Sitting of 15 September 2003

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

    Historic Royal Palaces
    Dr. Vincent Cable: What recent advice she has given to Historic Royal Palaces regarding the imposition of charges to the public. [129551]
    The Minister for Sport and Tourism(Mr. Richard Caborn): My noble Friend Baroness Blackstone told the trustees of Historic Royal Palaces that they have the power to introduce charges for entry to the gardens at Hampton Court palace provided that the cost is reasonable, related to upkeep, and not at a level that effectively restricts public access.
    Dr. Cable: Does the Minister have any constructive proposals to deal with a basic inequity, arising from a ruling of the European Court of Justice, that local people who use royal palaces—Hampton Court gardens in the case that we are considering—or other national monuments cannot be exempted from or given any sort of preference with regard to charges, which are designed to apply to tourists who visit those places perhaps once in a lifetime?
    Mr. Caborn: I know that the hon. Gentleman and some of his colleagues will meet my right hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for media and heritage on Friday and I am sure that they will be able to hold a dialogue. I assure him that no final decision has been made about the subject. "Not to be announced" appears more times on the briefing sheet than I have previously seen since becoming a Minister. That is unfortunate, but I am sure that all will be revealed to the hon. Gentleman. I hope that what is under discussion will be helpful in dealing with not only the concern that he raised directly, but others.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Does the Minister know what happens in royal palaces in other countries? For example, visitors to Swedish royal palaces properly pay, but do local people have free access to the grounds? Can the Minister find out?
    Mr. Caborn: Royal palaces in other countries probably experience the same problems with visitor
    572
    numbers as those here. That is why they are revisiting the issue of charging. However, I do not have the information that the hon. Gentleman requests to hand.

    Mind Sports
    Dr. Evan Harris: Whether it is the Government's policy to seek to legislate to permit certain mind sports to be recognised as sports for the purpose of receiving national lottery funding. [129552]
    The Minister for Sport and Tourism(Mr. Richard Caborn): The Government recognise the benefits of participation in chess and other mind games and continue to look at the case for amending the Physical Training and Recreation Act 1937. That could allow the sports councils to fund mind games. It would then be for the councils, including those of the devolved Administrations, to decide whether to recognise individual mind games as sports for funding purposes.
    Dr. Harris: I am grateful for that response and the moral support that the Minister and the Secretary of State for Education and Skills have given to chess and bridge. However, will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge the unfairness, which means that British top-class and world-class players, especially juniors and disabled players, are sometimes unable to access the international competition that we should like them to experience because, consequent on the 1937 legislation, they cannot get lottery funding?
    Mr. Caborn: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but chess is funded directly by the Exchequer to the tune of £50,000. Indeed, in 2003, the figure will be £60,000. It has also received just under £500,000 directly since the lottery's inception. Funding streams can therefore be accessed for chess and other mind games. I am aware of the world-class performance, but until the problem of the 1937 Act is resolved and chess is included in the definition of sport, it cannot have access to direct funding from the Sports Councils.
    Mr. Tony McWalter: I wish to support the line of questioning of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), who is my bridge partner in the House of Commons team. However, my question does not constitute special pleading because although I do not believe that the House of Commons team will apply for any grants, we are considering a serious issue. In my constituency many people play contract bridge, but travel to events, booking halls and so on are restricted to those who are reasonably wealthy. Recent studies clearly show that Alzheimer's and such conditions can be ameliorated by engagement with mind sports. I therefore urge my right hon. Friend to continue to use his best efforts to widen the canvas on which his brush is currently painting.
    Mr. Caborn: Notwithstanding all those points, I suggest that my hon. Friend gets a partner from either Scotland or Wales who could put some pressure on the respective Sports Councils. I have raised the matter at the sports cabinet, which Sports Ministers of the devolved Administrations attend. I am bound to say

    573
    that there is currently no appetite for change. Unless there is such appetite in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, it will be difficult to proceed with changes to the 1937 Act.

    Performing Art
    Mr. Eric Illsley: If she will make a statement on the most recent funding settlement from the Arts Council for the performing arts in the regions. [129553]
    The Minister for the Arts(Estelle Morris): While the allocation of funding is a matter for Arts Council England, I am pleased that so many arts organisations in all regions of England are benefiting from the increased funding that we secured for the arts in the last spending review. This will see arts expenditure increase to £410 million by 2005–06, a 117 per cent. increase since 1997.
    Mr. Illsley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. She will be aware that theatre provision in my constituency has been inadequate since the closure of the Barnsley Civic theatre several years ago due to the necessity for structural repairs. Unfortunately, successive bids for lottery funding have failed, and the Arts Council obviously now has less money available to distribute to such causes. Will my right hon. Friend examine this situation to see whether any further assistance can be given to my local authority, so that it can provide a theatre in my constituency?
    Estelle Morris: I have a great deal of sympathy with what my hon. Friend says, in view of the fact that the theatre in his constituency has now been dark for some years and was unsuccessful in the last bidding round. It is not for me to say whether any help can be given, because it is important that the allocation of funds by Arts Council England is independent of the Government. I note, however, that Barnsley is one of the priority areas in Yorkshire for development by the Arts Council, which recently funded a development officer in the town to help with cultural regeneration. I am delighted that culture is forming such an important part of the economic regeneration there. I would also point out to my hon. Friend that it is possible to bid again, and I hope that careful contact with the Arts Council prior to the bid being put in will secure a better result next time. If that were the case, I would join him in being absolutely delighted.
    Michael Fabricant: Is it not the case that the Arts Council and other organisations expected additional money when the Millennium Commission was wound up? Notwithstanding that, is the right hon. Lady aware that the Arts Council has given a generous grant to the Garrick theatre in my constituency, which the Secretary of State opened when she visited Lichfield recently? Does this not just go to show that when bodies have decent organisation and make decent applications, money can sometimes be found?
    Estelle Morris: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that many good quality bids have been funded. I was delighted, on my only other appearance at DCMS
    574
    questions, to celebrate with him what has happened at the theatre in Lichfield, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State opened the following day. I would, however, question something that he said. I do not think that he meant to give the impression that the bid from Barnsley was no good. I am sure that in Yorkshire, as in the west midlands, Humberside and other regions, there are good quality bids. I am pleased to say that the bids coming in from cultural organisations for investment in regeneration are now of such quality that it is becoming difficult to make final decisions. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, however, that we should always ensure that we have as much money as possible to fund good bids, as such projects form an essential part of the economic infrastructure of the country and provide for people to enjoy their leisure time.

    Athletics (North-East)
    Mr. Stephen Hepburn: If she will make a statement on Government-funded provision for athletics in the north-east. [129554]
    The Minister for Sport and Tourism (Mr. Richard Caborn): Since 1998, a total of just under £2.8 million has been awarded to athletics in the north-east by Sport England from Exchequer or lottery programmes, comprising four community capital programme awards totalling just over £2.5 million, one award of £50,000 through the community athletics refurbishment programme—part of the legacy money given to UK Athletics—and 33 Awards for All grants totalling£113,000.
    Mr. Hepburn: I know that the Minister is looking forward to doing the great north run next week. When he does so, he will pass Gateshead stadium, which he will see is in dire need of investment. Is he aware that the stadium has been turned down for an £11 million lottery bid, while at the same time the Duke of Northumberland, one of the richest men in the north-east, received an £11 million grant from the lottery for some old painting that he did not want any more? When the Minister is up there, will he intervene in this matter and get some public resources in so that we can get this worthwhile scheme going?
    Mr. Caborn: I can assure my hon. Friend that when I am doing the great north run on Sunday, I shall be keeping my eyes in front and looking for the 13-mile marker. Seriously, though, my hon. Friend raises an important question. Sport England's review has been looking at the facilities for elite development, and it took the decision in July to review that. I was up there a few weeks ago, and it was pleasing to see how all the parties involved have come together. A meeting was called by Sport England, which has given a commitment that there will be some elite facilities there, and the development agency, the Government office and the universities are all now involved, together with the local authorities. I hope, therefore, that in the next few weeks or months, there will be a resolution to the problem to which my hon. Friend refers.
    Mr. Malcolm Moss: Notwithstanding what the Minister has just said about

    575
    funding for athletics, I assure him that athletics clubs in the north-east, in common with sports clubs throughout the country, will react with shock-horror at his decision, as outlined to me in his letter of 20 August, that clubs will have to pay the full fee for alcohol licences in future. In Committee on the Licensing Bill, his predecessor, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), said in response to the three amendments that I had tabled to reduce licensing fees payable by voluntary sports clubs in the north-east:
    "Having regard to the strength of the argument that the hon. Gentleman has presented to the Committee"—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 6 May 2003; c. 4021—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is out of order, so I cannot allow the Minister to answer.

    Lottery Funding
    Mr. Peter Luff: If she will make an assessment of the criteria used by the lottery funding bodies to distribute their resources to applicants. [129555]
    The Minister for the Arts(Estelle Morris): The criteria vary from distributor to distributor, but they are based on national lottery financial and policy directions issued to distributors by the Department, and on distributors' own strategic plans and funding policies.
    Mr. Luff: Does the Minister share my concern that the current use of highly selective types of disadvantage and deprivation by many lottery funding bodies to target their funding is causing frustration, disillusion and even anger among many other groups facing similar levels of deprivation, but who feel excluded from access to lottery funds?
    Estelle Morris: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter with me. He has sent a letter to the Department, which we will reply to shortly. I took the trouble to look into the background of that letter, because I thought that it may have been the reason for his question. On the face of it, the matter that came before his constituent has been clumsily dealt with by Awards for All in the west midlands. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about that. I have no control over what Awards for All writes in letters, but had I been the hon. Gentleman's constituent and read about the priority for funding as explained to him, I may have had the same response as he had. I hope that that message gets back.
    The letter to the hon. Gentleman's constituent was clumsily written, but the policy is not clumsy or ill-thought-out. It is important that all lottery distributors examine how money is being distributed and ensure that under-represented groups are assisted to make better quality applications or to get their fair share. The letter was a reflection of that. The groups that were highlighted in the letter have been significantly under-represented in applications and awards from the Awards for All lottery fund. The issue could have been described in a much better way that would not have antagonised people.
    Groups other than those highlighted receive funds from Awards for All. May I compare the hon. Gentleman's constituency with mine as an example? His
    576
    constituency has had £500,000 in 147 awards, whereas my constituency has had £31,000 in eight awards. On that basis, perhaps it is me rather than him who should be complaining about the criteria and the priorities.
    Tony Lloyd: Will my right hon. Friend pause to consider the winner of last night's "Restoration" programme? Victoria baths, which lies between my constituency and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), was refused lottery funding on a number of occasions. That does not necessarily reflect on the lottery per se, but it shows that the people sometimes have very different priorities from those of the lottery. Will she join me in congratulating Gill Wright and all the many people who made the bid for Victoria baths so successful?
    Estelle Morris: Of course I will join my hon. Friend. With my connections, affection for the city and knowledge of the area, I am delighted that the people expressed that view. In the consultation paper on the national lottery, we are looking for ways in which the general public can make clear their priorities. Perhaps there is a message from last night, which may reach the ears of those who make the decisions. If so, I would be thrilled.
    Mr. Adrian Sanders: We could argue until we are blue in the face about the distribution of lottery funds. Is not the issue the reduction in sales of lottery tickets, as a result of which less money is available to distribute? When the lottery began it was supposed to be a competition with one big jackpot. Since then it has fragmented. What proposals does the Minister have to increase lottery sales that do not involve further fragmentation?
    Estelle Morris: Ours is still the most successful lottery in the world. Since it was launched in the mid-1990s, £14.77 billion has been raised. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the pattern of sales and receipts for lotteries elsewhere in Europe and beyond, he will find that sales fall off and plateau after a number of years, and new games are needed. I have no plans to launch new games because that is not my responsibility, but the hon. Gentleman will know from an announcement made last week that Camelot has launched its first new game for some years, and it plans to diversify the games over the next few years to increase funds. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that more sales mean more money for good causes.

    Olympic Bid
    Mr. Cohn Challen: What benefits for UK regions she estimates will accrue from the London Olympic bid. [129556]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport(Tessa Jowell): Hosting the Olympic and Paralympic games in London in 2012 should provide benefits throughout the UK as a whole. Some events, such as sailing and shooting, require specific venues and are therefore likely to be staged outside London. The Olympic football competition is also likely to be held in

    577
    stadiums around the country. In addition, there will be opportunities to secure investment in improved sporting facilities around the country by some of the visiting teams as they arrive for training and preparation in the year leading up to the games. We intend to do all we can to ensure that as much of the country as possible benefits from the opportunities that the games will create.
    Mr. Challen: I thank my right hon. Friend for that helpful reply. I am sure that the whole country will take great pride in a successful London bid for 2012, but that pride might just turn to resentment if people in the regions feel that more money is being sucked into London's infrastructure when London already receives more per capita funds by a mile than any other region. I am particularly anxious that lottery money used for the bid should be seen to be distributed equitably. As my right hon. Friend knows, a number of Members on both sides of the House have campaigned for a fairer share of lottery money, and I hope that she will give special attention to that aspect.
    Tessa Jowell: I shall certainly do that. I pay tribute to the efforts, led by my hon. Friend, to focus on the problem that lottery money is not always distributed equitably.
    As for the balance between London and the rest of the country, it should be remembered that a substantial part of the estimated cost of hosting the games will be met from London as well as the lottery and income from the International Olympic Committee. While preparing the detailed case for bidding, however, the Government consulted all the regional development agencies to test the very issue raised by my hon. Fiend. The response was unanimous across the country: RDAs recognised that hosting the games in London had the potential to benefit every region if it was done properly. We need to ensure that those benefits are realised in practice wherever people may be.
    Mr. Greg Knight: I can confirm that the official Opposition support the bid and expect the UK regions to benefit if it succeeds. But should not the House be more than a little concerned about the fact that the Government have still not appointed a chief executive officer, while Paris has more than 100 people working full-time on its bid? It appears that our preparations are behind even those of Havana. If the Government are serious about the bid, should not senior Ministers be treating the matter with far more urgency?
    Tessa Jowell: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his Front-Bench responsibilities. I also welcome the cross-party support for the bid. However, it is not the Government's job to appoint the chief executive of the bidding company; that is the job of the bidding chair, and she has that process in hand. She is determined to recruit the best possible person—[Interruption] That is a judgment that she will make, with great respect. On Friday she announced the names of board members, and I think all who have seen them will recognise the strength of the sporting interests involved and the commitment to representing and promoting regional interests, as well as drawing on the experience of the very successful Commonwealth games in Manchester last year.
    578
    Therefore, progress is being made, greatly helped by the very detailed preparation that was undertaken in advance of the Government's decision to bid. In addition to the announcement of the board, the bidding chair has announced the name of her chief operating officer, so the organisation is being put together. The work is proceeding and the important thing now is that hon. Members on both sides of the House do not simply talk about support, but deliver it in practice at every turn.
    Mr. Derek Wyatt: Can my right hon. Friend shed some light on why neither of the two candidates for the post of chief executive took the job? Can she explain why that was the case?
    Tessa Jowell: No, these are decisions for the chair of the bidding company and I do not think that it is right that I should speculate on the reasons why Barbara Cassani is continuing to interview candidates for chief executive.
    Bob Spink: Does the Minister accept that the eastern region and Essex in particular have a major part to play in the London Olympic bid? Will she ensure that the Government bring forward resources and co-operate with Essex to ensure that Essex can benefit from the bid and that the bid is successful?
    Tessa Jowell: I understand why the hon. Gentleman, as a diligent constituency MP, wishes to highlight the interests of his constituents but I do not have anything to add to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Challen), which is to state in broad terms the Government's commitment to ensuring that the whole country benefits as much as possible from the investment in the Olympics.

    Analogue/Digital Television
    David Cairns: What responsibilities the Government have regarding the availability of (a) analogue and (b) digital television services in Greenock and Inverclyde. [129557]
    The Minister for the Arts(Estelle Morris): The Independent Television Commission and the BBC are jointly responsible for television broadcasting in the UK. As my hon. Friend knows, analogue coverage is provided in Greenock and Inverclyde by the Rosneath and Rothesay transmitters. However, reception in parts of Greenock and Inverclyde is affected by local topography.
    David Cairns: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. As she knows, many of my constituents in Inverkip cannot get an analogue signal, so they have subscribed to BSkyB Digital. Now, on a Saturday afternoon when they want to watch on the BBC a live football match, they get a blank screen with a sign saying, "Switch to analogue to watch this match because of other contractual arrangements." That is not an option for them. Should there not be one simple principle written into the new BBC charter that, if one

    579
    pays one's licence fee, one should be able to watch the BBC, irrespective of any other commercial or technological impediments?
    Estelle Morris: Obviously, comments about the future of the BBC charter will be for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in future months and years, but I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend's constituents. Less than 1 per cent. of people in the United Kingdom cannot receive analogue television, but for his constituents it is 100 per cent. I can imagine their dismay at not being able to watch Scottish football on a Saturday afternoon. He makes a powerful point. All I would say is that the rights and ability to watch analogue television are as important to his constituents as they are to anyone else's throughout the UK. We will do as much as we can to put pressure on the relevant authorities. We will take up his point with them.

    BBC
    Hugh Bayley: If she will make a statement on the (a) governance, (b) independence and (c) accountability of the BBC. [129559]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport(Tessa Jowell): We are committed to a BBC that is independent of Government and accountable to Parliament and licence fee payers and to a governance regime that delivers on those requirements. The forthcoming charter review will provide the opportunity for a full public and industry debate about those issues.
    Hugh Bayley: When does my right hon. Friend intend to launch the review of the charter of the BBC and what form will it take? Who, for example, will undertake it? Will it be civil servants in her Department or an independent commission? Among other things, will the charter review look at the proposition that the BBC should be regulated in terms of the quality of its programmes by Ofcom, in the same way that ITV and independent radio are?
    Tessa Jowell: There are two answers to my hon. Friend. First, when I spoke recently at the Edinburgh television festival, I made it clear that, over the next few weeks, I would set out in detail the way in which the Government intended to approach the charter review, which will run over a period of time. The present charter is in place until 2007. I repeat today that I attach enormous importance to the charter review involving public consultation in every way that we can. That will be one of the features and I will make the announcement over the next few weeks.
    Previous charter reviews have coalesced in about four areas. Governance, funding and the BBC's position as a monopoly—less the case now, but certainly an issue in the past—have always been issues. Also, building on the
    Communications Act 2003, we will want to look at the BBC's role in a multichannel world. These questions are not new and recur every time the BBC charter is up for
    580
    renewal. We are strongly of the view that the voices of the people of this country, who pay for the BBC, should be powerful in shaping the charter review argument.
    Mr. John Whittingdale: Does the Secretary of State accept that despite her assurances that the charter review will not be influenced by the Government's arguments with the BBC about Andrew Gilligan and the "Today" programme, the process has not been helped by the reports of threats against the BBC from Ministers and, indeed, former Ministers? Does she agree that it is all the more important that the process is seen to be objective and transparent? Given that we have known for 10 years that the review is to happen, why is she not in a position today to announce how the Government intend to go about it?
    Tessa Jowell: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I can state categorically that the conclusions of the Hutton report will impinge on the charter review only where any conclusions are relevant to the process of the charter review. I have made that clear and the position has not changed. There have been no threats, nor anything else that would undermine the integrity of the process, which is crucial. Given that the charter review process will take up to three years, it is right that all the preliminary work—leading on from the Communications Act, which received Royal Assent in the summer—is done properly. We will make an announcement when the work has been undertaken, rather than at the prompting of the Opposition.
    Mr. Whittingdale: The report of the Secretary of State's interview in The Times said:
    "Ministers have long favoured handing the board of governors' regulatory responsibilities over to Ofcom."
    That came as news to the Opposition, as we argued that case throughout the passage of the Communications Act. Does she accept that the events of the summer have once again highlighted the need for the BBC to be made accountable to an external and independent body, rather than the rather cosy arrangement that exists at present?
    Tessa Jowell: During the passage of the Communications Act, it was clear that the issue of governance would be revisited at the time of the charter review, but that the Act represented a broad settlement for now. As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley), that is not new. There will always be malicious forces seeking to misrepresent and distort, but I restate that decisions about the future funding, organisation and governance of the BBC will be affected by the outcome of the Hutton inquiry only where there is clear and direct relevance. That is the position, whatever kind of mischievous or malevolent spin Opposition Members try to put on it.
    Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Is not the current state of the governance and accountability of the BBC utterly unacceptable when the head and deputy director of BBC News and the editor of the "Today" programme are allowed to get away with colluding in the back-door briefing of members of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and that editor is able to get away

    581
    with approving a contentious article written by Andrew Gilligan for The Mail on Sunday? Apart from the resignations at all levels that we need to expect from the BBC, is it not time that, instead of buckets of whitewash, the BBC's accountability should be the sole responsibility of the new body, Ofcom, as recommended by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee?
    Tessa Jowell: My right hon. Friend has set out some of the evidence received by the Hutton inquiry. I do not intend to be drawn into that—we will wait until the inquiry has concluded before making any judgment on any of the points that he raises. My right hon. Friend refers also to the governance of the BBC. His Committee's view is well known, but the Communications Act 2003 takes a different view. However, none of us must forget the BBC's importance not just in this country, but in term; of the way that the rest of the world sees us. That is why it is so important that we get the charter review right, and that at its outcome we have a BBC that is strong and independent of government, and that does the job for the people of this country, and across the world, for which it is so respected and admired.
    Mr. John Bercow: Leaving aside the Hutton inquiry, and given that members of the public both abhor fence-sitting by politicians and applaud those politicians of all parties who say openly what they think, can the right hon. Lady tell the House this afternoon, on the criteria of governance, independence and accountability, what marks she would award the BBC on a rising scale of one to 10?
    Tessa Jowell: With great respect, that was an elegant but insubstantial question. The hon. Gentleman has repeated the framework of first-stage questions for charter review, which we will engage with over the next two to three years.
    Mr. John Grogan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that through their recent actions, the BBC governors have in fact confirmed the value of their role, independent of government and of commercial regulators, first by stoutly rebutting claims of anti-war bias; secondly, by instituting a review of the rules on BBC journalists writing for newspapers; and thirdly, by upholding a complaint about the use of footage of two dead British soldiers during the "Correspondent" programme—a complaint which, unlike that of Mr. Alastair Campbell, was formally made to those governors?
    Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend will be aware that the duty of impartiality and accuracy defines the governors' regulatory responsibility. The contributions that we have heard give a flavour of the debate to come, in the context of charter review, on the future governance, funding and nature of the BBC.
    Mr. Boris Johnson: Notwithstanding what the right hon. Lady says about her willingness to consult the people about their continuing desire to pay £116 a year for the privilege of watching "Fame Academy" and
    582
    so on, can she say whether she and the Labour Government remain committed in principle to the licence fee as the means of funding the BBC?
    Tessa Jowell: Again, the charter review will address that issue. As I have said on many occasions, we want the review to be wide-ranging and fundamental, so it would be wrong at this stage for the Government to express a view that would constrain a debate that is just beginning. No doubt the hon. Gentleman, in his characteristic way, will have many robust contributions to make in the months ahead.

    Amateur Sports Clubs
    Mr. Huw Edwards: If she will make a statement on her policy on rate relief for amateur sports clubs. [129561]
    The Minister for Sport and Tourism(Mr. Richard Caborn): I am pleased that the Government were able to introduce an amendment to the Local Government Bill on 10 September. The amendment will provide mandatory rate relief for registered community amateur sports clubs. That further demonstrates the Government's commitment to supporting our 110,000 amateur clubs, and I believe that it is excellent news for sport.
    Mr. Edwards: I thank my right hon. Friend for that excellent news and for the Government's commitment to supporting grass-roots sport. I can assure him that the secretary of Chepstow rugby club, whom I spoke to this morning, knows that 80 per cent. rate relief on the £4,000 that the club currently pays to Monmouthshire county council will be immensely beneficial. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that all the amateur sports clubs that stand to gain from this excellent policy will be informed and encouraged to apply?
    Mr. Caborn: Very much so. I received a letter congratulating the Government—such letters are not very common these days—from the National Playing Fields Association. It reminded me of the association's annual report of 1930 and provided rather more detail than appeared in the Hansard when the matter was discussed at the time. That letter also referred to the annual report of 1931, which referred to efforts made
    "to obtain rate relief from the additional rate burdens that now oppress sports clubs".
    That letter continued:
    "70+ years later you deserve the credit for introducing something very simple, obvious and helpful to community sports".
    From time to time the National Playing Fields Association has bashed the Government. but on this occasion I thank it for congratulating us.
    Mr. James Paice: The Minister's announcement and the amendment to which he referred are extremely welcome, as his hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) rightly said. However, will he ensure that his definition of registered

    583
    community sports clubs leaves no room for political correctness and, in particular, allows target-shooting sports access to the rate relief?
    Mr. Caborn: We provided a definition of community amateur sports clubs, or CASCs, about 12 months ago and we have sent out 110,000 leaflets to the nine regions, establishing a one-stop shop for any amateur sports club that wants information on the subject, so it is not the burden that some people have suggested. We agreed the definition with the Treasury and that definition has been sent out to the clubs. I do not know whether the shooting fraternity has applied for CASC relief, but I shall look further into it and write to the hon. Gentleman.

    Free-to-view Television
    Mr. Russell Brown: What discussions she has had with (a) ITV, (b) Channel 4, (c) Channel 5 and (d) BSkyB regarding their policy on free-to view access to their services on digital satellite television. [129562]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport(Tessa Jowell): I accept that this question deals with a serious matter that many constituents have raised with their MPs of all political parties. The position is that, until May, the BBC provided Solus viewing cards to satellite viewers who did not have a subscription to a pay-TV service. That allowed them to receive BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 free-to-view. In May the BBC moved its services to a new satellite, which meant that viewers could receive them without any viewing card. The BBC ended payment to BskyB for the provision of the cards, and it is now for ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 to find an arrangement to ensure that customers continue to receive their public service channels without the need to subscribe to Sky. I have written to the chief executives to ask about their intentions and their responses indicate that the broadcasters are considering various options. I am closely monitoring the discussions, which I understand are making progress.
    Mr. Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for her efforts thus far. In common with my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns), I know that this is a serious issue. The problem is not just the lack of an analogue signal in some localities, but the lack of cable and free-view in rural parts of Dumfries and Galloway. The recent decision to broadcast unencrypted on satellite and to withdraw support from free-to-view viewing cards means, as my right hon. Friend rightly says, no signal for ITV, Channel 4 or Channel 5 unless people subscribe to Sky. Will she therefore highlight to broadcasters the complete lack of access to free-to-view channels for those viewers and, if broadcasters are not prepared to find an answer, will she use the provisions of the Communications Act 2003 to empower Ofcom to insist on finding an answer?
    Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for posing that question on behalf of his constituents. It is important to be clear that we are not at that stage. Negotiations are proceeding and we are optimistic that the broadcasters
    584
    will develop a solution. As I have made clear, we will keep the situation under review and we recognise the concern and anxiety that it causes to the thousands of people who are directly affected.

  ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE
  The hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—
  ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

    Marked Electoral Registers
    Kevin Brennan: To ask the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, what discussions the Committee has had with the Electoral Commission on the use of marked electoral registers in political campaigning. [129572]
    Mr. Peter Viggers: The Speaker's Committee has had no such discussions. However, I am informed by the commission that it is currently reviewing the use and supply of, and access to, marked electoral registers and intends to make recommendations to Government when its review is complete.
    Kevin Brennan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. In any discussions he has with the Electoral Commission, will he remind it that the Chartists campaigned for the fundamental human right to vote, and in secret, not for the fundamental human right to keep secret whether one voted or not? If the Electoral Commission did not allow marked registers to be made available to political parties, would not that represent yet another erosion of the idea of voting as a duty, rather than just another lifestyle consumer choice?
    Mr. Viggers: I hear the representation made by the hon. Gentleman, but issues of law and principle, human rights and data protection are involved, as well as practical issues about the provision of an accurate register, especially during the campaign period itself. The commission is assessing those issues alongside the views of political parties and the public.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Will the hon. Gentleman put the other side of the argument to the Electoral Commission, especially with regard to Northern Ireland? En the past it has been the practice of certain political parties in Northern Ireland to make use of marked registers to see who has not voted for the purpose of personation.
    Mr. Viggers: The Electoral Commission is considering all those matters, but it takes the view that if the marked registers can be made available—subject to the caveats that I have just described—it would be in the general public interest for them to be made available.

  The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—
  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Sexual Orientation (Employees)
    Dr. Evan Harris: Whether the Church Commissioners have set or intend to set a requirement relating to sexual orientation for any of their employees in non-proselytising roles; and if he will make a statement. [129573]
    Second Church Estates Commissioner(Mr. Stuart Bell): Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker. The Church Commissioners and the other national Church institutions are committed to an equal opportunities policy that provides comprehensive safeguards against discrimination on those and other grounds. The policy is currently being examined to ensure that it is consistent with the two new sets of employment regulations that will come into force in December. It is unlikely to need fundamental change.
    Dr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the sexual orientation employment regulations were changed at a late stage to allow organised religions to set an employment requirement on grounds of sexual orientation in order to comply with religious doctrine or to avoid offending the religious susceptibilities of a significant number of their followers. That exemption has been questioned by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments as possibly being ultra vires, and a judicial review is threatened by the trade unions. Therefore, how can he say what he has just said and how does he justify his remarks earlier this year, when he said that the Church
    "is opposed entirely to discrimination of any sort and, in particular, to the discrimination of the sort to which my hon. Friend refers."?—[Official Report, 30 June 2003; Vol. 408, c. 17.]
    Furthermore, a letter from the Archbishops Council, dated 23 January, requests the Government to add to the regulations the very words that I have cited.
    Mr. Bell: I surmise that that supplementary was written before the hon. Gentleman heard my reply. All anti-discrimination legislation carries the scope for organisations to apply genuine occupational requirements to jobs for which it can be objectively demonstrated that a person with or without a particular characteristic is required. Our policy is comprehensive, and it covers discrimination on the grounds of gender, race, nationality, colour, culture, sexual orientation, disability or age.
    Mrs. Ann Cryer: I wonder, therefore, whether my hon. Friend will comment on the fact that at present the Church is able to discriminate on the grounds of gender against its women employees taking high office in the Church?
    Mr. Bell: There is no such discrimination in the Church and I beg to differ from my hon. Friend. She will be aware that 2,000 women have been ordained in the Church of England since the Priests (Ordination of
    586
    Women) Measure 1993. As I have already pointed out, we are anti-discriminatory in our Church and will continue to be so.
    Mr. Chris Bryant: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his answer; it is about as clear as it can be that dinner ladies employed in Church of England schools are not going to be sacked because they are lesbian and that caretakers are not going to be sacked because they are gay. Could the Church also take on something of a proselytising role and persuade other Churches to follow its example and, for that matter, in its own proselytising jobs, including bishoprics, could it adopt the same policy?
    Mr. Bell: I am always grateful for interventions from my hon. Friend. He relieves me somewhat, however, as the question dealt only with non-proselytising roles.

    Church Access (Disability Discrimination)
    Mr. Huw Edwards: What plans the Church Commissioners have to comply with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 with regard to access to churches and church buildings. [129574]
    Second Church Estates Commissioner(Mr. Stuart Bell): The Council for the Care of Churches and the Cathedrals Fabric Commission, within whose remit those matters lie, has issued a guidance note which explains the Act and its ramifications for the Church. That document can be found on the Church Care website.
    Mr. Edwards: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Does he agree that churches and chapels should not feel threatened by the Act, as it requires that reasonable steps be made and in fact many churches and chapels make reasonable steps? However, given the age and design of many churches and chapels, it would be a great help if they were able to apply for public moneys to adapt churches and church entrances for the benefit of people with disabilities.
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The question of public moneys is for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and not for the Church, but the Church takes reasonable steps to ensure that any disabled person who has difficulty can take communion. There is also provision of auxiliary aids, such as hearing loops, large-print hymn sheets and handrails. We are careful to ensure that there is no discrimination as regards worship or access to churches.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: While of course we all support, in spirit and in law, the provisions of the DDA, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that it is his hope that there will be a light touch where meeting those provisions involves serious alterations to buildings of outstanding architectural merit? As many of our churches are among our country's 500,000 listed buildings, it would be wrong deleteriously to affect their

    587
    design by meeting the provisions of the Act, so a sensible compromise is needed, such as that we have found, I hope, in the Palace of Westminster.
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Modifying churches to allow access is relatively inexpensive, although lack of funds is never an excuse to ignore the requirements of the Act. However, awareness of our heritage and of the number of buildings that are either listed or extremely old is a point well worth making.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Is my hon. Friend aware that many churches have an outstanding record in responding to the needs of people with disabilities, especially in the provision of hearing loops, to which he referred? Will they continue to do that in the interest of best practice in public buildings?
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I, like many other hon. Members, remember his sterling work for disabled people over many years and of the particular private Member's Bill that he put through. His point is well taken and will be well received in the Church.
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Further to the hon. Gentleman's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman), does he agree that, although it is essential that our churches are available to everyone who wants to visit them or worship in them, it would be wrong for structural changes to compromise the outstanding beauty and architectural merit of some of the historic churches that are part of our national heritage?
    Mr. Bell: That point was well made. However, we would not wish to deny any member of our society—disabled or otherwise—access to holy communion, so any necessary steps should be taken to allow participation. In fact, to act to the contrary would be unlawful.

  ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE
  The hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—
  ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

    Postal Votes (Intimidation)
    Mr. Andrew Turner: If he will make a statement on the commission's assessment of measures necessary for the prevention of intimidation of postal voters. [129575]
    Mr. Peter Viggers: In its reports, "Absent Voting in Great Britain" and "The Shape of Elections to Come", which were published earlier this year, the Electoral Commission has recommended a range of measures designed to reinforce the arrangements to prevent the abuse of postal votes.
    Mr. Turner: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I am sure that he will be aware that our forebears fought
    588
    for the secrecy of the ballot and that that secrecy would be compromised by having to mark ballot papers or being able to mark them in public, whether in the presence of a landlord, a trade union official or the head of a household. What is the Electoral Commission doing to ensure that no undue influence is exercised on people because of the requirement for them to mark their ballot papers in public?
    Mr. Viggers: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Of course, the Electoral Commission has to balance that against the clear advantage of the increase in voter participation with postal ballots. The commission has recommended a wide range of measures, including replacing the current declaration of identity with a new security statement, signed by the voter; new secrecy warnings on postal voting literature and ballot papers; more effective tools for prosecutors; a new police power of arrest on reasonable suspicion of personation at any location, not just at polling stations; a marked register, showing who has cast a vote by post, available after elections; and a new code of practice on handling postal ballot papers by candidates and party workers.
    Mr. Peter Pike: The hon. Member will recognise that most recent election disputes have been over postal and proxy votes. As we are increasingly moving into an era of all-postal votes, is he absolutely certain that local police, local authorities and returning officers will have adequate powers to ensure that votes are in fact cast in the way that was intended by the said voters, so that the voting is not a sham?
    Mr. Viggers: The Electoral Commission will propose that we move forward on the basis that I have just described, but of course, it will keep the situation under review, and I am sure that, if further action is required, it will be anxious to proceed with that as quickly as possible. I have to inform the House that, having examined the operation of the pilot schemes, the commission has recommended that all-postal voting, if backed by changes in the law to minimise the risk of electoral abuses, should become the standard approach at local elections. That is the commission's proposal; it will be for the Government to decide whether to act on it; and then, of course, ultimately for the House to implement any change.

