretary of State says that he does accept responsibility, but he thinks that he can carry on regardless. However, that severe criticism is yet another nail in the coffin of his personal reputation. Would the Committee have recalled him to give evidence for a second time to set the record straight unless the Hutton inquiry process had exposed the initial failure to give a full and frank account of his evidence? Even if we were to give the Secretary of State the benefit of the doubt, it would be to conclude that he may not be malign but he was at least incompetent. In any case, he has lost the trust of those who need to trust him most.
The Secretary of State knows the real reason why he is being sustained in office on a life support machine. He knows that he will not survive beyond a few more weeks. He knows that he is to be the scapegoat, tethered to the stake until all the sins of this Government have been heaped upon him, before he is cast into the wilderness in a symbolic but insincere act of contrition. Is it really in the national interest for the Secretary of State to allow himself to be used in that way? Is it in the interests of the men and women of the armed services? Would it not help the right hon. Gentleman's reputation and integrity if he accepted ministerial responsibility for all the problems and mistakes for which he is ultimately responsible? Would it not be better for his own integrity, for the Government and for the general reputation of public life? Paradoxically, there is an example that he could follow: Alastair Campbell has resigned and so should the Secretary of State.
The Intelligence and Security Committee has had an extremely difficult task, but I fear that its report will only fuel the debate about the handling and presentation of intelligence material in the run-up to the war in Iraq. I could elaborate on the contradictions between the Committee's report and the earlier report by the Foreign Affairs Committee. Then there are the far more detailed and public testimonies given to the Hutton inquiry, which expose the weakness of the processes of both the Committees that have reported. That is not to cast any aspersion on the Committees' work or integrity, but no Committee of this House can carry out the kind of impartial and forensic cross-examination that we have seen in Lord Hutton's inquiry. No Committee of this House can reach impartial conclusions that are properly

507
insulated from the party political battle, in order to command the public confidence that is so necessary in this case.
Mr. Keetch rose—
Alan Howarth rose——
Mr. Jenkin: I shall not give way.
The fundamental truth remains that the only way to establish the truth about these matters in a manner that will command public confidence, which is so necessary for the defence and security of our country, is for Lord Hutton to be given the wider remit for which we have always argued, or for a new independent judicial inquiry to be established for that purpose. In the meantime, the Secretary of State should insist that the Prime Minister accept his resignation, so that his Department can get back to the business that it should really be about—the defence of the UK.
The Secretary of State is discredited and, with all respect, he should go.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has imposed a 12-minute limit on speeches from the Back Benches. I call Mr. Bruce George.
2.21 pm
Mr. Bruce George: Madam Deputy Speaker—
Mr. John Smith: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Opposition defence spokesman to open the debate for his party without making any reference to the subject on the Order Paper?
Madam Deputy Speaker: The content of the shadow Secretary of State's speech is his responsibility, not mine.
Mr. George: Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope that the clock began ticking off my 12 minutes 10 seconds ago, not when you actually called me.
I applaud the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State came to the House and made, if not a statement, at least remarks about the Intelligence and Security Committee report. Had he not done so, the Opposition spokesman would have used plan B, turned over a page of his second-rate speech, which was like an impersonation of Sir John Gielgud—
Mr. Smith: That is too flattering. It was third rate.
Mr. George: The hon. Gentleman's speech was indeed third rate. Under plan B, he would have attacked my right hon. Friend for making no comments on the presentation by the ISC.
508
Secondly, the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) spoke about overstretch. I am sorry to go on about this again, but the Opposition Front-Bench defence team is so overstretched that half of them have to double-hat as members of the Defence Committee. I find that appalling, and I shall be writing to the Liaison Committee and to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on the matter. It is very important for Opposition Front-Bench Members to decide whether they are able to function as a politically motivated group in one environment while adopting a more consensual approach in another. That dichotomy is something of which I am very critical.
Having used two of my 12 minutes on those matters, I turn to the subject of the debate. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has commented on what his Department has done by way of homeland security. My Committee has mirrored that process, and in our reports we have criticised the Government for doing the wrong things. We have produced four reports: "The Threat from Terrorism" in December 2001, "Defence and Security in the UK" in July 2002, and "A New Chapter to the Strategic Defence Review" in May 2003; our most recent report concerned the draft civil contingencies Bill, and it appeared in July 2003.
I am very proud to be Chairman of the Defence Committee. Our work goes beyond the terms of reference set for us. From what my right hon. Friend said, I took him to mean that this country's departmental structures are not reflected in reality. The Defence Committee has broken away from its terms of reference—with no complaints from anyone so far—to look at the roles of the Ministry of Defence, the Home Office, the civil contingencies secretariat, and a whole range of Departments. We have looked at how decisions are made, both horizontally and vertically. We have looked at regional and local government and civil contingency planning, as well as the roles of the NHS, the ambulance service and the private sector.
What is happening is patently obvious to everyone. As my right hon. Friend said, the Ministry of Defence and the armed forces are only part of the process of deterrence. The nation must realise that we must be engaged in what is called total defence. The term may not be exact, and indeed it is almost a contradiction in terms in a free society, but it involves the private sector and ordinary citizens as much as the armed forces. The armed forces' role is a narrow one, and the structure of the Select Committee system and of Government in general should reflect the changing world in which we live.
Terrorism does not fit neatly into any departmental structure. We must overcome departmentalism in the Committee system of the House of Commons as well as in central Government. If we do not, I fear that we will not be responding as effectively as we should.
In our report "Defence and Security in the UK"—the product of six months' work—we made a number of recommendations that did not go down a bundle with the Ministry of Defence or the Home Office. We touched on the question of whether there should be a director of homeland security for this country. We were not attacking the Home Secretary, but we thought that it might be better to have a senior Cabinet member who could devote all his time to the matter. At present, the

509
Home Secretary has to cover a vast range of subjects. I believe that the Committee remains of the opinion expressed in the report.
My right hon. Friend commented on the report entitled "A New Chapter to the Strategic Defence Review" and the establishment of a civil contingency reaction force, which I very much welcome. That force may not necessarily be the first available in a crisis, as that responsibility might well go to our full-time armed forces, assuming that they are available for deployment. I have a few concerns about the new reaction force, one of them being that five days' training may not be sufficient, even though it may not be doing everything if a major crisis happens. I hope that that matter will be addressed properly, and that we can be reassured in that regard.
Some matters need to be explained more fully. It is disappointing that the Ministry of Defence has not thought more innovatively about home defence. Is that because of a potential turf war with the Home Office? I was a little irritated—
Patrick Mercer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. George: I am sorry, but I shall give the hon. Gentleman a full response when next he attends a meeting of the Defence Committee. I am not sure who I am talking to today—an Opposition spokesman, or a Committee member. I shall be more prepared when that has been sorted out.
Patrick Mercer rose—
Mr. George: Of course I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Patrick Mercer: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He doubted whether the Home Secretary could devote all his energies to leading emergency planning. Is not that the central point in the demand that the Government appoint a Minister with sole responsibility for security? That would overcome not only the Home Secretary's difficulties but the turf-war problems that the right hon. Gentleman has just identified.
Mr. George: I shall work for that. Perhaps the Opposition spokesman on these matters will reciprocate by concentrating on one task, not two. There may be a parallel there.
There have been improvements in the way in which we deal with homeland security. I very much welcome the appointment of Sir David Omand. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire and his staff do a truly excellent job. My concern about the draft civil contingencies Bill was not that a Joint Committee was set up but that the Defence Committee—the only one that had taken a serious interest in the subject—was bypassed. Only two members of my Committee were appointed to the Joint Committee.
I am a little concerned about how long it took to produce the draft Bill, and I have serious reservations about some of what it contains. The Defence Committee
510
has also expressed similar reservations, which include the fact that the draft Bill does not include provisions covering central Government's responsibilities for civil protection—nor does it place a duty on local agencies, including the emergency services, to work together. We are also concerned by the proposal to create regionally nominated co-ordinators. If legislative measures were to be taken, those co-ordinators would, in essence, mirror the concept behind having lead Government Departments. That would risk confusion about who to contact in an emergency.
The role of the private security industry—a point that might seem out of place in this debate—was not given much treatment in the draft Bill. I have no financial interest whatever in that body of men, but when one is searching desperately for people to be involved with the emergency service in the event of a major crisis, members of that industry, who are about to be properly regulated, trained and led, are potentially available in their hundreds and thousands. I hope that the Government will find a way to incorporate those individuals in the process of protecting society should there be a crisis.
I appeal to the Government to define the role of companies, heads of security and risk and consequence managers. As the State Department's recent report "Patterns of Global Terrorism" notes, business provides the overwhelming majority of targets for terrorist organisations. Far more than US embassies or military targets, business is being targeted. It would therefore be prudent to develop better relationships with the private sector to try to achieve better co-ordination and greater involvement. Businesses will not be able to rely on the police, emergency services and military if they are directly or indirectly targeted. Far more attention should be given to my suggestion.
In conclusion—[Interruption.] I must switch off my mobile phone, Madam Deputy Speaker, and apologise for that ringing endorsement of the Secretary of State; it was not quite delivered in the manner that he would expect.
On the powers of parliamentary oversight, the Bill contains sweeping powers for the Ministry of Defence to declare a state of emergency and introduce emergency legislation. I believe that there should be a greater role for the House in dealing with such circumstances. There is a question whether the Government need the powers that they are giving themselves in some respects. The definition of emergency is widely drawn in the draft Bill, and goes considerably wider, my Committee believes, than the existing definition in emergency powers legislation. I hope to hear some reassurance on that point.
Today is an opportune time to discuss the draft Bill and the role of the military because it is the anniversary of 9/11. It is unbelievable that people in this country believe that the United States deliberately sought an attack in order to justify its actions. Perhaps they are the descendants of those who said that the Americans deliberately ignored warnings of the Japanese attack at Pearl harbour. Let them provide some evidence. Perhaps some of those people argue that there is no real threat of terrorism and that the Government are playing it up for their purposes of their own agenda. No wonder the public are cynical if politicians can display such massive ignorance of the reality that we face.

511
I hope that we can create a structure giving our armed forces, police and intelligence services the right powers with the support of the people. The people are not simply observers of the competence of our official figures and military personnel, but are directly involved. The public must realise that there is a massive threat to our society and the role that they will have to play. Unless there is better liaison between the private sectors of our society, who control and own most of our critical national infrastructure, we shall fail—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman's time is up.
2.34 pm
Mr. Paul Keetch: This is an important debate, and it is always a pleasure to follow the Chairman of the Select Committee. Other members of that Committee, including my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), will hope to speak.
The title of the debate—"Defence in the United Kingdom"—perhaps goes broader now than it has ever done. We no longer live in a country in which defending our nation means stationing the Royal Navy in the channel or keeping the Royal Air Force flying over Kent. Defence of the UK today means many different groups of people, from our armed forces to our diplomats, intelligence services and others, working all across the globe. We should all join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to those who do that job for us. In particular, the debate is relevant today, the anniversary of the events of 11 September. Our thoughts should go to the British victims and those from all other countries who died on that terrible day two years ago.
I join the Secretary of State in congratulating those members of the civil forces and armed forces who took part in last week's exercise in London. I pay tribute, too, to those members of our armed forces who undertake other roles in civil support, particularly those involved during the firefighters' strike. Like many other MPs, I have visited armed forces based in my constituency—from the RAF in my case—who provided essential cover during those weeks. They did a superb job with equipment that was not the most modern. Their role was vital.
Today, UK defence policy faces in several directions at once. The Ministry of Defence, not for the first time, is trying to play many roles at many levels, and it sometimes struggles to meet the responsibilities that it has set itself. On one hand, the Government would rightly like to play a role at the high end of combat operations with the United States. On the other, we have responsibilities to the European Union, NATO and the United Nations in peacekeeping and peace-building operations in Kosovo, Afghanistan, Bosnia and Congo, among others. Finally, we have the role of defending our nation against terrorism at home.
All those are appropriate tasks for the Ministry of Defence. In order, however, to do each of them well, we must strike the right balance. If the Ministry of Defence fails to strike that balance, the planning gap will fall on those so frequently asked to implement policy—the men
512
and women of our armed forces. When that observation is made in the other place by as experienced and informed a commentator as the former Chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Bramall, the Government must take note. He said:
"When will the Government—which of course means the Treasury—match resources in manpower, material and money to commitments? Alternatively, when will the Government deal with our far-flung commitments more circumspectly?"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 September 2003; Vol. 652, c. 53.]
Lord Bramall has identified the key problem with defence in the UK—imbalance and overstretch. Operations in Iraq have made that overstretch worse. In spite of that, I saw, when I accompanied the Minister for the armed forces and the shadow Defence Secretary to Iraq, the great work that our forces are doing there in difficult situations. As well as direct combat operations, British forces have worked hard at peacekeeping and civil reconstruction. They have been helping to deliver aid and even opening schools. I did not support the war Nor did my party. But we must make sure that a difficult situation improves, and British forces in Iraq and elsewhere across the globe are doing a wonderful job.
If we ask more and more from fewer and fewer members of our armed services, some of them will be reluctant to continue to serve. The Minister will have heard the rumours spreading throughout the summer about increasing outflows of men and women returning from Iraq—not just in the regular forces, but among the Territorial Army. Will he confirm whether that is so? If it is, how can the Government deal with it? If it is not, we must stop the rumour because it is spreading fast.
That rumour must be set against the forthcoming White Paper, which may again involve cuts in infantry numbers—cuts among the very people we need in Iraq and here to defend our homeland. Network-centric capabilities and maintaining interoperability with high-tech US equipment are important, but they cannot come at the expense of cuts in manpower, pensions or accommodation. The Ministry of Defence must strike a balance. I have said time and again that the best bits of kit in our armed forces are the men and women who serve.
I shall say a quick word about procurement, particularly carriers. Again, there have been rumours throughout the summer about the future carrier programme. I believe that the future carriers will be an essential part of the defence of the UK. They are an absolutely essential part of our expeditionary strategy. The Government were right to procure them, but recent reports on the progress of the project are deeply concerning. We have heard about possible cost increases and delays in the in-service date. and even that the carriers may be made smaller.
The Government cannot cut corners on a project of such importance to the United Kingdom. To do so would be to compromise the success of the whole endeavour. When they announced the last-minute coalition of BAE Systems and Thales to produce the carriers, I and others warned that this shotgun marriage might mean an increase in costs and could lead to the carriers not being delivered on time. That approach should be given a chance to work, but the early signs are not good. I hope that that decision has not jeopardised the future of the programme, and that the Navy will get the carriers that it richly deserves.

513
Many other hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall be brief. If defence expenditure is to remain at present levels, a careful balance must be struck between capabilities that address the needs of the United States at the high end of the spectrum—our ability to work with the US—and those needed to promote peace in troubled areas in the aftermath of major conflicts. That is the lesson of the second phase of operations in Iraq. It is likely that we will fight in combat operations alongside the US in the future. It is equally likely that we will conduct peacekeeping operations with our Commonwealth and NATO allies. The pursuit of one role should not undermine the other. Britain cannot afford to have a defence policy that tries to face all ways but ends up facing none.
2.41 pm
Rachel Squire: As today is the second anniversary of the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, may I too express my deep sympathy for all those who so tragically lost their lives and for those who have suffered as a consequence? This is very much a time for reflection—on the actions that we have taken since that fateful day in September 2001 and on what action is still required to prevent further atrocities.
Sadly, there have recently been terrorist attacks in Iraq, Indonesia, Morocco and elsewhere. They demonstrate in the most visceral way the devastation that terrorists continue to inflict. The recent black-outs here and in the United States, although they were not terrorist related, demonstrate how strikes against vital infrastructure can bring cities to their knees not only for hours but for days, and possibly months. Cancelled flights, factories at a standstill and grid-locked streets would cause chaos and large-scale economic losses.
Clearly, al-Qaeda and transnational terrorism continue to be active and I pay tribute to the timely and brave actions of our police and security forces and those of our allies, which have at least prevented some further outrages from occurring. As has been said, the need for vigilance backed by action has never been more apparent throughout all levels of society and involving every citizen. I too welcomed the introduction of a draft civil contingencies Bill earlier this year, in spite of the reservations expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George). We all hope to continue to work on that legislation.
Like the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch), I welcome the exercise that took place in the London underground last weekend and I hope that there will be more such exercises. There is an urgent need to increase the protection of businesses and key infrastructure from attack. We can never provide a 100 per cent. guarantee of safety or anticipate every eventuality, but defence and security cannot be hemmed in or separated from all other aspects of society.
Furthermore, 11 September also starkly illustrated that homeland security cannot be provided by the "Englishman is safe in his castle" approach—or indeed, the Scotsman, the Welshman or the Northern Irishman. We live in a global world and we need to act globally. The arguments that we should not take military action in Iraq and elsewhere unless there is about to be a blitz-style bombing raid on London or Glasgow do not hold up in the 21st century given the type of asymmetric warfare with which we now recognise we are dealing.
514
The contribution of the United Kingdom's armed forces to fighting wars and peacekeeping on a global basis is second to none. They can and have—in particular in the past 12 months—paid a heavy price, both in time away from their homes and families and, tragically, in injuries and death. I also express my deepest sympathy to all families who have lost a loved one in the past year.
Iraq teaches us some important lessons about the United Kingdom's defence needs. In July, I had the opportunity to visit Iraq with other members of the Defence Committee, where I was able to see at first hand our forces operating in that setting. I was very impressed by their professionalism and expertise—both the regulars and the reserves—and by how they had conducted the war-fighting phase and managed so well the difficult and demanding change to peacekeeping. One thing that stood out was their personal commitment to working with the Iraqi people to build a better future—their determination, in particular, to give Iraqi children a way out of poverty and fear.
After four days in Iraq, my regret was not that we had engaged in military action but that we had not done so 12 years ago to end Saddam Hussein's dictatorship. The desperate state of a people and a country potentially so rich in both oil and water was due to decades of under-investment and a dictator whose sole interest was his power base.
To all those in this country and elsewhere who seem to concentrate on political point scoring when dealing with the operations in which our forces have recently been engaged, whether in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere in the world, or on philosophising and what they see as the moral high ground, I say that I believe that our priority in the crucial months ahead should be the same as that of our troops—to help put in place the foundation stones for a peaceful and prosperous future for Iraq. In his interview in the Financial Times last weekend, Kofi Annan said,
"The stability of Iraq should be everyone's concern. Regardless of one's position before the war, whether one supported it or not, we have a problem we should all focus on."
I hope that all countries, non-governmental organisations and support services will do just that in the crucial months ahead.
When the media are reporting on UK defence matters here or elsewhere, I hope that they will spend more time praising our armed forces rather than constantly criticising them and will consider the message that that sends to our troops and their families back in the homeland.
I must also mention the importance to the defence of the UK of the contribution of all those involved in support services, whether in the Ministry of Defence, the private sector or civilians. The challenges of defence and security in the world today are complex and multifaceted and there are many lessons to be learned.
I welcome the initial report on Iraq. Obviously, the Defence Committee is looking into the lessons to be learned. Clearly, some of those lessons are already universal and comprehensive. I especially welcomed the review of logistic support for the armed services that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State published earlier this week. Asset tracking is extremely important for homeland security and operations elsewhere; it was

515
clear to the Committee that we need to know where the logistic support is—whether it is a pair of boots or extra forces to deal with a homeland incident.
Reference has been made to the pressures on our armed forces. I hope that we shall continue to make every effort to ensure that our European allies deliver an effective European defence capability, operating both within NATO and in peacekeeping areas. Some progress has been made: the EU has taken over peacekeeping in Macedonia and NATO is going into Afghanistan and Iraq. However, too much time seems to be spent on words rather than action. We must realise that to ensure homeland security we must work in partnership to provide stability elsewhere. We are all greatly concerned that we might lose some of our most experienced and professional personnel if we continue to do what we have done to many of them during the past 12 months. They have gone from an operation in Afghanistan to an exercise, to covering for firefighters, to being called out to Iraq. That adds to my determination that part of our defence strategy must be to tell our allies, especially in Europe, to deliver action rather than words. They must share those operational tasks with us.
I have already mentioned the importance of support services in the defence of the UK and, as someone who represents Rosyth dockyard, I am especially aware of the security problems that can arise, for example in respect of nuclear waste and decommissioned submarines. The House would be surprised if I let a defence debate take place without saying something about Rosyth, Crombie and HMS Caledonia. I pay tribute to the contribution that they have made to our recent operations. People will be aware that Rosyth did an outstanding job of refitting our aircraft carriers, Ark Royal, Illustrious and Invincible, which were engaged in those operations. Crombie provides ammunition and other important support for our ships.
I want to say something about the contribution of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the hon. Lady's time is up.
2.53 pm
Mr. Michael Portillo: First, it is a great pleasure to follow such a lucid and interesting speech from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire). Secondly, I must declare an interest, with both a defence contractor and the BBC, as that might be considered relevant.
As the debate is about defence in the UK, I should like to begin by considering the way in which the Ministry of Defence operates, which has come under unprecedented scrutiny in the Hutton inquiry. One point that may not have been considered is the basis on which people in the MOD work together. The Secretary of State and Ministers will know what an extraordinary privilege it is to work in the Ministry. In my experience, the degree of camaraderie is unusual. It is unique among Departments, partly because many key positions are filled by serving military officers who bring with them
516
their military ethos and because there is the constant prospect that everyone in the MOD will be involved in a war situation, so there must be complete mutual trust between all the people who work there. To an uncommon extent, therefore, it is important both that the Secretary of State should give loyalty to his officials and that he should have the right to receive loyalty from those officials.
As far as I am aware, the MOD has always operated on the basis of that mutual trust and I have no reason to believe that things are any different at present. That means that officials are given the opportunity to express their views on policy matters where they have expertise; there is a free exchange of opinion and dialogue. Provided that that situation still exists, everyone must also accept that the Secretary of State must eventually come to a decision. When he has made his decision, he expects that everyone in the Department will subscribe to it, given that they previously had the opportunity to make their point of view known.
Provided all that happened, if I were Secretary of State I should be extremely disappointed and even angry if I found that an official, who may have held a minority opinion, continued that debate outside the Department and took it to the press. No official has any business doing that. I should have been even more dismayed if that official had compounded that action by indulging in political gossip. On the one occasion when I was aware that that had happened to me, I demanded and received an apology from the official and the official's senior officer.
Furthermore, although I understand, not least because I work for the BBC from time to time, that journalists value the protection of their sources—indeed, that they regard it as a vital matter of principle—I do not accept that it is a vital matter of principle that Ministers should protect the identity of people who have taken outside a Department a debate that should have held within that Department. It might be gracious to protect that person's identity; it might be a kindness to do so; but I would not necessarily regard it as a requirement.
I mention such things not merely in the spirit of saying the unexpected but because I fear that some of these points might be missed when Hutton comes to an end. It is possible that the inquiry might end up by undermining rather than endorsing those mutual bonds of loyalty that are absolutely necessary for the operation of the MOD.
I shall move on to other topics that are mainly to do with terrorism. First, where is the front line in the defence of the UK? President Bush, obviously speaking not for the UK but of the west in general, has argued that the front line against terrorism is in Iraq and Afghanistan. I agree. The House has debated at great length whether Saddam Hussein presented a clear and present danger to the UK. I believe that he did. The Prime Minister has got himself into great difficulty because he tried to make the case in terms of weapons of mass destruction, and that was extremely hard to sustain.
Saddam Hussein was a clear and present danger to the UK after the development of a subtler case. Two years ago today, when we looked back from the perspective of the horror of 11 September 2001 over a decade of the

517
foreign policy of the United States and its allies, especially in respect of the growing threat of terrorism—there had been many incidents during that decade—we could see that our responses to those escalating terrorist incidents had been puny. Our responses to escalating terrorism had given the terrorists the impression that we were unwilling to defend our countries, our peoples and our values. In parallel, we looked back and saw that Saddam Hussein's defiance of the international order and our failure to respond to that defiance over a decade gave people who wished us ill the impression that we were puny—that we lacked willpower and were unwilling to defend our values.
What followed in Afghanistan and in Iraq was a demonstration of willpower and—I am not afraid to use the word—strength. It was to prove to those who wished us ill that we were willing to take effective action to defend ourselves against threats. Whether hon. Members agree or disagree with that, we now find ourselves in a position in which, paradoxically, because we are in occupation in Afghanistan and in Iraq, our forces, the United States forces and, for that matter, United Nations personnel offer themselves as an easier target to terrorists than targets on the home front. To some extent, that is welcome to the terrorist, who sees the possibility of engaging in a struggle of attrition with us in an attempt to make us weary both at the political level and at the level of public opinion. I want to emphasise that our response to that, if we are to be secure in the United Kingdom, must be one of absolute determination to see through the task.
In that respect, I have two criticisms. One is that I am dismayed to see the US Administration in a volte face, now calling urgently for other countries to get involved in Iraq. I do not disagree with other countries getting involved, but the US is in danger of sending a signal of lack of commitment when it makes that appeal, which represents a change in its policy. The other, as I have alluded to previously, is that it was disappointing that the Prime Minister, following the successful conclusion of the war in Iraq—as opposed to the campaign in Iraq,
which goes on—mocked those of his critics, who were mainly on his side of the House, who had predicted that Iraq might turn into his Vietnam. That was a bad example of prime ministerial hubris, because we simply cannot predict the future. We do not know how long we will be in Iraq—the terrorists will certainly want to make Iraq into our Vietnam, but we must ensure that it has a different result from Vietnam, which is that we are not driven out by a long war of attrition against us.
My third point is that we have had reviews of defence under the previous Government and under this Government, and the extent to which we end up with armed forces that are clearly too small is dismaying. The situation has moved on since this Government conducted their review—not only have we heard today how much our armed forces are needed on the home front, but we have moved into a situation in which forces of occupation, partly supplied by the United Kingdom, are becoming more and more common and almost routine. One region after another is requiring our forces to be in occupation. That seems to call for a substantial rethink. A point that Members might not expect to hear from me is that, of course, Governments are always tempted by new toys and new kit that are extremely expensive, and it is much less sexy to talk
518
about the need for larger armed forces. We have an aspiration to be alongside the Americans on the digital battlefield, but I ask myself whether our strength does not lie in our ability to provide security over broad areas of territory.
My next point is about the united front against terrorism. Any terrorist success anywhere in the world in my view impinges on the security of the United Kingdom. Any terrorist success means that the terrorist is encouraged to be more outrageous and more audacious in the future. Again, I have a couple of criticisms. One is that, as a country, we did not show nearly enough sympathy, in this united front against terrorism, with India. India had its 11 September on 11 December 2001, when its Parliament was attacked. Our Prime Minister went to India shortly after that, and his message to the Indians following this appalling outrage seemed to be that they should engage in reconciliation with their neighbours, which was not the message that we issued after 11 September, when we immediately marshalled our forces to invade Afghanistan and deal with the terrorist threat.
My second criticism is that the Government were extremely misguided to continue to engage in public dialogue with Yasser Arafat during the premiership of Abu Mazen. It is perfectly clear that Israel and the United States will not deal with Arafat and that they suspect him of complicity in terrorism, and it was extremely bad of the Government to undermine the effectiveness of what was going on. We bear responsibility for the demise of Abu Mazen, and we may bear responsibility for the state in which the road map now finds itself. If that is any indication of the future shape of a common security policy in Europe, I would be very sorry.
Lastly, I entirely agree with what the right hon. Member for Walsall. South (Mr. George) said about the importance of having the engagement and the confidence of the public in dealing with terrorism in the United Kingdom. If we misuse the legislation that Parliament has put forward for dealing with terrorism, we will undermine that confidence. In my view, the use of section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to deal with demonstrators against the exhibition in east London was an abuse of that Act.
3.5 pm
Mr. Doug Henderson: I want to begin by paying tribute to the work, the commitment, the loyalty and the professionalism of our armed forces, whether they are based in this country or overseas. Those forces put their lives on the line for us, and they serve wherever they are asked to serve for us, which is why it is vital for this Parliament, let alone the Government, to let it be known what our views on world policies are and why we are asking them to undertake certain tasks. That is crucial, which is why I welcome today's debate.
This debate raises the issue of how we defend ourselves—do we do so in our own shores, or over the fields of Kent, as was mentioned earlier, or do we need to defend ourselves in a different way? Do we need to examine where the potential threats are around the world and take action against them? All of us recognise that we cannot defend ourselves in the traditional way

519
that we thought about in 1939. We must now look much more to international links and to taking action against any potential threat wherever we see it in the world. We must explain that better to the British people because, after recent events, there is less clarity in their minds about how we defend ourselves, which will have serious implications in the longer term for the formulation of our defence policy, what is politically acceptable and what can be resourced. We must therefore make the case more firmly than we have done.
The British people understood why we went to war in 1939 and why we had to go to the Falklands in 1982, and they understood a more difficult argument about humanitarianism and preventing unnecessary migration and instability throughout Europe in relation to the Kosovo campaign. The British people understood why there was a need to do something about Afghanistan. I did not support the way in which we tackled that issue, and I thought that there should have been much more concentration on smaller specialised forces combating terrorism, terrorist cells and terrorist resources in a much more specific way. The British people understood, however, that that was what the Government were setting out to do, which was why Parliament supported them. The test of time will demonstrate who was right: whether it was the Government or those who, like me, were saying that it was not straightforward and asking how we would deal with the warlords, the Taliban and their influence on terrorism in the medium term. Those issues are unresolved, but at least the British people understood why we had to go to Afghanistan.
The pillars of justification for going to Iraq, however, are gradually being removed one by one. We were told that the argument was that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that could cause great threat to our friends and to ourselves. As someone who was opposed to the war, six weeks after it began I was prepared to say that we should not assess whether there were weapons of mass destruction for perhaps nine or 12 months because it would take that time to try to identify them in a country of the size of Iraq. I had to change my original thinking when Donald Rumsfeld, the American Secretary of Defence, said in his press conference last March or April—that is where Hutton and everything else stems from—that he did not expect to find weapons of mass destruction. One could believe that that was a code for saying that there were no weapons of mass destruction that America could identify.
It is interesting to read today's report by the Intelligence and Security Committee. Paragraph G on page 41 says:
"The JIC did not know precisely which munitions could be deployed from where to where and the context of the intelligence was not included in the JIC Assessment."
If that is accurate, it means that the British Government said, "We are going to war because of weapons of mass destruction but we do not know what the weapons are, where they are or where they will be offensive." They said that they were not publicly prepared to give the context of the information—in other words, the security and intelligence information that led them to believe that that was the case.
520
The only way in which the Government can put paid to all that is to tell us the answer. I do not understand why there would be security problems now if they told us the evidence that led them to take action, although there would have been problems if they had told us nine months ago. The Government would be extremely wise to make that evidence known now because I rather suspect that the American congressional committees, spurred on by the contenders for the Democrat nomination, will force along the pace of inquiring why the Americans went to war. The American public are becoming more wary of the reasons why they went to war. It is now less acceptable to say in America, "We went because we wanted to get rid of the guy." That might have played well in Manitoba and Idaho some months ago, but it is playing less well every day in the United States. The congressional committees will tackle the motives of the Defence Secretary and his assistant, Mr. Wolfowitz, and examine the information that they had, and what happens there will have serious implications here. It is understandable for the Americans not to share intelligence with the British, but it is not credible for the British to say that they did not share intelligence with Americans on a joint operation. If the Americans say that they went to war to get rid of the guy rather than because of weapons of mass destruction, serious questions will be raised about our background.
The right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) made a thoughtful contribution in which he said that he was not convinced by the question of weapons of mass destruction—I am paraphrasing him—but that he was worried about the general threat from Saddam. I do not agree with that and neither do many military commanders, including Field Marshall Bramwell. Of course, I did not have full information, but they did not believe that Saddam was a threat in the way we made out. They knew that he knew that the Americans had such overwhelming force in south-east Turkey, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia that if he did anything stupid and aggressive, internally or externally, Baghdad, Saddam and his security people would be wiped out almost immediately, even if there was a civilian cost. That is why I do not believe that he was such a threat at the time.
Of course, the military commanders also raised the important question of what would happen afterwards with regard to combating terrorism internationally. Were we dampening or fuelling terrorism by being in Iraq? Many who were in favour of the war against Iraq said that it was the way to counter terrorism. However, many commanders in the British armed forces believed the opposite to be the case. They believed that the war would fuel terrorism and that we must be careful about the motives that we gave to every unemployed and poor young Muslim throughout the world.
Mr. Portillo: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this goes to the heart of the problem'? Following 11 September, a demonstration of strength and achieving regime change were sufficient reasons for the United States to go into Iraq. However, it was necessary for the British Government to speak in a different language and prove a different threat that would commend itself to the United Nations. That is why our Prime Minister has got

521
into difficulty about the grounds on which he based the war, although that difficulty does not apply to the President of the United States.
Mr. Henderson: The House will judge the British Prime Minister's position, but I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about what was acceptable in the United States and Britain. That was politically different at the time when we became involved in decision making. It is important to get that right now.
There are other points that I would like to make although I am running out of time. If we cannot convey to the British people why we went into Iraq, will they support us next time, when that really matters? I am, and have always been, a strong supporter of NATO. What happens to NATO after all this and how does it pick up the pieces?
To achieve something positive we must get the United Nations into Iraq—I know that there was a debate on that yesterday. There must be a command structure that is acceptable to the French, Germans, Chinese and Russians so that a truly international force can be present to bring back stability and help to reconstruct the nation.
3.17 pm
Derek Conway: Hon. Members who have been in the Chamber throughout the debate will share my conclusion that it has been broad ranging and stimulating. The Secretary of State's opening statement—we thought that it was a speech to open the debate but it was half a parliamentary statement—took some of us a little by surprise, but it was dignified. I am one of those who believe that the Secretary of State is an able man but most people who have watched the past few days' performances get the impression that he is sadly a dead man walking. His political fate will ultimately be curtailed as he is made the Prime Minister's fall guy, although he deserves better. I say that after witnessing half a dozen Tory Ministers being driven from office over a protracted time during my years in government—it is not a pretty sight. The fact that not one member of the Cabinet sat alongside the Secretary of State for Defence on Monday or today demonstrates what is going on.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), the shadow Secretary of State, covered the scene broadly and with his usual competent manner. He set the scene for the wider concerns about the way in which the armed forces are currently supported that are felt by hon. Members and, clearly, by the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), who made a distinguished contribution. I am disappointed by one thing this afternoon. Although I usually favour time-limited speeches—especially my own I would have appreciated more time for the former Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo). He made an extremely thoughtful contribution of which the House would have preferred to hear more.
I shall concentrate especially on the problem of overstretch to which several hon. Members referred. The Royal Navy is 1,040 people under strength, the RAF is 860 people under strength and the Army is 4,230
522
people under strength. Some of us think it incredible that full manning for the Army is not forecast to happen until 2008, although few people believe that the target will be hit.
There is no doubt that training and leave are having a considerable effect on morale. The Secretary of State announced on Monday—sadly, by way of a written statement—that a further 1,200 troops would be committed to the Iraqi force. That has an impact on arrangements for training and leave for the rest of the armed forces, both of which affect the morale with which they have to cope. Although there have been many industrial relations changes for the civilian population, our armed forces are increasingly put upon, under both Conservative and Labour Governments, and that may affect recruitment.
Of equal concern is the fact that the percentage of untrained personnel is growing relentlessly. The Minister must be greatly worried that more than 11 per cent. of the armed forces are not trained for role. That is not because the armed forces do not have the ability to train those people or because those waiting for training are too incompetent to get it; it is simply one of the consequences of overstretch. Several of my colleagues referred to the level of manning. Those who took part in Defence questions on Monday heard hon. Members, including Labour Members, express concern about the rumours over the summer on the future of some our more historical regiments.
When it comes to conflict, senior politicians without experience of the armed forces and the media inevitably consider whether the Special Air Service will be deployed or where the Royal Marines and the Parachute Regiment are going. They concentrate on the high-profile activists. The truth is that the line regiments are the workhorses of the British Army. Some of them are experiencing great difficulty in recruiting, partly because of the uncertainty about their future. Those of us who support the regimental structure in the Army understand the importance that county links bring to recruitment and retention. It is not an ancient system that is carrying on in a mad, obscure, conservative way; rather, the arrangement is important for recruitment and the cohesion of a regiment. Anyone who has witnessed that will bear testimony to it.
The reservists have been reduced from 293,000 in 2000 to 254,000 this year. Yet that reduction of 40,000 comes at a time when more and more reservists and Territorial Army personnel are being committed to active theatres. I understand that more than 3,000 reservists are involved in Iraq. Reservists, in particular the Territorial Army, are becoming fewer in number, yet the demands being made on them are growing all the time. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea explained, we need to address the problem of numbers. Although Committees and debates in House will inevitably focus on the bigger strategic issues—the sexy side of armaments perhaps—when it comes to controlling an area, we need men and women on the ground. The fact that 1,000 more reservists are being called up by Christmas shows that those who serve the Secretary of State for Defence and those Ministers who make the policy are not addressing manpower issues properly.

523
Territorial Army regiments are being amalgamated into quasi-European regional regiments, like the Tyne Tees regiment of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), which combines my regiment, the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, and the West Midlands Regiment, which combines several former regiments and battalions. Although they keep the historical badge at company level, the arrangement does not work on a regional basis. They expect and need the ancient county identity to keep the ethos that has been so important to our regiments. The time will soon come when the Government, with the support of my party, accept that they have to expand the numbers.
I want to pay tribute to the adult trainers who help our combined cadet force, in particular the Army Cadets, the Navy Cadets, the Air Training Corps and those who run school corps. Some people think that young people should not wear military uniforms or be involved in military training. Even some hon. Members campaign for such schemes to be wound up and abandoned. That is entirely misconceived. Anyone who has the slightest connection with those units knows what a good experience exposure to a form of military training can be for young people. It teaches them a degree of self-discipline and the inter-reliance that comes from military training. I suspect that our young people today are no better or worse than their grandparents who were required to fight in such serious wars. The quality is still there, but the opportunity for training is diminishing by the week. However, the House should pay tribute to those who give up their time as adult trainers to ensure that those who want to experience the armed forces can do so.
We are lucky that even at a time when so many people are losing their lives on our behalf, people are still prepared to enlist in our regular forces. They are undoubtedly very special people. The training that the regimental system in particular provides makes them other than just special; it makes them superb. That does not happen by accident. It behoves the House and the major parties to support the expansion of the number of people in the armed forces and the resources that we need to commit to them so that they can do their job.
3.25 pm
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: As the Defence Secretary said, defence in the UK is interlinked with our international situation. As other hon. Members have said, it is appropriate that the debate is being held on the anniversary of 11 September. I identify myself with the sympathies extended to all those who are grieving at this time. It is appropriate for us to consider the perspective since 11 September.
Britain rightly said after 11 September that we were standing shoulder to shoulder with the United States. We believed that the attack was not just on the United States, but on civilisation itself. Although I believe that taking part in the war on terror was correct, we should also recognise the price that could be paid by increasing the risk of terrorism against the UK. Whether we believe that the war on Iraq was right or wrong, we should recognise that it has also probably increased the risk of terrorism against British citizens.
524
Immediately after the start of the war, influential people in the Bush Administration started arguing for further pre-emptive wars. Again, we should be under no illusions that if the United States engages in more military adventures, that will increase fear and hatred of it. From a time when the world was so closely behind the United States after 11 September, it is disturbing to see the extent to which the Pew survey and other surveys of international opinion have shown a sharp increase in hostility to the United States. There should be no doubt on our part that if the UK were to support further military adventures, that would massively increase the risks of terrorism against our people, whether from Islamic or other groups, whether from abroad or possibly even indigenous sources. The blood price of that military special relationship would be paid not just by our armed forces, but by our civilians at home or abroad. One thinks of the example of Bali, which was clearly an attack on Australian citizens.
I believed that over and above the work of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the report from the Intelligence and Security Committee and the work of Lord Hutton, it was in the national interest to have a wider independent inquiry. One reason is that it is important that we should analyse the basis on which we went to war to ascertain whether or not that should set precedents for the future. Should a pre-emptive war on the basis of intelligence, which in terms of the ISC report can be uncertain, or as Paul Wolfowitz said can be murky, set a precedent for the future, or should we decide that we should be far more cautious in future?
Since the war there has tended to be a change of emphasis. In Britain there has been an emphasis on human rights aspects. I give the highest credit to my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) for the work that she has done over the years in emphasising the appalling atrocities of the Saddam regime over the decades.
War is a terribly dangerous precedent and we did not get the agreement of the international community, which was the way in which we should have been dealing with the matter. I fear that human rights was not the priority of the United States, and that there was far too much arbitrariness. We must work primarily to build up the International Criminal Court and in strengthening diplomatic and other pressures, with war being regarded only as a last resort, if we are to preserve a stable world under the rule of law.
I find the US neo-conservative concept of America as a self-appointed sheriff with a posse of the willing frighteningly near the idea of vigilantism and lynch law. To me that leads not only to arbitrariness but, as Nelson Mandela said, to the potential for international anarchy.
It is appropriate on 11 September for us to ask whether we are winning or losing the war on terror. I am glad that we have the report of the Oxford research group by Professor Paul Rogers, which was launched at the all-party parliamentary group on global security in this place last Tuesday. I shall briefly summarise some of his conclusions. First, while we have had significant successes militarily and in stopping the economic power of some of the terrorist organisations, and in thwarting some attempted attacks by means of intelligence, there have been significant failures such as Bali, Casablanca, Riyadh, Karachi and elsewhere, mostly in Asia and

525
Africa. Professor Rogers estimates that al-Qaeda or al-Qaeda-linked groups have probably killed about 350 people and injured perhaps 1,000. He points out that during the two years since 11 September they have achieved more than they were achieving in, say, the two years before it.
Professor Rogers says that in Afghanistan, where we achieved military victory, we must recognise that it is only an area around Kabul that is under control. The area outside that is dangerously out of control. While the positive support that was being given by the Taliban to al-Qaeda is no longer there, it still creates a sort of anarchy where there are grave risks that terrorist groups can still thrive.
Professor Rogers says that there is a grave danger that the troops in Iraq may be a magnet for terrorism and that contrary to what President Bush said—that this is the centre of the war against terrorism—it may be a focus for terror and terrorists.
I shall add two personal observations. It is undeniable that Iraq has fractured the unity of the international coalition against terrorism. Perhaps more controversially, I believe that it has been a distraction from the campaign against terrorism. On the basis that stability at home is based on stability abroad, I shall summarise Professor Rogers's recommendations. He suggested that the UK and the international community should put far more effort into aiding and providing stability in Afghanistan. Secondly, he suggested that we should persuade our US allies to give far more control of the situation in Iraq to the UN. Thirdly, on the basis that we need to be tough on terrorism and tough on the causes of terrorism, we need to do much more about the global economic divide. We need to try to improve our efforts to introduce development to the poorest countries. In a sense, the Department for International Development has a role along with the Ministry of Defence in increasing the security of the United Kingdom. I pay tribute to the work that I believe the Government have done in taking a lead in some of these areas. All three of Professor Rogers's recommendations deserve serious consideration.
It has been suggested—I think correctly—that a particular threat on which we should concentrate is the risk of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction coming together. There is a real danger, obviously, of al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups that might be described as being of an unconditional, apocalyptic or absolutist nature seeing some value in killing vast numbers of people. In that context, I am concerned having read paragraphs 125 to 128 of the ISC report. That passage indicates that the JIC made the same judgment as the CIA—namely, that there was not a large probability of Iraq transferring WMD to terrorist organisations, but that such a risk would exist in the event of invasion. Personally, I always suspected that the US, the United Kingdom and Australia had overestimated Iraq's WMD capacity. I now think it possible, given present evidence, that its WMD capacity was either wholly or substantially destroyed, perhaps long before the war started. If the coalition Governments seriously believe that there are large
526
stocks of WMD in Iraq, they are being grossly negligent in not seeking to ensure that such material could not fall into terrorist hands or on to the black market.
We should never forget that weapons of mass destruction give rise to more threats than terrorism alone. India and Pakistan have reminded us of the appalling threat of regional nuclear war, and we should never forget that if there were ever to be wider-scale international conflict or world war involving weapons of mass destruction, we would face a human catastrophe of unthinkable proportions. That is why it is crucial that we hold to the concept that war must be a last resort; and why the United Nations, for all its weaknesses, is our only hope of survival and must be strengthened and supported. It is why it is vital that the emphasis should be on non-proliferation and on international treaties and arms control agreements, not on the concept that is usually described as counter-proliferation—that is, pre-emptive war, military interdiction and so on. I am not suggesting that the two concepts are mutually exclusive, but non-proliferation must remain the absolute priority.
I am concerned that in UK Government circles counter-proliferation is being mentioned more often. I hope that that does not indicate a gradual change in policy comparable to the shift that I fear is taking place towards missile defence, which is part of the agenda of thinking that one can resolve problems primarily by military power and military technology. It is vital that we continue to believe in the importance of multilateral diplomacy as the basis of our human security. The influential neo-cons in the Bush Administration have been demanding further pre-emptive wars, although they have become slightly less vocal as problems in Iraq have increased. Given their relentless determination in pursuing their obsessions—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his time allocation.
3.37 pm
Mr. Peter Viggers: In his opening speech, the Secretary of State made it clear that departmental responsibility for defence in the United Kingdom rests with the Home Office. I therefore very much regret that no Home Office Minister has visited the Chamber during the debate, especially as contributions have been thoughtful and in some cases authoritative. It would have been right for the Home Office to be represented.
Against what or whom are we defending ourselves? It is no longer the Soviet Union or the Warsaw pact. I have seen the Warsaw pact tanks in Russia and elsewhere—they are going nowhere. Russia and the other former members of the Soviet Union are under-resourced and pose no threat to us. The only threat lies in their stocks of nuclear weapons. I am delighted that the United States, in particular, has been taking action with the Russians to eliminate those stocks. I also observe that the United Kingdom has been active in supporting the Russian armed forces in demobilising their over-large units. There is a great deal of co-operation between Russia and the NATO countries, especially between Russia and the United States and the United Kingdom—that is extremely impressive.

527
In shaping up to defence in the United Kingdom, our major alliance is NATO. The political, parliamentary underpinning of NATO is provided by the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, some of whose members are colleagues who sit in the House of Commons.
The Assembly has five committees. The Political Committee, which is the senior committee, has been dealing with the expansion of NATO, relations with Russia and Ukraine and transatlantic relations. I am proud to chair that committee. The second committee is the Defence and Security Committee, which deals with military strategy and procurement. The third is the Economic Committee, which covers economic co-operation and issues such as money laundering—especially relevant now because of terrorism. The fourth is the Science and Technology Committee, which deals, for example, with weapons of mass destruction, and specialist issues such as small arms and the threat that they pose around the world. The fifth is the Civilian Affairs Committee, which has recently been dealing with the exclave of Kaliningrad from Russia and reconstruction in Afghanistan and Iraq. There are ad hoc groups dealing with Russian relations, Ukrainian relations and Mediterranean relations.
My only regret about the NATO Parliamentary Assembly is that its work is not well known. Its debates and reports are seriously authoritative. Four former Prime Ministers, numerous Foreign Ministers, Defence Ministers and ambassadors sit on the Political Committee. I am sorry that that work is not better known and I hope to do more to promote awareness of the Assembly and the reading of its reports and debates.
We must consider the future of NATO. It was created to make sure that the United States, which came late into the first and second world wars, would be totally committed to Europe. The United States currently spends approximately twice as much as the rest of NATO put together on defence, but its military capacity is around 10 times more effective than that of the rest of the NATO forces put together. That massive power is in the hands of an insular country, where only 7 per cent. of the population have passports. Indeed, many Senators and Congressmen boast of having no passport because they do not feel the need or the wish to travel overseas and see any part of the world other than United States. That insularity means that it is crucial to stay close to the United States.
I worry about European Union defence planning. Yesterday, I was at a meeting of the European Parliament with Javier Solana, the high representative of the European Union. He stressed that the EU has and must have autonomous powers. Yes, provided that European powers are focused within NATO. However, the fact that four NATO nations wish to set up a planning cell or unit outside supreme headquarters allied powers Europe is symbolic of the divorce between NATO and the European Union. It shows the drift away from NATO of some EU members. Despite their friendly language, we must remember that some continental NATO members believe that perhaps it has run its course, that the European Union needs to flex its muscles now and that we can say goodbye to NATO. For the reasons that I outlined, that would be an enormous mistake.
528
We are considering defence against what? The answer is "the unexpected." How does one prepare against the unexpected? It is rather like the conundrum, "How do hedgehogs make love?" The answer should be the same—"very carefully." How careful are our preparations for the unexpected? I examined American preparations and discovered that America has a homeland security advisory system, by which it sets great store. It determines the security risk, from low, categorised as green, through guarded, categorised as blue, elevated, categorised as yellow, high, designated orange, to severe, which is red. Those security states are widely advertised throughout the United States and all citizens are encouraged to learn what the states mean and what they should do. The lowest states involves:
"Ensuring personnel receive proper training on the Homeland Security Advisory System and specific preplanned department or agency Protective Measures".
In this country, we have advisory notices, which are published in Ministry of Defence and Government establishments. I know from my time in the services and as a Minister that there are different systems in the civilian part of government and the military part.
I thought that it would be a good idea for us to have a homeland security warning system comparable to that of the United States, so I telephoned the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office to ask whether they could please let me have the official guidance on security alert systems. I can scarcely believe their response. I was told that the information was classified and that I could not be given it. Indeed, I was told in a rather sheepish way, "We do not want to alarm people unnecessarily." That was the reason given for not publicising the systems. So we have not even started. I urge Ministers to look again at the public advisory systems relating to security.
I suspect that the unexpected will happen, and we should plan accordingly. The section of the strategic defence review called "A New Chapter" looks at asymmetrical threats, and a well-considered section entitled "Network-centric capability" urges that we should have precision in intelligence command and control, and strike capability. I agree that our forces should be trained and equipped to a high level of technology and efficiency, because the unexpected will occur.
High technology brings its own problems. The Secretary of State pointed out quite correctly that, if an aircraft hits a power station, it does not matter whether it is a result of terrorist action or not; the response must be the same, and it must involve a considerable amount of structured, organised planning. Nowadays, however, the higher level of technology has brought its own problems. Air traffic control is so sophisticated that if one aircraft is delayed, it will delay others and cause congestion. If we lose our electricity supply, we lose traffic lights, water pumps, air conditioning, refrigeration, lifts, computers and trains. Aircraft and cars have become more reliable, but that means that road planning has now become so clever that it takes only a minor irritation on a road to cause massive congestion. Instead of having 1,000 snarl-ups from 1,000 broken-down cars, we are now more likely to have one great big snarl-up involving 1,000 efficient cars.

529
I welcome the introduction of reaction forces in the "New Chapter", and the 6,000 to 7,000 structured, trained and disciplined reserves, but I would urge that we go further in encouraging our reserves. The Labour Government cut the Territorial Army from 59,000 to 41,200. With the number of regulars pushing 100,000, that gives a ratio of about four reserves to 10 regulars. In the United States, the numbers of regulars and reservists are roughly equal. In Australia, there are two and a half regular brigades and five and a half reserve brigades. In France, there are roughly the same number of reservists as regulars, and Germany, Russia and China all have the capacity to expand their forces with reserves.
In preparing for the unexpected, we therefore need access to trained personnel who need not necessarily be regulars. I would urge that we should have the scope to have among our reserves specialists in linguistics, computers and signals, as well as engineers and, in particular, specialists in chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear defence. Those are all areas in which it would be helpful to have larger forces, and they could well be provided by reserve forces. The reaction forces will be a good start, but there is much more that the reserves should be tasked to do, and I hope that future Government policy will take account of that.
3.48 pm
Mr. John Smith: It is a privilege to be able to make a small contribution to today's debate, which has been extremely interesting. It was my intention to raise three issues that had not already been covered, but that was before the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) spoke. At least two of the issues that I shall raise will be new ones, however.
I would like to make one or two general points first. There was a lot of talk earlier in the debate about the competence and leadership of the Ministry of Defence. Unlike any other public service provided by this or any other Government—be it health, education or whatever—the military service provided to this country is unique. There can be no doubt or dispute about the delivery of this service: it will be either a success or a failure.
Under their present leadership, and with their current Secretary of State and his predecessor, the Government have established an outstanding record when it comes to the performance of the British military—especially given the insecure environment throughout the world, in Sierra Leone, East Timor, Afghanistan, the Balkans and, currently, Iraq. I pay tribute to the tremendous, magnificent operation carried out by British troops in the war in Iraq, in extremely adverse circumstances. I believe that there was a clear case for military action. Today is the second anniversary of 11 September 2001. Since that fateful day, the security environment in the world has changed, and as a result the security threat to this country—UK plc—has changed as well.
During the cold war, our enemy was obvious. The security threats to this country were obvious, and pretty predictable. They were not very far away, they were all lined up, and we knew where they were coming from. That was followed by a period of dreadful uncertainty and unpredictability—a decade during which we were not sure what we were going to do. Conservative
530
Governments' policies reflected that: their disastrous defence cuts had left massive capability gaps by 1997. It has been difficult for us. The strategic defence review has not delivered all that is necessary, but we have recognised the changed security environment and produced military forces that are mobile, agile, flexible and able to respond to unexpected threats in hotspots throughout the world.
Since 11 September, that challenge has been magnified 100 times. A threshold was crossed then: we are now experiencing a different type of threat. There are people on this planet who are prepared to kill hundreds and thousands of innocent people without warning, on the basis of no direct complaint, conflict or state of war. We have never experienced that before.
We all mourn the deaths of the 3,000 people who died on 11 September, but we should bear in mind that 50,000 people were targeted. It was a miracle that only 3,000 died. The scale of what happened is not always appreciated. That is why the Americans have reacted differently from us to a threat to homeland security. That is why they have set up a homeland security bureau; they have done it as much to reassure their public, who have gone through a horrendous experience, as to protect their country from threats. Our approach has been to strengthen our homeland defence through the ministry of the interior—the Home Office—and the Ministry of Defence, and I think it has proved better and more effective. We have not needed to reassure our public in the same way. The initiatives we have adopted as and when necessary have proved extremely effective, especially at Heathrow airport, although there is a lot more to be done.
We must not confuse crisis management, or consequence management—something that we have to address—with homeland security. The biggest threat to us now lies outside, and it is our nation's ability to respond outside that will keep our people secure. That is why we should congratulate the men and women who went out to Iraq and performed so superbly to meet a real threat that was posed by that country because of the changed environment.
We took military action against Iraq because it was in breach of resolution 1441. That may not have mattered so much before 11 September, but it made all the difference in the world afterwards—whether or not Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, which I happen to think it has. We went into Iraq without a second front, and we managed to defeat it in 21 days. British troops played a fantastic role in that operation: 45,000 troops of the British battle group were deployed in half the time it took to deploy troops in the first Gulf war.
Tremendous advances were made. Saddam Hussein watched the British and NATO forces in Kosovo and thought, "I know—it'll be a long air bombardment, followed by a land attack." He waited for that and buried his heavy armour, including his fast jets; we are still looking for it. People complain that we have yet to find some of these WMD canisters, but we have been in what is a very hostile environment for only a few months. I am afraid that that view reflects a naïve understanding of the technology of military concealment.
Our troops did a tremendous job. My overriding memory is of welcoming Welsh troops back from Iraq with a celebration held for them at Dow Corning social

531
club in my constituency. Some of these brave young men had just come back from the front line. One or two went up to buy a drink, and the girls behind the bar turned to me and said, "Mr. Smith, are they old enough to drink?" I said, "These men have just come back from fighting for our homeland security!"
I want to raise a couple of issues that are particularly relevant to today's debate, and which were partially covered by the hon. Member for Gosport: the role of NATO, and the need to defend the British homeland through coalitions and military alliances. We are talking about one of the most successful military alliances in history, certainly in post-war history. I agree with the Government's current policy of supporting the European security and defence policy, which should enhance our European allies' military capabilities and ability to project power. I also support the European rapid reaction force, but the committee concerned with the military capability of NATO members tells us how right we, and one or two others, have got it. It would be a big mistake to dilute this advantage, and our reputation in the world and among our coalition partners, by ceding control over our national defence in any way. I know that it is not Government policy to do so, but for military reasons and for the defence of this country, let us make sure that we do not. Let us ensure that the deployment of British troops will always be a British decision, not a European one.
On recruitment, retention and overstretch, the recruitment of ethnic minorities has been a Government success story since 1997. This Government have achieved a fivefold increase in the number of ethnic minority recruits to the British forces. The current figure is approximately 5 per cent., which is a tremendous achievement in a very short time. However, it is not enough: the figure should be at least double that. We should look to our American allies, who have adopted a much more progressive policy on the recruitment of ethnic minorities, which has assisted them in their entire recruitment and retention policy. They recruit three times the proportion of ethnic minorities reflected in their communities, yet we recruit not even half the proportion reflected in ours. We should address that issue.
General Colin Powell was born in virtual poverty in the Bronx. He rose through the ranks to become the United States military's Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff. That could not happen in this country. It is a tragedy that no black recruit from the east end of London, Tiger Bay or Toxteth who joins our forces now could ever expect to become the Chief of the Defence Staff in Britain in 25 years. Discrimination still exists in recruiting from ethnic minorities and we have to deal with that problem.
Finally, I want to speak about end-to-end logistics. We have to consider the recommendations presented by McKinsey and Co. We have to streamline our logistics. We have to reduce the lines of logistical support from four to two. I agree with saving as much money as possible by not duplicating, but not with a U-turn on Government policy. Deep repair and maintenance and depth air support should not be pushed away from the centres of excellence out to military operational bases. Otherwise, we will go right back to the bad old days
532
when we did not know how much things cost, and the military ran rings round us when they wanted extra resources. At that time we did not get the efficiency and, most importantly, we did not free our military personnel to do what they do best.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
4.1 pm
Mr. Mike Hancock: In common with other hon. Members, I would like to associate myself with sending thoughts out to the families of the victims of 11 September. We should also be mindful of others who have either died or been seriously injured in the various attacks since that date. I also associate myself with the thoughtful contribution of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge). He spoke for many people both in the House and in the country when expressing his reservations about why we went to war and what has happened subsequently.
At the start of the debate, the Secretary of State made it clear that he was going to present a mini-statement. He invited interventions and said that he would take them, but when they came, he chose to cut them short when it suited him. I was disappointed that I did not get in because I wanted to ask him two questions. I am also disappointed that he is not in his place to answer them now. Perhaps he will give at least some thought to them.
Page 44 of the Intelligence and Security Committee report, published today, contains a telling paragraph. It refers to
"the initial failure by the MoD to disclose that some staff had put their concerns in writing to line managers",
which the Committee describes as "unhelpful and potentially misleading". Having exposed that problem, the report continues by saying that
"the Defence Secretary decided against giving instructions for a letter to be written to us outlining those concerns."
Despite the fact that the Defence Secretary knew about the "potentially misleading" failure to disclose, he still chose not to write to the Intelligence and Security Committee. It is important to ask why he took that line.
I also wanted to ask the Secretary of State whether he shared the thoughts of his permanent secretary who, giving evidence to the judicial inquiry into the death of Dr. Kelly, said that the Ministry of Defence "leaked like a sieve". Does the Defence Secretary agree and feel that the Ministry—and thereby Parliament and the country— has been let down by the security services in respect of how the dossier was put together and how the evidence was collated? If the permanent secretary suggests that he leads a Department that "leaks like a sieve" and if the Secretary of State is not prepared, when something is drawn to his attention, to write to the governing body of the security services in this country, one wonders who is letting the nation down the most—the security services or the actions of the Secretary of State in running the Department.
I was fascinated by the comments of many hon. Members about Iraq and how the situation has developed. Should we really be surprised by our current position? It was such a short battle to win the victory against the regime in Iraq, but it is sad that winning the peace will be such a long one. The Americans told their

533
congressional committees that it took more than 500 people working for six months to produce the peace plan for Iraq, but they failed to grasp some of the key issues that were fundamental to making the peace work.
During the original debate on the decision to go to war, the former leader of the Conservative party said that he had recently returned from a visit to some of Iraq's neighbouring states and that he was convinced that they would rush to help support the peace in Iraq once the fighting was over. He said that they were convinced that getting rid of Saddam's regime would lead to greater stability and peace in the region. Yet those same countries are now allowing terrorists to haemorrhage across the borders into Iraq to attack our soldiers and the coalition forces generally and to disrupt the rebuilding of Iraq.
I want to devote some time to the issue of homeland defence. As a member of the Defence Committee, I am convinced that we got it right in our proposal that homeland defence needed to be co-ordinated by a Cabinet Minister with direct responsibility for the matter above all other Departments and Ministers. The paramount failure, in our estimation, was in communications and leadership in terms of the co-ordination of contingency planning in this country. It does not matter whether it was at a Government or local government level, or within the health service, the civil service or the police, fire and ambulance services; there was a lack of overall leadership and co-ordination. That process can be managed only if there is one Minister sitting in Cabinet who has enough clout and resources to have a positive influence.
I was saddened by the Government's response and the neglectful way in which they disregarded the Defence Committee's useful and constructive work on civil contingency planning. It was obvious to any member of that Committee during our many evidence sessions that also lacking was the capacity for the Government to resource not just the capital's civil contingency developments, but those developments across the country. In the Government's response to our report on "A New Chapter", they said that they did not recognise the lack of resources, which, from our evidence sessions, was obvious. Nearly every person who gave evidence—either from the police, local government or wherever—made the point that they had no resources to do the job properly. They could not even fund a communication system that allowed them to speak to each other. The mobile phone was still the preferred means of communication for many of those services. That is simply not good enough. The Government should not be allowed to walk away from the commitment to provide properly funded civil contingency systems.
Hon. Members who take the time to read the Government's response will be struck by the mind-boggling complacency. Despite efforts from Members in all parts in this House to try to bring home to the Government the need to resource civil defence and contingency planning, no effort has been made to recognise that.
The Secretary of State failed once again to take an intervention about the CCRFs, the contingency reservists. The Committee said that if this were to be a meaningful body, three ingredients were critical; first, that people were properly trained and had properly honed skills; secondly, that they should be available in a
534
fairly short time; and thirdly, that they should be properly resourced to enable them to respond to a situation. Once again, the Government's response was complacent. They said that the intention was always to provide a "general duties" response, so the requirement for specialist skills would be minimised. All the evidence demanded the opposite, yet that was the Government's response. They did not really want such skills to be available in that critical area, yet again displaying mind-boggling complacency.
In an earlier intervention, the issue of the protection of our sea-ports was raised with the Secretary of State. I represent the home of the Royal Navy—Portsmouth—which is close to one of our major ports, Southampton, so security at sea-ports has been a critical issue for me and my constituents for a long time. It has been proposed that we should have a police force to patrol our sea-ports properly. That is a much needed service, because in my own city the continental ferry port has no proper police protection. Indeed, the port has no regular customs service, despite being the second busiest port for passengers and dealing with millions of people every year. I received a letter just this morning about the security fence around the port and how many times it is breached.
We do not take seriously enough the threat to our maritime trade and the protection of our ports. I have seen how easy it is to get close to British naval ships in Portsmouth harbour. I am glad to say that the Navy has improved surveillance of its ships in port, and I am delighted that more resources have been made available for that purpose. However, is it right that our major container ports are not policed either by the military or a sea-borne unit of the regular police force? In some instances, such as Southampton, such work is even in the hands of private operators. The Government have been neglectful of their obligation to protect our seaports.
I was privileged to attend the evidence session at which we were told how easy it would be for terrorists to cause a problem in a maritime environment. I shall not divulge what was disclosed to us about the difficulties of trying to track such terrorists down or how cheap are the craft that could inflict considerable damage on a supertanker, a large container ship or—more importantly—a ship with a nuclear capacity. It would be easy to get close enough to cause enough damage to have horrendous consequences, so we must take all those points seriously.
I hope that one of the lessons that we have learned from 11 September is that we will not know where the next terrorist attack will come from, and we will not be allowed to excuse ourselves just because we cannot cover every eventuality. We know that several threats exist, but we are not properly resourcing our capacity to deal with them, and we never will.
4.13 pm
Mark Tami: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate, and I wish to address two key issues that affect future defence capabilities in this country. First, I wish to I associate myself with the comments of other right hon. and hon. Members about the tragic events of 11 September 2001,

535
which have made us all reassess how we approach the defence of this country, what we understand terrorism to be and how we can protect our people from it.
The recent conflict in Iraq has once again shown the need for Britain to have mobile and flexible armed forces to meet the needs of the ever changing international situation. That flexibility is needed not only on the ground, at sea and in the air, at the scene of conflict and for peacekeeping activities, but in this country, to ensure that our armed forces receive the necessary back-up and support. That is vital. Without that support, our forces, however well equipped, cannot operate effectively at the front line.
The Defence Aviation Repair Agency at RAF Sealand fulfils just such a vital role. Sealand is the agency's centre of excellence for all electronic and avionic work, employing more than 80 personnel, as well as a small number of service personnel, at the site. It is a well established facility and has a highly skilled and motivated work force.
DARA employs more than 4,000 staff in total throughout the UK; there are other sites at St. Athan, Fleetland and Almondbank. It was created in April 1999 and subsequently granted with trading agency status in April 2001. Since then, DARA as an organisation and business has made great strides in improving its levels of efficiency and delivery of service. From my own experience, I have seen the ongoing changes that have transformed the site out of all recognition from what it was when first established.
Mr. John Smith: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The transformation that has taken place within DARA on all its sites—including Sealand in his constituency and St. Athan in mine—has been terrific. Does he agree that if the recommendations of the end-to-end review were implemented, it would prove the death knell of DARA? Does he agree that the Minister must consider alternatives to streamline defence logistics?
Mark Tami: I agree with my hon. Friend. I shall move on to that issue, and will urge the Minister to take it up. The key point is that we could lose all the good work that has been done and all the changes that have been made. The old image that many of us may have of Nissen huts and everyone in brown overalls is behind us. Sealand and St. Athan now have modern, competitive facilities.
The original site at Sealand covered an area of more than 330 acres. Thanks to improved working practices, infantry reduction and process acceleration, it now operates out of a site of around 40 acres. The employees, represented by the trade unions, have been a key driving force in that culture of change, which has meant that they can compete effectively. There are now 30 per cent. fewer staff, providing much greater results. Productivity improvements have been staggering and there have been dramatic reductions in operating costs. All those factors have enabled Sealand to deliver better value and improved service to both the military and the growing number of commercial customers.
The commercial side of the business is growing, which demonstrates that, given a fair chance, DARA can compete and win orders outside its traditional field.
536
However, we should never forget that DARA's main strength and value is to our armed forces. Sealand has shown its worth during the recent conflicts—throughout the Kosovo campaign and, more recently, in Iraq. DARA personnel responded to the increased demands placed upon them. They often worked around the clock to turn out kit that was urgently required at the front. We owe a great deal to them, and should praise them for their efforts. Often, they are not at the front line, but they provide a vital service and are perhaps forgotten. We do not appreciate how hard those people have worked.
DARA has continued to show the merit of a one-stop shop that can deliver what is required quickly, effectively and to a high standard. It is clear that such support can be delivered effectively only by this means; it cannot merely be pushed up to the front line through the use of contractors.
In spite of all the great strides forward, the long-term future of DARA has always felt less than secure. Every few months or so, a rumour surfaces regarding its future. Some of those rumours have some truth behind them, and others do not. Either way, they all have the same destabilising effect on staff, affecting their confidence about the future. We all hope the red dragon announcement will end that sort of speculation. The £77 million investment in building a superhanger at St. Athan will enable DARA to retain and secure UK military business and gain new business from military and commercial markets. We all welcome that, and the personnel at DARA are sure that they can build for the future. The Minister has led the fight on the red dragon programme, and the announcement was warmly welcomed.
There is always a however, however. This summer we have had a set-back in the form of further speculation over the end-to-end review. I recognise that that was not a statement of Government or MOD policy, and I welcome the assurances that I have received about the future of red dragon and the ongoing commitment to DARA. It cannot be denied, however, that the statement has put something of a shadow over the project. I appeal to the Minister to put an end once and for all to damaging speculation. Failure to do so would only further undermine morale at all DARA sites.
DARA has demonstrated that it is the most efficient and cost effective option open to us. The alternative of placing such work with the RAF or contracting it out would be more expensive and less efficient and would almost certainly lead to duplication. It would not provide the level of service that our air force needs.
Mr. John Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that as well as providing the best value for money, the DARA solution introduced by the Government a couple of years ago provided cost transparency and a system of benchmarking prices for military deep aviation work that the military operational bases in partnership with the private sector would not provide, just as they did not in the old days?
Mark Tami: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We are aware how much some kit costs and how it can be repaired. In the past we did not know that, and a lot of expense was gone to because we did not know where parts were. With a central system, lots of costs can be drawn out of the system.

537
If direct front-line support is required, DARA can supply it and has shown that it has mobility and an ability to meet requirements. I welcome the reassurances, but we should move forward to secure DARA's future. It is the best option for our defence forces.
Another important subject for our defence forces is the future strategic tanker aircraft, one of the most important orders that the Ministry of Defence will consider for many years to come. It is that order that will decide whether we can compete with the United States or whether we are content for it to maintain an effective world monopoly in that area of defence supply. The Airbus 330 air tanker offers the best option for our armed forces and, unlike its rival, it is a new aircraft and requires little modification. It will retain full passenger and cargo capabilities, which is a considerable benefit. It will have a much greater range than the Boeing 767—the alternative bid—which is essential if our armed forces are to meet the challenges that will be placed on them. In recent conflicts, we have seen the importance of air space. The greater range will give our armed forces that extra flexibility.
The Airbus would have great export potential. We have the intellectual property in this country. I am confident that if we choose the Airbus option, other countries will follow. There have already been signs that the French and Australians are likely customers for the aircraft. By choosing that option, we would not only be safeguarding British jobs now and giving our armed forces the best aircraft, but would be creating more jobs for Britain in the future. Airbus is a great success story for this country and Europe. We should build on that success and choose the Airbus option, which is the best for our armed forces.
4.25 pm
Mr. Robert Key: Defence in the United Kingdom is not only a matter of academic interest for me; about 12,000 of my constituents are employed directly by the Ministry of Defence and many more thousands are employed indirectly.
I strongly endorse the speech of the Chairman of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George). I agreed with everything that he said, but I want to go a little further. When he said that defence in the United Kingdom was not only the responsibility of the Home Office, which is the lead Department, or the Ministry of Defence with its military capability, but of a wide range of Government Departments, local authorities, regional agencies and others he was absolutely right. I am convinced that defence in the UK will be improved, that we will all feel safer and that we will all feel part of it if we change the culture of secrecy that has been part of the defence culture here since at least 1939. Compared with the safety of citizens in the United States, and how they feel about it, we are light years behind.
I have recently been to the United States and discussed that matter with a wide range of people, from the military to the scientists. I am sure that the Americans' culture of openness makes them safer. It is not a question of frightening the British public by keeping secrets from them; the reverse is true in this day and age. When we can look on the internet and find so
538
much information in the United States about what they are doing, how they are doing it and what their threat assessment is, or walk into a bookshop in Washington or Detroit and buy books that are illegal in this country because of the material that they contain, which we would classify, we realise what a farce secrecy has become because we are not keeping the right things secret.
That is my first plea and the major point that I want to add to the debate. In this country we need not only to take on board the wider community of interest, including the expertise of the private sector, the pharmaceutical industry, the biotechnology industries and the academics—that is true and we must do it—but to change the culture of secrecy.
I want to tell the Minister a little secret. I would like him to look into the problem at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down. It is a wonderful scientific research organisation, but it is losing £4 million out of its research budget because it has to repair the Winterslow road—a public road—which is ridiculous. The county council is also strapped for cash. That is something, that needs a little ministerial intervention.
On the disposal of assets by the Ministry of Defence, although it is right that Ministers should look forward and meet new challenges, will they please not forget that the legacy of assets that they leave behind is important to local communities? RAF Chilmark, for example, was closed in April 1995. The Ministry has spent £1.8 million to date on clearing ordnance to make it saleable. The work has now become stuck and we also face the closure of Dean Hill. Defence Estates is really stretched in trying to dispose of those assets.
I am sure that Ministers are aware that Boscombe Down military airfield presents an unusual problem and I hope that their officials will read the debate so that they, too, can see the problem. There is a proposal—mad—to build 700 private sector houses just off the end of the main runway of an aircraft testing and evaluation station. That is crazy. The site is also close to the munitions safety zone around the airfield, and objectors to the proposal are legitimately concerned that it will be unsafe to build schools and houses there.
I am delighted that the NAAFI headquarters are in my constituency. The organisation played an important role for our servicemen and women in the Iraq conflict and I wanted to say "Thank you", so I tabled a couple of parliamentary questions on NAAFI on 17 June. I thought that, perhaps in an absent-minded senior moment I had overlooked the answers, but when I checked in the Library I found that those questions of 17 June had not been answered. I should be grateful to the Minister for an answer; it is most unlike the MOD not to have replied.
I have an answer for the Minister on what to do about recruitment and retention. The Army's whole training programme for skills is the wrong way round. It is extraordinary that members of the armed forces should have to wait until they are within a couple of years of retirement before they are put through a retirement training programme. That is very good, but it should be provided at the beginning of their service, as it is in the American forces.