    Boundary Reviews
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: What provision is made to assist stakeholders interested in local government and boundary reviews to obtain information to help them to make submissions to the boundary committee: and if he will make a statement. [129576]
    Mr. Peter Viggers: The boundary committee provides a wide range of information to assist stakeholders in making submissions, including leaflets, information in the local press and through the committee's website. The committee also holds briefing meetings in the areas under review.
    Mr. O'Brien: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the report that the Select Committee on the

    589
    Office of the Deputy Prime Minister issued after taking evidence from the chairman of the boundary commission and the boundary committee which identified that people in the wards under review are at a disadvantage because maps, statistics and professional help are not available to them, but are available to the local authority. I am disappointed with the hon. Gentleman's response because the real issue has apparently not been addressed: the need to give that information to stakeholders to help them to submit an alternative to the boundary committee's proposals. That lack of information denies many people their democratic right to have some say in their own destiny. Will the hon. Gentleman relay that point to the boundary committee and ensure that information is made available to stakeholders, so that they can compete with local authorities when submitting a response to the boundary committee?
    Mr. Viggers: I am instructed that the Electoral Commission and its boundary committee give equal
    590
    consideration to all submissions that are received. Where appropriate, it requests that the local authority provide interested parties with further detailed information and some assistance. The boundary committee will also make its information available to interested parties. The main consideration is always the argument and evidence that accompanies any submission.
    Mr. George Osborne: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the boundary committee is in the process of a major review of local government boundaries in three regions in this country, including the north-west, which I represent, as a result of the proposed referendums on regional government. In terms of providing information to stakeholders and others, will the committee publish how much that review will cost?
    Mr. Viggers: I must say to my hon. Friend that the work undertaken by the boundary committee is at the instruction of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, to which any questions on that subject should be put.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Michael Ancram: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am confident that it will not have escaped your notice that yesterday's edition of The Mail on Sunday set out in terms a personal minute from the Foreign Secretary, dated 17 March this year, to the Prime Minister, in which he urged the Prime Minister to stop short of military engagement in the Iraq war. As you will be aware, the very next day, on 18 March, at column 901 of the Official Report, the Foreign Secretary told the House on a Government motion authorising United Kingdom military engagement in Iraq:
"I am as certain as I can that the Government's course of action is right."—[Official Report, 18 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 901.]

Given the apparent irreconcilable contradiction between the Foreign Secretary's personal minute and his statement to this House, has he requested to come to the House to make a personal statement to explain why he expressed one view on this major issue to the Prime Minister on one day and a totally opposite view to the House on the next day, and to clear up which of them accurately reflected his view?
Mr. Speaker: It is for any Minister to decide when he or she wishes to make a statement. It is not a matter for me to be drawn into at this stage.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. On a House of Commons point, when such grave charges as these are laid, do not Ministers owe it to the House to say one thing or the other, whether it is true or false, because it is deeply unsatisfactory that such grave charges should be left in limbo?
Mr. Speaker: I have already said to the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) that this is not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: I have said to two Members that this is not a point of order, but I will listen to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you confirm that although the information that my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) has just used came to us from only one source, that would not have been a bar from the Government making a statement?
Mr Speaker: As I said, I will not be drawn into this matter.

Programme Motions

  WATER BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME) (NO. 2)
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders (28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002).
  That the programme order of 8th September 2003 in relation to the Water Bill [Lords] be amended by the substitution in paragraph (2) (time for conclusion of proceedings in Standing Committee) for the words 'Tuesday 21st October' of the words `Thursday 23rd October'.—[Mr. Ainger.]
  The House divided. Ayes 240, Noes 98.

  Division No. 308]

  [3:32 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Ainger, Nick

  Dalyell, Tam

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Allan, Richard

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Allen, Graham

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Denham, rh John

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Austin, John

  Dismore, Andrew

  Baird, Vera

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Banks, Tony

  Doran, Frank

  Barnes, Harry

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Beard, Nigel

  Edwards, Huw

  Bell, Stuart

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Berry, Roger

  Etherington, Bill

  Best, Harold

  Farrelly, Paul

  Blunkett, rh David

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Borrow, David

  Flint, Caroline

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Foster, rh Derek

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Breed, Colin

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Brennan, Kevin

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Gardiner, Barry

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Gerrard, Neil

  Bryant, Chris

  Burgon, Colin

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Burnham, Andy

  Gilroy, Linda

  Burstow, Paul

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Grogan, John

  Cairns, David

  Hain, rh Peter

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hancock, Mike

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Hanson, David

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

  Challen, Colin

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Heath, David

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Heppell, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Heyes, David

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hodge, Margaret

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  593

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Rammell, Bill

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Hutton, rh John

  Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Be11shill)

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Illsley, Eric

  Rendel, David

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Rooney, Terry

  Jamieson, David

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Ruane, Chris

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Sanders, Adrian

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Sedgernore, Brian

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Sheerman, Barry

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Sheridan, Jim

  Kidney, David

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Skinner Dennis

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Lammy, David

  Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'dns & Kincardine)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Soley, Clive

  Linton, Martin

  Spellar, rh John

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Squire, Rachel

  Love, Andrew

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McCabe, Stephen

  Stewart. David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  McDonnell, John

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  McFall, John

  Stringer, Graham

  McIsaac, Shona

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  McKechin, Ann

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  McNulty, Tony

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  McWalter, Tony

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Tipping Paddy

  Mallaber, Judy

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Trickett, Jon

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Merron, Gillian

  Ward, Claire

  Michael, rh Alun

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Miliband, David

  Watson Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Miller, Andrew

  Watts, David

  Moffatt, Laura

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Moran, Margaret

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Morley, Elliot

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Willis, Phil

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Winnick, David

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Organ, Diana

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Perham, Linda

  Pickthall, Colin

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Plaskitt, James

  Pollard, Kerry

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Pound, Stephen

  Vernon Coaker and

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Ms Bridget Prentice

  594

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Lidington, David

  Bacon, Richard

  Loughton, Tim

  Baldry, Tony

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Bellingham, Henry

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Bercow, John

  Malins, Humfrey

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Blunt, Crispin

  Mercer, Patrick

  Brady, Graham

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Brazier, Julian

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Moss, Malcolm

  Burns, Simon

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Burt, Alistair

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Cameron, David

  Page, Richard

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Paice, James

  Pickles, Eric

  Chope, Christopher

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Collins, Tim

  Redwood, rh John

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Robathan, Andrew

  Curry, rh David

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Evans, Nigel

  Simmonds, Mark

  Fabricant, Michael

  Soames, Nicholas

  Fallon, Michael

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Spring, Richard

  Steen, Anthony

  Flight, Howard

  Syms, Robert

  Flook, Adrian

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Forth, rh Eric

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Garnier, Edward

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Goodman, Paul

  Viggers, Peter

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Walter, Robert

  Grayling, Chris

  Waterson, Nigel

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Watkinson, Angela

  Greenway, John

  Whittingdale, John

  Hague, rh William

  Wiggin, Bill

  Hammond, Philip

  Wilkinson, John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Willetts, David

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Wilshire, David

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Wishart, Pete

  Jack, rh Michael

  Young, rh Sir George

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Mr. Mark Francois and

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Mr. John Randall

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO. 4)
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders (28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002).
  That the following provisions shall apply to the Local Government Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 7th January 2003, 28th January 2003 and 25th February 2003:

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO. 4)

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

    TABLE

    Lords amendments

    Time for conclusion of proceedings

    Nos. 3, 6, 19 and 20

    2½ hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order

    Nos. 1 and 2, 4 and 5, 7 to 18 and 21 to 56

    The moment of interruption

    Subsequent stages
    3. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question put.
    4. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—[Mr. Raynsford.]
    The House divided: Ayes 237, Noes 140

    Division No. 309]

    [3:46 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

    Ainger, Nick

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

    Allan, Richard

    Dalyell, Tam

    Allen, Graham

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Austin, John

    Denham, rh John

    Baird, Vera

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Banks, Tony

    Dismore, Andrew

    Barnes, Harry

    Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

    Barron, rh Kevin

    Doran, Frank

    Bayley, Hugh

    Drew, David (Stroud)

    Beard, Nigel

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Bell, Stuart

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Berry, Roger

    Edwards, Huw

    Best, Harold

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Blunkett, rh David

    Etherington, Bill

    Borrow, David

    Farrelly, Paul

    Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

    Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Flint, Caroline

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

    Breed, Colin

    Foster, rh Derek

    Brennan, Kevin

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Gardiner, Barry

    Bryant, Chris

    George, Andrew (St. Ives)

    Burgon, Colin

    Gerrard, Neil

    Burnham, Andy

    Gibson, Dr. Ian

    Burstow, Paul

    Gilroy, Linda

    Byers, rh Stephen

    Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

    Cable, Dr. Vincent

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Caborn, rh Richard

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Cairns, David

    Grogan, John

    Calton, Mrs Patsy

    Hain, rh Peter

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Caplin, Ivor

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    Carmichael, Alistair

    Hancock, Mike

    Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

    Hanson, David

    Challen, Colin

    Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Heath, David

    Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Cohen, Harry

    Heppell, John

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Heyes, David

    Cousins, Jim

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Cox, Tom (Tooting)

    Hodge, Margaret

    Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

    Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

    596

    Hope, Phil (Corby)

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Rammell, Bill

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

    Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

    Raynsford, rh Nick

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

    Humble, Mrs Joan

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

    Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

    Hutton, rh John

    Rendel, David

    Iddon, Dr. Brian

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Illsley, Eric

    Ingram, rh Adam

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Irranca-Davies, Huw

    Rooney, Terry

    Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Ruane, Chris

    Jamieson, David

    Ruddock, Joan

    Jenkins, Brian

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

    Sanders, Adrian

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Jowell, rh Tessa

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Kaufman, rh Gerald

    Sheridan, Jim

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Simon, Siôn (B ham Erdington)

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Kidney, David

    Skinner, Dennis

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

    Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Kumar, Dr. Ashok

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

    Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

    Lammy, David

    Soley, Clive

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Spellar, rh John

    Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

    Squire, Rachel

    Linton, Martin

    Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Love, Andrew

    Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    McCabe, Stephen

    Stoate, Dr. Howard

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Stringer, Graham

    McDonnell, John

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    McFall, John

    Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

    McIsaac, Shona

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    McKechin, Ann

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    McNulty, Tony

    McWalter, Tony

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Tipping, Paddy

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

    Mallaber, Judy

    Trickett, Jon

    Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Vis, Dr. Rudi

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Meacher, rh Michael

    Ward, Claire

    Marron, Gillian

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Michael rh Alun

    Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

    Miliband, David

    Watts, David

    Miller, Andrew

    Webb, Steve (Northavon)

    Moffatt, Laura

    Whitehead, Dr. Alan

    Moonie, Dr. Lewis

    Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

    Moran, Margaret

    Williams, Roger (Brecon)

    Morley, Elliot

    Willis, Phil

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Winnick, David

    Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

    Organ, Diana

    Woodward, Shaun

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

    Palmer, Dr. Nick

    Perham, Linda

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Wyatt, Derek

    Pike, Peter (Burnley)

    Plaskitt, James

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Pollard, Kerry

    Vernon Coaker and

    Pound, Stephen

    Ms Bridget Prentice

    597

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Lansley, Andrew

    Ancram, rh Michael

    Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Liddell-Grainger, Ian

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Lidington, David

    Bacon, Richard

    Loughton, Tim

    Baldry, Tony

    Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

    Baron, John (Billericay)

    McIntoth, Miss Anne

    Bellingham, Henry

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Bercow, John

    Malins, Humfrey

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

    Blunt, Crispin

    Mercer, Patrick

    Brady, Graham

    Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

    Brazier, Julian

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Moss, Malcolm

    Burns, Simon

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Burt, Alistair

    Osborne George (Tatton)

    Cameron, David

    Page, Richard

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Paice, James

    Pickles, Eric

    Chope, Christopher

    Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

    Collins, Tim

    Redwood, rh John

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Robathan, Andrew

    Curry, rh David

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Rosindell, Andrew

    Djanogly, Jonathan

    Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

    Evans, Nigel

    Simmonds, Mark

    Fabricant, Michael

    Soames, Nicholas

    Fallon, Michael

    Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

    Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

    Spring, Richard

    Steen, Anthony

    Flight, Howard

    Syms, Robert

    Flook, Adrian

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Forth, rh Eric

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Fox, Dr. Liam

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Garnier, Edward

    Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Goodman, Paul

    Viggers. Peter

    Gray, James (N Wilts)

    Walter, Robert

    Grayling, Chris

    Waterson, Nigel

    Green, Damian (Ashford)

    Watkinson, Angela

    Greenway, John

    Whittingdale, John

    Hague, rh William

    Wiggin, Bill

    Hammond, Philip

    Wilkinson, John

    Hawkins, Nick

    Willetts David

    Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

    Wilshire, David

    Horam, John (Orpington)

    Wishart, Pete

    Jack, rh Michael

    Young, rh Sir George

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Key, Robert (Salisbury)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

    Mr. Mark Francois and

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Mr. John Randall

    Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  Local Government Bill
  Lords amendments considered. [Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
  Mr. Speaker: I draw the House's attention to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendments Nos. 3, 6, 18 to 22, 27, 47 to 49, 53 and 54, which are to be considered today. If the House agrees to these Lords amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

  Local Government Bill
    Clause 11

      USE OF CAPITAL RECEIPTS
      Lords amendment No. 3
      3.58 pm
      The Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire(Mr. Nick Raynsford): I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      We are considering a vital issue. Agreement with the amendment would undermine one of the fundamental principles of housing finance, which allows the redistribution of housing capital receipts to the areas of greatest need. Accepting the amendment would deprive housing authorities in areas of high housing stress of the resources that they need to fulfil pressing demands for housing. Simply letting housing authorities keep their housing capital receipts, irrespective of need and of how they intended to apply them, would be an unfair and irresponsible way of allocating limited resources.
      We have always taken the view that the proceeds from the sale of council housing should be used to help the areas in which housing need is greatest. That is the purpose of redistribution, and was indeed the principle underlying the legislation introduced by the previous Conservative Government and operated since 1990. The Bill repeals the part of that legislation governing the current—redistribution system—the set-aside mechanism. The drawback to set-aside, as we have said many times before, is that it does not apply to all authorities. Redistribution must apply equally to all, if it is to be fair to all. This is the anomaly in the present system that our pooling proposals address.
      It is simply wrong that some authorities should have more resources than others, regardless of need, simply because they happen to be rich in right-to-buy receipts or debt-free. I stress that we are not talking about funds generated by good financial management or good planning, but those generated simply because tenants have decided to buy their own house in areas where house prices are buoyant. The local authority cannot determine or manage such sales and, contrary to what was said in another place, they cannot claim any credit for them.
      Mr. John Bercow: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Before thirsting to reduce local authority autonomy in such a way as to allow him to pursue his redistributionist agenda, it is

      599
      incumbent on him first to consider the efficacy or otherwise of existing policy. In that context, will he oblige the House by telling us what assessment he has made of the effect of the change in the rules on the use of capital receipts from the sale of council houses in the last Parliament on the size of interest repayments on local authority debt?
      Mr. Raynsford: Approximately £1.2 billion received from the sale of council houses is currently brought within the overall framework, which allows the pooling to take place through the set-aside mechanism. The problem with that mechanism is that it does not apply to those authorities that are debt-free; that is just the nature of the mechanics involved. The principle of redistribution, which was argued strongly by the hon. Gentleman's own party when it was in government, and part of the approach that it adopted in the 1990 legislation, was to ensure that the receipts would be distributed to meet housing need rather than simply lying arbitrarily where they arose because of the vagaries of the housing market or the whims of tenants in particular areas.
      Mr. Bercow rose—
      Mr. Edward Davey rose—
      Mr. Raynsford: I give way to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey).
      Mr. Davey: In the Minister's opening remarks, he tried to suggest that all the councils that are debt-free were just lucky, because they were in areas where house prices were high and had received a large windfall from right-to-buy receipts. Surely some of those councils have managed their finances prudently, however, and worked hard to become debt-free. In some cases, they may have taken painful decisions to reach that point. Should they not now be allowed the chance to benefit from the freedoms that they have won after going through the pain of putting their finances in order?
      Mr. Raynsford: Lots of other authorities have worked extremely hard to run their finances in the most efficient way possible, but, because they happen to be in areas with low house values, where capital receipts do not generate the same amount of money, they have not been able to reach the same position as those lucky enough to be located predominantly in the south-east. Frankly, it is curious for the hon. Gentleman representing the Liberal Democrats to be advocating a policy that would have a strongly redistributive effect, which favoured the affluent areas, rather than the areas of greatest need. That would be the effect of the policy that he is advocating. I can understand why the Tory party would pursue that line, but it is strange, to say the least, that the Liberal Democrats should do so.
      Mr. Philip Hammond: The Minister quoted a figure to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). Will he confirm for the record that the sum involved in relation to debt-free authorities—the only ones that will be directly
      600
      affected in cash terms by the measure—is about —120 million, and not £800 million, £1.8 billion or any other exaggerated figure?
      Mr. Raynsford: The figure that I quoted was the total sum that we estimate will be brought within the pooling arrangements. That is similar to the set-aside. The figure for debt-free authorities is £120 million, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said. That is a significant sum, and can contribute substantially to meeting housing needs. I remind him of a little debate that we had in Committee. He will recall that I flourished a Liberal Democrat "Focus" leaflet. I do not usually do that.
      Mr. Bercow: Where is it?
      Mr. Raynsford: I am afraid that I put it in the bin. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that, on the whole, that was the right course of action. The Liberal Democrats in Mole Valley argued that it was scandalous that Mole Valley council had received substantial capital receipts—probably not through any great effort of its own, but because housing in the area has a high value—but was not proposing to use those receipts to meet housing need. Instead, it intended to spend the money on other things. The Liberal Democrats in Mole Valley said that that was monstrous and wrong.
      It is typical of the Liberal Democrats to say one thing to one group of people and something else to another. In Mole Valley they said it was monstrous and wrong not to spend the money on housing, but when they are confronted with a Bill that ensures that capital receipts are used for housing where the need is greatest, they oppose it, because they want to say something different to a different audience.
      Mr. Edward Davey: I thought that we had educated the Minister on this point in Committee. We said that it was about local democracy. The Liberal Democrats in Mole Valley were right to fight elections in that constituency on the proposition that housing receipts raised locally should be spent locally on affordable housing. That was a fair point, and it is consistent with the Liberal Democrats saying that the council should be allowed to do that. The Government want to take away the right of local authorities to spend receipts in their local area. The Minister is the one who is inconsistent. He is going against his policy of so-called new localism.
      Mr. Raynsford: That was a pretty feeble effort. In Mole Valley, the Liberal Democrats campaigned on the simple principle that money from housing receipts should be used for housing. As soon as the Liberal Democrats have a chance to give effect to that principle in the House, they take a different view. It is the same old story.
      Mr. Barry Gardiner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Liberal Democrats have the opportunity to set the record straight? With respect to national policy, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the effect on the borough of Brent of this Liberal Democrat and Tory sponsored amendment would be to take away £2.1 million from the people of Brent? What the Liberal Democrats are saying on the doorsteps about investment in local housing would drive a coach

      601
      and horses through what Brent council could do, unless it was prepared, as a matter of national policy, to say that Brent people should pay higher taxes to receive the same level of service, because the Bill would put £2.1 million on to its budget.
      Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. In Brent, the Liberal Democrats no doubt claim that they would do many things to help Brent, but at the same time they actively supported an amendment in the House just last week that would have exactly the effect that my hon. Friend describes. It would take £2.1 million away from the London borough of Brent that could and should be used to meet housing needs in that borough, which has enormous pressures.
      Matthew Green: The Minister should be careful about what he says. We cannot take away something that is not there. Language needs to be used more carefully. Is he saying that Brent is an area of low house prices, which is why it is where it is? His argument was that places in London and the south-east would be the beneficiaries of the Opposition's amendment. Is he suggesting that house prices in Brent are very low?
      Mr. Raynsford: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman does not understand the issue. There is a relationship between house prices and house values, and that is one of the important elements, but there is also housing need. Brent is an area of enormous housing need. The scale of the capital receipts that the borough receives is not proportionate to the scale of housing need in that area. Brent is one of the boroughs that will gain substantially from our proposal for a proper redistributive system that applies universally.
      It should be remembered that the redistribution mechanism already applies. It applies to all authorities except those that are debt-free. The Liberal Democrats are essentially saying that they want to help very affluent, mainly Tory authorities in the south-east at the expense of areas such as Brent and a number of others. That is an extraordinary comment on a party that tries to claim that it has some pretensions to a concern for social justice.
      Mr. Hammond: The Minister will recall that in Committee we offered an opportunity to ensure that right-to-buy receipts were recycled into housing in the local authorities involved, and he rejected that opportunity.
      Does the Minister at least accept that at a time when one of the most pressing housing issues facing the Government and authorities in the south-east is affordable housing for key public-sector workers, there is a close correlation between high house prices and the need for such housing?
      Mr. Raynsford: Indeed. That is exactly why we have increased investment by two and a half times the amount we inherited, and why we have been concentrating on the provision of new housing in areas of stress—particularly in areas where that can be achieved with good use of brownfield sites, such as the Thames gateway—while also investing in improving
      602
      housing stock in areas of less demand, where serious problems are caused by property in poor condition and the fact that people are living in unsatisfactory houses. We have a responsibility to do both those things.
      We are certainly keen to expand the housing supply in areas of need, and that is part of the programme. Our objective, however, is to be fair in the allocation, not arbitrary. The problem with the hon. Gentleman's position and that of his party is that the allocation system that the Conservatives supported—although they did not support it in 1990—would arbitrarily give huge buckshee benefits to certain areas simply because they happened to be receipt-rich and with relatively low needs, while denying other areas that were receipt-poor or whose needs were too high to be met from the receipts that they had.
      Mr. Hammond: Is the Minister suggesting that, having sequestered my local authority's right-to-buy receipts, he expects nurses, policeman and school teachers who are needed in Surrey to commute daily from the Thames gateway around the M25? Is that his grand strategy for the future of the south-east?
      Mr. Raynsford: No, it is not. As the hon. Gentleman will recall, I used the Thames gateway as an example to highlight the importance of using brownfield sites: but of course we are looking at brownfield sites elsewhere. What I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not want is indiscriminate building on greenfield sites in his area. That would be an entirely undesirable policy—a policy that was, as it happens, supported by the hon. Gentleman's party when it was in government: it let rip with development by private developers throughout the south-east, and particularly in the Thames valley.
      Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that one of the areas that would be disadvantaged by this measure is Milton Keynes? Will he join me in urging Milton Keynes council, which is of course controlled by the Liberal Democrats, to devote some of its efforts to educating Liberal Democrat Front Benchers here, to ensure that the party is not saying one thing in Milton Keynes and another in Westminster?
      Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Milton Keynes is another of the areas that stand to lose if the amendment supported by the Liberal Democrats is passed. Of course, it is not the only one; a number of other areas stand to lose. Liverpool stands to lose substantially, as do Sutton and Basildon.
      I can understand the Tories' supporting the amendment, as it will generally favour their affluent south-east strongholds, but I fail to understand why the Liberal Democrats want to harm so many areas that they control. It is either the result of a sudden burst of masochism, or an example of their being highly confused and not quite knowing what they are doing. Because they are saying one thing to one group of people and something else to another group, they forget the plot and vote for something that will have catastrophic consequences for many Liberal Democrat authorities—including Milton Keynes.
      4.15 pm
      Mr. Bercow: It is always a particular pleasure to joust with the Minister but the endless tergiversations and chameleon-like behaviour of the Liberal Democrats could readily absorb all the time available for debate today, and it does not seem very profitable for us to allow that to happen. The question that I would like answered is the question that I did ask, not that which I did not. Can the right hon. Gentleman simply tell me on a non-partisan basis what assessment he has made of the effect of the change made in the previous Parliament on policy towards the use of capital receipts from the sale of council houses on the level of interest repayments on local authority debt?
      Mr. Raynsford: I cannot because the hon. Gentleman is asking some rather odd questions. There was no change of policy in the previous Parliament on the application of right-to-buy receipts. We have constantly said that it is right that right- to-buy receipts should be made available for and used for housing need to the extent that we operate a redistributive system, a system that, as I have said, we inherited from the previous Government. That system has remained in place since 1990. It is now being changed because of this Bill, but there has been no other change in policy.
      There may have been changes in policy on some of the detailed points about the level of discount that will apply. Of course, there have been significant changes in interest rates because of the Government's prudent management of the economy, which results in a substantially better position in terms of all those people paying interest. That is to everyone's advantage. All those matters can be taken into account by economists, who will no doubt come up with a sophisticated answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, but there is no policy change along the lines that he has proposed.
      Mr. Hammond: Before we move on, can the Minister confirm who he thinks controls Basildon council?
      Mr. Raynsford: I was referring to a number of authorities. There are many areas that are affected, including some Tory-controlled areas. Of course, the Tories are being a bit foolish in favouring the interests of their south-east heartlands at the expense of some of their other councils, which happen to have rather greater housing needs. No doubt the voice of Essex will be heard in due course, telling us that we should be fairer to Essex and insisting on the redistribution of capital receipts to favour Basildon. That is certainly a policy I would be happy—
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Raynsford: I must make progress.
      The amendment would remove the proposed replacement for set-aside and end redistribution. We would, therefore, no longer be able to recycle housing capital receipts fairly. The alternative to a redistribution system is higher taxes, less investment or cuts in other programmes. Affordable housing for key workers, decent homes, market renewal in low-demand areas would all be put at risk. Without redistribution, the majority of local authorities—those with debt, with
      604
      lower capital receipts and with greater housing investment need—will lose out. That would be irresponsible and indefensible.
      Without pooling, we would probably have to continue to operate a mechanism based on the principles underlying the current system. That could be only a partial solution and would lack the transparency and simplicity of pooling. Debt-free housing authorities rich in right-to-buy receipts would retain the benefit of their housing capital receipts regardless of housing need and be able to use receipts for whatever purpose they saw fit. I mentioned earlier the interesting example of Mole Valley being a classic illustration of that.
      Agreeing to the Lords amendment would perpetuate the anomaly inherent in the current system and disadvantage most of the nearly 260 local authorities with housing stock. I have quoted a number of the authorities that are affected. Let me repeat that there are currently around 40 debt-free authorities with housing stock in England. Under our proposals, pooling will apply to a proportion of their housing capital receipts, not all of it, and it will not apply to other capital receipts.
      That does not mean that those authorities will have no resources to use. On the contrary, they will have access to all their other receipts and indeed to 25 per cent. of their housing capital receipts, and they will have the additional allocations that come through the new framework for distributing funding. Those depend on decisions by the regional housing boards, which will make recommendations to Ministers in a month or so, so I am not able to anticipate the precise allocations at this stage, but additional sums will be allocated in relation to need and some of those debt-free authorities will certainly be likely to qualify to some extent under those rules.
      Mr. Hammond: The Minister has said that authorities will continue to have access to 25 per cent. of their right to buy receipts. For clarity—and for those who have not gone through the tortuous Committee process—will the Minister confirm that he is quoting the draft regulation that he has published, but that the Bill allows the Secretary of State to take up to 100 per cent. of receipts?
      Mr. Raynsford: We specify amounts by regulation rather than putting them in the Bill; therefore, there is that power. But, on a number of occasions, I have made it clear that our policy intention is not to change the percentage from the 75 per cent. that currently applies to the great majority of authorities in the country. It is an anomaly that a relatively small number of debt-free authorities get preferential treatment and it would be quite wrong for that to be perpetuated. That would be the effect of the amendment, which is why we ask the House to reject the Lords amendment and to restore the Bill's provisions as originally presented and discussed in Committee.
      Mr. Hammond: The Minister is talking as if it were counter-intuitive that debt-free authorities should be allowed to keep their capital receipts. To most people, it would be intuitive that somebody in debt should use their capital receipts to offset their debt and that

      605
      somebody not in debt should be free to use their capital receipts as they wished. Surely that is how the great majority of people would see it.
      Mr. Raynsford: I disagree profoundly. In my view, it is counter-intuitive to argue that one relatively small group of authorities should be given preferential treatment and should not be required in any way to make use of capital receipts for housing purposes when all other authorities are required to do so. That is the anomaly that we are putting right.
      I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised the question of incentives for prudent financial management; we are keen on them. The new borrowing regime in part 1 will help by enabling authorities to take a broader view of their finances and to borrow without having to get Government approval at any point. They can take regular decisions as to the advantage of borrowing on a particular project or financing it by other means without their decisions being distorted by an arbitrary factor; that is, if they remain debt free, they get a particular benefit. If they are able to organise their finances while looking at the respective merits of financing and new investment, they can take sensible decisions without being precluded from considering the borrowing option.
      Matthew Green: If it were the Minister's intention that debt-free authorities with housing stock should spend their money on housing, why did he not make that the law instead of taking 75 per cent. away from an authority such as Bridgnorth in my area, which is debt free and has its housing stock? If Bridgnorth undertook large-scale voluntary transfer, 75 per cent. of receipts would be taken away and spent in other local authorities elsewhere. That cannot be right.
      Mr. Raynsford: Once again, the hon. Gentleman is very confused. He and his party believe that it is right to spend money on housing; we wholly agree. It is also right to ensure that allocations should reflect the needs of different areas. If the hon. Gentleman is arguing that the right way is to leave the receipts where they lie, irrespective of need, inevitably that will disadvantage substantial numbers of areas with high needs and low receipts. If he is arguing that, I wish him luck; the people of Liverpool will have an extremely jaundiced view about the Liberal Democrat proposal to take £1.5 million away from that city and from many other areas that would be badly affected by the arrangements that his party has suggested in the Lords.
      Mr. Andrew Turner: Liverpool, of course, has a declining population in comparison with many areas of the south-east. However, is not the process that the Minister is introducing analogous to saying to someone who has paid off their mortgage that they must now hand some of their money to others to help them pay off their mortgages?
      Mr. Raynsford: No, it is analogous to an arrangement in which someone has provided the finance for an asset. All these houses were built with very substantial Government subsidy—in many cases, meeting the full costs—and national Government have a right to have
      606
      an interest on the disposal of that asset. That would be regarded as an absolutely normal principle in any commercial operation, or, indeed, in any public service operation.
      Mr. Bercow: Unfortunately, the right hon. Gentleman's position will not do; it is as perverse as his appetite for nationalisation of local decision making seems insatiable. Does he not at least concede that where a local authority has substantial debts and some resources from the sale of council houses, it has a responsibility to use the latter to pay off the former, before benefiting from other councils' legitimately acquired funds?
      Mr. Raynsford: No, the right position is that every authority—not just those that the hon. Gentleman gives as examples—should have a framework that provides an incentive to repay debt and to act prudently. That is part of the framework that we are introducing, which will be reinforced by the housing revenue account subsidy system. It will enable authorities to repay debt, but it will also recognise that many authorities still have very high housing needs that must be met. It is quite wrong that areas with high needs and few resources from receipts should be penalised, as the amendment passed in another place would do. This is a matter of social justice and fairness, and of ensuring a decent housing policy that looks after the interests of people throughout the country, rather than favouring just a limited number of areas that happen to have the good fortune of substantial receipts.
      I want to put the arrangements for receipts in context. The Government are now providing some £2.5 billion in investment each year, to be allocated on the advice of the regional housing boards. Some £2.5 billion in investment—more than two and a half times the amount that went into housing in 1997–98—will address the needs in all authorities, not just in some.
      Finally, we have recognised the level of concern expressed by debt-free authorities about the introduction of pooling. That is why we offered them the reimbursement of a reducing proportion of the estimated £120 million in capital receipts that they would be required to pool for the next three years: 75 per cent. in 2004–05, 50 per cent. in 2005–06, and 25 per cent. in 2006–07.
      Mr. Hammond: The Minister said a moment ago that this large sum would be allocated on the advice of the regional housing boards. Will he confirm who advises on the distribution of that sum between the boards? I assume that he was referring to distribution within a region by the boards.
      Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We seek a national framework to ensure a fair regional distribution overall, and we will then invite regional housing boards to make recommendations within their regions about actual distribution. The decision on the allocation between regions is ours. The regional housing boards make recommendations on decisions within regions, but they are obviously subject to the agreement of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning.
      Mr. Hammond: So that we can see what the flow of funds looks like, can the Minister explain the

      607
      distribution between the eight English regions, by percentage, of those funds, and the distribution by region of the £120 million in capital receipts taken from debt-free authorities? If he does not have the figures in his voluminous folder, perhaps he can get hold of them.
      Mr. Raynsford: I will happily provide the hon. Gentleman with answers to both those questions by writing to him. But to ensure that he has a full and fair picture, I should remind him of a third element: what the allocations are following the recommendations of the regional housing boards. That information will complete the picture by showing where the money is going to, as well as where it is coming from.
      The arrangement that I have described, which gives generous transitional support to enable debt-free authorities to adjust rationally over time, is the right way forward, rather than the removal of these important provisions. I trust that, as when the House previously debated this issue, it will recognise that it is both fair and right to continue with the framework of redistribution of capital receipts, which should apply to all authorities, rather than just to an arbitrary group that happens not to be debt-free. I ask that the House resist this amendment.
      Mr. Hammond: We are now 45 minutes into the allocated time, and hon. Members will have noticed that the long summer recess has not increased the Government's appetite for the proper scrutiny of their business. We have the three most controversial groups of amendments to consider in a time-limited period of two and a half hours, and the remainder of the evening for—
      4.30 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister(Phil Hope): So get on with it.
      Mr. Hammond: The Under-Secretary says, "Get on with it," but I want to get on with placing on record our perplexity at the allocation of time as between the first three groups of amendments and the remainder. Why the Government could not have allowed us three, four or even five hours to debate the first three groups is completely beyond Conservative Members.
      The amendment carried by the Lords was originally moved in Committee by my hon. Friends and me and was supported by the Liberal Democrats—[Interruption]—and I am grateful for that support. I described clause 11 as one of the most important in the Bill. It is also the clause that gives the lie to the Government's intentions. The Minister likes to describe the Bill as conferring new freedoms and flexibilities on local authorities, but, as drafted, the clause gives the Secretary of State the power to force local authorities to hand over to him some or all of their capital receipts, principally gained through right-to-buy sales. It is a central Government tax on local authority capital receipts: however the Minister chooses to dress it up, that is precisely what it is.
      We are not talking about a tax of 10, 20 or 30 per cent. The Minister has already told us about—and the regulations that he has circulated already show—the
      608
      intention to tax the receipts at 75 per cent. As I said in an earlier intervention, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the Secretary of State from increasing the take-up to 100 per cent.
      The Minister calls that "pooling", but the word does not appear anywhere in the Bill. He says that it is redistribution of capital receipts. Of course all taxation is potentially redistributive, depending on how the Secretary of State chooses to exercise his discretion in distributing the proceeds of this tax on local authorities. Undoubtedly it is a redistribution of power away from local authorities to the Secretary of State. No matter how the Minister tries to dress that up, local authorities, the Local Government Association and Opposition politicians of all parties clearly recognise that the measure goes directly against the thrust of the policy that the Government profess to be implementing through the Bill.
      Mr. Gardiner: In many respects, the hon. Gentleman may be said to be making a powerful case about how moneys should not be redistributed and about local democracy, but he is suggesting that the policy is being implemented by the Government to change the status quo. It is not. In fact, the previous Conservative Administration introduced the policy and decided that that was the way to pool and redistribute moneys
      Mr. Raynsford: And the 75 per cent.
      Mr. Gardiner: As my right hon. Friend rightly says, they also introduced the 75 per cent. figure. Will the hon. Gentleman therefore explain to the House why there is so much outrage about what the Government are supposed to be doing, when what they are actually doing in this instance is maintaining the status quo and when it is the hon. Gentleman who wants to change it?
      Mr. Hammond: That is an extraordinary argument. The hon. Gentleman should ask the Local Government Association why there is so much outrage. If we take his point literally, he is suggesting that if we accept the Government's proposals, nothing will change. That is simply not true. Local authorities that have been free to spend their capital receipts because they are debt-free will find that 75 per cent. of those receipts will be sequestered by the Secretary of State. They will also potentially be exposed to a 100 per cent. sequestration of their right-to-buy capital receipts. In particular the 34 debt-free authorities, which have been ably represented by the capital receipts group over the course of this long battle, will feel the impact. Other local authorities do not have access to their capital receipts in the same way, precisely because they are indebted. That is another example of the Government's determined assault on well-managed, prudent councils in order to prop up their favoured authorities, including—I have to say—the odd basket case. It is also a frontal assault on the principle of localism.
      The Minister's first, and rather lame, argument, which he has already deployed this afternoon, is that local authority housing stock should somehow be seen as a national rather than a local asset. The Minister says that it was originally built, all those years ago, with central Government subsidy. He is of course right, but

      609
      it was also built with borrowings which, by definition, debt-free authorities have repaid. The stock's value has also been maintained and enhanced by maintenance and improvements carried out at the expense of tenants and council tax payers in many of those local authorities that have been in nil or negative housing subsidy for many years.
      Mr. Raynsford: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the authorities would have received Government subsidy both for the repayment of the debt, because that was taken into account, and also—in many cases—for the renovation and improvement of the properties?
      Mr. Hammond: Some of the authorities may have done so, but many—as the Minister well knows—have been in negative housing subsidy. The value of the housing stock has been enhanced by the care and maintenance of the local authorities and their tenants over the years. It is those tenants and council tax payers who should benefit from a capital receipt by their local authority.
      Mr. Edward Davey: I shall address this issue in greater detail when I make my speech, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree that we should not let the Government get away with the notion that all those houses were built and maintained solely by central Government subsidy and the taxpayer. Many of them were built under local authority initiative, decades and sometimes centuries ago, as local communities acted to provide homes for the needy in their areas. The Government are trying to rewrite history, and we should not let them get away with it.
      Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman is right, but even if the Minister has a point about the original financing of the housing stocks, it is bizarre to try to rewrite the rules 30 or 40 years later by saying what was given as a grant is now subject to a clawback: it is as if the Government were saying, "Sorry. we forgot to tell you at the time."
      Mr. Raynsford: If that is bizarre, can the hon. Gentleman tell me what was the logic of his party when it introduced this arrangement in 1990?
      Mr. Hammond: I do not suggest that authorities that have access to their capital receipt s should be subject to a retrospective clawback, which is what the Minister's argument appears to be.
      My noble Friends targeted their amendment precisely. They sought to remove the Secretary of State's power to levy a tax on capital receipts, but would have left in the Bill the power to direct the use of receipts, either for debt reduction or for capital expenditure. We can effectively demolish the Minister's second line of argument, which he deployed extensively in Committee, that many local authorities have not used their capital receipts to the full for housing or urban regeneration. We have some sympathy with that argument. Of course, to restrict those local authorities in the use of their capital receipts would be a restriction on local freedom, but—in the spirit of compromise—we were prepared to
      610
      meet the Minister halfway on that. We tabled an amendment that would have allowed the Minister to direct that those receipts retained by local authorities should be used for specified purposes—housing investment and urban regeneration—which would have entirely addressed the concern that the Minister outlined. The amendment was also supported by the Liberal Democrats, but the Government rejected it.
      It is a fact that it is often the areas with high property values, and thus buoyant right-to-buy capital receipts, that have the greatest need for affordable housing. I make no bones about the fact that I am thinking of constituencies such as mine and that of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) in making that statement; we know that we are not in areas that are likely to be favoured by the Secretary of State's largesse when he redistributes the so-called pooled receipts. We know that as a consequence public services in our constituencies will suffer, as our public authorities are unable to employ the teachers, nurses, social workers and police officers whose employment our constituents have a right to expect so that they, too, can enjoy decent public services notwithstanding the high cost of delivering such services in the south-east. If the Minister thinks about it, he will find that there is a strong correlation between buoyant right-to-buy receipts, which, as he correctly says, indicate high housing demand and high house prices, and real need in the present context for the delivery of affordable housing.
      At present, the most pressing housing issue facing both the country and the Government—who will be judged on whether or not they can improve public service delivery—is to provide affordable housing for people who will work at the kind of nationally negotiated salaries that the public services are able to offer. As the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) knows, that is a real problem in the south-east and it is worse outside than inside London, because our public sector workers do not have the benefit of London weighting, yet they often face higher living and housing costs than people who live in the outer London boroughs.
      Matthew Green: I would not like the hon. Gentleman to leave the list of areas that suffer a shortage of affordable housing without mentioning places like Shropshire and Cornwall where shortages exist for different reasons. Shortages in those areas are due to people either buying holiday homes or retiring to the area, yet local salaries are much lower than nationally agreed pay settlements for the public sector. There are good public sector jobs in Shropshire, but houses cost £200,000.
      Mr. Hammond: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's point. It is important to recognise that the issue is not confined to the south-east of England; there are other areas with buoyant right-to-buy receipts and buoyant housing markets. They all have one thing in common: they suffer from the problem of how to provide affordable housing for public sector workers.
      Mr. Gardiner: May I respond to the serious comments that the hon. Gentleman makes about house prices in the south-east by reference to my borough of Brent? I

      611
      understand perfectly that the south-east is a high house price area, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reflect on and take to heart the fact that inner-city and outer-London boroughs such as Brent are subject to peculiar pressures in attracting key workers, which are not simply mirrored in house prices. The pressures of working in those environments are a disincentive to workers, so if we are to address the problems of public service delivery and key worker housing, which he rightly highlights, boroughs such as Brent, where key sector workers face complex difficulties, need the sort of investment that has meant £2.1 million to meet Brent's housing needs.
      Mr. Hammond: I do not for a minute suggest that there are no problems in boroughs such as Brent. We are all aware of the broader issues of dealing with inner and outer-city deprivation; the list of problems is endless. However, it is wrong for the Minister to characterise areas that will have that money—the 75 per cent.—taken from them as areas that do not have a problem. They are leafy, they have buoyant housing markets
      Phil Hope: They may have high housing need.
      Mr. Hammond: In Standing Committee, I cited Lord Rooker who said outside the House that it was likely that only one authority—Barking and Dagenham—of the then 34 debt-free authorities with housing stock was likely to be regarded by the Government as in housing need—[Interruption.] No doubt the Minister will correct me if that is incorrect.
      4.45 pm
      Let me just tell the Minister how this looks from the point of view of an authority that will lose 75 per cent. of its capital receipts and that will have to change its plans accordingly. Runnymede borough council—my local authority—is debt free, with housing stock and good right-to-buy receipts, but it is in desperate need of investment to improve pre-war, inter-war and immediate post-war system-built housing, some of which the Minister knows about, and I am pleased to say that he has recently approved such a scheme. There is a desperate need to invest in improving the quality of some of that, frankly, life-expired housing stock, as well as a desperate need to invest in new affordable housing, precisely to allow the area's economy and public services to continue to function. Local people do not understand why the Government apparently do not recognise that need and are apparently hell bent on taking such money away from our communities and redistributing it elsewhere. We believe that there is a clear need for that housing investment to take place locally.
      The proceeds of this tax on local authorities will be used to finance Government dirigisme, channelling development to specific areas. The Minister has already mentioned the Thames gateway. [Interruption.] I do not know why the Minister is shaking his head, because that information is in the public domain. The money will be spent in Ashford, the Thames gateway and Milton Keynes; it will not be spent in Runnymede. If the Minister has some good news that I was unaware of, I should be very pleased to hear it, but that looks like channelling development to the Government's priority
      612
      areas at the expense of local solutions to local problems. The Minister denied this when I put it to him earlier, but I am afraid that, from where I sit in north-west Surrey, the Thames gateway looks like a massive dormitory at the end of a 40-mile stationary car park called the M25, which key workers in Surrey will have to travel to and from to find affordable housing.
      The Government can go on all they like about decentralisation and local authority freedom and flexibility, but we will judge the Government by their actions, not their words. This confiscatory swipe at the capital receipts of some of the best-run local authorities in England, including those under the control of all the parties and none, shows us the Government's true colours. We had it right when we previously debated this issue in the House, when we proposed to scratch that confiscatory power from the Bill. The Lords have got it right now in deleting from the Bill a power of confiscatory taxation, which we know full well the Secretary of State proposes to use to reduce to local discretion, to fuel the redistribution pork barrel and to reinforce his wider attack on the right to buy. [Interruption.] The right-to-buy policy has given real hope and opportunity to millions of hard-working families over the past decade or so—something that the Labour party obviously cannot abide and that the Minister appears to find funny.
      I urge my hon. Friends to resist the Government's crude attempt, in pursuit of their centralising and confiscatory agenda, to ignore the collective wisdom of all the Opposition parties in the House and of the majority of the House of Lords.
      Mr. Edward Davey: This issue has been debated more than any other during debates on the Bill in both Houses. The arguments have been explored in great detail, and the Opposition have had to think hard about the Government's arguments. The Minister will admit that the Opposition have tested the Government's arguments and thought hard about them. The Minister's problem seems to be that we have reached a different conclusion from him, and I shall set out the principles of why we have done so shortly.
      The Minister sometimes cites councils and which parties control them. There is almost a scorecard, as though such things will be done by partisan analysis. [Interruption.] The Minister shakes his head, but that sounded like the point he was making in his opening remarks. That is not the right approach, and it is not one that we have adopted. The Liberal Democrat group on the Local Government Association, which I consulted widely—including representatives from all the councils that the Minister mentioned and many more—debated the matter at length before taking its decision. It knew that some councils would win and some would lose, but it wanted to decide on the right principle for the financial mechanism.
      Another case in point, which the Government have mentioned, is that of Brent. For obvious reasons, Brent has raised its very pretty head in this debate [Interruption.] I should make it clear that I was not referring to the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner). The Government should be careful, however, before they make opportunist points about Brent. Labour has been running Brent for a long time and has piled up some of the debts, and in recent years

      613
      the Labour Government's local government finance settlements for Brent have not exactly been generous. I am sure that the hon. Member for Brent, North would concede that point, because I know, as Hansard will show, that he has not been very happy with Ministers' settlements for Brent.
      Mr. Gardiner: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recall that Brent's 1998 local government settlement for children's personal services was indeed not generous and that it had a bad effect on Brent. If we look at the Government's record, however, specifically on housing and capital allocation over the past six years, we find that the Labour council in Brent has begun the rebuilding of houses, which was left in abeyance for years by the Conservative administration in Brent and by the then Conservative Government. The record of the Labour local authority in Brent, supported by the Government, in delivering on housing need in Brent is absolutely exceptional. Last year, we had one of the largest capital allocations that we could have had. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will now address the real question—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker(Sir Michael Lord): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now conclude his intervention.
      Mr. Davey: You are probably right, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to admonish the hon. Gentleman, but perhaps I, too, should be admonished for giving him the opportunity to make that party broadcast. At least he confirmed, however, that he was not happy with Brent's local government finance settlement from this Government.
      The Government say that the proposals will get rid of an anomaly, but the anomaly can also be seen as an incentive to reduce debt and to become debt free—a sensible element to have in the local government finance system. The Government are rightly getting rid of a lot of the nonsense that they inherited from the Conservatives—the central capital controls, supplementary credit approvals and so on—and are introducing what is more or less Liberal Democrat policy: the prudential capital regime for local authority borrowing. We wholeheartedly support the Government's welcome move in that direction, which provides greater opportunities for local authorities to manage their capital affairs well. The key question, however, is whether the Government are still allowing, within those many changes, opportunities and incentives for local government to make sure that it is managing its debt well. Let us have freedom to borrow when it is appropriate, but do we really want to take away the significant incentive to run down debts? We all agree that encouraging local authorities to reduce their debt is sensible, and I do not understand why the Government are getting rid of that important incentive. That is one issue of fiscal principle.
      The other issue relates to localism and centralism. The Government say that the Bill is about freedoms and flexibilities for local authorities and that it will empower and free up local authorities. They also talk about new localism. This policy goes completely in the opposite
      614
      direction. The Government justify that by saying that they have to redistribute, and the two parties do not disagree on the need to redistribute; the question is how that is done. [Interruption.] The Minister points to Conservative Members, but I was not including the Conservatives in that argument. Perhaps we should do so these days, but we never quite know.
      Labour and the Liberal Democrats certainly agree that it is important that central Government should be used to redistribute resources around the country, but that is not the question. The question is how we do that, and it is clear in my mind that this is not the right way to do it. National Government could provide the resources for housing in Brent and other areas, should they choose to do so, but the question is whether they should take that money off other authorities that have housing needs and that have managed their financial affairs well. Should the Government be penalising them or should they be coming up with money from elsewhere?
      I want to press the Government on the idea that all council housing has somehow been funded solely by central Government. Lord Rooker was at it in the other place when he said:
      "Council housing is a national asset."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 June 2003; Vol. 648, c. GC 198.]
      I have heard council houses called many things, but I have never heard them called a national asset. It is as though council housing is some sort of nationalised industry that central Government have provided and that local authorities have nothing to do with. That is clearly not the case, whether it is on the financial level or on the level of the entrepreneurship, vigour and dynamism of the local communities that have made the provision of social housing possible.
      It is all very well for the Government to say, "This money came out of the central pot." However, they decided where the central pot began and ended and where the local pot began and ended. The boundaries between national and local government funds have been vague at times and have moved over the decades. Liberal Democrats believe that local authorities should have much greater financial powers, and we would like the boundaries to be shifted from central Government and more to local government. That is one reason why we think that this measure is wrong. There should be redistribution, but there should be greater autonomy, too. This measure is a step in the opposite direction to greater autonomy.
      Matthew Green: Earlier, the Minister shook his head when my hon. Friend said that some of the properties go back for centuries. Many boroughs in mediaeval market towns built properties that came into the hands of councils, which turned them into flats and houses. Those properties often realise the highest possible values if they are sold. They were funded not by central Government in the 20th century, but by locally raised money or by charitable money in the 19th century.
      Mr. Davey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. Two councils in his constituency—South Shropshire and Bridgnorth—are debt free and will be affected by the measure, but they have real housing need.

      615
      That brings me to my third point of principle against the Government's proposal. Housing need is sometimes a relatively subjective concept. The Government say that they have housing need indicators, but the housing need that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) mentioned—the need for affordable housing for key public sector workers—is a key issue. We do not know how authorities will meet that need when the money is taken from them. The Minister may say that we do not know because the Government have set up regional housing boards—a step in the right direction—which have yet to report. However, he is asking the House to take a decision on one side of the equation when we do not know the information on the other side of the equation.
      The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge says that he is privy to the information that Lord Rooker has said that only one of the debt-free authorities that are losing out will receive money through this process. I am not sure how Lord Rooker knows that if the regional housing boards will provide and allocate the funds. Perhaps he knows something that we do not.
      Mr. Gardiner: I have tried to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument closely, but I do not understand his point about the regional housing boards. Surely if those boards are to be the arbiter of genuine housing need, it is absolutely right that we take the decision on one side of the equation and not on the other. That is precisely because of the point that the hon. Gentleman made at the beginning of his remarks: this process should be free of partisan judgment and based on objective criteria. That is exactly what the regional housing boards are supposed to provide.
      5 pm
      Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. The Minister was trying to say that some authorities that do not have housing needs will lose and that other authorities with housing needs will win. We want to know about and to understand the housing needs, because we know from our constituencies, from which much of our information for such debates comes, that there are housing needs in the so-called leafy boroughs of suburban London. There are housing needs in rural areas such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) and in parts of Surrey. The Government cannot have it both ways. We want to know where housing need will be met before the money is taken away. Perhaps that information should come from the regional housing boards—I do not disagree with that. The process should be less partisan and should be based on objective criteria. However, we are being asked to make a decision before we know about the need.
      Matthew Green: Surely it is unlikely that there will be sufficient money to meet all the housing needs in a given region, even with the pooling of money. There will be priorities. In the west midlands, it might well be decided that Birmingham needs an extra 20,000 houses. We need only 1,500 more affordable homes in South Shropshire district council, but the district contains only 30,000
      616
      people. The suspicion in South Shropshire is that it is likely that the money for the west midlands will go to areas other than South Shropshire or Bridgnorth.
      Mr. Davey: Over the weekend, I talked to several council leaders and councillors who will be affected by the decisions to check whether they were still happy with our position, because this is a serious moment during the passage of the Bill. They were clear that they managed their budgets and forward planning in the knowledge that when they became debt free, they could use the moneys as they wanted.
      Three Rivers district council is desperately keen to meet the decent homes standard that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister gave it and to build more affordable housing with housing associations to address its affordable housing crisis and to house some of its key public sector workers. However, it will not be able to do so because the money will be taken away and it does not think that it will be on the regional housing board's list. Councils have planned for years in the expectation that they will receive money to meet the housing needs that they know exist in their communities, but they will no longer be able to do that.
      The situation is retrospective in many ways. Councils have planned and hoped for freedom so that they may make essential investment. They have even told their communities that they were making preparations, but suddenly, and without too much warning, the Government are taking the money away, which is why people are so cross. The Government and hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Brent, North must understand that.
      The Government say that the transitional scheme may cushion the blow for some of the affected authorities, and indeed it will. The problem is that the scheme will last for only two or three years, after which all the money will be taken from the authorities. The situation affects not only the 38 or 40 debt-free authorities with capital receipts that the Minister mentioned. Local authorities that have been working towards becoming debt free have gone through some of the pain but will discover that the freedom that they worked for and looked forward to will be taken away.
      I say to the Minister, in as friendly a way as possible, that Liberal Democrats have thought hard about the matter, as is our duty. As he said, £120 million is up for grabs throughout the country, so the way in which it is distributed and allocated is important. However, if one considers the principles of fiscal prudence and incentives to become debt free, localism versus centralism, the way in which housing needs are defined and the way in which local authorities have worked towards becoming debt free, the Minister has not made his case and we shall vote against him in the Lobby.
      Mr. Raynsford: We have had a good debate on an important subject, although the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) made several rather curious allegations, the most frequent of which was that the measure is confiscatory. By that logic, the Conservative Government who introduced the whole set-aside regime were confiscatory. He alleged that the measure represents heavy-handed government forcing local authorities to do undesirable things, yet his

      617
      party, when in government, introduced measures that required local authorities to set aside capital receipts. I cannot accept his latter-day expressions of support for the idea of greater freedom for local government without reminding him of the actions of Conservative Governments.
      The fundamental difference is that today we are talking about housing capital expenditure of £2.5 billion a year—two and a half times the level that we inherited when we came to power. At that stage, the redistributive mechanism that the hon. Gentleman's Government had introduced was virtually the only means of getting capital into housing.
      Mr. Davey: If so much new money is available for housing needs, why is it necessary to take £120 million from the debt-free authorities that have worked so hard to become so?
      Mr. Raynsford: If the hon. Gentleman bears with me, I will give him a full answer that deals with the inherent contradiction in his case. He seems to believe, as Liberal Democrats generally do, that it is possible to find ways out of difficult conflicts without any pain, but it is not. It may be so in the Liberal Democrat Valhalla, where everyone debates everything ad nauseam and outcomes are always pain free, but in the real world there are hard choices that require decisions. There is conflict between allowing receipts to remain where they fall and ensuring a fair allocation of housing resources. This is a testing moment for Opposition Members to show where they stand. Are they in favour of simply letting things lie according to the accidents of history, or do they want a fair distribution based on principle, not accident?
      Mr. Davey: Is taking money away from Tory and Liberal Democrat councils and giving to it to Labour ones the hardest decision that the Minister has ever had to make?
      Mr. Raynsford: It is not like that at all. It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman proposes to take money away from a substantial number of Liberal Democrat authorities. I understand exactly why Conservative Members support the measure—because, in general, Tory councils will benefit from it; it is self-interest on behalf of predominantly Tory authorities. I find it extraordinary, however, that the Liberal Democrats should argue against the interests of many of their own authorities. That is an example of the curious stance that they often take by standing on their heads on certain issues. [Interruption.] I shall come back to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) in a moment. I want first to respond to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge.
      The difference between the actions of his Government and our proposal is that we are ensuring that the principles of fair distribution apply to all local authorities, which will all be part of the same mechanism. He proposes giving special benefits to a small number—around 40—that are debt free. As we know, that is because Conservative Members see that as being in the financial interests of predominantly Conservative authorities. Let me test him on this. Why
      618
      should mid-Devon be treated differently from east Devon? Why should Milton Keynes be treated differently from Watford? Why should Maidstone be treated differently from Dartford? In each case, one will lose and one will gain. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me which will be the gainers and which will be the losers? We know about Milton Keynes, because we have rehearsed that already, but can he genuinely tell me what the outcome will be in the other two cases? Of course not. We know that those authorities are in broadly similar circumstances. It just happens that one has the advantage of being debt free and the other not. Why should there be an arbitrary benefit for one as against another? That is the fatal weakness of the Opposition's position. They are proposing special treatment for a small group of authorities merely on the accident of which one happens to be debt free. Why should one authority have unrestricted access to capital receipts while the other is required to set aside 75 per cent? That is the question that I must put, and there is no credible answer to it. It illustrates the confusion of both opposition parties.
      Mr. Davey: The Minister is taking a static one-year view when we are talking about housing and capital finance. These things do not happen from one year to the next. The span is 25 or 30 years plus, as we have discussed. The Minister cannot say that what he has said justifies his case. He must take a much longer-term view. If he did that, he might win more of us over.
      Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great respect, could not have made my case better. Essentially, he is arguing for special treatment for a few authorities that happen at this moment to be in a favourable position. We are taking the longer-term view and saying that there should be a framework that applies fairly throughout all authorities and ensures that resources are allocated according to need. Surely the Liberal Democrat party would say that that is a fair principle, and it is the principle that underpins our policy.
      The Liberal Democrats are caught on the horns of a dilemma. On the one hand, they argue for the use of resources to meet local housing needs, but they are not prepared to follow logic and say that that means that we cannot live with the accidents of history and geography and allow buckshee gains for some authorities that at this moment have the advantage of being debt free with substantial receipts, and needs that do not outweigh their receipts.
      I am not sure what my noble friend Lord Rooker said in the other place—the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge quoted him—but some authorities that are debt free have significant needs that will be taken into account in the allocations that will be considered by the regional housing boards. Other authorities will have lesser needs. In our view, it is right that every authority should be assessed on the basis of needs, on the simple principle that housing allocations should be determined by need. That should not be based on the simple accident, as it were, of where the receipts arise.
      Mr. Hammond: I have listened to everything that the Minister has said. Does he understand how he is undermining the sense that he wants to convey that he is

      619
      granting freedom to local authorities? Does he understand also the psychological significance of the provision? We are talking of only 40 authorities, but a message is being sent to all authorities and to the Local Government Association that the Government do not really want to let go and allow local authorities to manage their own affairs. Instead, they want to control what they do.
      Mr. Raynsford: I hope that we shall shortly come on to the next group of amendments, which deals with financial management and accompany all the provisions that change radically the capital allocations system. The provisions will remove Government controls and will free local authorities to take decisions on capital allocations. The Government are making substantial moves towards giving local authorities greater freedom and flexibility. We are also a Government who have principles. One of those principles is that fairness in the allocation of resources to meet needs should be paramount. We are not resiling from that. It is sad that the other parties are prepared to argue for a framework that will give special advantage on the basis of accidents of history and geography to a few authorities, rather than taking the more rounded view.
      We have offered generous transitional arrangements. We are prepared to help those authorities that are debt free because, as the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton said, some of them have made plans. We want to ensure that those plans are not disrupted unduly by these changes. Therefore, there was opportunity for substantial help for the impact on debt-free authorities to be smoothed over for a significant time. We remain willing to assist those authorities, but that must happen in a framework that ensures fairness to all authorities, and not be a purely arbitrary benefit for a small number that will have adverse consequences for the majority.
      5.15 pm
      With those thoughts, I trust that hon. Members will vote to resist the amendment.
      Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 258, Noes 154.

      Division No. 310]

      [5:15 pm

      AYES

      Ainger, Nick

      Borrow, David

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Allen, Graham

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Brennan, Kevin

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Austin, John

      Bryant, Chris

      Baird, Vera

      Burden, Richard

      Banks, Tony

      Burgon, Colin

      Barnes, Harry

      Burnham, Andy

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Bayley, Hugh

      Caborn, rh Richard

      Beard, Nigel

      Cairns, David

      Bell, Stuart

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Benn, Hilary

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Berry, Roger

      Caplin, Ivor

      Best, Harold

      Casale, Roger

      620

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Challen, Colin

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hutton, rh John

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Illsley, Eric

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Ingram, rh Adam

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Cohen, Harry

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Jamieson, David

      Corston, Jean

      Jenkins, Brian

      Cousins, Jim

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Cox, Tom (Tooting)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Darling, rh Alistair

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Kidney, David

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Denham, rh John

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Doran, Frank

      Lammy, David

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Lepper, David

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Lewis, Terry (Worslsey)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Linton, Martin

      Etherington, Bill

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Farrelly, Paul

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Flint, Caroline

      McCabe, Stephen

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      McCafferty, Chris

      Foster, rh Derek

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      McDonnell, John

      Foulkes, rh George

      McFall, John

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Gardiner, Barry

      McKechin, Ann

      Gerrard, Neil

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Gilroy, Linda

      McWalter, Tony

      Godsiff, Roger

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Goggins, Paul

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Grogan, John

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Hain, rh Peter

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Hanson, David

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Martlew, Eric

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Hendrick, Mark

      Merron, Gillian

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Michael, rh Alun

      Heppell, John

      Miliband, David

      Heyes, David

      Miller, Andrew

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Hoon, rh Geoffrey

      Morley, Elliot

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Murphy. Denis (Wansbeck)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      O'Hara, Edward

      621

      Organ, Diana

      Soley, Clive

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Speller, rh John

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Squire, Rachel

      Perham, Linda

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Pickthall, Colin

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Stevenson, George

      Plaskitt, James

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Stringer, Graham

      Purchase, Ken

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Rammell, Bill

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

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

      Trickett, Jon

      Truswell, Paul

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Rooney, Terry

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Ward, Claire

      Salter, Martin

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Sawford, Phil

      Watts, David

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Sheerman, Barry

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Sheridan, Jim

      Wills, Michael

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      Winnick, David

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Singh, Marsha

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      Woolas, Phil

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Vernon Coaker and

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Ms Bridget Prentice

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Allan, Richard

      Cameron, David

      Amess, David

      Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Cash, William

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Bacon, Richard

      Baker, Norman

      Chope, Christopher

      Baldry, Tony

      Clappison, James

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Collins, Tim

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Bellingham, Henry

      Cotter, Brian

      Bercow, John

      Curry, rh David

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Boswell, Tim

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

      Doughty, Sue

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Brady, Graham

      Duncan Smith, rh lain

      Brazier, Julian

      Evans, Nigel

      Breed, Colin

      Fabricant, Michael

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Fallon, Michael

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Flight, Howard

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Flook, Adrian

      Burns, Simon

      Forth, rh Eric

      Burnside, David

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Burstow, Paul

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Burt, Alistair

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Butterfill, John

      Garnier, Edward

      622

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Gidley, Sandra

      Page, Richard

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Paice, James

      Goodman, Paul

      Pickles, Eric

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Grayling, Chris

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Randall, John

      Greenway, John

      Redwood, rh John

      Grieve, Dominic

      Rendel, David

      Hague, rh William

      Robathan, Andrew

      Hammond, Philip

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Hancock, Mike

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Hawkins, Nick

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Ruffley, David

      Heath, David

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Sanders, Adrian

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Simmonds, Mark

      Howard, rh Michael

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Jack, rh Michael

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

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

      Soames, Nicholas

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Spring, Richard

      Stunell, Andrew

      Lamb, Norman

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Lansley, Andrew

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      leigh, Edward

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      letwin, rh Oliver

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Lewis Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Lidington, David

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Viggers, Peter

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Walter, Robert

      Loughton, Tim

      Waterson, Nigel

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Watkinson, Angela

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Maclean, rh David

      Whittingdale, John

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Wiggin, Bill

      Malins, Humfrey

      Wilkinson, John

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Mercer, Patrick

      Willis, Phil

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Wilshire, David

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Moore, Michael

      Young, rh Sir George

      Moss, Malcolm

      Norman, Archie

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Mr. Mark Field and

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Mr. Mark Francois

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment disagreed to.

    Before Clause 25
    Lords amendment No. 6
    530 pm
    Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    The amendment would insert a new clause at the beginning of part 2. The new clause says that part 2 can be applied only to an authority that has been identified by the Audit Commission as being at risk of overspending its total budget by more than 10 per cent.
    I need first to explain the perverse and highly undesirable effects of such an overspending test. It requires the Audit Commission to undertake an entirely

    623
    new task, which would be costly and potentially very hazardous. In effect, it would require the commission to create what would be a blacklist of authorities that had agreed budgets that were likely to be seriously overspent. How would that be done? The factors that lead to an overspend are extremely diverse and difficult to predict. The commission would have to examine the budget of every authority, consider the various contingencies that might affect it and their likelihood, and from that try to predict whether the outcome would be a 10 per cent. overspend. The scope for disagreement would be immense, and inclusion in the list would be highly likely to be challenged in the courts. A major input of audit resource would be required, which would be reflected in an increase in audit fees for all authorities.
    What would be the effect of an authority's inclusion? It should be borne in mind that this is not a general assessment concluding that an authority is a poor performer, but, specifically, a supposedly authoritative statement that it is likely to spend at least 10 per cent. more than it put in its budget. If the authority had reserves of less than 10 per cent., that would effectively mean that it had set an illegal budget. On the other hand, if it had reserves of more than the expected overspend, it would be on the blacklist but not at any financial risk. Its reputation would be compromised for no reason.
    The purpose of the amendment is apparently to apply part 2 to authorities that have unsound finances. When Hackney's chief finance officer issued his section 114 report in October 2000, he was estimating an overspend of between £14.5 million and £22 million. The reserves were £6.5 million. The general fund budget for the year, however, was £264 million. The reserves were insufficient, but the projected overspend was less than 10 per cent. of the budget.
    Even if it could have foreseen that development, the Audit Commission would not have identified Hackney under the new clause. The part 2 provisions would not have applied in one of the most serious financial crises to have hit a local authority in recent years. This arbitrary test would not guarantee the identification of authorities facing financial crises, while running the risk of needlessly tarnishing the reputation of an authority with sound finances.
    The new clause would have another serious consequence. Much has been made of the opposition to part 2 in local government, but one clause, clause 30, has been universally welcomed. It helps an authority to take rapid remedial action when a section 114 report has been issued. The amendment would perversely deny au authority the use of that facility unless it was on the Audit Commission list—but unexpected financial crises can affect many authorities. It is absurd that only projected overspenders would be allowed the means to take immediate action to deal with such a crisis.
    Those are the reasons for our belief that this is a perverse and unworkable amendment, but there are more fundamental issues at stake. The purpose of part 2 is to reinforce important aspects of sound financial management in local government. It does that mainly by requiring authorities to follow proper procedures and have regard to appropriate considerations, while leaving the substance of the decisions to authorities themselves. This is all part of our programme to extend freedom, and flexibilities to local authorities—in this case, by repealing the restrictive policies relating to capital
    624
    spending that were introduced by the last Conservative Government. I am interested to see the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) laughing at the fact that his party was responsible for the introduction of those measures.
    Mr. Hammond: The Minister is going into chapter and verse about his technical objections to the amendment, but he knows that the underlying principal concern was clause 26, which, in contrast to what he has just said about giving local authorities freedom and allowing them to manage their affairs in accordance with generally accepted accounting practice, gives the Secretary of State the power to dictate reserves. Why did not the Government take the opportunity to accept the Opposition amendment that would have struck out clause 26, and then everyone would have been happy?
    Mr. Raynsford: If the hon. Gentleman bears with me, I will come on to precisely that issue. I emphasise that the Bill is part of a programme to extend freedoms and flexibility but, as all sensible people recognise, with freedoms come responsibilities, and the part 2 provisions are sensible safeguards to ensure that the new freedoms are applied responsibly. Clause 26 provides a fall-back power to require an authority to budget for a minimum level of reserves but we have made it clear on many occasions that we would use that power only in very limited circumstances. We have said on the record, and I repeat tonight, that we will set a minimum only if an authority is disregarding the advice of its chief finance officer and is heading for serious financial difficulties. In deciding the level of the minimum, we would take account of the advice of the chief finance officer and any observations of the auditor.
    Mr. John Redwood: I was laughing because the Minister was purporting to say that this is a liberalising Bill when, as my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) has pointed out, there is a very strong measure of centralisation. Before the Minister suggests that I should not be making this point, he should remember that, when I was the Minister with responsibility for local government, the only changes I made liberalised. I would have liked to liberalise more. I wish this Government would liberalise more. This is not the measure that is going to do it.
    Mr. Raynsford: I remind the right hon. Gentleman that, when he was a Minister, there was a capital control regime in place that involved central decision taking about every local authority's borrowing—every local authority's borrowing was determined by central Government. That was the policy that he followed. That is what we are doing away with by giving local authorities freedom to take decisions based on a sound prudential assessment of what they can afford to borrow. The only safeguard that we have put in is the safeguard that I have been referring to, which ensures that, in the event of an authority disregarding the advice of its chief finance officer and heading for serious financial difficulties as a result of that, there is a fall-back. I think that any sensible person would recognise that that is prudent and a necessary safeguard, but I hope that we will have to use it very rarely, if ever.
    Mr. Edward Davey: The Minister knows that we disagree with the policy as embedded in clause 26 but

    625
    can he elucidate a little more about when he thinks the power could be used? He said that it would be used on very rare occasions, if ever. Have his officials given him a list of occasions over the past few years when the power might have been applied, given the undertakings that he has just given?
    Mr. Raynsford: As I have already said, we hope that we will never have to use these powers. There have been very infrequent occasions where authorities have disregarded the advice of their chief finance officer. There were cases some years ago where authorities got into imprudent financial arrangements, disregarding official advice, but thankfully they have been very few and infrequent, and we hope that they will not happen at all in future. That is why I can say with some confidence that I hope that we will never have to use the powers, but it is a foolish Government who do not make provision for the possibility of one rogue authority taking irresponsible decisions against the advice of its chief officers in certain unforeseen circumstances. If that were to happen and we did not have the power to intervene, I would be surprised if there were not some Opposition Members saying, "How is it that the Government have got into a position of giving these freedoms to local government without any ability to step in and to prevent the people of that area suffering as a result of irresponsible behaviour by the local authority?"
    Mr. Hammond: Since the Minister places so much stock on the advice of chief finance officers, will he take some advice from the Society of County Treasurers, which told the Select Committee that the proposals for the Secretary of State to specify that local authorities maintain their reserves at a minimum level seemed to be "particularly problematic and unnecessary"?
    Mr. Raynsford: I hear what the society says, and I know that local government is generally hostile to the proposal. But the hon. Gentleman should reflect on the circumstances that I am describing, in which, at some unforeseen future date, an elected authority disregards the advice of its chief finance officer and undertakes highly imprudent borrowing, putting the authority's finances at risk. If that situation arose and the Government had no means whatever to deal with it, would he and the Opposition really be silent? On reflection, he will realise that this is a sensible safeguard that is there for extreme circumstances. We hope that we will never have to use it, but it is a necessary concomitant of a policy of liberalisation that is extending substantially greater freedom to local authorities over their borrowing decisions.
    Mr. Redwood: In those circumstances, the Opposition would be saying that the councillors should be changed. We want the council to be accountable. It would doubtless be a Labour or Liberal Democrat council that got into that financial pickle and we would have strong advice for the electors—choose a better council next time.
    Mr. Raynsford: I do not have the right hon. Gentleman's party political certainties. I know well that
    626
    the authorities in difficulty with which I have been engaged over the last two years have been under the control of all political parties. Fortunately, none is in the kind of circumstances that we are envisaging in the Bill, but it would be imprudent not to allow for the possibility that, at some future date, that might happen. This is simply a safeguard that we believe to be necessary.
    We have set out in the House and in another place the evidence on which we concluded that the powers were necessary, including the findings of the Audit Commission on current levels of reserves in individual authorities. We take the point that the provisions will apply to all authorities when problems are confined to a minority. We would have sympathy with the point made if the effect of the provisions was to impose added burdens, but it is not. All that these clauses do is to give statutory backing to what is accepted as good practice that all authorities should follow.
    The clauses in part 2 were debated in detail in this House and in no case was a Division called against them. I like to think that that was because, when all factors were considered, Members of this House appreciated the importance of sound financial management. Unfortunately, those considerations apparently did not carry the same weight in another place.
    The Government are not prepared to take risks on the issue. If the new freedoms in the Bill are to be given to local government, we regard it as essential that the force of statute be given to these basic rules of prudence. The new clause would prevent that from happening and should be removed.
    Mr. Hammond: The amendment addresses part 2 of the Bill. It is clear that, even more than in part 1—dealing with capital receipts—the provisions in part 2 are offensive to local government and undermine the Government's claim to want to free it.
    We explained to the Minister during the Commons consideration—Members on both sides of the other House also tried to explain it—that the appropriate relationship between central and local Government is not, as the Government seem to think, that of a parent and a child, where freedoms are given conditionally and are undermined by the keeping of reserve powers to step in whenever local authorities do not behave exactly as central Government wish.
    Baroness Hamwee described the approach as undermining the capacity of individuals within local authorities. In Committee, the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) said that the real test of the Government's commitment to freedom was whether local authorities were to be free to go against the Government's wishes, not merely whether they were to be free to comply with them.
    The Minister knows well that the earlier amendments in the House of Lords sought to delete clause 26—the power to dictate minimum reserves. That is the key issue. The amendment represents a different approach to achieving that, by leaving the power in the Bill and limiting its application to councils at particular risk. It is an attempt by our noble Friends to meet the Government's concerns while lifting the implied slur on all local authorities that this part of the Bill, as drafted, contains.