539
When the forces are out in Kosovo or Afghanistan, they cannot ring up for an engineer to mend their computers. There are not enough people in the services who have acquired such skills. They are multi-skilled in the sense that they learn some trades on the way through; they do some painting, decorating or building work and they learn mechanics, car maintenance and so on. However, they learn nothing in depth and we do not have many skilled resources to draw on. Even in America they can get it wrong; they have privatised parts of their logistics chain and discovered that the private sector was not frightfully keen to go out to Baghdad with the spares. We must look at training.
I have two final points. First, if we are to have that increased purple operation—all three services increasingly working together and with the civilian communities—we must get the legal basis right. I refer to the tri-service legislation proposed as part of the next Armed Forces Bill. I served on the Standing Committees for the past two quinquennial Armed Forces Acts. On the first occasion, we were told that during the passage of the previous Act, in 1991, the MOD had promised consolidation of the three Acts. In 1995, we were told: "We're terribly sorry, it's all got a bit stuck because there aren't enough draftsmen". In 2001, we were told that the Government had changed their mind; they were abandoning consolidation and going for a tri-service Act.
I tabled some questions about the matter and was delighted to find that the MOD is fully on the ball. On 9 June, I received a very good answer from the Minister of State, who confirmed that the Government are on course for a Bill in the 2005–06 Session. However, although the MOD drafts the Bill, it then has to go down the road to parliamentary counsel—an independent body. Interestingly, no one knows who it is answerable to. I checked with parliamentary counsel this morning and even they did not quite know. I was thus not too pleased when I saw the answer to a question that I had tabled to the Department for Constitutional Affairs about how many officials were working on the draft of the new tri-service Bill: it was "None." We should check on that and I hope that the Defence Committee will get on to the case—it needs chasing up.
My second point is really a plea to all hon. Members. The Secretary of State is in denial about shortage of equipment in Iraq. He says that it is all an exaggeration and a load of nonsense. Yesterday, I spoke to a constituent who had returned from Iraq this week. He told me that for the first month that he was out there his unit was fed by the Americans because no British food was in place. They had no desert kit; it turned up a week before they were due to come back, so they took a photograph of themselves in their new kit, took it off and came home. We are short of soldiers, airmen and sailors. The Army is short of kit, communications equipment and vehicles. The Navy is short of ships. We were told only last week that the Navy does not have enough ships to protect our shipping lanes: let us remember that 90 per cent. of our overseas trade still goes by sea. The Air Force is short of aircrew, and budget cuts are forecast for that service.
540
Shortages are a real problem, but it is worse than that. We can work alongside the United States military, we can work behind them and we can work in front of them. The problem is that we cannot work with them. In particular, we do not have sufficient systems integration. We are so far behind with our electronics compared with the United States that we are years away from operating in a digital battlefield. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) said in a very thoughtful speech, perhaps we should abandon the whole idea and just do peacekeeping. I think not. In this country, our military should be prepared for full warfare.
It is always difficult, particularly for an Opposition party, to chide the Government of the day for not spending enough. That is the point at which a helpful Labour Member is supposed to stand up and say, "How are you going to pay for it?" Unfortunately, none of them is doing that, so I shall have to answer the question myself. I have checked my party's position on resources for defence, which is that we will fully fund whatever defence capabilities are necessary to maintain our national security and to fulfil our national obligations. That is fine as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough. If we are to be serious about defence in this country, my party, the Labour party and other parties must make those difficult choices and be prepared to spend more of our budget on defence. That is an unequivocal message, and I know that my constituents and Conservative voters would agree.
I am not talking about catching up with the odd billion that the Labour Government have put in, and that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea put in before the 1997 election. I believe that Conservative supporters expect the Conservative party to commit to a serious increase in the defence budget before the next election. I will continue to say that. For those who ask how we will pay for it, I have a little list that I will be happy to share with the shadow Cabinet and with anyone else who wants to hear it. It is a serious issue, and I very much hope that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will take my contribution in the spirit in which it is intended. It is not a criticism. I am trying to encourage them and to encourage a debate in this country about how seriously we take our defence in the United Kingdom and our defence posture in the world.
4.38 pm
Mr. Nigel Beard: Two years ago, the threat against which our defence forces had to safeguard the United Kingdom changed in an afternoon. The assumed impregnability of the United States, Britain and north-west Europe after the Berlin wall fell vanished instantaneously. The psychology of Governments, and people, too, changed that afternoon. They had believed that the effects of war on them and their countries had been banished for ever. Suddenly, they and their loved ones were vulnerable to the random malice of fanatics who were beyond the influence of reason and without any moral abhorrence for the killing of innocent people.
As is normal, many people, as a means of psychological protection, will not accept the true nature of the horrifying prospect. After the initial shock, life has to go on. Everything is normal, and distant and

541
uncertain prospects of terrorist attack are therefore discounted and pushed to the back of the mind. Any Government who did that, however, would betray the trust of the people who put trust in them and would fail in their primary duty to defend the country. To their great credit, this Government did not evade the changed world that they faced after 11 September 2001.
The vulnerability of people in modern cities to the effects of chemical, biological or radiological weapons is an issue that cannot be avoided. Speaking in terms of chemical, biological or radiological weapons or using the shorthand phrase "weapons of mass destruction" is too dispassionate and academic to convey any understanding of what might be threatened. We are talking about anthrax spores and radiation dust being spread through a major area of London such as Westminster or the City, meaning that they would have to be closed down for several decades. Alternatively, water supplies could be contaminated with poison, or nerve gas could insidiously permeate the London underground. Overnight, such areas could become ghost towns that would progressively fall into dereliction.
The economic impact would be incalculable because Government, business and financial institutions would have to move and start again from scratch because their records would be contaminated. However, before that, mothers, fathers, sons and daughters who went to work normally, like the people in the World Trade Centre two years ago, would either not return in the evening or return to die of contamination.
To those who ask what terrorists would do that, I say that al-Qaeda is among several, but Hamas, Hizbollah and Islamic Jihad could not be excluded if they had access to such weapons. That is the situation today, but once an example is given, there is the same possibility that non-Muslim organisations could do such a thing if they wanted to draw attention to any injustice that they feel. That is why the United Nations Security Council was right to demand that Saddam Hussein give up his biological, chemical and radiological weapons throughout the 1990s and why it was right to give him a last chance to co-operate last November. That is why I believe that Britain and the United States were right not to allow the situation to drift.
We should not allow controversy over Iraq to obscure the wider issue of a defence policy that is directed at the terrorist attacks that the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner have warned about. The 1998 defence review touched on the threat from terrorism and rogue states but suggested that it would emerge in several years' time. The threat is with us now and gives rise to questions about several of the principles on which our defence is based.
The first principle is that the only legitimate use of military force is in defence against an attack. However, that presumes that there is no disadvantage to the defender in waiting. That cannot mean that we have to wait for parts of any western city to be contaminated or poisoned by a gas attack before action against the perpetrators or any state that harbours them is legitimate. As with Iraq, there are circumstances in which pre-emptive attack should be legitimate. There is a question of who should legitimise that. The answer must lie with the United Nations, but with a reformed
542
United Nations so that a country's vital defence is not left hostage to the capricious or perverse attitudes of other Governments who wish to gain from the situation.
Sovereignty, in its traditional form, is another concept that is questionable in today's world. It has come to mean that no despotic tyrant who is responsible for abusing, torturing and killing a country's citizens may be replaced by a foreign country if he has some legitimate or de facto claim to power. I do not accept that any such tyrant should be immune to challenge and able to continue in such an inhuman way. Pragmatically, that has now been established in the case of Slobodan Milosevic, the former ruler of Serbia, and the courts have generally recognised it in the case of General Pinochet. Indeed, it was a factor that legitimised the removal of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. The concept of sovereignty needs amending to cover the removal of tyrants. The relevance of that to UK defence is that Britain is not likely to be threatened by democratic countries. The threats and promotion of fanatical terrorism come from tyrannical regimes that are far from democratic.
A further defence interest is in maintaining concerted co-operation between north America, Commonwealth countries and the European democracies to defend the principles on which they are founded. That transcends immediate political differences. Questions have been raised about the closeness of the Prime Minister's relationship with President Bush given their diametrically opposed views on domestic politics. The opposed political positions are far less than those between Churchill and Stalin, who successfully co-operated against Nazism to win the second world war alongside Roosevelt, who likewise sank political differences in pursuit of overriding strategic interests.
The greatest institutionalised defence co-operation between democracies is NATO. It has proved itself in the cold war and, though different, still has a role to play in defending democracy in today's world, as it has done in the Balkans. NATO's greatest strength is to institutionalise defence co-operation between north America and Europe, which today is essentially the European Union and Russia. It is overwhelmingly in Britain's interest that Europe and north America should stay intimately involved in combating terrorism and sustaining democracy against subversion or coup d'état. It is vital to Britain that those states that have taken to democracy recently in Europe and elsewhere should have a source of defence when threatened, whether the threat is external or internal.
America is the overwhelming superpower in the world and can chose between pulling up the drawbridge to become fortress America or co-operating internationally to sustain the democratic principles on which it is founded. The Prime Minister is right in stressing how vital for Britain's strategic interest it is that America remains engaged with western Europe in securing human rights and democracy. That must be the keystone of Britain's defence policy, as it has been for the past 60 years.

543
It is worth stressing the importance to Britain of the north Atlantic alliance when President Chirac is attempting to establish an alternative policy of polarisation. He is attempting to rally the countries of the European Union in opposition to America on defence and foreign policy issues and, no doubt, a range of other issues. No one could gain from such a schism except countries that are thereby provided with an opportunity to play one bloc off against the other. Let us hope, as appears to be the case, that no other countries rally to that Napoleonic illusion.
Having said that, there is a strong case for the European defence initiative. It would allow European Union forces to address issues arising within and close to the area of the European Union. The prime condition must be that the force will operate only where NATO as a whole has decided not to operate. Given that condition, it is a response to the US political pressure that asks why young men and women from Michigan, Minnesota and California should operate in Europe while European countries watch them. Because a European defence initiative answers that question, it strengthens NATO rather than weakening it.
I have attempted to outline some of the issues that United Kingdom defence policy needs to address or take into account in dealing with the threat of international terrorism. There are also questions of equipment, training and force structure, but they are being addressed in the changes that followed the 1998 defence review.
Sections of the media, for reasons that have nothing to do with defence, have become obsessed with the "He said, she said" tittle-tattle of the Ministry of Defence. It was sad to hear the shadow Defence spokesman following that line in marked contrast to the statesmanlike contribution by the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo). That is not the basis on which the House should judge the record of the Secretary of State. He is accountable for the readiness of our armed forces to deal with the changed circumstances and new threats that this country faces. The valour, performance and success of British forces in Iraq show them to be among the best in the world. That is testimony to the successful conduct of defence policy by the Government. Let us give due credit then to the man who is responsible for our armed forces. He has served this country well and will continue to do so.
4.50 pm
Bob Russell: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and also Mr. Speaker for allowing my name to appear on the list of speakers. I apologise for not being present for the whole of the debate. I was in my place for the opening speech, but the Home Affairs Committee had a rearranged sitting this afternoon to put questions to the Home Secretary, and I am a member of that Committee. However, I felt that in representing the garrison town of Colchester I should like the opportunity to contribute to the debate and to highlight what I think is a serious problem in retaining experienced soldiers. I shall come on later to recruitment.
I am advised that in the early 1930s there was a record level of junior entrants to the Army. As a consequence, during the next two or three years there will be record
544
numbers of soldiers leaving the Army after completing their 22 years of adult service. The Army is already 4 per cent. under strength. That was made clear in an answer during Defence questions on Monday. Clearly, the defence of the United Kingdom is dependent on our having sufficient members of the armed forces to defend the country.
With a shortfall of 4 per cent. and with additional commitments overseas, I suggest that the overstretch is becoming worse by the month. More must be done to retain the recruits that we have while at the same time recruiting sufficient numbers to bring the Army up to full strength.
In my constituency—I suspect that the situation is the same in many other military centres—family housing is an important matter for those members of our armed forces who wish the Army, the Navy or the Air Force as a career. More needs to be done urgently to improve the housing stock for our military families. The modernisation programme is not proceeding as it should. The idiotic privatisation of the Army housing estates by the previous Government has not helped the situation. It is this Government's job to ensure that all our Army families are living in accommodation of the sort that we would wish for our own constituents.
A second area where the Ministry of Defence could and should be doing more is in supporting schools that have a large intake of children from military families. I initiated a debate on this issue during the previous Parliament and was led to believe that matters would be improved. I have to say that they have not improved. The Secretary of State for Education and Skills recently visited Colchester and spoke to some of the heads and chairmen of governors of schools where up to 95 per cent. of the pupils come from Army families. He left them with the view that something would be done. In my follow-up questions, the sidekick Minister has knocked that one back. There is no help whatsoever. I hope that in the spirit of joined-up Government, Defence Ministers will have words with their chums in the Department for Education and Skills to ensure that additional resources are provided. It is a vital part of the retention agenda.
About 3,000 troops from the Colchester garrison served in the Iraqi war. Sadly, not all returned. I know that the House will wish to join me in paying tribute to those who fell and assuring their families that our thoughts are with them. I witnessed early on when the war had commenced the marvellous way in which the Army's welfare and support services kicked in. It was a joy to see that in operation. Full-time members of the Army, former Army personnel who are now supporting the Army, civilians, local firms and members of the local community all rallied round and joined up to provide a fantastic support service for the families of those left back on base.
I want to pay tribute to the Secretary of State for Defence for his personal commitment in coming to Colchester to meet, speak to and reassure many of the families. His visit was greatly appreciated, and I ought to put my thanks to him on public record.
I ask the Ministry of Defence to take on board for the future one small area of disappointment with the welfare and support service—the feeling of isolation that was drawn to my attention by the families of Territorial

545
Army reservists who were called up. They felt that they were not part of the wider network of support and welfare services. I am sure that that can be addressed, and I hope that it will be.
The Army needs to do more to recruit, as well as to retain. We should bear in mind the different footprints of the parts of the United Kingdom where regiments have their historical and traditional recruitment. The part of the UK that recruits troops to the Royal Anglian regiment supports its regiment through full recruitment, whereas in other regions regiments do not recruit their full complement. I suggest to Ministers that one way of making up the shortfall of 4,200 soldiers would be to say to the Royal Anglian regiment: "You are very successful with your recruitment; you have a large footprint from which you can recruit your troops; we are prepared to give you the opportunity to reform the 3rd Battalion of the Royal Anglian regiment." What objection could there possibly be to that? Surely the object of the exercise is to have sufficient troops to bring the Army up to its complement of just over 102,000. If one regiment can recruit fully, while others cannot, why not allow a successful regiment to increase its recruitment through the restoration of its 3rd Battalion? That would be the successor to the old Essex regiment.
Many parts of the Ministry of Defence have been privatised in recent years, but it is not so enthusiastic about recruitment initiatives. Given that the Army is under strength by around 4 per cent., initiatives to boost recruitment should be welcomed. The British Army has a proud tradition of welcoming those from other countries of the Commonwealth into its ranks. One way of bridging the gap is by allowing the Royal Anglian regiment to recruit more; another is to recruit from the Commonwealth. It is therefore regrettable that someone somewhere in the Ministry of Defence has taken it upon himself or herself to block certain initiatives involved in the recruitment process.
If that sounds familiar to the Minister of State, he may recall that I wrote to him about it on 29 July and 1 August this year. I want to put on the record the questions that I asked, to which I hope that answers will be forthcoming:
"Is the British Army short of soldiers? Yes.
Does the Army recruit from the Commonwealth? Yes.
Where in the regulations does it state that recruits cannot be presented to the Army by a recruitment company?
Where in the regulations does it state that recruits are barred from being funded by a third party (or company) prior to them joining the Army?
Where in the regulations does it state that recruits are barred from entering into a legal agreement to reimburse loans provided by a third party (or company) whilst they are serving soldiers?
I would have thought that the Ministry of Defence would have welcomed an initiative"—
I assume it likes initiatives—
"in developing a means… to help recruit soldiers from Commonwealth countries to fill the gaps in so many of our regiments."
The recruits would have to satisfy the Army's enlistment criteria and they would therefore have to be fit and capable of becoming members of Her Majesty's armed forces. If Defence Ministers are serious about wanting a full complement of soldiers so that the armed forces do not remain as overstretched as they currently
546
clearly are, I ask them to consider my suggestion of greater home recruitment from the Royal Anglian Regiment recruitment area and to accept that initiatives for recruiting soldiers from Commonwealth countries should be welcomed, not blocked.
5 pm
Dr. Julian Lewis: It has become clear during the debate that replacing the former single-service debates with separate debates about defence in the world and defence in the United Kingdom has not worked. It was a brave, worthwhile try—I am not trying to score a party political point—but it is time to acknowledge that it has been a failure. If one compares the content of today's debate with that of our periodic debates on defence in the world, it would be impossible to tell the difference without looking at the titles. One could not tell from the speeches. It would be far more sensible to admit that holding separate debates on the Army, the Navy and the Royal Air Force and considering what each arm must do for defence of the United Kingdom, defence in the world, and with regard to procurement policy and personnel policy would be a better way of going about our business.
When the Secretary of State was able to tear himself away from responding to the Intelligence and Security Committee's report, his speech was largely about procurement policy. It was about structure rather than strategy—unless one includes the strategy of personal survival. My hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State understandably felt it necessary to concentrate primarily on the news topic of the day rather on the nuts and bolts of defence issues for the UK, strictly and narrowly defined. Yet if peace is indivisible, so is defence. I therefore welcomed the comment of the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence that the armed forces are only part of solution to the problem of terrorism that faces the UK, and that a policy of total defence is required. I hope that my own comments later will be perceived as endorsing that.
The Liberal Democrat spokesman acknowledged that his party did not support the war. That was frank of him. It is encouraging to those Labour and Opposition Members who supported the war that the latest polls show that a majority of the British people still believe that it was right to remove Saddam Hussein, despite the thundering mess that the Government have subsequently made of their presentation and policies.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire) made a very general speech on defence, but she was typically supportive of our forces. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) brought the intriguing light of his perception as a former Defence Secretary to bear on current problems. He made a point that people have been reluctant to make in the light of what subsequently happened to Dr. Kelly. My right hon. Friend said that it was strange to have an official leaking stories off the record to the press. However, while I agree with him that the MOD was under no obligation to keep Dr. Kelly's name secret in those circumstances, I believe that the Ministry was under an obligation to let him know if it was not going to keep it secret, rather than telling him that they were going to do so and then engaging in a devious guessing game of disclosure with the press.

547
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) has been a consistent opponent of the campaign against Iraq. The Conservatives do not agree with him, but we respect his sincerity and the position that he takes, as we did when he was an assiduous Foreign Office and Defence Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway) pointed out that we need armed forces to be recruited to greater levels. We believe that it would at least be a promising start if they could be recruited to the target levels that the Government themselves set, but that is not happening.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) always speaks with sincerity. He is a passionate opponent of military action, and he quoted at some length the views of Professor Paul Rogers, whom I remember with affection as a leading member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in the 1980s and as a prophet of doom in the first Gulf war a decade later. I would only say to the hon. Gentleman—who has made his personal apologies to me that he cannot be here for the winding-up speeches—that he should be wary of over-reliance on a single source. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) showed once again his great knowledge of and commitment to NATO. He has been in the House for almost 30 years, and he has unparalleled experience on the opposite side of the arguments generally put forward by Professor Rogers.
The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) took a typically robust stance, and I totally agree with him that the aim of the terrorists two years ago today was not to kill 3,000 people but to kill 50,000 if they could have done so. I take issue with him, however, when he compares unfavourably the efforts being made by our armed forces in terms of ethnic recruitment and promotion with what has been happening in the United States. It must be remembered that the coloured community—the black community—of the United States has been struggling for much longer to reach the heights that it has reached. I commend to the hon. Gentleman—as I have done to the House on a previous occasion—the memoirs of General Benjamin O. Davis, which are appropriately entitled "Benjamin O. Davis: American". He spells out the struggle that he and other black fighter pilots had during the second world war to be allowed the opportunity to put their lives on the line and to fight for what was then an imperfect democracy, so far as the black community was concerned. When we compare the different starting points, we shall find that it will only be a matter of time—and not too much time—before we are proud to see black people in the highest positions in our armed forces. They are making good progress already.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) had a gloomy outlook on the prospects in Iraq, but I was pleased to see that, wearing his Defence Select Committee hat, he agreed with us on the importance of having a co-ordinating Minister for homeland security. As the House will know, we have taken the step of setting the Government an example by appointing my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) as our spokesman on homeland security. He has great experience of the armed forces and is increasingly gathering expertise in his new field.
548
We heard quite a bit from him today, and I can assure the House that we shall hear a great deal more from him in the future.
The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) expressed concern about the future of DARA and the Airbus, and my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) made the intriguing point that we were keeping things secret, but that they were not the right things. Speaking personally, I trust that the Minister will have heard my hon. Friend's plea, and that the road to Porton Down will soon be blessed with the tarmac that he so urgently wishes it to acquire.
Not for the first time, the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard) made a very thoughtful speech. I know that he had a professional career in the Ministry of Defence for many years, and that shows in the thoughtfulness that always informs his contributions. I want to take one of his many important points a little further.
International law has not yet caught up with the changed strategic situation that has followed 11 September. I shall say more about that later, but let me say this now. The idea that we must wait to be struck first is not to be countenanced in the 21st century, in the age of weapons of mass destruction and suicidal potential users of them. The sooner the international lawyers recognise that, the less likely it will be that people will be tempted to distort intelligence to make threats appear more imminent than they might otherwise seem.
The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), as well as focusing on retention and recruitment, paid a worthy tribute to the members of his Colchester garrison who fell in the recent conflict, and to the support shown to them by the Army and personally by the Secretary of State, who went to Colchester to offer his condolences. The hon. Gentleman said how much that had been appreciated.
It must be said that before 11 September the defence of the United Kingdom homeland against terrorism, let alone suicidal terrorism, was given a low priority. Conventional threats to the UK seemed to be at a lower level than they had been since the end of the 19th century. The strategic threat from a former superpower, the Soviet Union, had all but dissipated—although one can never be sure what may happen to Russian democracy over a long period.
Perhaps the most prominent threat that we were debating here before 11 September was the possibility of a missile threat from rogue states. Indeed, it is important for that not to disappear entirely from the agenda now. As has been pointed out today, terrorism from Northern Ireland has not disappeared completely and may not have disappeared permanently, but at least it is at a lower level than it has been since the troubles began.
The idea that religious doomsday threats would be our top priority in the defence of the United Kingdom would, before 11 September, have been considered utterly fanciful. Most defence discussions concerned expeditions, humanitarian operations, conflict resolution and, sometimes, direct military intervention in foreign wars overseas. How that changed after 11 September! Al-Qaeda is now at the top of the agenda, for five main reasons. First, its agents are prepared to

549
die. Secondly, unlike our previous opponents, they are largely impervious to deterrence. Thirdly, they have good organisation and a unifying creed. Fourthly, they batten on failed societies and rogue regimes. Fifthly, and above all, they apply the principles of military ju-jitsu, using their opponents' greater weight and technology to bring them crashing down. In short, they encapsulate the maxim "maximum impact for minimum effort".
Yet they are not as clever as they think they are. They have cunning tactics underpinned by a foolish strategy. They had one chance to take the civilised world by surprise; they blew it on 11 September. What they did then could be compared with what the Japanese did at Pearl Harbor. After the war was over, some of the Japanese leaders were interrogated. They were asked, "Why did you do what you did on 7 December 1941? You must have known that it would bring the full weight of the United States crashing down on you". They said, "Sometimes you just have to kick up your heels and leap into the gorge".
What these terrorists did was comparable with what Saddam Hussein did in not waiting until he had nuclear weapons—which he was on the way to getting—before invading Kuwait in 1990. In other words, al-Qaeda did not wait long enough.
Why do I say that timing is so essential in these circumstances? It is because of what we were discussing before: the problems that always arise when one is tempted to take pre-emptive action. In defending one's homeland, one can take steps after a blow has been struck that people would find very difficult to accept in advance of such a blow being struck. For example, overthrowing the Taliban would probably not have been acceptable before 11 September. It would not have been acceptable to fight Saddam Hussein before Kuwait was invaded; and it certainly was not regarded as acceptable for Israel to bomb his nuclear reactor before he made his first atomic weapons. Yet how right we now think the Israelis were—at least, I hope we do—to have taken that action.
In short, al-Qaeda's strategic mistake was to mobilise America and the free world against it before acquiring weapons of mass destruction of its own. I make no bones about paying tribute to the Government for recognising that any prospect of al-Qaeda and similar groups acquiring such weapons must be prevented. I pay tribute to the Prime Minister for instantly stating that he would stand shoulder to shoulder with the Americans, and for showing personal courage in taking that stance. He must know that he and those closest to him will be marked men and women—targets for any disgruntled terrorist—for the rest of their natural lives.
I pay tribute to the Opposition—to my own party—for putting party advantage aside by supporting the Prime Minister in his hour of need. I am only sorry that I cannot pay a similar tribute the Liberal Democrats and the nationalists, who would have left Saddam Hussein in power if they had had their way.
Mr. Keetch: How does the hon. Gentleman judge paragraph 127 of today's report? It states:
"The JIC assessed that any collapse of the Iraqi regime would increase the risk of chemical and biological warfare technology or agents finding their way into the hands of terrorists, not necessarily al-Qaida."
550
Is it not acceptable for the JIC to believe that invading Iraq could possibly spread terrorist weapons? Admittedly, the Prime Minister took a view, but in disregarding ours the hon. Gentleman should note that some members, at least, of the JIC accept it.
Dr. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, which would be convincing if he were saying that the question is clear cut and there is never a countervailing argument. But according to his view, because we are afraid that there is a risk that something may get worse if we try to deal with it, we must not do so. I particularly resent the way in which the JIC, an intelligence organisation, has been made into a political football in the context of this military campaign. In my view—I speak now not as a politician, but as someone who studied JIC and joint planning staff documents professionally, during the academic phase of my life—the old system was better. The intelligence people would make their assessments and submit them to their political masters, and the political masters would sign off their own assessments and not seek to shelter behind their professional advisers. I am not going to get into the game of second-guessing the JIC. Its role is to give the Government information, and the Government must take responsibility for the policies developed on the basis of it.
Bob Russell: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to mislead everybody. Does he accept that the view taken by the Liberal Democrats—many members of his own party and of the Labour party also took it—was that action against Iraq should take place only with the full support of the United Nations?
Dr. Lewis: The view of the Opposition and of the Government was that this country faced a serious threat. I, for one, never took the view that the United Nations was some sort of world Government, without whose imprimatur we could not act to defend ourselves if we judged it necessary. The Prime Minister did not take that view and he was right not to do so. We have not delegated the defence of this country to the United Nations, and heaven help us if ever we do. When the Prime Minister said that he might have lost his job and tearfully informed his family of the great risk that he was taking, I have to say that I began to lose a little sympathy with him, because, with the support that he knew he had from the official Opposition—doing what loyal Oppositions always do in such circumstances in times of national crisis—he knew that he could count on us. His job was not really in danger.
How wretched it is that, by unnecessarily exaggerating and manipulating intelligence, the Prime Minister has discredited himself, his Government and, most important of all, the prospect of taking similar action in similar circumstances in future. Suppose that Iran reliably proves to be in an advanced state of development of nuclear weapons. Suppose that Korea goes from bad to worse in respect of the threatening noises that it is making about the nuclear weapons that it already possesses. Who now will believe the Government when they say that we have to act?
I am going to touch briefly on the Intelligence and Security Committee report. I have only two things to say about it. The ISC has done itself, in my opinion, no

551
favours with the report—and that will be seen to be the case when people look back on it in the fullness of time. I am most interested in the two annexes to the report, which I will briefly mention. The second annexe is interesting because it contradicts the report of the Foreign Affairs Committee at each and every turn. It is interesting to see what happens when two bunches of senior politicians try to cover the same ground and each pretends to be authoritative.
What interested me most throughout the post-Iraq campaign post mortem has been less the first than the second dossier. That was the one that was plagiarised and was, depending on whether one counts the cover sheet, 18 or 19 pages long. It is briefly referred to in the ISC report. That report quotes the Prime Minister as having stated on 3 February 2003:
"We issued further intelligence over the weekend about the infrastructure of concealment. It is obviously difficult when we publish intelligence reports, but I hope that people have some sense of the integrity of our security services. They are not publishing this, or giving us this information, and making it up."—[Official Report, 3 February 2003; Vol. 399, c. 25.]
Curiously, paragraph 133 of the report states:
"We conclude that the Prime Minister was correct to describe the document as containing 'further intelligence… about the infrastructure of concealment—.
Furthermore, paragraph 22 of the second annexe states:
"We believe that the Prime Minister was correct when he described the February document as"
and the next word is in italics
—"containing further intelligence."
The trouble is that, having checked Hansard for that day, I can say that the Prime Minister did not describe it as "containing" further intelligence. Had he done so, it would not have misled the House. He described it as further intelligence.
We can see from the first annexe that the intelligence document that the Secret Intelligence Service supplied, on which part of the report was based, was only five pages long, whereas the final report was 18 or 19 pages long. It has to be said that, as far as the second dodgy dossier was concerned, the ISC has engaged in a whitewash of what was actually presented to the House in a misleading way by the Prime Minister.
On the brighter side, it is extraordinary that so little has happened by way of terrorism in the UK so far. There are several reasons for that. The first is that there has been no significant support for al-Qaeda among the UK's 1.5 million Muslims. The second is the unsung successes of the security and intelligence services when they are allowed by politicians to get on with their jobs. Let us not forget the special branch officer, Stephen Oake, who was stabbed to death in January in the aftermath of the discovery of the ricin terror cell. Thirdly, there is the determination of the US and the UK to take the fight to the enemy in Afghanistan and to remove regimes with the potential to produce weapons of mass destruction, whether that threat is imminent or not.
Defence is indivisible; the country that adopts a purely reactive strategy will suffer. The front line in the defence of the United Kingdom is not at the gates of Downing street, nor is it on the concrete blocks in
552
Grosvenor square and Parliament square. The front line is with our forces in the failed states and the rogue states. It is in the shadows with the secret intelligence services and our security services, in which our Muslim citizens have an important part to play. It is in the spirit of the British people—especially those who live and work near prestige targets—who will never give in to the threat of terrorism in the UK.
5.25 pm
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): In opening the debate, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence highlighted the key areas of what is an undoubtedly broad subject, and we have had a good, intensive and wide-ranging debate. It is a pity that the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) failed to rise to the occasion.
Yesterday morning, I was listening to "Yesterday in Parliament", which was reporting on Tuesday's debate, a debate called by the hon. Gentleman to hold the Government to account. Unfortunately, I could not be present for the debate; normally I would have been and, probably, I would have wound it up. I was keen to hear what had gone on. I was in the Ukraine at a joint exercise involving British, Ukrainian and Polish troops, an annual exercise that has been going for seven years.
The BBC had built up Tuesday's debate, suggesting that the Secretary of State was going to come under intense scrutiny. I was stunned when the BBC commentator said that that was not the case. In fact, he directly criticised the hon. Member for North Essex for failing to deliver the knockout punch, or even a punch at all. The commentator said that, for the Secretary of State for Defence, it was no more than a stroll in the park.
That is why I want to make this point to the hon. Gentleman about his speech. He personalised, as he has a tendency sometimes to do, at a time when we are dealing with big and complex issues. The repeat performance today ill serves the House, but is perhaps a true reflection on him; not one word did he utter about the subject matter.
The Secretary of State rightly praised the men and women of our armed forces and the contribution that they make in the United Kingdom and globally. They continue to provide a highly skilled and well-organised resource on which the civil authorities and the wider community can draw in times of crisis. I am grateful to all Members who recognised this today.
We must not confuse the role of the armed forces in the defence of the UK with the wider contribution that they can make in the UK. As the Secretary of State said, the days of defending our shores from invasion are long gone. We all understand the advantage of dealing with a potential threat before it reaches our shores. We should not assume that solutions are always military ones.
The right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) made a strong contribution. I did not agree with everything he said, but he highlighted two points with which I did agree. The first concerned the question of where the front line is; the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) made the same point in winding up for the Opposition. The front line is no longer here, but elsewhere.

553
The other point that the right hon. Gentleman raised concerned the MOD itself—the nature of the Department, its unique flavour and ethos. He said that it is a privilege for Ministers to serve there, and I echo that. I have been at the Department for more than two years and I have learned that that is so. The right hon. Gentleman rested his case on the importance of that ethos and on the bonds of loyalty that exist. I can tell the House that those bonds of loyalty are still there. The Department has the utmost support from the Secretary of State, and that is returned. That applies in respect of all Ministers who serve there.
The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the Prime Minister commenting to the Indian Prime Minister in relation to the terrible atrocity that had occurred in that country that the issue was engaging with those who were posing the threat, who might be from a neighbouring country or countries. The right hon. Gentleman tried to draw a parallel with what has happened in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. I know that he understands the clear difference between the threat posed by domestic terrorism and that posed by international terrorism. The four years that I spent in Northern Ireland taught me that the way to resolve the threat posed by domestic terrorism is, first, to resolve never to be defeated or deflected by it and, second, always to look for the points of accommodation and agreement on the basis of which progress can be made. We would not be in the situation we are in today in Northern Ireland without the bravery and determination of the Prime Minister to take some big risks. We should ask the people of Northern Ireland whether the point that my right hon. Friend was making to the Prime Minister of India applies to Northern Ireland. It is now a different and better place, and it will get better still, because we dealt with the threat by understanding the roots of the problem and finding solutions.
We should not relax our stance on our security or resilience at home. Notwithstanding some of the contributions made to the debate, the Government have a robust counter-terrorism strategy in place, under the direction of the Home Secretary. Much progress has been made, much of it—understandably—not advertised. It may be what people call secret or confidential, but the very nature of our response means that it has to be kept on a very close hold. The more we expose what we seek to do to counter terrorism or terrorist threats, the more those who wish to take action learn from it. Other nations may develop their strategies differently, but we have had 30 years of dealing with domestic terrorism. That has stood us in good stead, but I am sure we all agree that if our approach needs to change, we in this country learn lessons and adapt quickly and constructively to meet any new threat.
I know that what we have in place is robust because I have the privilege of serving on some of the Committees that deal with the issues. I have seen our response evolve and develop after 11 September 2001. The real test is not so much who is in charge, but what the response is to a particular threat. We have not had to face some of the scenarios that could apply, but we are increasingly holding exercises, with a range of scenarios, to test the resilience of our capabilities.
Last weekend, of course, we saw the exercise in London. I was also recently the lead Minister on a major exercise in Norfolk with a nuclear incident scenario.
554
Interestingly, the lead Department was the Ministry of Defence, not the Home Office. All the services answer, through the various response mechanisms that are laid down, to the one lead Minister. The idea is to ensure that the mechanisms are robust and respond coherently. We learn lessons from every one of those exercises, and there is no point holding them otherwise. We will have more exercises in the future, and we hope that they are only ever exercises that test the integrity and strength of our systems. I have confidence that all the services would respond—
Patrick Mercer rose
Mr. Ingram: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I must say that I do not know why he was not given the opportunity to wind up in this debate. I note that he calls himself a shadow Minister, but he is more of a ghost Minister, because he does not have a Department to shadow. If he is going to pop up every time—[Interruption.] I am being told that it is my fault. I am not sure that it is. I am not sure that there is a fault at all, as I have set out what I believe to be a strong structure. I shall deal with the details in response to some of the contributions made earlier.
Patrick Mercer: Ghost or not, I shall try not to be a spectre at the feast.
To the best of my knowledge, last Sunday's exercise was the first field-training exercise for two years. It was not a command-post, table-top or procedural exercise. Will the Minister guarantee that there will be many more such exercises, and that they happen not just in London, but in the regional capitals and other areas of great sensitivity? If not, they will be worthless.
Mr. Ingram: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was listening to me. I said that there will be future exercises, and a lot of effort is being put in to develop the scenarios. However, we should not over-exercise, as that would give the impression that we were dealing with real threats, rather than perceived ones, and that intelligence exists that makes the exercises necessary to meet those real threats. I do not accuse the hon. Gentleman of using that as an argument, but others have commented on the matter and will over-interpret anything that we do in respect of exercises. The media, of course, are guilty of that. There is always the risk that, if an exercise structure is put in place, people will then speculate, through the conspiracy theory model, that an exercise is for real. That is the spin that they put on it.
Mr. Jenkin: You do not have the money—that is the truth.
Mr. Ingram: The hon. Member for North Essex is now trying to make a contribution to the debate from a sedentary position. If he wants to tell us his views—he did not mention them earlier—I should be happy to give way to him.
Patrick Mercer: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Ingram: No. There are many other hon. Members to whom I want to respond.

555
The Ministry of Defence has an important part to play, and the strategic defence review new chapter formed part of the work that went into developing that strategy. The measures that we are introducing as a result will ensure that the armed forces continue to make an important contribution to security at home, but that contribution is properly made in support of the civil authorities.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), who is Chairman of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire)—both of them members of the Defence Committee—made contributions based on their knowledge. As members of Select Committees who sign up to a report tend to, they continued to argue for the core points of their report—they would not have signed up to it otherwise. Meanwhile, they have been trying to convince Ministers to change their position. I ask them to consider that their judgment on this matter might be wrong. All of us should always revisit our assumptions and conclusions, to make sure that we have got things right.
I am not ducking the issue, but most of the points raised in the debate are the responsibility of the Home Secretary. I accept that we should adopt a joined-up-government approach, but the Government never ignore the question of which Department is the best one to deal with an issue, or of whether different mechanisms should be established. In this case, however, the Government have concluded that the approach proposed by the Committee, for the reasons that have been set out to the Committee, is not appropriate. We will study any contributions made in this debate and, if another Department is asked to consider matters, it is for that Department to decide whether it will respond. I shall draw the various comments today to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South mentioned the draft civil contingencies Bill. The Government welcome all reports produced by his or any other Select Committee that comments on Government activity, although we do not always agree with a Committee's conclusions. The House will be aware that a Joint Committee has been set up to consider the draft Bill, and the Defence Committee's report will form a valuable strand of its work. It is up to the Joint Committee to take on board the detailed arguments advanced. That sort of pre-legislative assessment is a useful, relatively new departure for Government. It will make the legislation better, helping understanding of the various points made and enabling us not to rush too quickly into legislation while drawing on all the experience available. The report will be picked up by the Joint Committee before the Bill is debated here and in the other place.
The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) asked about future carriers. The carrier programme continues to meet the schedule set down at the start of the programme. We plan to award a build contract in spring 2004. We currently plan for the new carriers to be in service in 2012 and 2015, and that is on course. The future carriers will set new standards of military capability and flexibility. They will significantly enhance
556
our ability to respond to crises around the world. They are a key part of fulfilling the 1998 strategic defence review and remain a high priority in the defence programme.
Mr. Keetch: I am grateful for that clear answer. Can the Minister extend it one further step by confirming that the size originally envisaged for those carriers in the SDR has not been decreased and that the number of aircraft that they will be likely to carry is that which was originally envisaged?
Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman should wait to see what the build—
Mr. Jenkin: Ah!
Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman should wait to see what the build programme says. This is a step forward in our capability. I know that there are some who want to diminish what we seek to do instead of welcoming not just the shipbuilding capability it will bring this country but, more importantly, the capability it will give to the Royal Navy. It is the biggest shipbuilding programme since the second world war—yet all we get from the Conservatives are sneers.
Mr. Jenkin: Please give way.
Mr. Ingram: No.
The hon. Member for Hereford asked about outflow. At periods of high operational tempo, planned discharge dates may be delayed. That is in the nature of the way in which we have to deal with them. In addition, some personnel volunteer to extend their service because they want to make a contribution. At the end of such a period, a temporary increase in outflow is to be expected because of the bottleneck. We are conscious of that factor, but it is too early to say whether it will happen and to what extent it might happen. We are monitoring the situation closely. We are talking about skilled people who are important without our structures. We do not want to lose people other than those who would go anyway. We shall monitor the situation with both the regulars and the reserves. My best guess at the moment is that all three services expect any increase in outflow this year to be manageable. They are beginning to predict what the impact may be, but it is too early to be precise.
The hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Conway) gave some figures on shortfalls. I can correct them. For the Navy, the shortfall is 910; for the RAF, it is 750; and for the Army, it is 4,850. In reality, shortfalls have decreased this year, and recruitment and retention initiatives continue to be successful. We are putting a lot of effort into those initiatives. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for North Essex says that it is a disaster, but he could have made the point in the debate and he did not want to do so.
Mr. Jenkin: I gave the figures during my speech.
Mr. Ingram: I gave the hon. Gentleman an opportunity earlier and I now want to deal with other hon. Members who made a substantial contribution to the debate.

557
The hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing), who is no longer in her place, was concerned about the future of Almondbank. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State dealt with that matter. I am grateful to members of the Scottish National party now that they are wrapping themselves in the Union flag and are keen to have United Kingdom defence expenditure in their constituencies. Only a few weeks ago, the defence spokesman for the SNP was saying in the Glasgow press that he was going to hold me and the Ministry of Defence to account on a range of issues—he is not in his place either and did not join in the debate today, although I was with him last night to watch Scotland nearly beat Germany, so I know that he was in London for that. The interesting aspect of the SNP argument is that while they argue for jobs to be retained in their constituencies, they are campaigning for thousands of defence jobs to go elsewhere in Scotland and the UK. Indeed, they want to close down the Faslane base, with a loss of about 10,000 jobs. There is an inherent contradiction in what they want to do. I hope that they will read my comments. It is a pity that they are not here to respond and I would have given way to them if they had been.
My hon. Friends the Members for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) and for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) rightly mentioned "end to end" and the impact that they perceived it might have on DARA. A written statement has been produced on the "end to end" report, which sets out a summary of a detailed report and points a way forward.
I gave some parameters for the debate at Defence questions on Monday. It is a big study into £11.2 billion of Government expenditure and 105,000 people in the air and land environment—roughly a ratio of 60:40 military to civilian. Overall, the logistics chain amounts to about £15 billion. The study says that there is the potential for a saving of in the region of £600 million. It would be wrong for any Minister not to look seriously at that.
One of the main conclusions in the report is that the contraction from four lines of maintenance to two is a sensible way forward—interestingly, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan accepts this. However, the debate is then about whether the four collapsing into two collapses forward or backwards. DARA has put up a counter-proposal. We have told the work force, DARA and the trade unions that all the proposals have to be studied on the basis of a proper investment analysis. I do not believe that that poses a threat.
I said when I visited Almondbank to open the £5 million state-of-the-art facility there that I had come not to bury Almondbank but to praise it. The £77 million contract that I announced for the super hanger at St Athan in south Wales was another vote of confidence for everything that has taken place in DARA. Of course, the same applies to Sealand. I understand that a new training facility is to be opened up, which will be linked to the Sealand facility, with the support of the Welsh Development Agency and the local college there. To those who seem to be trying to exploit the situation—it is not my hon. Friends who are doing so—by saying that it is a public versus private debate I would say that by establishing that trading fund we have allowed the public sector to take work away from the private sector. They are doing that successfully, so it is an endorsement
558
of the public sector, not a threat. As I told the work force at Almondbank, the very future of DARA rests in the hands not only of the management, who have done a tremendous job, but of the workers, who have accepted major changes. The work force have dropped from 7,000 to 4,000, which shows that they are determined to raise their productivity so that they will be the best and can beat the private sector. I have confidence both in the future of DARA and that the challenges posed by the "end to end" study will be taken on board by the work force and the management, and that they will seek the best solution for their interests.
Mr. Viggers: The future of DARA sites—apart from Fleetlands—has been mentioned. So that we do not risk leaving out that important establishment, will the Minister confirm that the skills of the workers there and the investment that has been made should safeguard its future?
Mr. Ingram: The same thing applies to all the sites; they have all taken major changes on board. There has been investment in that facility. When I talk about DARA, I am referring to all four sites. There are excellent skill bases in all of them, but we have told them that they cannot rely solely on defence procurement streams. Their future lies in a marriage between what we need and what they can win from the private sector, and they are competing and winning orders and contracts. People who call the future of DARA into question are making it difficult for the agency to succeed in an extremely competitive market. If I was in private industry and wanted to place a contract with DARA but was told it had no future, I might think twice about doing so. My hon. Friends the Members for Alyn and Deeside and for Vale of Glamorgan do not, of course, make such remarks; their objectives are clear and I welcome their contributions.
As always, the debate has been wide ranging, well informed and useful. I know that the House holds our service personnel in the highest esteem. It is the calibre of our service personnel that gets the job done, time after time, in the most difficult and dangerous circumstances. As I speak, thousands of our servicemen and women are helping to bring peace and stability across the world.
We also recognise the vital role our service personnel play here at home. The armed forces have a presence across the whole of the UK. They serve the people of the UK, as part of the wider community and the economy, in conjunction with many other agencies and emergency services. The role of the armed forces in assisting home defence tasks will be enhanced through the use of the civil contingencies reaction forces, which are on target to be fully operational by the end of this year.
More widely, the MOD is an important partner in many communities; for example, as an employer and through our many contracts with UK industry. UK companies are involved in a wide range of procurement projects including the largest procurement programme of new ships for the Royal Navy in many years, as I said earlier. Our defence industrial policy, published last

559
year, aims to enable the competitiveness of the UK defence industry, ensuring that the armed forces are provided with the equipment that they need at best value for money for the taxpayer.
Across the UK, from the south of England to Scotland and from East Anglia to Northern Ireland, defence continues to play a vital role in our community. The contribution made by our people, both military and civilian, to ensuring that all the tasks we undertake are successful is truly remarkable.
I know that the House will agree that our continued success depends upon our people. Their commitment, flexibility and willingness to get the job done no matter what all underpin their well-deserved reputation for excellence both at home and around the world.
Gillian Merron: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

NORTHERN IRELAND (MONITORING COMMISSION ETC.) BILL
Ordered,
That, if a Bill entitled the Northern Ireland (Monitoring Commission etc.) Bill is brought from the Lords and read the first time, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee in respect of the Bill may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Gillian Merron.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That—
(1) at the sittings on Tuesday 16th, Wednesday 17th and Thursday 18th September, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Message from the Lords has been received and any Committee to draw up Reasons which has been appointed at the sitting has reported; and
(2) at the sitting on Thursday 18th September, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until he has reported the Royal Assent to any Act agreed upon by both Houses.—[Gillian Merron]

MACHINERY OF GOVERNMENT CHANGES: AMENDMENTS TO STANDING ORDERS
Ordered,
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';

(3) 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'.—[Gillian Merron.]

ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT COMMITTEE
Ordered,
That Mr Michael Meacher be discharged from the Environmental Audit Committee and Mr Elliot Morley be added.—[Gillian Merron.]

Youth Disorder and Antisocial Behaviour
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Gillian Merron]
5.55 pm
Ms Oona King: First, I want to thank Mr. Speaker for allowing me to initiate this debate in the House. It could not be at a more topical time, as the Government's Anti-Social Behaviour Bill is being debated at this moment in the House of Lords. Antisocial behaviour and youth disorder are complicated words to describe a well-known fact. People's lives are being made a misery by the irresponsible, antisocial and often criminal behaviour of their neighbours. In this debate, I will set out some of the problems facing Tower Hamlets and some of the solutions.
As a Tower Hamlets resident, I modestly believe that it is the best place in Britain. Many of my constituents would disagree, however. One constituent wrote to me to say that residents are growing weary of home burglary, dangerous and ugly burnt-out cars and streets that do not feel safe, where gangs of teenage boys gather every evening on corners, trading drugs, having fights and alienating any sense of community and mutual responsibility. I know what she is talking about. I have seen it. I have turned down a back street in my constituency and come face to face with 40 young men wielding baseball bats, chains and knives. I have waded through the rubbish left behind by drugs misusers: foil, plastic bottles, discarded syringes, invariably vomit and occasionally human faeces. I have seen the half-drugged prostitutes looking for business at 11 am, some of them as young as 12-years-old.
It is not what I have seen that illustrates the problems—on the whole, I still feel safer in Tower Hamlets than in most other parts of London—but what I have heard. I have listened to hundreds of Tower Hamlets residents and have asked them to fill in a questionnaire on antisocial behaviour to illustrate how it affects their lives and what they believe the best solutions could be. The following responses about experiences of antisocial behaviour are all from different constituents. One writes:
"On multiple occasions I have witnessed elderly residents being verbally abused."
Another states:
"The gang jumped over the wall into my garden, vandalised my tree and then tried to come in my back door as it was open."
Another says:
"I was attacked by six or seven youth, whilst I was coming through Weavers fields. I was driving my mobility scooter when I was confronted by these youths who were flicking cigarette stubs into my face."
Another writes:
"A friend of mine was going from his cousin's house to his car when a gang approached him and beat him up."
Another says:
"An aunt of mine, in her 70s, was leaving a shop in Wapping Lane and couldn't get past a gang of young boys. She said 'excuse me' and they deliberately jostled her, called her names and spat at her."
562
Another response states:
"We generally don't leave the house after 6 pm, and avoid walking the streets. We take cats everywhere."
Another constituent. says:
"I have had stones, cans and even dead rats thrown at me."
Finally, another constituent, who bought her first home in Tower Hamlets under the Government's part rent, part buy scheme two years ago, wrote:
"I've been burgled twice. There's a burnt-out car in my street at the moment."
She said that it had been there for two weeks. She said:
"most evenings the dumped sofas, wardrobes, fridges, mattresses and industrial waste around the railway arches at the top of my street are set alight—mainly for fun, cos the kids have nothing to do."

She said that the issues threaten the whole community and undermine
"the sense of hope that everyone shared when… moving into their new houses. We are all living in new houses but the yob culture and squalour of the rubbish dumping is undermining and wiping out… the benefits of regeneration."
One problem is that many Tower Hamlets residents are living in old houses and overcrowded conditions. Young people face high unemployment and low aspirations. As a police officer said about the young gang members with whom he deals:
"All they own is the pavement they stand on. And that is where their loyalties lie".
Anyone who has looked into the problem of gang behaviour will know that it centres on territory and the battle for territory. Ordinary residents who get caught up in that can find it terrifying. The situation is getting markedly worse on several estates in Tower Hamlets. So, what is the local authority doing about it? Tower Hamlets has just carried out a best-value review of its services to combat antisocial behaviour and, as far as I know, it is the first in the country—
It being Six o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Gillian Merron]
Ms King: The council is the first in the country to introduce a best-value review and should be congratulated on that. It will lead to improved joint working in the council and among agencies and to plans to improve a range of services from closed circuit television and street cleansing to youth provision, citizenship education and a rapid response service for when problems arise. Through consultation on the review, it has become clear that community engagement sits at the heart of future success. If the community is not working with the authorities that try to deal with the matter, we are absolutely doomed to failure. The council is planning to use the Government's cutting crime together toolkit with groups of local residents.
It is important to bear in mind the fact that when tackling antisocial behaviour, young people are often cited as the culprits to the exclusion of all others. It is important to put that in perspective and realise that although a minority of young people cause terrible problems for their neighbours, most young people are well-behaved law-abiding individuals who make a positive contribution to community life. Many types of

563
antisocial behaviour, such as noise nuisance, neighbour disputes, harassment, fly tipping and permitting dog fouling, are more commonly carried out by adults. That means that a wide range of actions is required to tackle antisocial behaviour in all its forms.
The antisocial behaviour control unit is at the front line of tackling antisocial behaviour. It has several teams that can investigate the full range of antisocial behaviour cases and take enforcement action against people whose behaviour has an adverse effect on their community. It is a fact that a minority of residents have consistently been able to breach their tenancy agreements with impunity and make the lives of residents on their estates a misery. I know that the antisocial behaviour unit will be examining the situation and I trust that it will change.
Further council initiatives include: specialist cleaning teams to remove rubbish and litter; an abandoned vehicles team, which, notwithstanding the example I gave earlier, has one of the best track records in London; successful pilot programmes of a wardens service; anti-graffiti services; increased youth provision, including new mobile youth clubs; and a youth service rapid response team, which can be deployed at short notice to help to calm a neighbourhood. I have spoken to the local police who told me that the youth service rapid response team has been of particular value. I commend all those who have worked on it.
The police and the council have been working more and more closely together. They face incredible pressure. The police and council combined receive more than 30,000 call-outs from residents each year. It is simply impossible for each one to be dealt with promptly, and calls must be prioritised. However, the result is that there are inevitably problems with the response call-out time. Given the 25 per cent. increase in police numbers, I know that the borough commander, Mark Simmons, will be working hard to translate that to reduced call-out times. My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick) recently spent time with the local police and saw the astonishingly complex job with which they are tasked, and he was full of admiration.
What of the national picture and the Government's approach? The Anti-Social Behaviour Bill contains various proposals. The main proposal is to give £75 million over the next three years to assist local agencies to tackle antisocial behaviour. It will deal with neighbours from hell to make it easier for local authorities to fine noisy neighbours £100 and confiscate stereos. It will allow local authority tenants to be put on probation, which will make it easier to evict them. The police will be given powers to close and seal crack houses within 48 hours.
In addition, there are proposals to introduce curfews and powers to disperse young people if they cause a problem.
Some people disagree with some of those powers because they think they go too far. Organisations I respect greatly, such as Barnardo's, the Children's Society and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, say that the proposals infringe people's liberties and rights. But the point is this:
564
liberties and rights are being infringed right now, especially in some of the most deprived parts of Britain. That is why I began by giving voice to some of my residents' experiences, because otherwise people lose the human dimension to the problem. We have to address those experiences. That is why I hope that we will try out the Government's new measures and that they are successful.
In the spirit of what Tower Hamlets council is doing, I hope that we, too, will have a best-value review to see what works. Headlines do not work, but wardens, for example, do work, as they have been shown to do in my area. A more integrated response between the council and the police has paid dividends. Community policing has also been helpful.
Finally, I return to the point where I started—the residents. What do the residents think will work? Their top two answers to the questionnaire that hundreds of them filled in was, first, that there should be more police on foot and, secondly, more youth workers. I thought that an interesting combination. Their other requests included greater installation of CCTV, posters and warning signs to gangs telling them that they are being watched, the provision of youth clubs and sport and leisure facilities, and roving vans with a video camera to record youth activities. Interestingly, many residents wanted that footage to be shown to the parents of gang members. They also wanted the possibility of prosecuting the parents of people under 18.
I am sure that the Minister will mention some of the measures that the Government are introducing to deal with parental responsibility, such as parenting orders. We must ensure that we take a holistic approach to the problem. Tougher policing and sanctions is the stick; greater youth provision and social inclusion is the carrot. However, even taken together they will not solve the problem unless personal responsibility is the byword that defines our society. Laws cannot create respect; individuals can. I appeal to everyone to play their part to tackle the scourge of antisocial behaviour.
6.8 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Fiona Mactaggart): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) for giving me my first opportunity to respond to an Adjournment debate as a Minister. The issue is close to the heart of every hon. Member, including mine. The debate also gives me the chance to congratulate her on doing more than many of her colleagues to ensure that her constituents' voice in rejecting antisocial behaviour is properly heard and used to frame and shape the response that the Government and public institutions take. In addition, I congratulate her on the conference that she organised on 17 July, attended by the Home Secretary, the director of the antisocial behaviour unit and others. It allowed the residents of Tower Hamlets to articulate, as they always do so powerfully, many of the points that she has once again reported in the words of the people who have written to her.
I also thank my hon. Friend for the way in which she recognises—indeed, she demonstrates the extent to which her constituents recognise—that the problem must be shared by all citizens. We should not expect the

565
Government to drop a solution on our heads. We all need to work together. I was struck by the words used in a letter from one of my hon. Friend's constituents. The correspondent pointed out how antisocial behaviour was alienating any sense of community and mutual responsibility. Towards the end of my hon. Friend's remarks, she focused on how the respondents to her surveys had recognised that the solution is, in part, increased policing and recognising our community and mutual responsibility. We need wardens, CCTV and policing, but we also need opportunities for young people to have appropriate activities and things to do.
My hon. Friend demonstrated powerfully the contribution that the citizen can make to Government policy. It is a voice that is too often ignored, but it is one that helps the Government to remember that the answer cannot be arrived at merely by pressing one button. The Government should recognise that if the resources of ordinary people whose lives are being made a misery by antisocial behaviour can be mobilised, that in itself is part of the solution.
My hon. Friend described the problems that are so acute in her constituency, such as graffiti, abandoned cars, drugs, drugs paraphernalia in the street for adults and children to trip over, youth prostitution, young people hanging about intimidating people or being disrespectful to them and inappropriate begging. Those problems are often dismissed as being of low level; yet they make such a difference to the quality of life of many of our constituents. That is why the Government are determined to tackle the problem.
We need to be clear about what we have achieved, and we have achieved much. Crime in general is down and police numbers have never been higher. Wardens and community safety officers are on our streets to protect and reassure people. Nevertheless, there is more to be done. I hope that I shall be able to show that in the work that we are undertaking, and in the new legislation that we are proposing, some of the issues that my hon. Friend has so clearly identified are beginning to be tackled.
Police strength in Tower Hamlets has increased by 191 since 1997. There are now 26,868 Metropolitan police officers, which is an increase of 3.5 per cent. The civilian police strength at March 2002 stood at 10,459, an increase of 4.2 per cent. on the previous year. The numbers on their own are important, but the way in which officers are deployed is also important. I share my hon. Friend's congratulations to her borough commander and, like her, commend the determination of the local police force to ensure that it is tackling the issues that most concern residents.
The force is making sure that police officers are situated in schools in Tower Hamlets. That has a number of products. First, it means that relationships between young people and the police are improved. Secondly, it means that police officers are more aware of which young people have the most challenging behaviour because they can be involved, for example, in some of the activities that need to be undertaken to tackle truanting. Their engagement with the community by being based in schools can become more powerful
566
and more real. In the Met of all police forces, it is quite difficult to get that level of community engagement. Working closely with schools is one of the tools that they can use to do that. In addition, the Met has £1.5 million to deliver more community support officers in the coming year—250 in total, 18 of whom will be allocated to Tower Hamlets—and there are 23 wardens in the borough.
Community support officers and wardens do not have the same powers as the police, but they have the opportunity to tackle some of the issues that most featured in my hon. Friend's speech—for example, the degradation of the environment that encourages antisocial behaviour. When people say to me, "What will these wardens do to stop the people who are throwing bricks through windows, as they can't arrest them?", I tell them that one thing that they can do is to make sure that the bricks are not there on the streets in the first place. Tackling the environmental degradation that fuels crime is an important part of the strategy of bearing down on antisocial behaviour—in effect, by stopping it from starting. A lot of antisocial behaviour arises from opportunity. In a way, that reflects what my hon. Friend said about people feeling that the street is a piece of ground that they own. If we make it a space that people are proud of and which encourages appropriate behaviour, that will in itself reduce antisocial behaviour and make people feel more positive about their environment.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on listening to people. For a long time, crime debates in this House have concentrated too much on the most serious crime. That might seem an odd thing to say. However, such crime is, thankfully, relatively rare—most of us do not experience the kind that is based on a network of criminality and results in complex court cases—whereas it is all too common for people to experience the kind that used to be dismissed as low-level antisocial behaviour, not treated as criminality. In recent years, that has changed, and debates often focus on so-called antisocial behaviour. That is because Members such as my hon. Friend have first, listened to their constituents, and secondly, know the extent to which such antisocial behaviour is a precursor to more serious crime.
My hon. Friend's constituents, having been victims of the culture of disrespect described in many of the letters that she read out, say, "We don't only want more and better policing—we want purposeful activities for young people." That is another reminder of the wisdom of the people who sent us to this House to represent them. They recognise that these issues cannot be resolved with a one-trick solution. It cannot be done by flooding the community with police officers or by cleaning the streets, although those are both important; we also need to divert young people from the belief that there is nothing else worth doing.
I am glad that we have invested so much in ensuring that young people have appropriate activities in, for example, their holidays. Since 2000, £14.5 million has been spent on setting up Splash Extra, which is a diversionary activity programme that takes place throughout the school holidays and focuses especially on 13 to 17-year-olds. It takes particular account of

567
those who are most at risk of misbehaving. It focuses on high crime neighbourhoods—regrettably, my hon. Friend's is such a neighbourhood—and providing appropriate activities to reduce crime. It is helping to make a genuine difference in diverting young people from criminal behaviour.
My hon. Friend described the strong commitment in Tower Hamlets to working with children and young people to prevent problems. A community cohesion project is under way in her constituency. It works on inter-generation, inter-racial and inter-faith issues and tries to bring young and older people together.
My hon. Friend said that young people are often demonised as criminals when they are frequently the victims of crime. We therefore need to improve communications between the old and the young when trying to deal with those matters. The rapid response team and the youth offending team in Tower Hamlets are working on restorative justice and prevention. They are therefore working on dealing with not only young people who have been guilty of crimes and have victimised fellow residents, but those to whom that does not yet apply. It is important to recognise that both groups—those who have previously offended and need to be prevented from reoffending and those who are at risk of offending—are targets. The teams are working on early, constructive intervention and involving the community and the victims of crimes in the justice process.
My hon. Friend's account demonstrates the extent of the wisdom of the victims of crime. They do not simply want punishment or retribution; they want prevention and strategies to ensure that others do not suffer as they have done. Some of the work is making a difference and the results in my hon. Friend's constituency speak for themselves. Tower Hamlets has falling rates of youth offending and youth victimisation and the percentage of crimes in the borough committed by young people because it has targeted young people. It shows that such focusing can work, and I wish the teams well.
When people cross the line, we must ensure that we take action to enforce and uphold standards of behaviour. We have introduced tools to prevent people from causing problems, through antisocial behaviour orders, and to prohibit behaviour that causes harassment, alarm and distress, through fixed penalty notices for disorder, parenting orders and acceptable behaviour contracts. The parenting orders constitute another example of Tower Hamlets combining the legal and justice frameworks with working both with people who have come to the notice of the relevant institutions and those who have not yet come to their notice. That combination is a powerful method of proceeding. In my hon. Friend's borough, it is striking that parenting classes contain more parents who attend voluntarily than parents who have been sent under parenting orders.
I am glad that we are holding the debate this week, when the Green Paper on children at risk has been published. It aims to ensure that no child falls through the net and to help all children to achieve their potential. It shifts the balance from dealing with problems—whether criminality or victimisation among young people—after they have occurred to preventing children
568
from becoming criminals or victims by tackling child poverty, improving education and child care, raising school standards and supporting parents. These measures are already making a difference, but we need to be honest—we have to do more.
We have made tackling antisocial behaviour a key priority for the police. We need to ensure that all the practitioners that I have mentioned, as well as citizens, have the tools to do their job. That is why we are introducing the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill, which has gone through its stages in this House and is currently being discussed in the other place. It will provide new powers to deal with noise nuisance, tackle serious youth nuisance and close crack houses.
My hon. Friend and I share a tradition of being concerned about civil liberties and of understanding the views of those organisations that are anxious about some of the powers in the Bill to disperse young people. However, we also share the experience of our constituents who have been terrorised when going out of their houses—not by groups of young people for whom the street is a reasonable place to meet and who want to play out there and entertain themselves, but by those who abuse, terrorise and intimidate residents who are simply going about their daily lives and doing their shopping. We need to have the powers to disperse those young people when that happens.
I assure hon. Members that the Home Office does not intend those powers to be used willy-nilly or lightly. They are, however, powers that those who are trying to deal with these issues need to have available to them. I hope that, through the prevention work that we are doing, and through more effective youth work and improved relations between the police and the communities they serve, we can make the additional powers unnecessary. It would be wonderful if that were the case, but we need those measures to be available.
We are not introducing the powers in the Bill so that they can sit on the shelf, or so that they can be shouted at people. We need to ensure that they are used intelligently and put to work to protect the victims of antisocial behaviour, whose lives are being made a misery by it, and whose new homes, of which they want to feel proud, have become a burden to them because of it. That is why the Home Office has set up an antisocial behaviour unit to work with practitioners, with the local authorities that are focusing on the issue in the way that my hon. Friend described, and with the police, to make a difference where antisocial behaviour is at its worst. We shall not need these powers to deal with people who occasionally litter or who spit out their chewing gum on the street, although we all know that that can be extremely irritating. The powers might be needed to make the extra difference where antisocial behaviour is at its worst, and where the more positive powers have not changed behaviour sufficiently.
We shall shortly be publishing an action plan, but the biggest challenge for everyone involved will be to put the words that my hon. Friend and I have exchanged today into practice and to ensure that the approach that her

569
speech so powerfully illustrated is not just an issue for the professionals. It is an issue in which the voice of the resident, the activity of the citizen, the experience of the young person and the anxiety of the parent can come together to ensure that we tackle antisocial behaviour. We must put our words into action to ensure that the
570
victims are helped and protected, and are able to live their lives free from the harassment and distress that my hon. Friend has so powerfully described. I promise that the entire Home Office team will do its best to do that.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Six o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. PETER PIKE in the Chair]

United Nations
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Joan Ryan.]
2.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell): I welcome the opportunity to debate the United Nations and Britain's position within it. Before starting, it is appropriate to express on behalf of all hon. Members our deep shock at the horrifying attack on the United Nations in Baghdad in August and the appalling and tragic death of Sergio Vieira de Mello and his staff. I last met Mr. Vieira de Mello in Geneva at the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in March, and it would be difficult to find a more dedicated, charismatic and effective leader within the United Nations structure. It was also tragic that his political affairs officer, Fiona Watson, a former Officer of the House, was killed, with 20 other people. On behalf of all hon. Members, I pay tribute to those people. I welcome Kofi Annan's determination that the UN should continue to make its contribution to cohesion and world peace despite those tragic events, and I am sure that hon. Members will join me in that.
This debate is the start of what the Government hope will be an annual process of reflecting on the United Kingdom's position within the United Nations and the overall structure and direction of the UN. It is timely that this debate is taking place in advance of the opening of the 58th session of the United Nations General Assembly, which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for International Development and I will attend later this month. Given that timing, today I want to outline the Government's views on the way forward for the United Nations.
It is also timely that in the middle of the UK's month at the helm of the Security Council, when we are leading important Council business on conflicts in Africa. discussion of the middle east peace process and, of course, Iraq, we shall be putting forward an initiative on managing the transition from conflict to the rule of law. I shall speak about that later.
The debate also provides an important opportunity to take stock of the enormous breadth and depth of the UK's relationship with the United Nations. The Command Paper, "The UK in the UN", which we published last week, sets out the current situation effectively, and I urge all hon. Members to read it, as it sets out some of our ideas for reform of the UN, or which I shall elaborate in greater detail as the debate proceeds.
Anyone who doubts the continuing relevance of the United Nations need only look at the range of work outlined in the Command Paper. Discussion of military
140WH
intervention and sanctions in the Security Council may grab the headlines, but the UN's ongoing work, funds and programmes are at the heart of global efforts to improve the lives of 2 billion people throughout the world who live in abject poverty on less than $1 a day. The Command Paper makes it clear that the UK is active across the full range of the UN's work as a major contributor of people, ideas and funding.
Earlier this week I met Mr. Fawzi, the outgoing head of the information centre in London, who paid a departing call on me. He was at pains to stress his belief that the United Kingdom is almost unparalleled in its political and financial commitment to the UN. I was grateful to hear that directly from someone who has spent his life working with the UN.
One myth that the Command Paper lays to rest is the idea that disagreements with the UN and the Security Council over Iraq sounded the death knell for the UN, or for our interest in working through it. Even in the Security Council, where the disagreements were felt most strongly, the reality belies the media's image of permanent splits. The Council was united in its original analysis of the problems in Iraq in a succession of resolutions over more than a decade setting out obligations for Iraq, and in its determination, in Security Council resolution 1441, that Iraq was not in compliance with those. I think there can be no doubt about that whatever.
Despite the subsequent disagreements, since resolution 1441 the Council has united again around four further resolutions dealing with Iraq. It is also worth making it clear that in the same period it has adopted 60 resolutions on other subjects before the Council—all but two unanimously. Whatever took place over Iraq, the breadth and scale and importance of the work of the UN continues apace.
It is clear that the breadth of work outlined in the Command Paper highlights the UN's importance as the only truly global democratic institution, with 191 member states meeting on an equal basis in the General Assembly. It is certainly the case that to engage in global business, one has to engage through the United Nations. The success of the UN, therefore, is critical to many of the UK's international policy objectives. The Command Paper describes our contribution to the development of policy at the heart of the key areas of UN activity—international peace and security, human rights, development, health, crime and justice—which reflect many of our national interests. To promote those interests effectively, the UK and its Government have to help the UN to succeed.
The Command Paper sets out how we hope to achieve this in relation to each of the main bodies of the United Nations. I would like to draw out some of the overarching objectives for the UN to help it deliver the results that matter for the UK, and I hope that we can all do that during the debate. We want a Security Council that effectively deals with all threats to international peace and security, including new threats such as terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, which will undoubtedly require us to develop new approaches. We also want a revitalised General Assembly that helps provide strategic direction for international efforts to manage globalisation. We want the implementation of the proposals for the reform of the UN secretariat set out by Kofi Annan last year,

141WH
and we certainly want better co-ordination of the wider UN system of fund programmes and specialised agencies.
One example in which I believe that the UK's contribution and vision have helped achieve a greater UN impact is in the reform of UN peacekeeping operations. Our involvement in peacekeeping goes back as far as 1964 in Cyprus, and since then the UK has participated in 18 further UN missions. I believe that the outstanding record of our armed forces is demonstrated in their support and commitment to restoring peace, security and stability in the Balkans and Cambodia.
In Sierra Leone, I believe that our contribution—this is now universally acknowledged—was critical to what subsequently has rightly been seen as a major UN success. In Afghanistan, the UK was the first nation to lead the international security assistance force, which has made a significant contribution. The situation there is much better than before, and I hope and believe that that will continue.
We have also worked in the Security Council to ensure that peacekeeping operations have robust realistic mandates, which focus on situations in which they can make a genuine contribution to restoring and maintaining peace. We have also worked through the General Assembly to build consensus on reformed and effective operations. Indeed, the UK has been at the forefront of the secretariat's efforts to implement the Brahimi report on peace operations, which was established in August 2000.
We have worked closely with the Department of Peace-Keeping Operations on developing a programme of assistance under the UN strategy of the global conflict prevention pool. We have encouraged the development of links between peacekeeping operations and the many other UN bodies involved in post-conflict work to ensure an effective, integrated international effort on the ground.
On 22 September, the United Nations General Assembly will begin its 58th session. The agenda is wide-ranging, and we shall contribute, as a country and a Government, to all aspects of that. We have a number of particular priorities. First, we hope that the international community can address the threat of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We want to build on the European Union's Thessaloniki declaration on counter-proliferation to get a commitment from the wider international community in the pursuit of this vital agenda through the UN.
We want to encourage the international debate on counter-terrorism and ensure that there is continued commitment to the process of peer review and partnership through the Counter-Terrorism Committee of the Security Council, which has been one of the most significant success stories for the UN over recent years.
We also want further national and EU support for peacekeeping, including capacity building in the UN system and among non-EU troop contributors. In addition, we will work for a new focus on international policing, which is a necessary supplement and ingredient of any post-conflict situation. We believe that one of the key tasks for the UN is to reduce the likelihood and frequency of conflict around the world, and as a result
142WH
we are very supportive of efforts to build UN capacity in conflict prevention. In that regard, we are working to strengthen African institutions to improve their role in maintaining African peace and security.
Tony Baldry: If we really are committed to conflict prevention in west Africa, we must ensure that the special court in Sierra Leone has the resources necessary to complete its work. Is the Minister aware that the special court will soon be issuing redundancy notices to staff because it does not think that it has the financial wherewithal to continue? Perhaps he will give some thought to that in his summing up.
Mr. Rammell: We have contributed significantly to the special court in Sierra Leone. The model that has been pursued in Sierra Leone is far more cost-effective than other mechanisms of post-conflict restorative justice that have been established throughout the world. We have encouraged other nations to contribute to the court and will continue to do that. I will return to the issue in my summing up, when I may be able to give further details.
This year's session of the General Assembly will finally agree the organisation's budget for the next two years. We want the budget to focus on UN priority activity to ensure that the organisation is as efficient and effective as possible. That is one of the recurring themes when considering general reform within the UN. The Government and I are passionate supporters of the UN, but if we are really to believe in it, it must ensure that its resources and programmes are targeted at the issues, problems and concerns that are relevant and are priorities for the whole international community. We will return to that.
The opening week of the General Assembly comes during the month in which the UK holds the rotating presidency of the Security Council. As a neutral chair, our main responsibility will be to conduct the daily business as efficiently as possible, building consensus around the many important issues on the agenda. Those include the situation in the middle east and in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, a mandate for a new peacekeeping operation in Liberia, and renewing those in Sierra Leone and on the Ethiopian-Eritrean border.
In addition—this will be a significant development—we will initiate a debate on post-conflict transition to justice and the rule of law. The UN's broad experience in bringing many countries out of conflict means that there is much expertise on individual aspects of that agenda. Restoring the rule of law is both backward looking, in the sense of dealing with the injustice of the past, and forward looking, in the sense of establishing or reforming the institutions and democratic structures that guarantee the rule of law in the future. Critically, the UN has experience of all those elements. Its experience ranges from international criminal tribunals to training in policing and justice. We are arranging discussions between the Security Council and experts to

143WH
consider how the international community can learn from previous experience and more effectively achieve the transition to the rule of law.
Overall reform of the UN—its methods of working and its institutions—is one of the most timely and critical issues that we will face. Like any organisation that wishes to remain relevant in the modern world, the UN continually updates its priorities and its working methods. That is why the Government are committed to pushing forward the process of reform, which has been led with such vigour by the Secretary-General of the UN, Kofi Annan. Part of our agenda for reform is of long-standing and part is based on new thinking—inspired, bluntly, by what has taken place during recent months—and the discussions that I initiated and led in the Foreign Office, which involved the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers and a range of politicians, academics and practitioners. I believe that some Members here today attended a seminar on UN reform held at the Foreign Office on 19 June.
Institutional reform can play an important part. The Government have been a long-standing supporter of enlarging the permanent and non-permanent categories of Security Council membership. The original Council formation was enlarged in 1965 to reflect the growth in UN membership in the post-colonial era, but the world has moved on and changed significantly since 1965, with the enormous expansion in UN membership and the end of the cold war. In particular, the economic power of Japan and Germany and their enormous contribution to the UN should be recognised with permanent seats on the Security Council. India and Brazil, which are emerging powers, should be given seats reflecting their regional weight and increasing global reach. Significantly, Africa must be given a permanent seat to ensure that countries can build up experience and weight in the Council that will give that continent, which takes up so much of the Security Council's time, a more effective voice.
However, the Security Council is only part of the picture. If we wholly and exclusively focus on its makeup, we will miss the essential importance of the debate. To maintain its position at the centre of the international system, the Council must address the full range of the challenges that face us. The need for it to deal with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is pressing. As a first step, it would be appropriate for it to acknowledge the threat and perhaps commission further work on how the UN could tackle the menace.
The Council must be as imaginative in that area as possible, and certainly as imaginative as it was in responding to the terrorist threats and attacks that happened exactly two years ago today. Following those horrendous attacks, the establishment of the Counter-Terrorism Committee within the framework of the Council was an unprecedented innovation, showing how the Council can succeed in setting the international agenda. The CTC was chaired very ably and successfully for its first 18 months by Sir Jeremy Greenstock, who is now en route to Iraq to work with Paul Bremer in leading the international effort there. The CTC set up a system of peer review that has shown significant progress in making universal the existing international instruments against terror. The chairmanship has now been taken on with equal vigour by Spain.
144WH
It is perhaps time to consider whether the CTC should be placed on a more permanent footing, with control of its own resources and expert staff, as recently recommended by the Foreign Affairs Committee. I would be interested to hear Members' comments and views on that issue.
Similarly, we should return to the question of when the Council and the international community should have the right to intervene in massive abuses of human rights, whether those inflicted by Governments on their own peoples or those that Governments are powerless to prevent. The debate that was rightly sparked by the horrors of Rwanda and Kosovo has largely fallen silent. The UK was at the forefront of earlier action on the matter, starting with the Prime Minister's speech in Chicago in 1999, and subsequently pursued through draft guidelines that we floated in the Security Council.
This is a very important issue, and I know from brief conversations that I had with two hon. Members who intend to contribute today that it is of real interest and concern to them. If we want the UN to be the credible and effective body that it needs to be in the modern world, we must face up to the questions of where, how and why it is justified to intervene on humanitarian grounds. I say that as a passionate believer in and supporter of the UN.
Clearly, we also want to invigorate the General Assembly, which is too often weighed down by its attachment to outdated procedures and to the continual recycling of well-worn arguments, as the same resolutions come up year after year. The Assembly is also too often deadlocked by the bloc politics that have somehow outlived the cold war, which ensures an atmosphere of continual confrontation and, bluntly, lowest-common-denominator solutions. Too much Assembly business is repetitive and sterile, with the same issues coming up year after year, thereby choking the agenda and blocking off other discussion. Little time is allowed for the General Assembly to debate the many issues of substance that genuinely face the world today.
There are practical procedures that we can put in place to deal with the problem and to streamline the agenda. We could, for example, reduce the frequency and length of the time for which committees meet, ensure that the Assembly debates certain low-priority issues only once every two or three years, rather than annually as at present, and combine related resolutions. We should consider, very strongly in my view, introducing sunset clauses for programmes, so that we do not keep programmes running year after year even when the issue has moved on and the real problem is not as significant and enduring as it was. We also have to strengthen the oversight role of the General Committee, the General Assembly's agenda-setting body.
In the context of General Assembly reform, I am pleased to welcome the election of Julian Hunte, the Foreign Minister of St. Lucia, as the president for this year's session of the General Assembly. As well as that being a long-overdue chance for a Caribbean country to take on that important post, we are pleased to note his reforming agenda, and we intend to work closely with him to ensure that he can push forward that agenda and develop his plans to increase the relevance of the Assembly's work.

145WH
We have also taken the opportunity to set out in the Command Paper our intention to take action to try to break down the stultifying bloc politics of the Assembly. We want to seek ways of building alliances across regional and political groupings. We also want to place that on the agenda of the European Union, the G8 and other forums to ensure that we are all considering it as constructively as we can. In particular, we want to focus on those countries whose lack of resources leaves them especially reliant on the group system because they feel that they have nowhere else to go.
We want the UN to reach out more effectively to non-governmental organisations, whose role in society has increased immeasurably and dramatically since the UN was established. That has been a very healthy and positive development, but the UN needs to develop, evolve and catch up with it to ensure that it is engaging with everyone, not just national Governments.
On secretariat reform, the UN has recognised, under Kofi Annan's stewardship, that a successful organisation needs an effective administration to deliver its priorities. The Secretary-General has drawn on his experience at the heart of the administration to shape the reform agenda that he initially launched back in 1997. Much has been done, which we welcome, but there is still room for improvement.
In September 2002, the Secretary-General launched the latest round of his programme of reforms with a report entitled "Strengthening the UN: An Agenda for Further Change". The United Kingdom has fully supported that agenda. The latest reform agenda includes many items: priority setting, management of human resources, financial management, working practices and ensuring that there are appropriate staffing levels. All that is crucial to providing an efficient administration that can deliver priority activities and go on to achieve the objectives set for the UN by the international community.
The UK Government take a lead role in pushing for reform of the UN bureaucracy. Reprioritising activity in line with the millennium declaration, coupled with time limits on programme mandates— also known as sunset clauses—will be key. There is real concern that the UN is in danger of spreading itself too thinly because it has failed to discontinue activity that is either redundant or no longer serves its original purpose. People who say that they support the UN—thus implying or suggesting that we should not challenge, question or scrutinise how it works—are not genuinely its friends. If it is to evolve and be successful and effective, it needs to take on those challenges.
On the UN budget, an organisation with such a wide range of responsibilities and interests undoubtedly needs adequate funding to carry out those functions. The UK, rightly and justifiably. is a major financial contributor to the UN. In 2002, the UK paid more that £600 million, through our assessed and voluntary contributions, to support the many activities described in the Command Paper on the UN that we have recently published. That is a considerable sum, but it represents excellent value for money when set against the benefits that the UN delivers. For example, we each pay only about £1.90 for the UK's share of the cost of
146WH
peacekeeping operations. Everyone would acknowledge that that is value for money, given the benefit that it can bring.
As a major contributor, we are also interested in proper management of UN budgets. Our permanent mission to the UN at New York represents the UK in negotiations on expenditure for the UN regular budget, peacekeeping operations and international tribunals at the fifth committee of the General Assembly, where all aspects of the programme and activity are carefully scrutinised to promote budgetary rigour and maximum effectiveness in supporting the UN's overall objectives.
The UK has certainly lobbied for linkage between budget and reform, using the budget as a tool to push for acceptance of the Secretary-General's reform agenda. It is important to stress that our aim is not to cut budgets but to ensure that the organisation delivers value for money. Nobody is suggesting that there should be a cut in contributions, but if we can introduce greater efficiency and focus, we can ensure that there is even more money to spend on other programmes within the UN structure.
Finally, I turn to development. The UN is undoubtedly integral to the international development architecture. Major players such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank are part of the UN family and work with the United Nations Development Programme and other UN development organisations to make poor people's lives better. Since 1997, when the UN Secretary-General set in train a series of reforms to the UN development effort, much has happened to improve co-ordination across the UN family, with support for that process from the Department for International Development.
Those reforms were carried forward in the Secretary-General's 2002 reform agenda, with action points addressing the need to strengthen the effectiveness of the UN's presence in developing countries and to clarify roles and responsibilities in technical co-operation. In parallel with those efforts, individual UN bodies in the sphere of development have launched ambitious programmes aimed at improving the Assembly's focus.
I have tried to run through current Government thinking on reforming the UN, its institutions and its methods of working. I hope that we can have a constructive debate this afternoon, and it is timely that we are debating the issues in the UK. We are not the only people undertaking that process. The Secretary-General has made it clear that he wants to propose and develop a reform agenda. The Latin American countries are undertaking a similar review, and many other members of the UN are going through similar processes. The reform of the UN has been long discussed, but I genuinely believe that the timing and circumstances for the debate are the most propitious for some time. I therefore urge Members to get involved.
I have not given an exhaustive list of the options for UN reform. As I have said, we have listened to many views in drawing up the work programme, and I hope to hear more views during the debate. It is essential that the UK's engagement with the UN and its reform go wider than just involving the Government. We want to engage civil society and the private sector, and we want to encourage well-informed debate in Parliament.