    627
    5.45 pm
    There is a real problem about the message that this part of the Bill, particularly clause 26, sends to local government. Seen through the Government's eyes and as expressed by Lord Rooker in the other place—this is a frankly astonishing quote—
    "the bonfire of red tape goes beyond the wildest dreams of those in local government as regards what they will be able to do with their new freedoms—without government interference or diktat. That is the whole thrust of the Bill and there is wide consensus on it between all the parties concerned in both Houses of Parliament as well as outside in local government."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 July 2003: Vol. 651, c. 902.]
    I do not know where Lord Rooker gets his intelligence from, but I can assure him that he is wrong on all counts. There is no consensus between all parties in this House or in the other place, nor does it exist outside in local government—not a good start for ministerial connection to the real world. As Lord Hanningfield helpfully pointed out to Lord Rooker just a few moments after he made those startling assertions, all parties in the Local Government Association had unanimously condemned clause 26.
    We can cast the net a little wider to test qualified opinion. The Society of Local Authority Chief Executives, in its evidence to the Select Committee, said:
    "The prevailing attitude of mistrust of local government, however, is revealed once again in the Bill's clauses on financial administration".

    The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy—the very body on which the Government are depending, in terms of defining proper practice in the prudential borrowing regime—said:
    "specifying a 'minimum level of reserves' for local authorities is impracticable and should be left to local judgment and good professional practice".
    I am sure that the Minister is taking note. Not much support there, then, for the assertion of the Minister in the other place. That last quote is particularly telling. The Bill relies heavily on the principle of using standards and codes of accounting practice. They will provide the guidance on proper reserve practices, which will differ from authority to authority. The Secretary of States having a power to override proper accounting practices and standards is inimical to the whole system that he is seeking to put in place.
    The Audit Commission said:
    "To date Auditors have resisted making recommendations about minimum levels because it is rightly the responsibility of local authorities to determine this for themselves based on a risk assessment of their operational and business models".
    We agree with the Audit Commission, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, the Society of County Treasurers—which I quoted earlier—the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and the Local Government Association. We disagree with the Minister, and with no disrespect to him, I am afraid that the calculation of the balance of collective wisdom— with Ministers from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on one side and all those professional bodies ranged on the other—has not taken me long to perform. The Government are utterly friendless on this issue, as on so many others.
    628
    Early amendments focused on clause 26; this amendment, carried on Third Reading, uses a different approach, imposing an admittedly arbitrary threshold to try to limit the provisions' scope to local authorities that are judged to be vulnerable. In the other place, Lord Bassam quoted all sorts of technical objectives in terms of the criterion selected and the threshold chosen, but the Government understand very well the objection. They had plenty of opportunity to address it, in this place and during the Bill's passage in the Lords, but did not. My colleagues in the other place—and, I believe, Liberal Democrat peers—were prepared to agree to a sensible compromise with the Government. What they are not prepared to accept is a set of clauses that take back, via reserve powers, all the so-called freedoms that Ministers are so keen to emphasise, for use in circumstances that, by the Minister's own admission, he cannot currently foresee. In keeping those reserve powers, he has underlined how little real freedom local government is being given, how little trust this Government place in local authorities—especially their own—and how far out of touch they are with local government opinion and practice. I urge my hon. Friends to resist the Government's attempt to overturn not only the decision of the other place, but the clear view of all the qualified outside bodies who have opined on the matter.
    Mr. Edward Davey: The Government are introducing some good measures on capital finance for local government. We urged them on the Conservatives, who were deaf to our calls, and we are pleased that the Government are adopting a prudential capital regime. That is very good, but having made those advances through liberalising measures, which the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) failed to do, the Government have now added a centralising measure. They have thus spoilt what would have been a good story for them to tell.
    We argued in Committee, and it has been argued in the other place, that the Government have not convinced anyone that the power is necessary. The reason is that other powers are already on the statute book to ensure that, if a local authority is managing its finances imprudently, the amber and the red light will be turned on and warning given. That applies to the requirements on chief financial officers, district auditors and so forth to report, so we were left bemused about why the extra power was needed. The only answer that the Government have offered is the case of Hackney.
    It is worrying when the Government have only one example to justify a new wide power. Although the Minister has offered some assurances—I accept that they are good and I am sure that they will be heard in the other place—local government and other bodies still feel that the powers may be misused. That is the worry. When the Government say that a power has been used only rarely or in one case and then use that case to justify the power, there is a danger that people will not quite trust them. That is the problem.
    I would have liked to think that the Minister would learn from the mistakes of the Conservatives. The Conservative Government legislated for local government on the basis of a few rogue councils. They were partisan in pointing to a few loony left councils that they then used as an excuse for imposing huge

    629
    centralised controls on all the good local government of the period. That was the Tory mistake, and I am surprised that the Government, despite the good aspects of the Bill, are making the same mistake in respect of this clause. I hope that the Minister and his noble Friend Lord Rooker will repeat their assurances because it is important to have them on the record. Unfortunately, they are not in the Bill, and the Minister should understand that that is why so many people are concerned.
    Tonight, the Liberal Democrats will have to disagree with the Government, who will need to show in proceedings over the next few days that they are listening and taking our points into account. The Minister will not win the argument for new localism and empowering local government if the Bill that is intended to accomplish those objectives also moves in the opposite direction. He must make a stronger case than he has hitherto provided.
    Mr. Redwood: I have had recent experience in my own area of Wokingham of the problem that the Minister has highlighted this evening and during the progress of the Bill. The principal unitary council, Wokingham district council, got into budgetary difficulties a couple of years ago. The council started to spend way beyond the levels laid down in its budget and was unable to increase the tax within the year, so that when the budgetary overspend became pronounced and the financial controls did not work, it ran down its reserves to pay for the spending.
    When that happened, I did not ask the Minister to intervene because I happen to believe in local democracy. I felt that the answer to the problem lay in regular elections and taking the case to the electorate. The Minister may be surprised but not pleased to learn that the electorate was capable of sorting the problem out in exemplary fashion—by deciding that the Liberal Democrats who were overspending and running down the reserves were not running the council well. The electorate threw the Liberal Democrats out and put in a Conservative administration. Over the months that have passed since that election of May last year, the Conservative administration has brought spending and taxation more into line and rebuilt the reserves to a much more prudent level. It made the issue of the reserves one of the main issues of the election.
    To be fair to the Liberal Democrats—not something that I am usually able to do—the Liberal Democrat councillors in Wokingham would probably say that part of the problem was due to the fact that their officers wrongly advised them. I do not believe that that is a satisfactory defence. Ministers have to take the blame for their officials, and councillors have to take the blame for their officers. I dwell on that because it goes directly to the issue raised by the Minister. He believes that there are wonderful finance officers in local government who always get it right and on whom we can entirely rely. In my view, however, councillors, like Ministers, have to make judgments based on the best available advice. The Liberal Democrat testimony from Wokingham should make us pause and consider whether the council's problems were a combination of political misjudgment and advice from finance officers who had lost control of
    630
    the budget in trying to implement the policies that were pursued. One cannot always expect finance officers to get all the forecasts right. Sometimes, they may not be aware of the spending pressures that build up in some departments, which are not always under their immediate control.
    My conclusion from the Wokingham experience is threefold. First, we should not rely entirely on officers of the council; it has to be a collective judgment. Secondly, such matters can be sorted out perfectly well by the electorate and by the free flow of ideas and criticisms between the political parties fighting for control of the council. It is much easier if, as in Wokingham, there are annual elections, so that issues can be dealt with even more quickly. Thirdly, I see no need to appeal to Ministers to become involved, and there is no guarantee that Ministers' judgments on these matters would be any better than those of the chief finance officers or councillors. Indeed, it would take some time for a Minister to read all the documents and get up to speed in making a difficult judgment about future revenue flows and costs and therefore about what constituted a safe level of reserves.
    The Minister and the Liberal Democrat spokesman referred to my role as Minister for Local Government. I freely confess that I did not bring before the House the big liberalising measures that I would have liked, but I reassure the Minister that I tried to. He will know that in a collective and busy Government, it is not always possible to win colleagues over to all that one would like. I have always been against capping and in favour of giving local authorities much more control. I would like to see the current Minister live the brand because, after all, Labour made strong criticisms of the Conservative Administration when they were in opposition, and it is deeply disappointing that they have not lived up to all the fine rhetoric.
    Local government does not mean anything unless it has reasonable power of the purse. Often local government will choose to spend more than I would like it to spend, but I believe that it is my democratic task, together with other interested groups from my party, to make the case against overspending and to seek to win elections on that basis. If every major decision is to be second-guessed or overridden by Ministers, it is hardly surprising that people do not take much interest in local government or actively participate in local elections. The Minister should trust rather more to regenerate the interest in local elections that we all want.
    Finally, I am sure that the large power assumed in the clause overrides and outweighs all the freedoms that the Minister is granting. It is a clever power: in operating on one element of the budget—but an important swing element—it gives the Minister power to intervene whenever he does not like the budget of a local authority, because he can always say that the reserves are going to be taken down to too low a point and effectively force the local authority either to cut expenditure or increase its tax by rather more at a future budget round. It is an undesirable power, so I urge the Minister to think again.
    6 pm
    Mr. Raynsford: I feel a sense of unreality about this debate, because we have heard three speeches from Opposition Members that have not been about the new

    631
    clause that we are debating but about something that they would have preferred as an alternative—the removal of clause 26. We debated clause 26 in detail in Committee. An amendment was moved for the Liberal Democrats by the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh), who was quoted by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) in effusive terms. Indeed, his colleague, the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) said at the end of the debate:
    "We must all accept that there will be occasions when elected representatives will get it wrong. The problem arises when they get it so badly wrong that the authority cannot deliver its statutory level of services. The higher authority, the Secretary of State, and the district auditor have a role to ensure the continuation of the services…I hope that he"—

    the hon. Member for Southport—
    will not press it to a division."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 30 January 2003; c. 249.]
    That was the Conservative position in the Commons.
    When the debate was held in the other place, clause was debated and an attempt to remove it from the Bill was defeated. That is the outcome for that clause. We have had a wholly different debate this evening about the new clause that has been inserted, which would have several perverse and undesirable consequences. It would create a huge new bureaucracy, requiring the Audit Commission to do a vast amount of speculative work in making guesses about the future budgets and viability of every local authority in the country.
    The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge pretended that the Government were friendless on the issue, but in fact the Audit Commission has made it clear that it shares our concerns about the new clause on grounds of practicality and the added regulatory burden that it would impose on all authorities. In the nicest possible way, I put it to all Opposition Members that they are supporting a new clause that would substantially increase the regulation of local authorities, impose a whole new bureaucratic framework for examining the budgets of local authorities and result in some perverse outcomes, as I identified in my opening speech.
    Mr. Hammond: The Minister is keen to quote the Audit Commission selectively. Will he confirm that he understands that the Audit Commission believes it to be the responsibility of local authorities to determine their reserve levels, based on a risk assessment of their operational and business models?
    Mr. Raynsford: I happily agree that that is the responsibility of local authorities. Clause 26, which we are not debating tonight, will simply put in place a reserve power that, as I have already made clear, we see as a long stop that we will be reluctant to use, and that we will use only in certain extreme circumstances. The new clause, which we are debating tonight, does not find favour with the Audit Commission, for obvious reasons I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should advocate something that is both bureaucratic and burdensome to local government.
    Mr. Redwood: The Minister is addressing an important point and it would assist the House and government interest in the debate if he could be more
    632
    specific about the extraordinary circumstances that would trigger an investigation and possible action under clause 26, because I am not sure how he would do it.
    Mr. Raynsford: I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman was listening carefully when I outlined the situation. As I explained, the new clause would oblige the Audit Commission to form a judgment in respect of every local authority about its circumstances and budgets, and the circumstances that might lead it to overspend by 10 per cent. That would have some perverse consequences, because it would be unlikely to catch all those authorities that were genuinely in difficulty, while at the same time, it could tarnish the reputation of well run authorities that happened technically to breach the regulations. That cannot be a sensible framework. It is a bureaucratic and centralising proposition and I am astonished that Opposition Members should support such absurd proposals when they claim also to support our decentralising agenda of giving more freedom to local authorities, which the Bill will achieve.
    Mr. Redwood: That is an interesting answer to a question that I did not ask. I asked about what the Government propose in the Bill, which is the subject of the amendment tonight. I still do not understand what work his Department will do to foresee the authorities that might get into difficulty. How bureaucratic will that be? Will there be more forms or requests for information? What would trigger an investigation and what would trigger action?
    Mr. Raynsford: As I said earlier, we gave an undertaking to act only in circumstances in which two tests were passed. The first was that the chief finance officer of the local authority had given advice that was ignored by the council and, secondly, that the authority was, as a consequence, moving towards serious financial difficulties. That will not apply on very many occasions and we have no intention of employing any new staff to monitor the situation. We already have good arrangements for helping those authorities classed as "poor" under the comprehensive performance assessment. The engagement arrangements are working well and, in many cases, authorities are showing real signs of improvement. That is the way in which we will continue to work to support and help authorities in difficulties to recover. We will continue with that work, but we see the need for a long stop to guard against the extreme cases that I described earlier.
    The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) argued that the powers in the Bill might be misused. However, the powers in the new clause are certainly capable of being misused and they should be removed from the Bill. I hope that he will agree that the powers requiring the Audit Commission to carry out an extensive survey of the finances of every local authority to guess whether it might overspend by 10 per cent. are wholly undesirable. I hope that he will not support the new clause because it is arbitrary, perverse in effect,

    633
    expensive and undesirable. It is also highly centralising. which would go against everything of which he is in favour.
    Mr. Edward Davey: We want to give the Minister one more chance to think again on clause 26.
    Mr. Hammond: Yes.
    Mr. Davey: I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's assent. We understand some of the imperfections of the amendment, but the Minister has an opportunity to accept the principle that underlies clause 26, which is the main driver behind the amendment. We will support the amendment tonight so that it can go back to the Lords and the Government can think again.
    Mr. Raynsford: Clause 26 is not before us, but the new clause is. We debated clause 26 in Committee. Perhaps his party did not advocate it sufficiently forcefully, but I have cited the view of the Conservative spokesman from the Front Bench in Committee, who advised the Liberal Democrats not to press the amendment. I also reminded Members that the other place voted on clause 26 and the Opposition were defeated. We are not debating clause 26, because it has been debated in both Houses. We are now debating a separate new clause that would have the undesirable consequences that I have outlined.
    Mr. Hammond: The Minister has said several times that we are not debating clause 26. However, the new clause seeks to limit and define the circumstances in which powers bestowed by that part of the Bill, including clause 26, could be applied. It is wrong for the Minister to say that our debate tonight should not include clause 26.
    Mr. Raynsford: I did not say that we should not debate matters that might incorporate provisions that might affect clause 26; I said that we are not debating clause 26. We are debating the new clause, which would have a much wider effect because it applies to the whole of part 2, including the provisions that allow greater flexibility in responding to circumstances after the serving of a notice under section 114. That is widely welcomed by local government but would be perversely hindered by the new clause, because only those authorities that had been fingered by the Audit Commission could benefit from that provision. That is an absurd and perverse outcome. The hon. Gentleman knows that the new clause is nonsense. I am sorry that the Opposition have not yet recognised the absurdity of their position and have not withdrawn the new clause.
    In response to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), I agree wholeheartedly that it is always desirable that financial difficulties should be remedied by an electoral rather than an imposed outcome. I simply put it to him that quite a lot of authorities hold elections only once every four years, so it is a bit tough to tell the long-suffering citizens of an area that they have to wait three years to remedy a serious financial crisis that could have a damaging impact on services in their area because there is no provision to act in an emergency to deal with extreme circumstances. I repeat
    634
    that it is only in such extreme circumstances, where the chief finance officer has given advice that has been disregarded and the authority is seriously heading for the rocks, that we envisage using those powers. I hope that it will never be necessary to do so.
    We are committed to giving local authorities more freedom; all the provisions in part 1 give substantial additional spending freedoms, in relation not only to borrowing but also in a number of other aspects. This modest provision in part 2 ensures that that freedom is matched by an accompanying safeguard against extreme circumstances. I hope that it will never be needed, but if it is needed I—and, I suspect, those who follow us in this place—will be pleased that it is there to guard against such circumstances. I hope that Members will agree that the proposed new clause, which is unworkable and undesirable, should be deleted.
    Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—
    The House divided: Ayes 256, Noes 144.

    Division No. 311]

    [6:11 pm

    AYES

    Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

    Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

    Ainger, Nick

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

    Alexander, Douglas

    Coaker, Vernon

    Allen, Graham

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

    Cohen, Harry

    Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

    Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Corston, Jean

    Austin, John

    Cousins, Jim

    Baird, Vera

    Cox, Tom (Tooting)

    Banks, Tony

    Cruddas, Jon

    Barnes, Harry

    Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

    Battle, John

    Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Beard, Nigel

    Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

    Benn, Hilary

    Dalyell, Tam

    Benton, Joe (Bootle)

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Berry, Roger

    Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

    Best, Harold

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Borrow. David

    Denham, rh John

    Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Dismore, Andrew

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

    Brennan, Kevin

    Dobson, rh Frank

    Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Doran, Frank

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

    Browne, Desmond

    Drew, David (Stroud)

    Bryant, Chris

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Burden, Richard

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Burgon, Colin

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Burnham, Andy

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Byers, rh Stephen

    Etherington, Bill

    Cairns, David

    Farrelly, Paul

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Flint, Caroline

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

    Caplin, lvor

    Foster, rh Derek

    Casale, Roger

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

    Foulkes, rh George

    Challen, Colin

    Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Gardiner, Barry

    Chaytor, David

    Gerrard, Neil

    Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Gibson, Dr. Ian

    Gilroy, Linda

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Godsiff, Roger

    635

    Goggins, Paul

    Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Grogan, John

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Hain, rh Peter

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Martlew, Eric

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    Meacher, rh Michael

    Hanson, David

    Michael, rh Alun

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    Miliband, David

    Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

    Miller, Andrew

    Moffatt, Laura

    Hendrick, Mark

    Moonie, Dr. Lewis

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Morley, Elliot

    Heyes, David

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Hope, Phil (Corby)

    Naysmith, Dr. Doug

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

    Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

    O'Hara, Edward

    Organ, Diana

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

    Palmer, Dr. Nick

    Perham, Linda

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Pike, Peter (Burnley)

    Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

    Plaskitt, James

    Iddon, Dr. Brian

    Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

    Illsley, Eric

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Prescott, rh John

    Jamieson, David

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Jenkins, Brian

    Purchase, Ken

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

    Quin, rh Joyce

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Rammell, Bill

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

    Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Raynsford, rh Nick

    Jowell, rh Tessa

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

    Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

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

    Kaufman, rh Gerald

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Kidney, David

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Rooney, Terry

    King, Andy (Rugby)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Salter, Martin

    Kumar, Dr. Ashok

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

    Sawford, Phil

    Lammy, David

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Sheerman, Barry

    Lepper, David

    Sheridan, Jim

    Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

    Simon, Siôn (B ham Erdington)

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Singh, Marsha

    Linton, Martin

    Skinner, Dennis

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

    Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

    Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    McCabe, Stephen

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    McCafferty, Chris

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Soley, Clive

    MacDonald, Calum

    Spellar, rh John

    McDonnell, John

    Squire, Rachel

    MacDougall, John

    Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

    McFall, John

    Steinberg, Gerry

    McIsaac, Shona

    Stevenson, George

    McKechin, Ann

    Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Stoate, Dr. Howard

    McWalter, Tony

    Straw, rh Jack

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Stringer, Graham

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Mallaber, Judy

    Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

    636

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Whitehead, Dr. Alan

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

    Tipping, Paddy

    Wills, Michael

    Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

    Winnick, David

    Touhig, Don (lslwyn)

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Trickett, Jon

    Truswell, Paul

    Wood, Mike (Batley)

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh?ton SE)

    Woodward, Shaun

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Woolas, Phil

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Vis, Dr. Rudi

    Wyatt, Derek

    Ward, Claire

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

    Gillian Merron and

    Watts, David

    Mr. John Heppell

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Allan, Richard

    Goodman, Paul

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Gray, James (N Wilts)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Grayling, Chris

    Bacon, Richard

    Green, Damian (Ashford)

    Baldry, Tony

    Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

    Baron, John (Billericay)

    Greenway, John

    Barrett, John

    Grieve, Dominic

    Beith, rh A. J.

    Hague, rh William

    Bellingham, Henry

    Hammond, Philip

    Bercow, John

    Hancock, Mike

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

    Blunt, Crispin

    Boswell, Tim

    Hawkins, Nick

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Hayes, John (S Holland)

    Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

    Heath, David

    Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

    Brady, Graham

    Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

    Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

    Horam, John (Orpington)

    Brazier, Julian

    Howard, rh Michael

    Breed, Colin

    Jack, rh Michael

    Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Burns, Simon

    Key, Robert (Salisbury)

    Burt, Alistair

    Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

    Calton, Mrs Patsy

    Lamb, Norman

    Cameron, David

    Lansley, Andrew

    Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

    Laws, David (Yeovil)

    Carmichael, Alistair

    Leigh, Edward

    Cash, William

    Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Liddell-Grainger, Ian

    Lidington, David

    Chope, Christopher

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Clappison, James

    Loughton, Tim

    Collins, Tim

    Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Cotter, Brian

    Maclean, rh David

    Curry, rh David

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Malins, Humfrey

    Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

    Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

    Mercer, Patrick

    Djanogly, Jonathan

    Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

    Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

    Duncan Smith, rh lain

    Moore, Michael

    Evans, Nigel

    Moss, Malcolm

    Fabricant, Michael

    Norman, Archie

    Fallon, Michael

    Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

    Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Osborne, George (Talton)

    Flook, Adrian

    Page, Richard

    Forth, rh Eric

    Paice, James

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Pickles, Eric

    Fox, Dr. Liam

    Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

    Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

    Garnier, Edward

    Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Redwood, rh John

    Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

    Rendel, David

    Gidley, Sandra

    Robathan, Andrew

    637

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

    Rosindell, Andrew

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Ruffley, David

    Viggers, Peter

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Walter, Robert

    Sanders, Adrian

    Waterson, Nigel

    Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

    Watkinson, Angela

    Simmonds Mark

    Webb, Steve (Northavon)

    Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

    Whittingdale, John

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

    Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

    Wiggin, Bill

    Williams, Roger (Brecon)

    Soames, Nicholas

    Willis, Phil

    Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

    Wilshire, David

    Spring, Richard

    Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

    Stunell, Andrew

    Young, rh Sir George

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Mr. Mark Francois and

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Mr. John Randall

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Lords amendment disagreed to.
    It being more than two and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the programme order, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001, 29 October 2002 and this day].
    Lords amendment No. 19 disagreed to.
    Lords amendment No. 20 and Government amendments (a) and (b) thereto and consequential Government amendments (c), (d), (e) and (f) agreed to.

    Clause 3

      DUTY TO DETERMINE AFFORDABLE BORROWING LIMIT
      Lords amendment No. 1
      Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 4 and 5.
      Mr. Raynsford: These Government amendments to clauses 3, 15 and 21 were made on Third Reading in the other place. All three clauses include powers for the Secretary of State to make regulations referring to published codes of practice and requiring authorities to have regard to them. [Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. Hon. Members who are not taking part in the debate should leave quickly and quietly, as they are disturbing the order of the House.
      Mr. Raynsford: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      The provisions are crucial to our aim of basing the new capital finance system on independent codes of practice and accounting standards. The Lords amendments will ensure that any revised editions of such codes are covered by the regulations.
      Clause 3 will establish the prudential borrowing system. Authorities will be required to determine their own affordable borrowing limits and in doing so may be required to have regard to codes of practice specified in
      638
      regulations. We have of course specified the prudential code for capital finance in local authorities, which is being specially prepared by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy.
      The regulations under clauses 15 and 21 also refer to CIPFA codes. Clause 15 provides a power to specify general guidance and, in this case, we have named CIPFA's Treasury management code. The code is already widely used by authorities and sets out practice in areas such as investment and the management of debt.
      Clause 21 deals with the accounting practices to be followed by authorities. It will enable the Secretary of State to specify proper practices, and the regulations identify two other well-established CIPFA codes—the statement of recommended practice and the best value accounting code—which together lay down the basis of local government financial management and accounting.
      We always intended that the regulations should refer automatically to new editions of those codes as they were published. It would be undesirable to have to make amended regulations whenever one of the codes was reissued, as that could create uncertainty about the legal status of a new edition of a code. Also, the need for each revised edition to be approved by Government might cast doubt upon our commitment to accounting practice as the basis for the capital finance system. Our approach in that respect has the full support of local government and was endorsed in Committee.
      On reviewing the drafting of those three clauses, we considered that the treatment of new editions should be clarified. These technical amendments therefore expand each clause to state that the references to codes are not limited to the existing editions.
      Mr. Hammond: I wonder whether I am the only hon. Member who is completely unenlightened by the reference, used in the title of this group in the provisional groupings list, to "ambulatory references" in part 1 regulations. I have no idea why a provision that allows a regulation to refer to future versions, rather than just the existing version, should be thought an ambulatory reference, but, no doubt, some civil servant with a first class honours degree—in classics, probably—was responsible for the title and will enlighten the Minister in due course, and perhaps he will then enlighten me when the opportunity arises.
      630 pm
      The amendments clarify the power to make regulations. The Minister talked about clarifying the scope of the regulations, but the regulation was clear. The draft regulation was already before the Committee when we looked at the matter, and it clearly included the phrase:
      "shall have regard to any current prudential code for capital finance".

      The Minister is therefore clarifying the power of the Secretary of State to make the regulation that he intends to lay by ensuring that the Bill says clearly that a regulation can embrace future changes to a code. The Minister played down the issue and said that the Government always intended it in that way.

      639
      The Minister's noble Friend Lord Bassam said in the other place that the amendment merely clarified the original intention. I must question slightly that interpretation of events. It is my understanding that the Minister of State is the lead policy Minister in this area. We had an exchange in Committee in which the Minister said in answer to a question:
      "The code will be issued under regulation, so a revision to the code would require the same procedure."
      I queried that response, saying:
      "as the CIPFA code was introduced by regulation, it would be appropriate for any amendment to that code to be introduced by regulation. Surely, that is incorrect, because regulation 2 states that a local authority should have regard to any current prudential code for capital finance … I understand that to mean that if CIPFA revises its code, in the absence of a regulation de-specifying it, that code will automatically be incorporated."

      The Minister, who has lead policy responsibility, replied:
      "The hon. Gentleman may well be right. I will look further into the matter and give him a detailed response."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 21 January 2003; c. 63–64.]
      That suggests to me that it is not clear that it was always the Government's intention.
      I am happy, however, that we now have on the same page the idea that CIPFA will define from day to day the code of practice that is in force and to which regard must be had, although of course we would expect CIPFA to liaise with the Government to ensure that the code met everybody's requirements. Via this rather tortuous ambulatory route, however, we are at last back to where I thought we were in Committee. I am pleased that the Secretary of State's power to make the regulation that he intends to make is now enshrined in the Bill beyond any reasonable doubt, and we have no problem with the amendment.
      Matthew Green: This amendment is a straightforward clarification and makes a great deal of sense. I see little point in saying a great deal more about it other than that we support it.
      Mr. Redwood: I hope that when the Minister replies he will clarify some of the uncertainties in my mind and in the minds of some of those who work in local government.
      I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) agrees that this legislation should allow the House to grant that local authorities must have regard to regulations and guidance that have not yet been formulated, and I understand that the Minister wants to avoid coming back to this House in the event that guidance needs to change. The power that we are granting is therefore quite wide-ranging. Before the House grants the power, would it not be wise to make sure that we know what the Minister thinks "having regard to" means? How strong is it? Is the Minister saying to local government that it should read it, discuss it and put something on file to show that it knows it exists, but that it does not have to follow every dot and comma—that it can exercise its judgment? Alternatively, are the Government saying that under this wide-ranging power they will in future be
      640
      able to set out prescriptive guidance that effectively gives them detailed control over important parts of local authority activity?
      Mr. Hammond: My right hon. Friend probably knows from having looked at the debates on this subject in the other place that Lord Simon of Glaisdale was quoted as opining that the phrase "having regard to" meant precisely nothing.
      Mr. Redwood: I did not know that, but it is one possible interpretation. I suspect that with this Government it means rather more than nothing. I think what the Government have in mind is to have more and more influence over local government by means of guidance. We are asked in these amendments to strengthen the Government's hand, and to bind local government in this rather vague way in three different types of guidance, and we are asked by the amendments to say that any future guidance should be covered by this legislation, even though the House does not have the advantage of foresight and does not know exactly what future guidance that might be. It is an all-embracing power, if the Government wish to use it in that way. I heard the Minister in the previous debate make it clear that he would like to be a liberalising Minister, leaving local government freer. That is where I become suspicious.
      It would help the debate on these amendments if the Minister were to make it clear that a local council can properly have regard to guidance but ignore it—that it can properly say that it has met and considered it, that it thinks that it is very interesting and fine guidance, but that on this occasion it wishes to deviate from it, ignore it or do something better, because it believes that it is in the interests of its council tax payers and of the public that it serves that it does not follow the guidance on this occasion. If the Minister is saying that "having regard to" is strong, and that all the actual and future guidance must be followed almost to the letter, it is a prescriptive measure, and I would not share my hon. Friend's ease and comfort in welcoming it.
      Mr. Raynsford: We have had a short and interesting debate. I am pleased to tell the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) that the word "ambulatory" was inserted at the instigation of parliamentary counsel, who clearly understand the significance of these forms of Latin, which, I suspect, elude most Members. As the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, the need for further regulations was debated in Committee, and it is true that as a result of reflecting on the exchanges that we had in Committee, we felt that there was a case to clarify and to take beyond all reasonable doubt the fact that future editions of codes would be covered without the need for new regulations, which I feared might be necessary. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for highlighting the point in Committee, and I am pleased that he agrees with the approach that we have now adopted.
      The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) raised the interesting question of the meaning of "have regard to". He will know as a former Secretary of State that a great deal of government is based on the concept of having regard to. He will know that the nuance of that phrase lies between the absolute

      641
      requirement of a direction, which requires someone to do something, and the entire discretion to do whatever they wish. Clearly, it would not be appropriate for an authority to act without considering the message contained within the relevant guidance. It is generally understood good practice that when an authority that is subject to a duty to have regard to something chooses not to follow any specific advice, it must have good reasons for doing so. That is normally understood. It does not, however, require the authority in all circumstances to follow the guidance precisely to the letter if it has good reason for departing from it.
      That is my understanding of the general framework, and I notice that the right hon. Member for Wokingham is nodding and probably has a similar understanding of the force of that particular phrase. It is certainly our wish that this guidance should be considered carefully by local authorities, not as a straitjacket but as helpful advice to ensure good administration. On that understanding, I hope that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge and his right hon. and hon. Friends can agree to the amendments. I am grateful for the support of the Liberal Democrats.
      Lords amendment agreed to.

    Clause 8

      CONTROL OF CREDIT ARRANGEMENTS
      Lords amendment No. 2
      Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The amendment relates to clause 8, which deals with credit arrangements such as leasing and hire purchase contracts. The clause ensures that such transactions can be brought under the prudential limit and any national limit. The amendment removes the power in clause 8(4) to impose additional restrictions on credit arrangements. The only restriction that we had in mind was to stop the use of credit for anything other than acquiring capital assets. We now accept that accounting practice offers sufficient safeguards against such practices. Accordingly, clause 8(4) is unnecessary.
      Mr. Hammond: Clause 8(4) gives a broad power to the Secretary of State to vary by regulations the restrictions on local authorities in relation to credit arrangements. Regulation 7 is the one that the Government have in mind for this case and it was laid in draft before the Commons Committee that considered the Bill. It is clear that the basic purpose is to exempt private finance initiative projects from the ban on credit arrangements that would otherwise prevent local authorities from using arrangements that are a hybrid of revenue and capital provision to circumvent the prudential code restrictions on borrowing or other credit arrangements.
      In Committee, we moved an amendment calling for the deletion of clause 8(4) but the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie), made an appearance at the Dispatch Box and vigorously resisted the deletion of the subsection. A pattern will emerge in our debates. It will become apparent to the
      642
      Minister which of clauses that were vigorously defended were later abandoned. The Under-Secretary replied to the debates on them.
      We argued that it was wrong to put a general catch-all subsection in a clause that specifies precise limitations. We lost the vote. We moved the same amendment in Committee in the other place and, once again, the Government rejected our proposal to delete clause 8(4). However, in time-honoured fashion, the Government moved the exact same amendment on Report. They usually try to rework Opposition amendments by changing a few words so that they can claim that they have at least contributed something. However, this amendment was rather concise and Precise and it was not possible for the Government to create that smokescreen.
      This case should provide us with some confidence in the system. We raise the issue once and one Minister tells us that we are talking rubbish and that it is essential for the future of democracy and civilised government as we know it that the provision remains in the Bill. We raise it a second time and a different Minister in another place says precisely the same thing. Then the Government realise that we were right all along. That tends to suggest that the system works even if the Ministers operating it are thick-skinned.
      The amendments served to focus the Government clearly on the issues, and they have decided that not only the subsection but draft regulation 7 are unnecessary. We strongly support the view that local authority finances should follow generally accepted accounting practice and that it is unhelpful for the Secretary of State to have the power to impose, by regulation, additional restrictions over and above those that generally accepted accounting practice would dictate.
      The Minister in the other place said that regulation 7 was unnecessary because of generally accepted accounting practice as it would ensure that credit transactions of the type of which the Government are so afeared would not be used for revenue items. That is fine; we have no problem with that. We have got what we wanted, but perhaps I have missed something. I am left asking the Minister, "What about PFI projects?"
      6.45 pm
      I understand that the original purpose of regulation 7 was to allow PFI projects to fall within the permitted category for credit arrangements. It was never clear to me quite what that would mean. It seemed to me at the time that the correct accounting procedure for a PFI project would be to distinguish the capital element of a PFI charge from the finance cost element and any service provision elements and that, in the absence of the regulation, there would be no difficulty in dealing with PFI projects. In a practice that is well understood to accountants and those who prepare business accounts all the time, the different components of a single charge would be analysed to their separate heads and dealt with accordingly.
      As I read it, the Government's proposed regulation 7 would have exempted PFI projects from the restriction on credit arrangements. My understanding was that they were effectively to be given an advantage over other forms of arrangement and were to be allowed to go through without being treated as an entry against a

      643
      borrowing limit in the full amount of the total cost of the PFI charges under the project. What is the position now that that draft regulation has been dropped?
      Clause 8(2)(a) still provides that the cost of the arrangement—I take it that this would now include a PFI arrangement—is to be set against borrowing limits. It does not say anything about the capital element of the cost or the capital and finance charge element. It refers to
      "the cost of the arrangement".
      In a PFI transaction, my understanding is that that would be the total stream of payments to be made under the PFI arrangement. That is the wrong way to go about things from the standard accounting practice point of view if the stream of payments represents the provision of a capital asset, the financing charges for that capital asset and the provision of some revenue services that are being provided, such as building maintenance in a classic property PFI that would normally be a revenue charge for the account of the occupier.
      Adopting the generally accepted accounting practice approach should mean that the cost of the arrangements should be apportioned between capital financing and revenue costs. However, my understanding is that, without the benefit of regulation 7, we are back to the position in which the whole PFI charge would be charged against the borrowing limit of the authority. That seems perverse. Does the Minister understand that to be the case? What does he understand regulation 7 would have done in such PFI arrangements?
      The Minister who moved the amendment in the other place said that the Government had satisfied themselves that the regulation, and thus the power to make it, were not necessary because of generally accepted accounting practice and that the matter would be taken care of. He did not deal with the question whether clause 8(2)(a) will effectively intervene to disapply such accounting practice. The Government might be intending to use their powers under clause 8(3) to make further regulations that we have not yet seen to resolve the matter. They clearly could make powers under clause 8(3) to determine what would and would not count as the cost of a credit arrangement so that only part of PFI charge fell into the calculation of the cost of the credit arrangement. It would help the House to hear an explanation.
      To summarise, the question is whether PFI projects are now to be treated as all other credit arrangements, whether that means that all costs will be applied against the borrowing limits and whether regulation 7 was designed to prevent the outcome that all PFI charges would be regarded as charges against borrowing limits. If the Minister is now relying on accounting practice to prevent avoidance, which would generally seem to be the correct approach, why will regulation 3 remain in the draft regulations— and as far as I am aware he has no intention of dropping it? It says:
      "A lease which, apart from this regulation, would not be a credit arrangement shall be treated as falling within section 7(2)(a)".

      In Committee, I drew attention to the similarities of leases and PFI arrangements and asked why the Government were exempting PFI but not leases. They are changing the arrangements for PFI by deleting the power to make regulation 7, so I ask again why leases should be treated differently and why the Minister
      644
      cannot rely on generally accepted accounting practices to prevent any abuse of a lease mechanism to provide a covert route for financing revenue expenditure.
      Of course I support the amendment because I moved it in Committee. However, I am puzzled about the Government's rationale for agreeing to it now and abandoning regulation 7 without addressing the issues dealt with by regulation 3. Given the effect of clause 8(2)(a), it is not clear that regulation 7 has become redundant for the purposes of avoiding an unfair treatment of costs under PFI schemes, unless the Minister's explanation is that he intends to make regulations under clause 8(3) to clarify the treatment of PFI charges.
      Matthew Green: We have discovered a new Tory tactic: they say, "If you score a victory, milk it." However, to take things a bit more seriously, we welcome the removal of clause 8(4). It would have given the Secretary of State apparently wide-ranging powers, although I know the Minister said that they were unlikely to be used in such a way. We welcome the amendment because there are too many occasions on which the Secretary of State accrues powers and too few occasions when such powers are removed, so this is a rare and welcome occasion.
      Mr. Raynsford: I am delighted that there is broad support for the amendment, which simply reflects our growing appreciation of worries that were voiced during the passage of the Bill in both Houses about clause 8(4) and the scope for achieving by other means the policy objectives for which we had framed the provision. Our overall objective has been to maintain the prohibition on using credit for anything other than the acquisition of capital assets. Long-term credit such as borrowing should be used only to meet capital needs and not to pay for running costs. Such a restriction has existed since 1990 and currently exists in primary legislation, but it has given rise to technical difficulties. We therefore concluded that a rule could be dealt with more flexibly in regulations, so we drafted clause 8(4) to give us the power to make such regulations. However, the debates in this House and the Grand Committee in the other place convinced us that there were genuine concerns about the measure because it was drafted in broad terms and could conceivably have been used in ways that were different from what we intended.
      Of course, we have tried to base the capital regime in the Bill on accounting principles as much as possible. We therefore checked whether modern accounting practice might offer a sufficient safeguard against the use of credit for revenue purposes. After careful consideration, we concluded that there was such an accounting safeguard. An authority that received a form of service and had the fees deferred for several years would be required to make a charge to revenue during those years, so there would be no perverse incentive to acquire services on credit. That means that regulation 7 may be deleted from the draft capital finance regulations, and as the power to make such a regulation is no longer needed, clause 8(4) may be removed.
      I shall now address the other issues raised by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond). I make it clear that private finance initiative projects will follow accounting practice. If the deals are

      645
      off balance sheet, they will not score as credit, and, conversely, if they are on balance sheet, they will score as credit—that is the key distinction.
      The issue was debated in detail for some time in the other place at the instigation of Lord Hanningfield. Our understanding is that accounting practice is highly relevant to PFI and that we can achieve everything necessary by using regulation 5 in the draft capital finance regulations, which deals with PFI contracts, by implication, and other forms of long-term credit. Its effect is that for the purpose of the new capital finance system, such transactions should be treated in accordance with proper accounting practice. If a contract has to be recognised on a local authority's balance sheet, it must be treated exactly like borrowing and count against the borrowing limits that apply to the authority. If it does not fall to be recognised on the balance sheet, it will not score as a credit agreement and, therefore, will not count against an authority's borrowing limits.
      Mr. Hammond: The Minister has partly addressed my worry, but I was concerned that there seemed to be an all-or-nothing approach: a PFI charge must count either wholly against a borrowing limit or not at all. I am not an accountant—I usually stand up to say that I am not a lawyer—but it is likely that in a complex PFI deal, part of the charge would fall to be treated as a balance sheet item to finance a capital asset and part would fall to be treated as a revenue item. Does the Minister acknowledge that that could be proper practice?
      Mr. Raynsford: I am in the same position as the hon. Gentleman because I am not an accountant. I have to ask for advice on such matters and I am told that PFI revenue costs are treated as part of the total package, which is what accounting practice requires. Revenue and capital costs cannot be split up in a proper PFI deal.
      Mr. Hammond: Is the Minister concerned that that will create a perverse incentive not to do PFI deals and that such deals will become less attractive to local authorities, which would go against the grain of what the Chancellor has tried to encourage? Was the purpose of regulation 7, which will not be made, to exempt PFI transactions from counting against borrowing limits altogether because that appeared to be the case?
      Mr. Raynsford: No. As I have already explained, the purpose of regulation 7 was to provide a safeguard against the possible perverse treatment of expenditure for revenue purposes under the capital framework, which would not be appropriate. There are separate rulings on PFI and I have spelled out my understanding of the treatment of PFI projects. I do not believe that there will be a perverse incentive not to undertake PFI projects, although if a local authority undertakes a PFI project that falls on balance sheet, it will have to take account of the obvious consequences for its finances, which is right and proper.
      The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge also asked about regulation 3, which relates to leases. We conclude that the regulation will not be needed, so it
      646
      will be deleted. Accountancy practice supplies all that is required to provide necessary safeguards. With those assurances, I hope that the House will support the amendment.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 4 and 5 agreed to.

    Clause 31

      POWER TO PAY GRANT
      Lords amendment No. 7.
      Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 8 to 12.
      Mr. Raynsford: Lords amendment No. 11 will remove clause 32, which would enable a Minister or the National Assembly for Wales to seek any information necessary when considering the award of a grant to an authority under clause 31. It will also allow Ministers to require retrospective information on the way in which a grant has been used. Clause 32 provides that a local authority must supply such information. In the light of concerns expressed in Committee and in another place about the wide scope of that power, we agreed to look at it again.
      7 pm
      By contrast, clause 31(3) allows conditions to be attached to the payment of grant. Such a condition could be that the receiving authority must supply certain information, if ever necessary. That power is much more limited in scope, as it is linked to the actual payment of the grant. It is also entirely in keeping with our policy of removing unnecessary restrictions and burdens on local authorities. The provision makes a separate clause unnecessary. To enable the National Assembly for Wales to use the grant-making power, it makes sense to remove clause 34 and to include its provisions in clause
      31.
      Mr. Hammond: The deletion of clause 32 is welcome. It was an unnecessary additional power for the Secretary of State to require information to be delivered by local authorities. As Lord Rooker said in the other place, and the Minister repeated, there are other ways of securing information, if it is really required, after a grant is paid rather than at the time when the Secretary of State is merely contemplating payment under the powers in clause 31(4). We have no problem with that.
      Perhaps I am having a bad day, but I have a little more difficulty in understanding the logic of the Welsh provisions. Lord Rooker told the House of Lords that because of the deletion of clause 32 there was no longer any need for clause 34, which, in respect of Welsh local authorities, extended the definition of "Minister" to include the Welsh Assembly. If the essentially technical changes that remove clause 34, and insert the relevant amendments in clause 31, are intended to tidy up the Bill so that there is not a separate reference to Wales in

      647
      clause 34, I have no objection to them—but that is not what Lord Rooker and the Minister say. They say that it is a change consequential upon the deletion of clause 32—in other words, that clause 34 is no longer needed owing to the deletion of clause 32. I am afraid that I have not been able to work out how the one follows logically from the other. Will the Minister explain how the wholly laudable decision to drop clause 32 makes clause 34 redundant in such a way as to make the other amendments consequential on the deletion of clause 32 instead of mere redrafting and tidying amendments? As I cannot see the chain of causality, I am worried that I may be missing something important. If so, no doubt the Minister will enlighten me.
      Matthew Green: We welcome the removal of clause 32, which was triggered by amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey). The clauses provided for powers on the requiring of information that, with the benefit of time over the summer, the Minister rightly decided were not needed. The Welsh provisions are merely a tidying exercise; as such, we are happy with them.
      Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) is right that this is purely and simply a tidying measure in respect of Wales.
      I can understand why the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge is confused about the interrelationship of references to a Minister of the Crown and to the National Assembly for Wales in the four clauses, so I shall try to clarify the consequences of the amendments. Originally, clause 31 gave powers for Ministers to pay grants to a local authority, clause 32 gave additional powers for Ministers to require information in that respect, and clause 34 extended references to a Minister to include the National Assembly for Wales. The new provisions of clause 31 make it clear that Ministers can make grants to local authorities in England and that Ministers or the National Assembly for Wales may pay grant to local authorities in Wales. There is therefore no need for the separate provisions of clause 34, which essentially imply that a reference to a Minister should be taken to cover the National Assembly for Wales. I hope that that clarifies the provision and puts the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest.
      Mr. Hammond rose—
      Mr. Raynsford: I fear that it does not.
      Mr. Hammond: If the Minister is acknowledging that the demise of clause 34 is in no way consequent upon the demise of clause 32, I will be happy. However, Lord Rooker clearly stated that clause 34 was no longer necessary as a result of the deletion of clause 32. It seems to me that clause 34 and the changes to clause 31 are self-contained, but clause 32 is a different matter.
      Mr. Raynsford: I thought I had explained that the two were interdependent. We decided that clause 32 could be removed from the Bill only when we were satisfied that the powers under clause 31, specifically subsection (4), would enable Ministers or the National Assembly for Wales to obtain the information necessary to satisfy
      648
      them when making a grant. Clause 34 extended to the Welsh Assembly the powers that were otherwise granted only to the Minister. That is the nature of the interrelationship.
      I accept that it is a complex matter, and I understand the hon. Gentleman's difficulties, but I hope that he agrees that the outcome is better. The change reduces by two the number of clauses, reduces an unnecessary burden on local authorities and streamlines the procedure for ensuring that grants can be paid in a suitable framework with the ability of the grant-giving body—a Minister or the National Assembly for Wales—to obtain the information that it needs to satisfy himself or itself that the grant will be spent for the purposes for which it is made. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees and that the amendments can be accepted.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 8 to 12 agreed to.

    Clause 49

      BID REVENUE ACCOUNT
      Lords amendment No. 13
      Phil Hope: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider amendments Nos. 14 to 17, 22 to 25, 29, 30, 33 to 35, 45, 46, 50 and 55.
      Phil Hope:: This large group of amendments is significant because it implements recommendations made in the 16th report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. As such, I am sure that the whole House will welcome it. We accepted the Committee's recommendations on business improvement districts; provision of information in respect of non-domestic rates; adaptation of enactments with regard to housing revenue accounts; charging and trading; and clause 122, which makes standard provision for orders and regulations in the Bill.
      Mr. Hammond: Ministers have developed a new technique—rapid fire.
      This large group of amendments reflects the observations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, an admirable body that has helped to ensure that legislation avoids some of the pitfalls that it can often encounter as a result of the inadequacy of the time that we have to scrutinise Bills in detail in Committee. I hope that the Government are learning how to filter out some of the unnecessary and inappropriate provisions at an earlier stage so that they do not have to wait until the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, rather publicly, recommends that they do so. If we see a reduction in these catch-all clauses in future and more requirements for affirmative resolutions where it is appropriate in the original drafts of Bills, that will be a good thing.
      Lords amendment No. 13 removes the odious provision in clause 49 that allows regulations under subsection (4)—I am about to fall into the trap of which

      649
      I cautioned the Minister of using the wrong clause references because we are working with two different editions of the Bill. There is the Bill as it went from this place and the Bill as amended on Report in the House of Lords. The issue is the power that is being given by regulations to amend any enactment. There are always questions both in this place and in the other place about the use of secondary legislation to amend primary legislation. That has to be the position so long as our arrangements for scrutinising secondary legislation are such as they are. In this instance, however, we are discussing the breadth of the power. It is a power to amend any enactment past or future. In other words, no matter what a future Parliament were to legislate, the powers under this Act would enable a Secretary of State by statutory instrument to amend legislation in the interests of his regime under this regulation. It is absolutely right to remove that power.
      I must check my clause numbers and not go wrong again. If it is right to remove the provision at clause 49, why is it not also right to remove the provision at clause 58(2), where a similar provision to make regulations amending any enactment is included? Baroness Hanham moved an amendment in another place. We know that proceedings in the other place are slightly different from those in this place. Rather curiously, Lord Rooker, the Minister of State, signed my noble Friend's amendment. Later, they had a slight disagreement over whose amendment it was. Lord Bassam of Brighton seemed to take the slightly imperial view that notwithstanding the fact that my noble Friend had tabled the amendment, the mere fact that his noble Friend had signed it made it the Government's amendment.
      After Lady Hanham had thanked the Government for accepting her amendment, Lord Bassam said, rather churlishly:
      "We could haggle over whose it is, but I will not do so. We are grateful for the noble Baroness's support for our amendment"— [Official Report, House of Lords, 11 June 2003; Vol. 649, GC 142.]
      We could go on endlessly. The fact is that in the Bill the Government attempt to give themselves sweeping powers. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee cries foul and my noble Friend proposes an amendment to implement that illustrious Committee's recommendations. A Minister then signs the amendment and tries to claim the credit for amending the Bill. Perhaps the best solution would be if, next time, the Government try to anticipate the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and get the Bill right the first time round. Let them be a little more circumspect in the granting of sweeping powers to themselves.
      7.15 pm
      I move on to Lords amendments 14 to 16, and 29 and 30, which are consequential. We welcome the inclusion of a requirement for affirmative resolutions to confirm regulations made under these sections. This is a great step in the right direction. As the Minister knows, all Ministers who have to deal with the Opposition in Committee know that we greatly prefer affirmative procedures to negative procedures. All that we need to
      650
      do now is to implement an effective process for scrutiny of secondary legislation. At present, all a Minister has to do in a Standing Committee—I am not suggesting that the present Minister would do so—is to keep his head down and blather for 90 minutes, and then write a letter afterwards correcting what he said. I emphasise that I am not referring to the Minister of State. However, I could name Ministers who adopt that approach.
      Mr. John Horam: It is interesting to hear my hon. Friend. He is doing what perhaps the Minister should have done, which is to explain fully what is happening in this instance. Does not this example demonstrate the utility of the House of Lords not only in itself but in improving democracy in this place?
      Mr. Hammond: As my hon. Friend rightly observes, we have come to a sorry state of affairs when our democracy and our democratic scrutiny in this Chamber is so severely curtailed by the extensive use of timetable motions—
      Phil Hope: Oh, come on.
      Mr. Hammond: The Minister says, "Oh, come on." We have seen a classic example of that process this evening. It seems unlikely that the debate will reach the moment of interruption, yet we have been deprived of an opportunity to talk about quite an important set of amendments in respect of which there has been a meeting of minds. The Government have come some way to meeting the Opposition's proposals in the other place. There has been an informative and constructive suggestion, and we could have asked the Minister to explain further the Government's position. That debate will take place tomorrow in the other place because we have not been able to clarify exactly what the compromise means in this place.
      I think that all right hon. and hon. Members would recognise that this type of minor tidying and correction of a Bill—improving future scrutiny of secondary legislation—is increasingly being left to the House of Lords and the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. I suspect that it is only a matter of time before the Government seek to impose the same kind of inflexibility on the House of Lords to curtail debate there, as they have already curtailed debate in this place.
      I am not sure that merely moving from a negative procedure to an affirmative procedure in relation to clause 58 answers or meets my objection to clause 58(2). Clearly, the affirmative procedure rather than the negative is always to be preferred.
      Amendment No. 17 removes the references in clauses 54 to 56 to the affirmative provision for Wales. It is clear that Wales cannot be subject to the regime because of devolution. Welsh matters that come properly within the jurisdiction of the Welsh Assembly cannot be subject to an affirmative resolution in this place. The effect of the resolution, however, is to deny to Welsh business ratepayers the additional protection that the affirmative procedure provides in respect of any modifications that are proposed by the Secretary of State in England to their English counterparts. It may be that the Minister can clarify the procedure in Wales.

      651
      Welsh Assembly regulations are not even subject to the negative procedure. It appears, therefore, that there would be a serious lack of scrutiny in respect of Wales I do not claim to be an expert on the procedures of the Welsh Assembly. Perhaps it has procedures in place that give effective scrutiny of regulatory proposals by the Executive; if so, there is no mention of them in the Bill. I would be interested to know what the procedures are.
      Mr. Raynsford: It is a devolved matter.
      Mr. Hammond: That should not stop hon. Members, when dealing with matters that will be devolved, expressing an interest in the existing arrangements in the Welsh Assembly. We could thus perhaps draw conclusions about the scrutiny available for corresponding English measures through our rather weak secondary legislation procedure.
      Amendment No. 22 places a minor limitation on the Secretary of State's sweeping power to amend part VI of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. I do not want to sound churlish because any limitation is welcome even if it is a minor reduction in a wide power. None the less, the Secretary of State retains a substantial power.
      Amendments Nos. 23 to 25 are tidying provisions, although I should have preferred the Government to use amendment No. 24 to clarify matters by ruling out instead of confirming the ability to amend future legislation across the board consistently. As I understand it, the other amendments in the group are minor and consequential.
      The group is wide ranging. I should be grateful if the Minister dealt with the specific issues that I raised. If he wants to display some generosity of spirit and confirm, as Lord Bassam refused to do, that my noble Friend Baroness Hanham should receive the credit for amendment No. 13, I should welcome that.
      Mr. Edward Davey: I congratulate the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) on speaking for 12 minutes on the group. I was at a loss to find much to say because the Government have moved in the right direction. Before the Minister gets too happy, I should say that I emphasised on Second Reading that the Government were taking many more regulatory powers while telling people that the measure would remove the burden from local government. The amendments would not remove the powers but ensure that they were subject to affirmative procedure, as the hon. Gentleman said. That shift is welcome and reflects the opinion of all parties in the other place and some comments made in Committee. Frankly, that is all that needs to be said.
      Phil Hope: The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) is right to describe the group as large, wide ranging and detailed. However, it is not necessary to divide the House on the amendments. He is right that making law is a learning process; we are a listening and learning Government, as today's proceedings demonstrate. I regret that the hon. Gentleman defended the role of the reformed House of Lords—a measure that the Conservative party vigorously opposed when it was discussed in the
      652
      previous Parliament. However, I shall linger on neither that point nor the debate between different Lords about whose amendment it is. I do not want to enter such territory.
      Let me deal with the hon. Gentleman's substantive points. We shall not remove clause 58(2) because the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee's 16th report did not recommend its deletion. It therefore remains.
      The decisions of the Welsh Assembly are a matter for that body. That is the nature of devolution. Earlier, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) bemoaned the Government's retention of reserved powers, yet now the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge appears to want us to retain more. However, I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support and that of Liberal Democrat Members.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 14 to 17 agreed to.

  After Clause 65
  Lords amendment No. 18
  Phil Hope: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  The Government have always supported the important role that sports clubs play in promoting health and well-being and encouraging social cohesion. We believe that sports clubs would have benefited from the small business rate relief. With the additional assistance of local authority discretionary relief, it would have provided a generous package for sports clubs.
  We have also promoted the opportunity that has existed for sports clubs to register as charities to obtain mandatory 80 per cent. relief. However, we accept the widely held belief that that route can be onerous for small, voluntary sports clubs. The amendment offers a simple route for registered community amateur sports clubs to qualify for the mandatory 80 per cent. relief.
  Mr. David Heath: I wholeheartedly welcome the Government's acceptance of the argument, which hon. Members of all parties, including my noble Friend, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, presented. However, does the Under-Secretary accept that amateur sports club officials became frustrated by the charity route, found that they were increasingly hitting a wall of bureaucracy and that now it is important that the message gets through to them that there is an easier route that will greatly benefit the relevant clubs?
  Phil Hope: I thank the hon. Gentleman for those comments. The onerous nature of the transition to charitable status was one of the reasons for the amendment and the change.
  Mr. Edward Davey: Following my hon. Friend's point, what steps will the Government take to ensure that sports clubs know that they are eligible for the relief? Will the Under-Secretary write to every sports

  653
  club on the register and use various bodies and foundations to promote it? How can we ensure maximum benefit from the new relief?
  Phil Hope: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Since the amendment became public, the widespread response from sporting associations suggests comprehensive take-up. However, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will handle most of the marketing of the new relief.
  Mr. Andy Reed: As my hon. Friend knows, people were slow to take up the tax exemptions under the Finance Act 2002. He will be pleased to know that Sport England, among other agencies, has been undertaking regional roadshows to ensure that sports clubs are aware of them. Since then, the take-up of additional benefits through the tax exemptions has increased. I hope that he will use his influence to ensure that the same happens with the relief that we are considering. However, as my hon. Friend said, sports clubs know that the relief is coming and have been waiting for it for years.
  Phil Hope: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about Sport England's work to promote a range of reliefs that we are establishing to help local sports clubs. I want to put on record my thanks to Members of Parliament such as my hon. Friend for not only their work in raising the issue and pressing hard during the Bill's passage but their work with their community amateur sports clubs. That applies especially to my hon. Friend, who does such work not only in his constituency but throughout the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Malcolm Moss:Conservative Members obviously welcome the rate relief, which we have requested for many years. Does not the Under-Secretary believe that perhaps its advantages will be nullified by the decision of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport not to give any relief to sports clubs for the licensing fees that the Licensing Act 2003 will introduce, despite the assurance that the then Minister gave me in Committee that he would take a positive view of the amendments that we tabled?
  7.30 pm
  Phil Hope: Having stood beside the hon. Gentleman on a tennis court—regrettably not very successfully—;in another kind of amateur sports club, I am very pleased to hear his enthusiasm for this measure today. It is a matter of regret, of course, that the previous Conservative Administration did not see fit to offer these rate reliefs to community amateur sports clubs.
  In terms of the holistic picture of community amateur sports clubs having greater flexibility and more resources, and being able to grow as a result of this measure, I am confident that the complete package—which will include this rate relief and others—will provide a huge incentive for local clubs to develop, to recruit and to provide better sporting facilities for people of all ages in the community. I am not persuaded by the case briefly put by the hon. Gentleman today that
  654
  other measures might hinder that. There is an across-the-board position in government to promote community amateur sports clubs effectively because of the wider benefits that they bring, not just in terms of sport and of raising performance and participation, but in terms of what that means for the community and for the health of the individuals who get involved.
  Amendment No. 18 would amend the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and provide mandatory rate relief at both the occupied and unoccupied rates for registered community amateur sports clubs, under schedule 18 to the Finance Act 2002. Registered community amateur sports clubs can also have this relief increased at the discretion of local authorities. Sports clubs that do not meet the requirements for community amateur sports club registration—and, therefore, for mandatory rate relief—will still remain eligible for discretionary rate relief. Of course, the decisions on the award of discretionary rate relief are, and will remain, a matter for individual local authorities.
  I hope that this provision demonstrates to hon. Members that we have listened carefully to the representations of the many people, both inside and outside the House, who support this important measure. I am very pleased to announce that we are introducing this relief. It represents a great opportunity for small community sports clubs, which I know that my colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport have strongly welcomed. It has also been widely welcomed by the sports bodies and, in particular, by the Central Council of Physical Recreation, which has, along with many other bodies, sought support for this measure for some time.
  Mr. Hammond: I, too, am delighted to welcome the extension of the rating relief enjoyed by charities to community amateur sports clubs, so that those that are unable or unwilling to adopt charitable status because of the burdens mentioned by the Minister can benefit none the less. The issue of rate relief was most recently raised in relation to the Finance Act 2002, when other taxation reliefs were extended to the newly defined community amateur sports clubs. There was all-party consensus on the matter at that time.
  The matter was also raised at the Committee stage of this Bill in the Commons by the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow), a Labour Back Bencher. His initiative at that time received support from the official Opposition and from the Liberal Front-Bench team. When the same issue was raised in the other place by Lord Phillips of Sudbury, it was again supported by all sides, and Lord Phillips aptly described the measure as an amendment "with no enemies"—[Interruption. The Minister mentions the Treasury, and I shall come to that issue in a moment.
  When the hon. Member for South Ribble raised the issue in Committee, it will surprise no one who has attended the earlier parts of these debates that it was the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) who had to stand up robustly to resist the suggestion that the Government might extend business rate relief to community amateur sports clubs. He basically told the Committee that the reliefs provided in the Finance Act 2002 would do the trick for sports clubs, if only they were given a chance. He must be feeling a little sheepish now about having so

  655
  slavishly read out what was obviously a pretty dud brief. Lord Rooker was a little quicker to ad lib his total support for the measure when he sensed the mood in the other place, before reverting to reading out his brief explaining why he could not accept it. He then had the pleasure of collecting the plaudits for introducing it on Third Reading in the Lords. It might be thought that a matter effectively dealing with taxation such as this would have been better introduced and dealt with in the House of Commons. We are all glad that it has got here in the end, but it would have been preferable had it been inserted into the Bill initially in this place.
  I do not doubt for a moment that, behind the smooth consensus, there have been detailed discussions with the Treasury, and I have two questions for the Minister on this issue. In the House of Lords, the question of who would actually pay for the relief was raised almost as an aside. Those who regularly go into the other place to be entertained when Lord Rooker is speaking will know that he is not the most slavish adherent to the conventions of parliamentary procedure and language and his reply to that question was, "Who cares?" Once he had recovered his composure slightly, however, he said that it would be the Treasury. That issue was not probed further in the other place, but I would be keen to learn from the Minister the mechanism by which the Treasury will pay, because there remains a lurking concern that, while the Treasury claims credit for providing the largesse, it will be other business rate payers—albeit spread very thinly across the board—who will pick up the tab. Perhaps the Minister could explain the mechanism by which a specific grant from the Treasury will fill the gap.
  Secondly, will the Minister confirm that we are now left with a somewhat anomalous position in Northern Ireland? Ironically, sports clubs there have enjoyed mandatory relief at 80 per cent. for some time. They will continue to do so, but there is no provision in this measure to give local authorities there the discretion, which will exist in England, to extend 100 per cent. discretionary relief to sports clubs. Do the Government have any plans to address that anomaly? This issue was raised during the Lords debate last week, and I would be interested to know what the Government intend to do about it.
  I do not want to dwell on technicalities. This is a tremendous victory for the will of Parliament over the instinctive parsimony of the Treasury, and congratulations are due to Members on both sides of this House and the other place who have fought for this new clause, and to the Ministers, who have no doubt had to fight long and hard behind the scenes against the Treasury to achieve such an excellent result. I know that amateur sports clubs throughout the country—I think it is safe to say in every single constituency represented in the House—will be extremely grateful for the effort that everyone involved has made.
  Mr. Reed: I rise to welcome the measure as one who introduced a ten-minute Bill three or four years ago to define community amateur sports clubs. Its purpose was to allow the tax reliefs to be brought in, and I always envisaged that, when we talked about tax relief, it would include not only the package in the Finance Act 2002 but rate relief as well. When the Minister informed me a couple of weeks ago that this measure was to be
  656
  introduced, I thought that there would be a big hole in my life. Community amateur sports clubs seem to have been a part of everything that I have done in this place over the past three or four years, so I am not quite sure what I shall do with my winter evenings now that I no longer need to discuss the benefits of tax relief for those clubs. However, it is a hole that I am very happy to accept into my life.
  When we were talking about tax relief for community amateur sports clubs as part of the Finance Act, those of us who were lobbying behind the scenes were not expecting a package to come forward. Even the evening before the Budget, we had no indication whatever. I wish that the Treasury and the Department would ensure that we did not have such cliffhangers. In this instance, the will of Parliament was well known in plenty of time. People had been discussing this measure for a long time, and it had cross-party support.
  I do not want to be churlish, but I noted that Opposition Members made the point that this proposal has been around a long time. It was not introduced by the Conservative Government, and it is a shame that it has taken so long to get this far. However, I do not want to sound like a Liberal Democrat whinger—they always want a bit more and argue that something should have been done sooner. To be fair to those in the Chamber and outside, there has been genuine cross-party support for this measure. We always joke about such things, but it is worth noting that, although the cost to the Treasury could be small, the benefit to community amateur sports clubs, especially those that are currently struggling, could be enormous. According to research carried out by the Central Council of Physical Recreation and Sport England, it could be the difference between clubs going under or staying afloat.
  I declare a sort of interest. I played for my rugby club, Birstall, on Saturday, and within the first five minutes of the first part of the season I managed to dislocate my little finger. We do not have our own premises, so we will not necessarily benefit from this measure, but the clubs that we play against across the county will benefit from the tax reliefs. I know that currently they struggle from week to week with a reduced numbers of players in individual clubs. I hope that this measure will allow them to invest and turn around the steady decline in participation rates at community amateur sports club level, which is what it is all about.
  Money has gone into the elite sports. In Loughborough, almost £35 million has gone into the English Institute of Sport. The elite athletes have fantastic facilities, but insufficient numbers of people have participated at community amateur sports club level. In the recent world athletics championships, Sweden did particularly well. The participation rate of the Swedes is more than 60 per cent., whereas in this country it is between 30 and 40 per cent., and there is a strong decline in that figure as the age profile increases, especially among women. This measure is to be welcomed.
  I want to thank the individuals who have played an important part in introducing this measure. It is a fitting retirement present for Nigel Hook of the CCPR, who has been battling to achieve this for about 20 years. As hon. Members know, he retired in September, so perhaps this was a thank you present for all his hard

  657
  work in supporting Members and community amateur sports clubs up and down the country. If it is, it is a fitting tribute to his hard work.
  In the past three or four years, I have had the pleasure of working with Lord Phillips of Sudbury. He has brought a sense of urgency, a sense of purpose and the single-mindedness that has helped to drive this measure through in the other place.
  What encouragement will there be for local authorities to go even further than the 80 per cent.? There is a discretionary level, but local authorities always argue that they never have enough resources, so I suspect that 80 per cent. will become the norm. Will the Minister ensure that there is some incentive for local authorities to go that extra mile. That leads on to the question put by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond). Who pays? It is important to know where the money is to come from, so that we know that it is for the long term and not just a short-term fix. I am sure that it is not, but it would be reassuring to know that.
  This is a welcome change of mind. I never mind when people climb down or do U-turns—call it what you like. As long as we get the right result, I care not what has happened over the past three or four years. This campaign has been worth fighting. It has been carried out in the best of humour, and those of us who believed that the arguments were right were confident that the Government would listen. They have, and that deserves a big thank you.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Edward Davey: Members have already mentioned that many people from across the parties have been involved in this long campaign, not least the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed). Despite his comments about the Liberal Democrats, I congratulate him. I also congratulate Liberal Democrat peers, most notably my noble Friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury, who moved the amendment in the other place. He got the Government worried that the House of Lords was going to push this amendment. Although we had the amendment from the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow), we could not persuade the Government. However, there was the will to push the issue in the other place, and the Government had to face up to that. My noble Friend deserves great credit for getting that coalition together and, given that votes do not always go the Executive's way, ensuring that pressure was put on the Government.
  We should also pay tribute to Ministers. They have had to argue long and hard for this measure. Whether it was the Minister or his predecessor who pushed it—I am sure that it was the hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope) who really pushed it—they have done their job, and that is welcome. The Treasury is a difficult animal to move. I am surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not issued a press release. He is not modest about coming forward to take credit for such measures. In the press release for the Finance Bill 2002, when the initial steps were taken, he suggested that that was all that was needed: it was such a generous relief that everyone would flock to this new creation and shift over, so the
  658
  problem was solved. The Liberal Democrats and, I am sure, the Conservatives and probably some Labour Back Benchers said that we did not think that that was right. The situation created by the Chancellor was not powerful enough to persuade people to shift. They had the difficult choice between the bureaucracy of the charity route, which many people did not want, as was shown by the figures, or the community amateur sports club route, which was a nice new creation, but did not provide sufficient incentive for people to move. With this amendment, we have the critical mass of a meaningful incentive. If there is encouragement from the Government and organisations such as Sport England, there will be a major shift.
  I hope that the Minister will reassure the House that he will talk to his colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that they play a positive part, with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, in ensuring that this measure becomes well known and that there is a quick shift.
  This is a significant measure. The amounts of money involved for the Exchequer are small, but the difference that it will make to small sports clubs is huge. It is disproportionate to the cost to the central purse. That has been one of the strong arguments used by campaigners. I am sure that, when Members go round their constituencies, they see the typed up accounts of the local cricket, rugby or football club. Those accounts are often done by an elderly member on a typewriter not a word processor, and show the rates as a significant amount on the expenditure side. With that cost gone, those clubs will use the money entrepreneurially and encourage youngsters and new activities. They could use it to lower the fees that they have to charge, and thus ensure greater access to the sporting facility. It is a good measure for social inclusion.
  This important measure will have a benefit way above the actual cost. I hope that the Minister will answer the questions posed by the hon. Members for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) and for Loughborough about where the money is to come from, because it is important for the House to dwell on that. We should also dwell on the benefits, which will be huge.
  Mr. David Borrow: It is not often that we move an amendment in Committee, back down to the Government on it and accept that no action could be taken, but find several months later that the Government have moved on the issue. The fact that the Government have changed their view on a measure that involves the Treasury in a major way is a sign that Parliament is working. When the amendment was debated in Committee months ago, if Government Back Benchers had accepted that that was the will of the Government and that it could not change, nothing would have happened. We constantly lobby behind the scenes in the hope that eventually the will of Parliament will prevail on the Treasury and other Departments. That is what seems to have happened in this case. It did not happen overnight, and the amendment that I tabled in Committee did not emerge from thin air; the idea had been discussed for years before I had the privilege. A number of people in Parliament and outside worked for a long time to achieve that.
  Mr. Hammond: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is right, but does he agree that the bit of Parliament that has been

  659
  shown to be working in this instance is the cross-party consensus in the House of Lords—the one thing in this place that is guaranteed to put Governments in fear?
  Mr. Borrow: I am certain that if the Treasury had not wanted to make the money available, it would have continued to block it, and would have prevailed over the House of Lords in the end. The hon. Gentleman is right about the cross-party consensus in this case. The result. that we have secured is, I think, due to the fact that there has been no battle on a purely party issue: members of all parties, and those who belong to no party, have worked and lobbied together for many months and years.
  I have only one question to ask my right hon. Friend. Is he certain that all the clubs in the country that could have access to this assistance will be able to do so, and will every measure to secure that be taken? What will he and his Department do to ensure a 100 per cent. take up?
  Phil Hope: I am pleased to learn that Members on both sides of the House welcome the amendment. My grateful thanks are due to, among others, my hon Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow). who pushed the case for it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) mentioned the number of clubs that would benefit. I know from my constituency experience that during a weekend in Corby up to 2,000 young people may be out on football pitches with their mums and dads helping out, acting as referees, washing the kit and so on. All that excellent community activity will be reinforced by the 80 per cent. relief for qualifying clubs.
  Mr. Reed: My hon. Friend is right, but when it comes to the role of amateur sports clubs, it never seems to be realised that some 27 per cent. of volunteers support them. We often forget that when we talk about the voluntary sector. A wealth of talent is involved: some 1.5 million people give up their time freely to help clubs throughout the country.
  Phil Hope: My hon. Friend is right to mention that important statistic. We use jargon about building social capital, and ensuring that communities flourish, thrive and are successful and inclusive. Sport plays a critical role in that, and I hope that the measure will contribute to the wider agenda of community and civic renewal and urban regeneration for which so many of us are working so hard.
  A number of speakers asked who would pay. Inevitably, there is a degree of uncertainty about the cost, because it depends on the take-up that Members want to see. The Treasury has been mentioned. Support for the idea that clubs should qualify for 80 per cent. relief has already been agreed. What we are doing is changing the mechanism to make it less onerous, allowing community amateur sports clubs to qualify without having to become registered charities. The Government, of course, will pay for the relief, and both Liberal Democrats and Conservatives will know that we are one Government. I can give an assurance that there is no intention of imposing additional costs on ratepayers; this resource, like others, will come from the centre.
  660
  The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) raised an interesting point about Northern Ireland, which I will draw to the attention of my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office.
  We have experienced a bit of a cliffhanger in order to arrive at this point, but I think that in this case it has been better to arrive than to travel. We now have an excellent new measure that will widen the base of the pyramid of participation and support, thus raising levels of achievement. That is important to a nation such as ours, which is so aspirational when it comes to sport. As I said earlier, the amendment will have huge implications not just for the healthy lives of the many people who become involved in community sport, but for community development and regeneration as a whole.
  Lords amendment agreed to.