147WH
This debate is the start of what we see as an annual process. At this time each year, in the run-up to the UN General Assembly meeting, the Government will propose an annual Commons debate on the UK's position within the UN, which may help the UN and us. The process is important, and I look forward to hearing what Members have to say and hope that we can have a constructive debate.
2.58 pm
Mr. Alan Duncan: Hon. Members will agree that this is one of the most timely debates that we have seen in this Chamber. It comes when the UN's role in Iraq, and indeed the whole future direction of the UN, is on all our minds. I place on record my own and my party's condolences and appreciation for all those who have lost their lives serving the UN, particularly those dedicated and hard-working people who were killed and injured in the recent bombing of the UN building in Baghdad.
I recall debating this subject in May last year. On that occasion, I said that in an ever more globalised world, discussions and understanding between nations are more important than ever. The opportunities for misunderstanding and conflict may be greater, but so too are the opportunities to resolve such problems without violence. The UN remains an important forum—probably the most important forum—for the resolution of disputes between nations and peoples, as well as being an agent for social and economic progress.
What cannot be escaped, however, is the fact that since that debate, much has changed. Iraq merely threw into stark relief what had been lingering for some time. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) said in a lecture earlier in the summer, international institutions, including the United Nations, the EU and NATO, have all sustained damage during the Iraq conflict. He pointed this out:
"For many, the United Nations is still widely perceived as the ultimate organisation of international cooperation … but the stark truth is that, in the run-up to the Iraq conflict, the UN Security Council was rendered impotent, and in February when France made it explicitly clear that it would veto any 'second' resolution … it became effectively gridlocked".
The questions that remain are whether recent events have undermined the Security Council's effectiveness or simply its reputation in Washington DC, and what can be done to help the United Nations adapt to recent and not so recent changes.
We have to look deeper to understand that. The vital backdrop is the end of the cold war and the geopolitical changes that flowed from it. The UN was established in the era immediately after the second world war, and it came of age during the cold war. That was a time when the two superpowers and their two attendant blocs counterbalanced each other. Neither one side nor the other could dominate the world, and neither of them had a free hand to act as they wished. It was an era of balance and, in many ways, of compromise.
Today, the Communist eastern bloc is gone and the USA remains as a world power—indeed, the world power. It possesses unrivalled military, economic and technological power, and as things stand there is no rival power or power bloc that can match it. That presents a changed geopolitical environment from the one in which
148WH
the United Nations emerged, because the US has the power to act as it wishes. It can act unilaterally if it determines that that is in line with its national security strategy document. The USA can act alone if it perceives a risk to itself. That ability to act unilaterally, combined with its clear view of a threat that necessitates removal, has coloured many views and subsequent actions of the US Administration.
With Iraq, the US believed that the UN had already made clear its view that Iraq was acting illegally, and the US therefore believed that it was incumbent on the UN to enforce previous resolutions—it would have otherwise failed in its duty and thereby made itself redundant. Others, such as France and Germany, took the view that if the Security Council simply agreed with the US proposals, that would be tantamount to making itself redundant, as it: would be abrogating its right to disagree with a proposed course of action.
To many, it appeared that the US was saying, "We hope you back us, but if you don't we'll act unilaterally anyway." That appeared to mark the death of multilateral consensual conduct of international relations in favour of a more conviction-based model where the hyperpower called all the shots. If this were a truly a unilateral world, the UN would not have a discernible role in great power politics. It is not, however, a truly unilateral world, and ironically, events in Iraq have begun to show that quite brutally. To be effective, power must be matched with wider acceptance.
The reality is complex, and in the world today there are probably even more reasons why we need the UN than there were before. That is something that the United States Administration are also beginning to realise. Let us not forget that President Bush and Secretary Powell made their presentations on Iraq to the UN and sought, and succeeded in obtaining, a UN Security Council resolution—1441—before finally acting.
I do not intend to revisit yesterday's debate, save to say that since the end of the conflict the importance of the UN in the reconstruction of Iraq has become daily more clear. America recognises that it needs the assistance of the international community through the UN for the reconstruction of Iraq. I, like most others, welcomed President Bush's statement earlier this year, following talks with the Prime Minister, in which he made clear the importance that he attached to the UN's involvement in post-Saddam Iraq.
We have long supported UN involvement in the reconstruction. Although we regret the Government's apparently inadequate preparations for post-Saddam Iraq, which have placed a great burden on our troops who are obliged to do jobs that would be more properly done by aid organisations and contractors, we hope that every effort will be made to secure greater UN involvement. I hope that no country will seek to block or undermine those measures, as we can all see that that would only hurt the Iraqis.
We should not fall into the trap of pretending that until recently the UN Security Council was a perfect body in which the political interests of individual nations were separated from their behaviour. The cold war was filled with political use of the veto on both sides—for example, on motions regarding Israel. The UN has always reflected political power.

149WH
The UN charter aspires to save people from the scourge of war, establish conditions under which justice, human rights and respect for international obligations can be maintained,
"promote social progress and better standards of life",
and practise tolerance. Those objectives are as valid and worthy today as when the charter was drawn up. We must try to modernise the UN where necessary and translate the objectives into workable projects. That highlights the concept of what the new UN, if I may call it that, has to do. To be effective, it must blend power and consensus. That is the challenge that it must address during the reforms that it faces. Given America's status and power, the corollary is that no one should expect the UN to be able to tell the US what to do, if Washington is not so minded. Equally, no one should expect the US to be able to tell the UN what to do and have it fall into line on every occasion.
I am encouraged that the debate to reform the UN to adapt it to those new realities is going strong. It is a debate to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes constructively contributed in his recent lecture, addressing issues such as the need to expand the UN Security Council, areas in which the UN has a positive role to play and the question of peacekeeping or peace making. I do not have time to rehearse all his erudite arguments today, but I will touch on a couple of them.
Similarly, I welcome the Minister's contribution today, and a speech that he made in June, but I do not believe that all the proposals that he has outlined would necessarily help. Some threaten to create more, not less, bureaucracy, and although increases in the size of the Security Council are proposed, there are no suggestions for tackling problems that might arise if, for example, India became a permanent member but Pakistan did not. None the less, those are important contributions to what should be a mature and open debate.
Kofi Annan's proposals, which were recently published and are soon to be formally discussed, are also important. Mr. Annan has ruled out a run-of-the-mill review and has thereby made an important commitment to improve the inner workings of the UN. I welcome the decision by President Bush, President Chirac and Chancellor Schrőder to accept Mr. Annan's invitation to attend the UN General Assembly meeting to debate UN reform priorities. I am sorry that—unless the Minister has something to announce today—our Prime Minister will not be there.
We cannot deny that the debate is real and urgent. One key question is whether the UN should be engaged in peace making as well as peacekeeping. The UN has been successful in peacekeeping operations such as those in Namibia, El Salvador, Cambodia, Mozambique and Cyprus. On a bigger and more recent level, it has been in Afghanistan where, although there is still much to be done, there is much of which the UN can be very proud.
As I said last year, humanitarian aid, health programmes and the building of effective education systems are all vital if we are to tackle the long-term causes of poverty and conflict. Dealing with humanitarian crises when they occur, helping refugees and feeding a starving population are important aspects
150WH
of the UN's work. There is also, however, a longer-term commitment to improving social conditions and tackling root causes, and in those areas the UN continues to be the key international player.
United Nations subsidiary bodies also have a long and distinguished record. The World Health Organisation successfully co-ordinated the international response to SARS and has been combating various lethal diseases in developing and developed countries for decades. The International Atomic Energy Agency has been doing vital work in monitoring atomic materials, most recently in Iran. The World Food Programme is successfully relieving starvation and famine in afflicted areas. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees continues to relieve the suffering of people made homeless and stateless by conflict and natural disasters. The UN has been taking an active, indeed a leading role in the fight against AIDS. That is a superficial skim across the surface of some of the UN's activities that are perhaps not as much in the public eye as the activities of the Security Council, but they are every bit as important.
There is room for reform in those areas as well: for example, in the procedures of organisations such as the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. I hope that a firmer line could be taken with countries such as Burma and Zimbabwe, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes has repeatedly called on the Government to internationalise the situation in Zimbabwe through the UN. I would be interested to know why the Government do not make better use of the UN in that way, and why they appear to be frightened of bringing the tragedies of Zimbabwe to the attention of the international community. It could only be constructive if they were to do so, and I do not understand what they are afraid of.
I have focused on the broader questions concerning the UN's future, rather than on the specific achievements and reform proposals that many hon. Members will no doubt address thoroughly and eloquently this afternoon. I want to leave time for others to consider this important subject, but the UN deserves a practical alliance of realism and idealism. That is the only way in which it can effectively adapt to the new geopolitical environment and continue to serve the interests of its members. I hope and believe that that balance can be struck. It must be struck. because the UN is far from past its sell-by date; it is in need of change, but has much good work still to do.
3.11 pm
Mr. Clive Soley: Before I contribute to this important debate, I hope, Mr. Pike, that you will allow me to say a few words about Westminster Hall, because it is the first time that I have spoken here. That might seem odd because, as you will remember, we served together on the Modernisation Committee in which I introduced a paper suggesting that we have another debating chamber, which I clumsily called the Second Chamber or the Primary Chamber. The Clerks, with all their wisdom and historical knowledge, suggested a better name: Westminster Hall.
The aim was to alter the timetabling of the House of Commons, so that debates such as this were not conducted in the middle of the night or on Friday

151WH
evenings. I have watched this Chamber evolve into an important part of the House of Commons—although I have not taken part in its debates. When I wrote that short paper, I hoped that the media would be interested in the Chamber's proceedings. I regret that they have chosen largely to ignore it. That is a great shame because so much is introduced here that the British people should hear about. I want to put that on record.
I identify myself with the comments made by the Opposition spokesman and the Minister on the Baghdad bombing. One of my near neighbours in Oxford, who was in the same office as the representative, had his legs blown off and suffered other appalling injuries. We must remember that, as well as the deaths that occurred, many in that dreadful experience, such as Gill Loescher, suffered awful injuries from which they will never fully recover. That is a reminder of how those who work for the UN place their lives and liberties at risk for the benefit of the citizens of the world.
I welcome the debate because, as the Minister will know, I have been concerned for a considerable time about the need to reform the UN. When people talk about reforming it, they normally mean reforming the Security Council to make it more representative of the modern world. I accept that that is important. It is long overdue that countries such as India and Brazil—two future superpowers, by any standard—are represented on the Security Council. That is an issue on which people agree that reform is necessary
However, I do not want to focus my comments on that issue today. I want to make a relatively short contribution on what I see as the most important aspect of reform in the United Nations: the procedure for dealing with totalitarian and failed states. It is a difficult issue, because every nation is a member of the United Nations, and one person's definition of a tyrannical regime is another person's definition of life, liberty and heaven on earth.
The world now has an opportunity that it has not had before. All the great powers have either got democracy and the rule of law or are trying to get it. Both China and Russia fall into the latter group. They are feeling their way towards the rule of law and democratic processes but are clear that they want to get there. That means that there is a growing recognition around the world that it is impossible to have a modern state that is based on a tyrannical regime or for a modern state to make full use of technology without many different freedoms, including that of information. Freedom requires both the rule of law and a degree of democracy.
I am conscious of how the United Nations was set up in 1945. We must remember that it was established in the context of the second great war of the 20th century and the failure of the League of Nations. There was a great desire to create a structure that would make it difficult for countries to invade and go to war with each other again. Although there have been a few examples of failure, overall it has been remarkably successful, particularly in its work to make it more difficult for nation states to invade each other. However, one problem at the heart of the 1945 settlement was that it put the nation state at the centre of everything. It did not pay the attention, which we now have to give, to failed and failing states. Our big challenge for the 21st century is to do that.
152WH
In the several recent debates on Iraq, I became increasingly struck by the similarity between the argument on the primacy of the nation state and the one that we used to have in Britain and other western countries about the primacy of the man—and I mean the man—in his own home. We have always been ready to intervene against nations if they cross their borders, so Iraq's invasion of Kuwait immediately produced an outcry, but we turn a blind eye to what happens within the nation state.
An analogy that I have used before concerns our past domestic law. If a man beat his wife up in the street, he would be arrested, but if he did it in his own home we would take no notice. Indeed, I remember as a child walking by on the other side of the road from one house, with my mother saying, "It must be dreadful to live there. I wonder why she doesn't leave." We regarded it as unacceptable to intervene because a man's home was his castle, and we take a similar view with failed and failing states.
As the Minister and I have discussed on several occasions, and as I raised with the Prime Minister after the last G7 summit, when it was also discussed, it is difficult to get the lines right about how or when to intervene, particularly as there are different definitions of democracy, the rule of law and freedom. However, the vast majority of us, and a growing number of states and leaders around the world, know the difference between a tyrannical regime and one that is trying to succeed and needs help.
People sometimes say to me, "You intervened in Iraq. Who's next? Why not intervene in all these other countries?" The answer is simply that different judgments must be made for different situations. Let me spend a few minutes considering that point. I took the view that it was right, to intervene in Iraq. In fact, if anything, we should have intervened much earlier. The problem for the UN was that it had signed a ceasefire with Iraq, but that was never fully put into effect. Saddam Hussein did not honour the conditions laid down in the ceasefire, so a spate of 17 resolutions followed, as we well know, again calling on Saddam Hussein to accept the requirements that the UN had imposed on him. We ended up passing all the resolutions and signing a ceasefire when we knew that the state involved would not follow any of them. We had the additional problem that Iraq was located in a very unstable region.
That leads me to other examples. People ask, "Why not intervene in Iran, Syria, Zimbabwe, Burma or North Korea?" I say that the arguments are different. One can argue that there is the prospect of Zimbabwe and Burma returning to a degree of normality and freedom if we get the assistance and, indeed, the pressure right. There is a considerable effort in the world to do that. There is also some hope of achieving that in Iran and Syria. Indeed, I argue that there are quite exciting prospects for the reform movements in those countries to win. It does not follow that they will win, but there is a chance.
The issue of North Korea is much more difficult. If there were a country that needed regime change, it would be North Korea, but there is a difference between North Korea and Iraq. Unlike Iraq, North Korea is located in an area of stability. It is surrounded by states—most notably, Japan, South Korea and China; there is also Russia—with an interest in maintaining

153WH
stability. That indicates how we should ask the UN to restructure itself. If there is a regional interest in restoring stability—there certainly is with North Korea, Zimbabwe and Burma—the UN needs two things: the ability to work with the other regional powers in a way that secures change and stability, and structures that enable it both to put pressure on I he countries involved and to offer the carrot of help towards reform.
In reality, however, if a regime is so awful that it destabilises the surrounding region, the UN needs the ability to intervene. On Rwanda, we failed, and failed miserably. Everyone in the world should recognise that. When people say to me, "You can't intervene in nation states," I say that if I had lived there, I would have wanted someone to help me.
Many Iraqis live in my constituency, and many of them opposed the war, but on one matter they were all clear—they wanted rid of Saddam Hussein. One man in my constituency lost half his family to Saddam Hussein and then three other family members to a British bomb. Not surprisingly, he feels very ambivalent about the whole thing, but the one thing on which he is not ambivalent is the pleasure at seeing the end of Saddam Hussein. That man in my constituency is critical of many of the other things that we have said and done, but he supports that.
We should never underestimate the importance of recognising the right of individuals to have the rest of the world take sufficient interest in their concerns and problems and intervene as and when that is necessary. That does not mean that the world should invade Burma, Zimbabwe or wherever. It means that we should develop different structures, within and outside regions, to put pressure on countries to reform. It also means that we should face up to the difficult problem of regime change because, as we all know, the UN cannot legally just go in and call for regime change. However, that is what the UN wanted with regard to Iraq, and Kosovo and Serbia. We intervened in Kosovo without the approval of the UN—it could not agree on Kosovo either, but it accepted that intervention, as did most of the world, because it knew that it was necessary. However, the assumptions behind the articles of the UN are that it cannot require regime change, such as was needed also in Rwanda. We therefore have to face up to that difficult choice.
I shall conclude my remarks by saying to the Minister that we need the UN to draw up much more flexible ways of intervening. By "intervening" I mean everything from putting pressure on, to offering support and help, to discussing with other nations in the region what we can do to change the situation in countries such as Zimbabwe, Burma, Iraq and Iran.
We all know what the problems are. We know that there is a current tendency to want to move in the right direction, but we have to change the UN from what it was in 1945—an organisation designed to protect individual nations from outside intervention—to one that expects its members to live up to certain minimum standards. That does not mean that we should invade China if it still commits human rights abuses, but it means that we should have much tougher codes on human rights, and ways of drawing attention to nations that are failing to deliver on that—we all fail to deliver
154WH
sometimes. Above all, a series of steps should be taken before we take the ultimate step of intervening in a nation state that has totally failed, is destabilising its region, brutalising its population and, as in the case of Saddam Hussein, is run by a psychopathic killer who has managed to take over that state.
We cannot sit back and pretend that such problems concern only the people of a particular country, and that they can do something about them. They might have been able to do something when a dictator took over, but once that has happened the opportunity for removing him disappears. That is particularly true of leaders who have brutal regimes, such as Saddam Hussein, which suppress all dissent and do so very effectively. I do not believe that the world is willing to sit back and watch such things take place any longer—the television coverage of Kosovo, where people saw what was happening, demonstrated that.
In a sense, the problem is that people did not see what was happening in Iraq. They did not see the awful tortures that took place there, examples of which were given by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd). Television did not show children being tortured in front of their families to make them talk, or people being put into plastic shredders. Therefore some people—whether over the road in Parliament square or elsewhere—still say that people are dying in Iraq now. That is true, but the numbers dying are dramatically fewer than those dying under Saddam Hussein's regime. Moreover, there is not the appalling and nightmarish torture that took place in Iraq under Saddam Hussein. That message needs to be put across, and the UN is the organisation to transmit it. During this century, the power of public opinion and the ability of the UN to examine those complex situations will give us a better chance to reduce the power of those psychopathic killers, and to remove them from power in the states in which they cause so much misery.
3.29 pm
Mr. Michael Moore: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley). I echo his comments about the Westminster Hall venue. Those of us who are on the beat in this Chamber slightly more regularly than he is endorse what he says about this being a place where we have the opportunity for measured debates, of which this afternoon's is a good example.
In the introduction to the Command Paper that is the starting point for the debate, the Foreign Secretary says:
"Never has the UN been more needed."
I say, "Hear, hear," to that. As we meet on the second anniversary of what is universally known as 9/11—the terrible atrocities in New York, Washington and elsewhere in the United States—we are in reflective mood. We have had 12 months of intense and—we must not duck this—divisive activity that has left the participants in the debate wounded, figuratively and sometimes literally. It is welcome that we have a chance this afternoon to reflect on that, and I particularly welcome the Minister's statement that this is intended to be an annual event.
If the United Nations did not exist, we would have to invent it. It replaced the League of Nations, which proved itself sadly ineffective in preventing conflict in

155WH
the world or managing the different competing powers of the nation states. There have been times, especially in the past year, when people felt we were in danger of needing to invent a third international body. I do not take that pessimistic view, but we need to recognise the innate value of the United Nations and understand why it is important that it exists. In a fractured world, it is vital for making and keeping the peace. It is essential to have proper forums in which we can talk, rather than going to war. Increasingly, we need to assist the world's poorest out of the famine and disease that often underpin wars and conflicts.
Earlier this week at a press conference, the United Nations Secretary-General made a distinction between hard and soft threats. We have focused on the hard threats of international terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and so on, but we must give equal attention to the soft threats of famine and disease, especially HIV/AIDS.
On balance, the United Nations is undoubtedly a force for good overall, although it is not without problems and shortcomings. In common with other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, I believe it is important that we acknowledge the fact that the United Nations is in the front line. The tragic attack on the United Nations building in Baghdad in August killed 22 people and, as the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush said, injured many, who will live with their difficulties for a long time, if not for the rest of their lives. The event led us to reflect on the ideas that underpin the United Nations: was it a target simply because it is an easy target in such circumstances, or was that symbolic of a wider challenge to its legitimacy?
As we debate these issues, it is important to recognise the strong role that Britain plays in the debates, and in maintaining the United Nations. Britain more than lives up to its position as a founding member of the United Nations and a current member of the Security Council. My colleagues and I profoundly disagreed with United Kingdom Government approaches on key issues such as Iraq; nevertheless, we recognise that under successive Labour and Conservative Governments. Britain has played a leading role in the United Nations.
That is highlighted in three key areas. First, our diplomatic contribution is first-class. Mention has already been made of Sir Jeremy Greenstock, who is now the special representative in Iraq. I had the privilege of meeting him in New York a few years ago, and I was impressed by him and his colleagues, and the operation that they oversaw. I join all other hon. Members in wishing him well in his difficult role in Iraq. More recently I met the new ambassador, Sir Emyr Jones Parry, in his previous incarnation as ambassador to NATO. He has a hard act to follow in Sir Jeremy Greenstock, but I am sure that he will be well up to the task.
Apart from our diplomatic contributions at the UN, Britain's financial contribution should not go unnoticed. The Command Paper highlights that in great detail. It is a staggering amount of money. I hope that the people in the Treasury who attend to these things appreciate just how important that contribution is. and do not regard it as a soft target. Without those contributions Britain's clout in the UN would not be nearly so significant.
156WH
A third area that I shall briefly highlight, echoing the Minister, is the significant military contribution that our forces make around the world in the many different problem areas that have been mentioned. So many other areas could be listed too. In each of them people recognise Britain's role, and for that reason we continue to have a greater influence than we might otherwise have as a middle-ranking country.
Current events are never far from our attention. The bomb in Iraq brought us all up short. This weekend there is a gathering of Foreign Secretaries and senior UN officials in Geneva to attempt to broker a proper resolution for the ongoing administration and governance of Iraq. As the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) said, yesterday's debate covered most of the main issues and I do not seek to rehearse them again. I hope that it is taken on board that the legitimacy of the post-war situation in Iraq will depend on the embedding and involvement of the UN in its many different guises in the governance of that country. UN authorisation and accountability for the operations there are essential. If the wider world is to believe that something more than a military conflict has taken place, UN endorsement will be very important.
The middle east is never far from our thoughts. The latest suicide bombings and the Israeli retaliation are a depressing return to a familiar cycle. The UN is part of the Quartet, still hopefully sticking to the road map, which is being torn apart with each passing day. It is not clear whether it is sensible to retain any optimism about the road map, but without it, and if the UN and other key powers do not play their key role, there can be even less hope in the middle east.
There are huge areas of important work that the UN does beyond seeking to make peace or keep it once conflict is over. Often those burst into the headlines. I am sure that other hon. Members will focus on some of the development issues that are before the world at present, not least at the World Trade Organisation meeting at Cancun in Mexico. We must not lose sight of the fact that the momentum that developed and the real sense of optimism when the millennium development goals were endorsed just a few short years ago are beginning to be lost. If we do not think that that is right we should pause to reflect on the words of Kofi Annan at his press briefing earlier this week in New York. He said that he was not sure that the consensus and vision were still intact to deliver on the millennium development goals. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that when he winds up.
Even the greatest supporters of the United Nations—I count myself among them—recognise that, for all its achievements, it needs reform. The contributions that we have heard this afternoon have focused on that in large part. The Secretary-General led the charge when he spoke publicly not long ago. Reflecting on the uncertainties of the past year, he said:
"We all agree that there are new threats, or rather that old challenges have resurfaced in new and more virulent forms. What we do not seem to agree on is what exactly they are, or how to respond, or even whether the response should be a collective one. We seem no longer to agree on what the main threats are, or on how to deal with them."
He recognised that without even that basic agreement there is something wrong with the United Nations.

157WH
As the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton said, the Secretary-General encouraged Heads of State to attend the General Assembly later this month. I understand that the Prime Minister will not attend—I am not sure whether that is because it coincides with the Labour party conference or an important national or international event. I hope that the Minister can assure us that even if the Prime Minister does not attend, Britain will still be represented at a senior level at those talks. We are at a key point in the UN's development, and the Prime Minister, whatever our disagreements with him, has championed the international order, so surely he should be there and take part in those discussions.
We could focus on many areas that need reform, and some have been mentioned this afternoon. I agree with the Minister that innovations such as the Counter-Terrorism Committee are welcome. We support his notion that such a committee should become a permanent feature of the United Nations infrastructure. That committee illustrates the UN's ability to innovate. We regularly hear that it is a morass of bureaucracy and inflexible, but a new need was identified, a solution was found, and we should seek to make it permanent.
Kofi Annan has highlighted the need for Security Council reform, saying
"if we can reform the Council and make it more democratic and representative, it will gain also in greater legitimacy. I think most Member States want to see that happen."
I cannot imagine anyone opposing that sentiment.
I agree with the broad thrust of the suggestion that there should be new permanent members of the Security Council. Japan and Germany have been mentioned as key members and, crucially, there should be members from other continents which, almost scandalously, do not have permanent representation on the Security Council.
Perhaps the Minister would also deal with an issue about which the Secretary-General was clearly troubled. If countries are to be eligible for permanent member status they must have no outstanding resolutions against them at the Security Council. A point that was specifically made to the Secretary-General was the situation in India and Kashmir. None of us wants to challenge the right of India, Brazil or any other country to be part of the Security Council, but perhaps the Minister would specify some criteria that he envisages as the basis for membership.
Another area that needs reform is the way in which Security Council resolutions are developed. That must be done mostly privately in the backwaters of the UN headquarters in New York, Geneva or whatever venue is most appropriate. However, too much of the political debate that is important in this country and elsewhere is influenced by leaks, counter-leaks and lack of information on what is actually at stake. The example that I would highlight is Zimbabwe. There has been a great deal of pressure from us, from the Conservatives and, frankly, from the whole House, on the Government to seek a United Nations resolution. Understandably, Ministers have said that they do not want to introduce a draft resolution for fear that it will be rebuffed—I am sure that the Minister will repeat that today. I think that
158WH
that solution only suits Zimbabwe. We must find a new mechanism for discussing draft resolutions, and understand who is blocking them and why. Only in that way can we seek to focus the power of the United Nations on the members who are blocking serious efforts to resolve real problems.
Zimbabwe takes us neatly to one other area that I would like to touch on, which was the focus of the contribution by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush—the doctrines of intervention that we might encourage and develop. I do not want to repeat the arguments of March, or those of the many weeks and months preceding that debate. We had a thoughtful contribution about why what we did was right then. Many of the arguments will appeal to all of us on different levels. Was it right or not? The legality of it will entertain international lawyers and academics for years to come. Understandably, the UK debate, which was passionate and vigorous, was a microcosm of a much wider debate.
I would agree with the Minister's comment that we failed in Rwanda, and part of the reason why we failed is that we did not have at our disposal the tools that would legitimise and allow such interventions to take place. That has to be seen alongside the question whether there is the political will to deliver the troops required. We also live in a world where the United States has set out its new doctrine of pre-emption, which many would say is fundamentally at odds with the United Nations charter and with international law as we have known it.
We all accept that United Nations resolutions are not the sole repository of international legitimacy, but equally, we accept that they are important sources of that legitimacy. We need a new mechanism that will allow us to work out how we deal with crimes against humanity, genocide and all the humanitarian issues that are troubling us in this modern world. As the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush said, so much of what we now have to cope with internationally is happening within member states' borders rather than across them. The UN needs to recognise that, and we need to be part of it.
Some of the reforms will be beyond the scope of one meeting of the General Assembly or a meeting of Heads of State, important as those are. I hope that the Minister will look for new ways to develop the momentum for reform. We might need a constitutional convention of UN members to consider that, aside from the regular meetings of the General Assembly. The system is broke, and it needs fixing—but it is well worth fixing.
As I draw my remarks to a close, I would like to comment in a parenthesis on the very sad death of Anna Lindh, the Swedish Foreign Minister, who was stabbed as she was out doing her shopping yesterday, and died overnight. There is a palpable sense of shock around the House and the whole Palace of Westminster today, and the international media are reflecting that. The Foreign Secretary and Secretary-General Kofi Annan have remarked on her commitment to the United Nations and her internationalism, and it is a tragic loss that she is no longer with us.
The debate has been important, and it will continue to be so. There are important contributions to come. I hope that in future this will not just be a Thursday afternoon debate in Westminster Hall, but something

159WH
that can attract more attention in the House and in the country as a whole. Talking is the easy bit; we must hope that the Government will build on this debate, and build the momentum for change. Even critics such as the United States, which has sought to bypass the UN at key moments, now recognise more clearly its innate strength and purpose. As the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton said, it is not past its sell-by date but is a force for good, and we should all be focused on making it better and more effective.
3.49 pm
Valerie Davey: I welcome the fact that the Government have initiated this debate and that they propose to have it each year. Even more than that, I welcome the enthusiasm in the Minister's opening statement not just for the more showy parts of the United Nations—the active, or even, dare I say, the more glamorous side: war. He gave his commitment to reform, which is part of the detailed diplomatic side—the necessary work of Ministers and civil servants. That work is behind the scenes, time consuming and undramatic, but his enthusiasm for it gave me some hope.
However, on this second anniversary of the attacks on the twin towers and the Pentagon in the USA, it is appropriate that we have time to reflect on the role of the UN. I want to comment, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley), on the future and, in particular, on the role that he underlined, to which I shall come in a moment.
The events following 11 September 2001—the invasion of Afghanistan, the further terrorist attacks and the war in Iraq and its aftermath—have raised more and more questions about the importance and value of the UN. We had a useful debate yesterday on the UN in Iraq, and I do not want to cover that ground again, except to pay tribute, as other Members have done, to those UN staff who lost their lives on 19 August, particularly the leader of that group, Sergio Vieira de Mello. His record of service and his achievement underline the crucial role that the UN has played in the resolution of conflict through his work in post-conflict reconstruction in Lebanon, Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor and, finally, Iraq. We have heard today of the death of Anna Lindh, and we recognise that both were people of international calibre; they were a loss not just to their family and friends or to their own nation. The contribution that both have made internationally will be sadly missed.
My concern—the future role of the UN—stems from the trauma of Rwanda. The jolt to my thinking happened when the UN pulled out of Rwanda, and we saw the violence and the genocide that followed. Since then, as other hon. Members have said, there have been tragedies in countries in need of support that the United Nations, with its present remit, has been unable to give—for example, in Kosovo, Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe.
I was especially keen to speak today following an interview that I heard last Sunday on Radio Bristol. It was with the visiting Bishop, the Rt. Rev. Ben Ojwang, who is the Bishop of Kitgum in northern Uganda. He spoke passionately of the situation facing his diocese and the people of northern Uganda as a result of the
160WH
atrocities committed by the Lord's Resistance Army, including the abduction and brutalising of 20,000 children. That is happening in a country that we are all acclaiming as having met the HIPC—heavily indebted poor countries—regulations. It is one of the countries that is doing better and that we highlight as developing, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister would suggest that it is one of those moving forward to democracy. Yet communities in the north of Uganda have been suffering terribly for 17 years.
As the bishop said, while the Ugandan army has gone into the Congo, it has failed to resolve the situation within its own borders. We all know that that depends in part on the situation in Sudan and involves the cross-flow of people, but it is tragic. The bishop argued for mediation to resolve the 17-year conflict and asked our Government to take part. Just as the interviewer was about to cut him off, he suddenly came up with a lovely illustration. He said that the only illustration he could give was the anguish and pain of childbirth from which there must come peace and that he was looking to Britain to be the midwife of peace in northern Uganda. It suddenly struck me that we should use that illustration for the United Nations: out of areas of tragedy, pain and conflict, we must bring forward hope and peace. I thanked the bishop in my mind and thought what a graphic and poignant illustration it was. I want hon. Members to keep Uganda in mind as we think about a new role for the UN that involves humanitarian intervention in a sovereign state.
As the Minister indicated, we do not have to start from scratch. I have not read the speech that the Prime Minister made in Chicago in 1999, but I will look for a copy. My new thinking on the issue was prompted by an article in the Financial Times in September 2000, written jointly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). The article was entitled "Revised Role in Humanitarian Tragedies". I ask all hon. Members to read that article again. It strongly expressed the need for the UN to play a role when
"a government has shown that it is unwilling or unable to cope with a humanitarian catastrophe".
It stated:
"We believe that the international community has a duty to intervene".
The authors called for a clear framework for intervention to cope with such problems and proposed six principles, which are worth revisiting, as they are the kind of principles that we argued for in the House on 18 March. First, there should be more concentration on conflict prevention. Secondly, armed force should be used only as a last resort. Thirdly, responsibility in the first place should lie with the state where the violations are taking place. Fourthly, the international community has a duty to intervene when Governments are unwilling or unable to cope with a humanitarian catastrophe. Fifthly, any use of force should be proportionate to the humanitarian purposes to be achieved and in accordance with international law. Finally, the use of force should be collective and taken with the authority of the Security Council, except in exceptional circumstances.
The authors went on to indicate that such things would not happen without further reform of the UN's structures. As many hon. Members will recall, they

161WH
advocated allowing another five members to join the Security Council and suggested Germany, Japan and one each from Africa, Asia and Latin America. They asked for four more new, non-permanent members. They also raised the important idea of an annual resolutions review by the Secretary-General to ensure that resolutions were not ignored and to determine which obligations were outstanding. The article certainly impressed me. I have kept it and refer to it.
Internationally, things have been on the move. As I did in a speech in the House, I want to draw attention to the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty and its report, "The Responsibility to Protect", which was commissioned by the Canadian Government. The commission's year-long review reached with some important conclusions. The challenge of whether we can intervene was dealt with in the initial address by Kofi Annan:
"Surely no legal principle—not even sovereignty—can ever shield crimes against humanity… Armed intervention must always remain the option of last resort, but in the face of mass murder, it is an option that cannot be relinquished."
The report went on to indicate that there were times when intervention was called for in the wake of completely unacceptable human rights abuses. It has one key aim: to facilitate the process of building a new global consensus on intervention for human protection. Its central theme is that sovereign states have a responsibility to protect their own citizens from avoidable catastrophe, mass murder, rape and starvation, but that, if they are unwilling or unable to do so, responsibility must be borne by the broader community of states. Those ideas are therefore permeating the debate, internationally and nationally.
Despite all the immediate demands on his time, the Prime Minister has also recently readdressed the issue. At the progressive governance summit in London in July, he insisted that we could not walk by on the other side if people in failed states were being brutally downtrodden. That echoes the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush.
The draft communiqué for the conference stated:
"Where a population is suffering serious harm, as a result of internal war, insurgency, repression or state failure, and the state in question is unwilling or unable to avert it, the principle of nonintervention yields to the international responsibility to protect."
In fact, the final communiqué did not contain those words—it appears that they were too radical for some international partners. However, the final version said that the report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, which was launched by the Canadian Government in 2000, was "a valuable contribution". The gathering in London referred to that report, and our Prime Minister again tried to ensure that we do not pass by on the other side.
I admit that I have not seen the Command Paper—I must have come badly prepared for this debate—but I have pulled out the global conflict prevention pool document, for which I offer tribute to the Government. I am glad to say that, as is the Government's wont, the document is from three Departments: the Department for International Development, the Foreign and
162WH
Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence. All have put forward ideas for conflict prevention that are very much along the lines that have been alluded to this afternoon.
My one criticism—perhaps it is not strong because there is a parallel document—is that the United Nations is referred to on the very last page, rather than at the front, so the recognition that the Government are making a contribution with the UN, not just working in isolation, is somewhat lacking.
I quibble with one word in a sentence in the final paragraph—hon. Members will guess which word. The documents states that the UN was launched in 1948 and has, in the decades since,
"helped to defuse tensions and encourage negotiated solutions in conflicts around the world. Its unique legitimacy and authority and its global mandate mean the United Nations has a key role to play in conflict prevention."
It does not have "a key role" but the key role. We must continue to recognise that we have a valuable part to play. I was glad to hear the Secretary-General praise Britain for its contribution to the UN. In all that we say, our language must indicate that Britain is a member of the UN and that that is where our allegiance and effort will go.
Lest it should be thought that my idealism has left behind any realism, I remind hon. Members that today is also the 30th anniversary of the overthrow of the Allende Government in Chile. That coup was supported by the UN through the CIA—a different sort of intervention in a sovereign state. That difficult situation in Chile is not of the sort that hon. Friends and I advocate, and there are different ways of interpreting intervention in a sovereign state. Such things are incredibly complex and not an easy option for the UN. Those of us who want to see humanitarian intervention—prevention, rather than always bringing about the cure—will have to work very carefully behind the scenes. A lot of careful diplomacy must take place.
Allende was not the only person killed, so I want to conclude with a reminder of the death of Victor Jara. He was a remarkable man—a poet and a theatre director. He was a man who supported the arts. Under arrest and held in a stadium, he was still composing in those short days before his death and the last couplet of an unfinished poem reads:
"How hard it is to sing
when I must sing of horror.
Horror which I am living,
horror which I am dying.
To see myself among so much
and so many moments of infinity
in which silence and screams
are the end of my song.
What I see I have never seen,
what I have felt and what I feel
will give birth to the moment…"
There the poem ends. The phrase, "Will give birth" echoes the bishop's words, and I will end on that theme.
Birth does not come about without agony, without pain. It will cost all of us a great deal to work towards intervention and an understanding of the level of humanitarian degradation that we, as the UN, should

163WH
not be prepared to accept. I urge the Minister, with all his commitment and enthusiasm, to continue that work. Perhaps midwife is not the ideal metaphor or idea, but it has a strong potency, so I leave it with him and urge him to continue the good work that he has started.
4.8 pm
Tony Baldry: The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) has made a very sensible and sober speech. On Uganda, the International Development Committee has had several meetings with Members of the Ugandan Parliament, who have lobbied and briefed us on the sad situation in northern Uganda. The Lord's Resistance Army has committed a number of atrocities over the years—not least kidnapping children, tearing them from their families and turning them into child soldiers. That is a war crime. The message that we have been given is that the Lord's Resistance Army recognises that it has nowhere to go. Through mediation, it wants to find a solution with Kampala and President Museveni. There is a nuance here for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. There is a danger that we may be too keen on reform, which would allow us to have some success stories in Africa. We are perhaps too generous to President Museveni. We do not apply as much pressure on him as we might do on other countries. If there is to be progress in northern Uganda, it will be achieved by getting people around the table to try to find a solution to disarm the LRA.
The hon. Members for Bristol, West and for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) made some interesting points about intervention. This is my only thought about that: against the background of recent events, many countries in the world would see discussion of reforming the UN charter to make it easier to intervene as perhaps making it easier for the coalition to intervene when we want to do so.
May I give a domestic example of the sensitivity surrounding the matter? Next year, Parliament is due to host the annual Inter-Parliamentary Union conference. It is a significant event in our Parliament's life and that of the IPU. I have just returned from an IPU meeting in Cancun, which was held prior to the World Trade Organisation conference. I was surprised and distressed to hear that the Zimbabwean Government have made it clear that they want to attend the IPU conference next year. The Speaker of the Zimbabwean Parliament, who is a member of ZANU-PF, will lead their delegation. Unsurprisingly, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has made it clear that, in accordance with the EU sanctions in relation to Zimbabwe, if he applies for permission to travel to the UK, it will not be granted.
Everyone in the House is concerned about the situation in Zimbabwe. When the International Development Committee recently visited southern Africa, we concluded that Mugabe's actions in Zimbabwe had turned a difficult situation for southern Africa into a humanitarian disaster. A significant number of other African Parliaments have asked the secretary-general of the IPU to attend a special meeting in Geneva, where they will request that the venue for next year's conference be moved from London to somewhere else because they say that who attends IPU conferences should be a matter for them, and not for the UK Government. In other words, they are showing
164WH
"solidarity" with Zimbabwe rather than facing up to the problems that President Mugabe and his Government are perpetrating against their own people.
That is disappointing. Those of us who are firm believers in the New Partnership for Africa's Development and in peer pressure in Africa find it particularly disappointing, but it is a fact of life. I sympathise with and support many of the approaches described by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush, but we must recognise that, against the background of recent events, there is hypersensitivity about what UN intervention currently means.
We all know why the Government chose to hold a debate on the UN today. Government business managers and the Prime Minister know that the vast majority of Labour party supporters and—I suspect more importantly—of people in the country instinctively support the UN. As time goes on, it becomes increasingly important for the Prime Minister to justify why two members of the UN went to war against a third without clear and explicit UN approval. The coalition finds itself in a bind. There is a desperate need for more troops in Iraq to enhance security, facilitate reconstruction and enable rotation of existing troops, who have been serving in extremely difficult conditions for a long time. However, without explicit UN endorsement, nations such as India and Brazil have made it clear that they are not willing to commit troops to Iraq. On the other hand, the United States has made it clear that it will not support any UN resolution that gives greater or further authority to the UN in Iraq.
It is surprising that the UN has not played a vital role so far in Iraq given the Prime Minister's commitment:
"We are of course agreed, as we say in our joint statement, that there will be a vital role for the United Nations in the reconstruction of Iraq".
I do not dispute that the UN has played a humanitarian role in Iraq, and we have heard today about the tragic consequences of that for many brave individuals who work for it. However, by no stretch of the imagination can that role be described as vital. That is surprising because the "we" in the quotation refers to the Prime Minister and President Bush. They made that statement not once, but twice—first at their summit meeting in the Azores and secondly when they were together at Hillsborough castle in Northern Ireland. It was also made at a joint press conference between the Prime Minister and the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan in mid-April 2002.
Serious questions are being posed over the US Administration's ability to do everything themselves. The International Herald Tribune reports that the Pentagon believes that the military occupation of Iraq is currently costing $4 billion every month and that the figure will rise dramatically to $20 billion next year. The New York Times on Tuesday observed that President Bush's $87 billion request for post-war costs is heavily weighted to maintain military operations, with some $65.5 billion going to the armed forces. It also notes that the $87 billion price tag makes the package the most expensive post-war military and civilian effort since the Marshall plan to rebuild Europe after the second world war. The figure must also be combined with the $79 billion that was earlier approved by Congress during the war.

165WH
To put the matter into context, what has been spent already in Iraq is, in today's dollars, 25 times the amount to American taxpayers of what was spent in the 1991 Gulf war to expel Iraq from Kuwait. The New York Times observed yesterday that there had been a substantial earlier miscalculation. The Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told a Congress appropriations committee in March:
"We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon".
Alan Larson, the Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on 4 June:
"Iraq will rightly shoulder much of the responsibility".
Their views rested on two assumptions: that the Pentagon would be able to reduce its presence quickly and that Iraq was reasonably well developed. Both were wrong and, as a consequence, President Bush has now had to ask Congress for $87 billion.
That is a substantial amount, especially in comparison with the amounts that are spent on development aid in continents such as Africa, but the need to spend the huge sums unquestionably explains President Bush's overtures to the UN Security Council. According to the New York Times, it amounts to
"one of the most significant changes in strategy since the end of major combat in Iraq".
Moreover, the paper said that
"fuller UN involvement would not only reduce the cost in American lives and dollars—it would also improve the chances of success".
How are we going to get British troops home from Iraq? There was a time when the Labour party believed unquestionably in the United Nations. After its 1964 election victory, Harold Wilson appointed Hugh Foot, later Lord Caradon, to become the UK's ambassador to the UN, with an executive seat on Cabinet Committees. So much importance was attributed by the Wilson Government to the UN that Hugh Foot was a hybrid between an ambassador and a Minister.
The Government have abandoned their support for the UN. What we hear and have heard today is the mantra that the UN needs reforming, yet it is always unclear what that reform involves. A lot is said about reforming the Security Council and increasing its size, but for a long time there has been no dispute that it needs to expand to include countries such as Japan, India and Brazil.
Does reform of the UN mean altering its charter? Last week the UN Secretary-General gave an interview to the Financial Times, in which he said that
"we need to look at the way the international peace and security architecture is structured and functioning … We have to be able to adapt our institutions",
and that should
"not exclude reform of the Security Council."
Kofi Annan tends to be cautious in his assessments, but I suspect that his normal optimism has been shaken by the debilitating Security Council rows over the Iraq war. I understand that he has written to 191 world leaders asking them to attend the UN General Assembly meeting later this month to debate its priorities. I
166WH
understand that the US President, George Bush, the French President, Jacques Chirac, and the German Chancellor, Gerhard Schrőder, are among 90 leaders who have agreed to attend. So far the UN has said that the UK Prime Minister will not be there. In his winding-up speech, will the Minister tell us whether the Prime Minister will attend that special session of the UN General Assembly, along with other Heads of Government?
The fundamental question is whether we believe that it is in the world's best interests to try to achieve results and solve problems together. If so, we should surely do all that we can to reinforce and support the UN. In recent years, the International Development Committee has been concerned with many issues, including the HIV/AIDS crisis and climate change and its impact on poorer countries. We concluded that there would be a greater change in the next 100 years than there was in the last 300,000. We also considered food shortages in the horn of Africa and southern Africa, where each year more people depend on food aid. None of those challenges to the world will be resolved by individual countries, however powerful they are. Going it alone is not an option.
The Minister should ask his private office to put in his weekend box the most recent issue of Foreign Affairs magazine, which has an extremely good article by Madeleine Albright—the US Secretary of State from 1997 to 2001—entitled, "Bridges, Bombs, or Bluster?" She quotes a senior US statesman who said, immediately after 11 September, that
"this most recent surprise attack"
should
"erase the concept in some quarters that the United States can somehow go it alone in the fight against terrorism, or in anything else, for that matter."
That was a quote from George H. W. Bush, the United States' 41st president.
In contrast, President Bush—the 43rd president—offered his own perspective shortly before going to war with Iraq.
"At some point, we may be the only ones left. That's okay with me. We are America."
As Madeleine Albright observes in her article:
"The best rebuttal Washington had to qualms about regime change was that military force was the only way (in the absence of effective UN inspections) to enforce the council's resolutions and thereby strengthen both the UN's credibility and international law. Unfortunately, the Bush administration made its eagerness to pull the plug on chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix and his team transparent and billed its preemptive war doctrine as a replacement for international law. As a consequence, much of the world saw the invasion not as a way to put muscle into accepted rules, but rather as the inauguration of a new set of rules, written and applied solely by the United States."
That follows up my concern about changing and strengthening the rules on intervention. The actions of the coalition have led many countries to believe that it will be intervention not on the UN's terms but increasingly on those of the coalition and the most powerful nations in the world.
During the week before the war, the International Development Committee happened to be in New York and Washington and we met senior Members of Congress, the president of the World Bank, the UK

167WH
ambassador to the UN and many other permanent representatives at the UN in Washington and New York. On the return flight to London, the Select Committee unanimously wrote to the Prime Minister and much of the content of our letter still stands. The Committee told him that it had become clear from the meetings that
"the fracture of the international community over Iraq is the most serious since the end of the Cold War. Unless immediate steps are taken to heal these rifts, the poison of mistrust and antagonism will run deep to the detriment of the world…Some are criticising the United Nations for failure in the period leading up to war. But it was the nations of the Security Council that failed to find consensus over a second resolution. It is wrong to blame the professional agencies of the United Nations which must play the key peace-building role now."
Of course no one pretends that there was a halcyon golden age of UN co-operation to which we should return. My first memory of an international political crisis was the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, which was resolved with the help of the UN—despite President Kennedy's doubts about the UN—because it was a convenient forum for both Russia and the United States to resolve the crisis and save face. However, when the Russian tanks rolled into Prague in August 1968, the UN could do nothing to defend the people of Czechoslovakia.
Since the collapse of the Berlin wall and the break-up of the Soviet Union, the UN has been at the forefront of assisting in nation building, encouraging democracy and promoting conflict resolution. In truth, the UN can only be as good and as effective as the manpower and resources committed to it and its agencies by its member states.
By and large, if the UN has been given the authority and the resources, it has done a good job; if it has been denied authority or adequate resources, it has understandably failed to perform or to perform as well as it might. One simple example of this is the UN special court in Sierra Leone. I spoke this week to one of the chief prosecutors on the special court who said that it is "really Alice in Wonderland" that Nigeria, which is on the management committee of the special court, has given asylum to indicted President Charles Taylor of Liberia. Surely Nigeria's granting of asylum to Taylor cannot be consistent with its international obligations.
Instead, however, of the special court being strengthened, the opposite appears to be happening. One needs only to consider its financing. This week, the special court had to explain to a delegation of Canadian parliamentarians that, in two months, the court would have to start to issue redundancy notices as it would be wrong to do otherwise in the absence of further funding. The Minister has justifiably praised the work of the special court, because it has worked far faster than the special courts in Rwanda or the former Yugoslavia. Not surprisingly, our Canadian parliamentary colleagues found that situation crazy when contrasted with the speed, efficiency, diligence and professionalism with which they saw the special court discharging its work.
I do not challenge the assertion that the UK Government have been generous in their funding of the special court but I hope that our approaches to other countries will bear fruit in ensuring that its work can be carried out. If the international community cannot succeed in simply indicting and bringing to trial those
168WH
responsible for the worst war crimes in west Africa, what hope is there of the international community prevailing elsewhere?
It is further notable that Kofi Annan's comments to the Financial Times described the response of the international community to conflicts in parts of Africa as
"hesitant and tardy … We continue to lack the political will, as well as a vision of our responsibility in the face of massive violations of human rights and humanitarian catastrophes occasioned by conflict".
However, the real issue is not the need to reform the United Nations but how the United Nations functions in a world with only one superpower, which clearly believes that there are actions that must be taken to protect its citizens and homeland and that the role of the UN is superfluous to those needs or at worst a serious impediment and at best an organisation simply to coordinate humanitarian and other assistance. That is the crux of the international community addressing criticisms from within the UN of the international community.
I have been struck on recent visits to Washington in discussions with colleagues, Members of the Congress and the Senate and Americans generally by the extent to which, since September 11, they perceive the United States as being an island under attack by terrorists—those, known and unknown, who wish to hurt the United States and her citizens. Perhaps understandably, they are simply resolved to do whatever they consider is necessary to protect America. If there are others who are willing to go along with them in doing what they feel to be necessary, well and good; if not, they will do it on their own. The difficulty with that approach, as Iraq shows, is that it has clear limitations. Even a nation as powerful as the United States on its own—its defence spending next year will be greater than that of the rest of the world combined—cannot prevail in Iraq even with the support of key allies such as the United Kingdom.
I hope that the Prime Minister and the United Kingdom Government will use such influence as they have to seek to persuade President Bush that, whatever the United States' understandable desire to go it alone, we need to act together as an international community if we are effectively to contain rogue states such as North Korea. We need to enhance, not undermine, the status of the United Nations.
Furthermore, we should not allow history to be rewritten. The United States' frustration with the United Nations over Iraq was because the United States believed that there would not be a second resolution, and that France would veto a crucial motion on attacking Iraq. It is clear, and it is to the Prime Minister's credit, that he did everything possible to try to get a second resolution, which he would not have done unless he felt that necessary. If anyone doubts that, it is worth their reading Peter Stothard's book "Thirty Days". It was intended to be 30 days in the life of the Prime Minister when he became 50, but it coincided with the lead-up to the war in Iraq and its outbreak. What caused the Prime Minister to abandon his support for a second resolution was that he knew that the United States would go to war against Iraq regardless of whether the second resolution was passed.
France made it clear that it would not support the attack on Iraq because it did not believe that there was sufficient evidence of weapons of mass destruction to

169WH
justify it. Given what we know now, was France so wrong in that assessment? In truth, if they knew then what they know now, how many Members of Parliament, on both sides of the House, would have withheld their support from the Prime Minister in the crucial vote on 18 March on going to war with Iraq?
The issue is not the need to reform the United Nations but the need to recognise that the international community working together is better than some countries working on their own. Still the most effective means that we have to give a purpose, assent and reality to the international community is the United Nations. Evidently, by returning to the United Nations for help in Iraq, President Bush has eaten his words about the UN's irrelevance. His actions are a clear reminder of the UN's indispensability, even to the one country that sees itself as indispensable, but that will not necessarily make the institution any more effective. To regain its status, the UN will have to show itself ready to tackle, multilaterally, an Iraqi crisis on which the USA and the UK have made a start. Therein lies a serious problem, because it would be unfortunate if the upshot of the current Security Council negotiations for a new resolution on Iraq were simply to slap a UN label on a US-led military force.
Doubtless, longer-term issues remain, to which the UN Secretary-General alluded to this week. I suspect that the publication on Monday of the UN's report on progress towards its 2000 millennium declaration goals will give the Secretary-General the opportunity to raise many of those issues, one of which is the UN's view of the balance of threats facing humanity. The UN has been unfairly criticised for its usefulness in the fight against weapons proliferation and terrorism, but the Secretary-General was right to remind us that, for most countries, the real scourges are the old ones—famine, poverty and disease—and that specialised agencies of the UN combat those daily. Therefore, if there is to be reform of the UN, that will be pointless unless it is matched by the commitment of every member of the international community to those UN agencies and to the UN as a whole. If that were to start to happen, the USA, the UK and others would find that the UN's edicts would then carry much wider legitimacy and credibility.
4.36 pm
Mr. Rammell: We have had a very productive and constructive debate. Even though I have an hour left, I shall briefly—
Mr. Alan Duncan: Briefly!
Mr. Rammell: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will be brief in my response to some of the points that have been made.
When I opened the debate, the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) asked me what we were doing about the special court for Sierra Leone, and I promised that I would return to that issue in my summing up. As he is aware, the court relies on voluntary contributions. I am sure that he is also aware that the UK has already committed £6.6 million to the overall budget of around £40 million for the three-year lifespan of the court. That
170WH
is a contribution of 16.5 per cent. which, in anyone's scale of contributions, is significant. The hon. Gentleman knows that funding is a source of concern: the court currently faces a shortfall of about £14 million. We have undertaken an active lobbying campaign. involving the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and other Ministers, in support of the UN Secretary-General's call earlier this year for additional funding. We will continue with that campaign. We have made our contribution, and it is important for others to make theirs.
The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), leading for the Opposition, began with an interesting contribution. He singled out the fact that in considering the situation of the UN, we must recognise that the world has changed significantly since the end of the cold war, and that there is now one pre-eminent economic and military global superpower: the USA. In the debates that are taking place at present, people must face up to the fact that we cannot wish that away. It is part of the circumstances in which we operate, and we therefore need to think through how to ensure that the US can and will work with the international community and the UN. Similarly, it is incumbent on the USA to think through how it and its actions are sometimes perceived throughout the world. The Prime Minister said that when he went to Congress a few weeks ago. That is at the heart of the debate; sometimes we have a caricature of a debate that does not face up to the reality and the difficulty of the situation.
The hon. Gentleman then discussed what he described as the inadequacies of the preparations for the post-conflict situation in Iraq, and the implication that there is chaos on the ground. I do not underestimate the ongoing and significant difficulties on the ground in Iraq, but it is pertinent to state that there are also significant improvements. All 240 hospitals in Iraq are now functioning. By the end of June, most of the schools were open. Yes, electricity and oil supplies have been targeted by terrorists, but in response an estimated 10,000 Iraqis are being trained and armed to guard Iraq's electrical and oil facilities as well as its bridges and dams. Iraqis are also helping coalition troops to secure the 19,000 km of power lines and 7,000 km of pipelines in Iraq.
Mr. Duncan: I agree that that is good news and represents a step forward. Will the Minister undertake to publish, for the benefit of the House, a list of the contractors that are active on the ground, supplementing the work of troops and bringing to Iraq the necessary civilian reconstruction that we all want?
Mr. Rammell: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary referred to that in the debate that took place earlier this week. We have certainly not sought contracts for British firms for their own sake, but British firms have a strong track record on post-conflict reconstruction. We have done all that we can to facilitate that situation, and we will continue to do so.
The key point that I am making is that there are significant difficulties on the ground in Iraq, but in the debate that this country is having, particularly through the media, there is almost a wilful refusal to acknowledge that some progress is being made. If people talk to Iraqis in Iraq, or Iraqis in this country

171WH
who have family in Iraq, they will see that Iraqis acknowledge that there are difficulties, but also willingly attest that there has been significant progress and the situation is immeasurably better than life under Saddam Hussein.
The hon. Gentleman went on to talk about Zimbabwe, about which he and I have had exchanges in the past. The argument—it was picked up by the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore), who leads for the Liberal Democrats—was that we should take this issue to the Security Council. I remind hon. Members that when the European Union proposed a resolution at the Human Rights Commission in Geneva in March to criticise Zimbabwe's appalling human rights record, a no-action resolution was proposed by the other African states, and a significant number of members of the Security Council voted in support of that motion. If we cannot even get those members of the Security Council to support a resolution on Zimbabwe's human rights record at the Human Rights Commission, how on earth, at the moment, will we get them to support a more important resolution at the Security Council?
Mr. Duncan: Shame.
Mr. Rammell: The hon. Gentleman talks about shame, but we need to act purposefully and in full recognition of what will be the results of our actions. Were we to propose a resolution in the full knowledge that it would be defeated at the Security Council, that would do nothing for people in Zimbabwe who need international support. That is why we are working purposefully and carefully. In particular, we are talking to the African states that we want to take the lead on this issue. We do criticise the Zimbabwean Government. Anyone who thinks that we do not should look at what some of the state-sponsored newspapers in Zimbabwe say about the UK Government and what we are doing. However, if it is just the UK Government who lead on these issues, that could, in some circumstances, be counter-productive. The comments from the Opposition Front Bench are not widely endorsed.
We then had a significant contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley). He talked persuasively about the potential limits to the primacy of nation states and advanced a strong argument that there should, in some circumstances, be limits to the right to self-determination if that self-determination entails massive and sustained abuse of human rights or destabilisation of a whole region. He is right. The key debate that we need to have is about when, how and in what circumstances. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) also referred to that. That is the pertinent debate in which we need to engage. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush said that that would inevitably mean different solutions in different places. That is the reality that we have to face. It will, as he argued, mean more flexible ways of intervening.
We then had a contribution from the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale. He said, and I think that we would all agree, that the UN is a force for good in the world. He also talked about the fact that the UN is on the front line, particularly bearing in mind the
172WH
appalling attack on the UN in June. In the current debates on what is happening in Iraq, some people absolve themselves from thinking through the challenges that we face by saying, "Oh, isn't it dreadful that just the British and the Americans are leading this?" But that was an attack on the international community, in case anyone is in any doubt. Whether it was carried out by the remnants of Saddam's regime or other international terrorist organisations, they were directly taking on the international community through the body of the United Nations. That should be recognised.
I welcome the comments that the hon. Gentleman made about the key role that the UK and its Government play. That should be a source of pride to all of us, and to the people of this country. He praised the diplomatic contribution that the UK makes to the UN and the wider international community. I used to think that that was one of those issues on which the Brits always congratulate themselves without there being much substance to it. However, since I have been a Foreign Office Minister, when I go around the world I am struck by the fact that, totally unprompted, many Ministers, civil servants and journalists from other countries automatically volunteer the view that the UK makes a significant contribution through its diplomatic effort.
The hon. Gentleman went on to talk about the new suggested draft resolution at the Security Council and the need to embed the role of the United Nations. We certainly subscribe to the UN's vital role and have always envisaged that over time, it will progressively increase. However, there is a need for clarity. Sometimes the semantics of the debate are lost in the position taking. Certainly the proposed draft resolution envisages an enhanced role for the UN, but that will not entail the UN running Iraq, specifically because Kofi Annan has said that he does not want the UN to run Iraq, and does not believe that it can. It has never run a country that size. No one is arguing for the blue-helmet solution. Sometimes in this debate we lose sight of what is really needed and what is really possible.
The hon. Gentleman then talked about our representation at the General Assembly. The Prime Minister's commitment to international issues and to the UN is unprecedented. He will not be attending the current General Assembly, but in the light of that he has urged that there should be senior representation. I assume that by that—although I am going to the General Assembly—he meant representation slightly more senior. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be attending for a significant period.
The hon. Gentleman asked an important question about our views on the expansion of the permanent membership of the Security Council, and what our view would be if outstanding resolutions against some of the suggested nations were in existence. Let me be clear: we believe that all Security Council members should uphold their obligations under the UN charter, and we make that clear to all who have ambitions to be Security Council members, whether permanent or nonpermanent.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the importance of the millennium development goals. We welcome the annual publication of the report on those goals. This year's report came out recently, and was especially

173WH
thoughtful, covering a wide range of areas. The millennium development goals are an excellent example of the UN providing significant leadership and setting targets to improve people's lives. As I said in my opening contribution, 1 billion people currently live in abject poverty. There is a legitimate question—I think that this is what the hon. Gentleman was referring to—about whether the millennium development goals will be met by the target date of 2015. We are strongly committed to helping to achieve those goals, and more effective coordination in the UN system will also help. We will get a better idea in 2005 when the UN system carries out the first formal review of the progress towards those goals, but we are strongly pushing for them in the interim.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the criteria for intervention and discussed whether the constitutional convention in the European Union might perhaps be a model. I am not sure about that.
Mr. Moore: The Minister is generously answering my points, and those of other colleagues, in detail that we would all commend—but may I clarify something? I was not in any way using the European Union constitutional convention as a model, but suggesting the idea of a constitutional convention that would allow the states to consider these serious issues.
Mr. Rammell: I take that point fully, and I clearly understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying.
The hon. Gentleman also expressed his shock at the tragic killing of Anna Lindh and paid tribute to her. I did not mention that in my earlier contribution. As I am someone who has a Swedish wife and has met Anna Lindh several times, what happened yesterday and today shocked me to the core. It has affected many of us. For a country as liberal, open and prosperous as Sweden to be affected in that way is enormously shocking. I know that that view will be widely shared across the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West spoke movingly about the situation in Uganda and drew out some of the wider lessons from Africa, where some of the most appalling atrocities and impacts on human rights have occurred. She argued strongly, and rightly, for the UN to be able to become involved in humanitarian intervention. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush, she effectively and cogently underlined the need for us to establish the principles on which such intervention should take place. She also mentioned something that reminded me that I had not made this clear in my opening remarks—that as well as calling for an expanded permanent membership of the Security Council we are in favour of an expanded nonpermanent membership. That point needs to be made clear.
Finally, I turn to the comments of the hon. Member for Banbury. In calling for a debate about the criteria under which humanitarian intervention can take place,
174WH
I should make it clear that that view predates the whole Iraq situation. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West referred to the article drafted by the former Foreign Secretary and the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). I cannot recall its date.
Valerie Davey: It was 2000.
Mr. Rammell: Yes, 2000. That issue has been around for a significant time. In that context, the cynicism of the remarks of the hon. Member for Banbury was out of keeping with the tone of the rest of this debate. He stated that the UN's role in Iraq was negligible, but if he reads the special envoy's report, which went to the Security Council on behalf of the Secretary-General, he will see that it discussed the UN's role in very positive terms. I would absolutely refute his statement that we have abandoned our support for the United Nations. I have to say that I take it a little hard that a member of a party that in the run-up to the conflict urged us to go along with the Americans come what may, ignoring the constraints of the United Nations if need be, should now be lecturing us on our support for the UN.
Mr. Duncan: The Minister really must correct that. The accuracy of our position is clear. We said that we thought that the legal justification probably already existed, but we argued strongly in favour of the desirability of a second resolution. I think that the Minister should put that clearly on the record.
Mr. Rammell: I recall absolutely what I heard in those debates. I also recall that in a recent debate on the UN an eminent senior Conservative Back Bencher said that he was ashamed of the tactics and stance of those on his party's Front Bench, and of how they were currently handling that issue.
Mr. Duncan: He was against the war altogether.
Mr. Rammell: No. I am sorry, but I was referring not to a Conservative Member who was against the war, but to one who strongly supported it. The only difficulty is that I cannot recall his constituency, so I cannot refer to him—[HON. MEMBERS: "Staffordshire"] It is in Staffordshire—absolutely. I think that that point needs to be made for the record. Our advocacy of the criteria for intervention is not about giving carte blanche to the coalition, but if we can create a consensus on when, how, in what circumstances and according to what criteria intervention is justified, that can only be a cause for good.
In general, we have had a significant and constructive debate this afternoon. I hope that we can go forward and ensure that such a debate takes place annually, which can only help to inform the House and the wider country of the importance of the United Nations and our role in that organisation.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Five o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  Intelligence and Security Committee
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to lay the Intelligence and Security Committee's Report on Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction—Intelligence and Assessments before Parliament.[130290]

  The Prime Minister
  I am grateful to the Intelligence and Security Committee for their Report on Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction—Intelligence and Assessments. I have today laid the Report before the House. The Government will respond formally to it in due course. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Jonathan Powell
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will rescind the powers given to Mr. Jonathan Powell to direct civil servants. [129278]

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so.

  Peter Mandelson
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister under what circumstances he has sought advice on presentational matters from the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson). [129279]

  The Prime Minister
  I have regular meetings and discussions with ministerial colleagues and others on a wide range of subjects and will continue to do so. As with previous Administrations, it is not my practice to provide details of confidential discussions, under exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Water and sewerage undertakers/ water undertakers

  Significant shares (over 25 per cent.) in appointee

  Ultimate holding company and where H is based

  Significant shares (over 25 per cent.) in holding company

  Anglian Water Services Ltd.

  100 per cent. AWG plc

  Anglian Water Group plc (UK)

  None over 25 per cent.

  South Staffordshire Water plc

  100 per cent. South Staffordshire Group plc

  South Staffordshire Group plc (UK)

  None over 25 per cent.

  Severn Trent Water Ltd.

  100 per cent. Severn Trent Water plc

  Severn Trent Water plc (UK)

  None over 25 per cent.

  Cambridge Water plc

  100 per cent. Ufacex UK Holdings plc

  Union Electricia Fensoa SA (Spain)

  n/a

  Tendring Hundred Water Services Ltd.

  99.23 per cent. VW Capital Funds plc

  Veolia Environnement (France)

  n/a

  Northumbrian Water Ltd.

  100 per cent. Northumbrian Water Services.

  Northumbrian Water Groan plc (UK)

  None over 25 per cent.

  United Utilities Water plc

  100 per cent. United Utilities plc

  United Utilities plc (UK)

  None over 25 per cent.

  Southern Water Services Ltd.

  100 per cent. SWS Holdings Ltd.

  Southern Water Investment Ltd. (UK)

  Royal Bank of Scotland

  Portsmouth Water plc

  100 per cent. Portsmouth Water Holdings Ltd.

  South Downs Capital Ltd. (UK)

  n/a privately owned

  South East Water plc

  100 per cent. Saur Water Services plc

  Boygues SA (France)

  100 per cent. Saur (UK) Ltd.

  Mid Kent Water plc

  99.98 per cent. Mid Kent Financing Ltd.

  Swan Capital Group Ltd./WestLB (UK)

  n/a privately owned

  Folkestone and Dover Water Services Ltd.

  74.07 per cent. VW Capital Funds plc, 25.05 per cent. Southern Water plc

  Veolia Environnement (France)

  n/a

  South West Water Services Ltd.

  100 per cent. Pennon Group plc

  Pennon Group plc (UK)

  None over 25 per cent.

  Thames Water Utilities Ltd.

  100 per cent. Thames Water plc

  Thames Water Aqua Holdings GmbH (RWE AG) (Germany)

  None over 25 per cent.

  Three Valleys Water Services plc

  100 per cent. VW Capital Funds plc

  Veolia Environnment (France)

  n/a

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Carbon Trust
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much public funding the Carbon Trust has received since it was established. [128034]

  Mr. Morley
  The Carbon Trust was allocated £26.5 million in 2001–02 by my Department, and a total of £49.6 million for 2002–03 (including £17.1 million from the Energy Efficiency Best Practice programme). The Carbon Trust has been allocated £50.6 million for 2003–04 (including £17.1 million from the Energy Efficiency Best Practice programme).

  The devolved Administrations have separate funding relationships with the Carbon Trust.

  Waste Management
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to introduce waste minimisation targets. [126715]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government recognise that progress must be made to reduce waste. However, before considering setting waste reduction targets for local authorities, the Government will consider the levers local authorities have for reducing waste and whether a reduction target would be an effective means of encouraging waste reduction.

  Water Companies
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the water companies supplying domestic industries, indicating the nationality of the individuals and organisations with a controlling interest. [128297]

  Mr. Morley
  The following table shows the information for water and sewerage and water only undertakers. The table shows in brackets the country where the ultimate holding company's head office is located.
  409W

  Water and sewerage undertakers/ water undertakers

  Significant shares (over 25 per cent.) in appointee

  Ultimate holding company and where H is based

  Significant shares (over 25 per cent.) in holding company

  Sutton and East Surrey Water plc

  100 percent. East Surrey Holdings plc

  East Surrey Holdings plc

  39.2 per cent. AXA S.A

  North Surrey Water Ltd.

  (Under single licence with Three Valleys)

  —

  —

  Dwr Cymru Cyfyngedig

  100 per cent. Glas Cymru Cyfyngedig

  Glas Cymru Cyfyngedig (UK)

  No shareholders (company limited by guarantee)

  Dee Valley Water plc

  100 per cent. Dee Valley Group plc

  Dee Valley Group plc (UK)

  35.1 per cent. AXA S.A

  Wessex Water Services Ltd

  YTL Utilities (UK) Ltd.

  YTL Power Berhad (Malaysia)

  —

  Bournemouth and West Hampshire Water plc

  100 per cent. Cascal Services Ltd.

  50 per cent. Biwater plc, 50 per cent. NV NUON

  YTL Corporation Berhad 60 per cent. (Malaysia)

  Bristol Water plc

  100 per cent. Bristol Water Holdings plc

  Bristol Water Holdings plc(UK)

  None over 25 per cent.

  Cholderton and District Water Company

  100 per cent. Cholderton and District Water Company

  Cholderton and District Water Company(UK)

  None over 25 per cent.

  Yorkshire Water Services Ltd.

  100 per cent. Kelda Group plc

  Kelda Group plc(UK)

  None over 25 per cent.

TRANSPORT

  Civil Contingencies
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the major civil emergency exercise postponed from 23 March 2003 will take place in London. [128656]

  Mr. McNulty
  An exercise to test specific elements of the emergency services' response to a chemical attack on the London Underground, postponed from 23 March 2003, took place on 7 September 2003. This was one of a regular series of exercises being held in London and throughout the UK.

  Radioactive Materials
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures are in place to ensure the safe transport of radioactive materials; and what recent discussions have taken place with the nuclear industry regarding the safe disposal of its radioactive waste. [128109]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) publishes internationally agreed standards for the transport of radioactive material. These are reviewed on a regular basis to ensure they reflect current safety standards and reflect current transport practices. These IAEA standards form the basis for various modal standards, which in turn, become the basis of legislation in the UK. There is a continuous cycle of reviewing IAEA standards and implementing them nationally.

  Legislation in the United Kingdom is brought into line with the currently applicable version of these IAEA technical requirements on a regular basis, the latest amendment being SI 2003 No. 1867, The Radioactive Material (Road Transport) (Amendment) Regulations 2003.

  Policy for the long-term management of the UK's higher activity radioactive waste is currently under review as part of the "Managing Radioactive Waste Safely" programme. Industry had the opportunity to input its views in respect to the original September 2001 consultation document. There will be further opportunities for input of views as the programme proceeds under the oversight of the new Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM). Ownership of the UK's low level waste disposal facility at Drigg will pass to the proposed new Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) when this is established. The July 2002 "Managing the Nuclear
  410W
  Legacy" White Paper offered opportunity for industry to comment on the proposed arrangements. There is on going discussion with industry as the NDA is being set up, however, this is currently at a preliminary stage.

  Airports
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to be able to make an announcement regarding airport expansion. [R] [129633]

  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.

  Lane Designation
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will publish the regulations required to help local authorities designate Quiet Lanes. [128869]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We are aiming to publish regulations on Quiet Lanes in draft for consultation later this year.

  Maritime Safety
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to change regulations to ensure that anyone who sails a boat at sea has first participated in adequate safety training; and for what reasons there are no training requirements in place for those taking boats under 25 feet out to sea. [129119]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) in conjunction with other safety organisations has produced a voluntary code of Best and Safe Practice for Leisure Craft Users. This code is widely available, and encourages boat users to become familiar with their craft and to take a recognised training course. We keep the voluntary approach to training under review, taking account of the practicalities of implementation and enforcement that a regulatory regime would involve. All craft using our seas, regardless of size, must follow the rules of the International Regulations for the Avoidance of Collisions at Sea 1972 (as amended).

  Railways
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the companies holding railway franchises indicating the nationality of the individuals and organisations holding a controlling interest. [128305]
  411W
  Dr. Howells
  The majority of the holding companies are of British origin except for Keolis and Vivendi who are French. We do not hold information about the nationality of individual directors. Information about franchise operators and franchisees is available on the website of the Strategic Rail Authority at: http://www.sra.gov.uk/passengers/tocs.tt2

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what public subsidies have been made available to the railway industry in each year since 1983. [128304]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer my right hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on 28 April 2003,Official Report, columns 7–10W. In 2002–03, central Government support to the rail industry was £2,284 million. The increase in support since 2000–01 has helped to fund a substantial increase in investment from £2,958 million in 2000–01 to £4,888 million in 2002–03.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in how many accidents involving drivers(a) mobile telephone use and (b) smoking were identified as contributory factors in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [128812]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information requested is not available as the official road casualty statistics which are collected by the police and reported to the Department using the STATS 19 accident report format does not currently include information on either smoking or mobile phones.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) passengers and (b) crew in (i) public service vehicles, (ii) hired coaches and minibuses and (iii) taxis and private hire vehicles suffered fatal accidents in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [129334]

  Dr. Howells
  The number of passengers and drivers of coaches, minibuses and taxis who have died in road accidents is given in the tables below. Vehicles are defined by body type.

  a) Passengers

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Bus or Coach1

  17

  11

  14

  10

  17

  Minibus2

  N/A4

  10

  11

  19

  5

  Taxi3

  3

  4

  4

  3

  2

  b) Drivers5

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Bus or Coach1

  1

  0

  1

  4

  2

  Minibus2

  N/A4

  5

  3

  5

  2

  Taxi3

  2

  6

  8

  1

  4

  Notes and Definitions:

  1. Bus or Coach (with 17 or more passenger seats) and including hired coaches

  2. Minibus (8—16 passenger seats)

  3. Taxis are defined as vehicles operating as a hackney carriage, regardless of construction, and bearing the appropriate district council or local authority hackney carriage plates.

  4. N/A—Data not available prior to 1999

  5. No data on crew other than drivers are available

  Road Projects
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes since 1997 have been made to the COBA formula for determining the value of road projects, with particular reference to the weighting of environmental factors against economic and safety considerations. [129261]

  Mr. Jamieson
  All major (and many minor) road projects are now analysed within the New Approach To Appraisal (NATA) framework, implemented in 1998. The NATA is a problem-oriented approach, focused on a range of alternative options to determine which provides the most effective solution within the context of a range of economic, environmental and social (including safety) objectives. Environmental factors are not given any explicit weighting. Rather an appropriate measure of each impact is presented to decision takers in the form of a one page Appraisal Summary Table to ensure that the full range of economic, environmental and social factors are actively considered during analysis and at decision points.