  Clause 76

    SECOND AND EMPTY HOMES: ENGLAND
    Lords amendment No. 21.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 36, 37, 41, 42, 47 to 49 and 54.
    Phil Hope: I beg to move that this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    The amendments deal with the fear that, if we passed clause 76 in its original form, Welsh authorities would have a less flexible power to provide council tax discounts on second homes than would English authorities. The principal amendment, Lords amendment No. 21, will replace the existing provision in Wales and give the National Assembly for Wales the ability that we are giving the Secretary of State to prescribe classes of dwellings in the case of which billing authorities can reduce or remove the nationally set discounts.
    Subsections (3), (4) and (5) of the new section 12 to be inserted in the Local Government Finance Act 1992 are transitional provisions. They preserve the effect of existing regulations prescribing classes of dwellings for which Welsh billing authorities can reduce the 50 per cent. discount to 25 per cent. or zero, and preserve the effect of any existing determinations to reduce discounts made by Welsh authorities. While the new section 12 will give Welsh authorities more flexibility, the transitional provisions ensure that Welsh authorities are not forced to make new decisions if they would not have decided differently under the new powers.
    The other amendments, with the exception of Lords amendment No. 43, are consequential on Lords amendment No. 21. It should be noted that Lords amendments Nos. 36, 37, 41 and 42 amend clause 127, enabling the National Assembly for Wales to choose when to begin the new powers in Wales.
    Lords amendment No. 47 is merely a consequential amendment to clause 76, to ensure that in England any reductions in council tax liability under regulations made under section 13 of the 1992 Act—for instance, reductions relating to disabilities—are additional to any discounts under the section 11A inserted by clause 76.
    Mr. Hammond: I assume that the Welsh Assembly has asked for the inclusion of this measure, and did not ask

    661
    for its inclusion at the time of the Bill's original publication. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister by what process the Assembly either determined that it needed the primary legislation to do what it wanted to do, or decided that it wanted a power that it had not wanted previously.
    If I read them correctly, Lords amendment No. 21 and the consequential amendments simply place Wales on the same basis as England following the changes in the 1992 Act made by clause 76.
    I was not involved in the Committee stage, but I have the impression from reading the reports of it that what little consideration was allowed for this part of the Bill—given the desperately inadequate time allowed owing to the knives introduced by the timetable motion—focused principally on the issue of who would keep any extra money that was raised. The answer, as we might have anticipated, is the Government, rather than the local authority. However, it seems entirely reasonable to give similar powers to Welsh authorities, although I assume that it is a matter for the Welsh Assembly, as it seems to be more about housing policy than about revenue raising; clearly, the authorities themselves will not benefit in terms of the additional revenue but they will be able to use the provision as a tool of housing policy. I for one am very happy for Wales to have equality of treatment with England.
    8 pm
    The job of the Opposition is to find something to say about all these things, even when there is not obviously anything much to say, but I have found something to ask the Minister, he will be pleased to know. I understand that the title of the clause is not technically a part of the Bill but it seems a little odd that the clause is headed "Second and empty homes: England" when the second part of it will deal with second and empty homes in Wales. Perhaps he can confirm that it is within the scope of minor amendment, printing or whatever for the heading, "Second and empty homes: England" to be changed to "Second and empty homes: England and Wales" or possibly just "Second and empty homes." It would be a little anomalous if we passed a measure headed "Second and empty homes: England" when the second half of its text was devoted to second and empty homes in Wales.
    Mr. Edward Davey: I do not think that there is much to say on these amendments. I think that the National Assembly for Wales has asked for them. It is important to devolve more power to it. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches would like the Government to go even further. I would certainly like the National Assembly to have the power to determine the form of local taxation. I know that there is a movement in Wales against the unfair council tax and that many people in Wales would like a tax related to ability to pay. If anything, while these are welcome powers, they do not go far enough because they do not devolve further powers to the National Assembly over the local government finance regime for Wales. However, that is perhaps going wide of the debate and I am conscious that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may bring me to order. There is nothing wrong with the amendments. They go
    662
    in the right direction and I just hope that the Government will go even further on the path of devolution at a later date.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I too welcome the amendments. Clearly, they are necessary and it is right that there should be parity with our friends in England. I never understood the logic behind allowing a discount for a second home. It beat me throughout the years that I thought about it. I am pleased that it is being dealt with. The provision can be used as a tool in housing policy and so on. I am pleased, therefore, that the Government are going to extend the provisions to Wales.
    I echo what has just been said. I hope that there will be further devolution, stronger devolution, and that these matters will come within the ambit of the National Assembly without having to be referred to this Chamber. That said, I am pleased that the proposals are on the table and I am sure that they will pass into law without much hindrance from anyone in the Chamber.
    Phil Hope: I am grateful to hon. Members who have supported the proposals, including the hon. Members for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd). Two questions have arisen. One was, how did the Welsh Assembly change its mind? That is devolution for you. It is up to the Members of the Welsh Assembly. If the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) wants to write to them, he is perfectly entitled to do so.
    Mr. Hammond rose—
    Phil Hope: I knew that I should not have suggested that he write to them.
    Mr. Hammond: I am sorry but it is just that the Minister said on the question of why the Welsh Assembly changed its mind, "It just did." If that is the answer, that is fine, but it is not necessarily obvious that the Welsh Assembly has changed its mind. It might be that it always wanted these powers, and it became evident that there was a need for primary legislation to get them, as opposed to the Assembly deciding after the legislation had been published that it wanted to go down that route.
    Phil Hope: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. "Do not know" still has to be my reply. He will have to ask the Welsh Assembly whether it was something that it always wanted to do, whether it changed its mind or whatever. Thankfully, the measure is in the Bill.
    The hon. Gentleman raised a technical point about a clause headed "Second and empty homes: England" referring to Wales. That will obviously be a matter for the parliamentary draftsmen, who will no doubt note what he said.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 22 to 25 agreed to [One with special entry].

  Clause 117

    LOCAL POLLS
    Lords amendment No. 26
    Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That the House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Clause 117 confirms the right of a local authority to conduct an advisory poll. The provision creates an express power and removes doubt about the freedom of local authorities to hold advisory polls. It gives councils maximum flexibility on who is polled and how the poll is conducted.
    We carefully considered the points raised in the Lords Committee on requiring local authorities to have regard to guidance about making local polls accessible to local people and in particular to people with disabilities. We have tabled the amendment in order to provide for the Secretary of State in England and the National Assembly for Wales in Wales to be able to issue guidance to which local authorities must have regard on facilitating participation by disabled people in a local poll. I am sure that that will be widely welcomed and I hope that no one will object to its becoming part of the Bill.
    Mr. Hammond: The Minister is right. No one, I am sure, will object to the amendment, but that does not mean that no one will have any questions about it. The provision allows guidance to be issued on disabled access to local polls—polls for the purpose of testing local opinion by local authorities, as distinct from local election polls. It looks like mum and apple pie. I agree with the Minister: who could possibly be against it? My question relates to the fact that the guidance referred to here must be in respect specifically of the local advisory polls; the right to conduct them is confirmed by clause 117.
    The thrust of the Bill is to be decentralising; the Minister keeps reciting the mantra of freedom and flexibility. It would be odd if the appropriate person, the Secretary of State in England and the relevant Minister in the Welsh Assembly, could issue guidance to local authorities in relation to section 117 polls which did not have to be complied with in relation to elections or referendums conducted out of the same polling stations. We are all for access but the obligations on local authorities conducting section 117 polls must not be more onerous than in the case of the arguably more important elections and referendums that will often take place in the same buildings.
    I am hoping and expecting that the Minister will tell me that he will undertake that the guidance that will be issued in relation to section 117 polls will reflect only requirements that are imposed on returning officers in relation to elections and referendums. It would be entirely appropriate if this measure were seen as a way of ensuring that the good practice that the Government will, I hope, seek to impose in terms of ensuring disabled access to polling stations for referendums and elections will be carried over into these local polls that local authorities hold. I would not like to see a more onerous obligation in respect of those polls than those imposed
    664
    in respect of elections and referendums. The sentiment behind the amendment is sound, but I seek reassurance from the Minister that the bizarre circumstances that I postulated will not arise and that he will issue guidance to ensure that that does not occur.
    Mr. Edward Davey: I support the amendment, which was presaged by an amendment tabled by Baroness Hamwee on 24 June in the other place. She tabled the amendment following discussions with the Royal National Institute for the Blind, which felt that this would be a useful move. The Government have clearly responded to that positively, which is to be welcomed.
    In passing, it is interesting to note that we did not have a chance to debate the clause in Committee. We could have a spat about whether it was the Government or the Opposition who were to blame. However, there were a number of long and tedious speeches that went off the point—
    Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman will recall that we voted against the timetable motion in Committee.
    Mr. Davey: I do recall that. The point I was making was that we did not get to examine the clause the first time around. No doubt we could have raised points about it and other matters that have not been debated.
    The new power under the clause is clearly to be welcomed. It is important that disabled people are able to participate in polls, and I hope that we can move on.
    Mr. Raynsford: There was no intention to impose requirements in respect of local polls more onerous than those that apply to elections or referendums conducted other than under the provisions of the clause. However, during the Lords debate, questions were raised as to whether the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 applied in this area. Under the Act, it will be unlawful from October 2004 for service providers, including public authorities, to discriminate against a disabled person in how the provider provides services. There has been some doubt as to whether "services" includes the provision of polling facilities for local and national elections or local polls. We expect the future extension of the Act to cover local authority functions to clarify whether it applies to local polls. This will not come into force until 2006. In that situation, we felt it sensible that guidance should be extended to ensure that what applies in relation to elections—for example, guidance issued by the Electoral Commission—should also apply to local polls.
    Mr. Hammond: The Minister is coming to the key point. He referred to the expectation that the Disability Discrimination Act will be extended to cover local authority functions and, thus, local polls. Does the Act already cover elections and referendums? If not, does he expect it to be extended to cover those services?
    Mr. Raynsford: My understanding is that the guidance issued by the Electoral Commission ensures that there are suitable arrangements that would comply with the requirements of the Act. I have said that there is some question as to whether the Act applies. We want to make sure that there is a consistency of approach between local polls, national elections and referendums

    665
    and that there should be an easy passage from where we are now to the future position if the Act is extended. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman.
    Lords amendment agreed to.

  After Clause 117
  Lords amendment No. 27
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, that the House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  The new clause tabled by the Government on Report gives the Secretary of State in England and the National Assembly for Wales power to amend or repeal by order any enactment relating to a local authority in the light of generally accepted accounting practice as it applies to local government. The new clause was tabled partly in response to the Liberal Democrat amendment to clause 18 tabled in the House of Lords Grand Committee.
  Clause 18 concerns the definition of a local authority company and the Opposition amendment reflected the pressure from local government for a modern, all-purpose definition of such a company. In resisting the amendment, we acknowledged that it raised an important issue and we promised to bring forward our own measure. The new clause enables the definition of a local authority company to be brought into line with accounting practice at the earliest opportunity. The timetable for that will depend on the work being done by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. CIPFA is currently working on a revision to its standard local government accounting code to incorporate a group accountancy requirement for companies. As soon as the CIPFA code is ready, the new power will be used to substitute the accounting definition for the one now in clause 18.
  The immediate need to update the definition arises from work being taken forward on the Treasury-led whole of Government accounts exercise, in which the Audit Commission and CIPFA are closely involved, along with officials from our Department and the Welsh Assembly. The aim of the initiative is to produce a consolidated set of accounts for the whole public sector. It must encompass all central and local government bodies, including not only local authorities but those companies in which authorities have a major interest.
  The definition of a local authority company used in the Bill for the prudential borrowing system is not based directly on accounting principles. That means that it would not meet the needs of the whole of Government accounts exercise. Authorities would have to follow two different accounting procedures in relation to their companies. This would be onerous, unwelcome and confusing, so the new power will solve that problem. However, the new clause will also allow any other aspect of the local government finance system to be harmonised with accounting practices and to be adapted to reflect future developments without the need for primary legislation. Such a move would implement the Government's policy objective of bringing public sector accounting more into line with standard accounting practices.
  666
  In leaving the term "generally accepted accounting practice" undefined, we were aware of a precedent. The Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 requires the Treasury to use its powers to ensure that departmental resource accounts comply with "generally accepted accounting practice" subject to adaptations that are necessary in the context but no definition is given. In fact, the expression has a well-established meaning. In the UK, it covers the aggregate of the accounting practices that companies are required to follow in preparing their accounts. It has as its principal source the practices recommended by the Accounting Standards Board, a body independent of Government. For local government, accounting practice is established by a code issued by CIPFA, which is recognised as a statement of recommended practice within the Accounting Standards Board framework.
  It might be helpful if I explained the difference between the new power and the one already provided for under clause 21. The latter enables the Secretary of State to specify codes that are to count as proper practices. The two powers work in different ways. Clause 21 ensures that local government accounting practice is compliant with appropriate professional codes, namely those issued by CIPFA. However, the clause 21 power could not be used to amend existing legislation that might be acting as an obstacle to the adoption of proper practices.
  In the next few years, there are likely to be major developments in national and international accounting practice to improve transparency and reduce the scope for the kind of "creative" accounting highlighted in the Enron affair. For example, there could be fundamental changes in the treatment of borrowing and investments, the full implications of which may not become clear for some time. The changes would need to be applied in local government. Clause 21 is unlikely to be adequate on its own for that purpose, but we are confident that the new clause would make it possible.
  I should also like to comment on the breadth of the power, which can be used only to change legislation to which accounting practice is relevant. When the power is used, the Secretary of State gives up his own freedom to devise accounting practices and relies instead on standards imposed by the independent accounting bodies. In all cases, the relevant provisions of a published accounting code or standard that lie behind the order should be readily identifiable. However, since this is a power to amend primary legislation, we have recognised that orders exercising it should be subject to the approval of both Houses of Parliament. The approach was endorsed by the House of Lords Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform.
  Mr. Hammond: I am grateful to the Minister for his full and explanatory speech, and I congratulate his Department on its economy in the use of civil servants' time. Anyone who also sat through the debate in the Lords the other night will have noticed a marked similarity between his speech and that delivered by his colleague in the other place. One Government, one set of briefings, one speech template—that is commendable economy.
  We Conservatives are generally wary of extending the powers of the Secretary of State to amend primary legislation by order, but in this case we can see the merit

  667
  of the Government's proposal. I understand—the Minister has confirmed this—that the original issue was specifically concerned with local authority companies: the possible need to produce consolidated accounts for local authorities and their companies, to avoid off balance sheet scams of the type that we have become rather familiar with in the past few years; and the need to support the whole of Government accounts exercise. CIPFA, as the Minister said, identified the need possibly to amend definitions in clause 18(2) to deal specifically with local authority companies and preparing consolidated accounts for local authorities.
  The Government went on to identify a possible broader need, and the Minister's speech dwelt greatly on local authority companies and the whole of Government accounts exercise. To my mind, the perhaps more important issue is the ongoing question of the rapid evolution of UK generally accepted accounting practice, partly in response to the demands of legislators and investors for greater transparency in the wake of Enron, WorldCom and other well-documented accounting scandals. We support moves to bring public sector accounting as far as possible into line with GAAP. For the record, the Committee that deals with matters relating to local government and the regions has also clearly endorsed that position. We therefore have to trade off the benefits of the rapid implementation of further moves in that direction. That necessarily means amending obstructing legislation, whereby procedures to be followed in local authority accounting have historically been prescribed in statute—against the objection in principle, which a diligent Parliament ought to start from, to granting the Government powers to amend primary legislation through secondary legislation.
  The Government's amendment, which was accepted in the Lords, has been reviewed by the Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which found it acceptable. Any orders made under it will be subject to affirmative resolution, as the Minister said, which always helps to reassure any sceptics in this place. However, as I have said the weakness in resorting to that procedure to tighten scrutiny is the feebleness of the scrutiny process itself. We are certain to reach a 90-minute Committee debate when we have an affirmative procedure, rather than a negative one. But as anyone who has taken part in such debates—as we all have—will agree, once we reach that stage we are a very long way away from really effective scrutiny of the Executive, because of the time limitations that such debates entail. But on balance, we believe that this is a justified measure and we will support it, particularly given that the power to amend is strictly limited to cases in which it is appropriate to do so in the light of the GAAP of the time.
  It is important, however, that we recognise that we are agreeing to quite a wide power. It is not, as Lord Rooker appeared to suggest in Grand Committee, merely a power to alter definitions across a wider range than just clause 18(2). It is a power to amend any Act that requires amending in order to bring local authority accounting procedures into line with GAAP. So any statute that prescribes a different procedure, or which inhibits the adoption of GAAP, could be amended by this measure. This is an appropriate provision to include in the Bill, but the House should be in no doubt that it does give the
  668
  Government significant powers—rather more significant ones that the Minister's colleague suggested during the Grand Committee debate. However, we will support this measure tonight.
  Mr. Edward Davey: As the hon. Gentleman has just suggested, this is a significant power. It is interesting to see how the parliamentary process sometimes works. In Committee, we were unable properly to analyse the charging and trading provisions in chapter 1 of part 8 of the Bill because of lack of time. We wanted to make some of the points that were made in the other place in order to try to examine the framework around trading companies that the Government were introducing. I am delighted that Baroness Hamwee was able to make those very sensible points in Committee, and the Government have reacted to them by going much further.
  The amendment certainly deals with some of our concerns about local authority trading by making sure that local authority companies will have to abide by proper accounting practices; indeed, the Government now have the power to ensure that they do so. That is important, because it will put to rest the concern of small businesses that such companies will be trading unfairly against the private sector. Some small businesses are still sceptical about what the practice will involve, but the provision does help them, because they can be reassured that the Government have the power to intervene if any local authority is trading unfairly through its trading arms. That point of detail has now been met, but it is interesting to note that the provision is wider and therefore affects the entire system.
  Mr. Hammond: I am not sure that I understand that point. We are not talking about a provision that will give the Government the power to intervene if they thought that a local authority company was trading unfairly; rather, it will pave the way for consolidated accounts to be produced, which will prevent local authorities from using companies for inappropriate purposes. I doubt whether it will give the Government the power to intervene to prevent unfair trading.
  Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman rightly picks me up—I think my use of language was slightly loose. There could be examples of unfair trading that are not covered by the new power. Some representations from small business organisations that I received related to how the accounts of these small companies will be drawn up, and how they will relate to local authority accounts; however, that concern appears to be covered. I can imagine contracts being given in an unfair way that is, however, completely unrelated to accountancy practices, so the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point.
  On how this wide power will apply more generally, as a veteran of the Committee that considered the Government Resources and Accounts Bill—GRAB, as it was unfairly known—I can tell Members that this power was included then. The power was welcomed on both sides at the time as it applied to central Government Departments, so there is a corollary to read across—that it should now be applied to local government. I am sure that the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and other bodies will welcome it.

  669
  8.30 pm
  Will the Government comment on a point of detail? When we debated the Government Resources and Accounts Bill in Committee in 1999, we obviously devoted time to the views of the Accounting Standards Board and its role in the UK's generally accepted accounting practice. We also talked about the Financial Reporting Council, an independent body set up to advise the Government on the adoption of resource accounting for all Departments. That relates to Government accounts, and the body has to take account of the special circumstances that apply in the public sector. Although GAAP is sensible for many aspects of public sector activities, some fall outside normal commercial pressures and considerations. That is why the body was set up—to ensure that public sector accounting standards and practices take into account the special aspects of the public sector.
  We raised in Committee the classic example of how to value an account for nuclear weapons. Some assets belonging to local authorities would not be marketised, so GAAP would not necessarily apply. The private sector has never considered accountancy practices as they relate to such assets. Will the Government comment on that problem and explain the inter-relation between the amendment and clause 21, to which the Minister referred? Those parallel provisions are designed to achieve different objectives. They do not necessarily compete with each other, but it is important to be careful about how Governments use the two different powers, because one could envisage them coming into conflict in certain circumstances.
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) raised some interesting questions relating to trading, but I have to say that I am advised that his concerns are unfounded because trading will have to be carried out through a company. As he knows, that is the provision in this part of the Bill, and anything done by a company will be caught by companies law, which provides the essential safeguard. The new clause will not change it. Group accounting comes in at a later stage when a local authority amalgamates its accounts.
  I have explained that we originally believed that clause 21 would provide us with powers to achieve the wider aims that I mentioned in my opening statement on the amendment. I went on to explain that, in the context of the application of the whole of Government accounts exercise and other potential changes that might arise, we were conscious of potential needs that went beyond the powers contained in clause 21. That is why the additional powers in the amendment were necessary and why we want to include them in the Bill.
  Lords amendment agreed to [Special entry].

  After Clause 119
  Lords amendment No. 28
  Phil Hope: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): With this, we may discuss Lords amendment No. 44.
  Phil Hope: The amendments meet a Government commitment to give local authorities outside London
  670
  specific powers to regulate cosmetic body piercing and micro-pigmentation businesses. London local authorities already have such powers under private legislation.
  The new clause would amend the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 to bring cosmetic body piercing and micro-pigmentation businesses under the regulatory framework of registration and byelaws that already applies to ear piercing, tattooing, acupuncture and electrolysis. Under that framework, local authorities would be able to require cosmetic body piercing and micro-pigmentation businesses to register with them and observe byelaws on hygiene and cleanliness in order to prevent the transmission of infection. For example, businesses would be required to use sterile instruments for each client. It would be an offence to trade without registration or to breach byelaws.
  The term "cosmetic piercing" is used to include cosmetic body piercing and ear piercing, which are both forms of skin piercing to allow the insertion of jewellery into the skin. That is the approach taken in the London legislation. "Semi-permanent skin colouring", which means the insertion of semi-permanent colouring into a person's skin, is used to include micro-pigmentation and related activities such as semi-permanent make-up and temporary tattooing. The use of that umbrella term should stand the test of time if further activities of this type come into fashion.
  The schedule will allow a smooth transition when local authorities adopt the new legislation. The transitional provisions provide that the amendment does not affect businesses already registered for activities covered by section 15 of the 1982 Act—tattooing, ear piercing and electrolysis. The amendment does not affect pending local authority resolutions to apply section 15 of the 1982 Act in its area. If a local authority has already resolved that section 15 of the 1982 Act should be brought into force in its area for tattooing, ear piercing and electrolysis, the local authority will be automatically enabled to apply the registration and byelaws regime to cosmetic piercing and semi-permanent skin colouring. A person and premises already registered for ear piercing shall be counted as registered for cosmetic piercing until cosmetic body piercing is subsequently provided, when a new registration would be required.
  Mr. Hammond: I am grateful to the Government for eventually managing to introduce this provision, but I have some questions about the way in which it will work. I noted that the Minister referred to registration of persons and premises, and I may wish to probe him further on the distinction between the two.
  I first raised the issue in Commit tee when I attempted to insert an admittedly clumsy new clause that sought to extend the London Local Authorities Act 2000, which was private legislation and not susceptible to such extension. I have been getting some strange looks from colleagues ever since, but I assure the House that I have nothing to hide and no personal direct interest in the matter. I regularly pass through airport metal detectors without any trouble.
  I do not claim to be a great expert on the subject, but I was alarmed by the more revelatory nature of the remarks made by Lord Rooker in the other place last

  671
  week. He confirmed that he keeps a catalogue of body adornments, as he describes them, which he collected some years ago. Therefore, he said, the prices were out of date. While one can understand a passing interest in such an item, one is bound to say that keeping it on one's bookshelf for several years raises a few questions—certainly in my mind. Lord Rooker also told the other place that as it is a family place—I suppose it still is, in a sense, although it may not remain so much longer—he could not give their lordships full details of everything that was available in his catalogue.
  The serious point is that whether we subscribe to body piercing and semi-permanent skin colouring or not. many people undergo it and it is an invasive procedure. It involves piercing the body and thus creates an obvious risk, at the least, of infection.
  The matter first came to my attention through a constituency case, of which I became aware about this time last year. A constituent was concerned because her daughter, who was under 16, had been able to get her navel pierced without parental consent. After visiting the establishment that carried out the piercing, my constituent made some investigations and discovered that there was no system of control in place. She felt that that was wrong. Indeed, when I checked what Ministers had said, I discovered that Health Ministers—most recently, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper)—had made clear statements on several occasions that the Government intended to legislate to allow regulation of such practices to be extended to local authorities outside London. The current state of the law is rather curious. In London, local authorities have that power, but local authorities in the rest of the country do not. All that we want to do is to create a level playing field and to address some of the concerns that have arisen.
  After the case in my constituency was brought to my attention and I had already agreed with my colleagues that we would table an attempt at a new clause in Committee, a tragic case in Sheffield was reported. As a result of body piercing, a 17-year-old man died in unusual circumstances. He suffered from a congenital heart abnormality and was unaware that it made him especially vulnerable to septicaemia. He died over Christmas last year, which gave additional poignancy to the calls for new legislation.
  I freely admit that our amendment was clumsy, but the Government were on record as saying that they intended to legislate on the matter as soon as a legislative opportunity arose. The Bill offers such an opportunity, yet I am bound to ask the Minister what arrangements exist for cross-departmental liaison when Bills such as this one are being drawn up. When Ministers—in this case, Health Ministers—give commitments that they will implement legislation of this nature when an opportunity arises, there needs to be a simple database recording such commitments so that they can be included when another Department draws up an appropriate measure. It should not be left to Opposition Members to draw the attention of Ministers in one Department to the fact that commitments given by Ministers in another Department can appropriately be incorporated in a measure. There needs to be some joined-up government. Indeed, the Minister is in an
  672
  ideal position to spearhead such an initiative and ensure that his colleagues are properly up to speed as to their responsibilities.
  When we raised the issue in the Standing Committee, and when it was raised in the House of Lords, I was slightly alarmed by the Minister's reluctance to commit the Government to the measure that they have now introduced. Indeed, we were kept on tenterhooks until Third Reading in the House of Lords, so I am delighted that the Government have taken action. However, it would have been a disgrace if they had not introduced the provision, given that the Bill offers a perfect vehicle for it and that Ministers have made commitments to do so on several occasions.
  The new clause will provide a registration regime by including premises and people carrying out cosmetic body piercing and semi-permanent skin pigmentation under the provisions for tattooing and ear piercing in the 1982 legislation. The issues that most concern me are, first, hygiene standards, although I know that they fall within the scope of the legislation into which the provisions will be inserted; secondly, checks on health background, emphasised by the problems in the Daniel Hindle case; and, thirdly, consent.
  I have seen various premises that operate with proper hygiene, follow-up procedures and consent forms. They have rules that require a parent to be present if the patient is under a certain age. However, many operators do not conform to such standards. The effectiveness of the new clause in achieving a resolution to the issues that I have raised, and to which other Members have subsequently drawn attention, will depend on the conditions that local authorities are able to impose prior to registration.
  It seems to me, from my reading of the 1982 legislation, that local authorities can make byelaws only in respect of hygiene in registered premises. Of course, hygiene is very important and aseptic procedures are vital where such invasive procedures take place, but that is only one of the issues. I very much hope that the Minister can confirm that it will be possible for local authorities to introduce a requirement to adhere to some form of code of conduct before they are required to register premises to carry out such procedures; otherwise, the problems encountered by Daniel Hindle will not be addressed at all. A mechanism is needed to require people who submit themselves to such procedures to answer a basic set of health questions.
  8.45 pm
  I hope that the fact that the Under-Secretary, not the Minister of State, will reply does not mean that I will be disappointed by being told that those issues are not adequately covered. I hope that the Minister can explain how it will be possible for local authorities to ensure that premises will operate according to proper codes of conduct before they are registered, so that everyone entering them is warned of the specific health risks that people with certain conditions, such as congenital heart abnormalities, might face from undertaking such procedures.
  I hope that the Minister will also tell us that local authorities will be able to put in place appropriate regimes to deal with consent. I am not about to say that everyone under the age of 18 must always have a

  673
  completed parental consent form. I am not sure whether that is appropriate in all cases, but some sort of cut-off age is clearly needed.
  Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman is sitting on the fence.
  Mr. Hammond: I am not going to take from a Liberal Democrat the accusation that I am trying to sit on the fence. That would be too much to bear. It is pretty clear to everyone that there must be an age—perhaps 16—below which parental consent is appropriate.
  Lord Rooker raised in the other place a very interesting additional consent issue, which certainly had not occurred to me. He explained that, in some cases, the parents of very small children have their children pierced for their own gratification because they think that it is fashionable. Of course, those children have absolutely no opportunity to consent. Parental consent is clearly not an adequate safeguard in those circumstances. Perhaps an absolute prohibition on certain types of piercing is needed for very young children.
  I do not claim to have precise answers. The intention is to give a power to local authorities—the proposal is permissive—so that they can establish a regime to regulate such premises. I want to be sure that local authorities can regulate those premises in relation to mandatory health questionnaires, appropriate procedures for obtaining consent and perhaps an absolute prohibition on performing piercing operations on children below a certain age.
  If it is possible under the Bill for local authorities to require establishments to have regard to a code of practice, will the Minister tell the House whether he or his colleagues in the Department of Health are inclined to publish a standard draft code of practice, so that every local authority in the country does not have to start from scratch in trying to draft an appropriate code of practice?
  The Minister will know that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) recently received leave from the House to introduce a private Member's Bill that appears to be redundant before it starts because of this Bill. I am one of the supporters of that Bill. I very much hope that it will not turn out to be the case that the concession that the Government have made does not enable local authorities to deal with the real issues of health warnings, health checks and parental consent, in which case that private Member's Bill would be needed to broaden local authorities' powers. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that following the tragic death of Daniel Hindle this Bill will enable Sheffield and other local authorities to introduce a registration regime that will prevent similar tragedies in the future and ensure that people who submit to these kinds of procedures are properly informed about the risks and know that the procedures are being undertaken in aseptic conditions by properly qualified people. I also hope that we will have an assurance that local authorities will be able to deal with the issue of parental consent.
  Mr. Edward Davey: I welcome this amendment. It deals with an important public health issue, and I am
  674
  glad that the Government have agreed to use the Bill to enable us to move forward. The House should be made aware, however, of the fact that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) has been rather modest. He has been a prime mover behind this proposal. I witnessed in Committee how he engaged in debate, how thoroughly he had done his research and how he persuaded the Minister to talk to civil servants not just in his Department but in the Department of Health about the matter. The House should therefore pay tribute to him. He should also make sure that we all see copies of the press release that he sends to his constituents explaining how he has achieved this step forward. I am sure that the local papers in Surrey will be keen to hear about such a parliamentary success, of which he should be proud.
  Mr. Hammond: In case the hon. Gentleman thinks that I am hiding any light under a bushel, I have put out press releases previously, I have visited local piercing establishments, and it was a leading light in the local Conservative association who first brought this matter to my attention.
  Mr. Davey: Clearly, the Conservative party is modernising before our eyes. At one point in the hon. Gentleman's remarks, however, despite all his research, he was not quite capable of coming out completely on this issue. He was, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) said, sitting on the fence. I would therefore like to put on record the fact that Liberal Democrats believe that parental consent should be needed for those under the age of 16. On this issue, as on all issues with respect to age, it seems to us that the House should see that people effectively become adults from the age of 16. That would be the appropriate age.
  Mr. Hammond: I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would not want me to widen this discussion into a debate about the slightly strange views of the Liberal Democrats about what people should and should not be able to do at the age of 16. The hon. Gentleman is in danger, however, of tripping over his arguments in earlier debates this evening. What we are doing is empowering local authorities. If we mean what we say when we talk about empowering local authorities, it must be for individual local authorities, having regard to their individual circumstances, to make that decision. This is not prescriptive legislation; it is permissive legislation.
  Mr. Davey: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman's argument is terribly consistent. While we certainly want to empower local authorities to take control of their own areas and of their own communities, that does not apply to issues such as age. Age is an issue that we debate nationally, and the application of age limits should be a national issue. It is not suitable for devolution, as it is an issue of rights. I do not want to quibble too much with the hon. Gentleman, however, as he has made a serious contribution, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) has real experience of this matter from his constituency.
  Mr. Heath: I am not sure about the depth of my experience but, like the hon. Member for Runnymede