  Runway Capacity (South-East)
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much additional terminal capacity would be required if two new runways were to be built at Gatwick; and how this additional capacity would be expressed as a multiple of the capacity at Heathrow Terminal 5. [128999]

  Dr. Howells
  The option for two new runways at Gatwick would provide total capacity of 115mppa. This is an additional terminal capacity of 75mppa beyond the base case capacity of 40mppa. Terminal capacity at Gatwick would be a multiple of 2.5 of the capacity at Heathrow Terminal 5 (based on T5 capacity of 30mppa). The amount and timing of terminal capacity provided would, in practice, depend on actual demand.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the total net economic benefit would be using the assumptions recommended by the Treasury, of(a) a close parallel runway, (b) a wide spaced runway at Gatwick and (c) a new runway at (i) Heathrow and (ii) Stansted. [129006]

  Dr. Howells
  The total net economic benefit in present value terms, using the Treasury's assumptions, of(a) a close parallel runway at Gatwick is £1.8 billion, (b) a wide spaced runway at Gatwick is £4.4 billion,(c) (i) a new runway at Heathrow is £6.3 billion and (ii) a new runway at Stansted is £5.4 billion.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy that in the forthcoming White Paper on Air Transport there will be no positive reference to new runways at sites, which were not included in the consultation on the Future Development of Air Transport, without a full public consultation. [129009]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government have not yet taken any decisions on policies for the air transport White Paper. A number of proposals for new airport capacity at sites which were not included in the Government's consultation document have been submitted as responses to the consultation. These are being
  413W
  considered. If the Government were minded to favour any of these options it would be necessary to consult separately on them.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will publish his responses to the consultation on the Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom. [129010]

  Dr. Howells
  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.

  The Secretary of State gave an undertaking to the Transport Select Committee, in oral evidence on 21 May, to publish the White Paper before the end of 2003.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he plans to recommend that BAA and the West Sussex County Council extend their 2001 legal agreement on Gatwick Airport until 2030. [129011]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government have not yet taken any decisions on policies for the air transport White Paper. The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom consultation closed on June and the many thousands of responses are currently being analysed. It remains the intention to publish the White Paper later this year.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what total percentage fall in the cost of air travel over the period 2000 to 2030 is assumed in the future demand forecasts given in the consultation paper 'The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom'.[129012]

  Dr. Howells
  The central national forecast published in 'Air Traffic Forecasts for the United Kingdom 2000', May 2000, assumed that there will be a 1 per cent. reduction per annum in air fares in real terms between 2000 and 2020. No further reduction was assumed between 2020 and 2030. However, as described in Chapter 5 of 'The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom—South East', February 2003, greater competition between airlines, including the impact of the No Frills sector, suggests that the decline in the cost of air travel will be greater. It is argued in 'The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom—South East' that air fares are likely to fall by 1.5 per cent. per annum in real terms between 2000 and 2020, giving a total percentage reduction in the cost of air travel of around 26 per cent. in the period from 2000 to 2030.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has requested the owners of Redhill aerodrome to provide additional details of their expansion proposals. [129103]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department held discussions earlier this year with several promoters of proposals for new airport capacity that are alternatives to, or variants of, options set out in the Government's consultation document, including with the owners of Redhill aerodrome.
  414W
  The aim was to provide guidance on the methodology used to appraise options in the SERAS study and on the information that was needed by the Department in order to appraise their proposals.

  A number of the promoters submitted further material on their proposals. This is being considered.

  Transport Infrastructure (Crosby)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what(a) grants and (b) other assistance have been given by his Department for the improvement of transport infrastructure in Crosby since 1997. [129454]

  Mr. McNulty
  Government assistance for transport improvements is provided through Local Transport Plans. These are the cornerstone of our integrated transport policy at the local level.

  Figures are not available for Crosby. Since 1997 Sefton borough council has received £35,136,000 for transport improvements. For details of individual schemes, I refer my hon. Friend to the Director of Technical Services, Sefton BC, Balliol House, Balliol House, Bootle, L20 3NJ.

DEFENCE

  Campaign Medals
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the campaigns since 1974 that resulted in a medal being struck, what the duration was of each campaign, and when the first medal in each case was presented. [129304]

  Mr. Caplin
  Specific campaign medals and clasps to both the General Service Medal (GSM) 1962 and, more recently, the Operational Service Medal (OSM) have been instituted for the following campaigns and operations since 1974. It is not possible to say when any given campaign started or was completed, but the dates specified in the table represent the qualifying period considered to be suitable for the award.

  Medal Clasp (as required)

  Qualifying dates

  GSM Northern Ireland

  14 August 1969-ongoing

  GSM Dhofar

  1 October 1969–30 September 1976

  The Rhodesia Medal

  1 December 1979–20 March 1980

  South Atlantic Medal

  2 April 1982–14 June 1982

  GSM Lebanon

  7 February 1983–9 March 1984

  GSM Mine Clearance Gulf of Suez

  15 August 1984–15 October 1984

  GSM Gulf

  17 November 1986–28 February 1989

  The Gulf Medal

  2 August 1990–7 March 1991

  GSM Kuwait

  8 March 1991–30 September 1991

  GSM Northern Iraq and Southern

  6 April 1991–17 July 1991

  Turkey

  GSM Air Ops Iraq

  16 July 1991–18 March 2003 (Op Resinate South)

  16 July 1991–30 April 2003 (Op Resinate North)

  OSM Sierra Leone

  5 May 2000–31 July 2002

  No record was made of when these medals were first issued to eligible recipients. Medals for campaign service are generally posted direct to individuals or, if still serving, sent in batches to their Unit/Regiment/Ship/

  415W
  Squadron and distributed. Any formal presentation ceremony would be a local initiative organised by the commanding officer of the unit concerned.

  Deepcut Barracks
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of Her Majesty's armed forces have died through deaths ruled as suicide or self-inflicted at Deepcut Barracks since 1 January 1996. [129329]

  Mr. Ingram
  Only a coroner can rule on the cause of a death.

  Since 1 January 1996, the coroner has recorded no verdicts of suicide relating to deaths at Deepcut.

  HMS Dryad
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 13 June,Official Report, column 112W, on HMS Dryad, if he will make it his policy to ensure that, before marketing arrangements are made, the neighbouring local authorities are consulted in the event of a decision to dispose of the site of HMS Dryad; and if he will make a statement. [120316]

  Mr. Caplin
  It is already departmental policy to ensure that there is full consultation with all parties in the run up to any disposal, including with local authorities, English Heritage and the local community.

  Iraq
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the estimated Iraqi civilian death toll is from when hostilities began to 28 August 2003. [128941]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon.Member to the answer I gave on 16 June 2003,Official Report, column 55W to the hon.Member for Lewes (Mr Baker).

  Operation Telic
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many call out notices for reservists have been issued for Operation Telic; how many reservists have been accepted into service; and if he will make a statement. [128412]

  Mr. Caplin
  As at 29 August 2003 a total of 11,668 call-out notices had been served. 298 of these call-out notices were revoked before the individual reported for service. A total of 8,955 Reservists reported for service, of which 7,514 were accepted for service. Of those accepted for service, 4,236 have been demobilised after completing an operational tour.

  Military Police
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will order an independent inquiry into the effectiveness of the Ministry of Defence police investigation branch; and if he will make a statement. [128384]

  Mr. Caplin
  No. The Criminal Investigation Department of the MOD Police is inspected by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary who have stated that the force as a whole continues to provide an efficient and effective service.

  RAF Halton
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the(a) state of the runways at RAF Halton and (b) the future repair programme for the runways. [129276]

  Mr. Caplin
  During the recent prolonged period of hot, dry weather experienced across the United Kingdom, a number of cracks developed in both of the primary grass runways at RAF Halton airfield. As a flight safety precaution, both runways have been closed and a single, temporary runway has been brought into use to allow limited flying to continue.

  Specialists in the maintenance of grass airfields are being consulted to identify the options for returning the airfield to full availability and the future repair programme will be informed by their advice.

  Gliding Centres
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons he decided not to proceed with his proposal to relocate(a) the Joint Services Adventurous Training (Gliding) Centre and (b) the RAF Gliding and Soaring Association Centre to Rissington. [129232]

  Mr. Caplin
  The RAF Gliding and Soaring Association withdrew from consideration of relocating its Bicester Centre to Little Rissington because they could not afford to build the new hangar they would have needed to operate at Little Rissington. An option of moving the publicly funded Joint Services Adventurous Training (ISAT (G)) gliding activity to Little Rissington was considered but would have required considerable initial investment in equipment, which was deemed unaffordable.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the additional number of flights that will take place from RAF Halton as a result of the relocation of(a) the Joint Services Adventurous Training (Gliding) and (b) the Royal Air Force Gliding and Soaring Association centres. [129233]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Joint Services Adventurous Training (Gliding) unit is tasked by the Ministry of Defence sponsor with providing places on its courses which will result in a maximum of 4,800 launches per year.

  Until the closure of the RAF Gliding and Soaring Association Club at Bicester, it will not be clear how many of its members will join the Association's Club at RAF Halton. It is possible that the increased membership could double the level of activity undertaken by the Chiltern Gliding Club at RAF Halton to approximately 8,000 launches, which would return it to that undertaken eight years ago, however, it may be fewer than that.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the number of local residents who will experience increased intrusion from aircraft noise following the relocation to RAF Halton of(a) the Joint Services Adventurous Training (Gliding) and (b) the RAF Gliding and Soaring Association centres. [129277]
  417W
  Mr. Caplin
  The airfield at RAF Halton is currently very well used by light aircraft; motorised gliders and winch launched gliders. The relocation of the Joint Services Adventurous Training (Gliding) activity to the airfield is expected to cause very little increased aircraft noise. The gliders used are, in the main, not motorised. The tug aircraft have four bladed propellers and their performance is maximised for quick take off and climb. This allows engine power to be reduced during the climb, all of which reduces noise output. Return to the airfield invariably utilises a constant descent at reduced power, causing very little noise.

  The relocation of the RAF Gliding and Soaring Association assets to RAF Halton is not expected to increase intrusion from aircraft noise as the gliders do not have motors and are winch launched.

  Sonar
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the effects upon marine mammals of low frequency active sonar operating at levels up to 240 decibels. [128949]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence has conducted an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Sonar 2087, a Low Frequency Active Sonar (LFAS) system. The EIA indicated that the sonar had the potential to be harmful to marine mammals. The effect is determined by the duration and frequency of the sound, as well as its intensity: the EIA looked at these at varying levels in different environmental conditions and developed a range of mitigation measures to minimise the impact. A copy of the EIA will be placed in the Library of the House later this month.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans his Department has to introduce low frequency active sonar operating at levels up to 240 decibels in Royal Navy ships. [128950]

  Mr. Ingram
  We plan to fit Sonar 2087, a tactical, variable-depth, low frequency active and passive sonar to Type 23 Frigates during their refit cycle. It will replace the Type 23fs current passive towed array Sonar 2031 (where this is fitted) and will be integrated with the existing bow-mounted, active Sonar 2050. The system is expected to begin to enter operational service in 2006, once trials of the first production sets are complete.

  Suez Medal
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the proposal to introduce a medal for service in the Suez Canal Zone has received Royal Assent; and when he expects issue of medals to commence. [128946]

  Mr. Caplin
  Her Majesty The Queen has agreed in principle to the institution of a new medal for service in the Suez Canal Zone, as announced in the House by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 11 June. Final agreement to the detailed qualifying criteria for the medal is still awaited. It is hoped that the first medals will be issued shortly after receiving the Royal Assent.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the qualifying criteria for the Suez Canal Zone medal will be. [128947]
  418W
  Mr. Caplin
  Proposals for the detailed qualifying criteria for the Naval General Service Medal 1915–62 and General Service Medal 1918–62, for service in the Suez Canal Zone between 1951 and 1954, have been passed to the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals for their consideration. They will be published in a White Paper when The Queen has agreed them.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the application process for a Suez Canal Zone medal will be. [128948]

  Mr. Caplin
  Veterans of the Canal Zone, or the next-of-kin of those who have died, will need to apply in writing to the appropriate medal office, giving full name, date of birth and Service number. The addresses of the medal offices are as follows:Royal Naval Medal Office, Room 1068, Centurion Building, Grange Road, Gosport, Hampshire P013 9XA
  Royal Marines Medal Office. Room 038, Centurion Building, Grange Road. Gosport, Hampshire P013 9XA
  Army Medal Office, Government Buildings, Worcester Road, Droitwich Spa, Worcestershire WR9 8AU
  Royal Air Force Medal Office, Room 6, Building 248A, RAF PMA,
  RAF Innsworth, Gloucester, Gloucestershire GL3 lEZ.
  All applications will be acknowledged on receipt and will be dealt with strictly in the order they are received. The Ministry of Defence will arrange for the individual Service files of those who apply to be recalled from the archives and will assess entitlement from these detailed records.

SCOTLAND

  Annual Report
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many copies of the Scotland Office Annual Report 2002–03 have been printed; at what cost; and how it was distributed. [128007]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Scotland Office had 150 copies of the Departmental Report produced at a total cost of £4,036. Copies of the report were provided to the Scottish Affairs Committee, other Government Departments and for use within the Department. The report is also available on the department's website.

  The Stationery Office determines the number of copies it requires for retail sale and meets the costs of printing and publication.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) special advisers, (b) press officers, (c) civil servants, (d) advisers to civil servants and (e) permanent staff were working for the Scotland Office in each year since 1996. [1264741
  419W
  Mrs. McGuire
  The Scotland Office was established on 1 July 1999.

  Details of staff numbers which cover permanent staff, including press officers, are given in Table C of the annual publication. "Civil Service Statistics". Copies of this publication are available from the Libraries of both Houses.

  The Department employed three special advisers in 1999–2000 and 2000–01, one of whom was unpaid; and two special advisers in 2001–02 and 2002–03.

  The Department does not employ any staff as advisers to civil servants.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many staff in his Department have been transferred to new responsibilities within the Department for Constitutional Affairs. [127847]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The staff of the Scotland Office transferred to the Department for Constitutional Affairs on 12 June. They have retained their existing responsibilities.

  Friends of Scotland
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many staff in his Department were allocated to the Friends of Scotland project, expressed as full-time equivalents in the last year for which figures are available. [127846]

  Mrs. McGuire
  In 2002–03, five staff were allocated to the Friends of Scotland project.

  IT Contracts
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many outsourced IT contracts have been signed by his Department in each year since 1997; how much each of these contracts is worth; with whom they are signed; how many have been renegotiated; how many are still in place; and if he will make a statement. [126194]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Scotland Office was established on 1 July 1999. The Department's IT systems and support are provided through the Scottish Executive. The Scotland Office has no outsourced IT contracts.

  Private Sector Secondees
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what his Department's policy is on employing secondees from the private sector; how many secondees from the(a) private and (b) public sectors his Department employed in each year since 1997; from which companies and organisations they were seconded; at what level they were employed; and if he will make a statement. [127062]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Scotland Office was established on 1 July 1999. Since then the department has employed two individuals from the private sector (Bank of Scotland) at Grade 7 and SEO levels in 2002 and two individuals from the public sector (House of Lords) at Grade 7 and SCS level, one in 2001 and one in 2002.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children of asylum seekers were being held in custody at each removal centre on 1 July 2003; and if he intends to end the practice. [124066]

  Beverley Hughes
  The latest published information on the number of children of asylum seekers held in removal centres is for 2 April 2003.

  At this date an exercise was carried out to access the number of children under the age of 18 who were detained in Dungavel, Harmondsworth, Oakington and Tinsley House Immigration Service Removal Centres. These centres are the only ones that deal with family cases. The results of the exercise are contained in the following table.

  Immigration service removal center

  Children under 18 years of age in detention at 2 April 2003

  Dungavel

  21

  Harmondsworth

  18

  Oakington

  14

  Tinsley

  3

  Total

  56

  Children under 18 years are detained only in two limited circumstances: first, as part of a family group whose detention is considered appropriate; second, when unaccompanied, while alternative care arrangements are made and normally just overnight.

  While the detention of families with children is very regrettable, it nevertheless remains necessary in appropriate cases in order to maintain an effective immigration control and to tackle abuses of the asylum system.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Iraq
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development if he will place the Department's pre-conflict plans for the reconstruction of Iraq and their estimated costs in the Library. [128943]

  Hilary Benn
  Details of the Department for International Development's pre-conflict planning for Iraq are contained in the Memoranda submitted to the International Development Committee by the Department in February and June this year.

  Malaria
  John Barrett
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what plans there are to expand the use of the RTSS/ASO2A malaria vaccine following its trial in Mozambique. [127935]

  Hilary Benn
  The RTSS/ASO2A vaccine (a GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Biologicals' product) is a new product for malaria which has yet to undergo the full approval process.
  421W
  An international partnership involving GSK, Mozambique's Ministry of Health (MOH), and Centro de Investigacio em Saude de Manhica (CISM), the Hospital Clinic of the University of Barcelona, and the Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH)'s Malaria Vaccine Initiative (MVI) has now conducted phase 2 paediatric clinical trials.

  The UK Government welcome the apparent success of the vaccine to date, but will wait to see the final outcome of the trials before planning any expansion of its use.

WALES

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what public appointments have been made by holders of his office since June 1999(a) individually and (b) jointly with other Ministers. [103813]

  Mr. Hain
  Information about ministerial appointments to public bodies is included in the Cabinet Office's annual report "Public Bodies", copies of which are placed in the Library of the House and which is published on the Cabinet Office website.

  (a) Since June 1999, holders of the office of Secretary of State for Wales have made one appointment to the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Wales. In addition the Secretary of State for Wales offers advice to Her Majesty about a number of Crown Appointments.

  (b) Appointments to the Audit Commission are made jointly with my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Health.

  All decisions about public appointments are made with regard to the Commissioner for Public Appointments' Code of Practice.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Museum Charging
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent assessment has been undertaken of museum entry prices; what plans there are to make an assessment; and if she will make a statement. [128777]

  Estelle Morris
  Since 1 December 2001, all the principal museums and galleries sponsored by this Department have offered free admission to all. This has been a huge success. In 2002–03, the first full year of free access, our sponsored museums and galleries received over 32 million visits—over 8 million more than in 1997.

  School Sports Coaches
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what plans there are to increase the number of qualified school sports coaches employed at a local level; [128707]

  (2) how many qualified school sports coaches were employed in (a) Jarrow constituency, (b) South Tyneside, (c) Tyne and Wear and (d) England, in each year since 1997. [128708]
  422W
  Mr. Caborn
  DCMS is investing £28 million to implement the key recommendations of the Coaching Task Force. These include the creation by 2006 of 3,000 qualified Community Sports Coaches, who will work in partnership at local level with schools, clubs and other local or regional organisations supporting sport I expect the first phase of some 100 Community Sports Coaches to be operational during the current financial year.

  The information requested about numbers of qualified school sports coaches could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  British Tourism
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport whether her Department has undertaken research into the potential effect of the tolls and charges proposed for using cars on British roads, on the British tourism industry. [128575]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) has undertaken no such research. DCMS recognises that transport is a key issue for UK tourism and officials from DCMS and the Department for Transport are in regular contact on transport issues. The revenues raised from local authority congestion charging schemes must be reinvested into local transport improvements and can help deliver a quality transport system that will benefit all sectors of the economy, including tourism.

  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment has been made of the provisional numbers of domestic and overseas tourists in England this summer. [128890]

  Mr. Caborn
  The latest provisional figures for the number of domestic tourism trips including an overnight stay in England show that over the three months April to June 2003 there were 31.4 million trips1.

  Figures for the number of overseas tourists visiting England are currently only available up to March 2003.2 These figures show that over the three months January to March 2003 there were 4.3 million visits from overseas residents to England
  1 All figures for domestic tourism trips are taken from the UK Tourism Survey which is run by VisitBritain. Figures for domestic trips in England up to September 2003 will be available from early January 2004.
  2 All figures for overseas visits are taken from the International Passenger Survey which is run by the Office for National Statistics. Figures for overseas visits to England up to June 2003 will be available in October 2003, and data up to September 2003 will be available in January 2004.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport whether her Department has undertaken research into the effect of the congestion charge on tourism in London. [128576]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has undertaken no such research. Responsibility for tourism policy in London has been devolved to the Mayor and the London Assembly. Likewise, congestion charging is the responsibility of the Mayor. An initial three-month assessment of the scheme has been published by Transport for London. A six-month report is due to be published in October.

HEALTH

  Hepatitis C
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what his latest estimate is of the incidence of hepatitis C among the prison population; [129137]

  (2) what his latest estimate is of the proportion of prisoners with chronic hepatitis C who are receiving treatment in accordance with National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidelines; [129138]

  (3) what his latest estimate is of the incidence of hepatitis C among prisoners (a) on reception and (b) on discharge; [129139]

  (4) what steps he has taken to estimate the incidence of hepatitis C amongst the prison population. [129140]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Prisoners are not routinely screened for hepatitis C. Individual prisoners often ask to be tested for evidence of chronic hepatitis C infection and this is done, after pre-test counselling. The Public Health Laboratory Service undertook an unlinked, anonymised survey of the prevalence of blood borne viruses among prisoners in England in 1997–98. This indicated that 9 per cent. of adult men, 11 per cent. of all women and 0.6 per cent. of young men had evidence of previous exposure to hepatitis C. No research has been undertaken on the prevalence of hepatitis C on reception and discharge.

  Prisoners newly diagnosed with hepatitis C are referred to national health service specialists for further assessment and treatment, as clinically appropriate. People received into prison with hepatitis C will have any treatment begun in the community continued while they remain in prison. Information about the number of prisoners receiving treatment for hepatitis C and what form that treatment takes is not collated centrally.

  Lincolnshire NHS Trust
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much funding Lincolnshire NHS Trust received from the Government in(a) 2002–03 and (b) 2003–04. [129285]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Total income for 2002–03 for the Lincolnshire Partnership National Health Service Trust, including income from activities and all other operating income was £63,190,000. Figures for 2003–04 are not available.

  Source:

  The audited summarisation schedules for the Lincolnshire Partnership NHS Trust 2002–03.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parliamentary Mail
  David Winnick
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what progress has been made with the internal audit on the possibility of resuming later collections of parliamentary mail. [129231]
  424W
  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  The arrangements for the reinstatement of later collections have now been set out in a notice from the Serjeant at Arms and Black Rod to all users of the service:In response to representations from Members of both Houses, from 9 September 2003 there will be a 7pm final collection on sitting days from the 15 main post boxes (detailed below). This reinstatement of service has been negotiated with Royal Mail to enable Members' and departments' letters to be processed through the Royal Mail network ensuring that they are delivered the following day wherever possible.

  Central Lobby and Post Office Counter

  Members' Lobby and Post Office Counter

  Peers' Lobby

  Members' Entrance

  Peers' Entrance

  Star Chamber Court

  Ground Floor Portcullis House

  Ground Floor Millbank House

  Ground Floor 7 Millbank

  Ground Floor Parliament Street

  Ground Floor 1 The Abbey Garden

  Ground Floor 2 The Abbey Garden

  Ground Floor Norman Shaw North

  Ground Floor Norman Shaw South

  Ground Floor 7 Old Palace Yard

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Sittings of the House
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what the estimated cost to public funds is of interrupting the maintenance and building work in the Palace of Westminster for the two week sitting of the House in September. [129031]

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  The Serjeant at Arms is collating the costs associated with interruptions to the works projects in the Palace of Westminster for the September sitting period and will write to the right hon. Gentleman when the figures are available.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Biotechnology Industry
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the change in(a) turnover and (b) employment in the UK biotechnology industry within the duration of the farm-scale trials programme. [128699]

  Jacqui Smith
  In the agricultural biotechnology sector, the following statistics are available:

  December

  Revenue (£ million)

  Employees

  2000

  160

  1,147

  2001

  198

  1,145

  Note:

  No other figures are available for earlier years.

  Employment Rights
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will introduce legislation removing the upper age limit on employment rights. [129038]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  There is no upper age limit on the great majority of employment rights. However, under current legislation employees cannot generally complain of unfair dismissal if they have reached their employer's normal retirement age for their job, or, if there is no normal retirement age, the age of 65. Similarly, they have no entitlement to a statutory redundancy payment if they have reached the age of 65 or, if lower, the employer's normal retirement age for their job.

  The public consultation on age discrimination launched on 2 July, "Equality and Diversity: Age Matters", proposes changing these provisions so that employees who believe they have been unfairly dismissed can seek redress at any age, but retirement at a justifiable retirement age will be a fair reason for dismissal. The upper age limit for entitlement to a statutory redundancy payment will depend on the decision we make about retirement ages. A final decision will be made in the light of responses to consultation.

  THORP Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the THORP reprocessing plant at Sellafield will close in 2010. [128272]

  Mr. Timms
  BNFL expects to complete their existing order book for reprocessing spent fuel at THORP by around 2010. Operation of THORP beyond completion of the existing order book would be dependent on there being new contracts for reprocessing further spent fuel at the plant which, in the first instance, is dependent on there being customer demand.

  The Government's position on the future of THORP was set out in the July 2002 White Paper on Managing the Nuclear Legacy. We expect existing THORP contracts to be honoured. There are currently no proposals for new contracts for reprocessing further spent fuel at THORP. Before any such new THORP contracts could be concluded or changes made to existing contracts that increased the volume of spent fuel to be reprocessed at THORP, the approval of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry would be required. Before making a decision on any such future proposal, the Government would review it against the specific criteria that were set out in the White Paper and would consult publicly.

  BAE Systems
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) whether the Export Credits Guarantee Department has reviewed allegations of corrupt practice by BAE Systems regarding the supply of a package of Hawk jets and Gripen planes to the Government of South Africa; what action is being taken by the Export Credits Guarantee Department regarding its guarantee to BAE Systems regarding the supply of this package following these allegations; when the Export Credits Guarantee Department first received 426W
  allegations of corrupt practice by BAE Systems regarding the supply of this package; and if she will make a statement; [123018]

  (2) whether allegations of corrupt practice by BAE Systems regarding the supply of a package of Hawk jets and Gripen planes to the Government of South Africa were raised during meetings during the visit of the then Minister for Trade to South Africa in November 2000. [123020]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have been unable to find any record of this issue having been discussed during the meetings referred to.

  Bankruptcy
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the(a) bank rate of interest and (b) rate of interest accrual under the 1838 bankruptcy provisions has been in each year since 1992. [129499]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The information is as follows:

  (a) The Bank of England publishes the base rates throughout the year and these can be accessed from their website www.bankofengland.co.uk. In November 1992 the "base rate" was 6.87 per cent. and since July of this year it has been 3.5 per cent.

  (b) On 1 April 1993 the judgment rate of interest was set at 8 per cent. and has been 8 per cent. since that date. Immediately prior thereto, including for the whole of 1992, it was set at 15 per cent.

  British Overseas Territories
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what responsibilities her Department undertakes in connection with British Overseas Territories. [123990]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 16 July 2003]: The Radiocommunications Agency of the Department for Trade and Industry is responsible for representing the interests of the Overseas Territories in the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). In doing so, the Radiocommunications Agency has to ensure compliance with the obligations, procedures and practices that derive from the UK's membership of the ITU in respect of facilitating efficient international telecommunications and, more particularly, on the use of radio frequencies and satellite orbits for delivering all types of radiocommunication services.

  Bull and Company
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the inquiries initiated by the European Commission on the subsidising by France of the computer group Bull and Company; and what the outcome of the inquiries has been. [128823]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 10 September 2003]: The European Commission announced on 9 April 2002 that it was launching an investigation into a €450 million cash advance by France to Bull. On 13 November 2002, it authorised the aid and ordered France to submit evidence of the reimbursement by Bull

  427W
  of the advance with interest by 17 June 2003. Copies of the notices appear in the Official Journal of the European Communities, C 128, 30.5.2002 and C 209, 19.8.2003 respectively.

  Photovoltaics
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much of the(a) major photovoltaics

  Scheme

  Funds allocated at 9 September 2003 including management costs (£ million)

  Unallocated (£ million)

  Advertised at

  Major Photovoltaic Demonstration Programme

  11.55

  8.45

  www.solarpvsrants.co.uk editorial in national and local press, radio and TV

  Clear Skies

  2.31

  7.69

  www.clear-skies.org editorial in national and local press, radio and TV

  Scottish Community Renewables Initiative

  0.65

  4.62

  www.est.co.uk/schri and www.hie.co.uk

  Corporate Energy Consumption
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the recommendations for reducing corporate energy consumption in the Government's sustainable development strategy—"A Better Quality of Life". [128568]

  Mr. Timms
  The 1999 strategy for sustainable development for the UK, A better quality of life, sets out key UK Government actions to achieve sustainable development, including those to achieve more prudent use of energy by the business sector.

  The Climate Change Levy was launched in April 2001 to help fund measures to promote energy efficiency in business and the public sector. As part of the CCL package a number of measures were introduced including:
  The EGA scheme offering tax incentives to firms investing in approved energy saving technologies.
  The Carbon Trust (CT) was launched "to take the lead on energy efficiency for business and the public sector, and to support the development of a low carbon economy", delivered through the trust's two main programmes: the Low Carbon Innovation Programme, and Action Energy (formerly the non-domestic part of the Energy Efficiency Best Practice programme) the UK's main energy efficiency information, advice and research programme for organisations in the public and private sectors. Since 1989, the EEBPP has helped many organisations save up to 20 per cent. of their energy bills, which equates to total UK energy savings of around £800 million a year.
  Envirowise (formerly the Environmental Technology Best Practice Programme) is the main programme promoting the resource efficiency message to business. Since it was established in 1994, the EETBP has helped UK business make resource efficiency savings of approximately £800 million.

  A review of "A better quality of life" has just started, to have a revised strategy in place by 2005. We intend to take a fresh look at how we achieve sustainable development in the UK, building on the current strategy to improve delivery.
  428W
  demonstration programme budget, (b) clear skies programme budget, and (c) Scottish community renewables initiative budget (i) has been allocated and (ii) remains to be allocated; and where each of these schemes are advertised. [128780]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 9 September 2003]: The information is in the following table.

  Employment Legislation
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list all the documentation issued by her Department that an employer must complete when he or she takes on his or her first employee, in order to be fully compliant; and if she will make a statement. [128690]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  None. However, employment legislation for which the Department is responsible requires employers to keep records showing compliance with the national minimum wage legislation and weekly working time and night work limits; and to provide the following documents: an itemised pay statement, issued at or before the time of payment; a written statement of employment particulars for employees who are employed for one month or more; and, for shop and betting workers in England and Wales who are or may be required to work on Sundays, a written statement explaining how they can opt out of Sunday work. The wording of that opt-out statement is prescribed by law and the written statement of employment particulars must contain certain prescribed information. The Department publishes an example form of the written statement of employment particulars for the assistance of employers.

  The Department is fully aware of the need to regulate only where it is necessary to do so and to keep compliance requirements as simple as possible.

  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many employment tribunals were attended by small businesses, as a result of non-compliance with employment legislation in the last 12 months; and if she will make a statement. [128691]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Employment Tribunals Service does not record the numbers of employment tribunals that are attended by small businesses because no information is held on the size of the employer's business that may be subject to tribunal proceedings.
  429W
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many employment regulations were introduced by her Department in each year since 1997; and if she will make a statement. [127802]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  In its first term (1997–2001), the Government introduced a foundation of minimum standards in the workplace. Every employee now has, for example, the right to a minimum wage, paid holidays, rest breaks, time off for family emergencies, and a cap on the working week. Trade unions have the right to recognition by the employer where a majority of the workforce want it. Part-time workers have the same rights as their full-time colleagues.

  In their second term, the Government are building on all these measures in its drive to raise productivity, including a range of changes to support families and to make work pay. The Government have improved existing maternity rights and introduced paid paternity and adoption leave for the first time. For example, the payment period of statutory maternity pay and maternity allowance has been extended to 26 weeks. It has also introduced a right for working parents with children under six, or disabled children under 18, to request flexible working. This new right builds on existing best practice and further enforces our aim to promote greater dialogue in the workplace to find flexible solutions that suit both employers and employees.

  Recently, both Houses have passed regulations to tackle discrimination in employment on the grounds of sexual orientation and religion or belief, which will take effect in December 2003.

  Energy Supply
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the future of the UK's energy supply; and how the Government intends to bridge future energy generation shortfall. [128645]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government's Energy White Paper 'Our energy future—creating a low carbon economy', published on 24 February this year, covered both these points. It set out the Government's new energy policy, designed to deal with the major challenges that confront our energy system, namely climate change, our declining indigenous energy supplies and updating our energy infrastructure. The position remains as set out in the White Paper.

  Estate Agents
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 10 July 2003,Official Report, column 888W, when she expects to receive the report of the Director General of Fair Trading on estate agents; and on what date she expects to publish the report. [126752]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  I expect the Office of Fair Trading to publish its report on estate agents in the autumn.
  430W
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 10 July 2003,Official Report, column 888W, (1) how many estate agents are practising in the United Kingdom; and what percentage of estate agents are members of the Ombudsman for Estate Agents Scheme; [126753]

  (2) how much was paid out in each year since 1997 by way of compensation by the Ombudsman for malpractice by estate agents. [126756]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  This information is not collected by the Department.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 10 July 2003,Official Report, column 888W, what procedures are in place to ensure that estate agents banned by the Office of Fair Trading (a) no longer practise and (b) are no longer involved in the management of estate agency companies; how many estate agents banned since 1997 have subsequently been discovered to have continued or recommenced estate agency work; how many estate agents have been prosecuted since 1997 for such practices; what the penalties received were; and what procedures are in place to monitor estate agents whose conduct has resulted in warning letters being issued by the Director General of Fair Trading. [126754]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The banning of an estate agent by the Office of Fair Trading results in a press release that alerts other local estate agents and consumers. Local Trading Standards Officers are advised separately, and the OFT relies on them to notify it if the banned agent continues in business or is involved in the management of an estate agency company. It is a criminal offence for an agent banned by the OFT to continue doing estate agency work.

  No estate agents banned since 1997 have subsequently been discovered to have continued or recommenced estate agency work or been prosecuted for such practices.

  The OFT does not publicise the issue of warning letters to estate agents, and does not formally monitor estate agents whose conduct has resulted in a warning letter being sent. However, a copy is sent to the local Trading Standards Department to alert them to the action taken. Formal warning orders are treated as per banning orders.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 10 July 2003,Official Report, column 888W, on estate agents, how many complaints were investigated by the Office of Fair Trading in each year since 2000; how many were upheld in each year since 1997; what the average time taken to investigate a complaint is; and what the longest time taken to investigate a complaint is. [126755]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The following table contains details of the complaints about estate agents investigated by the Office of Fair Trading and the number of complaints upheld in each year since 2000. The OFT did not record details of how many complaints were upheld prior to 2001.
  431W

  Complaints investigated by the Office of Fair Trading

  Complaints upheld by the Office of Fair Trading

  2000

  213

  —

  2001

  170

  80

  2002

  206

  97

  2003

  1126

  147

  1Up to 31 July 2003

  The three main areas of complaints were: agents not passing on offers, failing to declare a personal interest and misrepresentation as to the details/existence of a prospective purchaser.

  The average time taken to investigate a complaint is three months. Complex cases may take up to a year.

  Flexible Working
  Dr. Ashok Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans there are to monitor and record the number of workers(a) requesting and (b) being granted flexible working in (i) central government, (ii) local government, (iii) the public sector and (iv) the private sector; and if she will make a statement. [128673]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  In addition to the detail in my answer to my hon. Friend on 1 July,Official Report, column 214W, my Department has since commissioned questions on flexible working to appear in the monthly Office for National Statistics omnibus survey.

  The Government is taking a strategic approach to monitoring flexible working. This will feed into the review of the new flexible working law it is committed to commencing in 2006 and to the future work of the Government's Work-Life Balance campaign. The approach involves gathering qualitative and quantitative evidence to establish a comprehensive research base.

  The Government is circulating a summary of the Government's approach to how it is monitoring all the new working parent laws introduced in April 2003 to interested parties, which is also available at www.dti.gov.uk/workingparents. This invites others to share their own experience of the new laws, including flexible working.

  GATS
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the openness of the GATS negotiations; and what she estimates the benefits were of(a) open and (b) closed discussions during this process. [118914]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 16 June 2003]: The Government believe that all WTO negotiations should be as transparent as possible, consistent with protecting negotiating positions. To this end the Government have been as open as possible with civil society about progress with the negotiations, meeting them frequently.

  In relation to the GATS, we published our second public consultation document last year, setting a lead that other governments and the European Commission have followed. We will shortly be publishing our response. We also pressed strongly for the EU's initial
  432W
  GATS offer to be published at the time of its submission to the WTO. A number of other WTO Members have done so.

  However, transparency is a matter for each government and we must respect the wishes of those who have asked for their GATS requests or offers to be treated as restricted. For this reason, we have not published other countries' requests to us in full, but summarised them in our consultation document. That is the balance we have struck.

  Home Accident Surveillance System
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will change her policy on the termination of the collection and analysis of the Home Accident Surveillance System statistics. [128369]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Since the decision to stop HASS was announced on 2 May, contracts to collect the data have been terminated and the work within the DTI is being wound up. I have no plans to reverse this policy.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether she plans to establish a new Government accident recording system to ensure and improve the safety standards of home and leisure products and activities. [128370]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  I have no plans to establish such a system. I have, however, offered to support initiatives that the Department of Health might launch to strengthen the surveillance of accidental injury at regional and local levels in the NHS.

  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many representations she has received in opposition to the decision taken by her Department to cease the collection by Home Accident Surveillance Systems of statistics relating to accidents in the home. [127057]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  I have received approximately 80 representations opposing the decision to stop HASS.

  Independent Chief Engineer
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the Government have plans to create an independent chief engineer. [128646]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government have no plans to appoint an independent chief engineer.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations her Department has received from major inward investors on the effects on their investment decisions of the condition of the transport system. [124732]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Invest-UK, British Trade International's inward investment arm, has received one such recent representation from a major inward investor—Pfizer Global Research laboratories based in Sandwich.

  In their continuing dialogue with key major inward investors, Invest UK has identified the UK's transport infrastructure as one among a number of important

  433W
  competitiveness factors for investors when looking to maintain or further develop their UK presence. UK inward investment figures for the year to March 2003 show that the UK remains by a good margin the top destination in the EU.

  Structural Funding (Merseyside)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many jobs were created by the first Merseyside Objective 1 Programme between the years 1994 to 1999; [128563]

  (2) what the five key targets were for the first Merseyside Objective 1 Programme which ran from 1994 to 1999; and what the outcomes were for each target; [128562]

  (3) how many people accessed further education or training between the start of the first Merseyside Objective 1 Programme in 1994 until its end in 1999; [128565]

  (4) how many cases there were of business assistance provided by the first Merseyside Objective 1 Programme from 1994 to 1999 in Merseyside. [128564]

  Jacqui Smith
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 9 July 2003,Official Report, column 798W.

  National Grid
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the total generating capacity available to the National Grid was in each year since 1983; and what the percentage change in generating capacity was in each year. [128302]

  Mr. Timms
  Available data are shown in the following table.

  Generating capacity available to the National Grid

  Year

  Capacity (MW)

  Change in year (MW)

  Change in year (percentage)

  At end of financial year

  1983–84

  57,640

  —

  —

  1984–85

  58,225

  585

  +1.0

  1985–86

  59,270

  1,045

  +1.8

  1986–87

  61,615

  2,345

  +4.0

  1987–88

  61,194

  -421

  -0.7

  1988–89

  61,376

  182

  +0.3

  1989–90

  65,592

  4,216

  +6.9

  1990–91

  63,822

  -1,770

  -2.7

  1991–92

  61,931

  -1,891

  -3.0

  1992–93

  60,636

  -1,295

  -2.1

  1993–94

  61,358

  722

  +1.2

  1994–95

  58,946

  -2,412

  -3.9

  1995–96

  58,265

  -681

  -1.2

  1996–97

  62,758

  4,493

  +7.7

  1997–98

  61,885

  -873

  -1.4

  1998–99

  63,087

  1,202

  +1.9

  1999–2000

  64,049

  962

  +1.5

  2000–01

  66,465

  2,416

  +3.8

  2001–02

  67,593

  1,128

  +1.7

  2002–03

  66,468

  -1,125

  -1.7

  Source:

  National Grid Transco

  Offshore Wind Power
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures have been put in place 434W
  to ensure that new offshore wind power projects will have sufficient grid connection points and capacity capabilities to connect the required megawatts. [128128]

  Mr. Timms
  I have stated that transmission licences will apply throughout the strategic areas and I shall legislate to achieve this. Transmission licences covering the strategic areas will provide certainty for generators that there will be a connector of last resort, in addition to providing infrastructure that is efficient, economical and which guards against the owner of the connection wielding market power. DTI and Ofgem are working together to create the necessary regulatory regime and will issue licences in a timely way that ensure that generation and infrastructure development can run concurrently.

  Science and Biotechnology Sectors
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the impact of international and domestic(a) regulation and (b) financial support on the (i) science and (ii) biotechnology sectors in the United Kingdom. [128121]

  Jacqui Smith
  International and domestic regulation of science in general, and biotechnology in particular is necessary to encourage scientific and technological innovation, while protecting the legitimate interests of members of the public and other groups that might be affected by scientific developments.

  The biotechnology regulations in place maintain a framework for ethical scientific study in an industry of rapid expansion and improvement. The Government realises that a supportive regulatory environment in the UK and Europe will be critical to the success of the UK biosciences sector.

  The Government regularly monitors the effect of scientific regulation. The government/industry Bioscience Innovation and Growth Team is considering the topic of regulation and is likely to make recommendations for action in its report which is due to be published in the autumn.

  The Government is committed to support UK science. In 2000 the budget for science and technology increased by 7 per cent. in real terms, year on year, and as a result of the last spending review it will be increasing at 10 per cent. per annum in real terms over the next three years. In 1997–8 the science budget was 1.3 billion. By 2005–6 it will be 2.9 billion. The Government has also invested heavily in modernising the scientific infrastructure of the country.

  The Government's cross-cutting Review of Science and Research published in March 2002 included a review of funding of the UK science base, and the effectiveness of departments' own science and research programmes to ensure that they are delivering maximum long-term benefits to the economy and quality of life. Following this review, the Government published in July 2002 its strategy for science, engineering and technology—"Investing in Innovation"

  The Government regularly assesses the effect of its financial support for the biotechnology industry. The Bioscience Innovation and Growth Team is also reviewing government support for the sector.

  Trade Liberalisation
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment her Department has made of the consequences of dumping of goods by developed countries upon trade liberalisation in developing countries. [121283]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK has long been conscious that reductions in the currently high levels of trade-distorting support in the agriculture sector are necessary to address over-production in the developed world and the consequent disruption of world commodity markets, which are of vital interest to developing countries. So the UK was pleased that all WTO members agreed at Doha in November 2001 to "comprehensive negotiations aimed at: reductions of, with a view to phasing out, all forms of export subsidies; and substantial reductions in trade-distorting domestic support".

  Unpaid Bills
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of bills remained unpaid in excess of 30 days in each year since 2001 in her Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies; what the(a) longest and (b) average time is that an invoice has remained outstanding for payment in that period; and whether it is her Department's policy to pay interest on late payment of invoice. [126653]

  Ms Hewitt
  The percentage of bills that were unpaid by the Department and its agencies within 30 days of receipt of a valid invoice was 2.3 per cent. for the financial year 2001–02 and 2.8 per cent. for the financial year 2002–03.

  Information on the longest and average time that an invoice has remained outstanding for payment by the Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The Department's policy is to pay interest on late payment of undisputed and correctly presented invoices where appropriate in line with relevant legislation.

  Wind Generators
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many wind generators are working in the United Kingdom; and how many are planned to be built in the next five years. [129062]

  Mr. Timms
  My Department does not collate figures for all wind turbine generators in the UK. Only if a wind farm application is referred to DTI through section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 or through the Transport and Works Act 1992 (wind farms of an installed capacity of 50 megawatts or above onshore and 1MW or above offshore) would this Department have figures. The British Wind Energy Association states that the current number of wind turbines operating in the UK which are grid connected is 1,030, and the total installed capacity for operating wind turbines in the UK is 587 megawatts.

  Wind generation will provide an important contribution to the Government's target of generating 10 per cent. of electricity from renewable energy sources by 2010. It is for wind farm developers to bring forward their proposals for future developments. There have been an
  436W
  encouraging number of applications for wind farms that have received planning consent and I expect this trend to continue.

  WTO Negotiations
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent steps she has taken to protect water services in developing countries within the WTO negotiations. [120517]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Water services are the responsibility of individual WTO member countries, who are responsible for the regulatory environment and any other requirements on the provision of water services. The Department for International Development (DFID) provides technical assistance in a number of developing countries aimed at improving regulatory capacity. DFID also provides a range of trade-related support to help developing countries pursue their interests with respect to WTO agreements.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Al-Qaeda
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of co-ordinated al-Qaeda activity against British interests abroad. [129078]

  Mr. MacShane
  Al-Qaeda and related groups continue to pose a significant global threat, including to British interests abroad. The mounting of more than one attack simultaneously is a technique that has been employed by such terrorist groups. It remains vital for the international community to maintain a co-operative and comprehensive approach to tackling international terrorism. The capture of a significant number of senior al-Qaeda figures and the disruption of terrorist operations, planning, financing and support as a result of the international effort, has had, and continues to have, a substantial negative impact on the organisation.

  Departmental Computer Security
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much has been(a) budgeted and (b) spent by his Department since April 2002 on (i) combating computer fraud, (ii) preventing theft of computers and (iii) safeguarding the security of information held on computer; and if he will make a statement. [128794]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) manages the security of its information, including information held on its computer systems, in accordance with the guidance given in the Manual of Protective Security, a comprehensive body of policy and interdepartmentally agreed security standards that is issued by the Cabinet Office.

  It is not possible to identify the resources devoted to these activities, since they form a part of the FCO's overall effort to combat illegal and unauthorised actions against its computer and other systems, and the theft of official assets from its buildings.
  437W
  The FCO's internal auditing services are designed to deter and detect all types of fraud, including ensuring that anti-fraud controls are integrated into all systems at the development stage.

  Internal security and access controls are in part designed to act as a deterrent against theft of official assets.

  IT security controls, including auditing, are deployed to safeguard the information held on official IT systems.

  The FCO is also a full participant in the current programme of compliance with BS7799, the British Standard for Information Security, and expects to achieve this by the end of 2003.

  London

  East

  East Midlands

  Staff

  Percentage

  Staff

  Percentage

  Staff

  Percentage

  FCO1

  (i) UK based

  2,430.00

  41.53

  0.00

  0.00

  970.00

  16.58

  (ii) Locally employed (LE)

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  NDPBs2

  Britain-Russia Centre

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  British Assoc. for Central and Eastern Europe

  4.20

  100.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  British Council

  621.00

  8.51

  4.00

  0.05

  1.00

  0.01

  Great Britain-China Centre

  5.40

  100.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission

  2.50

  100.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Westminster Foundation for Democracy

  10.00

  100.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Wilton Park3

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  BBC

  World Service

  1,290.00

  82.27

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Monitoring

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  West Midlands

  South East

  South West

  Staff

  Percentage

  Staff

  Percentage

  Staff

  Percentage

  FCO1

  (i) UK based

  0.00

  0.00

  120.00

  2.05

  0.00

  0.00

  (ii) Locally employed (LE)

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  NDPBs2

  Britain-Russia Centre

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  British Assoc. for Central and Eastern Europe

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  British Council

  2.00

  0.03

  20.00

  0.27

  3.00

  0.04

  Great Britain-China Centre

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Westminster Foundation for Democracy

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Wilton Park3

  0.00

  0.00

  69.00

  100.00

  0.00

  0.00

  BBC

  World Service

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Monitoring

  0.00

  0.00

  391.00

  75.48

  0.00

  0.00

  North East

  North West

  Yorkshire

  Staff

  Percentage

  Staff

  Percentage

  Staff

  Percentage

  FCO1

  (i) UK based

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  (ii) Locally employed (LE)

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  NDPBs2

  Britain-Russia Centre

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  British Assoc. for Central and Eastern Europe

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  British Council

  2.00

  0.03

  362.00

  3.96

  2.00

  0.03

  Great Britain-China Centre

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Departmental Staff
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many jobs under the remit of his Department in(a) the core Department, (b) non-departmental public bodies, (c) executive agencies, (d) independent statutory bodies, organisations and bodies financially sponsored by his Department and (e) embassy and consular are in (i) Scotland, (ii) each region in England, (iii) Wales, (iv) Northern Ireland and (v) overseas, broken down by (A) whole-time equivalent jobs and (B) the percentage per individual Department, body or organisation. [127312]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information requested is detailed in the following table.
  439W

  North East

  North West

  Yorkshire

  Staff

  Percentage

  Staff

  Percentage

  Staff

  Percentage

  Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Westminster Foundation for Democracy

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Wilton Park3

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  BBC

  World Service

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Monitoring

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  Scotland

  Staff

  Percentage

  Staff

  Percentage

  Staff

  Percentage

  FCO1

  (i) UK based

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  (ii) Locally employed (LE)

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  NDPBs2

  Britain-Russia Centre

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  British Assoc. for Central and Eastern Europe

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  British Council

  7.00

  0.10

  26.00

  0.36

  37.00

  0.51

  Great Britain-China Centre

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Westminster Foundation for Democracy

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Wilton Park3

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  BBC

  World Service

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Monitoring

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Overseas

  Staff

  Percentage

  Total

  FCO1

  (i) UK based

  2,331.00

  39.84

  15,851.00

  (ii) Locally employed (LE)

  9,792.00

  100.00

  19,792.00

  NDPBs2

  Britain-Russia Centre

  0.00

  0.00

  20.00

  British Assoc. for Central and Eastern Europe

  0.00

  0.00

  4.20

  British Council

  6,213.00

  85.11

  37,300.00

  Great Britain-China Centre

  0.00

  0.00

  5.40

  Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission

  0.00

  0.00

  2.50

  Westminster Foundation for Democracy

  0.00

  0.00

  10.00

  Wilton Park3

  0.00

  0.00

  69.00

  BBC

  World Service

  278.00

  17.73

  1,568.00

  Monitoring

  127.00

  24.52

  518.00

  1 The staff numbers for FCO include staff working at posts overseas, and include consular staff.

  2 As of 1 April 2003 the FCO no longer sponsors the Britain-Russia Centre.

  3 The staff figures for British Council include staff on local contracts and teachers on contract.

  Diego Garcia
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 24 February to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch),Official Report, column 245W, on Diego Garcia, what stocks of anti-personnel landmines are held on Diego Garcia; what assurances the Government
  440W
  received from the United States during 2003 relating to munitions kept on Diego Garcia; and if he will make a statement. [129509]

  Mr. Straw
  UK officials raised these issues in the course of the annual bilateral talks on the British Indian Ocean Territory in June 2003. US officials assured us that no anti-personnel landmines are stored on Diego Garcia.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 15 July to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch),Official Report, column 193W, on Diego Garcia, whether prisoners have been held in (a) US vessels and (b) US merchant vessels chartered by the US Government moored in Diego Garcia waters; what jurisdiction such prisoners would fall under; and if he will make a statement. [129511]

  Mr. Straw
  The United States Government have explicitly assured us that there have never been any prisoners in detention on any US vessels moored in Diego Garcia waters. The British Government are satisfied that this is correct.

  Iraq
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of reports from members of the Christian community in Iraq that they have been subject to assaults, murder and discrimination since the commencement of military action in Iraq earlier this year. [128081]
  441W
  Mr. Rammell
  The British Office in Baghdad has received no reports from members of the Christian community suggesting any form of discrimination against them since the commencement of military action in Iraq. However, FCO Ministers have received correspondence from MPs passing on constituents' concerns about religious freedom in Iraq. Our staff in Iraq meet regularly with representatives of many Iraqi political and religious groups, including Christians, and we will continue to monitor the situation closely.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received in respect of the position of the Christian community in Iraq. [128083]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers and the British Office in Baghdad have not received any formal representations in respect of the position of the Christian community in Iraq. We have had some correspondence from MPs and others on the subject of religious freedom in the country.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many police officers from each police authority volunteered in response to the request to go to Iraq to help train the Iraqi Police Force; how many will be going; and for how long. [129327]

  Mr. Rammell
  With the agreement of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary asked the Association of Chief Police Officers to seek up to 200 volunteers to create a pool of United Kingdom police officers for training for potential deployment to Iraq. The pool is intended to sustain the deployment of up to 100 United Kingdom officers at any one time. Some may be deployed to a third country to assist in the out of country training of the Iraqi Police service. In the event of deployment, secondments will be for a period of six to twelve months.

  We are continuing to receive applications and have started the selection process. To date, we have received in excess of 230 applications from 23 forces.

  North Korea
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations the Government have made(a) directly and (b) through the UN Security Council to the North Korean Government on their nuclear weapons programme. [129467]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Government make all representations to the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) directly, through our Embassy in Pyongyang and through the DPRK Embassy in London. We continue to express our concerns about North Korea's nuclear programmes to the DPRK authorities on a regular basis. I also raised the issue with DPRK Vice Foreign Minister Choe Su Hon during his visit to London in April this year.

  Telecommunications
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what interruptions of service his Department's telecommunications network has suffered since March. [129466]
  442W
  Mr. Rammell
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) has a Private Finance Initiative contract for the provision of its telecommunications services which gives an overall operational availability of at least 98.5 per cent. Monthly service reports confirm that this requirement is being met or exceeded. There are typically 60–70 failures per month on a network covering over 170 locations worldwide. Many of these failures last just a few minutes and some occur out of office hours. Around 40 per cent. of failures are caused by local in-country electrical supply problems. The introduction of dedicated satellite links to the FCO's more remote embassies has significantly improved network reliability.

  Titanic Agreement
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the letter of 12 August, from the Under-Secretary of State, when he expects the Titanic Agreement to come into force; and if he will make a statement. [128269]

  Mr. Rammell
  The situation remains the same as in my letter of 12 August 2003 to my hon. Friend. The Agreement is being prepared for signature by the UK and will enter into force when it has been signed by two States.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Astra Training Services
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what research he has commissioned into the circumstances surrounding the collapse of Astra Training Services; what obligation the Government have to recompense former employees for lost pension payments; and if he will make a statement. [127072]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I have been asked to reply.

  My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie), the responsible Minister at the time, carried out a review of the Astra collapse in 1999. That review concluded that the Government did not have any case to answer to recompense former Astra employees for lost pensions. Although I have a great deal of sympathy for the situation of former Astra employees, I consider that this is a private matter between those former Astra employees and the trustees, Fountain Trustee Limited.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he is taking to ensure that the Child Support Agency investigates the financial status of absent parents found to be in maintenance arrears. [127289]

  Mr. Pond
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member.
  443W
  Letter from Doug Smith to Brian Jenkins, dated 11 September 2003:
  The Secretary of State in replying to your recent Parliamentary question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.
  You ask what steps he is taking to ensure that the Child Support Agency investigates the financial status of absent parents found to be in maintenance arrears.
  When any non-resident parent is found to be in arrears, Child Support Agency caseworkers use a standardised process and approach to secure outstanding debt. This generally involves a caseworker contacting the non-resident parent by telephone to establish the non-resident parent's financial position. This would be the starting point to establishing how they wish to address the outstanding maintenance and pay arrears. If there is evidence that the non-resident parent knowingly provides false information this is referred to a specialist fraud team for full investigation.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will(a) enable and (b) encourage the Child Support Agency to make deduction of earnings orders against self-employed absent parents; [127293]

  (2) what action he is taking to align the processes by which the Child Support Agency treats self-employed absent parents and PAYE absent parents. [127302]

  Mr. Pond
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Brian Jenkins, dated 11 September 2003:
  The Secretary of State in replying to your recent Parliamentary question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.
  You ask what action is being taken to align the processes by which the Child Support Agency treats self-employed absent parents and PAYE absent parents.
  You also asked if he will (a) enable and (b) encourage the Child Support Agency to make deduction of earnings orders against self employed absent parents.
  The Child Support Agency calculates maintenance due from employed and self-employed non-resident parents using broadly the same processes. In essence this requires the non-resident parent to verify their declared income and if we are satisfied, for a calculation to be made.
  Deductions from earnings orders require an employer to deduct money from the salary of their employee. For self-employed non-resident parents, this method of collecting maintenance is not normally appropriate. Instead we deploy a range of alternative enforcement mechanisms, including:

  (a) Levying of distress involving the use of Bailiffs

  (b) Establishing a third party debt order—allowing money owed to the debtor to be frozen and sent to us to cover the outstanding debt

  (c) Establishing a charging order—registering the debt against certain assets owned by the debtor

  (d) Registering a County Court judgement, which may affect the debtors credit rating

  (e) Applying for a warrant to commit the debtor to prison or for an order preventing them from holding or obtaining a driving licence.

  The position I describe applies to England and Wales with a different but broadly similar approach in Scotland.
  There are no current proposals to align enforcement arrangements to ensure exactly the same approach is taken to achieve compliance.
  444W
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what funding the Child Support Agency received in 2002–03; and how many parents he estimates are not contributing to their children's welfare because they cannot be found. [128072]

  Mr. Pond
  The operation of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. James Wray, dated 11 September 2003:
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent Parliamentary question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.
  You ask what funding the Child Support Agency received in 2002/03; and how many parents he estimates are not contributing to their children's welfare because they cannot be found.
  Our annual report for 2002/03 indicates that we received £215 million as funding for core running costs. I estimate that at the end of June we do not hold a current address for around 100,000 non resident parents. The majority of these are not likely to have a current maintenance assessment requiring a payment but I do not have precise figures.

  Community Care Grants
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the(a) highest, (b) lowest, (c) mean and (d) median and (e) modal amount was for community care grants given as a result of domestic violence in each year since 1998. [125741]

  Mr. Pond
  The available information is in the table, data for other years could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Community care grants awarded to victims of domestic violence: 2000–01

  £

  Highest amount

  3,275

  Lowest amount

  4

  Mean amount

  672

  Median amount

  604

  Modal amount

  300

  Notes:

  1. The scan contains the total amount awarded for each application just after the latest decision on it during 2000–01. The quantities asked for (except the modal amount) given by the scan will therefore be greater than or equal to those for initial awards and less than or equal to those for final awards.

  2. The lowest amount was requested and awarded in full under Direction 4(b), ie for travelling expenses.

  3. The modal amount corresponds to just 1.1 per cent of awards to victims of domestic violence.

  4. Data are for Great Britain.

  5. The information relates only to those people who have been awarded community care grants specifically as a result of domestic violence. Community care grants may also have been awarded for other reasons to other people who have been the victims of domestic violence.

  6. Figures are rounded to the nearest £

  Source:

  Scan of the Social Fund Computer Systems.

  Disability Bill
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to introduce a Disability Bill; and if he will make a statement. [129183]
  445W
  Maria Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to the written statement given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 22 January 2003,Official Report, columns 12–13WS.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) who he recommended as preferred suppliers for the software package required by local authorities for housing benefit; [129186]

  (2) whether he considered a single software package provider for local authorities with respect to housing benefit. [129187]

  Mr. Pond
  Local authorities have statutory responsibility for the administration of housing benefit, and have complete autonomy to select and contract with the software provider of their choice. It would, therefore, be inappropriate for the Department to consider a single software provider or recommend a preferred supplier.

  We do, however, provide local authorities with good practice advice in the management of contracts with software providers.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will allow an open tender for the delivery of housing benefit in Swale; [129189]

  (2) if he will send an emergency team to Swale borough council to resolve delays in housing benefit. [129188]

  Mr. Pond
  Local authorities are statutory independent bodies responsible for the administration of housing benefit. A decision to offer the delivery of housing benefit for tender is ordinarily a matter for the individual authority.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has powers to direct an authority to put its benefits administration out to tender in prescribed circumstances, namely when: the authority has failed to meet the standards of administration set out in a previously issued direction; or the authority is failing to meet the requirements of the legislation relating to Best Value, particularly where it is failing to put in place the necessary steps to improve its benefits administration.

  However, these powers would only be used as a matter of last resort. The Government's policy is to work with, and to lend appropriate support to, struggling authorities in order to achieve sustained improvement. In line with this policy, our Departmental Help Team, a multi disciplinary team of management consultants and benefits practitioners who, by invitation, work with authorities experiencing difficulties, is due to visit Swale borough council on 29 September.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many local authorities who distribute housing benefit have contracts with Capita. [129190]

  Mr. Pond
  Seven local authorities contract out their benefit administration to Capita. In addition, Capita also offers a range of other services to local authorities; however, a record of those contracts is not held centrally.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Family Courts
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs whether he has consulted solicitors on the proposed re-organisation of family courts in London. [128960]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority (GLMCA), which has responsibility for magistrates courts in the Greater London area, has recently closed a consultation period on the future organisation of its family proceedings courts. The GLMCA is currently considering the responses to its consultation paper and I am sure that it will wish to take into account the views of all involved before settling its plans. Unless a matter is referred to the Lord Chancellor according to statute this Department is not able to intervene.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  School Budgets
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) primary and (b) secondary schools will start the school year with a budget deficit. [128979]

  Mr. Miliband
  Figures for balances are collected at the end of each financial year. The latest complete figures are for 31 March 2002, when balances stood at £1.1 billion. Figures for 31 March 2003 are due in October.

  Teach First
  Jim Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the number of teachers recruited by schools since September 2002 as a result of Teach First. [128981]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra).

  Adult Education
  Mr. Joyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the operation of the Adult Learning Grant pilots. [128984]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Adult Learning Grant pilots started this month in 10 local Learning and Skills Council areas. The grant offers up to £30 a week to help adults in further education with the costs of learning. Some 80 colleges and other further education providers are involved, together with other national and local partners. The pilots will help us establish the best operational design for future adult learning grants.

  Arson
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools in each of the last five years have been subject to arson attacks; and if he will make a statement. [128776]
  447W
  Mr. Miliband
  The Department does not collect these figures, but takes the problem of arson in schools very seriously.

  If a fire should happen in a school, the Department's primary concern is for the safety of pupils, teachers and other users. Regulation 17 of the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1999 requires that every part of a school building, and of the land provided for a school, shall be such that the safe escape of the occupants in case of fire is reasonably assured. Schools are also covered by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and by subsequent related regulations. These include aspects of fire safety.

  Further to this, the Department has produced the guide "Fire Safety", which includes advice on how to reduce the risks of arson attacks. This complements our guidance on reducing crime in schools, such as the booklet "Improving Security in Schools" and the video "Can You See What They See?" We also have a school security website—www.dfes.gov.uk/schoolsecuritv.

  Officials from my Department sit on the Arson in Schools Working Group, a group of experts representing the insurance industry, the fire and police services, local authorities and Government Departments. One of its outputs has been the publication of the guide "How to Combat Arson in Schools", which is available free and has been well received by schools.

  Children's Centres
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the progress made in establishing children's centres. [128986]

  Margaret Hodge
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given earlier today to my hon. Friends the Members for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) and for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths).

  Children's Social Services
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will ring-fence additional funds for children's social services. [127926]

  Margaret Hodge
  When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, announced additional resources for children's social services on 17 July 2003,Official Report, column 455–58, he said that the details would be given in the autumn.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Dorrell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools in Leicestershire have class sizes of more than 30 for seven to 11-year-olds. [127264]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  As at January 2003 there were 107 schools in Leicestershire with key stage 2 classes taught by one teacher where there were more than 30 pupils.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) special advisers,
  448W
  (b) press officers, (c) civil servants, (d) advisers to civil servants and (e) permanent staff were working for his Department in each year since 1996. [126482]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The numbers of Special Advisers and Press Officers in my Department for the years in question were:

  Special adviser

  Press officer

  1997

  3

  20.5

  1998

  3

  29.5

  1999

  3

  28

  2000

  3

  28

  2001

  2

  123

  2002

  2

  26

  2003

  2

  23.5

  1This excludes five members of staff who transferred to the Department for Work and Pensions following the Machinery of Government changes in 2001.

  The term "adviser to civil servants" is not recognised.

  Information on permanent civil service staff numbers in each department and agency is contained in Table C of the annual publication "Civil Service Statistics". Copies of the publication are laid in the Libraries of both Houses. The latest edition, based on April 2002 data, was published on 24 July 2003 and provides details of staff numbers between 1996 and 2002. The staff numbers include Press Officers.

  Alternatively, this information is available at the following address on the Cabinet Office Statistics website: http://www.civil-service.gov.uk/statistics/css.htm

  Fresh Start
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) failing schools have closed and (b) new schools opened under the Fresh Start programme since 2000; and if he will make a statement. [129315]

  Mr. Miliband
  Since January 2000, 29 failing schools have closed and 25 new schools have opened under the Fresh Start programme. In three cases, two adjacent failing schools have closed, to be replaced by a single Fresh Start school. In another four cases, there has been an amalgamation of a failing and a non failing school to create a new institution. One Fresh Start school, Telegraph Hill in Lewisham, which opened in 1999 and was subsequently deemed to be failing, closed in August 2001.

  Further Education
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what mechanisms are in place to ensure that further education colleges offer a wide variety of courses; and what precautions are in place to prevent further education colleges from cutting back on certain types of courses which do not contribute to those colleges meeting Government targets. [129144]

  Alan Johnson
  Further education colleges themselves determine the range and volume of courses they offer, following discussions with the relevant local Learning and Skills Council (LSC). The local LSC is responsible for ensuring that public funding supports a broad offer of post-16 education and training adequate to meet the
  449W
  needs of local communities, learners and employers, as well as focusing resources on national, regional and local priorities. Each college is in the process of agreeing a Development Plan with its local LSC which sets out how the college will contribute to the range of needs and priorities over the period 2003–06. Looking ahead, each local LSC is now leading a Strategic Area Review which aims to ensure that the future supply and distribution of courses offered by colleges and other providers offers breadth of choice and high quality to local people. The pattern of provision across a local area, and the precise mix and volume of provision offered by individual colleges, will and should evolve over time. We do not propose to put in place artificial constraints to prevent that. We have made clear our intention that we expect local LSCs to maintain a broad range of post-16 provision for local people and are confident that the mechanisms above will deliver this.

  GCSEs
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what boundaries were set by each awarding body for GCSE grades A*-U in (a) English Language and (b) English Literature from 1988 to 2002; and if he will make a statement. [128553]

  Mr. Miliband
  The hon. Member will be aware from my answer to his earlier question on the grade boundaries for mathematics (123952) that information on grade boundaries is not routinely collected.

  This is matter for QCA. Although QCA has access to detailed information on the grade boundaries set in all subjects at GCSE for each awarding body, further work will be required on this data to present it in the form requested. It will be lodged in the House of Commons Library in due course and will show the grade boundary marks for grades A*-G, 'U' does not constitute a grade it signifies an unclassified result.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 10 May 2003,Official Report, column 784W, on GCSE point scores, what the average capped GCSE point score was in (a) French, (b) Spanish and (c) German in 2003 for pupils in (i) specialist languages colleges and (ii) non-selective maintained schools; and if he will make a statement. [128560]

  Mr. Miliband
  The 2003 GCSE data required to answer this question is not yet available. Once the data are available, towards the middle of October, the answer will be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will take steps to improve arrangements for the distribution of higher education research funding. [128969]

  Alan Johnson
  The Government are committed to supporting and encouraging the highest quality research to ensure that we remain internationally competitive. On behalf of the Government the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) allocates research funding selectively to universities according to the quality and volume of their research activity.
  450W
  HEFCE is currently reviewing its research funding method for future years and consulting stakeholders on proposed changes.

  Intermediate Skills
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action he is taking to increase the level of intermediate skills in the United Kingdom. [128210]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Secretary of State's responsibilities for skills are limited to England Responsibility for the rest of the United Kingdom rests with the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  We are taking forward a range of measures designed to raise the levels of intermediate skills. On the 9 July we published our National Skills Strategy. This White Paper sets out how we intend to address the challenge of ensuring that all employers have the right skills to support the success of their business, and individuals have the skills they need to be employable.

  The skills strategy builds on our recent proposals to reform vocational routes for young people. It includes a new entitlement to free learning for those adults without a good skills foundation. We will also provide targeted support to meet priorities identified by sectors and regions, with the emphasis on technician and higher craft level skills. We will strengthen modern apprenticeships and lift the age cap, so that adults as well as young people can benefit from a high-quality vocational route to employment and further learning.

  From September this year, we are piloting a new learning grant for some adults in further education in 10 pilot areas, and we will provide better advice and guidance on skills, training and qualifications, so that people know what is available, what the benefits are, and where to go. By summer 2004, a full network of Sector Skills Councils will be in place to identify skill needs in their sectors and stimulate action by employers to meet those needs.

  Learning and Skills Councils
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many colleges of further education are located in each Learning and Skills Council area. [129182]

  Alan Johnson
  The information requested is provided in the table:

  Local LSC name

  Number

  Bedfordshire and Luton

  4

  Berkshire

  5

  Birmingham and Solihull

  11

  Black Country

  7

  Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole

  3

  Cambridgeshire

  6

  Cheshire and Warrington

  8

  County Durham

  4

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  7

  Cumbria

  5

  Derbyshire

  3

  Devon and Cornwall

  10

  Essex

  10

  451W

  Local LSC name

  Number

  Gloucestershire

  5

  Greater Manchester

  27

  Greater Merseyside

  11

  Hampshire and Isle Of Wight

  22

  Herefordshire and Worcestershire

  9

  Hertfordshire

  4

  Humberside

  9

  Kent and Medway

  8

  Lancashire

  13

  Leicestershire

  8

  Lincolnshire and Rutland

  4

  London Central

  14

  London East

  14

  London North

  9

  London South

  11

  London West

  7

  Milton Keynes, Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire

  8

  Norfolk

  6

  North Yorkshire

  7

  Northamptonshire

  4

  Northumberland

  1

  Nottinghamshire

  9

  Shropshire

  6

  Somerset

  6

  South Yorkshire

  8

  Staffordshire

  9

  Suffolk

  4

  Surrey

  11

  Sussex

  14

  Tees Valley

  12

  Tyne and Wear

  6

  West of England

  6

  West Yorkshire

  18

  Wiltshire and Swindon

  4

  Total

  397

  Notes

  1. In Greater Manchester the Co-operative College and Bridge College are independent and do not receive FE funding from the LSC. However, they have the legal status of FE colleges and are therefore included in the numbers above.

  2. In North Yorkshire there is a similar situation with Henshaw's College. This does not receive FE funding from the LSC but is an FE college in legal terms.

  3. In Nottinghamshire, Welbeck College is the MOD College for the Army. This is funded by the MOD but has the legal status of an FE college.

  Source:

  Provider Performance Data base—DIES, Provider Plus Governance and Organisation Team—DIES, and the LSC's Provider Information Management System, September 2003.

  Ofsted
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 2 July 2003,Official Report, column 293W, what percentage of maintained secondary school lessons inspected by Ofsted between 1995–2002 in (a) Year 7, (b) Year 8, (c) Year 9, (d) Year 10 and (e) Year 11 were recorded as set by ability in (i) English, (ii) French, (iii) mathematics and (iv) science; and if he will make a statement. [129133]

  Mr. Miliband
  This is a matter for Ofsted. HM Chief Inspector, David Bell, will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of his letter in the Library.

  Physical Exercise
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans there are to respond to 452W
  the recent Ofsted report concerning the quality of school physical exercise lessons; and if he will make a statement. [128674]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 2 July 2003,Official Report, column 290W.

  Re-offending
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what research he has commissioned into a link between numeracy and re-offending by prisoners after release. [128973]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We have commissioned the Office for National Statistics to measure the extent to which prisoners' literacy and numeracy are improved through their basic skills training, and how this relates to reducing re-offending and other aspects of their lives after release. We expect the final report to be available at the end of this year.

  School Exclusion Appeals
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance notes have been sent by his Department to school exclusion appeals panels since 1998. [127891]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Between 1998 and 2001 a number of changes were made to schools exclusion and LEA appeal panel arrangements. In 2003, Chapter 6 and Annex D of Circular 10/99 were superseded by guidance called Improving Behaviour and Attendance: Guidance on Exclusion from Schools and Pupil Referral Units ref DfES/0087/2003 and further reflected changes made to exclusion policy. The changes included:the requirement that panels balance the interests of the permanently excluded child with that of others in the school;
  preventing panels from reinstating a pupil solely on the basis of minor technicalities in prior procedure;
  changes to the composition of appeal panel members to include head teacher(s), school governor(s) and a lay member which brought with a wealth of school based experience;
  enabling panels to decide because of exceptional circumstances or other reasons it is not practical to require reinstatement when it would otherwise have been appropriate to have given such a direction.
  In addition, LEA Independent Appeal Panels were issued with an Exclusion Appeal Panels' training pack in 2001 (this was updated in 2003). This has equipped all LEAs with the resource to train their panel members on the changes.

  Section 28
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions his Department has had with(a) the leader of Kent County Council and (b) officials at Kent County Council regarding section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988; and if he will make a statement. [128773]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department has had no discussions with the leader of Kent County Council, or with officials, regarding Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988. Local Authorities do not determine sex education in schools and repeal of Section
  453W
  28 will have no effect on what is taught. The Education Act 1996, as amended by the Learning and Skills Act 2000, places responsibility for sex and relationship education firmly on teachers and governors. Guidance sent to all schools in July 2000 makes this position clear.

  Student Finance
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the name given to the student contribution towards tuition costs. [128967]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The White Paper "The Future of Higher Education" makes clear that, from 2006, neither students nor their families will have to make any contribution towards tuition costs while they are studying for their degree. Instead, they will be able to pay through a Graduate Contribution Scheme, as set out in the White Paper.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to change the interest rates charged to students who receive loans from the Student Loans Company. [129460]

  Alan Johnson
  Student loans are not commercial loans. The Government subsidise the actual cost of interest on the loans. However, to make sure that all borrowers pay back the same amount that they borrowed in real terms, the Government uprates the value of what is owed in line with the general rate of inflation. This is done by using the Retail Prices Index (RPI) and fixing the interest charged to that rate. The interest rate on student loans is set every year from 1 September and is based on the RPI for the previous March. This is the only way in which it changes. There are no plans to change this basis of setting the interest charged on student loans.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the effect of the introduction of top-up fees on the debt problem for students from a poorer background entering into a career in medicine. [128405]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 9 September 2003]: My Department has responsibility for fee support for English domiciled medical students in years 1 to 4 of their courses. During those years they have the same student support as any other eligible higher education students. Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary legislation, from 2006–07 students will be liable for tuition fees of up to a maximum of £3,000 pa which they can defer, adding to their loan instead. Students from poorer backgrounds will continue, as now, to receive means tested grants for fees of £1,125 pa (2003–04 rate). Three in ten of all students will also receive means tested Higher Education Grants of £1,000. Many poorer students should in addition be eligible for bursaries and other support from universities under arrangements agreed by the Office of Fair Access. We therefore anticipate only a small average increase annually in low income students' loans as a result of the introduction of variable fees, and thus in their debt on graduation.
  454W
  Fee support for English domiciled medical students in years five and six is the responsibility of the Department of Health. Currently students in those years pay no contributions to fees. In addition students may also receive a means tested NHS Bursary of up to £2,703 for those students studying in London. They remain eligible for the reduced rate of loan under the student support regulations. Department of Health Ministers have indicated that, whatever the future levels of tuition fees, they will take measures to ensure that any increase in the cost of university courses will not have an adverse impact on the supply, retention, diversity or quality of students on health professional courses, including medicine.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will(a) defer the payment of tuition fees until after students have completed their university course and (b) freeze tuition fee levels. [129093]

  Alan.Johnson
  Students at English Higher Education Institutions will be able to defer payment of tuition fees charged in respect of academic year 2006 onwards until after they have completed their course: they will start repaying when their salary is above £15,000. The Government has made it clear that HE Institutions need greater levels of funding to compete internationally, and that it is right to seek a greater contribution from students towards the cost of their course. It therefore intends to give HE Institutions the freedom to charge fees of between £0 and £3,000 from 2006: those that wish to charge above the standard fee will only be able to do so if they have an access agreement approved by the Office of Fair Access (OFFA).

  University Teachers
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to change the London allowance for university teachers; what representations he has received regarding an increase; and if he will make a statement. [128803]

  Alan Johnson
  The Department has no plans to intervene in what is a matter for universities themselves. As universities are independent and autonomous bodies the Government plays no part in setting the levels of pay in the higher education sector, including London weighting. These are subject to regulations between employers, their staff and their representative trade union bodies. Both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills and myself have had correspondence and discussions with the unions for staff in higher education and the universities on this issue and we have stressed that we cannot intervene on this matter.

  Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action he is taking to increase qualifications at(a) apprenticeship, (b) skilled craft and (c) technician level. [128209]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We will reform the qualifications framework so that it is more flexible and responsive to employers' and learners' needs. In particular, we will strengthen and extend Modern Apprenticeships as a top
  455W
  quality vocational route, lifting the age cap so that adults can benefit. Through the Learning and Skills Council, we will improve standards in Modern Apprenticeships, engage more employers in providing them and ensure they meet employers' needs. Our target is that by 2004, 28 per cent. of young people will start a Modern Apprenticeship by age 22. We will also support individual learners through a new guarantee of free tuition for any adult without a good foundation of employability skills, so that many more can progress to skilled craft and technician level qualifications, and from there on to the Foundation Degree, a vocational, higher education qualification. We will test this approach from September 2004, before beginning to roll out nationally from 2005 onwards.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

  Explanatory Notes
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Leader of the House what plans he has to ensure that Government departments make Explanatory Notes available(a) on the first day that a Bill is published and (b) well in advance of Second Reading. [128647]

  Mr. Hain
  The usual practice is for Explanatory Notes to Government Bills to be made available with the Bill when it is first published. Only very occasionally has there been any delay, and in those cases the Explanatory Notes have been made available well in advance of Second Reading. Departments have been made aware of the importance of avoiding late publication.

TREASURY

  Alcohol Imports
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the volume of(a) tax-paid wine and (b) tax-paid beer imported from EU member states in (i) 2002 and (ii) 2003.[R] [127947]

  John Healey
  UK trade imports of beer and wine from EU member states enter the UK free from taxes and duties levied in the exporting country but pay UK duty and tax on entry into this country.

  Imports into the UK arising from cross-border shopping or cross-channel passenger smuggling typically enter the UK having already paid duty and tax elsewhere in the EU and do not additionally pay UK tax and duty—legally so in the case of cross-border shopping, illegally so in the case of smuggling.

  The most recent available volumes of wine and beer imported into the UK where tax was paid in another EU member state are shown in the tables. Estimates for 2003 are not yet available.

  Cross-border shopping—financial year 2000–01

  Million litres

  Beer

  1100

  Wine

  1100

  1 Rounded to the nearest 50 million litres.

  456W

  Cross-channel passenger smuggling—calendar year 2002

  Million litres

  Beer

  115

  Wine

  15

  1Rounded to the nearest 5 million litres.

  Cigarette Imports
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many tax-paid cigarettes were imported from EU member states in(a) 2002 and (b) 2003. [R] [127948]

  John Healey
  UK trade imports of cigarettes from EU member states enter the UK free from taxes and duties levied in the exporting country but pay UK duty and tax on entry into this country.

  Imports into the UK arising from cross-border shopping or cross-channel passenger smuggling typically enter the UK having already paid duty and tax elsewhere in the EU and do not additionally pay UK tax and duty—legally so in the case of cross-border shopping, illegally so in the case of smuggling.

  The most recent available volumes of cigarettes imported into the UK where tax was paid in another EU member state are shown in the table. Estimates for 2003 are not available.

  Cigarettes

  Number

  Cross-border shopping—financial year 2001–02

  13.5

  Cross-channel passenger smuggling—calendar year 2002

  2900

  1 Rounded to the nearest half billion sticks.

  2 Rounded to the nearest hundred million sticks.

  Correspondence
  David Winnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 24 July regarding a constituent, ref: 2/03382/2003. [128956]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have replied to my hon. Friend.

  Debt and Borrowing
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates will be the levels of(a) national debt and (b) government borrowing in each of the next five years. [129082]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer the hon. Member to table 2.7, Chapter 2 of the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report, Budget 2003, Building a Britain of economic strength and social justice.

  European Court of Justice
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the implications for public procurement policy of the ruling of the European Court of Justice in the Helsinki buses case (18 September 2002) about the use of environmental criteria in public procurement. [129366]

  Mr. Boateng
  There are no implications for the Government's public procurement policy stemming from the ruling of the European Court of Justice in the
  457W
  Helsinki buses case. While the Court stated that it is permitted in principle to use criteria "relating to the preservation of the environment" when awarding
  a contract, the judgment makes it clear that such criteria must be linked to the subject of the contract; not confer an unrestricted freedom of choice on the authority; be expressly mentioned in the contract documents or the tender notice; and comply with all the fundamental principles of Community law, in particular non-discrimination. This is in line with the UK's understanding of the position under the current EC procurement directives and is consistent with the Government's procurement policy based on value for money.

  Net Income
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the net income of a family with two dependant children aged 18 and 12, with a gross income of £15,000 a year; and what assessment he has made of the sources of that net income. [129181]

  Mr. Boateng
  A single full-time earner family with two dependent children aged 12 and 18 in full-time education and gross earnings of £15,000 a year will have an annual household income of nearly £16,600. This comprises the following elements:

  £

  Gross earnings

  15,000

  Income tax

  2,050

  NICs

  1,140

  Child benefit

  1,390

  Child tax credit

  3,390

  Total

  16,590

  As a result of direct tax and benefit measures introduced since 1997 a single earner household with gross earnings of £15,000 a year and two dependent children aged 12 and 18 in full-time education is now nearly £2,750 a year better off in real terms.

  Poverty Reduction
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the role of international trade in the reduction of poverty in the poorest countries. [129083]

  John Healey
  According to figures produced by the World Bank, international trade, under the right conditions, has the ability to lift up to 300 million people out of poverty by 2015. Global trade talks need to deliver on the interests of developing countries. It is for this reason that the UK government is committed to the Doha Development Agenda of achieving a fairer world trade system for developing countries.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total amount received from the sale of(a) the electricity supply industry, (b) the water supply industry and (c) British Rail was, broken down by year in which revenue was received. [128306]
  458W
  Mr. Boateng
  A detailed analysis of privatisation proceeds from 1979–80 to 1996–97 was published in the Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses ("PESA") 1997–98 (Cm 3601), Table 3.13. The outturn for 1996–97 and figures for subsequent years are shown in the table.

  Privatisation proceeds

  Billion

  Electricity supply

  Water supply

  British Rail

  1996–97

  1.5

  0.0

  1.4

  1997–98

  0.8

  0.0

  0.9

  1998–99

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  1999–2000

  0.5

  0.0

  0.0

  2001–02

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  2002–03

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Unemployment Rates
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the unemployment rate is in(a) South Sefton, (b) postcode L20 and (c) the UK. [128882]

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

  Letter from Colin Mowl to Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas, dated 11 September 2003
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on what the unemployment rate is in (a) South Sefton, (b) postcode L20 and (c) the UK. I am replying in his absence. (128882)
  The United Kingdom unemployment rate for the three months ending June 2003 was 5.0%.
  Estimated unemployment rates for the South Sefton geographical area are not available. However, the latest estimated unemployment rate for the Sefton local authority area, for the 12 months to February 2002, is 5.0%.
  Estimated unemployment rates are not available for postcode areas. However, the number of claimants of the Jobseeker's Allowance (ISA) are available for postcode areas. In postcode district L20 there were 1,333 ISA claimants in July 2003.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  English Partnerships
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when the initial version of the register of public land being compiled by English Partnerships will be(a) completed and (b) published. [127762]

  Keith Hill
  English Partnerships completed an initial register of surplus public sector land on 30 July 2003 and this is available to all Government departments, their agencies and non-departmental public bodies. English Partnerships are now working on a more interactive version of the register, which will allow public sector landowners to input data directly to it. Information from the register may be made public.

  Housing
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if the Government will increase the proportion of affordable housing as a condition of granting planning approval for major developments. [128643]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has published for consultation an update of the existing guidance on planning for affordable housing. This addresses a number of matters including the size of development that could be expected to contribute to affordable housing and the circumstances when this would be appropriate. The amount of affordable housing to be sought from residential development as a proportion of the overall dwelling provision on site is currently indicated by local authority development plans. There are no proposals to set proportions through national guidance.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether the Government took account of water, energy, and transport needs in the plans to build an additional 200,000 houses in South East England. [128641]

  Keith Hill
  The Government are taking full account of water, energy and transport needs.

  Discussions were held with water companies by consultants who undertook the growth area studies for Ashford, Milton Keynes/South Midlands and London-Stansted-Cambridge that were published last year. Further detailed local studies are under way to help determine infrastructure requirements. Discussions have taken place and will continue between the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and Water UK, involving the Department of the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), the water companies, the Environment Agency and OFWAT.

  The Government are committed to increasing the standard to which all publicly funded housing is built. From April 2003, all new homes funded by the Housing Corporation are required, as a condition of grant, to achieve an EcoHomes "pass" rating. Housing associations are encouraged to aim higher and achieve a "good" rating. English Partnerships are already working towards the higher "very good" benchmark on their mainstream site disposals. The Millennium Communities programme, a scheme being taken forward by English Partnerships, is working towards the "excellent" target.

  EcoHomes Standards cover matters such as access to public transport, proximity to local amenities, eco-labelling of white goods, provision of external space, the ecological value of the site, and water efficiency, all of which are outside the remit of Building Regulations. The revision of Part L of the Building Regulations, which deals with energy efficiency, that came into force last year is expected to produce savings of 1.4 million tonnes of carbon by 2010. The Energy White Paper announced a further review, with the aim of making further amendments by 2005. The review will seek to further reduce the carbon emissions from new homes, through measures like improving the thermal performance of the building envelope—both of which are EcoHomes targets. The Government are also
  460W
  considering how improved water efficiency can be achieved in the private-funded housing sector within developments in South East England.

  Later this autumn, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will be holding a Better Buildings Summit, in conjunction with the Department for Trade and Industry and DEFRA, to consider issues relating to the efficiency of all buildings. The outcomes of this summit will feed into future Government policy.

  Government transport investment of £2.2 billion in Thames Gateway and the three other growth areas will complement the £610 million the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is investing in directly targeted resources over the next three years, and lever in a further £3 billion from public and private sector partners.

  Planning
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister over what timescale the Government expects local planning authorities(a) to have carried out (i) an assessment of needs and (ii) an audit of existing facilities and (b) to have adopted local standards of provision, as required by PPG17. [128609]

  Yvette Cooper
  Local planning authorities should undertake assessments of needs for open space, sports and recreational facilities, audits of existing facilities and set locally derived standards for provision, in accordance with guidance in PPG 17. The timescale for this is not prescribed. Local authorities need to take the guidance in PPG17 into account in the preparation of development plans and the Government expect plans to be kept up-to-date and to properly reflect national policy guidance.

  PPG17 sets out the steps to be taken to maintain adequate supply of open space and sports and recreational facilities in the absence of a robust and up-to-date assessment by a local authority.

  Property Gap Funding Scheme
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister in respect of(a) speculative and (b) bespoke developments, how many grants have been made under the business and commercial property gap funding scheme; what their total value is; to whom they have been made; what the total area of land involved is; and what proportion of the total land was previously undeveloped. [128957]

  Keith Hill
  The State aid approval for speculative and bespoke gap-funding of business and commercial developments enables English Partnerships, the Regional Development Agencies and Local Authorities to support private sector initial investment in land and property regeneration projects that would not have proceeded without public sector support.

  Speculative and bespoke gap-funding of business and commercial developments received approval from the European Commission in May last year and since then has been used to facilitate a number of projects through grants and other mechanisms, with the Regional Development Agencies providing over £25 million in support to projects under these approvals up to the end of the fiscal year 2002–03 and predict providing support

  461W
  of over £12 million for fiscal year 2003–04. It is expected that speculative and bespoke gap-funding will continue to enable projects to go ahead in the future.

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much additional money is being made available in 2003–04 to(a) English Partnerships, (b) Regional Development Agencies and (c) local authorities for making grants available under (i) the Business and Commercial Property Gap Funding Scheme, (ii) the Housing Gap Funding Scheme, (iii) the Heritage Aid Scheme and (iv) the Land Remediation/Dereliction Aid Scheme; and what resources were available under the former Partnership Investment Programme. [128958]

  Keith Hill
  State aid approvals are purely enabling actions, which allow English Partnerships, the Regional Development Agencies and Local Authorities to spend from their existing allocations in accordance with the State aid regime. No extra money has been made available through the granting of these approvals; they simply facilitate the aid granting bodies in providing support for regeneration from their existing budgets.

  English Partnerships' Partnership Investment Programme was financed from English Partnerships annual allocation; no money was ring-fenced within English Partnerships budget to finance the programme.

  Public Buildings
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if the Government will(a) adopt minimum standards for design for public buildings in the UK and (b) give priority to buildings of higher quality and that will offer long-term value to the community. [128642]

  Yvette Cooper
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made clear to the House in his February statement on the Sustainable Communities plan that high quality design is a key element in delivering sustainable communities.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is already working hard to drive up standards of design for public buildings through our work with CABE and also our commitment to the Better Public Buildings Initiative, which expresses the Government's commitment to delivering quality in the buildings it procures, and across the public sector.

  Later this autumn, we will be holding a Better Buildings Summit, in conjunction with DTI and DEFRA, to consider issues relating to the design of all buildings. The outcomes of this summit will feed into future Government policy.

  The Government's planning policies expect good design to be the aim of all those involved in new development and to be encouraged everywhere. Securing good design is central to good planning.

  Thames Gateway
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister in respect of the five strategic growth areas in the Thames Gateway area identified in his announcement on 30 July, Creating Sustainable Communities—Making it Happen, what the average 462W
  residential density required of the new housing developments is in order to meet the objective of providing 120,000 new homes by 2016. [128959]

  Keith Hill
  The Thames Gateway contains a large number and wide range of development sites. Densities of specific schemes will be determined through the local planning process. Schemes will be expected to make the best use of available land through well designed and attractive development that reflect Government policies including those relating to density set out in Planning Policy Guidance 3.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Aggregates
  Mr. Mates
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how much(a) virgin aggregate and (b) processed aggregate was used by the (i) public and (ii) private sectors in Northern Ireland in each financial year from 1998–99 to 2002–03; [127415]

  (2) what quantity of (a) virgin aggregates and (b) processed aggregate products was imported into Northern Ireland in each financial year from 1998–99 to 2002–03. [127416]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI) carries out an annual survey in January under Article 18(1) of the Quarries (NI) Order 1983. Quarry owners are required to provide the Department with information on the output and value of the minerals extracted from each quarry and of the number of people employed. DETI publish the aggregated statistics, however, the specific information sought by the hon. Member is neither collected nor held by Northern Ireland Government Departments.

  Attitudinal Research
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which(a) political parties, (b) other organisations and (c) individuals have been given access to the attitudinal research carried out by (i) Ulster Marketing Services and (ii) Milward Brown Ulster on behalf of the Department. [125315]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Attitudinal research carried out for the Northern Ireland Office by Ulster Marketing Services and Milward Brown Ulster was commissioned for internal use to inform the advice offered to Ministers by officials. The Northern Ireland Office has not given access to political parties or to any individuals or organisations outside Government.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much was paid to(a) Ulster Marketing Services and (b) Milward Brown Ulster by the Department in each year since 1997. [125316]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  In relation to total amounts spent by my Department on attitudinal research, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on 13 May 2003,Official Report, column 206W. To single out amounts paid to a particular company would constitute a breach of commercial confidence.
  463W
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many attitudinal surveys have been carried out by(a) Ulster Marketing Services and (b) Milward Brown Ulster which included research into voting intentions on behalf of the Department in each year since 1997. [125317]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  No attitudinal surveys were carried out by Ulster Marketing Services in the years since 1997. One attitudinal survey was carried out by Milward Brown Ulster in 2002 and one in 2003. Research respondents are classified as "adults" rather than "voters".

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish the material relating to attitudinal research carried out by(a) Ulster Marketing Services and (b) Milward Brown Ulster on behalf of the Department in each year since 1997. [125318]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The attitudinal research carried out by Ulster Marketing Services and Milward Brown Ulster was commissioned for internal use to inform the advice offered to Ministers by officials. The raw material was not prepared for publication and to do so would involve a disproportionate cost.

  Business Rates
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has carried out of the effects of charging rates on industrial and manufacturing premises in North Belfast. [127421]

  Mr. Pearson
  The decision to phase out industrial derating from 1 April 2005 over a seven-year period was taken following extensive consultation and various detailed assessments and analyses. These included Equality and Regulatory Impact Assessments at District Council level and New TSN analysis at Ward level. A specific evaluation was not carried out in respect of North Belfast. No contrary evidence emerged during the public consultation associated with the Equality Impact Assessments which ended on 8 July.

  Proposals for a hardship relief scheme that would be available in exceptional circumstances will be published in a policy paper later in the year. This paper will also cover the issue of a new and/or small business relief scheme. These proposals will also be informed by separate Impact Analyses.

  Cancer Deaths (Killyleagh)
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many deaths as a result of cancer there were in the Killyleagh area in each of the past five years. [124559]

  Mr. Pearson
  In the years 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001, there were 10, 8, 5, 3 and 4 deaths respectively, caused by "malignant neoplasms" registered to residents of Killyleagh electoral ward within Down District Council.

  Community Programmes
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money his Department has spent 464W
  in each year since 1998 on community relations programmes; and what estimate he has made of the value for money of such expenditure. [122634]

  Mr. Spellar
  The amount of money spent on community relations programmes in each of the last five financial years was as follows:

  year

  £

  1998–99

  12,741,741

  1999–2000

  13,542,188

  2000–01

  12,295,712

  2001–02

  10,471,580

  2002–03

  10,403,164

  TOTAL

  59,454,385

  The totals include funding provided under the EU Special Support Programme for Peace and Reconciliation 1995–99 (Peace I), the EU Physical, Social and Environment Sectoral Programme 1994–99 and the interim funding arrangements pending the coming into operation of the Peace II Programme.

  Regular independent evaluations of funding of community relations programmes are commissioned. Evaluations completed within the last 3 years of the funding provided to the Community Relations Council, District Council Community Relations Programme and Co-operation Ireland, which together amount to some £4.5 million of the mainstream Community Relations Programme provision of just over £5 million annually, were generally positive about the impact of their activities to promote better Community Relations in Northern Ireland. Both Programme and project evaluations carried out in relation to the EU funding have also been generally positive.

  Connswater
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will take steps to ensure that the Connswater(a) river and (b) riverbanks are made free of litter and dumped materials. [126217]

  Angela Smith
  The removal of large items of litter, such as shopping trolleys, is the responsibility of the owner of the property through which the river flows. However, if the debris is restricting the flow, the Rivers Agency of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, as the body responsible for maintenance of the Connswater River as a drainage channel, will take action to remove the obstruction.

  With regard to sewage related litter from sewage overflows into the river, the Water Service of the Department for Regional Development has recently installed screens at the Connswater Road pumping station to help prevent sewage related debris from this source.

  In addition, the Water Service, in conjunction with Department of the Environment's Environment and Heritage Service, is at present undertaking a detailed Urban Pollution Management Study of the area associated with the Connswater River, based on a previously completed Drainage Area Plan. This work is examining the sewage collection system in the Connswater area, as well as how sewage is treated, and

  465W
  will identify potential solutions to control discharges of storm sewage and related litter into the Connswater River. The study is due to be completed in early 2004.

  Conservation Areas
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who has responsibility for the designation of conservation areas in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [125948]

  Angela Smith
  The Department of the Environment's Planning Service is responsible for the designation of conservation areas in Northern Ireland, and is empowered to do so under Article 50(1) of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991.

  Disabled Children
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the recommendations of the Review Group set up in Northern Ireland to look into the test of resources for the Disabled Facilities Grant in relation to disabled children are; and if he will make a statement. [126302]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Review Group that was set up to look at the issue hopes to report to me at the end of July/early August. I will provide a fuller reply when I have had the opportunity to consider its recommendations.

  Disabled Home Adaptations
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the average length of time taken was to carry out home adaptations after a recommendation by an occupational therapist in the last year for which figures are available. [125838]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Northern Ireland Housing Executive measures the time taken from receipt of an Occupational Therapist (OT) recommendation to the commencement of works against agreed standards. Each adaptation is tailored to the specific needs of the individual person concerned. The length of time taken by a contractor to then complete a job is variable and can range from a few days, to a few months for extensions.

  From the receipt of OT recommendation to work starting, in the Public Sector, figures for the year 2002–03 are as follows:

  Lifts
  (93 per cent. within 22 weeks)

  While precise figures are not readily available against intermediate timescales it is considered that the bulk of cases are in fact started within 12 weeks.

  Extensions

  13 per cent. started within 30 weeks

  48 per cent. started within 46 weeks

  68 per cent. started within 60 weeks

  This type of work requires building control and planning approval.

  The Housing Executive is continuing to implement the recommendations of the Joint Fundamental review the aim of which was to improve all aspects of the adaptations service including the reduction of times.
  466W
  Specific actions include moving to a new system of contracting with a single tender covering multiple adaptations, which will allow a greater percentage of adaptations to be carried out within 60 weeks and agreement has been reached with Planning and Building control to streamline applications in respect of adaptations. The Housing Executive will keep the timescales under review and implement further improvements where possible.

  Where small scale works such as change of heating systems, handrails and lowering cooker mains switches etc. are required the Northern Ireland Housing Executive is able to undertake this work without referral to an OT.

  In the private sector adaptations are through Disabled Facility Grants and in 2002–2003, the average time taken between the receipt of, and completion of work following, an OT recommendation was 2 years.

  Much of this period is outside the control of the Housing Executive and includes the time—

  i. taken by the applicant to complete his/her formal application, including getting building control and planning approval, to enable the Housing Executive to approve a grant (the applicant is normally allowed 6 months at this stage);

  ii. post approval, when it is up to the applicant to engage a contractor to undertake and complete the works (for which up to a further 12 months is normally allowed).

  With the introduction of the new legislation, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive will have the power to agree with the Occupational Therapy Service a range of smallscale works that it can carry out without having to consult the OT service. This will be in line with the works it undertakes for its own tenants.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what efforts are being made to reduce the waiting lists for assessments by occupational therapists in respect of disabled housing adaptations in(a) the Down Lisburn Trust, (b) the Banbridge Craigavon Trust and (c) the Newry and Mourne Trust: and if he will make a statement. [126051]

  Angela Smith
  Down Lisburn HSS Trust has already recruited additional staff but is seeking further staff to reduce waiting lists. Interviews are scheduled for 24 July. A pilot scheme whereby an occupational therapist is locally based to ensure an earlier assessment is being evaluated and will be rolled out in the trust this year.

  Craigavon and Banbridge HSS Trust has set up two clinics at Lurgan Hospital and Copperfields (Banbridge). Evening assessments have also been introduced to ensure reduced waiting times.

  Newry and Mourne HSS Trust has recruited two additional occupational therapists to commence employment on 16 July to address the waiting lists.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people are waiting for assessments by occupational therapists in respect of disabled housing adaptations in each of the health and social services trusts in Northern Ireland. [126053]
  467W
  Angela Smith
  Information is not available on the number of persons awaiting occupational therapy assessment in respect of disabled housing adaptations, as an assessment for housing adaptation can only be designated as such when the assessment is completed. The total number of persons in each health and social services trust awaiting assessment by a community occupational therapist is shown in the table in respect of the position at 31 March 2003, the latest date for which such information is available.

  Persons awaiting assessment by community occupational therapists, by trust, 31 March 2003

  Trust

  Persons awaiting assessment

  Down Lisburn

  1,031

  North and West Belfast

  1,086

  South and East Belfast

  205

  Ulster

  362

  Causeway

  670

  Homefirst

  1,698

  Armagh and Dungannon

  277

  Craigavon and Banbridge

  627

  Newry and Mourne

  200

  Foyle

  764

  Sperrin Lakeland

  1,182

  Northern Ireland Total

  8,102

  Dog Attacks
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) dog attacks have been reported and (b) complaints have been received by the Department of Environment regarding dogs in and around the grounds of Kirkistown Castle in the last 12 months; whether the land, lane leading to, and the grounds in which Kirkistown Castle lies are the property of the Department of Environment; and what action has been taken to prevent dogs from adjoining properties roaming in and around the grounds of the Castle. [126256]

  Angela Smith
  Kirkistown Castle, and the land on which it is sited, was acquired by the government in 1968. The site is now owned by the Department of the Environment and managed by the Environment and Heritage Service (EHS). To allow public access to the Castle, a legal right of way over the lane leading to the site was established when it was acquired. The lane also provides access to a privately owned house, adjacent to the Castle site. The boundary of the site owned by the Department has been fenced in accordance with the terms set out in the acquisition documents. This fencing is believed to be dog-proof.

  EHS has no record of receiving from the public any reported incidents of attacks or other complaints about dogs in or around the Castle grounds in the last 12 months. Its own tour guide reported an incident involving herself on 17 July 2003 and this is now under investigation

  The Castle is open to the public on a limited basis during July and August each year, when a tour guide is on site. Outside these months, signage identifies the Castle as being managed by EHS and provides a telephone number so that visitors can contact the local warden, (based at Scrabo Country Park), should they encounter any problems relating to the site.

  Education and Library Board Staff
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether it is the policy of the Department of Education to keep its(a) canteen workers and (b) cleaners within the employment of Education and Library Boards. [125908]

  Jane Kennedy
  Responsibility for the terms and conditions of employment of canteen workers and cleaning staff lies with each of the Education and Library Boards, which are the employers of such staff. It will be a matter for boards, in consultation with the Department, to decide how best to handle the employment arrangements for such staff on a case-by-case basis.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures have been put in place in each Government Department to promote energy efficiency in each year since 1997. [125311]

  Mr. Pearson
  The energy efficiency targets embodied in the Climate Change Programme of November 2000 were included in the Northern Ireland Executive's Programme for Government and were also adopted by the Northern Ireland Office for the areas within its control. While it is impossible to list all specific measures taken to achieve these targets, they include programmes of training in energy awareness for key staff, regular monitoring of buildings' energy performance, and investment in energy efficiency measures.

  These measures have resulted in the following year on year savings since 1997:

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  723,000

  921,000

  846,000

  761,000

  895,000

  1,042,000

  The Office Estate occupied by Northern Ireland government departments is currently purchasing 16.2 per cent. of its electricity requirements from non-fossil fuels, well ahead of the Climate Change target of 10 per cent. by 2008.

  Equality Commission
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people are employed in the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland. [127428]

  Mr. Spellar
  At 30 June 2003 the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland employed 118 people.

  Fishing Permits (Strangford)
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will amend the relevant legislation in order to permit the purchasing of fishing permits for Strangford Lough as part of the ADSEA project. [126255]

  Angela Smith
  Legal advice to the Department indicates that the proposed legislative amendment is outside the legislative competence of an Order in Council under the Northern Ireland Act 2001 as it
  469W
  would make provision which is contrary to Community Law and/or contravenes a right granted under the European Convention on Human Rights.

  Accordingly, it is not proposed to amend the legislation.

  Gap Funding
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much gap funding has been awarded, broken down by district council area; and what the purpose of each award was. [123796]

  Mr. Pearson
  A list detailing the amount of gap funding awarded by district council area, and a list of projects awarded gap funding by district council area have been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  The purpose of each gap funding award was to ensure that projects funded under the 1994–99 round of Structural Funds (PEACE I and The Northern Ireland Single Programme) which were considered likely to be eligible for support under the new round, 2000–06, were sustained during the negotiation of the PEACE II and Building Sustainable Prosperity Programmes.

  Table 1: List of the amounts of gap funding awarded by district council area

  £

  District council area

  Amount of gap funding awarded (PEACE II)

  Amount of gap funding awarded (BSP)

  Antrim

  89,301

  —

  Ards

  245,900

  87,934

  Armagh

  594,875

  —

  Ballymena

  151,751

  58,918

  Ballymoney

  73,669

  —

  Banbridge

  104,198

  —

  Belfast

  8,671,977

  483,891

  Carrickfergus

  119,888

  —

  Castlereagh

  53,456

  —

  Coleraine

  76,445

  46,105

  Cookstown

  294,243

  —

  Craigavon

  488,620

  153,948

  Derry

  1,938,126

  684,987

  Down

  178,633

  —

  Dungannon

  590,515

  —

  Fermanagh

  401,295

  35,508

  Lame

  183,286

  —

  Limavady

  285,284

  77,918

  Lisburn

  570,509

  —

  Magherafelt

  128,190

  142,750

  Moyle

  181,422

  —

  Newry and Mourne

  580,326

  51,309

  Newtownabbey

  108,341

  99,466

  North Down

  119,293

  —

  Omagh

  451,493

  —

  Strabane

  544,305

  —

  Unclassified

  476,782

  15,442,818

  Total

  17,702,123

  17,365,552

  Note

  Unclassified successful gap funding applications are those that either clearly benefited two or more district councils or that don't contain sufficient address information and therefore cannot be classified within any specific district council.
  470W

  Table 2: List of projects awarded gap funding by district council area

  Antrim district council

  BSP

  N/a

  Peace

  Harps project Just Kids Afterschools Club Youth Sport North East

  Hare Imports
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if there is a requirement to notify a local divisionary veterinary manager of an intention to import hares from the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland; and how many notifications relating to hares were received during 2002. [128194]

  Mr. Pearson
  There is no requirement to notify a divisional veterinary officer of an intention to import hares from the Republic of Ireland unless:

  (i) the import is of a hare from the Republic of Ireland which has previously been brought to the Republic of Ireland from a country other than GB, the Channel Islands, Isle of Man or Northern Ireland and has not been detained and isolated in quarantine for a period of at least six months before entering Northern Ireland; or

  (ii) my Department has reason to believe that there is an outbreak of rabies in the Republic of Ireland.

  In both cases, the importation of a hare is prohibited except under and in accordance with the conditions of a licence granted by the Department for which the importer has to apply. No applications for such licences were received during 2002.

  Health Trusts (Equality Implications and Market Testing)
  Mr. Seamus Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make an assessment of compliance by each health trust with the directive on assessment of equality implications and market testing of 19 June 2001. [125904]

  Angela Smith
  A recent review of HSS trusts, showed that a broad range of approaches have been or are being developed to ensure compliance with the policy in the Department's Circular HSS (F) 27/2001, dated 29 June 2001, and entitled "Market Testing: Assessment of Equality Implications and other Related Matters". It is felt that trusts have taken forward their obligations under this policy in a correct and meaningful manner.

  Mr. Seamus Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the directive to health trusts regarding assessment of equality implications and market testing of 19 June 2001 remains in force. [125906]

  Angela Smith
  The policy contained in the Departmental Circular HSS(F)27/2001, dated 29 June 2001, entitled "Market Testing: Assessment of Equality Implications and Other Related Matters" remains in force.

  Mr. Seamus Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what alterations and revocations there have been of the directive to health trusts of 19 June 2001, regarding assessment of equality implications and market testing, since 14 October 2002. [125907]
  471W
  Angela Smith
  Since 14 October 2002, there have been no alterations or revocations to the policy contained in the Departmental Circular HSS (F) 27/2001, dated 29 June 2001, and entitled "Market Testing: Equality Implications and Other Related Matters".

  Home Helps
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many home helps are employed within each health and social services board area. [125840]

  Angela Smith
  The number of home helps employed within each health and social services board area as at 30 June 2003 is shown in the table.

  HSS board

  Headcount

  Eastern

  1,800

  Northern

  1,401

  Southern

  1,641

  Western

  1,087

  Total

  5,929

  Hospital Waiting Lists/Times
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people are on the waiting list for neurosurgery in Northern Ireland; how many were on the waiting list on(a) 16 July 2002 and (b) 16 July 1998; what assessment he has made for the length of such waiting lists; and if he will make a statement. [127053]

  Angela Smith
  The number of people waiting for inpatient admission to the neurosurgery specialty is returned to the Department on a quarterly basis by Trusts. The return provides information about the number of people waiting for in-patient admission on the last day of each quarter. The information in this answer relates to the position at 31 March 2003 (the most recent information available),(a) 30 June 2002 and (b) 30 June 1998.

  At 31 March 2003 there were 700 people waiting for in-patient admission to the neurosurgery specialty.

  (a) There were 850 people waiting for in-patient admission to the neurosurgery specialty on 30 June 2002.

  (b) There were 425 people waiting for in-patient admission to the neurosurgery specialty on 30 June 1998.

  The Royal Group of Hospitals, in liaison with the four Boards, has been working hard to improve the situation, both in the short-term and with regard to the longer-term development of the service. In particular:
  A task force was established by the Royal to lead the effort in addressing the problems faced by the service;
  Extra theatre lists have been introduced;
  Proposals to enhance the recruitment and retention of nurses have been implemented to restore nursing levels and allow the phased opening of beds, with all beds re-opening by January 2004;
  A clinical careers framework for nurses has also been launched to improve opportunities for personal development and career pathways;
  In addition, treatment has been provided for some suitable patients in units outside Northern Ireland.
  472W
  These measures should make a significant contribution to reducing the number of people waiting for in-patient admission to neurosurgery.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people are on the waiting list for(a) orthopaedic and (b) cardiological procedures in Northern Ireland; and how many were on the waiting list on (i) 16 July 2002 and (ii) 16 July 1998. [127054]

  Angela Smith
  The number of people waiting for in-patient admission by specialty is returned to the Department on a quarterly basis by Trusts. The return provides information about the number of people waiting for in-patient admission on the last day of each quarter. Information in this answer is provided for the Trauma and Orthopaedic, Cardiac Surgery and Cardiology specialties. The information in this answer relates to the position at 31 March 2003 (the most recent information available),(a) 30 June 2002 and (b) 30 June 1998. The following table shows the number of people waiting for in-patient admission to the Trauma and Orthopaedic, Cardiac Surgery and cardiology specialties on the 31 March 2003.

  Specialty

  Number of people waiting

  Trauma and Orthopaedics

  5,528

  Cardiac Surgery

  436

  Cardiology

  1,345

  (a) The following table shows the number of people waiting for in-patient admission to the Trauma and Orthopaedic, Cardiac Surgery and Cardiology specialties on the 30 June 2002.

  Specialty

  Number of people waiting

  Trauma and Orthopaedics

  6,064

  Cardiac Surgery

  644

  Cardiology

  1,339

  (b) The following table shows the number of people waiting for in-patient admission to the Trauma and Orthopaedic, Cardiac Surgery and Cardiology specialties on 30 June 1998.

  Specialty

  Number of people waiting

  Trauma and Orthopaedics

  4,939

  Cardiac Surgery

  463

  Cardiology

  1,026

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to reduce waiting lists for(a) orthopaedic and (b) cardiological surgical procedures in Northern Ireland. [127055]

  Angela Smith
  Within the orthopaedic surgery specialty a number of steps have been taken to address waiting times. These steps include:An increase in the number of trainees in the orthopaedic specialty.
  The establishment of a pilot initiative involving orthopaedic surgeons, general practitioners and physiotherapists, aimed at treating people in the community, and reducing the need for consultant appointments and subsequent surgery.

  473W
  The undertaking of a review of acute trauma services, which is expected to make recommendations for improvement on the delivery of trauma services and will provide strategic direction on the future development of the orthopaedic/fracture service.
  In addition, waiting times for orthopaedic surgery will be further addressed by the planned increase in theatre capacity this year. The Regional Spinal Surgery Unit is expected to be fully operational by September 2003, and two new modular operating theatres are currently under construction at the Musgrave Park Hospital site. The provision of these new theatres will increase theatre capacity, increase capacity for fracture services, stabilise and reduce waiting lists, and facilitate the mix of elective, trauma and outpatient work of consultant orthopaedic surgeons.

  To reduce waiting times for cardiac surgery, my Department has developed a joint action plan for the implementation of the recommendations made by the Cardiac Surgery review and the Review of Cardiology Services. In line with the Joint Action Plan, my Department is continuing to invest in additional staff and equipment at the regional cardiac surgery unit in the Royal Hospitals. This investment will facilitate an increase in the number of cardiac surgery procedures undertaken at the regional unit to the target level of 1,100 per year. Until capacity at the Royal is increased to the target level, additional cardiac surgery procedures are being purchased outside the HPSS for patients who are able and willing to travel.

  Insurance Premiums
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland pursuant to his answer of 24 June 2003,Official Report, column 710W, on insurance premiums, what steps his Department is taking to alleviate the effects of increases in business insurance premiums in Northern Ireland in the last three years. [125793]

  Mr. Pearson
  At national level Government are taking forward the recommendations of the review of Employers' Liability Insurance and my officials are closely involved in that work.

  I have met recently with key stakeholders from NI industry and the local insurance industry. The Health and Safety Executive (NI) and Invest NI are providing practical support and advice to improve the insurability of NI businesses. Furthermore, I plan to meet shortly with a number of representatives from the GB insurance industry to discuss ways of increasing their engagement with the NI market.

  Landfill Site, Mallusk
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will set up a public inquiry into the proposed superdump landfill site at Mallusk. [127399]

  Angela Smith
  The planning application for the proposed landfill site at Cottonmount, Mallusk was received by the Department of the Environment's Planning Service in February 1995. Whilst a Public Inquiry was considered it was decided that there was sufficient information to reach a decision without the need for an Inquiry. In June 1997 Planning Service proceeded by way of Notice of Opinion in accordance with Article 31(3) of the Planning (Northern Ireland)474W
  1991. Having taken this route the only options now available to Planning Service are either to issue a Notice of Opinion to Approve or a Notice of Opinion to Refuse. The only available provision for a Public Hearing would be if the applicant appeals either a future Notice of Opinion to Approve or a Notice of Opinion to Refuse.

  Languages
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what funding was provided for the promotion of the(a) Irish language and (b) Ulster-Scots language in each year since 1998. [126502]

  Angela Smith
  The promotion of the Irish and the Ulster-Scots languages is the responsibility of the North/South Language Body and its two Agencies Foras na Gaeilge (the Irish Language Agency) and Tha Boord o Ulstèr-Scotch (the Ulster-Scots Agency).

  The North/South Language Body is jointly funded by the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure (DCAL) and the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (DCRGA). The funding provided by the North/South Language Body for the promotion of the Irish and Ulster-Scots languages is shown as follows.

  £

  Foras na Gaeilge— funding for Irish language promotion

  Tha Boord o Ulstèr- Scotch—funding for Ulster-Scots language promotion

  1998

  Nil

  Nil

  1999

  Nil

  Nil

  2000

  1,837,000.00

  4,000.00

  2001

  2,000,000.00

  3,000.00

  2002

  2,640.000.00

  14,000.00

  2003 to date

  1,405,000.00

  24,000.00

  Funding is available from departmental mainstream programmes for projects which may have an Irish or Ulster-Scots language dimension which cannot be separated from the primary funding objectives.

  Murdered RUC Officers
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make further resources available to the Police Service of Northern Ireland Chief Constable to investigate the unsolved murders of RUC officers: and if he will make a statement. [124798]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I am very conscious of the feelings surrounding such an emotive issue as unsolved murders, and I have the deepest sympathy for the relatives of police officers who have suffered in this way.

  Government has made available over £2.1 billion for policing over the next three years. It is for the Chief Constable to manage those considerable resources in the delivery of a day to day policing service including the conduct of criminal investigations. I know he is currently reviewing a variety of murder cases where there is a realistic prospect of securing a conviction.

  North-South Ministerial Council
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many meetings of the North and South Ministerial Council have been held since the suspension of devolved government in Northern Ireland. [125552]

  Mr. Spellar
  None.

  Older People's Rights Commissioner
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what his policy is on the establishment of an Older People's Rights Commissioner for Northern Ireland. [126497]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the honourable Gentleman to the previous answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on 3 July 2003 (122352).

  Parades Commission
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what costs have been associated with the operational running of the Parades Commission in each of the last three financial years. [122554]

  Jane Kennedy
  The breakdown of the Parades Commission's operating costs is available in its Annual Reports which are laid before Parliament.

  Peace II Programme
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what impact the N+2 requirement of the funding process for the Peace II programme will have upon the allocation of the total funds made available under this programme; and if he will make a statement. [126119]

  Mr. Pearson
  For all Structural Funds Programmes the N+2 requirement means that any part of an annual commitment not properly claimed from the European Commission by the end of the second year following the year of commitment will automatically be withdrawn. For the PEACE II Programme monies committed for 2000 and 2001 must be spent and claimed from the European Commission by the end of 2003, otherwise the monies will be lost to the Peace II Programme.

  As regards the current position the PEACE II Monitoring Committee on 24 June 2003 adopted a strategy to ensure that funds are fully utilised. This strategy has three key components. The first is to maximise spend up to 31 December 2003 and this can be achieved by all Implementing Bodies and project sponsors continuing to approve and implement projects on the ground in line with the Priorities and Measures specified in the Programme. The second component involves working closely with the SEUPB and the European Commission to ensure that the N+2 target for the Programme at the end of the year is set with due regard to the full and proper application of the various Regulatory provisions involved. I anticipate this work will involve a reduction in the expenditure targets for this year. However, while both the above are producing results, they alone will not be sufficient to avoid a loss of funding. Therefore the third component is to increase spend through the inclusion
  476W
  of projects which were not originally intended to be funded through the PEACE II Programme, but which nonetheless meet the distinctiveness and other requirements of the Programme. This will mean that some existing Departmental spend would be scored against the Programme in the remainder of this year.

  However, since this will release the same quantum of resources from Departmental expenditure, I intend to use these resources to rebalance the Programme early in 2004 and thereby ensure that activities originally intended can go ahead as planned.

  I have also commissioned a review of the PEACE II Programmes Implementing systems and processes.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how long it has taken on average to process an application form and the issuing of payments in respect of the Peace II programme; and if he will make a statement. [126120]

  Mr. Pearson
  The average time to process an application form in respect of the Peace II Programme is 79 working days, including unsuccessful applications. In the vast majority of cases payments have been made to projects within 10 working days of receipt of a request for payment by the Special EU Programmes Body.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the projects funded under the Peace II European Initiative in North Belfast in(a) 2002 and (b) 2003. [125314]

  Mr. Pearson
  The information requested will be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Personal Security
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people have been notified by the police in the past two years that private information about them had been found in the possession of republicans; and what the associated costs of upgrading their personal security was. [123699]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  For the two year period to 30 June 2003, a total of 3,558 persons have been notified. These figures are not held centrally and so may be subject to adjustment.

  There are a number of schemes to which individuals may apply to upgrade their personal security. Obtaining the relevant information would only be possible by searching on a case by case basis. Therefore the associated costs of upgrading the personal security of these individuals could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Planning
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many officials are employed in the Planning Appeals Commission, broken down by grade. [127413]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Planning Appeals Commission consists of 15 commissioners and four call-off panel commissioners, who are all statutory officeholders. There are also 18 administrative support staff who are
  477W
  civil servants provided by the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. The breakdown by grade is as follows:
  1 Chief Administrative Officer (Deputy Principal)
  1 Executive Officer I
  3 Executive Office II
  7 Administrative Officers
  2 Administrative Assistants
  1 Personal
  3 Typists

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the average length of time taken by the Planning Service in Northern Ireland to issue a final decision in respect of planning applications in(a) Northern Ireland and (b) Belfast over the last three years. [125553]

  Angela Smith
  The average time taken by the Department of the Environment's Planning Service to issue a final decision in respect of planning applications in Northern Ireland, and in Belfast over the last three years is as follows:

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Average time in Northern Ireland

  Total average days

  139

  134

  137

  Total average weeks

  20

  19

  20

  Average time in Belfast

  Total average days

  143

  134

  134

  Total average weeks

  20

  19

  19

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many prescriptions were issued in Northern Ireland in the year 2002–03; what the total cost of such prescriptions was; and what percentage of such prescriptions was paid for by the Government. [126504]

  Angela Smith
  The number of prescriptions issued is not known; however, the number of prescriptions submitted for payment in 2002–03 was 14,622,156 covering some 25,501,388 items.

  The cost in 2002–03 of prescriptions, before deduction of patient contributions, was £322.8m. In 2002–03 patient contributions totalled £12.7m leaving the percentage paid for by Government at 96.1 per cent. (£310.1m).

  Of the 25,501,388 items that were dispensed 6.1 per cent. were paid for at the point of dispensing. The remaining 93.9 per cent. of items did not have the £6.20 charge paid at the point of dispensing because either the patient had a pre-payment certificate and therefore did not have to pay or the patient was exempt from payment due to age, benefit status or other reason given on the back of the prescription form.

  Primary Schools
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will introduce a system of funding for primary schools in Northern Ireland which is on the same basis as the arrangements in England. [125848]
  478W
  Jane Kennedy
  The system for funding primary schools in Northern Ireland is very similar to that of England in that delegated budgets are determined by means of a formula developed and operated by the Education and Library Board (in England the LEA has this responsibility).

  The Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 provides for the introduction of a Common Funding Scheme which will include a single common formula for the calculation of the delegated budgets of all schools, except special schools. This will ensure that schools of similar size and characteristics receive similar levels of funding.

  Public Administration Review
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the cost of(a) establishing and (b) operating the review of public administration in Northern Ireland has been. [123717]

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much has been spent on the Review of Public Administration. [125306]

  Mr. Pearson
  Expenditure on the Review of Public Administration (RPA) since April 2002 totals £1.06 million, of which £0.15 million has been attributed to the establishment of the Review and £0.91 million to its subsequent operation.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many public bodies operated in Northern Ireland in the last year for which figures are available; [123786]

  (2) how many people on each of the public bodies in Northern Ireland are members of the (a) DUP. (b) UUP, (c) SF, (d) AP and (e) SDLP. [123787]

  Mr. Pearson
  Information on quangos is available in "Public Bodies", a publication produced annually by the Cabinet Office. This publication provides information on the size, spend and membership of public bodies in the UK and includes non-departmental public bodies attached to the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments. The current edition of the publication, "Public Bodies 2002" is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Information on the political affiliation of those appointed to serve on quangos is not available. However, the Public Appointments Annual Report provides an analysis of all appointments made by Northern Ireland Departments and includes statistics on applicants and appointees who have declared political activity within the past five years. A copy of the latest report (covering the period April 2001 to March 2002) was placed in the Library of the House in January 2002.

  Refrigerator and Freezer Disposal
  Mr. Nigel Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his policy for the disposal of refrigerators and freezers in Northern Ireland. [125841]
  479W
  Angela Smith
  European Commission Regulation 2037/2000 on Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS), which came into effect on 1 October 2000, requires the removal of controlled ODS from refrigeration equipment before these appliances are scrapped. Recovery, recycling, reclamation and destruction of such substances may be undertaken using only approved technologies. The necessary technology is not yet available anywhere in Ireland; a few facilities are now available in Great Britain.

  Currently, responsibility for collection, storage and disposal of waste fridges lies with district councils. The Department of the Environment, through the waste management grant scheme, is fully funding district councils in taking forward this responsibility. The Department has also taken a proactive role in assisting councils to seek to achieve a cost-effective, environmentally-sound approach to the disposal of fridges. To this end a collective contract for the disposal of fridges on an all-island basis is currently under negotiation aided by the Central Procurement Directorate (Department of Finance and Personnel).

  In August 2005 ultimate responsibility for collection and disposal of fridges will transfer from district councils to producers under the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (WEEE)2002/96/EC. The Department will, after that date, continue to have a role in ensuring the availability and accessibility of the necessary collection facilities in accordance with the requirements of the WEEE Directive. The detailed out-workings of the directive continue, however, to be the subject of discussion between officials in my Department, the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department of Trade and Industry. Public consultations with stakeholders are also on-going.

  Regulatory Bodies
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the(a) number of staff employed by and (b) budget of each regulatory body for which his Department is responsible in each year since 1997. [117782]

  Mr. Pearson
  Information on regulatory bodies is available in "Public Bodies", a publication produced annually by the Cabinet Office. This publication provides information on the size, spend and membership of public bodies in the UK and includes non-departmental public bodies attached to the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments. The current edition of the publication, "Public Bodies 2002" is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Reinvestment and Reform Initiative
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland under what terms the borrowing facility under the Reinvestment and Reform Initiative can be accessed; what constitutes revenues in Northern Ireland for the purposes of accessing borrowing; and whether movement towards convergence must occur between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. [123706]
  480W
  Mr. Pearson
  The borrowing facility provided under the Reinvestment and Reform Initiative (RRI) will operate under the standard terms for borrowing from the National Loans Fund as determined by the Treasury. Access to the borrowing facility will be contingent upon the generation of additional rates revenue, and revenue from domestic water charges once introduced. Only revenue above the level needed to match average increases in England will count as qualifying revenue far borrowing purposes.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) fatal and (b) non-fatal accidents, broken down by their road classification, there were in each or the past three years. [122539]

  Angela Smith
  The table outlines the number of fatal and non-fatal accidents in Northern Ireland in each of the past three years. It should be noted that the information on road classification is not available, a breakdown is however provided by rural and urban areas based on speed limits.

  Road Traffic Injury Collisions by Road Type: NI 2000–2002

  Fatal Collisions

  Serious Collisions

  Slight Collisions

  Total Collisions

  2000

  Roads in Urban Areas

  46

  639

  4532

  5217

  Roads in Rural Areas

  103

  636

  2432

  3171

  Total

  149

  1275

  6964

  8388

  2001

  Roads in Urban Areas

  36

  602

  3847

  4485

  Roads in Rural Areas

  101

  639

  2222

  2962

  Total

  137

  1241

  6069

  7447

  2002

  Roads in Urban Areas

  37

  506

  3492

  4035

  Roads in Rural Areas

  99

  599

  2051

  2749

  Total

  136

  1105

  5543

  6784

  Schools
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many incidents of vandalism against school property occurred in(a) North Belfast, (b) Belfast and (c) Ireland; and what the total cost was in each area, in each year since 2000. [127422]

  Jane Kennedy
  The cost of vandalism met by each Education and Library Board in controlled and maintained schools in each financial year since 2000 is as follows:

  £

  Education and Library Board

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Belfast

  356,250

  485,000

  292,000

  Western

  62,958

  42,263

  53,623

  North-Eastern

  272,036

  286,121

  226,994

  South-Eastern

  189,741

  248,122

  69,449

  Southern

  78,286

  133,708

  140,713

  Total

  959,2 71

  1,195,214

  782,729

  The computerised system currently operated by the 5 Education and Library Boards is being upgraded at this time and information on the number of incidents of vandalism in schools and on the cost of such incidents is not available at present. The information on North

  481W
  Belfast schools is also not available at this time. I will write to the honourable member when this information becomes available.

  Secondments
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what his Department's policy is on employing secondees from the private sector; how many secondees from the(a) private and (b) public sectors his Department employed in each year since 1997; from which companies and organisations they were seconded; at what level they were employed; and if he will make a statement. [127061]

  Mr. Pearson
  This response covers both the Northern Ireland civil service and the Northern Ireland Office.

  Policy on inward secondments is set out both in the Northern Ireland Civil Service Commissioners' Recruitment Code and in the GB equivalent. Inward secondments are generally used to meet particular business needs, for example where there is a shortage of skills or expertise to undertake particular work.

  Health and social services trusts

  Doctors

  Nurses

  Other health care professionals

  Other employees

  Altnagelvin Hospitals Trust

  1,100

  10,867

  2,171

  17,430

  Armagh and Dungannon Trust

  297

  8,581

  1,824

  10,871

  Belfast City Hospital Trust

  997

  23,297

  7,976

  18,883

  Causeway Trust

  70

  16,678

  3,197

  24,684.5

  Craigavon Area Hospital Trust

  733.4

  9,018.4

  2,546.1

  9,788.1

  Craigavon and Banbridge Community Trust

  143.8

  3,505.7

  977.6

  11,368.3

  Down and Lisburn Trust

  352

  14,712

  3,281

  29,254

  Foyle Trust

  80.8

  8,886.2

  1,620.7

  19,244.2

  Greenpark Trust

  86

  12,291.9

  2,639.9

  3,385.7

  Homefirst Community Trust

  532

  15,464

  3,202

  40,991

  Mater Infirmorum Trust1

  310

  4,771.8

  941.21

  6,532.94

  Newry and Mourne Trust

  158

  10,326

  4,470

  29,937

  North and West Belfast Trust

  183

  8,698.1

  5,953.9

  37,160

  Royal Group of Hospitals Trust

  951.5

  25,905.4

  8,341.4

  47,270.4

  South and East Belfast Trust

  230.8

  13,509.6

  6,786.5

  19,068.4

  Sperrin Lakeland Trust

  324.9

  20,804.5

  2,359.5

  19,767.7

  Ulster Community and Hospitals

  511.1

  21,468.2

  12,498.9

  26,176.4

  United Hospitals Trust

  770

  19,111

  4,189

  23,107

  Northern Ireland Ambulance Service3

  n/a

  n/a

  9,047.38 (hours)

  701.88 (hours)

  1 Period 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003.

  2 This figure does not include community care assistants.

  3 The Northern Ireland Ambulance Service was only able to provide information in hours due to the shift pattern worked by employees. The figures provided are for year ending May 2003.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many general practitioners in Northern Ireland are on sick leave from work. [124521]

  Angela Smith
  Not all GPs report when they are unable to attend work due to sickness. The total number of GPs on sick absence is therefore not known. As at 30 June 2003, the Central Services Agency is aware of 18 general practitioners absent from their practice due to sickness and is paying for the employment of locums.

  Smoking
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many smoking rooms the
  482W
  In addition, both the Northern Ireland civil service and Northern Ireland Office participate in interchange schemes. These recognise the value of interchange for skills transfer and staff development, and facilitate staff exchanges with the private, voluntary and wider public sectors.

  Since 1997 there have been 37 secondments from the private sector and 185 from the public sector to the Northern Ireland civil service. There were no secondments from the private sector and 38 from the public sector to the Northern Ireland Office during the same period. A breakdown is provided in the tables which have been placed in the Library.

  Sick Leave (Health Professionals)
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many days of sick leave was taken in the last 12 months by(a) doctors, (b) nurses, (c) other health care professionals and (d) other employees in each health trust. [124520]

  Angela Smith
  The number of sick leave days taken in the last 12 months up to and including 30 June 2003 by(a) doctors, (b) nurses (c) other health care professionals and (d) other employees in each health trust is as follows:

  Northern Ireland Civil Service maintains; how frequently staff are permitted to attend to smoke; for what length of time; at what cost; and if he will make a statement. [126161]

  Mr. Pearson
  There are some 158 smoking rooms currently in operation in the Northern Ireland Civil Service and NIO within the general office estate.

  Although no central guidance has been issued on the frequency or length of absences permitted in order to use smoking rooms, line managers are required to ensure that any individual cases of abuse of the facility are identified and dealt with quickly.
  483W
  As use of smoking facilities is at management discretion and the cost of providing and maintaining the smoking rooms is not identified separately from other accommodation costs the cost of this facility could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  The NICS has been trying to encourage staff to give up smoking through its Workplace health Improvement Programme. This programme is designed to raise awareness of a range of health issues, including smoking, and offers practical advice to encourage staff to adopt/maintain a healthy lifestyle.

  Car Parking (Stormont)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Stormont estate car parking spaces there are; how many such spaces have been built since 1995; how much parkland he plans to use for car parking spaces; and what his policy is on the growth of car parking provision on the estate. [126162]

  Mr. Pearson
  There are approximately 2500 car parking spaces within the Stormont Estate. Around 400 of these are adjacent to Parliament Buildings and are for the use of Assembly members, staff and visitors. The remaining 2100 are used by civil servants working on the Estate, together with visitors and contractors. This total includes spaces designated for use by people with disabilities and for visitors. No extra spaces have been created since 1995 apart from 25 temporary spaces provided recently but the opportunity is currently being taken to upgrade a redundant builder's compound to provide an additional 70 parking spaces. Any further development for parking will be dependent upon decisions on the implementation of the recommendations in the recently completed Accommodation Review.

  Social Housing
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many new homes for social renting have been completed in North Belfast in each of the last five years and what their locations are. [125837]

  Mr. Spellar
  House completions, for the last five years in the Belfast North constituency, totalled 889, as follows:

  Number of houses completed

  1998–99

  181

  1999–2000

  190

  2000–01

  192

  2001–02

  196

  2002–03

  130

  Total

  889

  A list of locations is provided in the table.

  Houses completed in Belfast North constituency

  Provider

  Location

  Units

  1998–99

  BIH

  Glencairn

  33

  BIH

  159–161 Cavehill Road

  8

  Flax

  Rosebank Mill, Flax Street

  38

  Flax

  Ardoyne Bus Depot, Phl

  40

  Flax

  Thorndale, Duncairn Avenue

  11

  Oaklee

  21 Skegoneill Avenue

  5

  Triangle

  Squireshill Crescent, Ligoneill

  12

  484W

  Houses completed in Belfast North constituency

  Provider

  Location

  Units

  Woodvale and Shankill

  57 Glencairn Crescent

  1

  NIHE

  Carrick Hill

  9

  NIHE

  Downview Gardens

  14

  NIHE

  Lower Regent Street

  4

  NIHE

  Plunkett Court

  4

  NIHE

  Squireshill Park

  2

  Total

  181

  1999–2000

  Clanmil

  30 Cairnshill Park

  4

  Filor

  Lawnbrook. Ph2

  26

  Filor

  Lawnbrook, Ph2b

  1

  Newington

  171 Limestone Road

  48

  Oaklee

  Buncrana Gardens

  24

  Ulidia

  Salisbury Avenue

  10

  Woodvale and Shankill

  Broom/Bracken, Ph2

  26

  NIHE

  Downview Gardens

  12

  NIHE

  Plunkett Court

  4

  NIHE

  Carlisle Road

  8

  NIHE

  Hillman Close

  8

  NIHE

  Hillman Street

  3

  NIHE

  North Queen Street

  9

  NIHE

  Spamount Street

  6

  NIHF

  Wall Street

  1

  Total

  190

  2000–01

  BIH

  Centenary House, Waring Street

  40

  BIH

  Dover Street

  8

  Clanmil

  13 Harcourt, Cliftonville

  1

  Clanmil

  109 Skegoneill Avenue

  1

  Clanmil

  13 Newington Avenue

  1

  Filor

  Lawnbrook, Ph3

  30

  Flax

  Ardoyne Bus Depot. Ph2

  14

  Fold

  Crumlin Road

  21

  Fold

  Torrens, Ph I

  18

  Habinteg

  31 Cliftonville Avenue

  7

  Oaklee

  Clifton Park Avenue

  33

  NIHE

  Hillman Court

  9

  NIHE

  Pepperhill Street

  5

  NIHE

  Stanhope Street

  4

  Total

  192

  2001–02

  Filor

  Lanark Way/Kirk Street

  26

  Fold

  Rosewood/Crumlin. Ph2

  22

  Fold

  Alliance, Ph3

  32

  Newington

  Newington Rehabs

  10

  Newington

  Community Gardens, Limestone Road

  8

  Newington

  New Lodge. HAA, Ph2

  26

  Oaklee

  62–76 Cliftonville Road

  8

  Oaklee

  Roe Street/BCC Depot

  36

  Oaklee

  Black's Court, Ph2

  8

  Oaklee

  Dumbarton, Ph2

  2

  Ulidia

  Antrim Road

  16

  Woodvale and Shankill

  20 Mayo Park

  1

  Woodvale and Shankill

  35 Woodvale Parade

  1

  Total

  196

  2002–03

  BIH

  Clifton House, North Queen Street

  83

  Filor

  3 Northwood Drive

  6

  Flax

  211 Old Park Road

  1

  Fold

  Wheatfield, Ph I

  13

  Newington

  Newington, Ph2A

  8

  Newington

  Newington, Ph2B

  2

  Oaklee

  The Maples, Chief Street

  12

  Triangle

  Squireshill Crescent

  3

  Woodvale and Shankill

  8 Crumlin Gardens

  1

  Woodvale and Shankill

  15 Crumlin Gardens

  1

  Total

  130

  Special Education Needs
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many teachers are employed in North Belfast to cater for children with special educational needs. [127423]
  485W
  Jane Kennedy
  Under Special Educational Needs Legislation, Education and Library Boards have a qualified duty to secure education for children with Special Educational Needs (SEN) in a mainstream placement. Therefore the majority of children identified as having SEN will have their needs met by mainstream teachers with, where required, support from a classroom assistant or outside specialist support, such as outreach from special schools, assistance from a behaviour support team, or speech and language therapy help from outside the school. In this sense, all teachers may have a role in providing educational help for children with SEN.

  Under Local Management of Schools (LMS) arrangements, mainstream schools have the majority of funding for special needs within their delegated budgets. Schools have discretion as to how the money is spent, e.g. to employ additional teachers for children with SEN. It is therefore not possible to provide specific teacher numbers in primary and post primary schools within the timescale for the question. However, with regard to specialist support services the Belfast ELB provides additional teaching time to assessed pupils within all schools in Belfast for special needs in the areas of learning, dyslexia, behaviour, autism and physical and sensory disability. These services employ an additional 55 teachers.

  In all mainstream schools a designated teacher known as the Special Educational Needs Co-ordinator (SENCO) will be responsible for the day to day

  £

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Primary Schools

  537,098

  509,494

  532,226

  538,865

  528,00

  Secondary Schools

  409,850

  425,124

  450,748

  472,005

  481,000

  Total

  946,948

  934,618

  982,874

  1,010,870

  1,009,000

  In addition, since 1998, around £38 million has been provided to support the introduction of the Code of Practice in Northern Ireland. As well as providing SEN training for teachers and school governors, these funds have helped meet the additional costs of strengthening mainstream provision for pupils with SEN, by expanding outreach and peripatetic teaching support and by providing more classroom assistants. Specific allocations to schools in the North Belfast Constituency area are not readily identifiable in the timescale, but it is estimated that in 2002–03 these totalled approximately £70,000 for primary schools and £50,000 for post-primary schools.

  Sports and Recreational Facilities
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money has been provided to district councils in Northern Ireland for the development of sports and recreational facilities in each year since 1997. [125844]

  Angela Smith
  Since 1999 the Department of Culture Arts and Leisure (DCAL) has had overall responsibility for sports and recreational development in Northern 486W
  operation of the school's SEN policy, liaison with outsiqe agencies etc. This will be in addition to the SENCO's teaching duties. The number of teachers employed in Special Schools or Special Units in the North Belfast Constituency area is:
  Special School Teachers—27
  Special Unit Teachers —2

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much funding was allocated to meet the special education needs of children in(a) primary and (b) post primary schools in North Belfast in each year since 1997. [127424]

  Jane Kennedy
  The funding made available to the Education and Library Boards (ELBs) by the Department of Education for children with Special Educational Needs (SEN) has two components:the SEN element, managed centrally by each board, which is used to provide classroom assistance, special equipment, disabled access and outreach support services for mainstream pupils as well as to maintain Special Schools and Units. These resources are allocated on an individual basis following the assessment procedures as set out in the Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of Special Educational Needs. It is not possible to provide details of such resources specifically for the North Belfast Constituency area within the timescale of the question. However, it is known that there are 70 classroom assistants funded by the Belfast ELB in North Belfast schools for individual pupils with SEN at an approximate cost of £500,000 per annum; and
  the Local Management of Schools (LMS) component, managed by mainstream schools to assist pupils with SEN who do not require a Statement. Annual expenditure on the LMS Special Needs budgets for schools in the North Belfast constituency area is as follows:

  Ireland. The amount of money both Exchequer and Lottery, provided to district councils in Northern Ireland, via DCAL funding sources, for the development of sports and recreational facilities in each year since 1997 is as follows:

  Year

  £

  19971

  2,845,074

  19981

  1,272,110

  1999

  1,177,500

  2000

  230,000

  2001

  173,000

  2002

  380,000

  2003

  20

  1 Prior to 1999 overall responsibility for sporting and recreational development in Northern Ireland rested with the Department of Education for Northern Ireland while Inland Waterways and Waterway recreations functions rested with the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland.

  2 To date.

  Staff Costs
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many staff the Department and each
  487W
  agency and non-departmental public body for which the Department is responsible had in each year since 1997; and what the cost of those staff was in each of those years. [122257]

  Mr. Pearson
  The information is as follows:

  Staffing

  The staffing figures to reflect both NI Civil Servants and Home Civil Servants, in each year since 1997, for the Northern Ireland Office, the Northern Ireland Departments and their respective Agencies, are set out in Tables A and B.

  The staffing figures for associated NDPBs are available from the Cabinet Office in its annual publication "Public Bodies". The information includes details of the number of staff employed by each NDPB at 31 March each year. "Public Bodies 2002" was published in January 2003. Copies of "Public Bodies" published each year since 1997 are available in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Table A: Staffing—Northern Ireland Office and Agencies

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Core Department

  992

  964

  961

  935

  930

  1,003

  Agencies:

  Compensation Agency

  120

  131

  120

  130

  132

  139

  Forensic Science NI

  122

  120

  118

  122

  130

  132

  NI Prison Service

  3,212

  3,017

  2,730

  2,119

  2,124

  1,989

  Total

  4,446

  4,232

  3,929

  3,306

  3,316

  3,263

  Table B: Staffing—Northern Ireland Departments and Agencies

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Core NI Departments

  6,312

  5,941

  5,866

  7,529

  7,896

  8,937

  Agencies:

  Business Development Service

  227

  238

  278

  268

  266

  246

  Child Support Agency

  294

  306

  321

  319

  394

  426

  Construction Service

  576

  557

  516

  509

  507

  1—

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  275

  297

  320

  351

  398

  414

  Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency

  318

  326

  319

  348

  391

  445

  Environment and Heritage Service

  352

  360

  354

  372

  410

  522

  Forest Service

  —

  412

  395

  387

  372

  360

  Government Purchasing Agency

  72

  91

  100

  79

  89

  1—

  Industrial Research and Technology Unit

  143

  141

  148

  154

  171

  2—

  Land Registers for NI

  205

  199

  195

  194

  201

  232

  NI Health and Social Services Estates Agency3—

  120

  117

  114

  119

  119

  122

  NI Statistics and Research Agency

  177

  219

  255

  290

  301

  318

  Ordnance Survey NI

  177

  178

  175

  176

  179

  197

  Planning Service

  386

  420

  452

  484

  529

  592

  Public Record Office NI

  62

  67

  68

  70

  69

  73

  Rate Collection Agency

  256

  250

  233

  238

  234

  261

  Rivers Agency

  460

  431

  420

  402

  408

  441

  Roads Service

  2,207

  2,163

  2,162

  2,175

  2,230

  2,214

  Social Security Agency

  5,555

  5,582

  5,526

  5,732

  6,091

  6,194

  Training and Employment Agency

  1,318

  1,365

  1,269

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Valuation and Lands Agency

  270

  222

  267

  268

  279

  261

  Water Service

  2,278

  2,228

  2,216

  2,176

  2,202

  2,147

  Sub-total

  15,728

  16,169

  16,103

  15,111

  15,840

  15,465

  Total4—

  22,040

  22,110

  21,969

  22,640

  23,736

  24,402

  1 Part of NI Departmental Core in that year.

  2 Part of Invest NI (NDPB) in that year.

  3 Average figures provided.

  4 Excludes NI civil servants working in NDPBs.

  488W
  Staff costs

  With the introduction of Devolution in Northern Ireland in December 1999, Northern Ireland Departments restructured and increased in number from six to 11. In addition, as a consequence of the transitions to resource accounting, outturn information from 2000–01 onwards is held on a resource basis, prior to this only cash based information is available. For these reasons, the only years for which comparable outturn information is available is for 2000–01 onwards. However, the outturn information provided for 2002–03 is based on provisional outturn and therefore is not directly comparable to 2000–01 or 2001–02, which are based on final outturn.

  Staffing costs for the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments and their respective Agencies are set out in Table C.

  The staffing costs for associated NDPBs of the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments are available from the annual accounts of each body.
  489W

  Table C: Staffing cost for Departments and their Agencies

  £000

  Department

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Northern Ireland Office

  115,000

  115,000

  119,000

  of which:

  Compensation Agency

  2,470

  2,605

  2,915

  Forensic Science Northern Ireland

  3,549

  3,743

  4,092

  Compensation Agency

  82,256

  70,867

  75,069

  DARD

  76,575

  86,320

  83,804

  of which:

  Forest Service Agency

  6,989

  6,479

  5,890

  Rivers Agency

  8,606

  10,219

  9,064

  DCAL

  8,642

  9,609

  12,388

  of which:

  Ordnance Survey (NI)

  4,625

  4,801

  5,693

  Public Records Office (NI)

  1,493

  1,509

  1,784

  DE

  14,767

  16,443

  16,893

  DEL

  30,698

  28,543

  33,731

  DETI

  27,774

  29,623

  16,548

  of which:

  Industrial Research and Technology Unit

  4,023

  4,573

  1—

  DFP

  54,121

  65,429

  64.944

  of which:

  Business Development Service

  5,880

  5.905

  5,755

  Rates Collection Agency

  4,273

  4,106

  4,817

  Valuation and Lands Agency

  7,292

  7,910

  7,430

  NI Statistics and Research Agency

  6,438

  8,743

  7,011

  Central Procurement Directorate

  2,104

  2,069

  2,238

  Construction Service

  15,005

  14,565

  14,194

  DHSSPS

  24,682

  26,659

  28,584

  of which:

  Health Estates Agency

  4,028

  4,120

  4,309

  DOE

  33,074

  32,800

  44,619

  of which:

  Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency

  0

  617

  622

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing NI

  9,081

  7,338

  11,253

  Planning Service

  11,166

  12,090

  14,022

  Environment and Heritage Service

  8,329

  9,005

  12,287

  DRD

  115,317

  108,368

  112,534

  of which:

  Roads Service

  50,334

  46,420

  48,900

  Water Service

  52,713

  49,815

  51,046

  DSD

  131,596

  144,027

  154,792

  of which:

  Child Support Agency

  5,767

  7,278

  8,104

  Social Security Agency

  82,954

  91,510

  98,390

  OFMDFM

  7,766

  9,675

  11,475

  Total

  525,012

  557,496

  580,312

  1IRTU became part of Invest NI from 2002–03 and is included in DETI composite figure for that year.

  Notes:

  1. Figure work for 2000–01 and 2001–02 based on Final Outturn.

  2. Figure work for 2002–03 based on Provisional Outturn.

  Strategic Investment Body
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will appoint representatives from(a) the trade union movement and (b) the community and voluntary sector to the Strategic Investment Body. [123280]

  Mr. Pearson
  An Advisory Council on Strategic Investment will be established to advise the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister and the Department of Finance and Personnel on the Strategic Investment Board's strategy and direction, and public private investment issues. Political representatives and social partners will shortly be invited to provide nominations to the Advisory Council. I can confirm that the trade union movement and the community and voluntary sector will each be allocated four seats on the Council.

  Teachers
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many teachers have left the teaching profession in Northern Ireland in each year since 1997; and how many have been recruited. [126499]

  Jane Kennedy
  (a) The number of permanent teachers who ceased teaching in a permanent capacity in each academic year since 1997 is as follows:

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  942

  885

  869

  1089

  1114

  (b) The number of teachers who obtained employment as a teacher in any capacity in each academic year since 1997 is as follow:

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  1066

  1132

  1123

  1289

  1380

  Telecommunications Masts
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many applications for planning for telecommunication masts have been approved in(a) Northern Ireland and (b) North Belfast in each year since 1997. [125843]

  Angela Smith
  It is not possible from planning service's records to distinguish between applications solely for telecommunications masts and applications for all other telecommunications equipment. The number of planning approvals for telecommunications equipment since 1997, in Northern Ireland and in North Belfast, is as follows:

  Applications approved in Northern Ireland since 1997

  Year

  Total number of telecommunications equipment

  1997–98

  152

  1998–99

  96

  1999–2000

  169

  2000–01

  424

  2001–02

  324

  2002–03

  232

  1 April 2003 to 30 June 2003

  27

  Total

  1,099

  Applications approved in North Belfast since 1997:

  Year

  Total number of telecommunications equipment

  1997–98

  0

  1998–99

  3

  1999–2000

  5

  2000–01

  10

  2001–02

  11

  2002–03

  3

  1 Apr 2003 to 30 June 2003

  0

  Total

  32

  Ulster-Scots
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much public expenditure has been awarded to groups and individuals involved in the Ulster Scots cultural outlook in each of the last five years. [125539]

  Angela Smith
  It is not possible to identify all public expenditure which has been awarded to groups and individuals involved in the Ulster Scots cultural outlook. Many projects which have received public funding may have an Ulster Scots aspect or element, but it would not be possible to identify all of these projects and groups except at disproportionate cost.

  However, the main conduit for the promotion of Ulster Scots culture is through the Ulster Scots Agency, which has a statutory remit to promote Ulster-Scots language and culture. Total funding provided for the promotion of Ulster-Scots culture by the Agency since its formation is as follows:

  Year

  £

  2000

  38,020.40

  2001

  369,002.35

  2002

  331,254.71

  2003

  (to date) 133,396.73

  Unemployment Pilot Schemes
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many pilot schemes the Department of(a) Health, Social Services and Public Safety, (b) Social Development, (c) Enterprise, Trade and Investment, (d) Environment, (e) Culture, Arts and Leisure, (f) Agriculture and Rural Development, (g) Employment and Learning, (h) Finance and Personnel, (i) Regional Development and (j) Education have for the recruitment of the unemployed, pursuant to recommendations of the procurement review. [125910]

  Mr. Pearson
  To date a total of 12 schemes have been nominated for inclusion in the Pilot Project. These, split by Departments are:

  (a) Health, Social Services and Public Safety: 3

  (b) Social Development: 0

  (c) Enterprise, Trade and Investment: 0

  (d) Environment: 0

  (e) Culture, Arts and Leisure: 0

  (f) Agriculture and Rural Development: 1

  (g) Employment and Learning: 0

  (h) Finance and Personnel: 4

  (i) Regional Development: 3

  (j) Education: 0

  (k) Office of The First and Deputy First Minister: 1

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many pilot schemes for the recruitment of the unemployed he estimates the 492W
  Department of (a) Health, Social Services and Public Safety, (b) Social Development, (c) Enterprise, Trade and Investment, (d) Environment, (e) Culture, Arts and Leisure, (f) Agriculture and Rural Development, (g) Employment and Learning Needs, (h) Finance and Personnel, (i) Regional Development and (j) Education need to implement to meet relevant recommendations of the procurement review. [125911]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Review of the Public Procurement recommended that at least 20 projects are required for the pilot to provide sufficient information on which to judge the success, or otherwise of this approach. The review recommends that at least one project should be contributed by each Department.

  Victims (Funds)
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much was paid to victims through funds made available by the Assembly of Northern Ireland in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03. [123790]

  Mr. Spellar
  Up to the end of July 2003 the following amounts have been paid to victims through funds made available by the Assembly of Northern Ireland:2001–02: £518,897
  2002–03: £622,814
  These funds include the Assembly's contribution to Peace II funding. Under resource accounting arrangements, groups (may) continue to claim for expenditure incurred during these years.

  Wheelchair Access (Ambulances)
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the law regarding wheelchair access in ambulances was changed; and if he will make a statement. [125294]

  Angela Smith
  There is no legislation in respect of wheelchair access in ambulances. However, it is standard procedure for A&E ambulance staff to place a wheelchair user on the ambulance stretcher so that any treatment which may be needed can be administered safely. As space does not allow wheelchairs to be safely transported in A&E, ambulances, they must be left behind. Hospitals have wheelchairs available for use by patients. However, if wheelchair users wish to have their own chairs, a relative or carer would normally be asked to arrange for the wheelchair to be brought to the hospital.

  Written Ministerial Statements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many written ministerial statements have been made by the Department since 29 October 2002. [126610]

  Jane Kennedy
  Since 29 October 2002 the Northern Ireland Office has made 79 written ministerial statements to Parliament.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Racially and Religiously Aggravated Crime
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins)
  I am pleased to announce that the Government is today laying an Order before Parliament which will extend the Attorney-General's powers in relation to unduly lenient sentences. This will enable certain racially and religiously aggravated offences to be referred to the Court of Appeal for review where it is felt that under-sentencing has occurred. The Order will come into effect on 13 October 2003 and will apply to any sentence imposed after that date.

  This Order is being laid following a recommendation in the HM Crown Prosecution Service's Inspectorate Review of casework having a minority ethnic dimension that racially aggravated offences be included in the category of offences which can be referred under the unduly lenient sentencing provisions. The inclusion of religiously aggravated offences is necessary and logical to prevent anomalies in the protection offered to different groups. The Government will keep under review whether any further extensions should be made in future.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Draft Regional Planning Guidance (West Midlands)
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill)
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is today publishing for public consultation Proposed Changes to the draft Regional Planning Guidance for the West Midlands (RPG11). They follow the Public Examination into draft RPG11 in June and July 2002.

  The draft RPG was prepared and published by the Regional Planning Body (RPB). It provides a broad framework for the preparation of development plans and local development frameworks by the West Midlands local Planning authorities up to 2021. The overall strategy is to develop the major urban areas in such a way that they can increasingly meet their own economic and social needs in order to counter the unsustainable outward movement of people and jobs facilitated by previous strategies; address more effectively the major changes which are challenging the traditional roles of rural areas and the countryside; ensure that opportunities for growth are linked to meeting needs and that they help reduce social exclusion; and support the sustainable development of the region.
  30WS
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister support these aims, and as recommended by the panel, we are proposing changes to ensure the strategy is more clearly and succinctly expressed. It is important that the implications for development plans and other strategies are clear and unambiguous in order to make a real difference on the ground.

  A key issue for the region is to bring about the urban renaissance of the major urban areas (MUAs) by creating a step change in urban regeneration processes and programmes. This is seen as essential to halt the drift of population to the surrounding shire areas. This objective, to encourage sustainable urban communities, is consistent with those of the communities plan (sustainable communities; building for the future).

  The proposed changes support the draft RPG approach to housing provision. The major urban areas will increasingly meet their own housing needs, with reducing provision for migration to the surrounding shires and unitary areas. There is a transition from the former ratio of new housing development between the major urban areas and other areas of 1:2, through a position at 2007 where this is near 1:1, to 2011 where the ratio is in favour of the major urban areas.

  The panel considered the need for the western bypasses for Wolverhampton and Stourbridge to support draft RPG's spatial strategy was not demonstrated, and recommended that they should be deleted. Instead of the Study proposed by the RPB, the Panel recommended a much wider sub-regional study to resolve issues within the Black Country, including housing capacity, employment, land, scope for environmental and town centre improvements, and improvements to access to regeneration sites particularly on its eastern side. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has supported this recommendation in his announcement on the West Midlands area multi-Modal Study and the Proposed Changes reflect this.

  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister supports the panel's recommendation that Brierley Hill should not be included in the list of strategic town and city centres. However, he does not agree with the panel's recommendations on further retail development at Merry Hill, and has made it clear that any decisions on this issue will need to be made in the light of the RPB having decided its regional priorities for focusing retail, leisure and office development. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister considers that the future of Brierley Hill/Merry Hill should also be considered as part of the Black Country study referred to above. Any expansion of Merry Hill would be subject to transport improvements.

  In considering these proposed changes and carrying out any future review of RPG 11 it is important that account is taken of the principles set out in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill (published 4 December 2002), in particular the need to make RPG shorter and more strategic; more regionally specific; and more integrated and co-ordinated with other regional strategies; the increasing importance of introducing sub-regional policies within RPG's will also need to be addressed; and ensuring that the RPG process does not avoid making difficult decisions.
  31WS
  I have today written to the RPB with the proposed changes and indicating areas where views are particularly sought from any interested parties. There will now be a public consultation period on the proposed changes, which will end on 12 December 2003.

  Copies of the relevant documents are available in the Libraries of the House and have been provided for all of the region's MPs, MEPs, and local authorities.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Jury Research
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie)
  In their report on the Criminal Justice Bill, the Home Affairs Select Committee invited the Government to consider the merits of repealing section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 in order to permit meaningful research into how the jury system operates. This invitation followed from recommendations made by Lord Justice Auld in his Review of the criminal courts.

  To fully consider this issue, the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, intends to publish a consultation paper towards the end of autumn to look at whether or not we should allow jury research to be conducted. The consultation paper will also consider the issue of jury impropriety, as recommended by Lord Justice Auld in his review.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  British Overseas Territories Act 2002
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell)
  My right hon. Friend the Baroness Amos undertook to inform the House of the number of British overseas territories citizens that have applied for British citizen passports; and the number of new applicants seeking British overseas territories citizenship in the first year of implementation of the British Overseas Territories Act 2002.

  A total of 7,079 British citizen passports were issued to British overseas territories citizens in the period May to December 2002 and 5,174 in the period January to May 2003. That is a total of 12,250 since the citizenship provisions of the British Overseas Territories Act came into force on 21 May 2002.

  A total of 1,359 new applicants applied for British overseas territories citizenship in the first year of implementation of the citizenship provisions of the British Overseas Territories Act 2002.

  Diplomatic Missions: Serious Offences
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw)
  From a community of around 20,000 in the United Kingdom entitled to immunity, 20 serious offences, allegedly committed by such persons, were drawn to the attention of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in 2002. Serious offences are defined in accordance with the 1985 White Paper on 32WS
  Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges, that is as offences that would in certain circumstances carry a penalty of 12 months or more imprisonment.

  Diplomatic Missions: Unpaid Parking Fines
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Jack Straw)
  The figures recorded for the number of outstanding parking and other minor traffic violation fines incurred by diplomatic missions and international organisations in the United Kingdom during the year 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2002 totalled 4,302 (£173,180.00). In April this year the Foreign and Commonwealth Office wrote to all affected diplomatic missions and international organisations giving them the opportunity to either pay their outstanding fines or appeal against them if they considered that the fines had been issued incorrectly. As a result payments totalling £52,200.00 were received, leaving a total of 3,021 (£120,980.00) unpaid fines for 2002. The attached table details those diplomatic missions and international organisations that have 11 or more undisputed fines unpaid.

  Diplomatic Mission/International Organisation

  No. of fines Outstanding

  Amount in £

  United Arab Emirates

  323

  12,830.00

  Libya

  226

  8,940.00

  China

  195

  7,790.00

  Egypt

  97

  3,790.00

  France

  81

  3,290.00

  Algeria

  80

  3,020.00

  Ghana

  72

  2,870.00

  Morocco

  71

  2,970.00

  Ukraine

  71

  2,840.00

  Oman

  69

  2,710.00

  Russia

  67

  2,670.00

  Greece

  59

  2,350.00

  Turkey

  59

  2,480.00

  Iran

  56

  2,190.00

  Uganda

  52

  2,100.00

  Senegal

  51

  2,040.00

  Yemen

  50

  1,970.00

  Hungary

  48

  1,960.00

  Phillippines

  44

  1,760.00

  Pakistan

  42

  1,690.00

  Afghanistan

  38

  1,520.00

  Mozambique

  38

  1,520.00

  Vietnam

  38

  1,520.00

  Mongolia

  37

  1,470.00

  Kazakhstan

  36

  1,440.00

  Tunisia

  36

  1,440.00

  Qatar

  34

  1,170.00

  Jordan

  31

  1,280.00

  Sudan

  31

  1,220.00

  Zambia

  31

  1,210.00

  Ethiopia

  30

  1,180.00

  Kenya

  30

  1,200.00

  Cyprus

  28

  1,140.00

  Malaysia

  26

  1,040.00

  Poland

  25

  1.000.00

  United States of America

  23

  920.00

  Georgia

  23

  930.00

  Romania

  21

  880.00

  Brazil

  20

  790.00

  Commonwealth Secretariat

  19

  780.00

  Cote D'Ivoire

  19

  770.00

  Azerbaijan

  18

  740.00

  Indonesia

  18

  720.00

  Panama

  18

  740.00

  Lithuania

  17

  660.00

  33WS

  Diplomatic Mission/International Organisation

  No. of fines Outstanding

  Amount in £

  Uzbekistan

  17

  670.00

  Finland

  16

  680.00

  Japan

  16

  640.00

  Bahrain

  15

  610.00

  Belgium

  14

  580.00

  Peru

  13

  520.00

  Bangladesh

  13

  520.00

  Nepal

  13

  520.00

  Nicaragua

  13

  520.00

  Thailand

  13

  520.00

  Albania

  12

  480.00

  Latvia

  12

  470.00

  Kuwait

  11

  500.00

  Germany

  11

  480.00

  South Africa

  11

  430.00

  Total

  2,698

  107,680.00

  Diplomatic Missions: Outstanding National Non-Domestic Rate Bills
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw)
  Most diplomatic missions in the United Kingdom meet their obligations and pay the National Non-Domestic Rates (NNDR) requested from them. However, as at 31 July 2003 the following missions owed over £10,000 in respect of NNDR:

  Country

  Amount

  Bulgaria

  £143,346.09

  Iran

  £104,943.24

  Algeria

  £47,022.74

  Sierra Leone

  £43,320.65

  Mozambique

  £32,301.67

  Cameroon

  £30,109.53

  Uganda

  £27,801.89

  Syria

  £24,750.48

  Bangladesh

  £23,356.44

  Zimbabwe

  £21,016.08

  Zambia

  £19,276.56

  Cote D'Ivoire

  £16,392.46

  Malawi

  £12,606.03

  Cuba

  £12,349.06

  Total

  £558,592.92

  Eleven additional Diplomatic Missions who owe £10,000 or more in respect of national non-domestic rates have made arrangements with the Valuation Office Agency to clear their outstanding debts and have not been included in this list. The total amount outstanding from all missions, including these additional diplomatic missions, is approximately £960,394.45.

PRIME MINISTER

  Ninth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life (Government's Response)
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair)
  I am today publishing the Government's response to the ninth report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life "Defining the Boundaries within the Executive: Ministers, special advisers and the permanent Civil Service". The Government has considered the 34WS
  Committee's report with great care, and I would like to place on record my thanks to the Committee for its thorough consideration of these issues. I am pleased to be able to announce the Government accepts the majority of the recommendations. Our response to the main recommendations is as follows:

  Independent Ethics Adviser
  the Government agrees to the appointment of an independent adviser to provide Ministers and Permanent Secretaries with an additional source of professional advice as required on the handling of complex financial issues.

  Civil Service Act
  the Government commits itself to publishing a draft bill for consultation once the Public Administration Select Committee's proposals for a Civil Service Act have been published.

  Special advisers
  the Government proposes a new section to the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers to clarify relationships between special advisers and permanent civil servants. An amendment to the Code is annexed to the Government's response.

  First Civil Service Commissioner
  the Government agrees that, in future, the appointment of the First Civil Service Commissioner will be made following consultation with the Leaders of the main opposition parties.

  Appointments
  the response makes clear that the Government is committed to maintaining a permanent and impartial Civil Service where selection is made on merit on the basis of fair and open competition. It also acknowledges the important role of the Civil Service Commissioners in the recruitment processes and in upholding the core values of the Civil Service. The response commits the Government to discussions with the Civil Service Commissioners to consider whether the different approaches to Civil Service and public appointments continue to be justified.

  Copies of the Government's response [Cm5964] have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

TREASURY

  Futurebuilders
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng)
  Today I am announcing the result of collaborative work with the voluntary and community sector to design the futurebuilders fund.

  I am publishing the final report on the fund, following consultation, along with a summary leaflet. I am also publishing a consultation report, which contains the key messages from the consultation. Copies of all three documents are being made available in the Vote Office and the Library of the House.

  These reports are being published jointly with the Compact Working Group, reflecting the fact that the voluntary and community sector has been central in shaping the fund.
  35WS
  Futurebuilders will invest in voluntary and community organisations, and social enterprises, to assist them in their public service work. It will enable organisations to modernise their operations so that they can increase the scale and scope of their public service delivery. It is targeted at organisations working in or across the service areas of health and social care; crime; community cohesion; education and learning; and support for children and young people.
  36WS
  The fund will provide finance to acquire capital assets, through a range of funding solutions, including grants and different forms of loans. Advice and support will also be available to organisations to help them in accessing the fund.

  The manager(s) of the fund will be appointed through open competition. Advertisements are being placed this week seeking expressions of interest.

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

Anti-social Behaviour Bill
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): 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 Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Closure notice]:
Lord Dixon-Smithmoved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 5, leave out "superintendent" and insert "inspector"
The noble Lord said: The amendment deals with simple questions of organisation and man management in the police service. Most, if not all, police forces operate with core services, particularly in crime investigation and so on, run from police headquarters. Below that they have divisions, the number of divisions depending on the area and size of the force. Below the divisions, they run on community policing teams largely based on the towns—in some counties it will be the main towns—and so on. The question is about the appropriate level at which a decision to start on a closure notice procedure should be taken.
Divisions have superintendents as their head, and community policing teams have inspectors as their head. Of course it is difficult to make a clear distinction between one level and the next because the whole operation, if working effectively, works as a team. However, the essential local knowledge and requirements for opening procedures for a closure notice will be at the local level. The issue then is whether the provision is at the appropriate level to authorise the action.
I have a preference, from what I have learned through life in the management of men, for giving as much responsibility as possible to the lowest possible level. I inquired what my police service felt about the issue, and I do not know whether I reassure the Minister when I say that it agreed with the Bill, although it accepted my point. However, the description that I received from my police service was that the superintendent level was appropriate, because he would exercise an audit to make sure that the procedures were or had been properly carried out. It acknowledged that the initiative would almost always come at inspector level.
432
If inspectors have the initiative and all that the superintendent does is offer an audit facility to make sure that the procedures have been correctly carried out—if the inspector is any good and worth his office, he will have it correct—I do not see why the responsibility should not lie there. If that happens and if anything goes wrong, the superintendent is in a position to deal with it. As the Bill proposes, if the matter has to go to the superintendent in the first instance, if anything goes wrong it has to go back to headquarters.
All that shifts the responsibility up the machine, and I do not like that; I prefer it lower down. I like to believe that officers at the level of inspector are responsible and capable of taking appropriate decisions vis-à-vis the community in which they work. They in any event will have the local knowledge on which the whole procedure is based, so that is where the responsibility should lie. The amendment chimes with what I feel about man management, so I thought the case certainly worth arguing before the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: It is one of those perennial debates to ask where responsibility should ultimately rest, on what the noble Lord would probably acknowledge was a strategic decision in terms of police operations. Many debates in this House have focused on the appropriate levels to take such decisions. On this matter, there is room for a quite understandable debate. I start from the same point as him: I, too, believe that responsibility should be forced down to the lowest possible level and closest to where events really happen in our communities. Therefore, I have great sympathy with him on that point.
However, we need to think about the effectiveness of the work of the superintendent. From our point of view in government, having taken very careful account of the police service's own views—I was very interested in the noble Lord's point about that—we think it necessary that the officer who authorises the use of powers should be of a sufficiently high rank to have the necessary overview of all law enforcement action conducted in the area. This was discussed at considerable length in another place, where the case for authorisation at inspector level was argued as well.
The Government have taken a careful look at the points that were made in that debate. Operational matters are always of great interest to us, and we want to make sure that we get matters right. Having listened carefully to what the police themselves have said on this matter—they must have had internal debates on it—we are still very much of the opinion that any change to the level of authorisation could in the end prevent the appropriate use of power as part of a range of measures to control drug supply and the serious nuisance that we all acknowledge it brings with it.
We acknowledge that inspectors take many operational decisions. But it is still necessary to ensure that the use of a power as strong as that proposed is appropriately authorised. We also believe that a

433
superintendent will be best placed to take a view on other relevant operations and to consult with the other agencies. That is an important issue.
It is certainly my experience as a local politician—perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will have a similar view—that we, within the leadership team of the local authority, with the chief executive, used to meet on a regular basis to review policing within our borough. Those discussions always took place at a strategic level with the superintendent—who had the overview of that police division. It seemed to us that important decisions such as this are rightly located at that level. The superintendent has command of the whole of a division and understands and is constantly advised about what goes on within it.
I believe that it will be possible—and the police service obviously agrees with us—that the superintendent will be able to turn round decisions quickly and effectively. I cannot see that there will be an over-bureaucratisation at the level at which the decision is being demanded.
There are good precedents for this, in terms of the level of oversight. I cite in aid of our position the powers in Section 42 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which deal with the continued detention of suspects beyond the usual 24-hour limit and up to a maximum of 36 hours without the authorisation of a court, and Sections 56 and 58, regarding the suspect's access to legal advice and the right to have someone informed if the arrest is delayed. In those instances superintendent is the appropriate level. We believe that that is the appropriate level of seriousness in those instances, and that it accords with the case here.
I understand the point that is being argued. However, on careful reflection, and having consulted with members of the police service at some length on this matter and having listened to their views, we believe that we have got the provision right. It is for that reason that we resist the amendment. I hope that the noble Lord is convinced by that argument and will feel happy and confident in withdrawing it.
11.15 a.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his response—and unsurprised. As I indicated, it chimes in with the feelings of the police service in my area, whose members I consulted on the issue. That said, I am bound to say that I do not agree—but that is because I happen to believe in a slightly different style, and so on. I do not think that the point is worth pursuing hard. I shall study with care what has been said in case it raises any further issues. But for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dixon-Smithmoved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 9, leave out "and" and insert "or"
The noble Lord said: I was moved to table this amendment because I found, on reading Clause 1, that I became slightly confused as to whether we were trying to deal with anti-social behaviour in the Bill—
434
which is what the Bill is all about—or whether in fact we were trying to control drugs. If we are trying to do that, the wording of the clause seems slightly odd.
Under the Bill as drafted, a premises may be closed if the relevant officer,
"has reasonable grounds for believing…that at any time during the relevant period the premises have been used in connection with the unlawful use, production or supply of a Class A controlled drug, and"—
these are the key words—
"that the use of the premises is associated with the occurrence of disorder or serious nuisance to members of the public".
If you have some quiet, discreet agents who behave themselves, apparently that is okay, and you could not take closure action against them. I am quite sure that that is not what the Government intend.
It is perfectly clear that there are plenty of other laws that can be used against drug dealing and so forth; but you would not be able to close a premises down under this clause—which I had always assumed was an additional power to enable people to close crack houses. I still think that, because of what I believe to be slightly mistaken wording, it would be better to remove the word "and" and insert "or", so that if a premises is used in connection with drugs it can be closed down; or, if it is a base for anti-social behaviour of a serious form it can be closed down. But to require them both to be a prerequisite seems to me to leave a certain amount of confusion, particularly on the drugs front. I beg to move.
Baroness Walmsley: I oppose the amendment. The Government have plenty of tools to deal with the quiet, discreet drug dealer. But where there is a closure notice—which could have a very serious effect on innocent people living in those premises—the threshold needs to be higher than it would be if we had either the provision in paragraph (a) "or" that in paragraph (b). From these Benches, we believe that both are needed.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: In starting, I ought to remind the Committee why we are introducing the new powers to tackle the problems with properties where the use or supply of class A drugs occurs and to tackle the consequent serious nuisance and distress caused to neighbours and to the wider community. Those are the reasons behind them. We want to give the police a power that is quick and easy to use, but, to pick up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, we must ensure that the power does not have unwanted—unwarranted, perhaps—or even undesirable consequences.
The amendment would remove the requirement for there to be both supply, production or use of class A drugs and serious nuisance. The matter was debated at some length in another place. One of the principle concerns—I understand it—was that the existence of "serious nuisance" would be difficult to prove, especially when it was considered that witnesses might be intimidated. We have already taken into account the fact that that can be an issue. I draw the noble Lord's attention to the need, referred to throughout

435
Part 1, for consultation with local authorities. Local authorities, after all, will be able to provide valuable information and background on anti-social behaviour at a property and provide professional witnesses to testify as to the serious nuisance arising from it.
I say that in the knowledge that many noble Lords live not too far from the House and that the difficulties with crack houses, in particular, in some of the inner London boroughs such as Kensington and Chelsea have been brought to our attention on many occasions. The view is shared throughout the Committee that it is important that local authorities and the police work closely together. That is our policy intent. We have been impressed by the work done by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea in close co-operation with the Metropolitan Police to tackle issues such as the use of crack in that area.
It would not be desirable to allow closure simply on the basis of the use of class A drugs, rather than on the basis of such use and serious nuisance. Some drug users do not pose any great danger to the community and are working gradually to overcome their problems of addiction, with the help of drug agencies. By removing the requirement to prove serious nuisance associated with drug use, we would create the risk that individuals who posed no immediate problem and should rightly be considered to be vulnerable or in treatment could be evicted or denied housing by landlords fearful of the possible consequences. That would make those individuals even more vulnerable and, perhaps, even cause greater harm in the immediate community. It could also create problems for voluntary sector organisations that work with such vulnerable people.
Finally, it is important to point out that the amendment would also create a power to close premises that caused serious nuisance alone. There are other ways of dealing with nuisance—another important point brought out in the debate—not least through many of the other tools included in the Bill. Issuing a closure notice to tackle such problems could, in some circumstances, be disproportionate. We want to use the power proportionately.
I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment, because of the unintended consequences or fall-out.
Lord Elton: The Minister said that there were other means of dealing with premises on which serious nuisance occurs. That focuses our attention on paragraph (a) of subsection (1). I share my noble friend's concerns about the matter. Can the Minister tell us, for instance, what powers of closure exist for premises on which class A drugs are produced, without the causing of any other nuisance, or on which they are supplied, without any other nuisance? If there is none, paragraph (b) weakens the weapon that the Minister wishes to put into the hands of the police.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I want to probe the Minister a little further before he responds. He has not sufficiently answered the question about people who use, supply or even manufacture drugs but do not
436
cause social nuisance. If we confine ourselves to the question of the use of drugs, I acknowledge that, as the Minister said, some people may be trying to get away from the drug habit. I agree that that would be an instance in which one would want to tread cautiously. However, as my noble friend Lord Elton said, paragraph (a) talks about the production and supply of class A drugs. I accept that there are things that can be done under the drug laws, but a person who is trying to withdraw from the drug habit is not likely to be in the business of production and supply. The question requires a little more critical examination.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, was concerned about the undesirable consequences for others if one did not link paragraphs (a) and (b). However, as one sees elsewhere in the Bill, they can be dealt with in other ways. We need not concern ourselves about that at this stage.
The Minister should expand on what he said. There is a weakness in what I would call the psychology of the Bill at this point. The wording is perfectly clear, and I have no doubt that those who must administer it will do so well and faithfully. However, whether it will necessarily work in the way in which the Government intend, because of the way in which it is worded, is another matter.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I understand where noble Lords are coming from on the matter. I made the point that there were other ways of dealing with the problem, the most important being the fact that the police can tackle suppliers. Under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, offences can be brought to court without the premises necessarily being closed. The housing authority or social housing agency may want to evict tenants who breach their tenancy agreement by letting their premises be used for drug dealing. There are several ways in which the issues can be tackled.
We want to get the power right and use it proportionately. There are several other means of tackling the problem. I hope that that answers the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elton.
Lord Elton: I do not think that it does. I asked what powers there were to close premises if they were used for the production or supply—particularly the production—of class A drugs and no other nuisance was committed.
Lord Bassam of Brighton:Short of closures, there are evictions under housing legislation, ASBOs and ABCs. There are restrictions on tenancy rights such as short-hold tenancies. There is also the possible Use of Section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972 and the forfeiture of property. There are other means by which some of the problems can be tackled.
I understand the concerns, but it is important that we ensure that action short of closure can be taken and that other ways of affecting the use of a property or premises can be used. I have outlined some of those points in my responses.
11.30 a.m.
Lord Elton: I am sorry to be tedious on the matter, but we are getting closer to the answer with a steady drift of notes. The Minister said that there was a power of forfeiture of property, but he did not say under which Act. I am not so much bothered about that because he can tell me later which Act, but I want to know whether the property includes premises. The clause appears to be aimed at putting particular premises out of action. Is that because they are noisy or because they are used for drugs? The Minister's first supplementary answer has drawn us to the conclusion that it is because they are used for drugs.
We are now trying to distinguish how this power differs from others and whether it supplies something that is presently lacking. What appears to be lacking is the power to close the premises because they are being used for the production or supply of class A drugs and for no other reason. Does that power exist elsewhere?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I have tried to establish the fact that there are other means. I take the point that the noble Lord is making. A range of measures are in place and it might be useful if I clarify them in correspondence so that I can describe how we see them working. We can then share the knowledge across the House.
We believe that we have struck the right balance. While I accept that some of the issues will not entirely satisfy Members opposite, that fact is most important. We do not want unintended consequences to flow from the way in which the power of closure can be used.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am not totally convinced by what the Minister has said. If other powers exist and if they could all be used, we would not be introducing this one unless there had been a failure or breakdown in their use. We have not had a sufficient explanation.
However, on this occasion, I shall be kind to the Government and study carefully what the Minister has said. More importantly, I shall look forward to what he is to communicate to us. That may put our minds at rest and, if it does, we may be able to leave the subject. On the basis of what I have heard, I am tempted to take the view of the Committee, but for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Walmsleymoved Amendment No. 2A:
Page 2, line 2, after second "the" insert "landlord or the freehold"
The noble Baroness said: I rise to move Amendment No. 2A standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury, who has been unavoidably detained. This is a probing amendment relating to closure notices. Clause 1(4) provides details of what is contained in such a notice, on whom it must be served and its effect. The amendment seeks to clarify who can go into a property after a closure notice has been served in respect of it.
438
Often, especially in cities, three people are interested in a house or flat: first, the person who habitually lives in it; secondly, the freehold owner; and, thirdly, an intermediate landlord, often with a long lease of 99 years. It is not clear from the clause as drafted whether the real landlord, the person with whom the tenant has a tenancy agreement and day-to-day dealings, will have the right of access to the premises when a closure notice is served. Surely, he or she ought to have that right.
My noble friend Lord Phillips and I are interested in what the Minister has to say. Is he able to clarify the matter? I beg to move.
Baroness O'Cathain: For clarification, will the provision also encompass the agent of the landlord? The noble Baroness has given a list of people who have the right to enter a property, but she has omitted the agent of the landlord.
Baroness Walmsley: We would like clarification on all those who have a financial interest in the property.
Lord Hylton: I support the general thrust of the amendment but from a housing management point of view. We all know that from time to time, or possibly regularly, some flats are used as crack houses or for distributing illegal drugs. It is most desirable that that use should be brought to an end, but one does not want the flat to be unusable for a long period. I hope that the Government have considered that and have in mind ways and means by which residential flats can be returned to that use with the minimum possible delay after the drugs, drug pushers and distributors have been removed.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I have a charmingly brief note on this amendment and I hope it satisfies the noble Baroness. It states simply that the amendment is unnecessary as the owner is defined for the purposes of Part 1 in Clause 11. My reading of Clause 11 suggests that subsection (10) defines the owner of premises. I hope that that answers the point.
Baroness Walmsley: I thank the Minister for his reply. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Phillips will study Clause 11(10) with great interest and return to the matter if he is not satisfied. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Closure order]:
Lord Dixon-Smithmoved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 3, at end insert "or"
The noble Lord said: The purposes of the amendments in this group are similar to those we discussed at the beginning of our proceedings. A magistrates' court may make a closure order only if three conditions are satisfied. This series of amendments is designed to probe whether that is appropriate and whether all three factors are essential. Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 take away the need for all

439
three conditions to be satisfied. That will streamline proceedings and allow action to be taken more easily in a situation which is fraught with difficulty. Unacceptable behaviour in public is a subjective issue and it is a problem. We therefore thought it would be useful if the Government were to explain why they believe all three conditions must be satisfied. If the Minister will answer that question, it may be that I shall be satisfied. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: We discussed this issue in the first group of amendments and I support this amendment for the same reason.
The Earl of Listowel: Will the Minister write to me when he writes to noble Lords who have previously spoken? Having listened to the debate, I am concerned about young people who are used to run drugs—13 and 14 year-olds who can make a lot of money that way—and the protections which exist to prevent that.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: This is a probing amendment, but it would undermine the test the court must use to issue a closing order. There are three tests, as the noble Lord said: first, the use, the production and the supply of class A drugs; secondly, the occurrence of disorder and serious nuisance; and, thirdly, the fact that the order is necessary to prevent further disorder. Amendments Nos. 3 and 5 would mean that the order could be issued if any one of those tests were passed. Amendments Nos. 4 and 6 would remove all but the drug-related tests.
We believe that these amendments would remove all the checks and balances created in the power to prevent a repeat of the problem with the extension of Section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. We are most focused on that concern. The potential effect could be that a person using Class A drugs could end up being made homeless which would be a far greater penalty than the approach undertaken through the Misuse of Drugs Act, which seeks to impose fines alone for simple possession and to encourage such persons into treatment. Homelessness for possession would cause them harm and cause, as I argued earlier, greater harm within the community. Those are the reasons why we feel that we need to resist the amendment. It is important that those tests are in place and that they are given careful consideration.
Lord Dixon-Smith: We are back in the business of levels of satisfaction or dissatisfaction. I hear what the Minister has said; one might easily express a different view and both opinions would be valid. For now I shall accept the opinion of the Government and study it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 4 to 6 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smithmoved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 7, at end insert—
"( ) The making of the order will not seriously diminish the quality of life of any resident of the premises who the court is satisfied was not involved with the unlawful use, production or supply of a Class A controlled drug."
440
The noble Lord said: We now come to a matter on which it may appear that I am switching to the other side of the fence. The great thing about working in Committee is, among other things, being able to test the intellectual integrity and strength of the Government's proposals.
The possible difficulty in closing premises relates to the definition of premises. If a house has multiple occupation, with people occupying individual rooms, and one occupier operates his room as a crack house, are the premises the room, the floor of the building, or the total building? We need to know the answer to that question. If "premises" means the individual's room and that is closed, that would be fine. No innocent third party would be involved and we could he clear that the closure is appropriate. If the floor of the building were to be closed, there might be half a dozen or 10 innocent parties who would be affected by the closure and if the building were closed the effect could be far worse.
There is a more delicate situation than that. What would happen if a person, a member of a family. operates one room of a house as a crack house and is so dominant over the members of the family that they can do nothing about it? The family could be living in a detached house. As the provision is worded it would be appropriate to close the house. One would then have a homeless family whose position would he seriously damaged. There are serious questions about whether, in that kind of circumstance, the closure would be appropriate.
We were moved to table this amendment to try to tease out the answers to those kinds of dilemmas. It is a serious issue because one has to be very sure when dealing with all these cases that one does not fortuitously and by accident seriously upset the lives of totally innocent parties who might otherwise be affected. I hope that the Minister will he able to make the position clearer so that we can be satisfied on that. I beg to move.
11.45 a.m.
Baroness Walmsley: I support the amendment, which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and myself. I shall return to some of the issues that he raised under some later amendments standing in my name. My main concern under this amendment is children or elderly relatives or even spouses who may be quite innocent and ignorant of what has been going on and probably quite powerless to do anything about it. Clause 1(4)(b) allows access, but it is difficult to see how someone could remain in a property that is under a closure order. An elderly person, who is reliant upon care services, would be deprived of them because those not living in the premises are banned from entering. How could such people manage?
Naturally, those who commit these offences should be dealt with, but if the elderly person is caused to become homeless or to lose essential services, another way should be found to deal with the matter. So far I am not

441
convinced that the Government have addressed how such innocent people should be dealt with. Perhaps the Minister can explain.
Lord Avebury: As I understand it, crack dealers often take over the houses of vulnerable people. An elderly person may, for example, live in a flat and be intimidated, threatened and otherwise coerced into allowing the premises to be used for the sale and use of class A drugs. So that elderly person is an involuntary participant in the drugs operation, but the courts may make a closure order against the premises. I see nothing in the Bill that obliges a local authority in a case of that kind to make provision for the rehousing of the elderly person concerned.
There is a gap in the Bill or perhaps there is a provision elsewhere that would require the court to make inquiries into the circumstances of such an elderly person and to make arrangements in advance of the police implementing a closure order so that the person is not thrown out onto the streets. I hope that the Minister can give us some reassurance on that point before we leave this clause.
Lord Elton: The amendment is a kind of monitoring process on Clause 1(2)(a), is it not? I imagine a way round this real difficulty is proper consultation with the local authority. I wondered whether that provision should be made slightly more specific, for the reassurance of the Committee, so that the kind of ills that have been described by my noble friends and others do not occur. Social services must establish who are the potential casualties, must they not, and how such casualties can be avoided?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: This is an interesting debate. In a sense, it is an expansion of the debate we had earlier—it is that debate but the other way around. I understand where the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is coming from. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is right to express concern because we want to get the matter right.
The legislation itself addresses the issue. Taking up the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, in regard to Clause 1(2)(a), it is there made plain,
"that the local authority for the area in which the premises are situated has been consulted".
So there will be a process of consultation. That is why the closure notice must contain information on sources of housing and legal advice so that the local authority is fully informed and involved in the decision to seek closure. Earlier I made the point that it is important that local authorities and the police work closely together to deal with exactly such a problem. It is not unknown for dealers to install young children in premises to act as a cover and to make the authorities think twice about taking action. Yes, they are right to make the local authorities think twice about taking action, but in the end action will have to be taken. However, it is important that the welfare of vulnerable members of a household is carefully taken into consideration and arrangements made to provide
442
support and facilities for them, although it is highly desirable to take out of circulation the person causing a nuisance by running a crack house.
One must balance the effects of a closure notice on any resident who is not involved in the use, production or supply of class A drugs, with all the knock-on effects on local residents by allowing the premises to remain open. The power, as drafted, particularly with the important consultation requirement, strikes a sensible balance. Going back to an earlier point, because decisions will be made at senior level after a great deal of discussion between the relevant authorities—in this case the police and. primarily, the local authority or the registered social landlord—the power strikes that balance.
The amendment is defective in that it would place an additional, and probably unwelcome and unnecessary, burden on the police and prevent in most circumstances the effective use of the power. I think the noble Lord will accept that point because it is very hard to make a judgment about quality of life as the amendment is drafted.
So, I understand the spirit and thinking, which have been made plain during the short debate, behind the amendment. However, the balance is about right. The important point of consultation, and the fact that adequate advice and support must be given to the members of a household who are not necessarily involved in the production and supply of class A drugs, will enable the clause to work effectively.
Lord Elton: I remember a not famous but very striking occasion when a certain Secretary of State was addressed by an infuriated leader of local authorities. He pointed out that the Secretary of State had the duty to consult. He asked when he was going to consult. The Secretary of State banged the table and said: "I am consulting now. I am telling you what I am going to do". This is an example of the weakness of this kind of language in legislation.
I do not know about my noble friend, but I should he much happier for the local authority to have a duty on the face of the Bill regarding these proceedings and not merely a right to be consulted. That would be a more secure protection of the vulnerable people concerned. The issue obviously needs much more thought than it can be given now. I hope my noble friend and the noble Baroness will leave an opportunity for that thought to be thought.
Lord Avebury: I wondered whether the noble Lord in his reply was going to say something about the Homelessness Act. Local authorities have only just been required to submit strategies to the ODPM. The closing date was 30th July. Now they are being faced with an additional cause of homelessness that would not have been taken into account in formulating the strategies. As the noble Lord, Lord Elton. has pointed out, although local authorities have to be consulted in advance of a closure notice, they do not have to do anything about it. So, we expect local authorities to read this clause and to go back to the draftsman of the homelessness strategy and say, "We need to have a

443
quick amendment of our strategy because this matter obviously cannot await the five-year period during which local authorities are allowed to continue with the strategies submitted on July 30th".
Therefore, there is a lacuna here, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, points out. We have not completed the circle. We have said that the local authorities must be told that a closure notice is contemplated and that they have a duty under the Homelessness Act to make sure that someone who is involuntarily dragged into the class A drug operation on the premises is not rendered homeless as a result of non-action by him or herself. We do not close the loop by then placing a duty on local authorities under the Homelessness Act to make sure that this additional potential cause of homelessness has been incorporated into their strategies.
Baroness Walmsley: I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and my noble friend Lord Avebury. The wording of Clause 1(2)(a) is far too weak and we need provision on the face of the Bill to ensure that the interests of vulnerable people are taken care of.
My noble friend Lord Avebury makes a very good point: we do not want someone being made homeless by this closure notice and then being told that they have made themselves deliberately homeless by the involvement of someone in the household with crack. That would be outrageous. So I encourage the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith—and perhaps we can negotiate about this—to table a different amendment on Report which the Government might be a little more willing to consider.
Lord Hylton: Everything that has been said from both Opposition Benches on these recent amendments reinforces the earlier point that I sought to make about the housing management aspect of this matter. Obviously, drugs, drug dealers and distributors must be dealt with. They must be dealt with quickly and the residential area must be brought back into its proper use as rapidly as possible.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: We have many debates in this Chamber in which we reflect long and hard on the precision of wording. While listening to noble Lords' comments, I have been reading through the relevant paragraphs in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, used the word "told". He said that the local authority had been "told" that a closure notice was going to be made. The provision is not about telling; it is about informing and consulting. The drafting is precise on that point. Clause 1(2)(a) states that,
"the local authority for the area in which the premises are situation has been consulted".
I do not view that as telling but as an active process with partners working together to ensure that there is an understanding of why it is desirable to close those premises and that an order should be sought. Subsection (b) continues that,
"reasonable steps have been taken to establish the identify of any person who lives on the premises or who has control of or responsibility for an interest in the premises".
444
I believe that that clause gets the tone right.
I also draw the Committee's attention to Clause 2(3) dealing with closure orders. That makes plain that, in the application considered by the magistrates' court, the magistrate must be satisfied that,
"the making of the order is necessary to prevent the occurrence of such disorder or serious nuisance for the period specified in the order",
and that,
"the use of the premises is associated with the occurrence of disorder or serious nuisance to members of the public"
There are tests that satisfaction must be expressed to meet and match those tests. If the magistrates—
Baroness Walmsley: With respect to the Minister, we are not arguing that a closure order may not he necessary but for appropriate and adequate provision for vulnerable people who might be adversely affected by it.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I fully understand that point. The point I was trying to develop was that in seeking the closure order the officer will understand exactly what the court must look at and will be very mindful of the need to be precise and why that course of action is being taken. I understand the concern for vulnerable people—for people becoming homeless as an unintended consequence. I reflected that concern earlier. With the obligation to consult and the need to ensure that people living in the property are well advised and informed of other means of support, I think that there will be adequate protection against that happening.
If the matter comes before the court the magistrate may take the view that it is not necessary to close the premises but that action should simply be taken against the dealers, so the other people living in those premises can remain. With the detailed work and preparation that will go into these cases before the matter gets to that point, the likelihood of someone being made homeless as a consequence of this approach is extremely unlikely.
I should like to think that most local authorities and social landlords would react and perform in a highly responsible way because they are obliged to do so. Of course I am, as ever, inclined to listen to what is said in the Chamber and if we think there is more precision required in the wording, we shall give the issue further thought. But, as it is, the provision should work well with the commitment to consultation and the other protections.
Noon
Lord Elton: When the Minister gives the matter that further thought, will he try to discard the optimism with which he is reading the Bill and consider the position of an old biddy living in a house, two-thirds of which have been taken over as a crack house, who must discover that she has the right to lodge an appeal or must seek information about what she should do next? The initiative that will have precipitated that situation will be taken by the state in the form of the

445
police; the state in the form of local authorities should surely have a duty to intervene on her behalf, rather than waiting to be sought out by her.
I know that I am putting the case in rather extreme terms—I can see that from the Minister's face—but he has put his case in extreme terms. I hope that between now and Report we shall find some median way.
Baroness Maddock: The Minister has not replied to the valid point made by my noble friend Lord Avebury about the Homelessness Act 2002 and how the work of local authorities under the Act will tie up with the Bill, given that they should already have their strategies in place. The Minister will know that one of my concerns for local authorities is the very different strategies that they are being asked to return. Indeed, I raised that issue when we were discussing the Local Government Act 2000.
Lord Dixon-Smith: We have had a useful discussion around the amendment. The Minister has made a good attempt—as does the Bill—to deal with the issue, but I am not sure that he has satisfied us all. There is consultation and consultation; and there is action and there is action. The real question, which has not been clearly answered, is whether, if the local authority said, "In our judgment, closure would be so damaging that it should not take place", the police would have to accede to that response to consultation, shall we say, if it is not guidance. There is potential for a hiatus.
I am grateful to all those who have taken part in this discussion; they illustrated better than I could the dilemma that everyone faces. I should correct one thing that the Minister said. He said that the amendment would place an extra burden on the police. In fact, it would be the magistrates who must make the judgment, because the Bill deals with orders before the court. So it would be the magistrates' problem and that, among other things, is what magistrates are for—to make such judgments. We are dealing with a judgment between the criminal problem of drugs, drug abuse and crack houses and the social consequences of dealing with it. Even more than for the local authority, that is a judgment that forms a proper part of the magistrates' function.
As I said, this has been a useful debate. I am sure that we will all study with care what has been said. We will need to consider the matter to decide whether we cannot produce something that is an improvement on both the Bill and the amendment.
Lord Avebury: Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, when it comes to redrafting it, will he consider giving magistrates the power to make an order requiring the local authority to rehouse specific persons who are resident in the premises? Then, if a vulnerable old or mentally disabled person is living in the house, the matter will not just be left to the consultation prior to the making of the order; what
446
happens in the court will determine the local authority's responsibility to look after the interests of that person.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, but it would be inappropriate to try to negotiate a new amendment on the Floor of the House. I am bound to say in response to him that for some people, the physical act of forced removal from one property to another is in itself a deep problem. As anyone who has had to deal with the closure of old people's homes will know, that can be immensely stressful.
So there are many issues that we must consider. As I said, I am grateful to all those who have taken part in the debate. I think we shall have some fairly heavy discussions, but, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dixon-Smithmoved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 9, leave out "three" and insert "six"
The noble Lord said: The amendment deals with a simple little matter: for how long closure orders should last and for how long they may be allowed to continue if an extension is granted. There are two ways of looking at that. We had to do something to try to tease out from the Government why they settled on the particular period in the Bill. I have a feeling that a longer period than is suggested in the Bill may well be appropriate.
Curiously enough, properties develop a reputation. Closure must be for long enough for the reputation to be lost. Three months with a three-month extension would not necessarily achieve that. Although it may seem harsh, especially in the light of our preceding debates, if we are to opt for closure, the period should be of greater duration than the Bill provides. My cock-shy is as good as anyone else's. I beg to move.
Baroness Walmsley: I fear that we cannot support the amendment. It strikes me that there is a certain inconsistency between the noble Lord's amendments this morning. A couple of minutes ago he was talking about caveats against closure and now he wants places to be closed for twice as long. We do not want an urban desert in which properties are closed and boarded up. That attracts vandalism not just to that property but to others around. I should have thought that three months was quite enough time for the authorities to deal with the matter. In fact, that limit would put pressure on them to do so.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has hit the nail on the head: it is inconsistent. I made a note about properties and reputations. Frankly, if we are obliging the local authority to keep properties empty for longer, the area is sure to gain a reputation. Inevitably, tinned-up properties, as they are often known, look ugly and distasteful and become objects for vandalism. The important thing is to ensure that the problem is dealt

447
with, that the closure order is effective, that the property is brought back into use as soon as possible and that some aura of normality is returned to the area.
The noble Lord said that his add-ons were a cock-shy, as it were. We think that we have the balance about right. It is important that properties are made good use of. It does nothing for the locality to keep them empty longer than necessary, but we recognise the importance of taking action and of that action being visible. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment. It would not do many of our neighbourhoods much good if local authorities were obliged to keep premises empty for as long as the amendment provides. That would not help; in fact, in some circumstances it could make the situation worse.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am unsurprised by the reaction of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, but the position is not really that inconsistent. If we are genuinely arguing that the procedure must be carefully undertaken arid closures made only in appropriate circumstances when they are absolutely necessary, a longer period of closure may not be inappropriate.
I hear what the Minister says. This is another of those areas where it is simply a question of opinion. I should he the first to acknowledge that the Government's opinion is at least as good as mine, although I should not say that it is superior. We are all entitled to our opinion; that is one of the great things that our debates are about. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dixon-Smith movedAmendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 25, leave out subsection (9).
The noble Lord said: The amendment is necessary because the subsection that it would remove is an oddity. Subsection (9) states:
"it is immaterial whether any person has been convicted of an offence relating to the use, production or supply of a controlled drug".
Do we normally include immaterial things in the Bill? I find that strange. If it is immaterial, we do not need the phrase. This is one of several points in the Bill where wording is unnecessary or tautologous. The words themselves suggest that they should not be there. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: From the Government's perspective, the amendment reduces the clarity of the clause as drafted. The use of the power to close premises should not depend on criminal proceedings, which may or may not be pursued separately.
The inclusion of subsection (9) in Clause 2 seeks to ensure that no delays are caused in court by any confusion on the issue. The power is, after all, about providing relief to the community suffering nuisance and disorder. It would be undesirable in the extreme for a case to be held up pending the conclusion of
448
separate criminal proceedings. By providing what we see as clarity in the Bill, we simply seek to ensure the effective use of the power.
Lord Avebury: I agree with the noble Lord. Lord Dixon-Smith. Without the subsection, if someone sought to argue in court that the closure notice ought not to be agreed to because nobody in the premises had been convicted of a drug offence, the court would say that the legislation did not require it to take cognisance of whether someone in the premises had such a conviction. The court would go ahead and make the closure notice on the basis of what is left in the clause. The Minister is wrong and should at least agree to reconsider the matter before Report, with the benefit of advice from the lawyers, and perhaps in discussion with Members of the Opposition party.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I could not help thinking that some of the Minister's remarks meant that such a conviction was material. The three words at the beginning of the subsection, "It is immaterial", cause the problem. Will the Minister agree to look at that wording? There could be a more appropriate way to express the sentiments and to make the matter clearer. It is not the sort of wording that we should include in the Bill.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I think it is immaterial. Obviously, at all times we listen to what Members of the Committee say. We will seek another view on the matter. I am satisfied that it is immaterial. It is important that we have that clarity in the Bill to ensure that the power can be used effectively. In the end, we may simply disagree on the point.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Before my noble friend sits down, this is a very difficult matter. Do the Government take the view that subsection (9) is necessary so that the person making an argument under subsection (6) can be told that he cannot raise the point?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: It is probably the case that having subsection (9) means that arguments that might otherwise occur do not happen. It obviates the need to get round that. That is why it is immaterial.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: That is nonsense, is it not?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I simply disagree with the noble Lord on the point.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful for that final intervention. It makes the point that the wording should be looked at. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but we will probably have to take another cock-shy at it, at the very least, at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Avebury: Perhaps I may make a small point about the use of the word "but" in subsection (5). Is it the practice now to begin sentences with prepositions? I have noticed that it has crept into a number of Bills. Is there a style tsar in the office of the parliamentary draftsmen who has now dictated that the ordinary rules of grammar in that respect should be ignored? If we had the answer we could cease talking about the word "but" appearing at the beginning of clauses. Otherwise, I would like some justification for departing from those normal rules of grammar.
Lord Elton: Does the Minister agree that legislation, like speeches, should consist only of the minimum necessary number of words to make the point?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am inclined to agree. On the use of the word "but" in subsection (5), I am afraid that I am not a particularly good grammarian. My education does not extend that far. There is probably a style guru for drafting legislation. If there is, we have not met, but I may ask the question.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Closure order: enforcement]:
Baroness Walmsleymoved Amendment No. 10:
Page 3, line 33, at end insert "except in relation to a child under 16 years of age"
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 11 and 12. This group of amendments deals with our obligation under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child for young people to be treated differently from adults by the criminal justice system—if they must get involved with it at all.
Amendment No. 10 refers to Clause 3(3), which allows reasonable force to be used. I tabled this probing amendment to ask the Government to clarify the situation about force if a child should be in the premises, or even if a child should resist forcible entry. It does not seem right that any force should be used against a child, although I understand that the clause refers to the enforcement of a closure order on a building, not a person. However, people get involved in these things.
Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 refer to Clause 4, where the offences and penalties for contravention of a closure order are detailed. Here I do not believe that either a custodial sentence or a fine is appropriate for someone under 18 for such an offence. We are not talking about offences of actually dealing with crack cocaine, but about remaining in or entering premises under a closure order—something much less serious.
Young people do not respond well to custodial sentences. If we really want to turn round their lives and prevent them reoffending, sending them to gaol for six months for such an act is not a positive way to deal with it, and neither is a fine. If it is appropriate to
450
the income of a young person, as it should he, it will be very small and therefore ineffective as a deterrent. Under-18s have low incomes or none and are not eligible for benefits. Perhaps the parents would pay the fine to get the child off the hook and the child would get away scot-free and learn no lesson at all. However, a useful community sentence where they make a contribution to society could have a salutary effect on their understanding of what they have done and keep them out of prison or young offenders' institutions, which I believe is always desirable. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: I am glad that the first of the three amendments, at least, is only a probing one, bearing in mind the number of six-feet-plus 16 year-olds I have met, some of whom have been violent. I cannot see how those duties could be conducted without the use of suitable restraining force on such people, particularly when excited by drugs.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I understand the sentiments of both the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, because they are both talking about a proportionate response. I, like the noble Lord, know a particular 13 year-old who is six feet one inch tall and whose father is six feet eight inches tall, so perhaps that is not unusual.
There will be a need to behave proportionately. That is why "reasonable force" is included in the Bill. Of course, the amount of force that would be reasonable to use in relation to a small child of tender years with very little strength and a great big hulking teenager bordering on 16, who may be obstreperous and difficult, would be very different. The noble Baroness will know that if one simply lifts a child in one's arms, that could be construed as using force to remove the child from the position.
The clause is drafted to ensure that constables exercising this power will do so reasonably and proportionately in relation to the circumstances that prevail at the time, which will vary, as noble Lords will know. I hope that that will reassure the noble Baroness.
On the second point in relation to community service, the noble Baroness is quite right: a community service order may often be appropriate. However, that may not always be the case, bearing in mind the activity participated in by the child. It may well be right that a small fine represents the extent of the culpability that prevailed on that occasion. The noble Baroness will also know that we are trying to give the sentencer a broader range of tools to use in an appropriate way in each individual case. When the Bill mentions six months' imprisonment, that is the maximum that may be imposed by the court. It is not a suggested mandatory sentence. I would be very surprised indeed if the maximum sentence were used often, if ever, but it is a parameter beyond which a sentencer cannot go.
We believe that it would be quite improper to tie the hands of the sentencer, who may wish to put together any combination of tools to meet the particular child's needs. It may be that the child would benefit from

451
some sort of counselling or that a therapy order would be appropriate. Therefore, although I understand why the noble Baroness alights upon community service as an appropriate way of dealing with many of these cases, it will not be the only way. I hope that she will agree, therefore, that it would be quite wrong to tie the hands of the sentencer in such a way.
Lord Elton: I am sure that I must be being stupid or that I have missed a bit of the Bill, but there appear to be only two alternative sentences available, and community service is not one of them.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am puzzled by my noble friend the Minister's response to this extraordinarily reasonable amendment. To put it generally, we have had the same sort of response from the Government on other Bills week after week. They say, "We must have this power or sentence in the Bill. Of course, we hope it will not be used; we hope something else will happen". If the Government believe that we should presume under-16s will not be sent to prison, why not put that in the Bill? After all, there must be more intelligent ways of dealing with them, however tall they are—I had not realised that height was a factor in sentencing policy to the extent thought by some noble Lords. Why not include in the Bill a presumption or statement that, in cases involving merely attending on the premises, we would not expect a custodial sentence?
We are constantly having debates on Bills when Ministers say, "It is not our intention that this should happen". I am sure that my noble friend will be aware of a very important decision in your Lordships' Appellate Committee on 10th July—Wilson v the Secretary of State for the DTI—in which the noble and learned Law Lords unanimously, one after another, restated that the intentions of Ministers are not law and are not to he taken into account in interpretation. What the Act says is what the courts will look at. I have summarised the judgment, but I am perfectly ready to cite the passages because I have them upstairs, although I am sure that my noble friend will be aware of that constitutionally important judgment.
One begins to worry about the attitude of our policy-makers to teenagers. We are going to lock them up for heavy petting and, although we hope we do not have to, if necessary, we will also lock them up for being on premises. I do not think that that is a very intelligent penal policy. My noble friend the Minister has made a much better case than her predecessors for what I call the "must have it but we don't intend to use it" policy. I appreciate that one will have to read the detail, but will she agree to look at the matter again?
Baroness Thornton: I humbly suggest to my noble friend Lord Wedderburn of Charlton that he read the Second Reading debate on this Bill. Many of the issues that he has expressed concern about were fully explored by noble Lords and the Front Bench. I am sure that many of his concerns and worries would be allayed if he took the time to read that debate carefully.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Thornton. I have read the
452
debate. I was not present because I was under voluntary detention in a medical institution. I appreciate her point, which I greatly value, but I still maintain the points that I put to my noble friend the Minister.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: First, it is not necessary to include community sentences in the Bill because they are generally available. If the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, would be kind enough to look at the scale of fines, he would see that it varies. The importance of checking those scales is to make it clear to sentencers that there is a maximum fine above which they cannot go. That is why there is a maximum length of imprisonment and fine. Those are the two areas that will determine how the courts deal with sentences. The other means of disposal will indeed be available.
Lord Elton: I think that the Minister said that community service would be available under other provisions. However, we are dealing with a case brought under this Act—as it will be—are we not? If the case is brought under this part of the Bill to the court, as I read it, the court has only two alternatives other than discharge—imprisonment or a fine.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: That is not how we understand the Bill, although I will certainly look at this point again. I understand that the reason the maximum is expressed in this way is, as I have just indicated, to set the limits in relation to fines and imprisonment. Noble Lords will know that in relation to those matters there can be a very wide spectrum, so it is absolutely necessary to make it clear to sentencers that six months' imprisonment or the maximum fine is there.
Noble Lords will also know that the Criminal Justice Bill deals with criminal offences up to a maximum of six months or otherwise. It also deals with the alternatives to prison or fines available to the courts when they are dealing with types of offence that fall within that bracket. Those powers of disposal will be imported by the sentencers' ability to deal with an alternative to six months' imprisonment.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: Given the wording of the Bill, will the court be given any discretion in these cases? The wording implies that on summary conviction there shall be either:
"imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months, or … a fine not exceeding level 5 … or … both".
It does not imply that there is any discretion in the hands of the court.
12.30 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: If the noble Baroness will be kind enough to compare the way in which sentences are generally expressed—this comes back to the way in which draftsmen draft maximum sentences—she will see that this complies with the common practice. So if the position were as she has outlined, it would mean that the maximum sentence would have to be imposed in every case where a maximum sentence of 30 years or 25 years had been

453
provided. We know that that is not how it works. The provision merely sets the outer limit of what the court can do on a given occasion. Obviously I understand the noble Baroness's anxiety, but I think that I can reassure her. I have a feeling that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, who sits behind her, is anxious similarly to reassure her that my comments are sound.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: How right the noble Baroness is—but she would not expect me to say just that. We live in terror of and amazement at the parliamentary draftsmen. However, surely our job is to make the legislation as comprehensible as possible to the general public and not merely clear to the experts in legal drafting. The Minister will want to consider one point. One could very simply say, "without prejudice to other sentences", or—to put it more clearly—"the maximum that shall be available with regard to a sentence of imprisonment", or "the maximum with regard to a fine shall be". As it stands, unless one were learned in the subject, one would think that that is what the law is providing and nothing else.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The difficulty is that, as virtually every piece of legislation currently adopted or adopted for a considerable time shows, that is the drafting style. It provides for,
"a period not exceeding six months".
That obviously encompasses the thought and the reality that one could impose a sentence of less than six months. It is simply the way in which it is phrased.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: The noble Baroness is a hold and legal Minister. I am simply saying that although this is absolutely correctly the tradition, it is a tradition that could well be changed for the benefit of the public.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Before my noble friend responds, I think that she has now done damage to the massive forensic skill which, as usual, she exhibited in reducing the differences between all of us to a very small canvas. Now she throws in the whole tradition and style of the draftsmen. With the greatest respect to parliamentary draftsmen—which indeed I have—the parliamentary draftsman does not control Bills. Parliamentary draftsmen are there to give us the way in which to enact legislation. If he can do so only by reference, as my noble friend said in her last answer, I suggest that he should be asked to look at it again. If we mean maxima, why not say so? If we mean a presumption that these sentences will not apply, why do we say that someone staying on premises is liable to imprisonment or a fine at the levels, as my noble friend rightly said, or both? It is not just a question of style; it is a question of putting one's intentions into the law.
Lord Elton: To return to my point, I am not concerned with maxima; all that seems to me to read perfectly clearly. What I am concerned with is that I would expect there to be a paragraph (c) which states, "or sentenced to community service". The noble
454
Baroness said that that is not necessary because courts, as I now understand, have unlimited powers when dealing with certain sorts of offence which are generally described and not particularly listed of' applying all these recourses, unless they are limited in the statute under which the matter is brought to the court. That is certainly something that I was not aware of before. It is quite good to have people who are not lawyers discussing the law, because it is mostly people who are not lawyers who are affected by the law. I would strongly suggest that a paragraph (c) should be inserted for that purpose. I hope that, at Report stage, we shall convince the Government that it should be so.
Baroness Walmsley: I thank the noble Baroness for her attempts to set our minds at rest. I am afraid that she has not succeeded. I also thank other noble Lords who supported my case, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn.
On Amendment No. 10. I thank the noble Baroness for her reassurances about what reasonable force means in relation to children. I wonder if she can tell us whether there will be guidance about that for the officers in question. On Amendments Nos. 11 and 12, the Minister says that this is just a range of sentences. My concern is that if we give sentencers a range of sentences, eventually they will use it. A six-month custodial sentence for a young person committing the crime of simply being somewhere is disproportionate. The law should impose penalties which are proportionate to the crime; but this does not.
As for the argument about whether this is the whole range of sentences available or whether we can have community sentences, what we are concerned about is that the Bill says, "either (a) or (b)". It does not say that it is the maximum or the only set of responses. We must not be slaves to the parliamentary draftsmen. We are supposed to be law makers in this place, and it is their job to enable us to put into the penal code what it is that Parliament decides to do. As we develop other types of sentence such as restorative justice, community sentences and who knows what in future, how many hundred years will it take parliamentary draftsmen to catch up in terms of wording legislation?
I suspect that the reason why the Government want to have this sort of provision in the Bill is that it sounds like being tough on crime. That is a very easy way of not dealing with the problem. We need to be effective on crime. Banging up a young person for six months for being in some premises is not an effective way of dealing with crime. Although I am sure that we will come back to it, for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Closure of premises: offences]:
[Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Extension and discharge of closure order]:
[Amendments Nos. 13 to 15 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smithmoved Amendment No. 16:
Page 5, line 25, at end insert—
"but failure to effect service shall not invalidate the proceedings and shall not prevent a hearing taking place"
The noble Lord said: Clause 5 deals with both extension and discharge of a closure order. I must admit that the clause itself causes me a bit of confusion, but perhaps I should deal with my Amendment No. 16 before I come to my complaint about the clause. Both of these actions can take place if, under subsection (9),
"a summons is issued in accordance with subsection (3) or (7)"—
one for extension and the other for extinguishment—
"a notice stating the date, time and place at which the complaint will be heard must he served on—

(a) the persons to whom the summons is directed …

(b) the persons mentioned in subsection (6)(c) and (d)…

(c) such constable as the justice thinks appropriate (unless he is the complainant);

(d) the local authority (unless they are the complainant)".

The question is whether the proceedings would he valid if any of those people did not actually receive the summons. There may be occasions when the proceedings should go ahead as a matter of urgency, particularly in an instance of an application for extension. It would be in the interests of someone who might be summonsed to be, shall we say, obscurely hidden away somewhere so that the summons could not arise so that the hearing could not take place. We tabled the amendment, which I believe is reasonable, in order to explore that little issue. Obviously, every effort should be made to ensure that everyone affected should receive a summons and know what is taking place. I am not sure that it should necessarily invalidate the proceedings if they have not been so served with the summons, particularly if they might be suspected of deliberately avoiding receiving it.
I find the clause rather difficult. A person who wishes to extend a closure order must complain to the court. That is fair enough. I understand that complaint in this instance must be a legal term. It becomes more odd if a person wishes to apply to have an order extinguished—complaint still has to be made to the court. The same terminology is used. In complaining to the court, one is, in effect, complaining about the complainant—that is why I am complaining about the whole lot.
This is merely a drafting peccadillo. In one sense, I can understand why the two processes are in the same clause. But, for the sake of clarity, it would have been preferable for the Bill to be drafted so that one clause dealt with extension of a closure order and a second clause dealt with discharge of a closure order. Then I should have nothing about which to complain. The amendment has a serious point, as does my complaint about the clause. I beg to move.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: As one who, in his early life, had to serve lots of summonses on lots of people, I perhaps got a fellow feeling for at least part of the sentiment underlying the amendment. In passing this legislation, we do not want to lumber the police and
456
courts generally with a set of formal requirements that are formidably impractical on occasion. Although I do not sign up wholly to the wording of Amendment No. 16, there are issues to be considered. The amendment would add a provision to Clause 5(9), which lists those who must be served with a summons deriving from the clause. Included are persons mentioned in subsection (6)(d). Subsection (6) states:
"Any of the following persons may make a complaint to an appropriate justice of the peace",
including, in subsection (6)(d),
"a person who has an interest in the closed premises".
That phrase,
"an interest in the … premises",
crops up in several places; namely, Clause 1(2)(b) and Clause 2(6)(c). The Ministers' officials have helped me inform the House that there is no definition of the phrase,
"has an interest in the closed premises".
Reasonably, they say that that gives flexibility so that, according to particular circumstances, one will not get trapped by a tight definition.
On the other hand, as regards the practical issue of who is to be served, one's mind must be made up as to who are persons who may "have an interest in the premises", especially where the provisions state that those would be persons interested who were not served originally. That is a formidable impediment to the practical application of this subsection. There may be an explanation that I have not foreseen. If there k not, I commend to the Minister that we review that. The last thing that we want is to legislate a set of so-called protections for the public that are unworkable.
Lord Elton: Perhaps I may raise a point which perhaps I ought to have asked as regards Clause I, but it is relevant here. There is a similarly formidable list of places where notices of intention have to be affixed and served in Clause 1. I wonder whether a failure to meet any of those five requirements would render further proceedings invalid.
12.45 p.m.
Lord Avebury: Could the Minister tell us whether a person who was formerly a lodger in a premises would be taken to have had an interest in the premises? Obviously he does not have a pecuniary interest, but he was living there. He has an interest—in the ordinary English use of the word—because, presumably, he was forced to look for somewhere else to live at the time when the closure notice was made. He might wish to return. Is he one of the recipients on whom the notice has to be served? Will that not create rather a lot of difficulties?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I believe that I shall be able to explain how we think this will work to the satisfaction of all Members of the Committee. Turning to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, first, I understand that he has an anxiety about whether these cases would be defeated for non-service. The noble Lord will know that, in the ordinary way, service of summonses will

457
usually be effected by post. Personal service of the summons is not required. If the parties then choose not to attend any hearing, that will not prevent or invalidate the proceedings. However, I thank the noble Lord for raising the point because I know that it is one that might have caused others some difficulty. From what the noble Lord says, I know that he accepts it is right and proper that any person who may have a proper interest should be notified about it.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury is right to say that we have left the phrase "interest in" in order to have a certain amount of flexibility. The noble Lord will know that there are various different forms of tenure; namely, local authority, owner occupier, registered social landlord, and so forth. Therefore, it would be wrong simply to list all those just in case one, by some misadventure, missed off someone who had a proper interest.
We hope to confirm the range of those who should be included in appropriate guidance. The only reason for not defining it in the Bill is to give the greatest breadth. Noble Lords will know, having gone with me through the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, that there is to be a new tenure introduced of commonhold tenancies. If we were to make the list now they may or may not be included, and there may be further changes. This is a way of appropriately dealing with that.
We touched on this earlier. I should like to remind your Lordships that before a closure order is made pursuant to Clause 1(2)(b),
"reasonable steps have been taken to establish the identity of any person who lives on the premises or who has control of or responsibility for or an interest in the premises".
That is when the original order is made. Therefore, in relation to each premises, before the original order is made there should be clarity as to who has, or had, interest in the property.
I turn now to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. The aim of Clause 1(6) is to ensure that those resident in a property arc aware of the action being taken against the property. That is not unreasonable and it is perfectly proper.
Lord Elton: I am grateful for that. My concern about this clause, which I believe is analogous to the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is whether failure in one of the five requirements would invalidate proceedings at the stage which we are now discussing. Would it be valid grounds for objection? In other words, a notice had not been fixed to the coal-house door, as it were.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it would not invalidate the proceedings in relation to those who were not so affected, but obviously if action is to be taken against a party with an interest, appropriate notice should have been served on them. It will be incumbent on those serving the notice to ascertain all persons with a proper interest. In relation to those so served, the proceedings would be affected, although it would not invalidate the whole procedure. Obviously
458
if someone claims that they had an interest which was not properly taken into account, then perhaps there would be an argument that the notice was not valid because their interest was not properly considered. However, I shall clarify the specific position and write to the noble Lord.
As regards the position of a lodger. the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will know that lodgers are in a slightly more insecure position because they have no security of tenure.
Perhaps I may return to our original debate. I do so because much concern was expressed about who has a proper interest and what the court should do. Not only is it incumbent on those seeking a closure order to ascertain whether such an order is the most appropriate action to take in the circumstances to cure the ill we are discussing, they must also make it absolutely clear who has an interest in the property.
My noble friend Lord Bassam referred noble Lords to Clause 2 dealing with the position of the courts because the court must decide whether the making of an order is reasonable. I shall take the example cited by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, of the little old lady being terrorised by a thug who has taken over the property. It would be perfectly possible for the court to say that under the particular circumstances there should not be a closure order. Those circumstances are that the police have arrested the said thug for the misuse and supply of illicit drugs pursuant to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and are minded to oppose bail; the magistrate would also be minded to agree to oppose bail. So out goes the nasty thug and in remains the little old lady, warm and cosy in her flat, now relieved of the burden of the property being run as a crack house. All parties are now happy.
It is not that such orders must be made, but the court will have the opportunity to decide whether it is reasonable to do so. That is why my noble friend Lord Bassam invited noble Lords to look at what is provided in Clause 2(3). The court has to be satisfied that,

"(a) the premises in respect of which the closure notice was issued have been used in connection with the unlawful use, production or supply of a Class A controlled drug;

(b) the use of the premises is associated with the occurrence of disorder …

(c) the making of the order is necessary to prevent the occurrence of such disorder or serious nuisance for the period specified".

As I have said, it would be perfectly possible for the court to decide that the circumstances of paragraphs (a) and (b) are proven, but in the particular circumstances of the little old lady, it is not necessary to make a closure order to prevent the occurrence of such disorder because it is possible simply to arrest the thug and relieve the little old lady of the imposition that has been put upon her.
Lord Elton: I thank the noble Baroness for trying to allay the earlier concerns expressed by myself and other noble Lords about the little old lady and the social services, but what she is saying is that, in fact, very often—or at least on some occasions—the court may suggest to the police a different course of action from that

459
of closure, but the Bill has to provide for those cases when the court agrees that closure is necessary and, regrettably, the little old lady is involved. Our concern was for that circumstance.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I see the point, but this anti-social behaviour order is being crafted so as almost to oblige the various services to work in partnership and in concert with each other. Such issues will have to be addressed before the court would be minded to make an order.
I shall conclude by dealing with the example of the lodger. Of course I shall reflect on the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and, if necessary, write further to him. The lodger does not have security of tenure. At the point at which the first closure order is made, the lodger may or may not be a person with an interest, but it is likely that once the closure order had been made and the property closed, the lodger would no longer be in residence and thus would no longer have a right to be there. It may be that therefore the lodger would no longer be a person with an interest.
Lord Avebury: Would the noble Baroness be kind enough to broaden her response to my question to include licensees in general? There may be others on the premises who are not parties to tenancy agreements, leasehold or freehold, or to the new forms of tenure she mentioned earlier. Such people may simply have been allowed by the freeholder to reside in the premises perhaps for an extended period even though they may well have no tenancy rights at all. Nevertheless, the particular premises would have been their home.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am grateful for the response from the noble Baroness and I hesitate to raise points of detail. However, this is the only chance we have to do so, although there will be an opportunity for reflection. In her response the noble Baroness said that, in order to serve a closure notice, it will be necessary to establish who has an interest in the premises. That is quite right, but the language of Clause I merely refers to the authorising officer being satisfied that "reasonable steps" had been taken to find out who has an interest in the premises. That offers a certain latitude.
I do not think that a similar latitude has been imported into Clause 5. Subsection (9), which would be amended by Amendment No. 16, is set out in categorical terms. It states that a summons must be served on a person who has "an interest" in the closed premises, and goes on to specify that it should also be served on someone on whom the closure notice was not served. The noble Baroness will see my point: you give your best shot at finding out who has an interest in the property and serve on them, but the subsection states that even if those best endeavours have not found all those with an interest, those people who have not been discovered are still entitled to be served.
As an old-established practising hack solicitor, I see here the makings of a lawyers' field day. The Government should reflect on whether, despite the
460
danger of exhaustive definition—I take the point made by the noble Baroness—it might make sense in this case to consider the severe practicalities and perhaps seek to define what is meant by "having an interest" in this clause.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I wonder whether it is convenient for me to add a question set out in two parts which is relevant to those remarks. Surely nothing set out in Clauses 1 or 2 would limit the operation of Clause 5(9), especially as regards its interplay with subsection (6). I appreciate the points made by my noble friend, but surely the fact that a notice must be served is still valid and needs to be looked at. I say that because, as usual, the range of actors in the drama, as it were, does not exhaust the possibilities.
Little old ladies and lodgers are two cases, but what about deserted wives? Modern jurisprudence gives them types of interest. Are they to be included on the list? Must inquiries be made into the family and connubial history of all those who have resided or currently reside in the premises?
Perhaps this is not relevant to the amendment, but since we are discussing the Bill in Committee, I refer to the point that surely in more general terms something should be set out about what is meant by an "interest" here, otherwise one will be inviting litigation.
1 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I can reassure my noble friend by referring to what I said earlier about the guidance to be issued in relation to this matter.
I take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, in particular in regard to those of us who have had the joy of practising in these areas. The noble Lord will know that you may take reasonable care to gather-in everyone who has an interest when you take your first step but, once you have made an order closing a property, anyone who has an interest whom you have somehow failed to discover will usually turn up fairly quickly thereafter to let you know all about it. It is therefore perfectly fair and reasonable that the question of extension is put more in a mandatory term for those who have an interest because, by the end of the three-month period, anyone who has an active interest in the property is likely to have appeared, and they must be first.
I hope that the noble Lord is satisfied with that explanation. I should say that what was noted in my speaking notes to be a short, brisk issue has taken 23 minutes to dispose of.
Lord Dixon-Smith: We are not quite finished yet, I am afraid. The noble Baroness has not dealt with my secondary complaint that the Bill deals, in similar terminology, with both extension and discharge in one clause. I inquired whether the Government might consider it better, for the sake of clarity, to separate the two issues. In general, I am not in favour of adding words to a Bill. However, as the Bill is presently worded, it needs reading with considerable care

461
otherwise you will end up in a state of confusion. I certainly did on the first two or three occasions on which I read it and I felt moved to complain about it.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I empathise with the noble Lord but I did not share that disability. But then, as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, would say, we lawyers are extremely peculiar.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am tongue-tied at such a confession. However, returning to the substance of the amendment, I, too, am somewhat surprised that it should have provoked such an intense debate. It has been helpful. I shall certainly not attempt to sum up the debate. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part. We shall need to think with some care about the wording of the clause at later stages of the Bill. Trying to do so in Committee is not a useful way of spending time and, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Hylton: Subsection (10) appears to be a statement of the blindingly obvious. Perhaps the noble Baroness will care to reflect on whether it is really necessary.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am certainly happy to reflect. Whether my reflections will result in any change, I cannot promise the noble Lord.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Reimbursement of costs]:
Baroness Walmsleymoved Amendment No. 17:
Page 6, line 31, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 17, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 18 to 21, which are grouped with it.
Amendment No. 17 has been tabled in order to tease out what Clause 8(4) really means. It looks to me like a whole lot of buck passing. If the police authority wants an order it must serve it on the local authority, and if the local authority wants an order it must serve it on the police authority, and, in any case, it must be served on the owner of the premises. What happens if the owner is in Australia and knows nothing about what is going on?
The point is relevant also to Amendment No. 19, which relates to Clause 10. This clause allows an owner to claim compensation for loss. But he has to satisfy a number of requirements, one of which is that he took reasonable steps to prevent use. This presumes that the owner was aware of the use. It is perfectly possible that the owner had no idea of the use to which the premises were being put, especially if he lives overseas. It would be much fairer if the requirement to take reasonable
462
steps was coupled with knowledge of the use being made of the property. That is what Amendment No. 19 seeks to do.
Amendment No. 18, which is tabled in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and myself, seeks to insert the word "negligent" into Clause 9 so as to avoid exempting police officers for liability for damage caused through negligence. Naturally there is likely to be damage done when entering property and it is right that individual officers are exempt from damages when acting in accordance with their duty and their orders. However, where there is negligence while performing a public duty is another matter. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will have more to say about the amendment.
Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 are probing amendments to give the Government the opportunity to clarify for the Committee what happens to the common areas in a property in multiple occupancy. It is also not clear how subsection (10) would apply to a property of a local authority, such as a leisure centre or a youth club. Can the Minister clarify this? I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My name is attached to Amendment No. 18. I hope that the noble Baroness will not be disappointed if I do not add very much to what she said. The question of negligence should be included at this point. I am all for giving immunity to people acting in the line of duty when occasionally things go wrong, but the community, through those who give the orders, has some responsibility in certain circumstances. That is the reason for the amendment.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I hope that I shall be able to assist in this matter. As to Amendment No. 17, the whole point of the clause being so phrased is to ensure that there is not a multiplicity of claims in relation to costs and that each of the parties who may have an interest know what the others are doing.
Amendment No. 17 would have the effect that the police, the local authority and the owners of premises would receive no notice of, or information about, applications for the recovery of costs. If a claim for costs is made, for example, by the police, it is only right that the local authority and the owner should be informed so that they can make appropriate representations to the court and would avoid the possibility of multiple applications for costs being made. So everyone will know what is going to happen.
Amendment No. 18, to which the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has also attached his name, concerns the exemption of the police from claims for damages arising from the pursuit of their duty. We have put into the Bill provisions similar to those in the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. The terms of the clause mirror those that apply to the closure of licensed premises in the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. That Act appears to have worked well. It appears to strike the right balance and we see no need to depart from it. It is a well understood, well appreciated principle. The police appear to have acted with perfect propriety in the discharge of their duties and the courts

463
have been able to deal with the circumstances where that has not been the case. I hope that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will be reassured by the fact that we are not doing anything new.
The effect of Amendment No. 19 would be to include a requirement that the owner of the premises must have had knowledge of the use of the premises before being eligible for compensation. We have considered the matter carefully and we do not believe that this would be desirable. The clause as drafted already provides that compensation will be available in appropriate cases.
The noble Baroness is aware that one of the difficulties that we have concerns owners of properties who have abandoned them and do not take any interest in them at all. It would be unfortunate if owners who fell within that category and had been quite neglectful could subsequently say they should be compensated. The provision is carefully drafted; we think that the appropriate cases could be compensated as the Bill stands.
We have considered Amendment No. 20 and believe it to be unnecessary. We have attempted to ensure, within the power, that where there is a need for access to a public space or, indeed, another premises, that will not be affected by the closure order. It has been left at the discretion of the courts to order access. In Clause 2(8) and Clause 7 there is scope to exclude common areas from the scope of the notice where, for example, access is required. A blanket exemption from such spaces is, however, undesirable, as in some cases, in order to provide the necessary relief for the community, communal areas will need to be closed. That is the balance we have tried to strike.
As the noble Baroness indicated, Amendment No. 21 would remove the definition of an owner of premises from this part of the Bill. The definition is essential to the proper operation of Part 1 as it defines who is liable for damages, compensation, to access the premises and has the ability to appeal to the courts. The definition here includes the landlord where there is a lease of over three years and the freeholder in all other cases. I hope that with those explanations, noble Lords would feel content, and that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, would not seek to press their amendments beyond today.
Baroness Walmsley: I thank the Minister for her answer. On Amendment No. 18, is she saying that where there has been negligence in the performance of a police officer's duty, the courts have already found that they have sufficient powers to deal with it? That is what I assume she meant and that therefore the word "negligent" is unnecessary.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Negligence is not currently included in the way in which the courts have addressed this. They have accepted that where an officer behaves with propriety, those acts should not be capable of damages or complaint. The more restrictive framework that we have here has seemed to suffice. The noble Baroness is right that public
464
authority and public servants should make every effort to behave with propriety and do as little damage as they can.
Negligence is a very wide concept. It would be very difficult in relation to these matters because we would not want unnecessary complaints being made by people who say, "This was not a necessary damage; you could have done it another way, and because of this you have been negligent". In addition, we do not want the police to be so anxious about the improper use of the broad issue of what is reasonable and what is negligent that they do not use this power for fear of claims being made against them.
The current rules appear to constrain behaviour so that propriety is adopted but do not allow those who wish to take adventitious advantage improperly of an opportunity to say that the police had been negligent to do so. We think that these provisions suffice to do the sort of things I am sure the noble Baroness would wish to be done, but it does not fall within the negligence issue.
1.15 p.m.
Baroness Walmsley: I thank the Minister for her reply. I am very sympathetic to the practical application of what she has said about police officers in the operation of their duty. However, I am still not clear about something, and perhaps she could write to me to save time. What would happen if there was clear negligence? She does not appear to have answered that question.
On Amendment No. 19 and the issue of the absent landlord, I have some sympathy with what the Minister said. However, this is meant to be a piece of legislation that lays down under what circumstances people can claim compensation; it is not meant to be a judgment on how good a landlord somebody is We all have an abhorrence of what negligent landlords do but that is not what the Bill is intended to address. Therefore, I still think it is a little unreasonable. However, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Avebury: In Clause 8, as in Clauses 2 and 5, we find a sentence beginning with the preposition "but". I know I have already raised this, and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, replied that he was not aware of any rule of grammar which prescribes that one should not begin a sentence with a preposition. The noble Baroness, having left school far more recently than her noble friend, may be able to remind us that such a rule exists. If I am correct in this, I think Parliament is setting a very bad example to our young people in the use of the English language when we contradict what they are told by their teachers.
I hope the noble Baroness will treat this with slightly less jocularity than her noble friend did and provide an explanation of why the style tsars or gurus in the

465
parliamentary draftsman's office have introduced this pernicious practice and whether it can be made to cease. In all three instances, if the word "but" was left out from the beginning of the paragraph, I am sure it would not alter the meaning.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I confess that I, too, have a difficulty in relation to the grammatical correctness of some of the provisions. I cannot say that my voice will have any influence, but I can certainly make the inquiry the noble Lord seeks. Whether the answer we receive will satisfy him I cannot say.
Lord Bridges: Perhaps I may offer a possible explanation to the noble Baroness. It seems to me that the use of conjunctions, as in this case, derives mainly from those who were subjected to tuition in classical languages. We were taught at school that there had to be a conjunction to relate one sentence to another. The Latin word most commonly used was tamen. But I agree with those who criticise this; if one eliminates all conjunctions from a piece of prose, it is generally improved. It was my practice, as an employee of the government, to do that.
Baroness Walmsley: Perhaps I may suggest the establishment of a new all-party group for the correct use of the preposition.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Exemption from liability for certain damages]:
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Compensation]:
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 10 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Dixon-Smith: I was minded to object to this clause on compensation because I was not completely clear as to who is entitled to compensation or in what circumstances. The clause states:
"This section applies to any person who incurs financial loss in consequence of—
"(a) the issue of a closure notice".
The issue of a closure notice, apart from the fact that it is an executive action on the part of the police and the authorities, does not actually do anything. There is no action, so I do not see how somebody who receives a closure notice might be entitled to compensation. That is my first worry.
Subsection (3) states:
"An application under this section must not be entertained unless it is made not later than the end of the period of three months starting with whichever is the later of—
"(a) the day the court decides not to make a closure order".
If a court decides not to make a closure order, I do not see how anyone can be entitled to compensation, because nothing will happen. We are suffering from a little bit of lax drafting; the matter has not been sufficiently thought through.
466
We have dealt with the issue of negligence already, but we should be concerned that we do not appear to hold out the possibility that compensation might be available in circumstances in which, as far as I can see, there is no reason for compensation to be available. I do not have too much difficulty with someone who might be affected once a closure order is made and property has been closed up. It is conceivable that an innocent landlord—he would have had to be unaware that the offence was being committed—who is dependent on his rent income to live on, might be entitled to compensation. That is reasonable. However, I do not see how anyone can be entitled to compensation before a court actually makes an order and something is done. I believe that we should explore what the clause means.
Lord Hylton: The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has raised a point about any person incurring financial loss as a result of a closure notice. It occurs to me that issuing a notice might affect a shop or other commercial activity immediately adjoining, or on the other side of an alleyway, or something of that kind. That might explain part of the clause.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am happy to make this part of the Bill clearer.
The clause relates to compensation claims of those who claim financial loss—a direct loss of income—in consequence of a closure notice or order. That matter would have to be proved on an evidential basis. In some cases, an owner may have taken all possible steps to control the behaviour of those on or in the premises, but have been entirely unsuccessful. For these cases, we have given the court the discretion to award compensation for loss of rental income or damage caused during the closure period.
I should like to make it clear that compensation is restricted to financial loss—the direct loss of income—to those innocent of all involvement, and does not allow for any other types of compensation. That certainly does not mean that compensation will be available where landlords have failed to take responsibility for their property. We are clear that owners should do absolutely everything possible to ensure that their property does not become a source of nuisance or disorder through the production, use or supply of drugs. We have framed the ability of owners to gain compensation with that in mind.
There will be no benefit to those who turn a blind eye to dealing, or profit from it. That should be a clear message. The clause ensures that that should not happen, and we want to be certain that it is not open to misuse. I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. It would appear very unjust, especially to those in the community who have been subjected to what sometimes feels like mayhem, that owners who have done nothing to control it but have simply taken the money—sometimes considerable sums of money for the use of the properties—should have that ability.