  675
  and Weybridge(Mr. Hammond),I have knowledge of a constituency case in which parents were distressed by the fact that their child had been to such an establishment without their knowledge and permission. When I undertook a little more research on the subject, I was astonished to find that no registration system existed outside London. Therefore, as the law stands, the local authority in Somerset is incapable of doing anything about the problem.
  I welcome the Government's proposals for registration and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge for his response to the Minister's comments. However, unless I have missed the point—it is entirely possible that I have, so I look forward to the Minister's reply—what we have today is an extension of the registration scheme. It will allow those who visit the establishments that undertake this business to do so with a degree of confidence that the person operating on them knows what he is doing, is working with sterile equipment and has taken appropriate health precautions. That is welcome, and whether adults choose to have such operations is entirely their affair. I do not wish to take part in their decision-making process.
  However, several points about minors remain to be answered. It is not clear from the Minister's comments whether the Government's proposal changes the position of minors in any way. I do not accept the argument that it should necessarily be a matter for local authorities to have individual registration arrangements. The House is usually clear that we decide on such matters and there is no logic in having variations in the arrangements around the country. The circumstances that apply to 12-year-olds in one part of the country apply to 12-year-olds in another part. If they require protection, they require protection. I understand that the code of practice makes provision for parental consent but if adherence to that code is not part of the registration process, it should be. I hope that local authorities will be empowered to make that a requirement.
  The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge made another extremely important point. I am worried by cases in which there is parental consent but the child is below the age at which he or she can consent in any real way to a procedure that effectively involves their mutilation. In other circumstances and irrespective of the views of the parents, that might be treated as common assault. However, if there is specific legislation, it might be argued that the law's silence on such cases might mean that a common assault cannot be deemed to have occurred. The Government might like to do a little more thinking on the age limit for children who can be operated on in this way for purely cosmetic purposes and with no possible advantage to them. The Government should also consider the role of parental consent in the cases of slightly older children who may strongly support the idea of being pierced so that they conform to the latest fashion trends.
  The provisions are silent on those two issues and I hope that the Minister will be able to elucidate the position. If there is no provision for minors, the issue will have to be revisited if the House is to do its job properly and the Government are to have the effective registration process that my constituents and those of other hon. Members want.
  9 pm
  Phil Hope: We have had an important debate. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said, the existing registration scheme will be extended to local authorities outside London. I am happy to tell the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) that the behaviour of their lordships on body piercing is a matter for them rather than me.
  I fail to understand the relevance of the criticism that we are not joined-up in our thinking because we are doing something that is clearly joined-up. In parliamentary terms, the question whether the measure fell within the ambit of the Bill was marginal, although we now know that it does. I am delighted that we are able to take the measure forward.
  We are aware of the tragic case of Daniel Hindle, who died from septicaemia in December 2002 after having his lip pierced, which the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge mentioned. Sheffield city council is conducting a thorough and detailed investigation of the circumstances surrounding his death and I understand that there will be a coroner's inquest. It would therefore be premature for me to comment on the points that the hon. Gentleman raised but it will be important to consider whether there are general lessons to be learned in due course. I understand that the Department of Health is exploring the feasibility of conducting a study on the risks of infection that are associated with cosmetic body piercing in England and that it is requesting advice from the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy and the British Cardiac Society on the health risks of cosmetic body piercing and other types of skin piercing for people with congenital heart disease.
  The hon. Gentleman asked several other questions. He asked about the standards of body-piercing practice before, during and after piercing. We believe that such detailed information is best provided by guidelines and several publications already provide such advice. For example, the Health and Safety Executive produced updated guidelines for local authorities on skin-piercing activities and enforcement as recently as October 2001. The guidelines are designed to assist the local authorities to which we are now extending powers to advise businesses on such issues as hygiene practice, aftercare and how to adopt a reasonable approach to issues surrounding the age of consent—I shall say a little more about that in a moment. Additionally, local authorities such as Bury metropolitan borough council, Rochdale metropolitan borough council, Sheffield city council and Southampton city council have produced good practice guidelines.
  Mr. Hammond: I am grateful to the Minister for that information. Will it be lawful for a local authority to withhold registration from an establishment because it does not adhere to the good practice guidelines?
  Phil Hope: I made it clear earlier that if a business fails to take account of guidelines, such as those on using sterile instruments, it would be an offence for it to trade without registration, or if it were in breach of byelaws. The wider guidelines about which the hon. Gentleman talks do not exist in legislation—they have been developed by the HSE. Local authorities throughout the

  677
  country have produced good practice guidelines and the European Professional Piercers Association and the Association of Professional Piercers have produced guidance on safe and hygienic body-piercing techniques. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is trying to press me to go further and suggest that the law should provide that local authorities could enforce such standards, but we are extending the registration scheme that applies in London, so that is not the case. However, we would expect local authorities to use good practice and apply the guidelines to the businesses that they register.
  Mr. Hammond: If I have understood the relevant section in part VIII of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 correctly, the byelaw-making power relates only to hygiene, so the Minister is right to cite the example of sterile needles. However, a local authority has no power to withhold registration from somebody who is complying with the byelaws, which cover only hygiene, but failing to comply with any other codes that relate to parental consent and health warnings. Is that correct?
  Phil Hope: We do not believe that pre-registration assessment of a practice is necessary. It would only add burdens to businesses and local authorities and extra costs to customers. Registration offers an opportunity for local authorities to establish a constructive relationship with businesses; that includes providing advice on hygienic practices. If a business refuses to heed that advice, the authority has the option of prosecuting it under the new legislation or using health and safety at work provisions such as improvement or prohibition notices and, ultimately, prosecution. There are measures that local authorities can take without amending the Bill as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
  Mr. Hammond: I am sorry to have to proceed by intervention, but that is the only method that is open to us.
  How does the Bill empower a local authority to prosecute a business for failure to comply with anything other than byelaws relating to hygienic practice? We are in danger of congratulating ourselves on having addressed the problem that was highlighted by the death of Daniel Hindle, while leaving local authorities utterly powerless to deny registration to an establishment that persistently refuses to give health warnings or to complete basic health questionnaires before carrying out piercing operations.
  Phil Hope: The hon. Gentleman is labouring the point. The Bill allows local authorities to prosecute a business that fails to register with it or to operate in observance of byelaws on health and cleanliness. The job of local authorities, which the Bill will allow those outside London to do, is to build up their relationship with businesses. If a business continues to refuse to heed the advice given by the local authority, the authority can prosecute it under the new legislation—essentially on the key theme of failing to address hygiene and cleanliness as required. The local authority can also use the health and safety at work provisions if that is appropriate to the kind of offence that they believe the
  678
  business to be committing. It is completely untrue to say that local authorities have no powers whatever to intervene. The Bill extends to local authorities outside London the ability to intervene when required.
  Mr. Heath rose—
  Phil Hope: If the hon. Gentleman wants to ask about consent, I am about to deal with that.
  We have no plans to introduce a minimum age of consent for body piercing. However, the Health and Safety Executive has issued guidelines to local authorities to assist them in encouraging businesses to adopt a reasonable attitude to the age of consent. Although the Department of Health has not given a commitment to legislate, it has said that it will keep the matter under review with ministerial colleagues in the Home Office as the new measures take effect. Setting the age of consent at 16, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), could lead to children under that age piercing themselves or each other in an unsafe and unhygienic way, or even to their going to disreputable businesses. We prefer that businesses carrying out ear piercing and cosmetic body piercing should be subject to local authority control so that those activities can be undertaken in a safe and hygienic manner.
  The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome raised the wider question of common assault. Body piercing, particularly for sexual gratification, is unlawful. Children under the age of 16 are unable to consent lawfully to what would be regarded as indecent assault and, as such, a matter for the courts. To that extent there is definite protection for children under the age of 16. The only other question is about the piercing of ear lobes—
  Mr. Hammond: In the case of one of my constituents, which I quoted earlier, the person concerned was informed that she could bring a prosecution for common assault against the person who pierced her daughter, but that that would be a private prosecution because the police would not become involved. Does the Minister think that that is a satisfactory state of affairs?
  Phil Hope: I do not know the details of the case that the hon. Gentleman is describing. However, I can understand his concern on behalf of his constituents to ensure that an improvement is made. I regret that I cannot comment on a case when I do not have any of the details.
  Mr. Heath: I am sorry that we are delaying the Minister's progress.
  I now understand that the registration scheme as it is framed does not provide for local authorities to do anything about these age-of-consent issues. Secondly, setting aside the sexual offence to which reference has been made, in the case of common assault—even on a toddler who was mutilated, and whether or not the parents consented—it would be unlikely that the police or the public prosecutor would bring a prosecution on that basis. That is not entirely satisfactory.
  Phil Hope: I understand the concerns that the hon. Gentleman is raising. The guidelines issued to local

  679
  authorities to assist them refer to them adopting a reasonable attitude to the age of consent. I have listed the guidelines that already exist—they have been published by a number of authorities and agencies—on the specific point that the hon. Gentleman is making.
  Mr. Hammond: The Minister says that the guidelines issued to local authorities talk about them adopting a reasonable attitude to the age of consent. That is great. They may adopt a reasonable attitude, but what is their sanction? What do they do with the business that complies with the hygiene byelaws, but does not comply with the local authority's reasonable attitude on age of consent? Can it deny registration or can it not?
  Phil Hope: I might be going through a time loop when I return to a point that I have made already. I understand the hon. Gentleman's question. The answer is that the guidelines are not a matter of law. They are guidelines for local authorities to use. They apply them by building a relationship with businesses that come within the registration scheme. In building that relationship, they can make judgments about whether the businesses are operating hygienically with due regard to cleanliness, and conform with other guidelines. By building up good practice in that relationship, it can be ensured that the widest possible take-up of good standards beyond and above hygiene and cleanliness are in place. If a business then fails to conform with hygiene and cleanliness regulations, registration can be withdrawn. A prosecution could be brought if the business were to break any further byelaws that the local authority had put in place. By extending these powers to other local authorities outside London, we are extending protections.
  The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome mentioned toddlers and abuse. If there are any grounds for believing that a child may be suffering or at risk of serious harm from ear piercing, for example, let alone other forms of piercing, the local authorities' social services department could be approached about the matter. The National Society for the Protection of Children also has powers to investigate and intervene in these circumstances. These points go way beyond the focus of the amendment, but I hope that they are responses to some of the key points that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
  Matthew Green: In the case of a two or three-year-old child, surely the social services department should not be called in because someone thinks that a child's ear might be infected. Surely the simple approach is to introduce a minimum age below which body piercing should not take place. Perhaps that should be eight, nine or 10 years, something like that.
  Phil Hope: Again, I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has been present throughout the debate, but we made the point earlier that we were not minded to introduce an age of consent. The guidelines to local authorities state that they must pay due regard to reasonable age of consent issues, including that which the hon. Gentleman described. Through those guidelines, local authorities build a relationship with their businesses. They have the power to deregister businesses that do not conform to basic standards of
  680
  cleanliness and hygiene. They also have recourse to other measures such as the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974.
  Without repeating myself for a third time, I hope that I have made the Government's position clear. Although questions about the extent to which the powers may affect hon. Members' constituents are right, I hope that the consensus in the House is that the provision is important and will provide added protection, help prevent the transmission of infection and raise standards of hygiene and cleanliness for such businesses throughout the country.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments 29 and 30 agreed to.

Clause 127

  COMMENCEMENT
  Lords amendment No. 31.
  9.15 pm
  Phil Hope: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 32, 38, 39 and 53.
  Phil Hope: The group consists of miscellaneous commencement and drafting amendments. Lords amendments Nos. 31, 32 and 39 will enable clause 73, entitled "Provision of information" and clause 111, entitled "Financial year" to commence on Royal Assent. Lords amendment No. 53 simply tidies up a reference in schedule 7 to clause 70 and removes the power to prescribe rateable values. Lords amendment No. 38 relates to council tax and removes a reference in schedule 7 to a non-existent repeal.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments 32 to 39 agreed to.

Clause 127

  COMMENCEMENT
  Lords amendment No. 40.
  Phil Hope: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  The amendment would solve problems that the London Assembly has experienced with timetabling the 10 mayoral question time meetings that it must hold each year.
  Matthew Green: We welcome the amendment because Baroness Hamwee raised the matter in another place through an amendment that she withdrew for technical reasons. However, it clearly brought the matter to the attention of Ministers, who subsequently moved to deal with the matter. We are glad that they have done so.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 41 and 42 agreed to.

Clause 127

  COMMENCEMENT
  Lords amendment No. 43.
  Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That the House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we may discuss Lords amendment No. 51 and amendments (a) and (b) thereto.
  Mr. Raynsford: Lords amendments Nos. 43 and 51 deal with sections 45A and 45B of the Schools Standards and Framework Act 1998, as amended by sections 41 and 42 of the Education Act 2002. Under these provisions, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills and the National Assembly for Wales have a reserve power to set a minimum schools budget for a local education authority when that authority's proposed schools budget is considered inadequate in all circumstances.
  Lords amendment No. 43 is concerned with the commencement by the National Assembly for Wales of the amendments made to the Education Act 2002 by Lords amendment No. 51. Lords amendment No. 51 is concerned with two relatively minor changes to these provisions. First, it brings forward by one month to 31 December the schools budget deadline by which local education authorities in England are required to notify the Secretary of State for Education and Skills and their schools of their proposed schools budget for the following financial year.
  In his statement to the House on 17 July, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills acknowledged that the changes in school and LEA funding arrangements introduced this year led to real difficulties for many schools. As he said, the difficulties have arisen from the coincidence of a number of significant changes to the local government and schools funding systems, and as a result of decisions made at both national and local levels. The House has, of course, discussed the issues in detail on a number of occasions. Everyone has agreed that the current timetable for setting individual schools' budgets simply does not allow head teachers enough time for sensible planning.
  On 17 July, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out the measures that he proposed to take to ensure greater stability in school funding for 2004–05 and 2005–06. In doing so, he made it clear that one of the key principles underpinning that work is that central and local government should achieve earlier announcements of the financial allocations to schools, so that heads have greater certainty and more time to plan. As part of delivering that undertaking, my right hon. Friend has given a commitment that, well in advance of the announcement of the provisional local government finance settlement, his Department will provide local authorities with key information on the minimum increase in funding per pupil, on the floor increase in resources for local authorities that will underpin that guarantee, and on the distribution of standards fund grants.
  682
  The Government are also firmly committed to bringing forward the date of the provisional local government finance settlement as early as is practicable. We will do everything that we can to ensure that the announcement can be made by the middle of November this year. Such early announcements of key information will make it possible for local authorities to decide by the end of December what schools budget they are going to propose. The effect will be to give schools much greater certainty about their funding earlier in the year, so that they can plan more effectively for the following year. The deadline for authorities in Wales will remain 31 January.
  The second effect of amendment No. 51 will be to change the deadline by which the Secretary of State for Education and Skills or the National Assembly for Wales must give notice of their intention to use reserve powers to 14 days from the schools budget deadline, instead of 14 days from the date of each individual authority's notification of its proposed school budget. That will ensure a common timetable for consideration of all authorities' proposed schools budgets, which I am sure Members will accept as a more sensible arrangement.
  Although we appreciate the helpful intent behind amendments (a) and (b), we cannot support them. As I said, the Government are committed to bringing forward the date of the provisional local government finance settlement to mid-November. We will do everything possible to fulfil that commitment. It is vital that schools receive information about their budgets in good time, and delaying the determination of proposed schools budgets to 31 January would not be in the interest of schools or local authorities, not least because if it were necessary to decide to use the reserve power to set a minimum schools budget for an authority, that authority's actual schools budget might be determined only after the deadline for the authority to set its council tax for the following financial year. Amendment (b) is unnecessary, and would remove from the provisions helpful clarification about financial years. For those reasons, I urge the House to reject those two amendments.
  Mr. Graham Brady: I come to the consideration of the Local Government Bill somewhat late in its passage, but I hope that hon. Members will forgive me, given that I have been dealing with the issue under discussion for a little longer, having served as a Back Bencher on the Committee for the Schools Standards and Framework Bill in 1998, and a Front Bencher on the Committee on the Education Bill last year.
  This business is just another chapter in the sorry saga of the Government's mishandling of school funding this year. In spite of the Minister's emollient words—in his usual reasonable tone, he presented this as merely the product of coincidences of various changes in procedure—it is a great shame that hon. Members and schools in our various constituencies have little reason to be confident that this will be the final chapter in that sorry saga.
  This year, the Department for Education and Skills guaranteed a minimum increase in education formula allocations for each local education authority area. None the less, we have seen the worst schools funding

  683
  crisis in decades. On 17 July, the Secretary of State sought a guarantee at the level of the individual school. He said:
  "I will confirm the minimum percentage increases for 2004–05 and, provisionally, for 2005–06, by the time of the provisional local government finance settlement in November"—[Official Report, 17 July 2003; Vol. 409, c. 455.]
  We must ask whether this year's guarantee will prove any more durable than that which went before it.
  The crisis that has afflicted schools this year was all the worse because it was unnecessary. The Department for Education and Skills was warned in good time by heads and by hon. Members, but was too arrogant or too intransigent to act. Ministers ignored repeated warnings about the effect of increases in employers' national insurance contributions, increases in the superannuation contributions for teachers, and the removal of elements of the standards fund. They did nothing.
  It is also true that the specific proposals in the amendment could have been dealt with much earlier. On 8 January 2002, in Standing Committee G on the Education Bill, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) and I moved amendments that sought to deal with this precise problem. The hon. Gentleman sought to fix a later end date for the budget round, and suggested that 15 February would be appropriate. I tried to fix the end date as a period of not more than 21 days after the teachers pay review had reported. Either arrangement might have helped had Ministers been prepared to listen to the arguments being advanced. The proposal was one of the unfortunate casualties of the heavy-handed, unnecessary timetabling of our considerations in Committee.
  The perfectly sensible arguments that were advanced by members of the Committee on behalf of outside interest groups that had seen clearly what would happen as a result of the arrangements that the Government were implementing were not fully considered. Had they been, it might have obviated the need for these exchanges. Sadly, Ministers would not listen. As a consequence, they have presided over utter chaos in school funding this year.
  This measure is a belated attempt to resolve a problem that we foresaw and about which we warned Ministers almost two years ago. The House should turn its attention to whether this belated attempt to solve the problem will work. On 17 July, the Secretary of State set out an approach that depends on a number of different strands: a two-year teachers' pay settlement, an earlier provisional local government settlement and how local authorities choose to fund their local schools. Even so, on 17 July, the Secretary of State accepted that there may be exceptional circumstances in which local education authorities would not be expected to—in the jargon—passport 100 per cent. of the increase in schools formula spending share to the schools budget. That was confirmed in a written answer to me on 8 September from the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education. I asked for clarification of those exceptional circumstances. I received the following response:
  "In considering whether or not to use his reserve power to set a minimum schools budget for the following financial year for any LEA proposing not to passport, the Secretary of State will
  684
  consider all relevant circumstances including the reasons put forward by the LEA. He has made no pre-judgment on what would be considered exceptional."

  So we already have from the Secretary of State an acceptance that there may be exceptional circumstances in which 100 per cent. passporting may not be appropriate or necessary, but no indication as yet of the circumstances in which that judgment would be made.
  9.30 pm
  What would happen in that event? Would the minimum percentage per pupil increase in the school budget be honoured if, it being considered an exceptional circumstance, the powers to require the 100 per cent. passporting were not implemented? If so, would it be done through direct payment? Is the Minister confident that the amendment would allow sufficient time for the school to be notified if such measures were taken?
  On 8 January, I attempted to give Ministers powers to do precisely what they now say they want to do. My amendments would have allowed minimum per pupil funding to be specified for each school or category of schools. It is not clear to me how, without those powers, Ministers will fulfil the aspiration set out in the statement of 17 July of a minimum per pupil increase.
  As can be seen from a written answer that I received last week, Ministers do not know how they will fulfil their aspirations either. When I asked the Secretary of State whether the guaranteed minimum per pupil increase would take account of the restoration of standards funds payments or would apply only to the age-weighted per pupil funding, I was told:
  "The Department is working with local education authorities on the methodology for the guarantee, and aims to issue draft regulations and guidance during the autumn."
  Ministers do not yet know how they will achieve their aim in procedural terms; nor do they even yet know on what baseline the guaranteed increased school funding figure will begin. Another written answer from the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education stated:
  "local education authorities and schools will work together through their Schools Forums to agree the funding baseline to which the guaranteed per pupil increase will be applied. We aim to issue guidance and draft regulations on this during the autumn."—[Official Report, 8 September 2003; Vol. 410, c. 132W, 140W.]

  One would have thought it a fairly simple matter to look at a pledge to increase per pupil school funding from one year to the next, and that the baseline must necessarily be the sum per pupil spent the previous year. I have half the answer so far. I do not criticise the Department, because I think that it was impossible to print the other half of the figures that I asked for. I am talking about the per pupil expenditure figure for every school in the country for the current financial year. It is contained in a fairly substantial document, which is in the Library of the House. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will want to hurry there to consult it. They will find interesting variations in not only the per pupil funding of schools in different parts of the country and different constituencies, but per pupil funding in different parts of the same LEA area.

  685
  The remarkable thing is that those figures are not the baseline on which the pledge to increase per pupil funding is to be based. I do not understand how anything other than per pupil funding in the present year can be used as the baseline. We have the guarantee of 17 July but, as yet, no methodology, no regulations and no guidance. We do not even know the baseline funding figure on which a school's guaranteed increase will build.
  The measures before us are a belated attempt to deal with the problems that have afflicted schools during the current financial year. If the Government had perhaps been a little more willing to listen to rational argument and to be open-minded in their consideration of previous legislation, the measures might already have been in place, or indeed been unnecessary because more effective measures could have been enacted already. We are left with an attempt to improve the position, which is an honest attempt that we welcome. I give full credit to the Minister for that but it leaves us with some serious questions.
  The Minister for School Standards(Mr. David Miliband): The hon. Gentleman is still on the Committee of the 1998 Bill.
  Mr. Brady: The Minister comments that he thinks that I am still on the Committee of the 1998 Bill. If Ministers at the time had got more right in the passage of the School Standards and Framework Bill and had listened to argument, schools would be the better for it and we would not be picking up the pieces many years on.
  We have had an assurance from the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire that everything possible will be done by the Government to ensure that the local government settlement will be brought forward by mid-November. That is extremely welcome. We will, of course, seek to hold the Government to that. I ask for further assurances or clarification on the exact status of the provisional settlement, and how certain schools can be that they are working from a solid foundation in looking at the provisional figures. Can he give the House a clearer idea of the status of negotiations regarding the teachers' pay settlement? I would welcome some further assurance on those points and look forward to the Minister's comments.
  Mr. Edward Davey: The amendment, which we will not oppose, tries to deal with a problem that the Government have made for themselves in a number of areas, not only by taking the power to set minimum budgets but by the way in which they approached last year's local government finance settlement and failed to deal with the school funding crisis that we saw as a result of that settlement. What happened last year—I will not give a complete detailed account, as the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) has just done that—was that a number of Departments took different decisions that would affect schools' budgets and no one in this so-called joined-up government put them all together and worked out the net effect on different schools. That was the problem.
  686
  What we should be hearing from the Government is that they will not allow that situation to arise again—that Whitehall Departments will talk to each other and that a Minister's local government finance settlement announcement in which the Government praise themselves and say how they are going to give local authorities more flexibility will not again be followed the next day by a letter from the Minister for School Standards—who I am delighted to see on the Front Bench—telling local head teachers what they must expect their local education authority to pass to them. We had one Department saying that it was all about flexibilities and freedoms and that authorities would be able to make choices, and another saying that a large slug of the money that had just been announced was earmarked and had to be passported through and that head teachers should expect and demand it. That is not the sign of a Government who believe in localism, or of a joined-up Government in which Departments of State are talking to each other. That was the major problem with the local authority finance settlement last year, and that is why the Government got into such a mess.
  The question is whether the amendment and some of the other measures announced by the Secretary of State for Education and Skills earlier this year are up to the job of putting the problems right. I remain unconvinced. The measure may be taking a small step forward; it is clear from what the Local Government Association and others have said that it may help. The question is whether the Government will be able to deliver on the rules that they are setting themselves, but the proposal does not deal with the underlying issues; for example, the balance of funding issue, where if there is a shortfall, the effect on the council tax or on spending on services is so great. Those issues have not been dealt with. I know that a review is on the way but clearly it will not inform this year's settlement. These are fundamental issues with which we must grapple, but what we have are very much sticking plasters and second-best solutions. The Government have not grappled with the fundamental problems.
  I agreed with a lot of what the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West said in his castigation of the Government, but it was rich of him to say that this year's funding crisis was the worst for decades. Some of us can remember many funding crises in our schools under the Conservative Governments of the 1980s and 1990s, some of which were far worse than last year's. That does not excuse the Government and two wrongs do not make a right, but it ill behoves Conservative Front Benchers to make such remarks without apologising for their appalling record.
  We will support the Government on the Lords amendment, which goes some way towards making a bad situation a little better, but we hope that the Government will learn the lessons from the chaos of last year. We look forward to seeing whether they learn the lessons in this year's local government finance settlement in terms of what it does for schools. Schools need that money, but the Government have to provide a framework and a joined-up approach to enable it to get through.
  Mr. Raynsford: This has been a short but useful debate on an important subject. The hon. Member for

  687
  Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) stressed that he came late to the Bill; some would say that he comes at the eleventh hour. We welcome him none the less. He emphasised his involvement in earlier education issues, but I understand that he was not able to attend last week's debate on the very issues we are debating tonight.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) that those with longer experience of education will know of the considerable difference between the financial problems that have occurred in the course of the current year—about which we have been open—as against the position when the Conservatives were in government, when schools, local education authorities and teachers faced much larger genuine crises in terms of inadequate funding.
  The huge increases in funding for education introduced by the Government have made a difference. and everyone in education knows that only too well. My wife, a teacher, has shown me her new laptop, provided as a result of a Government initiative. That is an interesting indication of the way in which new investment is creating new technology opportunities to improve the ability of, if I may say so, excellent teachers to deliver high standards of education to their pupils [Laughter.] I will say no more than that.
  This year's settlement ensured an overall increase of some £2.7 billion in education funding—far higher than the sums that used to be available in the years of the Conservative Government.
  9.45 pm
  Mr. Brady: But at this point in this year's funding crisis, the Minister must surely acknowledge that nearly all of that money was taken out again through increases in taxation, and through changes in the standards fund and in the pension arrangements.
  Mr. Raynsford: None of that money was taken out by the Government through changes in the standards fund; that was the increase available. A range of factors led to difficulties in distribution, when the funds that were available to education authorities were then transmitted to schools. These issues have been debated in this House in the past few months, and we reached an understanding of what the changes were. They were the result of a number of different factors coming together to create what was clearly a period of turbulence.
  I shall describe some of those factors, the first of which was the change to local authority distribution of grant. It had been promised for some time, and lengthy consultation had taken place on that complex issue. The change happened to be introduced last year, which created a degree of turbulence in the system. However, every local authority in the country received an above-inflation grant increase—not something that they used to experience when the Conservatives were in power.
  Secondly, there were changes to the standards fund. and I should like to highlight some of the issues involved. The standards fund has been hugely important in helping to drive improvement in a range of areas in schools, but it has been ring-fenced. That has had specific advantages in terms of enabling funding to be targeted at individual schools, but ring-fencing does have a downside. When sums have to be earmarked for specific programmes, it creates inflexibility and
  688
  difficulties for local authorities in managing their wider responsibilities. So it is this Government's policy objective to reduce the degree of ring-fencing, while recognising the importance of what it can achieve in certain circumstances. This involves a difficult balance. In the course of this year, we sought to reduce the overall amount of ring-fenced funding.
  Mr. Edward Davey: I have never understood the difference between ring-fencing and passporting; can the Minister help me by explaining it?
  Mr. Raynsford: Let me run through the various components. Ring-fencing involves a clear insistence that sums allocated by Government for a particular purpose are used solely for that purpose. The objective is to ensure that those funds are made available for the purpose for which they were granted, and cannot be used for any other purpose whatsoever. The benefit is that that ensures input control, whereby those funds will go to the designated purpose; the downside, as the hon. Gentleman knows well, is that local authorities' freedom to use their overall funds in the most flexible way, taking account of the many pressures that they face, is inhibited.
  Passporting has been a mechanism through which the Department for Education and Skills has sought to indicate the funding that should be passed on from local authorities to schools in any one year. As the hon. Gentleman is an expert in local government finance, he will know that that sum is largely made up of Government grant, but that it also includes an amount assumed to be raised by local authorities through their own council tax. That is the basis on which the formula spending share, which used to be known as the standard spending assessment, was constituted. So the passporting figures for the current year included the assumption that authorities would pass on to education sums related to the FSS for education, which embraced both sums made available by the Government in grant and those that might be raised by authorities from their own council tax, according to the assumption.
  The hon. Gentleman knows very well that the difficulties occurred, in the main, when the total sum of Government grant made available to local authorities was less than the sum that they expected to passport on in education. That is one of the tensions, which I have already exposed, in the relationship between specific funding for a particular subject—in this case, education—and the wider issue of local government finance. That is why tensions are inevitably associated with ring-fencing and passporting, and why it is necessary to approach these issues in a sensible and consultative way.
  I was talking about some of the changes that occurred this year. We know about increases in teachers' pay, which had a differential impact, with some schools facing more significant burdens than others. There were increases in teachers' pensions and increased pressures on some local authorities for special needs obligations for example, for children with special educational needs and pupil referral units. All of those had differential impacts and the combination of all those factors resulted in some schools not receiving the level of increase that they had anticipated and in some authorities finding it difficult to ensure that education

  689
  was funded to the extent that the Government wanted without a disproportionate impact on the council tax. We have been open about that and explored the issue in lengthy discussions with representatives of local government, head teachers, the unions and others to get to the bottom of what went wrong this year in order to ensure that it will be put right in future.
  Matthew Green: With the benefit of hindsight—I acknowledge that the Minister did not set out to create this year's problems—would he say that making so many changes in one year should be avoided in future because of the problems that it has created now?
  Mr. Raynsford: It has always been our objective to try to provide local government with as much certainty as possible. I am saying clearly to local government that we do not intend to make any changes to the methodology of the grant distribution formula—other than where it is absolutely necessary when a change of service occurs for the next two years, which should provide a period of consistency and certainty. However, the hon. Gentleman will recall the strong calls to change the old standard spending assessment. The SSA was discredited; people knew that it was not an accurate reflection of the need to spend; there was a strong argument for a review. Such reviews are always difficult because of the different competing claims from different elements among the local government family. There is a huge amount of lobbying with all groups seeking their own advantage, and it is hard to find a way through. In fact, it is difficult to please anyone because almost everyone finds something wrong with what is finally proposed.
  We do not relish making such changes often and I am pleased to say that there will not be another change of that nature for some time. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that the change happened at the same time as the other changes that I have described and that it contributed to the turbulence that caused the difficulties. We are now trying to minimise the risk of it happening again.
  Mr. Brady: One of the reasons that the Minister advanced to explain the difficulties in some local education authority areas was the above-inflation increase in the cost of special needs education, which is a significant problem. Are the Government proposing to ring-fence provision for special educational needs funding, given that measures are being taken to require a per pupil increase in mainstream schools? Is there a danger that it might squeeze special needs education?
  Mr. Raynsford: No, the Government want to see funding for special educational needs, pupil referral units and so forth continue to grow where there is a demand for it. However, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills has made it absolutely clear that the increase in funding for that sector should not exceed the increase in funding for schools. That is a perfectly fair wish—to ensure that schools funding is not used to fund central services, but that there should be scope for both to continue to rise in line.
  690
  I was dealing with our attempts to tackle the problems of the current year and to ensure that next year's arrangements work much better and provide the greater certainty to schools—and, indeed, to local authorities—that we all want to see. One key element will flow from the lack of change to the local government formula, which I described in response to the question asked by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green). That will help. Further certainty will be provided by the commitment of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to continue the standards fund. We have accepted that it will involve the continuation of a ring-fenced grant. That is a concession on our part, because our objective is to reduce the overall level of ring-fencing—[Interruption.] No, it is a pragmatic approach to deal with a problem that inevitably caused difficulty. A ring-fenced grant such as the standards fund is targeted specifically at a certain area. If it is rolled into the general grant, the distribution is inevitably different. That was one of the problems that caused last year's difficulties. Recognising that fact, we want to ensure that the problem is not replicated. That is why we are going to continue with the grant for the moment.
  A third element is giving earlier indications of the minimum per-pupil increases. That is a clear commitment by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to ensure that schools have much greater certainty at an earlier stage, because last year the figures emerged relatively late in the budget-making process and that was a difficulty for schools. Of course, we also want to see earlier decisions on the local authority settlement. That is difficult, because—as with so many other issues, a tension exists.
  Local authorities tell us repeatedly that they want the earliest possible indication of the provisional settlement. That is not surprising. They also tell us that they want us to use the latest available data. However, much of the data only becomes available late in the process. One of the key elements, from the education point of view, is the secondary school pupil numbers, which are being collated only now. By the time they are collected, checked and passed to us, it will be later in the process, and that is an inevitable constraint.
  We could, of course, give earlier provisional settlement figures if we worked on figures that were a year out of date, but local government wants us to use up-to-date figures. I understand that. It is a reasonable request and we try to accommodate it. That is why our aim will be to produce the provisional settlement by the middle of November. We are working hard to make that possible. It will not be easy and it will require enormous hard work by my officials to achieve it, but we are committed to do it to help to provide greater certainty.
  Additionally, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills has pledged additional funding and we have given a similar pledge to ensure that all authorities are able to passport 100 per cent. of the schools funding requirement without having to take funding from other areas or increase council tax disproportionately. Increases in council tax have been far too high in recent years and it is essential that councils moderate their demands in future. The public

  691
  are far from happy with the excessive increases, which came predominantly from Conservative authorities. We will watch very closely the average increase in council tax, which was significantly higher—by five or six percentage points—in Conservative areas than in Labour areas and, indeed, Liberal Democrat areas. It is Conservatives who have driven up the council tax, and we will watch that closely in the coming months.
  Mr. Edward Davey: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Raynsford: I do not have time to give way.
  All the issues that I have mentioned have involved detailed discussion with local education authorities, schools, local authorities and relevant Departments. For those reasons, we have not been able to make full announcements on all the points about which the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West asked me. We are discussing them with local authorities and schools. That is the right approach to ensure agreement and engagement, and to get the mechanisms right.
  The hon. Gentleman acknowledged—I thank him for doing so—that we are making an honest attempt to ensure that the problems that occurred this year will not he repeated next year. That is what we are determined to do. He asked about the certainty of the provisional settlement. The answer is that we publish the provisional settlement and give local authorities a period of time to respond to it and make submissions. We will consider those and then confirm the final settlement. However, I can say that the practice in recent years has been that the final settlement has not differed from the provisional settlement to any marked degree. I hope that that provides some certainty.
  We have also introduced a system of floors and ceilings to give local authorities confidence that they will not face a wide variation in the amount of funding with which they have to budget. All those changes are designed to improve the arrangements and give a better settlement in the coming year. The final question the hon. Gentleman asked was about the teachers' pay settlement. That is still in the hands of the School Teachers Review Body and we are awaiting the outcome.
  The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton raised wider issues of local authority finance. He knows that we are conducting the balance of funding review, and that is the right formula to address those wider issues. This year, we are not concentrating on the longer term issues but on getting the mechanisms right to overcome the practical problems that occurred with the distribution of the 2003–04 settlement and the impact on schools. Getting that right for 2004–05 is our fundamental objective. We are working hard at it and we will continue to do so. Our aim is to achieve a proper framework that provides certainty for schools and ensures that the additional money that the Government are putting into education finds its way to the right places.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 44 to 56 agreed to [One with Special entry].
  Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments Nos. 3,6 and 19: Paul Clark, Mr. Edward Davey, Linda Gilroy, Mr. Philip Hammond and Phil Hope; Phil Hope to be the Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.—[Paul Clark.]
  To withdraw immediately.
  Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

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

  NORTHERN IRELAND
  That the draft Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Modification) (No. 2) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 3rd July, be approved.—[Gillian Merron.]
  Question agreed to.