467
In reference to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, shops might suffer loss as a result of the service of notice through damage to, or disruption of, trade. As the noble Lord said, if that were to happen it would be right that they should be able to claim that the disruption had occurred and that they wished to be compensated. Of course, that would be down to evidence of financial loss, not loss of dealings. Shops would have to show clear evidence of that.
I hope that that explains the matter properly. There is a balance. On the one hand, there is the view taken by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that we should be much more willing to compensate. On the other hand, there is the view taken by others that we should not pay a penny. We have tried to steer the middle course and to say that in appropriate cases there should be compensation. However, it is a narrow gateway and will be used only for those who have behaved properly, are innocent of any blame and have taken every step that they can to ensure that the activity does not take place. I hope that explanation satisfies noble Lords.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I hope that the Minister will forgive me. Although I understand completely what she says, she has not dealt with the narrow issue of compensation being available from the issue of the closure notice. rather than from when the closure has effect. I am bearing in mind that the case has to be heard by magistrates within 48 hours. I assume that if magistrates were to issue such an order, the police would act pretty quickly. I cannot believe that the case would have been brought if there was not a considerable degree of urgency on behalf of the whole neighbouring community.
I am asking about that little oddity—that compensation is apparently available from the issue of the notice when, as far as I can see, apart from the fact that a piece of paper is flying around and people are informed that the process is going on, no other action has been taken. Any loss of income would actually occur from the date when the closure is effected. The same applies to my remarks on subsection (3).
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The noble Lord's remarks are right in relation to the property itself. However, to use a previous analogy, a shop next door may be adversely affected by the service of the notice—people may not want to come to it, or something like that. It would be difficult to prove, but if shopkeepers had a valid case and could put the evidence that since the notice was served all their custom had dried up and they had made no sales, we should at least give the court an opportunity to listen to them. They may have something valid to say and they may be innocent victims of what went on next door to them. Compensation from the perpetrator might not go amiss, if we got our hands on any ill-gotten gains.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I hear what the Minister says, and I have some sympathy with it, but the other interpretation might be that shopkeepers were enjoying the benefits of additional trade through the
468
illicit activity that was going on next door. We could argue that backwards and forwards, but I shall study the Government's reply.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I think that this might be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn until after Starred Questions. I therefore beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 3 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 1.30 p.m. to 3 p.m.]

Electricity Supplies
3 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I declare an interest as chairman of Micropower.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to safeguard the security and reliability of electricity supplies.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, maintaining the reliability of energy supplies is fundamental to our energy policy. Following recent events in London and Birmingham, we have called for urgent reports. The report on London is available in the Libraries of both Houses. Yesterday, the Minister for Energy announced that the DTI would launch an investigation into the power cuts.
In addition, with Ofgem, we are following up the recent major power cuts in the USA and Canada and will study what lessons, if any, can be learnt from the incident for the UK.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. I have two questions to put to him. First, will he make it clear to the House who is ultimately responsible for ensuring that the lights stay on? Is it the Government? Is it the regulator? Is it the operator of the grid? Is it the generating companies? Is it the distribution companies? Is it all of them, in varying degrees?
Secondly, does he agree that there is a major anomaly in the way in which electricity is produced and distributed in this country? The bulk of production is in the North and the—growing—bulk of consumption in the South. Do the Government have

469
in mind any plan to encourage more generation near the points of consumption in future, so as thereby to increase efficiency and reliability?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, different parts of the system have different responsibilities for the transmission. National Grid Transco has one set of responsibilities, which is to operate the grid; the various suppliers have their responsibilities; and Ofgem and the DTI share responsibility for maintaining the framework and, therefore, ultimately for the security of supplies.
There are, as far as I know, no plans to change the balance between North and South. If there are, I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, have the Government taken on board the serious warnings in the State of the Nation report by the Institution of Civil Engineers, published a few weeks ago, of what it describes as the "possibly cataclysmic effects" of becoming reliant on unsecured imported gas from unstable countries? When will the Government—now, happily, a Meacher-free zone—recognise that building new nuclear power stations to replace those that are being closed down is the only way in which we are going to make sure that we keep the lights on and that we meet our Kyoto targets?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we have looked at the report by the Institution of Civil Engineers. We talked to the institution about the report, and, as far as I can make out, there is no additional research to form the basis of that view. It is simply an accumulation of other views. There is no new research in that report, and, therefore, it does not change in any way the views that we set forth in the White Paper.
I do not agree with the noble Lord about nuclear power: it is not the only way. There are other ways, even though there are people who hold the view that one should keep nuclear power as an option and, perhaps, return to the building of further nuclear power stations. There are no facts that suggest that it is the only way, even though one might want to keep it as an option.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, on that basis, I wonder whether the noble Lord can give us some indication of what he thinks is the way. It is not a new problem: it was forecast for some years before the Government came into office. It has built up over a long time. The energy White Paper worked on the assumption that the problem could probably be solved by market liberalisation and international agreements. There is no evidence that that is working, and nuclear power is one of the areas in which one can see the possibility of doing something about it.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, clear projections of what could be done were set out in the White Paper. There may be differing views as to whether, for example, it is possible to get 10 per cent
470
renewables, but there is no doubt that it is a possibility, and we think we should pursue that first. There is no question that it can be done.
That is a separate issue from the amount of spare capacity that we should have in the system. We had 28 per cent before NETA came in. Everyone will agree that that is substantially more than what is required. What is required is probably spare capacity of between 15 and 20 per cent. It is interesting that prices for 2004—forward prices—have gone up substantially. Peak prices are up 40 per cent, and the baseline is up by 25 per cent. That is having exactly the impact on the market that one would expect. We are not now seeing closures; on the contrary, we are seeing capacity come back into the system. That is encouraging.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I declare an interest, as my wife and I were two among the 100,000 held up by the blackout on 28th August. We saw something of the terrible plight of people trying to get home from their work.
Are the Government aware that it now appears that the blackout was the result of the installation of a wrong fuse-box and that National Grid Transco has said that no one is likely to take responsibility and has made the further surprising statement that it was not the result of negligence? What are the Government doing to encourage a more serious attitude among the powers-that-be?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that the degree of disruption that was caused was considerable. It is intolerable to have such disruption to surface rail. Underground, street lighting and traffic systems. That is why we immediately called for reports.
The reports suggest that the problems were not to do with investment levels but with operator failure in the two situations. We think that, because of the seriousness of the situation, things should not be left at that, which is why my colleague, Stephen Timms, has set in motion two further pieces of work. Ofgem and DTI will jointly commission consultants to do some initial fact-finding. Those findings will be made public. Secondly, the DTI engineering inspectorate will conduct a full, independent investigation to establish whether the companies involved in the interruptions complied with the relevant technical requirements.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, considering the fact that the recent White Paper maintains that the second goal is to ensure the reliability of the energy supply, what do Her Majesty's Government believe to be the effect of the so-called windfall tax, which plundered the utilities, on the resources left to maintain and improve the energy supply infrastructure?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, nothing in the reports that we have had so far suggests that it is an issue of investment. On the contrary, in both cases—London and Birmingham—the situation arose in connection with the installation of new equipment. There is no question—at this stage, at least—that it is

471
an investment issue. Given the seriousness of the situation and the seriousness with which we regard it, we think that there should be further investigations to see whether there is any question of investment having been too low.

Potentially Hazardous Near Earth Objects
3.9 p.m.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I declare an interest as the founder chairman of the Astronomy and Space Environment Group.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether asteroid 2003/QQ47 will pose a threat to United Kingdom citizens on 21st March 2014 and why a potentially hazardous near Earth object of this size had not been identified sooner.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, calculations have shown that there will be no threat to United Kingdom citizens from asteroid 2003/QQ47 in 2014. The next potential impact of this asteroid will be in 2058 with a currently estimated threat of one—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I have not given noble Lords the statistics yet. The next potential impact of this asteroid will he in 2058 with a currently estimated threat of one in 8,333,000. The reason a potentially hazardous near Earth object of that size was not identified sooner is that there is an enormous amount of space to look at.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, that is why the international space community is focusing on ways to improve detection.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, I thank the Minister for Science for his reply. I note that the "giggle" factor as regards this subject is still alive and well. Could this category of near Earth object be described as one of nature's missiles of mass destruction which could pose a far greater threat to British citizens than any material discovered under the sands of Iraq? Therefore, could not the funds presently allocated to the search for Saddam's elusive weapons of mass destruction be more gainfully employed by implementing the 14 recommendations listed in the task force report on potentially hazardous near Earth objects dated September 2000? Does the Minister agree that such a policy could reduce the number of false alarms, increase the lead time for national mitigation procedures to be established and allow an effective global asteroid deflection programme to be put in place? Will he say—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, noble Lords have had their fun laughing at this Question. What would be the minimum time required to launch a proven asteroid deflection programme? Could it be in place before 21st March 2014, supposing the threat of impact from asteroid 2003/QQ47 became a reality?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, this is a more interesting subject than occasionally is thought. There is clearly a risk. That is why I set up the task force in January 2000 to look at the whole issue. We are pursuing a policy of trying to get the matter on to the international agenda because it is clearly an international issue. Nevertheless, one must keep the issue in proportion. So far as we can make out there has never been anyone killed as yet by an asteroid. Dinosaurs may have been but not people. There has yet to be such an incident. The chances of that happening are still extremely remote—one in 800 million. That is a very small probability. The only probability that comes anywhere near that that I can find is one in 1.5 million, which is the risk of dying in one's bath. So these are very remote possibilities. We should not spend too much time worrying about them.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, with regard to the Minister's first response, what is being done to predict more accurately the risks posed by long period comets where advanced warning may be as short as one year?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the only way in which the matter can be dealt with is by an international effort. As I say, the UK has taken a lead both in the OECD workshop and in the United Nations Action Team. We hope that we shall be able to get the matter on to the agenda of the United Nations Committee on Peaceful Uses of Outer Space and in that way have a system which will give us the earliest possible warning.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, while I recognise that this topic inevitably has an air of science fiction tinged with the humour so beloved of your Lordships, will the Minister please recognise that his task force to which he referred indicated in its last report that the risk of a near Earth object hitting the Earth was certain? Will the Minister please explain when the 14 recommendations of that task force will be implemented, and, if they have not been implemented, why not?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as I said, there is a risk. It is a very small risk but nevertheless it is a very serious one because if such an incident happened, the implications would be very great. So far as I know, all the recommendations have been implemented although there is a question in some cases of finding the funds for the use of the particular telescopes which have been allocated. I shall meet with the task force in October to review the position and to consider the progress made.

Anti-terrorist Exercise at Bank Station
3.15 p.m.
Lord Berkeleyasked Her Majesty's Government:
What assessment they have made of the recent anti-terrorist exercise at Bank station.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, our early view is that the elements we planned to test in the exercise worked well. There will, of course, be lessons to learn for all those involved.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that illuminating reply. Is he aware of comments in The Times, and many other newspapers, on Monday that fire-fighters at Bank station,
"had to haul 13-stone dummies to the surface because the Health and Safety Executive would not allow them to carry people"?
Does that mean that if a fire-fighter finds someone in the Tube who is seriously injured and cannot walk, he will say, "Sorry, Gov, I can't help you unless you can get yourself to the surface"? That is not the way firefighters are supposed to work. It reminds me of the occasion when a Metropolitan Police commissioner was charged with allowing a policeman to chase a burglar across an unsafe roof. Is it not about time the Health and Safety Executive was brought under control?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am sorry to destroy the main proposition of my noble friend's question but the matter was not decided by the Health and Safety Executive and nor had it anything to do with it. Police cadets who took part in the exercise above and below ground were able to walk away from the supposed accident. Non-ambulant people with simulated serious injuries did not take part in the exercise simply because that could have endangered their health. People may be harmed by being carried to the surface in such circumstances. We had to ensure that the exercise was as realistic as possible but we did not intend to risk the health of volunteers. For that reason mannequins were used with the body weight of a person who might be involved in such an incident. In that way we ensured that no one was injured in the simulated exercise.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is the Minister saying that one can carry anyone of any weight? Is a police cadet meant to carry me out of a place of danger? Surely the whole exercise was so artificial that it will not carry any weight in the long run.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I took the trouble to ascertain whether appropriate simulation had been carried out. I assure noble Lords that the
474
mannequins used weighed 13 stone. Some people may weigh more than that but 13 stone is rather heavy compared with the average weight of British people.
Lord Quirk: My Lords—
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords—
The Lord President of the Council (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, was up first.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, is it not the case that if last Sunday's event had been for real with a crowded station and crowded trains, the grave deficiencies in our public address system would have been laid bare with possibly disastrous consequences? Will the Government ensure that first-rate training is at last given to all those involved in providing oral information in public transport so that it is maximally intelligible and prompt?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord draws attention to an important point. There is no doubt at all that in circumstances of grave emergency, such as that simulated on Sunday, accurate information to anyone who might be affected would greatly aid rescue as it would calm and reassure those who were not at the absolute point of risk. That is an important point.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords—
Lord Swinfen: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is the turn of the Liberal Democrats, who have not had a question yet.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, in planning for emergencies, particularly the sort of problem that the civil contingencies Bill will address, will the Government consider including the voluntary sector as an important contributor to dealing with national emergencies?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that is a most valuable and important suggestion. It will also be recognised that the particular circumstance simulated on Sunday was a chemical attack on the Underground. As the House will readily recognise, the first requirement is to have the highest level of professionalism in the initial response. The noble Lord is quite right that volunteer organisations can play a significant part in support.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, would it not be more realistic to carry out such exercises during the working week, when the streets are full of traffic and people?
Lord Davies of Oldham: Indeed it would, my Lords. All that we would need to do to carry out that exercise in an Underground station is stop the whole of the London Tube for the period for which it went on, which would be several hours. That is not a ready proposition to put before people, even in these dire

475
days when we all need to be on our guard. The practitioners need practice at the techniques that they need to employ. A Sunday was chosen on a line detached from the rest of the Tube system—the Waterloo and City line—to minimise the impact on the wider public while getting as close as we could to real circumstances of disaster on the Tube.

Children at Risk
3.21 p.m.
Baroness Massey of Darwenasked Her Majesty's Government:
How they will monitor the impact of the Green Paper Children at Risk.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, the Green Paper sets out five goals on which the Government are focused: being healthy, staying safe, enjoying and achieving, making a positive contribution, and economic well-being. These goals were developed through consultation with children and young people, and will form the basis of how the impact of reforms will be monitored.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, and in doing so must declare an interest as the co-chair of the All-Party Children Group. Does she agree that the paper represents a unique opportunity to improve the lives of children and young people, and as such should be given substantial debate in both Chambers? I am somewhat confused about the map at the local level of the organisations. What is the connecting chain of assessment between the organisations, and what is their relationship at both national and local level?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I agree that this is a unique opportunity, and I look forward to substantial debates in this House. We are setting out clear expectations of the standards that we require from each agency in relation to children, providing an integrated framework for children's services to ensure that they are judged on how well they work with and for children—I said in my Statement the other day that that would be led by Ofsted—and an improvement and intervention function to ensure that we are able to and do intervene where services are failing. All that will be monitored through the comprehensive performance assessment, in a direct line to the Minister for Children and her board.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I remind the House of my interest as an ambassador for the NSPCC. Does the Minister agree that the impact of the Green Paper will to a great extent be affected by the ability of Ofsted to deliver high-quality and meaningful inspection services? Will she tell us how the Government plan to
476
ensure that Ofsted has the appropriate skills and experience to move into the area of social services? Up to now, it has focused only on education.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the Green Paper is very clear that the framework is meant to be led by Ofsted. One would not expect that Ofsted would carry out all inspections. The issue at hand is to ensure not only that individual services are inspected in terms of their professional ability, but that someone is responsible for ensuring that they are inspected in terms of how well they work together. It is the working together on which Ofsted will take the lead, as I am sure that it is quite capable of doing.
Lord Elton: My Lords, following the death of Maria Caldwell—I think that it was more than 20 years ago—registers of children at risk of non-accidental injury were established for the first time by each local authority. As a result of a series of other events those were eventually made common not to the United Kingdom, but to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. In the wake of this publication, can we hope to have a common register, thus eliminating the danger of children at risk being carried from a district where there is one register into another where they are not registered?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we are consulting on a range of issues about the precise details that the noble Lord raised. As he will know, we are setting up safeguarding children boards and ensuring a statutory responsibility on all those involved with children to be mindful of their welfare. That is an important step.
The noble Lord raises an important issue, which is that children move. Families at risk often move more frequently than other families. One of the key aspects of the matter is what we call the IRT system—information, retrieval and transfer—which enables us,by working with our partners in local government and across services, to consider ways in which we can ensure that information is transferred with those families, and that whichever agencies they come into contact with can access appropriate information, obviously within the context of a confidential relationship.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, will the Minister give an assurance that monitoring will happen at ground level? Would it not be a good idea for social and health workers who go into violent and difficult families to have a bouncer-type bodyguard to help them? If that had been the case, perhaps Victoria Climbié would be alive today.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Baroness raises an important issue. We can all recite instances where children have not received the protection that they might have done because of fear from social services about going into the family. We have to ensure that no one is unable to carry out their duty towards children because they fear violence from

477
adults. If anything, that points to a multi-agency response, particularly involving our police forces, which can support people going in. No child should be left in a household where adults fear to tread.
Baroness Thornton: My Lords, will my noble friend assure the House that the consultation process about to begin on the Green Paper will take account of the role and potential of the voluntary sector in the delivery of services for children and in the protection regime that should be applicable to children? I remind the House of my close association with NCH, the children's charity.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the consultation should and must do so if we are to ensure real protection for children. My right honourable friend Mrs Hodge will have a board of stakeholders that will include the voluntary sector. Within our framework for children's trusts and centres for younger children, we require that the voluntary sector is consulted and involved appropriately. In the Green Paper, we refer to HomeStart and our desire to see that aspect of the voluntary sector rolled out nationally.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, in her Statement the other day, the noble Baroness mentioned joint training of staff from different disciplines. Can she tell us a little more about that? I hope she will agree that teachers, for example, need to be able to recognise the signs of disturbance. They also might need to be able to institute the first interviews with the child, which could tell how serious a matter might be.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, without focusing specifically on teachers, we recognise that there are common requirements for any professional coming into contact with children. The issue at which we are looking is whether we can find those core competencies and ensure that all professionals have them. When it comes to teachers and other professionals not directly involved in child protection issues it is absolutely critical, as the noble Baroness said, to recognise those features and to know what to do having recognised them. Again, an inter-agency approach should enable us to support children more effectively.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, bearing in mind the present shortages, I want to ask how the Government intend to ensure that there are enough skilled and trained workers, especially social workers, to meet the aspirations of the Green Paper.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Baroness raises an important point. The Green Paper has a strong focus on the development of the workforce. Within the children and families directorate, we intend to have a workforce unit specifically dedicated to ensuring that we have the professional skills available. We want to ensure that we raise the profile and professionalism of
478
and celebrate all the people who work very successfully with our children on a day-to-day basis, making sure that those involved in, for example, social work, have proper career paths and the opportunities to move into management, to move sideways into other careers and so on, so that we create a children's profession in that sense.
Baroness Billingham: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on the breadth of the Green Paper. What special measures will be taken for children with disability who, by definition, may be those most at risk and who need the greatest care?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's congratulations. There are a number of particular aspects within the Green Paper. My noble friend will know that early identification, intervention and support for families is a critical part of what is needed for children with disabilities. We have many pilots running at present which, for example, give checklists to families of what they have a right to expect from services and enable closer working with them. Of the 35 children's trusts that are now being piloted, seven are focused specifically on children with disabilities. We intend to learn as we go the lessons from them, in order to ensure that we have that expertise. But children with disabilities are, as my noble friend has said, a critical part of ensuring that we support families.

Anti-social Behaviour Bill
3.30 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 11 [Interpretation]:
[Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Anti-social behaviour: landlords' policies and procedures]:
Lord Dixon-Smithmoved Amendment No. 22:
Page 9, line 6, at end insert—
"(1A) Each local housing authority must, not later than three months after the commencement of section 12 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, publish guidance concerning anti-social behaviour."
The noble Lord said: Clause 12 deals with landlords' policies and procedures in relation to anti-social behaviour. It is vitally important that every agency involved knows exactly what is happening, and that the people affected by these policies know exactly what the position is.
This group of amendments is directed at ensuring that the circulation of information goes rather wider than is specified on the face of the Bill. We seek to involve the local authority, which ought to have thought about the issue of anti-social behaviour in a wider sense than purely in its capacity as a housing authority. At the other end of the scale, under the Bill as drafted there is no obligation to provide tenants with a copy of the policies of their landlords so that

479
they know exactly what their obligations are. This group of amendments is therefore aimed at improving the Bill in terms of those deficiencies.
Amendments Nos. 22 and 26 ensure that each local housing authority addresses the new anti-social behaviour legislation and that it publishes guidance for its current and its prospective tenants. The Bill states that,
"The landlord must … prepare a summary of its current policy and procedures … [and] … provide … a copy of the summary to any person who requests it".
That is not sufficient. The information needs to be better distributed than that, and it needs to be better than "a summary".
Amendment No. 28 seeks to insert a new subsection into Clause 12. We believe that there is an omission in the current drafting; namely, there is no provision for keeping a record of complaints and of the action taken in the face of anti-social behaviour on the part of a tenant. It seems to us that if there is anti-social behaviour, and if the system is to finish up in court, proper records of all the steps taken in an attempt to control and diminish the anti-social behaviour before arriving at the court proceedings are essential.
These amendments would considerably strengthen the Bill. They would make any court proceedings that did arise more secure. But, more importantly, if accepted, they would make it more likely that fewer people would be guilty of anti-social behaviour. The pressure would be greater on people not to—I do not like to use the word "conform" because it could be misinterpreted—behave irresponsibly. Therefore, fewer cases would come to court. There may be an irreducible minimum in the number of cases coming to court; but that is what we want to see in court, and nothing else. This is an important group of amendments in one way, although in another sense they are trivial—but small actions often have big effects. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: There is little in the Bill that is trivial.
I want to speak to Amendments Nos. 23 to 25 in this group. Amendment No. 23 adds to the items that the landlord must prepare:
"procedures for preventing occurrences of anti-social behaviour [and]…procedures for providing [appropriate] support and rehabilitation services to those who have engaged in anti-social behaviour".
I tabled the amendment in order to raise the need for the response to anti-social behaviour to be broader than just enforcement. I am sure that the Minister will agree with that, but she may say that the matter can be dealt with off the face of the Bill, in guidance. I am anticipating her response, but I would not agree.
The amendment is deliberately not overly prescriptive and simply requires social landlords to place as much emphasis on prevention, support and rehabilitation as they are being asked under the legislation to place on enforcement.
480
This is not a new way of approaching this issue in legislation. The Homelessness Act 2002 required local authorities to produce policies relating to prevention and support in their homelessness strategy. The amendment is intended to balance the increased enforcement powers that are proposed with a clear commitment in this area.
I am not saying anything original in making this general point. The Social Exclusion Unit—I should have been shocked had it not taken this view—acknowledges that eviction can simply move a problem—in saying that, I am characterising people as a problem and I do not want to do that—of anti-social behaviour in moving the people exhibiting the behaviour elsewhere. That has the effect of destabilising other communities, or at the very least transferring the effects on neighbours by moving them to the next estate or a few streets away. I am sure that many noble Lords have had to deal with particular examples. In the amendment I seek to knit all the strands together.
Amendment No. 24 refers to crime and disorder partnerships under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. It is intended to raise two points. First, local authorities should not have to reinvent the wheel by preparing an anti-social behaviour strategy separate from their other strategies and work. I suggested that procedures under this section may duplicate that other strategy. Secondly, there is a need to be compatible.
Amendment No. 25 proposes that the publication by the landlord of a statement of policies arid procedures is required within 12 rather than six months after the commencement of the section. That will enable me to understand when it is expected that the section will be brought into effect. We may well be talking about a period longer than six months from now or from the enactment of the whole statute, but six months is on the short side. I am sure that authorities will want to get on with the job but I am also aware of the consultation that ought to take place. It is not simply a question of sitting in a dark room with hot towels on one's head, thinking about it and then writing that down. It is a much bigger exercise.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: I have sympathy with what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, says about the importance of looking at the proposals not only from the punitive aspect but from the preventive and encouraging aspect. However, I wish that my noble friends on the Front Bench would consider bringing forward a social behaviour Bill to deal with the positive aspects. I wish they would consider what assistance local government and the agencies involved can provide starting at primary school level to give the subject proper status in the curriculum. They should provide proper teaching back-up to help to encourage young people to behave in a sensible and community-minded way.
Secondly, it has been my experience over 20 years or more that every single tenant, whether of a local council, a housing association or a private landlord. signs a tenancy agreement. While the language of that may not be precisely what we are discussing in the Anti-social Behaviour Bill, it lays down, often in stern

481
terms, the way in which tenants are expected to behave; for instance, "Excessive noise will not be made after eight o'clock at night", and so forth.
There is a weakness which I must point out to my own party and to local councils. There has been a reluctance to use the powers in the individual tenancy agreements to bring tenants up short and say, "You signed an undertaking when you took this tenancy to behave in this way. You are not doing it. Unless you stop this behaviour, which is causing unpleasantness and grief to everyone around you, we will take proceedings for breach of those tenancy agreements".
I suspect that that will deal with the point that noble Lords have been arguing. However, I understand that although tenants have such an agreement and sign it as a condition of getting the tenancy, it is one of those documents which goes behind the clock and is not often looked at.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Avebury: I support my noble friend in her Amendment No. 23, which deals with prevention. My noble friend Lady Sharp and I visited the London borough of Camden a couple of weeks ago to look at the work it is doing in implementing social behaviour orders and, much more importantly, in preventing a necessity for such orders. They have had some degree of success with that. We were invited to look at two particular projects. The first was the Sidmouth Mews Kids Club in King's Cross, which has been up and running for about 18 months. The second was the Families in Focus project, which is based on three estates in the Euston/King's Cross area—Ampthill Square, Leviter House and Mayford—with the aim of assisting local communities to revive and raise their aspirations by building on community strengths and fully engaging the children, young people and families in community life.
I want to draw the Committee's attention to the fact that these projects continue to operate largely on the ability and enthusiasm of volunteers. They work on a shoestring but the money they receive from public funds is intermittent and uncertain. If we are to have a proper prevention strategy, we need to back local authorities and landlords who are implementing such measures. Both schemes report that the search for funding is a continual struggle. They receive small amounts of money from SR B grants, from the lottery, from local trusts and from the local authority, but the impact of uncertain funding in the short term is a risk of losing good workers who build up relationships of trust with the children, young people and their families. It also creates much anxiety for the local community and risks losing the goodwill and support which they have built up with the hard work they have already done. The people who run the projects are constantly being asked, "How long have we got this project for, what are we going to do and where are we going to go when we have run out of money?".
482
If the Government are serious about doing something concrete about anti-social behaviour, they need to build into the Bill the kind of amendment which my noble friend has suggested.
Lord Hylton: I want to reinforce what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said. The schemes will he made much more effective if they can be assured of three-year funding rather than have annual funding which is liable to be cut off.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: In listening to contributions from around the House, I have a peculiar sense of déjá vu on this. It takes me back many years to when I was chair of our local housing committee. All the issues relating to anti-social behaviour were alive in the late 1980s, but we did not have the means with which we could adequately deal with them. We did, however, alight on the idea of beefing up tenancy agreements so that they dealt with problems which we now bring within the ambit of more generalised anti-social behaviour.
At that time—and it was controversial in Brighton—we had difficulty in persuading people that it was important to make strong statements of policy about people's behaviour, their conduct and the conduct of their children in the communities on our housing estates. But we have moved on some long way from there and I pay tribute in particular to the housing authorities for the valuable work they did in the early years when such issues assumed a great importance. In many ways, they laid the ground for the important measures we are seeking to introduce and reinforce in this legislation.
Before turning to the detail of the amendments, I want to comment on the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. He is right: it is important that we have a focus on tackling these matters through a positive agenda. Many projects up and down the country attempt to do that in different ways. It may be football in the community, after-school clubs or youth projects—they address many of these issues in a positive framework. They are linked and those links are made by local authorities, housing associations and through the voluntary sector. Obviously, I would say this, but what has pleased me over the past half dozen years or so is the fact that much more funding has been available for those kinds of projects, some of which have been set up as part of a conscious programme linked into diversion strategies. There has also been the detailed work carried out in the community by community-minded police officers.
I turn to the details of the amendments. In general terms, the spirit behind them is one with which we are in accord. It is a matter of how one addresses the particular issues. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith; I do not believe that the amendments are trivial. They are extremely important because they address important issues which have to be widely understood if this legislation is to have the impact that most Members of the Committee would desire.

483
Amendments Nos. 22 and 26 would require local authorities to publish guidance on anti-social behaviour and would require social landlords to follow that guidance in producing policies and procedures to meet their requirements under this clause. There is an irony in that because it could result in local authorities issuing guidance to themselves, which seems to us to be over bureaucratic. Furthermore, local authorities are already required to produce strategies under Section 6 of the Crime and Disorder Act. It appears to us that such a provision would replicate something that is already in place and it would oblige local authorities to issue guidance to themselves.
This clause is designed to get social landlords to produce policies and procedures on how to respond to anti-social behaviour that takes place in their stock and it will need to address the particular issues that landlords and their tenants face. It should not be forgotten that the issue goes wider than that. Registered social landlords working in more that one local authority area would need to produce a policy and a procedure for each area that they work in. Because of the way in which housing associations and housing trusts work, that seems to us to be a rather impractical way of dealing with the matter. They would have to fragment the way in which they put together their policy and procedure. As I said earlier, it concerns more than just enforcement.
Amendment No. 23, standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, specifies that prevention and rehabilitation should be included in policies and procedures. I agree that prevention and rehabilitation are crucial in providing a long-term sustainable solution to anti-social behaviour, and we would expect landlords to consider them when drawing up their policies.
The noble Baroness anticipated that, but we would expect such issues to be addressed in detail in statutory guidance. The Government believe that that is a far better way of dealing with the matter than putting something on the face of the Bill. I am sure that the noble Baroness would say in response that we need a clue within the legislation. That is our expectation. We shall put in place statutory guidance which will have that effect. It is an important issue and it will need to be spelt out at large rather than in short terms.
On Amendment No. 24, I believe that there is agreement that it has to be good practice for local authorities to ensure that their policies and procedures are compatible with each other. Again, there is no need to have that on the face of the Bill. It would be much better for that to be included in guidance. The noble Baroness made the point that anti-social behaviour policies and procedures should not be seen as a separate strategy. We absolutely agree with that. There has to be an integrated approach and there has to be "joined-up-ness" within the local authority in the way in which it considers its housing policies and its antisocial behaviour schemes.
484
Amendment No. 25 seeks to give social landlords 12 months to prepare their policies and procedures after commencement, rather than six months. On time-tabling, our anticipation is that the clause will not be commenced until statutory guidance has been issued and six months from that date. We believe that that will provide adequate time for the production of policies and procedures. The aim of Clause 12 is for social landlords to set out to their tenants how they will respond to anti-social behaviour in the housing context. If they already have policies and procedures that meet the requirements in legislation, they will not need to produce further policies and procedures. There is no point in layering one on the other. No doubt they may wish to clean them up and think them afresh but we want them to ensure that they work within the direction that they are aiming for generally and most housing authorities have that good practice in place.
Amendment No. 27 requires copies of policies and procedures to be provided to every tenant and additionally to everyone who is a prospective tenant. The clause already provides that they should be made available to "any person". It seems to me that "everyone who may become a tenant"—I think that term is used in the amendment—could include a very large number of people and one could see that as being impractical. We prefer our wording; it is our expectation that prospective tenants would be covered by that and most sensible housing authorities and most sensible housing providers in the social housing field publish and produce those kinds of materials for prospective tenants, people on the waiting list, people seeking a transfer and those in similar situations.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, suggested that Amendment No. 28 dealt with an omission. The amendment seeks to require social landlords to record complaints about anti-social behaviour, and to monitor the action taken to resolve the complaints. Again this is not something that is best dealt with on the face of the Bill; we believe that it should be dealt with in guidance. We agree with, the noble Lord that such matters are important and integral to the effective working and monitoring of the scheme.
I do not believe that there is a great deal between us. The way in which we intend to develop the policy in implementation is important. In the main we believe that most of these issues can be dealt with effectively in statutory guidance and there will be much consultation on that to ensure that we get it right. We shall work very much with best practice. We entirely agree with the points made about a more positive approach on these matters.
Finally, I shall pick up one point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, about fostering and encouraging good behaviour through school programmes. Again, we are already there. This year the DIES has expanded its behaviour improvement programme to include a further 26 local authority areas, building on progress made this year in the original 34 pilot areas. That programme is delivered through Excellence in Cities.

485
The total investment in BIPs from their beginning to the end of the spending review period in March 2006 will be some £342.2 million. I am told that some 90 secondary schools and 400 key primary schools will receive money this year and in subsequent years to put in place innovative and effective measures to improve behaviour and attendance.
Baroness Hamwee: I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I am sure he will understand that the flavour of new Section 218A is enforcement because towards the end it refers to new Sections 153A and 153B, which concern enforcement.
It sounded to me as though the Minister was saying that the Government were close to accepting—if not wholly accepting—that the policies and procedures under subsection (2) should, if they are to be good, extend to prevention, support and rehabilitation, about which I spoke. I do not know whether I am pushing that too far, but I am working towards an amendment for the next stage, which states that there will not be separate policies and procedures but that they will include aspects of them. With the way in which the Minister has described the Government's approach, they will need to be holistic—if I can use a jargon word.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: It would be wrong of me to go so far as to say that there will be a specific requirement. I was hoping that I had created the impression that we want to foster and to encourage more positive and proactive work because we see that as being a very important part, as the noble Baroness said, of a holistic strategy.
4 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Perhaps I may give the Minister another shot on the question of the distribution of information. I accept that if a local authority produces a policy vis-á-vis anti-social behaviour it is in a sense guiding itself if it then gives it to its housing department. Of course it is useful background for any social landlord within its area. That is a good thing. I return to the question of the distribution of information. New Section 218A(5) states:
"A copy of a statement published …"—
which is really what the policy will become—
"must he available for inspection at all reasonable hours at the landlord's principal office; must be provided on payment of a reasonable fee to any person who requests it. The landlord must also … prepare a summary of its current policy and procedures",
and,
"provide [that] without charge to any person who requests it".
Tenants, in particular, should have the words in full and prospective tenants should be aware of their obligations before they become tenants.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, mentioned what can be put in a tenancy agreement. He went on to say that there had unfortunately been a certain amount of reluctance—on too many occasions perhaps—to enforce terms of tenancy agreements. We should make
486
sure that these policies are fully and clearly understood by all involved; not on payment of a fee by tenants or people looking to become tenants, but as of right. It is essential information for them to have in order to know their proper obligations.
We are all searching for an appropriate form of words. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. We need to think carefully about the provision, which I do not think is adequate. We shall have to think quite hard about the issue before we come to the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I want to correct an impression given by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. In his response he said that a copy of the statement published under subsection (3) or (4) must be available at all reasonable hours and on payment of a reasonable fee. He should have gone on to the following subsection, which states:
"The landlord must also prepare a summary of … current policy and procedures; [and] provide without charge a copy of the summary".
My guess is that the "without charge summary" will probably provide the accessible information and details for which most of us are searching.
Good landlords in the social sector—I include my former authority—provide their tenants with a good-quality folder with much information. In it tenants will be advised of their responsibilities. Prospective tenants will also, I am sure, receive similar information on making an application. I reinforce that by making the point, which I think I made earlier, that where the legislation refers to "any person", it will definitely cover prospective tenants. We see it, as does the social housing sector, as being critically important that all those who have or are likely to have a tenancy fully understand the obligations that such a tenancy carries.
Tenancies carry very important obligations. I spoke earlier of the difficulties I had in the eighties in trying to put issues relating to premises being used for drug abuse and so on into tenancy agreements. There was resistance because people did not feel that that was appropriate. I did feel it was appropriate because I believed it to be a very important issue for tenants. Tenants were seeking relief from those who abused public housing stock and premises in the ways we have discussed today.
This is the intent of our policy. This is exactly where we are going. We want people positively to understand these things and to understand their responsibilities.
Lord Dixon-Smith: If I was being mischievous—perish the thought—I would suggest that what is happening is that a great deal of time is being spent producing unintelligible statements of policy, which then need further documents, information and pamphlets to explain them to the people who actually have to understand the original documents.
There is complete agreement in principle about what we want to achieve on this issue. The differences between the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and I

487
are questions of degree and interpretation. We need to think about this matter again. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 23 to 28 not moved.]
Lord Clement-Jonesmoved Amendment No. 29:
Page 9, line 34, at end insert—
"(10) The policy and procedures shall be in accordance with the duties on the landlord under Part 3 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (c. 50) and shall take into account the need for reasonable adjustments for a disabled person under that Act."
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 29, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 47, 51 and 59. As the Minister will remember, I raised the issue of discrimination at Second Reading very much in response to representations made by mental health organisations such as MIND and organisations representing those with autism and the parents of those with autism, such as the National Autistic Society (NAS). They were concerned about the operation of the Bill in total, but particularly about housing and antisocial behaviour orders. They were concerned about the context in which those with autism, those with mental health conditions and, indeed, other conditions such as Tourette's Syndrome, operate within society and the level of understanding that people do or do not have about them and the way that that behaviour is expressed. For example, a person with autistic spectrum disorder (ASD) can sometimes display challenging as well as obsessive and ritualistic behaviour. There is no doubt about that. Quite often that kind of behaviour can be interpreted as being anti-social.
NAS and others are concerned that the provisions in the Bill could lead to people with autism being wrongly treated. It is too much to say "actually criminalised", but certainly wrongly treated in those circumstances. That could equally apply to those with schizophrenia, other mental health conditions and other challenging conditions.
The noble Baroness—I am grateful to her for her courtesy—wrote me a full letter on a number of aspects that I raised at Second Reading. She also dealt with the issue of the Disability Discrimination Act, which these amendments are designed to introduce explicitly into this part of the Bill.
I suspect that I am really after assurance from the Minister rather than actual amendments. I am sure she is correct that, if one correctly interprets the Disability Discrimination Act, housing issues, services provided and so on are provided for and therefore this aspect falls within the ambit of that Act. However, at the end of the day, it is a matter of judgment for the judge as to the evidence he takes and the interpretation that he puts upon it. I very much hope that we can read into the debates of the Chamber at least some guidance about how the Disability Discrimination Act will operate in these circumstances.
The landlord has duties under Part 3 of the Disability Discrimination Act not to discriminate against tenants and to make reasonable adjustments in managing the property.
488
The aim of the amendments is to ensure that any challenging behaviour, or behaviour that is perceived as challenging, that arises from a disability is treated with care and that all alternatives are tried before a person is demoted. It cannot be in the public interest nor in the interest of the demoted tenant with mental health problems for him to be made homeless by the Bill. All reasonable avenues of support need to be explored before such a step is taken. The prevalence of discrimination against disabled people. including those with autism, mental illness and other conditions, makes the reverse all too likely. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: I shall briefly support my noble friend. He is talking about groups with hidden disabilities. The argument on disability has moved on slightly because we have got over the idea that the wheelchair symbolises everything. I could mention dozens of groups—for instance, people with learning disabilities—who might be regarded as being threatening to, shall we say, the uninformed—the bigoted, if we are to show them in their true colours. Anything that we do not understand or do not want to understand can be perceived as being frightening.
We have discussed that in relation to every single piece of human rights legislation. The fact that we need to address it in law means that people are not prepared to address it in their own spare time; it is much easier simply to say, "Go away". Unless we have a provision that specifically says, "You must not do this; you cannot do this", people will try to misuse the law. Unless we have some way to say specifically, "This is not able", the provision will be abused.
I know that the noble Baroness received a copy of the letter that my noble friend cited. We are trying to ensure that we can refer to something that says. "This is not the type of group to which we are referring". Let us take the example of someone with learning disabilities who smiles too much and says hello to everyone in the street. When the level of ignorance which we discovered when the child abuse stories were going round, which meant that paediatricians had their houses burnt down, is prevalent, such people are in danger of being persecuted. Can the noble Baroness assure us that something, somewhere will ensure that the Bill cannot be used for such vexatious attacks?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am more than happy to give the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Clement-Jones, the assurance that they seek. I absolutely understand the anxiety that they expressed on behalf of those who suffer from disability and are often subject to disgraceful prejudice. I can certainly assure the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that the example t hat he gives of a child who smiles too much or waves at everyone is certainly not the sort of behaviour that we wish to capture. I am also happy to place in the Library a copy of a letter that I wrote to both noble Lords, which states clearly—I am happy to reiterate this from the Dispatch Box—that the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 applies in full in relation to such individuals.

489
As the Committee will know, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 renders unlawful discrimination against persons who have a disability in the fields of employment, in the provision of goods, facilities, services and premises, and in the provision of public transport. The DDA was introduced to ensure that disabled people are treated fairly in respect of the services they receive, and housing rights are included within that. The Government are keen to ensure that the correct balance is maintained between ensuring that effective remedies against anti-social behaviour are available to protect all members of the community and that people with disabilities are not unfairly discriminated against.
Landlords, including social landlords, are already within the scope of the DDA. The protection offered to disabled people by the DDA will remain in place. The Bill makes no amendment whatever to the DDA or any other discrimination legislation. Therefore, as the noble Lord kindly implied, his probing amendments are unnecessary.
In order to ensure that social landlords are aware of their responsibilities in relation to the DDA, the Government intend to address those issues in guidance on policies and procedures issued under new Section 218A of the Housing Act 1996 introduced by Clause 12. I hope that that will make it crystal clear to social landlords that the provisions of Section 22—in particular, of Section 22(3)(c), which, as the noble Lord will know, expressly relates to evicting the disabled person or subjecting him to any other detriment—of the DDA 1995, which makes it unlawful for them to discriminate against a disabled person, will apply.
With those assurances, I hope that both noble Lords will feel a little easier because we are at one as to the need to protect those who suffer disability to ensure that they are not adversely or prejudicially treated by this or any other piece of legislation.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Elton: Perhaps I may ask a simple question for guidance. The noble Baroness made a convincing argument for the existing protection as regards proposed new subsection (1)(c), which concerns registered social landlords, but does that extend also to new subsections (1)(a) and (b)? Will the advice be similarly circulated?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: We can certainly ensure that it is. I t should really apply to all landlords. When the matter comes before the court, the noble Lord will know that the court is obliged to take into consideration all aspects of law that relate to the application made. If the matter of disability is raised by the person against whom such an order is sought, the court will be obliged to look to see whether the provisions of the DDA 1995 apply. It will then have to balance the two and make a proportionate, non-discriminatory decision.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for that helpful and authoritative assurance, which will go a long way to reassure those who have concerns. It will be useful to have that on the record if courts are in any doubt about how they need to maintain that balance—which is, after all, the essence of the Bill and of the concerns that underlie it. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 29 and shall not press the others.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Injunctions against anti-social behaviour on application of certain social landlords]:
Lord Dixon-Smithmoved Amendment No. 30:
Page 10, line 7, after "to" insert "persistent and unreasonable"
The noble Lord said: The amendment attempts to deal with a problem that I have with the definition of anti-social behaviour under the Bill as drafted. We all know what is anti-social behaviour in the housing context, which is really what we are discussing. That involves someone who is a persistent nuisance and intrusive over a long period. The Bill states:
"This section applies to conduct…which is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person"—
and then it relates that to the housing function. But it is not going too far to say that, every now and again, we are all guilty of behaviour that is capable of causing nuisance and annoyance to any person. It is therefore insufficient for the purposes of the Bill to say that that is anti-social behaviour that could lead to the demotion of a tenancy and, ultimately, if it were repeated too often, to the loss of tenancy.
Amendment No. 30 would therefore introduce the words "persistent and unreasonable" to the behaviour or conduct. That is the intention of the Bill. I hope that the Government will not find it unreasonable to accept those two words.
Amendments Nos. 31 and 34 would reintroduce the definition or description of anti-social behaviour that exists in current legislation. "Capable of causing" is considerably wider than "causes or is likely to cause". As I understand it, the inclusion of "causes or is likely to cause" in current legislation has not proved any impediment to housing authorities when applying for anti-social behaviour orders. Birmingham has a particularly successful record and, as a result, has done much good for its communities.
These are important amendments—they are all important, so I stand corrected for what I said recently. The addition of three words to a Bill with so many words is very small and, in that sense, trivial. The amendment is necessary for the improvement of the intentions and purposes of the Bill.
We are not talking about spasmodic conduct. I have grandsons who are anti-social on a monotonously regular basis, but they would not be the cause of the abrogation of a tenancy. We need to improve the definition, and my amendment attempts to do so. I am

491
prepared to accept that there could be a better improvement, if someone wishes to suggest one. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My noble friends and I have presented an à la carte menu of choice to the Minister. We would probably be happy if any one amendment were chosen. We do not seriously expect all three to he accepted. Our point is the same.
I still remember with extreme embarrassment and shame an occasion when I lived in a block of flats and a neighbour knocked on my door to say that the record I had probably been playing over and over again, while sitting in a warm bath, could be heard elsewhere in the block. It was in the days of vinyl, so I was very young and not quite as aware of how that might affect neighbours as I would be now.
That conduct would probably fall within the Bill as drafted. But I did not do it again, so I was not persistent and, although the activity was probably unreasonable, it did not continue to be so. I do not think that the conduct was significant, and it certainly was not intended to cause a problem.
Amendment No. 33A is not on my Marshalled List so I am not sure what my noble friend Lord Phillips proposes. The same point is being made, and I hope that the Minister can respond. I am being a little flippant but it is a serious point.
Lord Clement-Jones: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 33 and 35. The common ground between us all is that the language,
"capable of causing nuisance or annoyance"
must he tightened up. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and my noble friend Lady Hamwee have it right. The provision is too subjective. The definition of anti-social behaviour seems to be left to each landlord's interpretation. Who will define the conduct capable of causing nuisance in the circumstances?
My concerns are specific and apply to the conditions that I mentioned in the previous group of amendments—children with autistic spectrum disorder, mental illness and so on. Children with autistic spectrum disorder can often be misinterpreted as naughty because of instances of challenging behaviour. It follows that adults with ASD can also display challenging behaviour that might be deemed odd or as conduct capable of causing nuisance.
It would be preferable to require a degree of intention behind the behaviour so that it is deliberate. At the moment, the definition could include behaviour that is not deliberate but simply the result of a medical condition, ASD or another condition.
Lord Elton: Does the noble Lord think that the conduct of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in her warm bath would be caught by his provision as deliberate?
Lord Clement-Jones: I do not think that we should dwell on my noble friend in her warm bath during this debate. No doubt she can discuss that further.
492
The matter needs to be taken seriously. This is a broad definition that causes considerable concern. Whether taking the view that the issue is persistent behaviour or intentional behaviour, the wording certainly needs tightening up. In Committee, a thousand flowers and suggestions bloom, but I hope that the Minister will take away a number of them and consider them carefully.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I shall speak in the same vein. I am not aware of any legislation in the land that gives such remedies for causing mere annoyance. If the Minister can point us to any other legislation. that makes mere annoyance a sufficient ground for granting an injunction, I would not be persuaded, but I would be less harsh in my sense that the drafting is seriously inadequate.
The word "nuisance" is fine because it is defined in law—an endless amount of case law says what it is. You do not need to talk about "significant nuisance", as it must be significant in order to be nuisance. However, according to the dictionary, "to annoy" merely means to anger. In the course of a year, my children would fall foul of that provision 365 times four. Annoyance is hopelessly undefined in the Bill and in common law. There is no case law to sustain it, and it must not stand.
The preconditions of a closure order in Clause 2 are comparable—both are hugely serious consequences; one is an injunction and the other a closure. Clause 2(3)(b) talks not just about nuisance, a concept defined by law, but about "serious nuisance". If the argument against adding the word "serious" before "annoyance" is that it is too vague, I lob it back to the Minister that it is a word used in juxtaposition with "nuisance" earlier in the same Bill.
We are all singing broadly the same tune. However, I commend to the Committee the approach in Amendment No. 33A.
Lord Hylton: I welcome warmly the injunction that it will be possible to obtain under Clause 13. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, probably makes a good point about annoyance, but my reason for welcoming the clause is that it seems to provide a way of nipping in the bud anti-social behaviour that causes nuisance. That is why I am not too happy about Amendments Nos. 30 and 33A, which contain the words "persistent" or "repeated". I want nuisances stopped at a very early stage in the process. We all know of tenants and others who have got away with murder, sometimes over years. That is what we want to prevent.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Perhaps I may just clarify that my amendment does not condition "nuisance" at all. I only wish to condition "annoyance" by talking about "serious or repeated". I accept that nuisance of itself may be a sufficient ground.
Lord Hylton: I accept the noble Lord's point.

493
I wanted to go on to say, following the point made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, that failure to observe the terms of tenancy agreements in so far as they concern nuisance and closely related matters should lead, after one or two warnings at the most, to applications for injunctions. I hope that that will he effective and provide a real remedy.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: If the Minister is going to consider these amendments, I would like to add my thoughts. I was very pleased to hear the way in which they were introduced, because I do not think that they answer the point. I should declare an interest as chairman of the Housing Corporation. In the lead up to this Bill I have been deliberately meeting many tenants and residents in very many parts of the country where anti-social behaviour is a serious problem. I would be amazed if the noble Lords who have spoken about their own children would come anywhere near this Bill. This Bill is about dealing with the serious problems within some of our communities.
The Bill is also, however, about prevention, and this part of the Bill is an important part of that. Many of the tenants and residents that I have met would not identify with the comments that the noble Lord. Lord Dixon-Smith, genuinely made about anti-social behaviour being persistent over a long period of time. If we allow that to be the definition for the workings of the Bill, it will not deal with anti-social behaviour. Considering the trouble that the landlord has to go to and the resources involved to actually apply for an injunction, most if not all of them would try to deal with problems before they reached that point. Bad behaviour is not annoyance—we have all caused annoyance from time to time. We are talking about behaviour which, even on one occasion, can cause fear to people, especially old people, in some of these communities.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-Le-Fylde, for giving way and I am sorry to interject again, but she says that the problem is not one about annoyance. However, the objection that many of us have is exactly about "annoyance" because annoyance of its own—not serious annoyance—is sufficient to grant an injunction under the Bill. That is the objection.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: That may be the noble Lord's interpretation, but looking at these amendments, we see words such as "persistent", "unreasonable" and, in Amendment No. 33, "deliberately intended". I have actually been in situations where some of these issues have been dealt with and there is, of course, complete denial. The people involved say that they never deliberately intended to cause fear or worry.
The words in these amendments do not help. The Bill as it stands could, and would, work. A landlord has to apply for an injunction, and at that point the
494
interpretation could be applied to the situation. I hope that, when the Minister replies, he will take those thoughts into account.
Lord Elton: The difficulties described by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thorton-le-Fylde, would be removed if the word "annoyance" was removed. The qualifying phrases are designed to raise the threshold for the experience described as annoyance in the Bill. After all, the word is not defined and is very much open to a wide range of interpretations.
On my noble friend's Amendment No. 30, I share the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, that "persistent" is something that should not be added. In fact, a very serious nuisance can be caused on a single occasion. A group of young rowdies having a rave-up in the central courtyard of a block of flats at night is not persistent behaviour, but would be horrific for the people living around that courtyard. I would not want an injunction to be ruled out in that case.
I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in his wish to have some measure of intent inserted into the nuisance clause. As his noble friend on the Front Bench has already demonstrated in the gentlest way, it is possible to cause a nuisance unintentionally. One can do so by driving a stolen motor car round and round a block of flats with a punctured exhaust pipe. That is not done to annoy the neighbours but to get a buzz when the cops turn up with their sirens blazing. The qualifying phrases do not work. If "annoyance" must be left in, I believe that the late entry by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, is the best in the field.
Baroness Hamwee: I commented to my noble friend that the amendments from these Benches happen to come from three solicitors. He said that the only thing that was unusual about that was that it was not three barristers. We all recognise the point made by the noble Baroness about the seriousness of the decision to seek an injunction. None of us would expect an injunction to be sought for a trivial reason or in trivial circumstances.
However, we feel that the Bill should express the level of the annoyance—the seriousness and significance. I take my noble friend's point that no adjective should be applied to nuisance because it is a term that is understood. The Bill should recognise that there is a threshold. It is not only a matter of a landlord deciding that the behaviour is not serious enough or perhaps even getting to the point of the court saying that an injunction would be an inappropriate remedy. That would begin to interfere with the way in which the Bill proposes to deal with the situation.
As to the point made by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones about deliberate intention, we are talking about people being deliberate or reckless as to the consequences of their actions. I do not think that any of us is trying to draft on the spot, but we are all looking to the Minister for acknowledgement. We all accept that, in the context described by the noble Baroness—and I agree with the

495
point about persistence—the statute must be properly balanced with proceedings that a landlord might be able take.
Lord Avebury: Perhaps I may suggest two models for the Minister to consider if he is seriously thinking about amending the clause in the light of all the criticism that has been made. The first is in Section 4 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which allows prosecutions to he made after a single serious event occurs that is the result of threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour. I realise that that is a level above what we are discussing here, but it is important that Section 4(A) allows that to happen.
The other provision that I wish to draw to the Minister's attention is the Protection Against Harassment Act 1997, in which the conduct needs to be repetitive. I accept that those pieces of legislation deal with conduct that is a great deal more serious than that which would attract injunctions under these provisions. but they are nevertheless useful as a model of the wording and for considering whether or not the conduct dealt with by these provisions that attracts injunctions should be of a one-off nature or required to be repetitive. I only suggest that the language in the Acts which I quoted might he a useful guide in how to revise this particular provision.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I think that I had better start by being polite before I get into being less polite. I understand and appreciate why noble Lords, particularly on the Liberal Democrat Benches, are very keen to ensure that no one who should not be is caught up in these definitions because of the language used. I entirely understand that. However, I really do think that noble Lords need to take something of a reality check on this. The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, put her finger on it. What we are looking at in trying to deal with this form of anti-social behaviour is a range of nuisances and annoyances which, singly or collectively, make people's lives unbearable.
I know that noble Lords, particularly those on the Liberal Democrat Benches, have a lot of local government experience. I do not know whether their experience is at all similar to mine—I represented and worked in a very busy city environment. In the nearly 20 years in which I was involved as a councillor, what I always found most shocking was what one neighbour or group of human beings was prepared to do to another, in many different manifestations, such as loud and persistent music during the night, the use of car repair equipment on front lawns, the outrage of a rave adjacent to housing or people banging on walls either persistently or occasionally, becoming persistent over time. I had to deal with many such unpleasant incidents. What we found most difficult was finding the means, and then willing the means, to deal with such behaviour. Such people can make other people's lives absolute hell and misery.
That is why our approach to dealing with anti-social behaviour has had the enthusiastic support of tenants and, in particular, tenants who have been affected by such behaviour. Let there be no doubt that there is real
496
resonance for these measures, particularly on housing estates. Anyone who has had any experience in local government knows that to be a fact. Indeed, when consultation was undertaken on these issues, about 70 per cent of those consulted favoured widening the measures.
All the amendments, in one form or another, seek to narrow the measure, but that is not acceptable. I think that we have this right so far as the public are concerned. It is not about pandering to populism but about striking the right balance and, yes, dealing with the difficulties of language. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, with her seductive image of the warm bath and music, actually betrayed her own position in a sense. She talked about a menu, but that menu itself contains inconsistencies, as she was gracious enough to acknowledge.
I should like to go through the various amendments and pick up the points in them.
Baroness Hamwee: I am sorry to interrupt the flow of the Minister's reply. However, I think that it is important that we acknowledge—if we have not already done so; I think we have—that we are entirely at one with him in much of what he says. Where we are not at one with him—I shall go straight to the impolite bit—is that legislation ought to say what the Government mean and what he has just very clearly spelt out. No Member of the Committee wants to see legislation brought into disrepute or to provide what is not meant or more than is meant. So we are with him in his comments, but not with him in the written words he is advocating.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Before the noble Lord winds up, and bearing in mind that I have the privilege of the last word in this debate—which is unusual, when my wife is around at any rate—I should like to make just one point now. In his description, the noble Lord himself used the word "offence" and also the words "over time". So the difference between us is one of margin.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: We shall see. I intend to go through the detail of the amendments. I think it only fair to deal with them in turn.
Amendments Nos. 30 to 36 seek to add to the criteria which behaviour must meet before that behaviour can be prohibited by means of an anti-social behaviour injunction and would make it harder to obtain injunctions and—this is important; it is the challenge I issue to noble Lords opposing the Government's approach here—reduce the protection available to those suffering anti-social behaviour.
Amendment No. 30, in particular, requires conduct to be both persistent and unreasonable before an injunction can be granted. A requirement that behaviour be persistent would rule out the use of injunctions where a single serious incident had occurred. It would be quite wrong to tell victims of such incidents that they could be given no protection until the behaviour became persistent.

497
Amendments Nos. 31 and 34 revert back to the wording in the 1996 Act requiring the behaviour founding the injunction to have already caused nuisance or annoyance or be likely to do so. Amendments Nos. 32, 36 and 46 go further and require the conduct to be likely to cause significant nuisance and annoyance. Amendment No. 33A requires conduct to be a nuisance or a serious or repeated annoyance.
Amendments Nos. 33 and 35 narrow the circumstances in which a social landlord can obtain an injunction to occasions where the behaviour is deliberately intended to cause nuisance or annoyance. Inquiring into the "state of mind" or motive of the perpetrator is particularly unhelpful. For example, if someone is playing music until 4 a.m. and disturbing his neighbour, the neighbour does not care why he is doing so—the neighbour just wants him to stop. These amendments suggest that landlords should be required to provide evidence akin to that required to establish intent in criminal proceedings when seeking to obtain a civil injunction. I cannot believe that noble Lords want to create such a requirement.
New Section 153A deliberately widens the definition of anti-social conduct to include behaviour which is "capable" of causing nuisance and annoyance. That will enable social landlords to be more proactive in their management of anti-social behaviour and will avoid legal arguments about the exact severity or likelihood of anti-social behaviour causing nuisance and annoyance.
If a landlord presents evidence of anti-social behaviour to the court, it is for the court to determine whether the behaviour could cause nuisance or annoyance to a reasonable—not necessarily an ultra-sensitive—person and whether an injunction is both proportionate and necessary. An injunction is simply an order of the court asking someone to stop doing something. It is not a punishment in itself. The court simply needs to determine that the injunction is both necessary and proportionate.
Landlords should act promptly to stop anti-social behaviour escalating. An early application for an injunction—I think that this takes up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton—is essential and should nip such behaviour in the bud. An injunction will prohibit low-level anti-social behaviour that could lead to more serious problems later. Judicial discretion is the ultimate safeguard against the inappropriate use of injunctions. That is an important point and I am sure that noble Lords will wish to reflect on it.
I understand the concerns highlighted by Amendment No. 33A—that "annoyance" is too low a level of anti-social behaviour. In practice, however, injunctions have often been granted on the basis of an annoyance.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord has said that, in practice, annoyance has been caused and injunctions have been granted. If the power already exists, why do we have to put it in the Bill now?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I shall come to that point. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, challenged me on that issue. I intend to deal with it. Courts have held that in this context "nuisance" or "annoyance" should be interpreted widely. The behaviour must be such as to annoy an ordinary person, who, as I said, is not necessarily an ultra-sensitive one. Case law suggests that it can be difficult to distinguish between the words, but if both are used, annoyance is assumed to mean something less than nuisance and to have a wider meaning than nuisance. Annoyance has been described as something that reasonably troubles the mind and pleasure, not of a fanciful person, but of the ordinary, sensible person, although it may not appear to amount to a physical detriment to comfort. That is a very important point.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, in particular, asked for examples of annoyance in legislation. Perhaps I may refer the noble Lord to existing injunctions issued under the Housing Act 1996. Annoyance is used in terms of grounds for possession for secure and assured tenancies. It is quoted in Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1985 (Ground 2) and it is also part of the Housing Act 1988 (Ground 14). The courts are familiar with it and it has been subject to interpretation. We believe it to be an appropriate way of dealing with this problem.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, made a helpful suggestion. He always tries to be of assistance in these matters. Before Members of the Committee get fixated on dissecting the language used, which I think will prove to be popular, they need to think about the inconsistencies of language in their amendments and to reflect on the nuisance and annoyance with which we are trying to deal in this legislation. I think that the balance is right. I hope that noble Lords will withdraw their amendments.
Baroness Hamwee: Before the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, responds, I hope that I have assured the Minister and Members of the Committee that there is no need to encourage us to reflect on the seriousness of what we are dealing with. We understand that.
As I understand it, he bases much of his argument on the interpretation of annoyance, which the courts have previously applied under other legislation. Could he write to us giving the detail? All three of us have a technical and political interest in understanding that. We are open to persuasion. If what we are seeking is already the case—because of the way in which the courts have applied the term and that it would be read over without a problem—we are dealing with something rather different. I am afraid that because we are all technicians we need to see the detail.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am happy to confirm that I shall write further on the matter.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thought that at points the Minister's reply verged not only on the patronising, but also on the unsympathetic. "Verging" is perhaps even too mild a word. As regards the unsympathetic, it seemed to be the good cop and bad cop routine. In the previous set of amendments, the noble Baroness

499
understood the issue about the balance to be maintained. I do not think that the Minister has taken that on board. He asked a number of Members of the Committee to reflect; I think that he might reflect on how the wording could be improved in the light of that. My noble friend Lady Hamwee suggested that the use of the word "recklessness"—a kind of mens rea in its own way, which is a term recognised in criminal law, not going as far as intent—might be a way forward. I found the Minister's response to the types of issues that I raised, which received a sympathetic response in the previous set of amendments, completely unsympathetic and unattractive to many members of the organisations concerned.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I apologise to the noble Lord. Goodness, far be it from me to be a bad cop and patronising. I live with a solicitor so I have to be very careful when I do that in the company of lawyers, and particularly solicitors. I apologise if I gave offence. It was not my intention. Nor was it my intention to give offence to the groups on whose behalf the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, was speaking. We recognise that there are real difficulties for people who have Asperger's syndrome or learning difficulties or who are affected in the way that he described earlier, and the way in which they might come under this legislation. Of course, we are sympathetic to that.
Ironically, our local courts in Brighton dealt with a case concerning precisely those aspects of an antisocial behaviour order only last week. I am well aware of those issues. We understand the sensitivity required when dealing with people who suffer from particular syndromes, which contribute to their appearing in court, to be dealt with in the way in which this legislation will deal with them. I do not want the noble Lord to leave thinking that I am patronising, a bad cop or unsympathetic—I am not usually. I understand the points entirely.
Lord Clement-Jones: That was a much more sympathetic intervention.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am most pleased that I tabled my original amendment and that it has led to a thoroughly useful discussion. We should clear up one misapprehension. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, responded in tones which led me to suppose he thought that the Bill was perfect and that the rest of us were trying to ruin it. That was not the intention. The intention was to make the Bill better in its purpose and in the way it works for ordinary people. The Bill was welcomed at Second Reading. That welcome is no less in Committee because we have tabled amendments which try to alter specific meanings. Therefore, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, did not do himself a service.
We must look at the realities of injunctions against anti-social behaviour. I accept entirely that a person who plays music loudly in a flat until 4 a.m. is likely to raise everyone's temper beyond boiling point. If he or she does that once, should we really go to court to obtain an injunction to prevent a repetition? I agree
500
that if it were repeated, there might be some point in going to court to obtain an injunction. In dealing; with the case of a rave in a courtyard of a block of flats by a group of youths, that is unlikely to be easily planned so that one can go to court to obtain an injunction to prevent it. By the time it is over, it is too late. The youths are unlikely to do it again.
What are we talking about? We are not talking about occasional annoyance. We are talking about persistent annoyance. The Minister used the words "persistent" and "over time". I agree that every now and again some individual is quite likely to do something which will cause immense irritation to his neighbours. We are all capable of doing that. The question is whether that is a sufficient offence to take before the courts to obtain an injunction to prevent it happening again. Bear in mind that this is a precursor, ultimately, to the possibility of losing tenancy. A one-off incident will not result in an injunction—in my view of the courts. As I said at Second Reading, thank heavens for the courts, which will have to make sense of what is not a well-worded part of the Bill.
Criticism has come from all round the Committee. There is no argument or quarrel over the intention lying behind the Bill. We all accept the need for something to be done when a real problem arises., but the real problem is not a one-off event. In the light of this debate I ask the Minister to think carefully, as he has invited us to think carefully, about the wording in this part of the Bill.
I am quite prepared to admit that my use of the words "persistent" and "unreasonable" has been an extremely useful cock-shy, set up to provoke a good and interesting debate which has helped to highlight some of the problems. The Minister should not try to insist that there are no problems because it is clear from the debate that the opinion of the Committee is such that, if it came to a vote, he would probably he left the loser. But of course that is not our intention at this point.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this useful discussion. Our purpose is to try to improve the Bill. I finish by saying that we all need to think about the wording here. At the moment I do not think that it is satisfactory. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 31 to 36 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smithmoved Amendment No. 37:
Page 10, line 19, leave out "or" and insert "and"
The noble Lord said: The Minister may have a wry chuckle at this point because earlier in the proceedings I tabled an amendment that sought to leave out "and" and insert "or", while here I seek to leave out "or" and insert "and". I suppose that I may he open to the charge of inconsistency.

501
We are still considering anti-social behaviour injunctions. New Section I 53A(4) states that:
"The second condition is that the conduct is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any of the following—

(a) a person residing in housing accommodation owned or managed by the relevant landlord;

(b) a person visiting the housing accommodation".

We have come back to the question of nuisance or annoyance argued by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. Is this nuisance or annoyance or is it nuisance and annoyance? In this situation we felt that the word "and" was perhaps more appropriate.
Amendment No. 43 in this grouping adds a paragraph specifying that:
"'Nuisance and annoyance' includes conduct which intrudes unreasonably into the peaceful occupation of the properties".
Amendment No. 45 seeks to insert the word "any" into new Section 153A(6).
The amendments continue to mark the concerns expressed in our previous debate. While "nuisance" is clearly understood, in the Bill the concept has been widened with the word "annoyance", which is more difficult. Again, we think that the wording could and should be improved and believe that these amendments would help the Government rather than hinder them. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: We have had much of this debate on earlier amendments. I shall not go over the same ground, but I wish to make one or two observations on each of the amendments before I invite the noble Lord to withdraw them.
As the noble Lord has explained, Amendment No. 37 seeks to ensure that both "nuisance" and "annoyance" would have to be proved in order for the injunction to he granted, rather than it being on the ground of nuisance or annoyance. We have already debated the "and/or" question.
Amendment No. 43 seeks to define a nuisance and an annoyance. We see a danger in doing that because the amendment may focus too specifically on one particular group which is intended to be protected; namely, tenants and their visitors. That is not the only group the clause is intended to protect. For example, we also intend to protect staff and others engaged in lawful activity in the locality, perhaps providing services in one form or another.
I made this point in a previous amendment, but I shall make it again: the wording "nuisance or annoyance" has been readily understood by the courts in connection with the existing housing injunctions made under the Housing Act 1996, an Act with which the noble Lord is no doubt familiar. The legislation was put in place when his party was in office. It was convenient to use the terminology then and we find it useful for legislation that we are introducing now. Further, the nuisance grounds for possession applicable to secure and assured tenants relate to that legislation.
502
To change this wording would imply a change in the criteria under which an injunction can be sought and may make it harder to get an injunction. For example. defendants could argue that only nuisance or only annoyance had been caused and hence an injunction should not be granted. As I said earlier, the courts have held in this context that "nuisance or annoyance" should be interpreted widely. The behaviour must be such as to annoy an ordinary person, not necessarily one who is ultra-sensitive.
Again, I should remind noble Lords that case law suggests that it can be difficult to distinguish between the words, but if both are used, "annoyance" is assumed to mean something less than "nuisance" and to have a wider meaning. Further, "annoyance" has been described as a thing that reasonably troubles the mind and pleasure, although it may not appear to amount to a physical detriment to comfort. Taking noise nuisance, which may occur on only one occasion but which carries on for a long period of time. then that is a nuisance and something which someone may well wish to bring to a stop by using an injunction. So I think that the noble Lord will need to address that issue.
Amendment No. 45 changes the wording in new Section 153A(6) of the Housing Act 1996 from,
"prohibits the person … from engaging in conduct"
to read as,
"prohibits the person … from engaging in any conduct".
We would argue that the notion of "any conduct" is implied in the word "conduct".
Amendments Nos. 73, 74 and 74A would mean that a court hearing possession proceedings would be required only to consider the impact of nuisance or annoyance if that nuisance or annoyance was "deliberately intended". I dealt earlier with the issue so far as the victim is concerned, and I think that the same argument holds. The courts, when considering the actions of the perpetrator of anti-social behaviour, will be looking to see what is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. They will consider the intention to cause nuisance or annoyance in order to justify a possession order. However, requiring landlords to prove someone's motives would make possession extremely difficult to obtain, akin to establishing intent in criminal proceedings.
I hope that the noble Lord will take on board those points. They have been made before but I think that they are worth repeating because, in our view, they go very much to the heart of the issue and need to be taken seriously. In that light, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for that response, which I shall study with great care. The whole purpose of today's procedure—if it has one at all—is to tease out from the Government exactly what they mean and how they intend the Bill to work. This has been a useful follow-on discussion from the previous one. There is no point in pursuing the matter particularly hard. I shall study that explanation in the

503
light of my original amendments and what the Minister said in response. For now, I am content to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 38:
Page 10, line 20, leave out "residing in" and insert "with a right (of whatever description) to reside in or occupy"
The noble Lord said: This group of amendments contains both government and opposition amendments and I shall address them all in my comments.
The aim of Amendments Nos. 38, 39, 40 and 42 is to clarify who is eligible to be protected by injunctions under new Section 153A of the Housing Act 1996. We want to support landlords who wish to do more than manage or protect their own tenants and take action to tackle anti-social behaviour more generally in the neighbourhoods in which their properties are situated. We do not of course expect social landlords to carry out general policing of their areas. That is why we have said that there must be a link with their housing management function.
Our policy intention throughout has been that social landlords should be able to apply for injunctions to protect tenants, leaseholders and anyone else who occupies property owned or managed by a relevant landlord; to protect staff providing housing management and related services on behalf of the landlord; to protect visitors engaged in lawful activity in the locality, including operatives working there; and, finally, to protect other residents in the area, including owner-occupiers and tenants of other landlords.
However, concerns have been expressed that the wording originally used in the Bill was too similar to that in Section 152 of the Housing Act 1996 which, in some cases, has been given a narrower interpretation than our policy intention by the courts. These amendments clarify our intentions. They will ensure that where the courts judge it necessary, all the groups that I have mentioned can be protected by a new Section 153A injunction.
Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 also ensure that injunctions are available to protect residents in the area even if they are temporarily absent from their homes. So, for example, if someone has been forced out of their home by racial or sexual harassment, an injunction under new Section 153A should be available to protect them if they wish to return. It is for those reasons that I shall seek to move Amendments Nos. 38, 39, 40 and 42.
Amendment No. 41 seeks to provide absolute precision about the area within which injunctive protection can be given to visitors and others. At the moment, judicial discretion in each individual case determines "locality". That is as it should be. Replacing this with a fixed distance could have some strange and anomalous consequences. Perpetrators could wait for someone to step over an imaginary line in the pavement, knowing that the person's protection
504
ceased at that point. It would not be useful for legal argument to focus on whether the correct measurement as to where the behaviour took place was 100 or 101 metres away, nor should we seek to stifle judicial discretion to that extent. That would be adverse to what we are attempting to achieve.
The effect of Amendment No. 44 would be that protection could be given only where the anti-social behaviour happened in the housing accommodation or its locality. This would have a series of undesirable consequences.
It is not our intention that social landlords should police the activities of perpetrators of anti-social behaviour wherever they are, regardless of the circumstances. Where behaviour happens outside of the locality, there must be some link to the housing management function. However, there are numerous incidents where such a link is easy to establish and where it is perfectly reasonable for a landlord to seek to protect the victim.
For example, our intention is that a housing officer who has refused a tenant a transfer could be protected if the aggrieved tenant later sees him in a supermarket some miles away and attacks him. The effect of the amendment would be that such protection would not be available. Similarly, if, following a neighbour dispute, a tenant assaults another tenant outside her child's school, the victim should not be refused the protection of an injunction with a power of arrest simply because the violent conduct took place away from her home. The dispute clearly related to the landlord's housing management function.
Amendment No. 48 reflects concerns as to whether an injunction to exclude someone from his or her normal place of residence has to meet the criteria in new Section 153C(1)—that is, that the conduct involves violence, threatened violence or a risk of harm. I can assure the Committee that new Section 153E is supplementary to new Sections 153A to 153D. The power to exclude in new Section 153E(2) applies only if the criteria in new Section 153C(1) are met. I hope that the noble Lord is following this. The amendment is therefore unnecessary.
Amendment No. 49 has no practical effect. New Section 153D already provides that "tenancy agreement" includes any agreement for the occupation of residential accommodation. Accordingly, a licence to occupy is already covered and a further definition is unnecessary.
New Section 153E(10), to which Amendment N o. 50 refers, defines a landlord as the "owner" of a property if the landlord's original lease of the housing accommodation was for longer than three years. This definition is used because it mirrors the definition of "owner" used in various other statutory provisions, including Section 56 of the Housing Act 1985.
Clause 13 allows social landlords who own or manage properties the power to apply for the injunctions introduced by Clause 13 and so, even if a

505
social landlord is not classified as the owner of a particular property, he or she will still be the manager and hence able to use the powers under Clause 13. The amendment would therefore have no practical effect.
I know that the noble Lord has not yet spoken to his amendments but I hope that, when he comes to do so, he will not feel it necessary to press them. I thought I should cover his amendments when speaking to the government amendments, which are in the same territory. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: We always have procedural difficulties when opposition amendments are grouped with government amendments. The Minister is correct to attempt to cover all the points before we have an opportunity to say whatever it is we want to say.
I shall confine myself to saying that the purpose of Amendment No. 41 was to probe the Government and to tease out of them what is the intended meaning of the word "locality". I accept that if a feud between tenants extends out to the neighbouring supermarket, cinema or pub, which might be some distance away, there is a problem. It may well be that you will want to take out an injunction against both parties because, if you get to that situation, obviously anti-social behaviour has been going on for some time.
Amendment No. 44 follows on from a point that I raised earlier. We are here dealing with an "immaterial" issue. The Minister himself said that the provision did not matter. If it is immaterial and does not matter, what are we doing putting immaterial provisions that do not matter on the face of the Bill? I cannot claim to have won the previous argument but we need to consider the drafting of the legislation. This issue has been raised in other contexts and it seems that putting immaterial provisions into Bills is not the best use of everyone's time, including the draftsmen's time.
It is for those reasons that I have tabled the amendments. It has not been an entirely wasted effort. The Minister may wish to add a few words to what he has said, but I shall forgive him if he does not feel the need.
Baroness Hamwee: Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 in this group are in my name. Amendment No. 48 is a probing amendment and follows a point made in the Commons Standing Committee by my honourable friend Matthew Green. In moving a similar amendment, he was told by the Minister:
"The power to exclude someone from their own home … can be used only where there is the use or threat of violence or a significant risk of harm".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee G, 13/3/03; col. 232.]
That is not in the Bill at new Section 153E(2)(b), the provision in lines 33 and 34. The legislation specifically says that the provision applies for the purposes of new Sections 153A to D so that this power to exclude applies to all injunctions under Clause 13, including
506
those that might be considered relatively low-level, where more serious incidents using violence are involved. I hope that the Minister can clarify the matter.
With regard to Amendment No. 49, I declare an interest. I have been involved over a long period with the domestic violence charity Refuge, but I have not had the opportunity of discussing this with it. The amendment is drawn from my experience and may not be precisely right, but I would like to explore the point. It provides that for the purposes of new Section 153D a licensor of housing accommodation is also the relevant landlord and that the provisions of new Section 153D would apply to its licensees.
Refuge will not be the only organisation that licenses hostel accommodation but does not fall within the definition of "landlord". I have seen these licence agreements. Under the licence agreement it can deal with evicting a tenant who displays anti-social behaviour but may not be able to deal with the partner of a tenant who follows the woman—it is usually the male partner—and may threaten violence in the refuge. That is a problem for the individual woman. It is also very distressing to other women in the refuge and their children.
I have not had the opportunity to discuss this with Refuge, although I would like to. It will be one of many licensors of hostel accommodation. If we are addressing the use of this legislation to extend beyond tenants to those with whom they associate, I would like to use the opportunity to explore whether there is another little area of difficulty which ought to be addressed when we have the legislative opportunity. That is my reason for tabling the amendment.
I am not sure whether I have described the problem as adequately as I might have done. If a word outside the Chamber would assist, I would be happy to oblige.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I do not think I have very much to add. I thought that in dealing with Amendment No. 49 I had made it plain that in using the term "tenancy agreement", we included any agreement for the occupation of residential accommodation. I rather hoped that that covered the noble Baroness's point. Perhaps she would like to reflect on that; she has said that she wants to think more about how that issue is covered in the legislation. I thought, too, that I had already covered the points she raised in my response to Amendment No. 48. I am not sure or confident that I can offer her any further elucidation.
I think I am right in saying that I am a victim of the way in which these amendments have been grouped, as I responded to one which was not in the group. My comments on Amendment No. 50, which stands on its own, were included in my commentary. I got rather carried away, I confess. If I do not say very much on the next amendment, noble Lords will appreciate why. This has been a useful debate in teasing out the various issues.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendments Nos. 39 and 40:
Page 10, line 21, at end insert—
"( ) a person with a right (of whatever description) to reside in or occupy other housing accommodation in the locality of the housing accommodation mentioned in paragraph (a);"
Page 10, line 22, leave out "visiting the housing accommodation or otherwise"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 41 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 42:
Page 10, line 24, at end insert "mentioned in paragraph (a)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 43 to 49 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smithmoved Amendment No. 50:
Page 12, line 19, leave out "three years" and insert "one year"
The noble Lord said: I was slightly surprised to hear Amendment No. 50 tripping from the Minister's lips in the previous group. Perhaps he would give it a little more attention when he hears my reason for moving it.
One phenomenon, which is not unknown, is for property to be purchased for things such as highway improvements which then do not take place for some years. In that circumstance, they are in the possession and usually come within the responsibility of the local authority, sometimes as landlord, and it can be for a period of less than three years, perhaps for as little as one year. None the less, this provides a very useful housing facility for housing authorities in certain circumstances. Such properties can be used for particular tenants or as short-term student accommodation—there are a host of reasons.
That is what lies behind my suggestion that a period of one year was rather better than three. One gets these peculiar short-term occupations and ownership of property by local authorities that are less than the three-year term defined by the Bill. Such short-term use should not be excluded from the Bill, as it is at present by the restrictions it contains. If the Minister will simply confine himself to saying that he will look at that, I should be quite content. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I would be more than happy to do as the noble Lord suggests, if it were not for my punchline that the amendment is unnecessary. It is unnecessary because the definition that we use has been commonly used, particularly in Section 56 of the Housing Act 1985. In any event, Clause 13 allows social landlords who own or manage properties the power to apply for the injunctions introduced by virtue of that clause. Even if the social landlord is not classified as the owner of that particular property, he will still be the manager and therefore able to use the powers.
508
I understand the noble Lord's point. I can think of housing that may not have been subject to the three-year category for which it may be wished to use the powers. However, that eventuality is covered. The noble Lord is astute to make reference to property on highways land as often falling within those circumstances. That is quite right—I can think of several good examples within his own county of Essex.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful for that reassurance. I shall consider the matter again but I am quite happy now, in the circumstances, not to press it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 51 not moved.]
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 [Security of tenure: anti-social behaviour]
Lord Dixon-Smith movedAmendment No. 52:
Page 13, line 34, after "house" insert "at the invitation of the tenant"
The noble Lord said: The amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 57, which has the same point in mind.
The Bill refers to anti-social behaviour by visitors to the property. The problem is how to define a visitor. That is an important point because if tenants occupying a property invite someone in, they clearly have some responsibility for that person. I have no difficulty with that, which is why we have used the words,
"at the invitation of the tenant".
However, one may get unwanted visitors, such as salesmen. One might be visited by a jilted lover, who might simply want to raise Cain and cause trouble. One might be visited by a divorced spouse with the same ambition, particularly if he or she knows or thinks that it would be possible to get away with it. It is necessary to make a distinction between those who are invited and who are therefore clearly the responsibility of the tenant and those who are not invited and may be there with the deliberate intent of mischief-making. That is an important point that should be in the Bill for the protection of perfectly good and responsible tenants. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord touches on a slightly tricky issue—there is no question of that. Whether the amendment is the right way in which to deal with it, and whether it is something that could be dealt with by drafting, is an open question.
The aim of Amendments Nos. 52 and 57 is to prevent a demotion order being granted based on the actions of a visitor, except where the visitor comes to the dwelling house at the invitation of a tenant. That is the exeat that the noble Lord is trying to introduce. The amendment may have arisen from concerns that a tenant should not be held responsible for the actions of a person whom he has not invited to the property. However, the amendment is unnecessary, and I shall briefly explain why.

509
A demotion order cannot be granted unless the judge considers it reasonable to do so. Considerations of reasonableness will include looking at the relationship that the tenant has with the visitor and the reason for the visitor's presence in the property. It would not be right to grant an order if it was unreasonable for the tenant to have any responsibility for the actions of the visitor, whether that visitor is a salesman or saleswoman, a drug dealer or a party political canvasser—although I cannot imagine circumstances in which anyone would take fright at that. The judge will take account of reasonableness, and the order will not be granted if the judge feels that it would be unreasonable for the tenant to have responsibility for the actions of the visitor.
The amendment could have harmful effects, allowing tenants to escape demotion merely by offering the explanation that they had not, on that particular occasion, invited that particular visitor. Friends and family may not expect or require a specific invitation, but they are visitors none the less.
The noble Lord is properly motivated in introducing the amendment, but we do not believe that it is necessary. The amendment could have unfortunate and unintended consequences that would undermine the demotion order, which is extremely important to the whole construct of the anti-social behaviour legislation.
Lord Dixon-Smith: The Minister's arguments are seductive but, if my amendments are not accepted, another unfortunate consequence might result that would be the match of the one that he described. Some poor unfortunate may finish up in court before a judge, before the judge can make a judgment and reject the case. That is all very well, but for most ordinary people the thought of appearing before a judge is terrifying. We really do not want unnecessary cases to go before judges because someone has arrived at a house who is genuinely not a member of the household, may have raised trouble and may have done so persistently—despite the lack of need for that word.
I am not wholly convinced by the Minister. I accept that there is a possibility of difficulty arising but if we could have some discussion between now and a further stage of the Bill, we might be able to reach an accommodation. However, as I say, I am not wholly convinced that the Bill as it stands is satisfactory.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: There is a test of reasonableness in practice. It may help the noble Lord to consider how the provision works in the exercise of ground two possession proceedings under Schedule I to the Housing Act 1985. The noble Lord will be familiar with that legislation. In 18 years there have been few problems with regard to the way in which the test of reasonableness is exercised. The noble Lord has set me the challenge of continuing to think about the matter. We shall do so but it may help him to consider how the provision has operated with regard to ground two possession proceedings.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful for that suggestion. I shall consider that point but I seek to avoid unnecessary litigation altogether. That is the issue here. However, for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamweemoved Amendment No. 53:
Page 13, line 36, at end insert—
"( ) that where an injunction under section 153A or 153B has already been granted, its terms have been breached or, where no such injunction has been obtained, it was not an appropriate or available remedy to the landlord,"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 53, I wish to speak not only to Amendment No. 54, with which it is grouped, but also to Amendments Nos. 58 and 60, with which it is not grouped. I hope that I may speak to all four amendments. The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and I have exchanged notes on the matter. The amendments concern similar issues.
Amendments Nos. 53 and 58 seek to ensure that the powers in the Bill to demote tenancies are used only as a last resort. I understand that in some quarters it is thought that injunctions are difficult to obtain. That is not the case. I suggest in the amendment that a landlord should have good reasons for not using the injunction procedure in the initial stages of responding to anti-social behaviour. The amendments provide a staged approach so that, in line with what I understand to be the Government's policy intentions, demotion is used only in exceptional cases when other measures for addressing the behaviour have failed. The objective is to prevent unnecessary homelessness.
Amendments Nos. 54 and 60 are designed to give the court discretion to include the provision of support and rehabilitation as part of the conditions of a demotion order. The Government have said that the purpose of demoted tenancies is to give tenants a last chance to address and change their behaviour. The Committee has acknowledged that support, rehabilitation and prevention—which is not the issue here—are particularly important. The amendments are drafted to allow a court to require either the landlord himself to provide support or to secure it from another agency. Nothing in the amendment would prevent a court granting demotion without support where it considered that that would not be either necessary or appropriate. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for speaking to those separate groups of amendments following our exchange of notes. That helps the discussion on demotion orders. I shall deal with the relevant four amendments in turn.
Amendment No. 53 seeks to prevent the court granting a demotion order if an injunction is in place which has not been breached or if the landlord has failed to apply for an injunction in appropriate circumstances. This would limit the discretion of the

511
landlord to choose between two effective remedies for anti-social behaviour and would prevent the landlord from using a "mix and match" approach.
Demotion and injunctions are intended to be freestanding options which the social landlord would be able to use separately or in combination depending on what was most appropriate in the circumstances. It may often be a good idea for landlords to seek injunctions before taking other action. However, in cases of low level, persistent anti-social behaviour, a demotion order may be more appropriate than an injunction. I am sure that the noble Baroness accepts that. It would not be helpful if the power to obtain demotions were restricted in that way.
Amendment No. 54 links too closely for us the provision of support with the demotion order. As we discussed earlier, it is good practice that landlords should offer appropriate support to those affected by anti-social behaviour, as well as those who perpetrate it. As well as giving the tenant and landlord the opportunity for rehabilitation work, the demotion order is an attractive proposition to landlords in that it ensures swift action if behaviour is not addressed.
Tying any support to the order may lead to unforeseen complexities. For example, if the landlord did not have a complete support package in place at the time of seeking an order, would the courts refuse that order? That is quite a big question. If the landlord had not provided the support in the method stated in the demotion order, could that be a reason for the tenant to challenge any subsequent eviction action? I invite the noble Baroness to give some thought and consideration to those points.
Amendment No. 58 would prevent the court granting a demotion order if an injunction were in place which had not been breached or if the landlord had failed to apply for an injunction in the appropriate circumstances. As I have already made plain, that limits the discretion of the landlord to choose between two effective remedies for anti-social behaviour. So far as we are concerned, Amendment No. 60 again links too closely the provision of support with the demotion order and raises the problems to which I referred earlier.
I will not say that we see the beauty of the demotion order as being something that falls mid-way between injunction and eviction—two options available in the circumstances with which we are concerned. We see the demotion order offering a lot more. It is a more finely tuned and appropriate option for the landlord—one that we think will be found particularly attractive. It offers encouragement and some important loss of rights.
We understand the seriousness of that, but the demotion order provides the opportunity for the offender, to use that term, to think about his behaviour and modify it. It enables him to have a dialogue with management and, if appropriate, with the person suffering from the anti-social behaviour, to work out a solution and to regain and recover his rights over time. We understand that that is widely supported and popular, and we do not want to inhibit the use of demotion orders as the amendments could.
512
I realise that the issue is considered serious, not least by the noble Baroness. I am grateful to her for tabling the amendments as it has enabled us to explain some of our thinking behind the important improvements to the legislation.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: I thank the Minister for the response on Amendments Nos. 53 and 58, on which he said that the landlord's action could be limited. I shall look at their drafting again. On Amendments Nos. 54 and 60, one of his concerns was that a tenant might be able to challenge a demotion order if the landlord did not have a support package in place and did not fulfil those conditions. The amendments were not intended to be other than discretionary—they state that the order "may contain conditions"—so I had hoped that that outcome would have been avoided by the drafting. However, I will of course look at all he said. as well as at whether the words have the outcome that he suggests. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 54 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smithmoved Amendment No 55:
Page 13, line 46, at end insert—
"(e) any other express terms of the secure tenancy"
The noble Lord said: The amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 56. One introduces words to the Bill and the other deletes words from it, and I can see the Minister winding up his reply by saying that what I want to introduce merely states what is in the words that I seek to remove. That is not the case. The words that I seek to introduce to the Bill on the demoted tenancy agreement are,
"any other express terms of the secure tenancy".
In other words, apart from the fact that the tenancy is demoted, together with the period of the demotion and the rent and so forth, the former terms of the secured tenancy are transferred into the demoted tenancy.
That is not what is stated in lines 4 to 6 on page 14 of the Bill. The Bill states:
"If the landlord of the demoted tenancy serves on the tenant a statement of any other express terms of the secure tenancy which are to apply to the demoted tenancy such terms are also terms of the demoted tenancy".
That implies quite clearly that some of the terms of the protected tenancy might well be removed from the tenancy agreement of the demoted tenant. We do not think that that is reasonable. It seems to me that the demotion itself, the loss of security of tenure, should be sufficient punishment, without having the tenancy agreement fiddled with as to which clauses in the original agreement should remain in the demotion.
Unless the Minister can provide a solid justification as to why the landlord should be allowed to "wriggle" with the clauses of the secure tenancy on the arrival of demotion, my amendments should hold good. It was

513
concern about that specific issue that led me to table them. They are an important little matter in their way. I beg to move.
Lord Avebury: In replying, will the noble Lord say whether the terms of the secure tenancy which are transferred in accordance with the provisions in subsection (7) would have to be submitted to the county court? Has the landlord an absolute discretion to decide which terms of the secure tenancy he will reimpose? Or does that have to be approved by some other authority?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The purpose of Amendments Nos. 55 and 56, as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, explained, is to remove the procedure whereby a landlord may impose specified express terms of the tenancy preceding the demoted tenancy on a demoted tenant by service of a notice of terms and replace it with a system whereby all express terms of a secure tenancy are automatically carried over to a demoted tenancy. The amendment as drafted would apply only to secure tenancies, and it does not establish the equivalent changes to assured registered social landlord tenancies.
The amendment would cause considerable legal problems. Some secure tenancies have terms relating to security or associated rights, such as rights to additional compensation for repairs. We do not want these to be automatically reintroduced into a demoted tenancy. If demotion is to act as a sanction, landlords should be able to choose whether or not to give these additional rights to demoted tenants. The amendment potentially has the effect of impacting upon that important penalty.
It is not the case that if no notice of terms is served then the tenancy has no terms. Paragraphs (a) to (d) of Clause 14(5) set out the basic conditions under which the tenancy will operate. Landlords may then apply any other express terms of the original secure or assured tenancy that they consider to be right. I hope that that answers the noble Lord's point.
In response to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, no, the county court does not have to approve it; and, yes, the landlord does have discretion to choose which terms it seeks to put into a demoted tenancy. The noble Lord will probably not like those responses, but they answer the questions that he raised.
Lord Dixon-Smith: It is interesting. I thought I understood the purpose of a demoted tenancy to be reforming. The hope is that the demoted tenant will reform his ways and that after the lapse of the relevant period the tenancy will revert to a secure tenancy. If that is so, the Minister's example was a bad one. He mentioned specifically rights of repair. If the hope is that after two or three years the tenancy will revert to a secure tenancy, after the person has learnt his lesson,
514
and if as a consequence of the rights of repair being removed from the agreement the repairs are not done, the end result could be a worse situation—
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I need to correct a misimpression. It was not about rights to repairs, but rights to additional compensation for repairs. That is rather different.
Lord Dixon-Smith: That changes the situation and if I misunderstood it I apologise to the Minister. In any event, I shall study his reply with care and consider whether we need to return to this point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 56 to 60 not moved.]
Clause 14 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Demoted tenancies]:
Lord Dixon-Smithmoved Amendment No. 61:
Page 54, line 2, leave out "of the dwelling-house" and insert "under section 143E"
The noble Lord said: The amendments relate to demoted tenancies. The purpose is to ensure that the fast-track eviction proceedings available for demoted tenancies cannot be used for any reason other than for further anti-social behaviour. In other words, a tenant getting into difficulties over his rent would not necessarily be a reason for taking accelerated action on a demoted tenancy.
The whole purpose of these procedures is to deal with anti-social behaviour. There are other reasons why people get into trouble over their housing and can have difficulties with their landlords. We believe that these amendments would strengthen the Bill. They would ensure that the Bill's focus was to deal with antisocial behaviour and they would also ensure that landlords could not use other grounds for the cessation of a demoted tenancy. We believe that that would be a useful protection. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My name appears to all the amendments. As we are making good progress, I shall not say in different words what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has said. I support the amendments.
6 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Lord for moving these amendments. It provides us with an opportunity to give further thought to demoted tenancies and the implications of them. Amendments Nos. 61, 63, 68 and 72 require landlords to return to court and prove that there has been further anti-social behaviour in order to end a demoted tenancy.
I fully understand why noble Lords should want to ensure that tenants are not evicted from their homes without good reason. Over the years, quite rightly, there has been much legislation to ensure that that is

515
the case. But these amendments would make the whole principle of demoting tenancies, in our view, entirely worthless.
The idea behind demoted tenancies is to encourage landlords not to go straight to possession proceedings in all cases of anti-social behaviour. At the moment we have a situation in which they may seek an injunction. If a period of time passes and the injunction patently has not worked, they can go straight towards possession proceedings.
Here we offer another remedy that can be used separately or perhaps in combination. We want to encourage landlords to use demotion in situations where they feel that they can work with a tenant to change the tenant's behaviour—I believe that the noble Lord supports that principle—and therefore sustain the tenancy. That is what we want. No one wants to force people out willy-nilly, but if there is anti-social behaviour—something that has an adverse effect on neighbours or on other folk in the community—we want to set something in law that assists finding a resolution to that and changing the way in which people behave.
Possession proceedings are time-consuming and, as I am sure noble Lords will appreciate, can be very costly. Many witnesses and victims may be reluctant to attend court for a second time. That would mean that landlords would be much less likely to pursue that option and may move straight to eviction. A tenant would have been demoted in the first place only if the landlord were able to provide sufficient evidence to a court to obtain a demotion order. If the tenant's behaviour fails to improve it seems unfair to expect the landlord to gather the evidence and convince the court a second time. The tenant will already have received his or her last-chance warning. It is pretty clear at the outset of the proceedings exactly what the process leads to.
The procedure for ending a demoted tenancy is based on the procedure for ending an introductory tenancy. That is a decision taken by the landlord, following a statutory process, followed by a possession order granted by the court. The tenant has the right to an internal review of the landlord's decision. At the possession hearing, the court considers only whether the appropriate procedure was followed, and does not consider the facts on which the landlord's decision was based or, for that matter, the merits of the decision. That procedure has been approved by the Court of Appeal and by the House of Lords.
Registered social landlord demoted tenants are assured shorthold tenants and their landlords can obtain a possession order by giving two months' notice and they do not have to give any reason for that. That is in line with the way that the RSL starter tenancy scheme operates.
However, there are checks on the appropriate use of starter tenancies. The Housing Corporation guidance sets out that registered social landlords should follow a similar process to that for local authorities when taking possession action against starter tenancies. Housing Corporation regulations, along with Audit
516
Commission inspection, help to ensure that RSLs act in the right way. That protection will be extended to demoted registered social landlord tenancies.
That is how we see the situation working. We do not believe that these amendments, motivated by a desire to put in a degree of further protection, will do anything other than make the situation more complicated and add cost. We believe that there are the necessary checks and balances already in the procedures that we have set out. Of course, we understand the reason why noble Lords have sought to put in additional checks, but they are checks that we cannot support.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I have to confess that I am not sufficiently expert to be able to interpret his intricacies without some advice. I shall be happy to take his reply away and—I hope he will forgive me—have it checked for the benefit of my own information rather than because I suspect that it is wrong. This has been a useful discussion. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for her support. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamweemoved Amendment No. 62:
Page 54, line 12, at end insert—
"(6) A demoted tenancy shall have the effect of suspending but not of terminating the tenant's right to buy the property pursuant to section 118 of the Housing Act 1985 (c. 68) (the right to buy) for the demotion period."
The noble Baroness said: I also have Amendment No. 61 in this group. Grouped with the amendment are Amendments Nos. 69 and 70, which are government amendments. I suppose I might say that my amendments have already had a result because they were designed, with a little difficulty, to flush out the effect that a demoted tenancy will have on the right to buy. The Government have now made explicit what was so disguised that I was not able to establish—either myself or, more importantly, through talking to those who might know—what the effect would be. They were sure that there would be one, but could not quite explain it. I see that in Amendment No. 69 the preserved right to buy goes. In other words, demotion means back to square one.
I am glad to have flushed that matter out. It is an issue that I—and, I daresay, others—will want to consider because it raises important issues both of principle, as to whether that is the effect of demotion, and also of practice, in terms of informing tenants of the risk and of effect. At this point, and seeing that people are gathering for the next part of the Bill, I shall leave my remarks on the issue at that point. I may want to return to it. Meanwhile, and in advance of the Minister moving his amendments, I thank the noble Lord for at least making clear what was unclear before. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I rise to speak to Amendments No. 69 and 70 and to give further explanation. I am grateful to the noble Baroness,

517
Lady Hamwee, for her kind observations on our responding almost before she reached, as it were, an issue that concerned her. We are pleased to have been able to achieve that.
The aim of Amendment No. 69 is to ensure that tenants who have preserved right to buy lose it on demotion. That is plain. Preserved right to buy usually arises on stock transfer when secure local authority tenants with a right to buy become assured RSL tenants.
The existing clauses already ensure that when a local authority or housing action trust tenant is demoted from a secure tenancy, they will not have the right to buy for the period of the demotion. We intend to make amendments to the right to acquire through secondary legislation so that assured tenants of registered social landlords will not have the right to acquire during demotion. The amendment is designed to ensure consistency of approach.
The purpose of Amendment No. 70 is to ensure that time spent as a demoted assured short-hold tenant does not count towards the right to buy qualification or discount periods. The existing Anti-social Behaviour Bill provisions ensure that time spent as a local authority or housing action trust demoted tenant will not count towards the qualifying period for right to buy or the accrual of discount. The amendment ensures that the same rules will apply to time spent as a demoted assured short-hold tenant.
The right to buy is a very important, and now very valuable, right—as is the loss of the accrual rights to discount. We see it in those terms. We hope that taking that right away, even for a shortish period, will help focus the minds of those tenants who are making the lives of others hell or close to hell. We hope that it will help to focus their minds. We see it as an important part of the battery of measures set out in the Bill. As the noble Baroness said, it is absolutely proper that that is plain and clear in the Bill and that the impact of the loss of that right is well understood. We want it that way and consider that important. I commend the government amendments.
Baroness Hamwee: I am sure that many professionals will find that explanation helpful, as do I.
Lord Avebury: Before my noble friend withdraws the amendment, the Minister said that it is important that the provisions should be well understood. Of course I absolutely agree, because the effect of withdrawal of those rights might be that the tenant starts to behave himself. It is probably clear, but so as to get it on the record, what provision is there in the Bill or otherwise for the tenant to be told verbally that the effect of his continuance in the conduct that is causing the landlord to consider the measure will, among other things, be that he will lose the right to buy?
If it is physically explained to him, that may have a more salutary effect than if it is simply information contained in leaflets available to someone who goes to
518
ask for them from the local authority, as an entry on the local authority website, or in any other form of publication of which the tenant may be unaware. If it is explained verbally to him, that may be the most effective way to ensure that it has the impact for which the Minister hopes and which we all consider to be the objective of the clause.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, supports the intention behind the provision. We intend to ensure that the impact of demoted tenancies and of the loss of accrual of rights is well understood. We have had a long discussion about guidance and whether things should be stated in the Bill or made explicit in guidance. We certainly intend to spell out the policies and procedures in guidance, and clarifying and making crystal clear to tenants what a demoted tenancy implies in terms of rights and loss of rights will form part of that. So be pleased that we intend to make that explicit; that will help us and others affected by anti-social tenants to understand the impact and import of that change.
Baroness Hamwee: My noble friend stated much more clearly what I rather rushed over: the need for tenants to have an explanation of the effects. He was absolutely right to draw the Committee's attention to issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 63 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smithmoved Amendment No. 64:
Page 54, line 39, leave out from "possession" to end of line 40 and insert "if it is satisfied—

(a) that conduct under the inserted section 153A or 153B of the Housing Act 1996 has taken place since the making of the demotion order, and

(b) that the procedure under the inserted sections 143E and 143F has been followed"

The noble Lord said: This little group of amendments deals with proceedings for possession and, among other things, is intended to ensure that, under the Bill, at least, possession can be sought only for matters that relate to anti-social behaviour. Amendments Nos. 64 and 65 refer to new Section 143D to be inserted into the Housing Act 1996. Amendment No. 64 would specifically ensure that proceedings for possession were not commenced on a procedure-only basis, but that the court would have to have regard to the conduct of the tenant and would need to be satisfied that anti-social behaviour had occurred, rather than just ensuring that the procedure was correct. We are again dealing with the question of security. Amendment No. 65 would insert a test of reasonableness. Amendment No. 66 concerns new Section 143E, which deals with notice of proceedings for possession. It would ensure that, again, grounds for possession are related to anti-social behaviour and possession is not granted for rent arrears, and so on.
Amendment No. 67 is a good, common-sense amendment. It is hoped that it will dissuade landlords from using the legislation too freely, as it requires continued good behaviour.

519
I do not wish to give the impression that all landlords will abuse their position and try to get rid of tenants frivolously; the vast majority will not. When push becomes shove in this area, on occasion, you are dealing with human relationships, which are fallible on both sides—tenants and landlords. We tabled the amendments, not with the specific intention of protecting the tenant, but also to protect the landlords—in both cases, from themselves rather than from each other. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am sorry to say that we have been over this territory when dealing with the amendments grouped with Amendment No. 61, so I have not much more to add. I do not want to get into the habit of useless repetition. The amendments would require all landlords to return to court to prove again that there has been further anti-social behaviour. Earlier, I ran through the reasons why I felt that that was unnecessary.
Noble Lords opposite, when considering the outcome of this Committee, might wish to think about these amendments. If we had to run with them, it would make possession proceedings extremely time-consuming and costly. Those are important considerations. I do not think that the local government sector would welcome additional costs being lumbered on it in this regard when trying to make good use of something on which it is very keen; namely, demoted tenancies.
Perhaps the noble Lord would reflect on that point before Report stage. On those terms, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendments.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I was aware that we had gone over the ground. Speaking simply as a farmer, this year the ground is particularly hard and requires a great deal of tilling. I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I let a little of that rub off on him. We will take care to study the Minister's reply. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 65 to 68 not moved.]
Baroness Scotland of Asthalmoved Amendment No. 69:
Page 60, line 28, at end insert—
"( ) In section 171B (extent of preserved right to buy) after subsection (1) there is inserted the following subsection—
"(1A) A person to whom this section applies ceases to have the preserved right to buy if the tenancy of a relevant dwelling-house becomes a demoted tenancy by virtue of a demotion order under section 6A of the Housing Act 1988.""
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Scotland of Asthalmoved Amendment No. 70:
Page 60, line 37, after first "of" insert "section 20B of the Housing Act 1988 or"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 71 not moved.]
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Demoted assured shorthold tenancies]:
[Amendment No. 72 not moved.]
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Proceedings for possession: anti-social Behaviour]:
[Amendments Nos. 73 to 74A not moved.]
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 75 not moved.]
Clause 18 [Parenting orders under the 1998 Act]:
[Amendment No. 76 not moved.]
Baroness Sharp of Guildfordmoved Amendment No. 77:
Page 17, line 10, leave out "for a concurrent period exceeding three months" and insert "during that time"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 77 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 78, 81, 82, 88, 90 and 99, all of which relate to issues concerned with parenting, parenting orders, contracts and the counselling and advice services offered under such orders and contracts.
Amendment No. 77 is in fact a minor amendment, the main purpose of which is to question why it is laid down by statute that the counselling and guidance programme under the parenting order shall not exceed three months. On the face of it, one would have thought that a programme ought to go on longer. Many parents find it very helpful to have advice and help with parenting, and the longer it goes on, very often the more helpful they find it. In any case, subsection (4)(b) also provides that the programme shall be as specified by the responsible officer. My reaction would have been to expect it to last not less than three months. Why, therefore—perhaps the Minister can explain this to us—should the programme and advice not exceed three months?
Amendments Nos. 78 and 88 both seek to specify that the counselling and support offered to parents in these circumstances should be appropriate. Again, it is a minor amendment, but one that seeks to ensure that local authorities take this role seriously. We know from the experience to date that parenting classes have in fact proved a very useful and effective tool in helping to fight anti-social behaviour among young people. Some parents get intimidated even by their own children and either fail to control them at all or respond to violence with violence. Helping such parents learn how to manage their own children helps them and helps their children. However, it is important that thought is given as to what sort of help is appropriate. In effect, the amendments are saying, "Not just any old parenting classes that happen to be going on in the locality but the sort of advice and counselling that is geared to their needs and their families' needs".

521
Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 pick up the issue of family needs. Clause 19 relates to cases where a child has been excluded from school and is also a persistent truant. The aim is to use the parenting contract to try to turn the situation around. Here the aim is to ensure that before embarking on a parenting contract, the school and the LEA have investigated the case and made an attempt to get to the root of the problems. A parenting contract is not, for example, of much use if the fundamental issue underlying truancy is bullying at school. So, again, what this amendment is saying is, "Be careful". Parenting orders are not necessarily panaceas for all behavioural problems. Make sure that it is an appropriate one.
Amendment No. 90 is appropriate in a week in which we have had the Green Paper on children. It is asking for a recognition that parenting problems are part of a wider pattern of family breakdown that requires attention not just of schools but also of the social services and the housing and the health authorities. The issues are frequently complex and require the co-operation and working together of all these authorities. It is no good just relying on the LEA to institute parenting classes; it has to be a co-operative effort. So what I am hoping the Minister will acknowledge is the need for this co-operative effort, as indeed the Green Paper lays down; I also hope that he will recognise that it is sometimes useful to reinforce the message by writing it on to the face of the Bill.
Finally, Amendment No. 99 seeks to ensure that parents themselves are given some say and are provided with information about the range of counselling and advice services available in their area. Once again, it is a question of not just trying to fit square pegs into round holes—not to push them into any old parenting class—but to let them know the range of advice services available and let them choose or at least play some part in choosing what is appropriate to their needs.
It is the old principle of choice and ownership. If we expect people to give up their leisure time to attend and make use of classes and advice sessions voluntarily, it makes sense to give them a choice in the sort of sessions in which they participate. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I rise to speak to the three amendments in my name, Amendments Nos. 91, 105 and 116, that are grouped with this amendment.
Once again, I seek clarification from the Government as to the meaning of the Bill, and to put down words that might improve it. Amendment No. 91 gives a little more flexibility as to what might be put into a parenting order. We thought that that would be helpful.
Amendment No. 105 extends the period for which a parenting order might apply from 12 months to two years. That may seem quite difficult, but some parents have considerable problems. It is better to have the possibility of too long a maximum period that can be cut off than come to the end of a 12-month period and still have problem parents who have made relatively little progress.
522
Amendment No. 116 is a genuinely trivial amendment because it would leave out "must" and insert "shall". I am afraid that having been an anarchist for a long time in my life I do not like the word "must". However, if I am told that I should do something, I am much more likely to do it voluntarily. It is a case of compulsion versus people behaving reasonably.
The amendments are designed to help and to ensure a greater possibility of success for parenting orders, which we all want to succeed. The fact of the matter is, however, that a parenting order assumes that a parent can always ensure that a child attends school. That does not necessarily follow. There are some young children who will, as I do, reject the "must" and simply not go to school. The reason may be the very unfortunate one of bullying, but it may simply be a total unwillingness to go to school. Having grown up in an era when a lot of people I knew had to leave school at the age of 12, I can sometimes sympathise with that view. Some of those people were very successful. I beg to move.
The Earl of Listowel: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 80, which is in this group. Before doing so, I thank the Minister for the very helpful meeting that she kindly arranged for Peers prior to the Committee stage. I much appreciated the helpful replies that she and her colleagues gave to our questions.
Lord Hylton: I suggest to my noble friend that his amendments come in the next group and not in one beginning with Amendment No. 75.
6.30 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: With respect to my noble friend, I believe that we have moved on to the group beginning with Amendment No. 77.
As I said at Second Reading, I welcome the thrust of the proposals. I am certainly no expert in this area. I have visited a parenting class; I have given awards at a parenting ceremony. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, eloquently put the virtues of parenting interventions. What struck me is the isolation that many parents experience, which parenting classes can often help to break.
I have received information from a number of children's organisations. Barnardo's, the Children's Rights Alliance for England, the Children's Society, the family services units, NACRO and several other charities which work in this area, have serious concerns about the compliance of these clauses with the principle of the best interests of the child under the Children Act 1989 and Article 3 of the United Nations Convention of the Child. They are also concerned about compliance with Article 9 of the UNCRC. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that Article 9 provides that a child has the right to live with his or her parents unless it is deemed incompatible with his or her best interests. The child has the right to maintain contact with both parents if separated from one or both, except if it is contrary to the child's best interests.

523
There has been little discussion or information on these measures. Government amendments tabled on Report in the House of Commons provided for the residential requirement, but those amendments were not debated. Therefore, my amendments are probing and are intended to provide and seek further information.
The anti-social behaviour White Paper, Respect and Responsibility, stated:
"Where parental and parenting problems are having an impact on their child's development other options would be to work with the parents in residential settings such as residential family centres or building on innovative voluntary sector projects such as the Dundee Families Project run by NCH Action for Children. We hope that families who are at the stage where only drastic action will work will accept such support voluntarily. Where the family is in serious crisis and help is not accepted, children are very likely to be at risk".
The White Paper goes on to say that,
"positive work with families must always be allied to a clear understanding—by professional agencies and the perpetrators—that the protection of communities must come first…If the situation is putting the children or broader community at severe risk, the courts can remove the children from the home or move the whole family out of the neighbourhood. We will consider whether we need to take further powers to ensure parents comply, for example by extending a Parenting Order to include a residential requirement".
That is the context for this.
There are no details of residential parenting courses set out in the Bill or in the Explanatory Notes. It is unclear whether the residential component of up to three months is for the parent subject to the parenting order only, or for the whole family. In either case, appropriate arrangements for the care of the child must be made. In her letter, the noble Baroness made clear that ideally the whole family would be involved, but that there would be circumstances in which it may be just the parents.
One of the options suggested in the White Paper was the use of' residential family centres. Arrangements already exist under the Children Act 1989 and the Care Standards Act 2000 for a family to be placed in a residential family centre where available and appropriate as part of care proceedings in relation to the child. Residential family centres are often used for vulnerable families with young children to provide support and to identify work to be undertaken to help the family.
The primary reason for a family to be admitted to a residential family centre is concern that parents' or carers' capacity is, or may be, both insufficient to respond to their children's needs and insufficient to safeguard their children's welfare. Welfare is a primary consideration for admission to a centre. An establishment cannot be considered a residential family centre under the Care Standards Act 2000 if it provides only parenting support. Therefore, these may not be appropriate for the residential component of parenting orders. Residential family centres are defined under Section 4(2) of the Care Standards Act 2000 as,
"any establishment at which—

(a) accommodation is provided for children and their parents;

(b) the parents' capacity to respond to the children's needs and to safeguard their welfare is monitored or assessed; and

524

(c) the parents are given such advice, guidance or counselling as is considered necessary".

The NCH Dundee Families project, also mentioned in the White Paper, provides a good example of how anti-social behaviour can be reduced by giving vulnerable families the necessary support and advice they need. However, this project's primary focus is to tackle the underlying problems of nuisance behaviours and prevent evictions. This could provide a model for organisations providing the residential component of a parenting order, but capacity issues would need to be addressed.
I shall sum up the questions which it would be helpful if the Minister could answer. How will the Government ensure that the residential requirement of a parenting order fulfils the UK Government's obligations under the UNCRC, the Children Act 1989 and the Human Rights Act 1998? Can the Government provide an assurance that parents will be required to attend a residential programme only if it is in the best interests of any dependent children" Can the Government also confirm what will be the main purpose of the residential requirement? As I have said, the Minister has already responded to my final question in her letter.
A great deal of further information is needed in this area, given that these measures were introduced late in the progress of the Bill and that not much information was set out in the White Paper. I look forward to the Minister's response. Further, the question of capacity has to be addressed because it is no good giving pa rents these orders and then putting them through a second-rate residential course which does no one any good. Assurances on that front would be very welcome.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: Members on these Benches would like to associate themselves with the amendment spoken to by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. When the normal pattern of a family is disturbed by a residential course, it is extremely important that real thought is given to whether the benefits will exceed the costs. I endorse entirely the remarks made by the noble Earl.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I say straightaway that the sentiments expressed by the noble Baroness, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, are very much echoed by the Government. The thrust of the comments made by the noble Baroness follow closely those made by us.
Perhaps I may make one or two comments of a general nature before moving on to the specific applications. These measures are about supporting parents so that they can better support their children to take advantage of the educational opportunities that are available. Parenting orders and the assistance and support that go with them are very much supportive and enabling measures which it is hoped will improve the performance of parents in terms of their parenting, but for the precise purpose of benefiting children so that they can take advantage of their educational opportunities.

525
There is no doubt that improving parenting skills inures to the benefit of the child. We would expect local education authorities and schools to investigate the underlying causes of truancy before entering into parenting contracts, issuing penalty notices or taking any of the steps set out in the Bill. We seek to reflect those sentiments in the guidance that will be issued.
I shall touch on the point made by the noble Earl in relation to residential parenting services, echoed I believe by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. It is right to say that these parenting services will first be piloted on a voluntary basis so that we can learn the lessons of how to fashion them in the most appropriate way, thus ensuring that we can enhance their effectiveness. In that way good practice will become clearer in terms of how the programmes will be designed.
Turning to the point made by the noble Baroness about the three-month trial period, of course the whole point of the residential places is to target those issues that are of most concern to the families and the children involved. A weekend residential period may be appropriate in order not to disturb the ordinary day-to-day life of the family and it may be necessary to invite the parents to take the children with them. In other cases it may be more appropriate for the child not to be there for a short period to enable the parents to concentrate on other matters. I can reassure the Committee that the level of sensitivity necessary for the particular needs of a particular family will be very much borne in mind.
We believe that a three-month period is an adequate time for a parenting programme. It is important that there is a clear cut-off date. If after a programme under an order a parent requires additional support, we would prefer to see this delivered on a voluntary basis. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said, many parents have found these programmes very helpful indeed. More particularly, many parents who were resistant to a parenting order at its inception, after receiving the benefit of it, develop a hunger to continue with that work. If we have generated that level of commitment and enthusiasm after a three-month period, I am sure the noble Baroness would agree that it would be preferable to continue the work on a voluntary basis, if the parties agree, rather than retaining the element of compulsion. We believe that three months will be sufficient for us to taste whether or not the programme has succeeded.
The noble Baroness seeks to ensure with Amendment No. 78 that the counselling and guidance programme under a parenting order is appropriate. We absolutely agree with that sentiment. The Bill as currently structured enables that to happen.
Amendment No. 88 seeks to ensure that the local education authority or governing body provides appropriate support to parents as part of the parenting contract, and Amendment No. 99 places a duty on the LEAs and governing bodies to provide the parents with information about the range of advice and counselling services available. The Bill already states that the support provided must be for the purpose of
526
complying with the requirements specified in the contract. These words define what is appropriate for the contract and therefore the addition of the word "appropriate" is unnecessary and possibly confusing.
I share the noble Baroness's view that it is important that the parents have access to the kind of support that will best enable them to improve their child's behaviour or attendance. But the school or the local education authority must make a judgment about how best to support the parent after considering the particular circumstances of the case, rather than providing the parent with a range of pre-determined options. This will be subject to negotiation between the school or the LEA and the parent.
We will set out in guidance the kind of support that might be provided by a school or a local education authority through a parenting contract. The guidance will emphasise that schools and LEAs should think innovatively about what kind of support to offer.
Likewise, I can assure the Committee that a court can make a parenting order only if it is desirable in the interests of preventing a repetition of the kind of behaviour that led to a parenting order being considered. This will be the case only where the programme of counselling and guidance that the parent will attend is relevant and appropriate.
Let me turn now to the amendments tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel—that is, Amendments Nos. 80, 106, 107, 135 and 136. These amendments require three new conditions to be met before a court can include a residential course in a parenting order. The first additional condition would require that the parents' attendance is in the best interests of the child, taking into account the likely effect on the child because of changes in his home circumstances. Inserting this condition we think would be unnecessary. The whole purpose of the parenting order will be to support the parent so that they are able to influence their child positively. To include a residential course, a court will need to consider that it is likely to be more effective. This will serve the child's interests. So if the court believes, in all the circumstances, that it would be more appropriate to fashion a programme in another way, it will not provide for a residential placement to be included.
The second condition that the amendments propose is that the appropriate arrangements have been made for the care and education of the child. We believe that this is covered by the second condition in the clauses as drafted—that the likely effect on family life is proportionate. This would include their care and education. In some cases, this will involve the children attending on a voluntary basis, and in other cases, alternative arrangements will be made for their care and, if appropriate, their education.
The third condition mentioned by the noble Earl suggests that the residential course is a measure of last resort. I fear this would not lend itself very readily to interpretation or placement in the Bill and might well cause confusion.

527
The conditions already ensure that parental orders will include a residential course only in exceptional circumstances and will be underpinned by guidance which will be issued for consultation shortly.
The aim of Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 is to ensure that the local education authorities and schools do not seek to enter into parenting contracts for truancy without assessing the causes of the child's truancy. I reassure the noble Baroness that we share that aim.
Parenting contracts are not to be seen as punitive sanctions but as one means of trying to secure improvements in attendance. It is also important to remember that they are voluntary. We see them as a way of enabling a school and a child's parents to work closely together in improving the child's attendance. I am sure that a number of noble Lords will know that many schools already enter into informal contracts with parents in relation to children whose behaviour has not been good in order to improve that.
Amendment No. 90 would ensure that the LEAs and governing bodies will be required to state that they will work together with local authorities and health services in providing the support to parents advocated under parenting contracts. We of course want to encourage an approach to supporting parents that draws on input from the full range of the relevant agencies. However, while in most cases joined-up working between different agencies will he necessary, this is by no means true of every case. Sometimes one authority will be necessary and others will not. It would be wrong to require a blanket approach by imposing this requirement by including it on the face of the Bill.
We will encourage local education authorities and schools, through guidance, to investigate whether other agencies are already working with the pupil and family and, if so, to work with those other agencies to ensure that the terms of the parenting contract are complementary. This is also a key consideration of the Children at Risk Green Paper which was published on Monday and which the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, touched on in her remarks.
Amendment No. 91, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, amends Clause 19(5) and is designed to provide that the parenting contract may include provisions for the parent's side which go beyond the requirement to attend counselling or guidance session. We say that this amendment is not necessary, as Clause 19(4)(a) already provides that the parenting contract is to contain a statement that the parent agrees to comply with requirements specified in the parenting contract.
Amendment. No. 105 is intended to double the maximum duration of a parenting order from 12 months to two years. Again, that is unnecessary. It is important that any intervention in response to poor behaviour is timely and efficient. The expectation must be that the parent can be supported to bring about an improvement in the child's behaviour in a timely manner. We would not want to indicate that the improvement in the child's behaviour to an acceptable level can be allowed to take as long as two years. Noble Lords will know that two
528
years is a considerable period of time in any child's life. That is not to say that support would not be available beyond a year; if the parent felt it necessary, further support could be assessed on a voluntary basis. If the local education authority felt that the order had not been successful within that timeframe, it would need to consider and draw on other interventions.
As for Amendment No. 116, I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, says about his preference for "shall" as opposed to "must". I would not have described him in the terms that he used to describe himself; he is in no way delinquent, certainly not in the way in which he usually disports himself. The import of "must" and "shall" are of course very similar.
The obligation in the clause is to "have regard" to the guidance, which means that the local education authority or governing body need not slavishly follow the guidance if it is inappropriate in individual cases. If there are good reasons to do so in an individual case, the local education authority can depart from the guidance. We say, "must have regard", whereas the noble Lord would say, "shall have regard". The use of "shall" does not add or take away from the existing imperative. Whichever word is used, the subject remains under the same duty to have regard to the guidance. On that basis, I know that the noble Lord prefers the one but, in terms of terminology, what is currently there will suffice.
Amendment No. 132 is necessary to reflect amendments made in another place to this part of the Bill. The intention is that, in any case where the parent has already been subject to a parenting order and has therefore attended a counselling or guidance programme, a subsequent order does not need to include a requirement to attend another programme. Clause 18(2) of the Bill now achieves the desired effect, which means that Clause 24(2) is not needed.
I hope that I have given a helpful exposition of the way in which the Government have put these matters in the Bill, because I know that noble Lords were, rightly, concerned about them. We share that concern, but we believe that they are adequately and appropriately expressed in the Bill.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for her detailed reply and for giving us greater clarification of the Bill's intention. I feel a little bit as I felt this morning, when we had a lot of discussion on the question of consultation with local authorities. However, in some senses the honeyed tones in which the Minister has spoken give one the feeling that these things will all work out for the best. And yet we know from experience that that is not always so.
There are occasions when it is useful to have provisions in the Bill to reinforce sentiments. For example, it would be useful to have something in the Bill to remind local authorities that they should be working together, and that it should not be left to local education authorities alone. Ideally they will work together, but we know from experience—my goodness, the Victoria Climbié experience emphasises this—that, with all the best intentions, that does not always happen.

529
The Minister mentioned residential courses in relation to voluntary pilots. Yet the fact remains that the wording of the Bill does not make great reference to voluntary measures. Clause 18(2) states:
"A parenting order is an order which requires the parent…to attend…such counselling or guidance programme as may be specified".
I was delighted to hear the Minister's further explanation. I shall read the detail of what she said in relation to the amendments we are discussing. For the moment I shall withdraw the amendment but I may wish to return to certain issues on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 78 not moved.]
Lord Addingtonmoved Amendment No. 79:
Page 17, line 17, at end insert—
"(6) This section does not apply when local education authorities, schools and other governing bodies have failed to meet the provision in a child's education statement."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 79 standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, and speak to Amendments Nos. 101 and 119 with which it is grouped. The amendments address a matter which the Bill should address; namely, that of a child who refuses to attend a school which has failed to meet the provision in his or her education statement. Such education provision is mentioned in various Acts that we have passed in this House.
The amendments were inspired by the National Autistic Society. I refer to a situation where a school does not have a child's education statement. The statement is the rock solid guarantee that that child will receive the appropriate education. I should have thought that there was an argument for removing a child with certain learning or behavioural patterns from a school which cannot cope with him or her as inappropriate education provision may damage that child. That is the long and the short of the matter. The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, has tabled amendments which address a very similar area. I encourage her to join the discussion on my amendments if she wishes. I notice that her amendments adopt a slightly different approach.
If a child does not receive appropriate education or the support that he needs within the school, he may well be better off not attending that school as he will not learn anything. That concept probably contradicts much of the thrust of the Bill. However, such cases have arisen. I refer to the classic case of children with dyslexia being placed in classrooms where they receive totally inappropriate education. I speak from personal experience of that. Nowadays the problems of dyslexia are better understood and such a situation is far more unlikely to occur. Autistic children who are moved from special schools to mainstream schools may receive a better education if that process is handled properly. However, if it is handled badly, it will have disastrous results.
530
I need not give a list of examples but a child who is not given appropriate support within a school may be bullied and intimidated. He will react badly and disrupt the education of others. Those with hidden disabilities are particularly vulnerable in such a situation. I hope that the Minister will respond favourably to the amendment to ensure that a parent who removes their child from a hostile situation will not be in breach of the law. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I need no encouragement from the noble Lord, Lord Addington. I intended in any case warmly to support these amendments which he so graphically illustrated. In some ways they are better than the next group of amendments which stand in my name as they are much stronger. However, as the noble Lord pointed out, I stress that my amendments seek to achieve something slightly different and complement his amendments.
I hope in any case that the message will come across very clearly to the Government with this raft of amendments that, whatever faults or weaknesses our amendments may have—I am sure they are bound to find something—there is a clear need for the Government to bring forward an amendment to avoid totally inappropriate measures being applied to children with special educational needs as that may have severe consequences. However, I know that that is not their intention.
7 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I want to say how much welcome the comments made by both the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness. They speak very forcefully of their consistent interest in those who have disability and so are more vulnerable. I hope that I shall be able to reassure both of them in relation to how the Bill is framed.
Together, Amendments Nos. 79, 101 and 119 seek to ensure that the parenting orders under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the provisions for parenting contracts for truancy and exclusions and the provision for penalty notices for parents of truants will not apply where a pupil has a statement of special educational needs and provision for that has not been made. I understand why the noble Lord makes the case so firmly. He raised the important issue on Second Reading, as did the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. Both are anxious that we ensure that the provisions in Part 3 do not disproportionately affect that particular group.
We know that behaviour and attendance problems can often have some underlying cause or contributory factor, as the noble Lord and the noble Baroness have asserted. That may include special educational needs. We do not see Part 3 as a substitute for identifying and making appropriate provision for a child's special educational needs. In our view, the best way of addressing the concerns raised by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness is to make that crystal clear in the guidance that we hope to issue for consultation later this month. I assure Members of the Committee that those who participate in the debate will receive a copy of that consultation paper. We would hope that the

531
guidance would be in a proper form to be issued by spring next year, having properly taken into account everything that everyone has to say about it.
There would also be some practical difficulties with the implementation of such an amendment that focuses solely on children with statements. We know, for example, that there is variation in local practice in making provision for children with special educational needs. Two children could have broadly similar difficulties, but in one area they might have a statement and in another they might not. Yet the provision that they received would be appropriate in both cases. That could arise where in one area the local education authority has focused its policy on providing very high levels of support in all its schools, while the other issues a statement for the child with such difficulties, but both are receiving appropriate care.
I hope that that gives the noble Lord and the noble Baroness some assurance that the issues are being taken very seriously and that such needs will be taken into account. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment, but I know that the noble Baroness will always support his point.
Lord Addington: That speech was delivered in, shall we say, very honeyed tones again. It was very well done, of course.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I wonder whether I should change my tone and my voice to make Members of the Committee happier.
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Addington: No, we are simply saying that the Minister does those tones very well.
The point behind focusing on the statement is that it is the backdrop, and we kept it in the most recent pieces of legislation. It is something to which parents can cling as a guarantee. In certain places it may not be needed quite so frequently but if there is a problem, one can turn to it. That is the reason for keeping the statement. I appreciate that that is what happens; it is certainly how I interpreted the keeping of the statement, and I think many of us felt the same way. But we need some very clear guidance so that appropriate educational provision can be made.
If the guidance covers the fact that the provision must be appropriate to the needs of a particular child, that is fine, if not mainstream. Will the guidance give that kind of guarantee? If not, there is a distinct problem. We could be encouraging through the legal process the sending of a child into an environment that could do the child and the rest of his or her classmates harm. So the guidance notes will be very important—as will clarity. It will be something of a challenge for the government machine to try to get this right.
The reason why I felt comfortable when I read the amendment was that I have always regarded the statement as the long-stop in this system. That was
532
why we believed in the previous piece of legislation dealing with special educational needs, which retained this provision and placed emphasis on it.
I hope that the Government will make sure that we know exactly what we are getting in terms of guidance, and that parents, and not just lawyers in the Department for Education and Skills, will understand it. If parents cannot, we shall need to address this matter again and again.
With those caveats, and applause for the Minister's performance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 80 not moved.]
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Parenting contracts in cases of exclusion from school or truancy]:
[Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 not moved.]
Baroness Darcy de Knaythmoved 82A:
Page 17, line 35, at beginning insert "Subject to the conditions set out in section (Parenting orders and parenting contracts: special educational needs),"
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 101A and 11 6A. These are probing amendments—or rather, prodding as it were towards a positive outcome. I should like also to thank the Minister for making time to discuss the amendments in what was for her a scarily busy week. I am very grateful. My spirits rise at the mention of so much guidance.
Amendments Nos. 82A and 101A are paving amendments to Amendment No. 116A, whose aim is to give school governors and LEA officers a legal duty to pause for thought before issuing parenting contracts and orders to parents of children with special educational needs who have been excluded from school. That is specifically so that they can consider whether there are more appropriate actions that can be taken with regard to improving the provision for the child in school, rather than placing possibly irrelevant legal requirements on the parents.
Just as teachers have to make every effort to avoid excluding a child with special educational needs, and have first to check on his or her special educational provision, so this would provide a similar second safety net: before issuing a parenting contract or order, LEAs and governing bodies must consider whether everything possible is being done to meet the child's special educational needs.
I must stress that this requirement would not involve much work. If LEAs had already checked on that before excluding the child, the work would already have been done—it would require only another quick look. But if they did not previously check properly, they must do it now. In relation to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Addington—I shall call it Lord Addington's amendment—that would help LEAs to judge whether there had been a material

533
failure to meet the provision set out in the child's statement, because they would have made the second check.
Under Amendment No. 116A, LEAs and governing bodies would also have to consider whether the provision specified in the statement was sufficient and appropriate.
There is much evidence from those working with children with special educational needs that exclusion results from insufficient or inappropriate provision. IPSEA, the Independent Panel on Special Educational Advice, of which I am a patron, receives around 3,000 new cases a year from parents of children with special educational needs. Approximately 20 per cent are in relation to children who have been excluded from school or are being threatened with exclusion at some point.
In IPSEA's experience, the most common cause of exclusion of children with special educational needs is that their needs are not being adequately met, either because of lack of support or because the wrong kind of support has been provided. Clearly, the priority in these cases is to discover what needs to be done to meet a child's needs so that the child can resume full-time education as quickly as possible.
At best, issuing parenting contracts or orders could be completely irrelevant as it is simply not possible for parents to control their children's behaviour from outside the school when the cause of the behaviour problem is that their special education is not being met inside the school.
At worst, issuing parenting contracts or orders in situations where a child's exclusion is a consequence of his SEN not being met risks precipitating a complete breakdown of trust between parents and school and parents and LEAs. And this just at the time when everyone should be working together to ensure that the child's needs are met in the future.
Incidentally, I do not speak without notes, like the noble Lord, Lord Addington. I wish that I could. I believe that the amendment will be supported by a wide range of organisations actively supporting children with special educational needs. Certainly the problem is widely recognised. I had intended briefly to quote from several letters which IPSEA received in June, but for the sake of speed I shall not. I say merely that it received letters from the British Dyslexia Association, Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder UK Alliance and the Downe's Syndrome Association were clear that a disproportionate number of their children were being excluded as a result of a failure to meet the provision.
I want to slot in, with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, a quote from the National Autistic Society, because it was scary. It stated:
"The NAS report on inclusion and autism, carried in 2000, found that children with autism and Asperger's syndrome are on average 20 times more likely to be excluded from school than their peers. One in five are excluded at least once, compared with the estimated 1.2 per cent of the total pupil population. The situation is worse still for more able children with autism. Twenty-nine per cent have been excluded from school at one time or another. It is
534
our experience that for the vast majority of children with autism, exclusion represents a failure on the part of their local education authority to identify and meet their special educational needs".
This amendment will not in any way prevent parenting contracts or orders being issued in appropriate circumstances, but it will. I hope, reduce the risk of them being issued in inappropriate circumstances, such as when an exclusion has happened because a child's SEN has not been met. In that circumstance, parenting contracts and orders are not only unfair to parents but would provide a barrier to providing a solution to the problem which gave rise to the exclusion in the first place—the child's needs not being met. This would be against the best interests of children, which I know is not the Government's purpose in bringing forward this legislation.
I hope that the Minister will respond positively to these amendments, or at least will agree to consider them and perhaps continue discussions outside the Chamber. I was cheered by her earlier mention of guidance. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: I congratulate the noble Baroness on wielding the stiletto as opposed to the club on this issue. If the amendment had been part of the Bill, it would have met all the points I made earlier. It would work well with guidance.
Lord Elton: I am sorry that I was absent earlier. I had other work to do. I support the amendment because it goes to the taproot of crime in this country in juvenile delinquency. The noble Baroness speaks of particular people with disabilities, but it applies also to people who do not have disabilities. They can be extremely clever but become frustrated by their academic failure because they have been failed by the school.
This is an accelerating spiral in bad behaviour in young people and it marks them for the rest of their lives. If therefore we can pass in the Bill any provision which will reduce the incidence of such failure for people with a disability, it makes things easier in schools for the rest of the children and the staff. I am speaking slowly so that I may be rejoined by the Minister in due course.
What you do for those with a disability benefits those without. Anyone who is frustrated in a class disrupts the class, which is bad for all the children. Therefore, I warmly support the amendment both for the sake of the disabled and for those who are not.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The noble Lord, Lord Addington, has the club, the rapier comes from the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, and the steel from the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I come willingly; neither the club, the rapier nor the steel are necessary because I absolutely understand what noble Lords are saying. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, was not present a short while ago, but I did everything that I could to reassure noble Lords that it is of real importance to the Government to get right the guidance in relation to children's needs.

535
We were slightly resistant to putting the special needs children specifically on the face of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, is absolutely right that we care about all our children and their needs are disparate. Many of the children of whom the noble Lord, Lord Elton, speaks are those who suffer from emotional difficulties and, as a result, on occasions from behavioural difficulties. He rightly said that can lead to frustration at not having their needs met adequately or indeed at all by parents and others.
I hope that I can give even more comfort to the noble Baroness by saying, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Elton—forgive my tones; they are mine own; they are the only thing I have to offer the Committee and they are genuinely meant—that we are absolutely committed to trying to ensure that the provisions in Part 3 do not disproportionately or adversely affect children with special educational needs or any other particular group. That is the whole purpose.
As I tried to say earlier, we know that behaviour and attendance problems can often have some underlying cause or contributory factor. The statutory framework for special educational needs gives schools and local education authorities specific duties to identify children with special educational needs, to assess those needs and to make appropriate provision for them. Schools and local education authorities take their duties very seriously indeed. Nothing in Part 3 dilutes or undercuts those duties.
We do not see the provision in Part 3 as a substitute for identifying and making appropriate provision for a child's special educational needs; rather we see the measures that we propose as supportive of those provisions. In effect, they would enable formal agreements to be entered into in which the school, parents and the local educational authority would work together to support improvements in a child's behaviour and attendance. They offer an additional means of resolving issues concerning behaviour and attendance and enabling children to make progress. I am sure that we all share that aim.
In our view the best way of addressing the concerns raised by the noble Baroness is to make them crystal clear in the guidance that we shall issue for consultation later this month. With great humility I say that the children of whom the noble Lord and noble Baroness and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Elton, speak are children who can present the greatest challenges for their parents who need the highest degree of parenting skills. Many of us who believe ourselves to be good parents would be extraordinarily challenged by dealing with such children and would need every bit of support and assistance that we could garner together to help us to improve our skills so that we could meet those challenges.
There is no aspersion cast on parents who cannot meet those needs without help. They need help and it is right and proper that we should try to find ways to make it available. If parents will not take that voluntarily, we need to see what else must be done. The guidance will make it clear that schools and local educational authorities must take into account all the pupil and family circumstances in each case in deciding
536
whether it is appropriate to pursue a parenting contract or order. If such action is pursued, it will include support for parents in helping to improve their child's behaviour or attendance at school.
Many parents—as we said earlier and with which the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, was kind enough to agree—who start parenting classes with reluctance, end up going to them with a great deal of relief and joy because they actually get some help and support which is capable of making the difference. If parents cope better the children are, frankly, happier. That is what is wanted by noble Lords who have participated in this debate.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I thank noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for his unfailing support. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Elton. It is very interesting to have the other perspective as well. I am glad that he feels that this kind of amendment would have the spin-off effect of helping the people that he was concerned about.
I very much thank the Minister for her reply. If we were playing stone, paper and scissors and it was club, rapier, steel and honey, none of them have any power against honey and we should be stuck.
The noble Baroness was very supportive of identifying and meeting special needs. She said that there would be additional support. At Second Reading she said that the guidance was in place and that there was also the Disability Discrimination Act. The noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, who is in her seat, will know very well that although the guidance was beefed up a little in 2003 in that the head teacher had to inform parents about the advice line, which the noble Baroness kindly put in place last year, the rest of the guidance has not really changed since 1999 in terms of making every effort not to exclude a child and to make sure that the special educational provision is in place. The examples that were given of continuing problems with children with special educational needs have arisen since the guidance was issued. It has been in place for five years now.
The Minister also mentioned the Disability Discrimination Act. That is welcome, but it is much better not to go down that road of confrontation if we can possibly avoid it. So I would welcome tremendously her making it crystal clear that there should be a great deal of support for the parents. I very much hope we shall be able to see that before the Bill has finished its passage.
This has been a very useful debate. Guidance is fine, but guidance changes, as we know. So it is very useful to have the noble Baroness's extremely clear statement in Hansard. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Sharp of Guildfordmoved Amendment No. 83:
Page 17, line 35, leave out "or the governing body of a relevant school"

537
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 83, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 86, 94, 95 and 97. The amendments propose that the words,
"or governing body",
be removed from all responsibilities relating to the issuing of parenting contracts. From these Benches, we are anxious that all parenting orders or parenting contracts should come, as at present, from the local education authority and via the education welfare officers of those authorities. In that sense, our amendments go in the opposite direction from Amendments Nos. 87 and 93 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, which seek more involvement from schools and head teachers.
We do not deny or underrate the role of the school in such circumstances, but we are anxious to leave the relationship between the teachers, the head teacher, the governing board and the family concerned as voluntary and supportive rather than being seen as authoritarian in any respect.
We have talked about the impact of parenting orders. Experience with parenting orders and youth offending teams has shown how important is the voluntary relationship. I shall say more about that when we consider the issuing of fixed penalty notices. By putting governing bodies in the hot seat, which often effectively means putting the head teacher in the hot seat, as in such circumstances many governing bodies are actually acting on the advice of the teacher, we break down that voluntary relationship and risk losing the benefits that stem from it. We also risk bringing violence and vindictive behaviour from the family concerned, who may feel aggrieved and insulted by the parenting order, especially if it is given publicity within the school itself and the school community.
One issue that I should like the Minister to clarify is the relationship that the Government envisage between parenting orders—parenting contracts—and home-school contracts. It is now good practice for schools to have home-school contracts with parents. That applies to all parents. We are entirely behind that. They are clearly contracts between parents and the governing body and teachers of the school. We recognise that and consider them to be totally different and do not want them muddled up. For that reason, it is much better to leave it to the local education authority to take the stick—it should be seen to be the hard guy who imposes and requires parenting contracts—and leave it to the school to act as the soft guy with the soothing tone, urging the family to live with the contract and make as good a job of it as they can. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said, I have tabled three amendments which are grouped but which fly in somewhat the opposite direction to hers. That is good and bad, but it is as well that we should discuss the options. We take the view that if parenting contracts are to work, they will do so above all else because the school is involved. Teachers will need to be involved and school resources will need to be
538
committed to a degree because I do not see where else the resources will come from. We therefore think that the head teacher should be committed and virtually in control, rather than the LEA. After all, it is the school that will have identified the problem; it is the school that will have had to deal with it before we reach this stage; and it is the school that will have to deal with it after the parenting order has ceased and become a matter of history. For those reasons, we have tabled Amendments Nos. 87 and 93.
I must say that I do not like the idea of placing yet another burden on already hard-pressed teaching staff in schools or on headmasters, who already have quite sufficient responsibilities with which to deal. But the idea that the LEA will establish an extra-curricular school for recalcitrant or incompetent parents is preposterous. It will not happen like that. We must ensure that schools are thoroughly involved, and that perforce means the involvement of the head teacher.
Amendment No. 98 reverts to a theme to which I have already spoken and which I shall not repeat, which is changing "must" to "shall". I do not intend to say any more on that; we had the debate once and there is no point having it again. I am sorry that I did not pick this up, but it would have been better if we had grouped all those amendments together so that I could have been clubbed over the head just once.
I am sorry that we take a different view from the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, but we are addressing the same subject and have the same concern; it is just that our methods are different. I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The fact that we have amendments going in two opposite directions tends to make me believe that the Government have probably got it about right.
Amendments Nos. 83, 86, 95 and 97 collectively seek to remove the power for the governing body of a relevant school to enter into, or exercise any power in relation to, parenting contracts. It is very important not to conflate parenting contracts with parenting orders. On several occasions the noble Baroness spoke about parenting orders. But parenting contracts come before parenting orders and are entered into on a much more voluntary basis.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, was therefore right to mention home-school contracts, which are entered into by schools, in accordance with best practice, with all parents. They set out the guidelines on how the school expects the parents to behave and the sorts of services that parents expect from the school.
I am sure that the noble Baroness will know that, in addition, it has become in accordance with good practice for many schools to have a procedure into which they engage when a child is causing, or suffering from, some form of difficulty, particularly where the child is disruptive. It has become increasingly common for the school to enter into an informal agreement with the parents as to how they should address those difficulties.

539
Parenting contracts are very much at the formalised end of such arrangements, where a child has got into difficulty, is playing truant or causing difficulty as a result of behaviour in the school, and the school seeks to engage with the parent to address those issues.
The noble Baroness will know that disruptive children quite often have two different types of parents: those who are greatly concerned about their child's misbehaviour and are extremely anxious to engage with the school in those remedial steps, and those who fail even to identify that it is an issue with which they will engage. With the former, it is always easier to enter into a more informal, sometimes slightly less structured, arrangement than with those who do not immediately see that there is an issue.
The amendments that the noble Baroness seeks to make would mean that parenting contracts would apply only in cases where the education authority had become involved in a case and thought it appropriate to enter into a contract with the parent—effectively limiting the use of parenting contracts to only the most severe case of poor behaviour or attendance.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: As I understand it, Clause 19 applies where a pupil has been excluded on disciplinary grounds from the relevant school. Therefore, almost by definition, the local education authority is already involved in the disciplinary hearing.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: It would be possible for the local education authority to become involved. However, the purpose of the contracts is to allow a school in that situation to enter into an appropriate contract on a voluntary basis with the parent to try to restore the relationship to enable the child to take up again the proper education opportunities.
The clause can also involve a child who has been excluded for a very short time, so it need not he a permanent exclusion. The noble Baroness will know that sometimes children are excluded for the afternoon, for the end of a week or a shorter period. They can he excluded as a result of very poor behaviour on one occasion; for example, they can be told on a Friday afternoon that they can come back on Monday.
There is a question mark as to whether it is appropriate at that point, when the child is excluded for a few hours, to have the parents come to the school and to try to discuss with them whether a parenting contract is the most appropriate approach.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, will know that there is a difference between that sort of short term, temporary exclusion and one that is expressed initially to be a permanent exclusion from the school for some very serious behaviour; quite often after several short-term exclusions.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: Earlier on, the Minister made a distinction between those parents who were receptive, with whom voluntary contracts could very easily be concluded—we on these Benches see voluntary contracts as the right way forward—and
540
those parents who, she rightly pointed out, could not be persuaded of the voluntary way forward and who do not want to know about it all. For those parents, a more formal contract is the answer. The problem that we see is that sometimes those parents can he quite vindictive. The difficulty with the school being involved and, in a sense, enforcing the parenting contract, is that it could bring back on the school vindictive behaviour by those parents.
Therefore, separating things and making formal contracts between the local education authority and parents would be preferable in those circumstances.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I understand, but I must emphasise that parenting contracts are all voluntary. A parent cannot be compelled to enter into a parenting contract, and can refuse. When we come to amendments later on, your Lordships will see that, if a parent refuses to enter into a contract with the school, that can be taken into account when an application is made to the court for a parenting order. Some parents will enter into a parenting contract very willingly and will welcome it, but there are others who will have to be encouraged and will need a more formalised arrangement.
It will be explained to those parents that they must decide whether to engage in the contract on a voluntary basis. However, if there is no improvement in the child's behaviour and the way in which the problem progresses, the school and/or the local education authority may have to consider whether to apply for a parenting order.
At the moment, there is no medium term. With regard to the problem of truancy, the noble Baroness will know that, if a child does not go to school on a regular basis, the authority decides whether to take proceedings before a magistrates' court to bring about compliance. This policy gives the school a tool that it is not compelled to use. However, the school can use it, if it is deemed to be appropriate, with parents who will have been persuaded voluntarily to enter into a contract. Although I say "voluntarily", it is a bit like the army—one feels that one must volunteer before one is made to comply.
This will provide an opportunity for the school to engage with the parents in a constructive, formal way, explaining to them what the possible outcome will be. That must be the best way forward. We would like parenting contracts to be used to prevent a child's poor behaviour or attendance from becoming any worse. Sometimes, if we can get in early, just as behaviour is starting to go over the brink, we can nip it in the bud.
In many cases, the school has the most involvement with children with behavioural or attendance problems, and also with their parents. It therefore makes sense to allow schools to arrange contracts with parents if they think it might be helpful. If the teaching staff and the head teachers do not think that it is the most appropriate way forward, there is nothing in the Bill that would oblige them to do so. It merely gives them the ability to do so should they so wish and if they deem it the most

541
appropriate way forward. It should be helpful. Clause 19 gives the governing body of a school the power to enter into the parenting contracts.
Amendments Nos. 87 and 93, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, seek to ensure that the head teacher should be involved in this process. We agree that head teachers who deal with parents, often on a daily basis, should be involved in negotiating and delivering a parenting contract. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent that happening.
Clause 19 refers to the governing body and not the head teacher because the party entering into the contract with the parent must meet the cost of providing any counselling or guidance programmes provided through parenting contracts and, under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, the governing body and not the head teacher has control of the school budget. Therefore, the overall policy decision of whether the school will enter into parenting contracts must be taken by the governing body.
I should therefore like to reassure the noble Lord. Lord Dixon-Smith, that although head teachers are given no separate powers with respect to parenting contracts directly in the Bill, they will most certainly play a significant role in implementing the provision. It would also be likely that the governing body would delegate the day-to-day responsibility for negotiating, drawing up and signing the contract to the head teacher.
The issues regarding the role of different agencies in parenting contracts raised by these amendments will be covered in guidance. I therefore urge both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord not to press their amendments. In the amendments which follow we shall look at what happens when and if the parenting contract does not succeed and we then have to look at further issues in relation to parenting orders. However, that may now be for another day.
Lord Hylton: Will the noble Baroness consider that the guidance, when it is issued, should include a model form of parenting contract?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I shall certainly consider those matters. However, I say straightaway that the
542
guidance should be just that—guidance and not prescription. As the Committee will know, it is absolutely vital that the school, the parents and, if appropriate, the child should craft something that precisely meets the needs of that family. So although the guidance should properly set out the ambit of the sort of matters that they should consider, we are very reluctant to be prescriptive, as that may not fit the needs of the child and the family. One would not like it to be thought that one has failed unless one has conformed to the guidance. The point we are trying to push is that it must be child-focused and provide the sort of support and help that that family will need to move on. I hope that that answers the question. Certainly we will try to give as much help as we can in the guidance.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I thank the noble Baroness for her response and assure her that she has made it very easy for me to sit on my hands when the appropriate moment does arise, even if it does happen to be on a different day.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for her very detailed and lengthy response to this group of amendments. I think that she has persuaded me that the school itself and the school governing body should be involved in these contracts. However, I should like to ponder the matter a bit further and we may return to it on Report. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Grocott: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Gambling
A message was brought from the Commons that they have ordered the committee appointed by them to meet with the Lords committee on Tuesday 16th September at half-past nine o'clock, as proposed by this House.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes before eight o'clock.

  Juries
  Juries
  County Fermanagh: Government Employees
  County Fermanagh: Government Employees
  Northern Ireland: Sewerage Arrangement, Portrush, County Antrim
  Northern Ireland: Sewerage Arrangement, Portrush, County Antrim
  Belfast Education and Library Board: DVD Language Policy
  Belfast Education and Library Board: DVD Language Policy
  Questions for Written Answer: Email Replies
  Questions for Written Answer: Email Replies
  Questions for Written Answer: Response Times
  Questions for Written Answer: Response Times
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Northern Ireland: Equality Agenda
  Northern Ireland: Equality Agenda
  ISC Report: Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction—Intelligence and Assessments
  ISC Report: Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction—Intelligence and Assessments
  Committee on Standards in Public Life: Government Response to Ninth Report
  Committee on Standards in Public Life: Government Response to Ninth Report
  Hong Kong: National Security Legislation
  Hong Kong: National Security Legislation
  Diplomatic Missions: National Non-domestic Rates
  Diplomatic Missions: National Non-domestic Rates
  British Overseas Territories Citizens
  British Overseas Territories Citizens
  Racial Discrimination: International Human Rights Treaties
  Racial Discrimination: International Human Rights Treaties
  Charity Street Collections
  Charity Street Collections
  Voluntary and Community Sector: Fourth Annual Report of Compact Working Group Secretariat
  Voluntary and Community Sector: Fourth Annual Report of Compact Working Group Secretariat
  Immigration Detainees: HMP Maghaberry
  Immigration Detainees: HMP Maghaberry
  Racial Discrimination Legislation: UK and EC Legislation
  Racial Discrimination Legislation: UK and EC Legislation
  Racially and Religiously Aggravated Crime: Sentences
  Racially and Religiously Aggravated Crime: Sentences
  Iraq: Rule of Law
  Iraq: Rule of Law
  British Energy: Restructuring Plan
  British Energy: Restructuring Plan
  Lord Chancellor's Department: Funding
  Lord Chancellor's Department: Funding
  Personal Remittances: Flow from UK 1997–2002
  Personal Remittances: Flow from UK 1997–2002
  Ragwort
  Ragwort