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

  MARITIME TRANSPORT SECURITY
  That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 8566/03, Commission Communication on enhancing maritime transport security and draft Regulation on enhancing ship and port facility security; and supports the Government's continuing commitment to working with the European Union to that end.—[Gillian Merron.]
  Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
Ordered,
That Miss Anne McIntosh be discharged from the European Scrutiny Committee and Mr David Heathcoat-Amory be added.—[Gillian Merron.]

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

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

  WORKING TIME REGULATIONS
  Ordered,
  That the Working Time (Amendment) Regulations 2003 (S.I., 2003, No. 1684), be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Gillian Merron.]

  CARE STANDARDS
  Ordered,
  That the Care Standards Act 2000 (Domiciliary Care Agencies and Nurses Agencies) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2003 (S.I., 2003, No. 2323), be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Gillian Merron.]

PETITION

  New Town
  10.3 pm
  Mrs. Angela Browning: In 1997, I gave evidence at the examination in public in the city of Exeter on behalf of my constituents opposed to the building of a new town in the east Devon part of my constituency.
  Since that time, the district council and many constituents have tried to make their views known. Although they agree that there should be some building—perhaps a small settlement—a whole new town is not in the local interest.
  I am pleased that at the recent, new examination in public the chairman revisited the question of whether such a town was needed at all—something that we all welcome. I am pleased to present to the House the petition of Councillor Ruth Burrow and more than 15,000 residents of east Devon.
  The petition declares:
  We object to a new town being built in East Devon and therefore request that the House of Commons recognises the view of local residents that new development should be proportionate to identified local need, should provide a mix of housing and that new build should not just be concentrated in one location but should be spread throughout the County to ensure future viability of village and market town communities.
  And the Petitioners remain etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Probate Services
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Gillian Merron]
  10.5 pm
  Mr. Win Griffiths: I raise an issue this evening about what I admit I thought was an entirely natural view of one of my constituents. As he had been appointed with enduring power of attorney over his aunt's financial affairs, he thought he would automatically become the administrator of the estate when she died, as there was no will. He found that he did not have that right, so I should like to consider that issue, as well as how the probate office deals with approaches for the administration of estates. I have already corresponded with the then Lord Chancellor's Department about the issue.
  The story starts on 24 February 2000, when one of my constituents, John Weaver, was appointed with enduring power of attorney for his aunt, Enid Jenkins. In September 2000, Enid Jenkins was admitted from hospital to Darren Court residential home in Baglan, Port Talbot, run by David Weaver, her nephew, and an elder cousin of John Weaver. Within weeks, on 19 November 2000, a letter, purportedly signed by Enid Jenkins, claimed that she had never asked anyone to look after her financial affairs and did not want John Weaver to look after them. On 10 January 2002, she had purportedly signed another letter, claiming that John Weaver had got her to sign a form when she was most unwell—in fact, so unwell that she could not remember being in hospital, let alone signing his form. It was her intention to attend the Court of Protection hearing in February.
  On 8 February 2001, the Court of Protection hearing took place. By 1 March, the Court of Protection confirmed that John Weaver was the person who had enduring power of attorney and that everything had been done properly. Unfortunately and sadly, a couple of days later, on 3 March, Enid Jenkins died. On 6 March, John Weaver registered her death and went about arranging the funeral. On 14 March, he received a letter from another relative informing him that David Weaver had become the administrator of their aunt's estate after applying to the probate office. David Weaver was not the closest relative of Enid Jenkins, and I should like to know whether it is on record that the eldest cousin ceded his right to be the administrator of the estate.
  Two years and six months later, despite the house of the late Enid Jenkins being sold more than 14 months ago, the accounts of the estate have not been settled and published. Moreover, the house was sold by the administrator, David Weaver, to the eldest cousin who had given up his right to be administrator, either officially or otherwise: he certainly did not take up that right. In January and February of this year, I wrote to David Weaver on behalf of John Weaver, seeking information about the estate, but I did not even get the courtesy of an acknowledgement, let alone an answer to any of the questions.
  John Weaver feels very strongly that, as his aunt, Enid Jenkins, had given him the power to look after her financial affairs when she was alive, it would have been natural for him to become the administrator of her
  696
  estate when a will could not be found. It is particularly galling to my constituent that the person who was the prime mover in the effort to get him removed from his power of attorney on behalf of Enid Jenkins should, in effect, have taken over that role on her death by becoming the administrator of the estate.
  The issue is simple. I share my constituent's concern about these issues, and I look forward to my hon. Friend's response as to why the apparently natural move from power of attorney to administrator of the estate does not take place. I would also be interested to know exactly what steps were taken to make sure that David Weaver was in fact the proper person to be the administrator of the estate, given that he was not the closest relative of Enid Jenkins. I look forward to my hon. Friend's reply.
  10.10 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs(Mr. David Lammy): I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this short debate.
  I thank my hon. Friend for raising issues surrounding the granting of letters of administration to Mr. David Weaver. Mr. David Weaver wished to administer the estate on behalf of his aunt, Miss Enid Jenkins. In essence, my hon. Friend raises matters of principle relating, first, to enduring powers of attorney and, secondly, to the administration of intestate estates. Perhaps he will therefore excuse me if I outline briefly what those two things are.
  A power of attorney is a power to act on behalf of someone else. The person may be temporarily physically incapacitated and need someone to conduct business on their behalf, or they may be due to go abroad for a long period and need someone to collect rents, pay taxes and so on. It is entirely a matter for the individual to decide to whom to give power and what powers the attorney can have. That sort of power of attorney ceases to have effect if the person who made it dies or loses mental capacity. An enduring power of attorney differs from an ordinary power, as it can survive the loss of an individual's mental capacity provided that it is registered with the Court of Protection.
  When a person dies intestate—without leaving a will—his or her estate is distributed according to a scheme laid down by the section 26 of the Administration of Estates Act 1925, as amended. Entitlement under this scheme, which is designed to reflect the wishes of the average person, varies according to which relatives, if any, survive the deceased. The estate is distributed in a strict order of priority: to the spouse; to children of the deceased and the issue of any who has predeceased that person; if none, to the parents of the deceased; if none, to the brothers or sisters of the deceased; if none, to the grandparents; and if none, to uncles or aunts. When there are no relatives, or none can be found, the estate passes to the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster or the Duchy of Cornwall.
  There is a distinction between attorneys and the administrator of an estate. The attorney acts on behalf of the person who chooses them. The administrator must act according to a set of rules, because the deceased person did not make a will.
  As I said, my hon. Friend raises these issues on behalf of his constituent, Mr. John Weaver. Mr. John Weaver is a relative of Miss Jenkins. Miss Jenkins appointed him

  697
  to act for her, as her attorney, by an enduring power of attorney in February 2000, which allowed him to deal with her assets during her lifetime. That is very important.
  In order for an enduring power to be used during the mental incapacity of the person, it must be registered with the Court of Protection. The attorney applied to the Court of Protection to register the enduring power of attorney in July 2000. As part of the process, he had to give notice of the application to certain relatives. Mr. David Weaver and most of the other nieces and nephews objected to the application on various grounds.
  The objections were considered by the master of the Court of Protection at a hearing on 8 February 2001. John Weaver, David Weaver and other relatives attended the hearing. The court carefully considered all the evidence, but it decided to dismiss the objections and ordered that the enduring power of attorney be registered. The attorney was also ordered to account to solicitors annually.
  As I have said, an enduring power—like any power of attorney—lasts only for the lifetime of the person who made it. It is automatically revoked on death, and the Court of Protection cancels a registered power when the person has died. The estate of the deceased is then dealt with under probate law in the way that any other person's estate is dealt with.
  A few weeks after the hearing about the enduring power, Miss Jenkins passed away. This ended the Court of Protection's jurisdiction over her affairs. As no will was found, Miss Jenkins died intestate. Mr. John Weaver, as her former attorney, felt that it would have been appropriate that he be granted letters of administration so that he could administer her estate. He was entitled to apply; he did not apply. Mr. David Weaver applied and obtained them.
  I come now to the issue of the letters of administration in this case. Miss Jenkins died on 3 March 2001 and on 12 March of that year, David Victor Weaver applied to the Probate Registry of Wales for a grant of letters of administration of Miss Jenkins's estate. Mr. Weaver applied personally, without the assistance of a solicitor. In his application, David Weaver swore upon oath that Miss Jenkins died without leaving a will, and that she was a spinster whose closest living relatives were the seven children of her five half brothers and sisters. All her half brothers and sisters had predeceased her.
  In these circumstances, any of Miss Jenkins's half-nieces and nephews are entitled to apply for letters of administration of her estate. When there is any dispute between persons interested in an estate, the issue of probate or letters of administration may be delayed until those disputes are resolved, by any of the parties entering a caveat. No caveat was entered in Miss Jenkins's estate.
  On 29 March 2001, letters of administration of Miss Jenkins's estate were granted to David Victor Weaver on the basis that he was the son of Ivor Weaver, one of Miss Jenkins's half-brothers, who had died in her lifetime. His entitlement to take letters of administration was equal to that of Miss Jenkins's other half-nieces and nephews and there was no need for him to notify or obtain the agreement of any of the others. If my hon.
  698
  Friend is suggesting that there are closer relatives to the deceased than the half-nephews and nieces, it is a serious matter about which the probate registrar should be notified. However, he should be clear that age is not a criteria for the order in which the hierarchy should work.
  As the administrator of Miss Jenkins's estate, David Weaver is required by the Administration of Estates Act 1925 to collect her assets, pay her debts and distribute the remainder of her estate among those entitled to it. In these circumstances, the estate falls to be divided equally among her half-nephews and nieces. David Weaver gave a sworn undertaking to administer the estate according to the law and, when required, to supply a full inventory of the estate and give an account of that to the court.
  On 8 April 2001, John Weaver, who had been Miss Jenkins's attorney under an enduring power of attorney, as my hon. Friend said, entered into correspondence with the Probate Registry of Wales and expressed concerns that he had not received his proper share of Miss Jenkins's estate. If a beneficiary has concerns about the administration of an estate, he may issue a summons requesting an order that requires the administrator to file in court an inventory and account of his administration of the estate. That will usually provide sufficient information to the beneficiary either to set his mind at rest or to suggest that further action should be taken. On four occasions, the deputy district probate registrar of Wales suggested to John Weaver that he should consider issuing a summons for an inventory and account of the estate, but he has not, as yet, done so.
  As far as the administration of an estate is concerned, it is assumed that those who stand to inherit from an estate should have a vested interest in seeing that it is promptly and properly distributed. The law therefore provides that the order of priority for those eligible to make an application for letters of administration is the same as for those who benefit. The law also provides that if there are no surviving relatives or if surviving relatives do not wish to take out a grant, a grant may be issued to the Treasury Solicitor on behalf of the Crown. The present law therefore provides adequately for the issue of a grant and for the estate to be administered. The process is clear, tried and tested and works well. It is our view that it is unnecessary to change it.
  It is difficult to understand what purpose would be served by joining holders of an enduring power of attorney to the eligible class of those who may apply to administer an intestate estate. A person with an EPA could bring nothing extra to the administration that the present class cannot provide, especially because he might not be a relative of the deceased. Unless there is agreement to the contrary from beneficiaries, there is no room for discretion when administering the estate—it must be administered as set out in the intestacy rules. In addition, if the EPA holder were not a beneficiary, it would produce a situation in which a person from outside the family administered the estate for family members. That would be against the whole policy intention behind the intestacy rules, which limit involvement in administration to the family of the deceased who are beneficiaries. In addition, the only logical place to put attorneys is between family members and the Crown. However, their function would then be only to distribute the estate to the family or simply to pass the estate to the Crown.

  699
  Finally, as I have already said, the purpose of an EPA and that of a grant of representation are quite different. The first is used to look after the affairs of people during their lifetime in such a way as to benefit them most. The purpose of letters of administration is to distribute the deceased's estate among the beneficiaries in accordance with rules laid down by law. They are separate functions; it does not follow that because a person holds an enduring power of attorney they are automatically suitable to be granted letters of administration.
  The review of probate services that was conducted in 2001 made recommendations for the modernisation of certain aspects of the service, including the conduct of personal applications such as Mr. Weaver's. A public consultation on the main recommendations concluded on 28 February 2003; officials are analysing the responses.
  700
  The whole thrust of Government policy in this area is, properly, to encourage people to make wills—to set out their precise intent during their lifetime to avoid family disputes. Where disputes arise, family members must make their application for the grant on the basis of the intestacy laws.
  I hope that I have explained to my hon. Friend why there is a clear distinction between having an enduring power of attorney during someone's lifetime—whereby one is clearly aware of that person's intent, having been asked to do a job of work for them—and a situation in which someone dies having failed to make a will, whereupon the state takes over and the estate is administered under the intestacy laws.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Ten o'clock.

Solicitor-General

  Child Abuse
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General what percentage of the care home abuse cases have been rejected by the Crown Prosecution Service since 1997. [128390]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service does not maintain a central database of cases, and 'care home abuse cases' do not form a separate category of offence. The information requested could be obtained only by examining every case file and would therefore incur disproportionate costs.

  Recently, ACPO undertook a study that concluded that between 1997 and 2000 the CPS rejected 79 per cent. of cases of institutional child abuse referred to it. Of the cases that were prosecuted, convictions were achieved in 83 per cent. of cases.

  Fraud (Small Businesses)
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Solicitor-General what guidance she has issued to the Crown Prosecution Service on the prosecution of crimes involving fraud against small businesses. [128965]

  The Solicitor-General
  In March this year, I arranged and attended a meeting between the CPS, the SFO and the Federation of Small Businesses.

  I have had discussions with colleagues in the DTI about the importance of tackling fraud against small business.

  In July of this year, the Home Office published their report on responses to their consultation on business crime.

  Victims/Witnesses
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General what targets were set by the CPS in 2002–03 on meeting the needs of victims and witnesses in the criminal justice system, in co-operation with other criminal justice agencies; and what the performance results are of these targets. [128719]

  The Solicitor-General
  Meeting the needs of victims and witnesses in the criminal justice system, in co-operation with other criminal justice agencies was a specific Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) objective in 2002-03 and is set out in the 2002-03 CPS Annual Report.

  Two targets were set: firstly, to pay 100 per cent. of correctly completed witness expense claims within 10 days; and secondly, to increase to 94 per cent. the proportion of replies to complaints within 10 days.
  494W
  In respect of the first target, CPS performance improved compared with 2001–02. During 2002–03, 99.8 per cent. of witness expenses were paid within agreed timescales compared with 98.2 per cent. in 2001–02.

  The second target was not met, although CPS performance improved considerably compared with 2001–02. Timely replies were made in 89.2 per cent. of cases in 2002–03, compared with 81.9 per cent. of cases in 2001–02.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General what steps the Crown Prosection Service has taken to improve the service to(a) victims and (b) witnesses of crime. [128858]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is working to improve the service that victims and witnesses of crime receive. This includes working with the Home Office and other criminal justice system agencies in developing the Government's recently published national strategy to deliver improved services to victims and witnesses.

  The CPS has fully implemented the direct communication with victims initiative, whereby prosecutors provide reasons to victims for decisions to drop or substantially alter charges. A meeting to provide a further explanation should also be offered in cases involving death, child abuse, sexual offences, racial offences or offences with a homophobic element.

  In relation to vulnerable or intimidated witnesses, the CPS is continuing to work closely with the Home Office and others to implement measures recommended in the report Speaking up for Justice, given statutory force by the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. In July 2002, video recorded statements became admissible as evidence in chief in crown court proceedings for children under 17 and for vulnerable adults. In the crown court, the provision to give evidence by way of TV link is also available to children, vulnerable adults and intimidated witnesses. The CPS undertook a comprehensive training programme to ensure that staff were fully aware of the issues raised by the new measures. By March 2003, over 1000 CPS staff had been trained.

  In relation to general victim and witness care, the CPS is working with ACPO and the Office for Public Service Reform on piloting a Victim and Witness Care Project that builds on the developing working relationship between the police and the CPS. Five pilot Areas (Gwent, North Wales, West Midlands, Essex and South Yorkshire) were established in July 2003. The pilot will run until March 2004.

  In all pilot Areas, police officers will undertake a needs assessment for all victims and witnesses. If criminal proceedings are commenced, dedicated witness care staff will manage delivery of information and support to witnesses throughout the life of a case.

  The CPS has also been conducting a public consultation on whether prosecutors should be permitted to conduct pre-trial interviews with prosecution witnesses in order to assess their reliability.
  495W
  The consultation period ended on 2 1 July 2003 and the report is due to be placed before the Attorney-General in the autumn of 2003.

  Street Crime
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas

  To ask the Solicitor-General what steps are being taken by the CPS to target street crime in each hot spot street crime area. [128723]

  The Solicitor-General
  Since Aril 2002, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has worked in partnership with the police and the courts to target street crime in the 10 areas with the biggest robbery problem.

  As a result, levels of street crime in these 10 areas have been reduced by 17 per cent. and conviction rates have been improved.

  The CPS has played a central role by developing a premium service for street crime cases whereby experienced prosecutors get 'in early and stay late'. The elements of the premium service are:
  pre-charge advice to police to get the charge right first time;
  close working with police to improve file quality and timeliness;
  reduce the discontinuance rate of street crime cases;
  improve case progression in partnership with courts;
  monitoring ineffective and cracked trials; and
  provide extra care and attention to victims and witnesses.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General what percentage of the CPS's area business managers were new appointments in 2002–03. [128837]

  The Solicitor-General
  During the financial year 2002–03, 71 per cent. of Area Business Managers were new appointments.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many cases were dealt with by the Crown Prosecution Service in(a) 2002–03 and (b) 2001–02. [128853]

  The Solicitor-General
  In 2002–03 the Crown Prosecution Service dealt with cases in respect of 1,435,763 defendants in magistrates courts of which 125,709 proceeded to the Crown court. In 2001–02 the figures were 1,359,205 in magistrates courts, of which 115,014 proceeded to the Crown court.

  The magistrates court figures include some non-criminal proceedings and advice cases that may not have resulted in prosecution. Crown court figures include appeals and committals for sentence.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many defendants were prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service in(a) magistrates courts and (b) the Crown Court in (i) 2002–03 and (ii) 2001–02. [128854]

  The Solicitor-General
  In 2002–03 the Crown Prosecution Service prosecuted 1,362,312 defendants in magistrates courts, of which 94,546 proceeded to the Crown Court. The comparable figures for 2001–02 were 1,304,185 defendants prosecuted in magistrates courts, of which 84,335 proceeded to the Crown Court. These figures exclude non-criminal proceedings and advice cases, appeals and committals for sentence.
  496W
  The number of defendants prosecuted by the CPS rose over the two year period. In magistrates courts there was an increase of 58,127, or 4.5 per cent. In the Crown Court there was an increase of 10,211 defendants, or 12.1 per cent.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many(a) summary cases and (b) indictable or either way cases were received by the Crown Prosecution Service in 2002–03. [128859]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service holds no central records showing the type of charge in cases received: rather the information is recorded when the case is eventually completed.

  In 2002–03 the Service dealt with 796,742 defendants in summary proceedings in magistrates courts, and 565,570 in either way and indictable only proceedings in the magistrates courts and the Crown court.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General what change there has been in the volume of pre-charge advices provided to the police by the Crown Prosection Service since 2001–02. [128860]

  The Solicitor-General
  Pending the implementation of the charging scheme in the Criminal Justice Bill, the police and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) are establishing non-statutory arrangements (based on those which were piloted in 2002) which involve their working together more closely pre-charge. One element is the provision of early CPS advice through a duty prosecutor routinely stationed at busy police stations or charging centres. These arrangements, which in some Areas are still at the planning stage, should be in operation in all Areas by the end of the year. Prior to the charging pilot, advices sought by the police from most forces were usually limited to a few cases involving substantial legal difficulty. Frequently, advice was sought after charge when many of the issues were already decided and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) intervention would often involve a reversal of previous police decisions. In the charging pilot last year over 6,100 advices were sought by the police during the period of CPS attendance.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General what the Crown Prosecution Service budget was for(a) 2002–03 and (b) 2001–02. [128862]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service resource budget was(a) £464 million for 2002–03 and (b) £402 million for 2001–02.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many additional lawyers the CPS employed in 2002–03 [128873]

  The Solicitor-General
  The number of lawyers in post has increased by 237 during the period from 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003, when the total stood at 2,267.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General what percentage of CPS staff work in areas prosecuting or supporting the prosecution of offenders. [128874]

  The Solicitor-General
  All staff in the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) are employed to ensure that the CPS can fulfil its statutory functions, namely prosecuting offenders. A table showing the percentage of staff working in different functional areas follows.
  497W

  Functional area

  Percentage

  Areas

  88.1

  HQ casework

  2.6

  HQ policy

  1.2

  Headquarters

  4.3

  Service centres

  3.8

  Total

  100

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will make a statement on guidance issued to the Crown Prosecution Service on the conduct of cases involving domestic violence. [129395]

  The Solicitor-General
  Cases involving domestic violence are conducted in accordance with the Crown Prosecution Service revised policy on prosecution of cases of domestic violence issued in November 2001. The policy focuses on the safety of the victim and children, while holding abusers accountable for their actions. The CPS is committed to supporting victims by, where appropriate, the use of special measures and, wherever possible, by constructing cases on the basis of evidence other than that of the victim.

  The CPS network of domestic violence co-ordinators facilitates implementation of the revised policy, assists in providing training and shares and promotes good practice and a consistency of approach across the 42 areas.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many people in the Law Officers' department had a role in advice given on the legality of the continued occupation of Iraq. [128964]

  The Solicitor-General
  There are two officials in the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers who assist in dealing with any questions of international law relating to Iraq. There is a longstanding convention, followed by successive governments, that neither the substance of Law Officers' advice, nor the fact that they have been consulted, is publicly disclosed. This is consistent with paragraphs 2 and 4(d) of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Criminal Justice Reform
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General what new structures have been developed to manage delivery and reform of the CJS at national and local levels. [128724]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Government established a National Criminal Justice Board and 42 Local Criminal Justice Boards following recommendations made by Lord Justice Auld in his review of the Criminal Courts and as part of a wider package of Criminal Justice reform announced in the White Paper "Justice for All".

  At a national level, a National Criminal Justice Board comprising CJS Ministers, senior officials from the Home Office, the CPS, the Department for Constitutional Affairs and senior representatives from the police and the judiciary, is responsible for
  498W
  supporting Local Boards in delivery of the PSA targets and for managing the Government's overall CJS reform programme.

  Through the Local Boards, chief officers from the police, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), the Probation Service, Prisons, Youth Offender Teams and the courts are working together locally to bring more offenders to justice and to improve public confidence in the Criminal Justice System (CJS).

  Criminal Trials
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many criminal trials collapsed as a result of witnesses receiving payment from media organisations in each of the last 10 years. [127660]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) keeps a wide range of statistical information on matters pertaining to the prosecution of cases, as do the courts and other criminal justice agencies. Data is gathered by CPS on generic reasons leading to unsuccessful case outcomes but this does not extend to specific and unusual acts, such as a witness receiving payment from a media organisation.

  Crown Court Cases
  Mrs Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General what percentage of cases in the Crown court resulted in a conviction in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03. [128856]

  The Solicitor-General
  In 2001–02 the Crown Prosecution secured convictions in 73.3 per cent. of Crown court cases. This rose to 74.5 per cent. in 2002–03.

  Mrs Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General what percentage of defendants who pleaded not guilty in the Crown court were convicted in 2002–03. [128857]

  The Solicitor-General
  In 2002–03, the Crown Prosecution Service secured convictions in respect of 61.9 per cent. of all defendants who pleaded not guilty and whose cases proceeded to a contested hearing in the Crown court.

  Magistrates Courts
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General what the discontinuance rate was in magistrates court cases in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03. [128861]

  The Solicitor-General
  Discontinuances—those cases in which a decision is made not to proceed before evidence is heard by the court—fell from 16.2 per cent. of all magistrates court cases prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service in magistrates courts in 2001–02 to 15.5 per cent. in 2002–03. These figures include cases in which the defendant was bound over without a trial being held.

  Mrs Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General what percentage of prosecutions in the magistrates courts secured a conviction in 2002–03; and how many defendants pleaded or were found guilty. [128855]
  499W
  The Solicitor-General
  In 2002–03 the Crown Prosecution Service secured convictions in 76.8 per cent. of all prosecutions in the magistrates courts. This figure comprised 811,583 guilty pleas and 166,909 verdicts of guilty after trial.

  Vulnerable Adults (Video Evidence)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General what definition is used of a vulnerable adult as it relates to the admissibility of video recorded statements as evidence in chief in Crown Court proceedings. [128726]

  The Solicitor-General
  Chapter 1 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 provides for a witness to be eligible as a vulnerable adult for assistance by the use of video recorded evidence if the court considers that the quality of the evidence given by the witness is likely to be diminished by reason of any of the following circumstances:(i)the witness suffers from a mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983; or
  (ii)otherwise has a significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning; or
  (iii)that the witness has a physical disability or is suffering from a physical disorder.
  The court will consider any views expressed by the witness pursuant to section 16 (4) of the Act.

  Once a witness is deemed eligible, then in relation to adult vulnerable witnesses, the court needs to be satisfied that the video will maximise the quality of their evidence.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Building Works
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission what work is outstanding on(a) Norman Shaw North, (b) Norman Shaw South and (c) Portcullis House; and what the estimated completion date is. [128789]

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  No work is outstanding in Norman Shaw North other than routine maintenance.

  In Norman Shaw South the refurbishment contractor has defects liability until February 2004 and he will attend to any items as necessary. The design consultant has liability to resolve window closure details and an issue in connection with air conditioning design. Also, some minor alterations were requested by the Accommodation and Works Committee for execution this summer.

  In Portcullis House the water feature contractor is currently fulfilling his defects liability and the fenestration contractor has one item remaining from his defects schedule which is to be dealt with in September.

  Parliamentary Ticket Office
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, how much the Houses of Parliament ticket office has cost in each year since its construction. [127949]
  500W
  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  During the period of the trial opening (2000 and 2001) of the summer line of route, tickets were on sale in Westminster Hall. Following the Houses' decision to put the arrangement on a permanent footing, and pending the outcome of discussions with Westminster City Council as the local planning authority and with English Heritage, a temporary facility on Abingdon Green was used as a ticket office in 2002. The cost was £53,500, of which the House of Commons share was £32,100.

  The permanent ticket office used this year for the first time has an estimated cost of £155,000 (the House of Commons share is £93,000). It will be dismantled and put into store during the winter and with due maintenance it is expected to be used each summer for at least 10 years. The annual cost will therefore be £15,500, of which the House of Commons' share will be £9,300.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission what the cost of constructing the Houses of Parliament ticket office was; what the cost of storing the ticket office until 2004 will be; which company has been selected to store the ticket office until 2004; and if he will make a statement. [128788]

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  The permanent ticket office used this year for the first time has an estimated cost of £155,000 (the House of Commons share is £93,000). It will be dismantled and put into store during the winter and with due maintenance it is expected to be used each summer for at least 10 years. The annual cost will therefore be £15,500, of which the House of Commons' share will be £9,300.

  Tenders are to be invited shortly for the dismantling, storage, maintenance and re-erection of the building for the next four years.

  Recycling
  Norman Baker
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission (1) what percentage of the paper collected for recycling was(a) recycled within the UK and (b) exported for recycling in each of the last three years; [127225]

  (2) what percentage of paper collected for recycling was recycled in each of the last three years; and what steps he takes to ensure this happens. [127226]

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  The parliamentary waste management contractor mixes waste paper from all sources at his recycling plant and is not able separately to measure the weight from any one source which has gone to UK or overseas paper makers.

  All the paper collected for recycling in the Palace and the northern outbuildings has been recycled, unless there were any isolated incidents where the staff of the cleaning contractor misdirected sacks intended for recycling.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission what items can be recycled by hon. and right hon. Members and their staff; and if he will make a statement. [128786]
  501W
  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  Waste paper from Members' offices may be recycled by using the special bins provided and metals may be recycled by using the general office waste bins. Glass may be recycled by leaving it at the waste centres at Peers' Inner Court in the Palace and at 1 Canon Row.

CABINET OFFICE

  Civil Contingencies
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans there are for civil emergency exercises(a) in London and (b) elsewhere in the next 12 months. [128657]

  Mr. Alexander
  In London, the London Resilience Partnership of the emergency services, health services, local authorities, utilities and transport agencies have a continuous programme of training and exercises. These comprise tabletop exercises, live exercises and training events.

  Elsewhere, a nationwide rolling programme of exercises ensures that we have robust and well-practised contingency plans in place to respond to a whole range of civil emergency incidents. The main activity is carried out at the local and regional level by local authorities and the emergency services. These exercises are based on risk assessments which include natural, technological or man-made crises; for example, exercises cover key facilities such as airports, nuclear power stations and chemical complexes. It is complemented by a cross-governmental programme.

  Under the broader cross-governmental programme, on the counter-terrorist side, the Home Office carries out three major exercises per annum plus a number of smaller scale exercises. Other exercises cover the health service response and consequence management of CBRN-related emergencies.

  On non-terrorist disruptive challenges, future exercises include the testing of the response to oil pollution, civil nuclear emergency response, foot-and-mouth contingency testing, chemical spills, flood management and a fuel shortage and its impact on the food supply chain.

  The UK also plans to participate in exercises with international partners and fora.

  Government Vehicles
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) what arrangements there are for the disposal of(a) ministerial and (b) departmental vehicles; and if he will make a statement; [128796]

  (2) what the average time is that ministerial cars have been kept in operational service; and if he will make a statement. [128799]

  Mr. Alexander
  The responsibility for the provision of ministerial cars and drivers has been delegated under the terms of the Framework Document to the Government Car Despatch Agency. I have asked its Chief Executive Mr Nick Matheson to write to the hon. Member. Copies of his letter will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Mike Hall
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what percentage of appointees to UK Government sponsored public bodies are(a) disabled people and (b) people with minority ethnic backgrounds. [128059]

  Mr. Alexander
  Further to my written statement on 16 July 2003,Official Report, column 49WS, I would like to correct the figure given for the percentages of disabled public appointees to public bodies and those with a minority ethnic background. As at 31 March 2003, 5.3 per cent. of public appointments are held by people with a minority ethnic background and 3.1 per cent. by disabled people. Information about the public bodies sponsored by UK Government Departments, and those appointed to serve on them, is available in Public Bodies 2003, revised copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what progress has been made by the Department in increasing the number of women seeking public appointments since May 2001. [129457]

  Mr. Alexander
  Each Government Department handles the public appointments process for the non-departmental public bodies for which it is responsible.

  I will shortly be publishing the annual report on increasing diversity in public appointments, which will contain a section for each department, on their activity, including progress to date against their individual targets for increasing diversity on the boards of the public bodies for which they are responsible. Copies of the report will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Wherever possible, my Department encourages individuals from under-represented groups to apply for appointments by clear job descriptions and person specifications, which do not contain unnecessary requirements which might discourage or eliminate their applications.

  In addition, my Department actively seeks to identify suitable women candidates through approaches to the Women and Equality Unit at the Department of Trade and Industry and the Women's National Commission.

  The progress made by my department is shown in the table.

  Total number of appointments

  Womem (percentage)

  20011,2

  103

  32

  20021,2

  101

  34

  20032

  94

  35

  1For comparison excludes the Women's National Commission and the Equal Opportunities Commission, which transferred to the Department of Trade and Industry in May 2002.

  2 Information is collected as at 31 March.

  E-Envoy
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans he has to retain the post of e-Envoy after the termination of the contract of the present office holder. [129127]
  503W
  Mr. Alexander
  The e-Envoy's contract has not been terminated. The current contract runs to April 2004, and succession planning decisions will not be made until closer to that date.

TRANSPORT

  Road Haulage Industry (Compensation Claims)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many claims for compensation were submitted to the French authorities after 1 January 1995 in respect of lorry blockades; and how many have been(a) paid in full, (b) paid in part and (c) not paid. [129259]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Following the lengthy disruption in France in November 1996, the Department offered hauliers assistance in submitting compensation claims to the relevant French authorities. Some 1,200 claims were handled in this way. All claims arising from these lorry blockades have been processed by the French authorities, and payment agreed in the case of all claims eligible under French law. The French authorities dealt directly with the cases and claimants were under no obligation to inform the Department of the outcome of their cases. We are, therefore, unable to provide information about amounts of compensation paid or refused.

  A12
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the(a) dates and (b) areas over the last 10 years, that roadworks have taken place for more than two weeks' duration on the A12 between the M25 turnoff and Wivenhoe, Essex. [128824]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have asked the Acting Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Stephen Hickey, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Hilary Chipping to Mr. Simon Burns, dated 15 September 2003:
  I have been asked by David Jamieson, on behalf of our Acting Chief Executive Stephen Hickey, to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about road works that have taken place on the A12 between the M25 turnoff and Wivenhoe, Essex.
  The table below provides information on road works since 1997 that have lasted longer than two weeks. I regret that we do not have details prior to 1997.

  A12 section

  Timing

  Chelmsford Bypass

  October 1997 to February 1998

  Mountnessing Bypass

  January 1999 to February 1999

  Boreham Bypass

  December 1999 to March 2000

  Brentwood Bypass Phase 1

  January 2001 to May 2001

  Hatfteld Peverel Bypass

  October 2001 to February 2002

  Brentwood Bypass Phase 2

  October 2002 to March 2003

  Witham Bypass

  August 2003 to December 2003

  I hope this is helpful.

  A27
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the A27 through Worthing will have been improved or replaced. [129416]
  504W
  Mr. Jamieson
  A number of small-scale improvements to ease congestion and improve safety are planned to be implemented by late 2004. In the longer term, following the Secretary of State's announcement on 9 July 2003, the Highways Agency has been asked to work with local authorities and statutory environmental bodies to identify schemes that are less damaging than those recommended by the South Coast Multi-Modal Study and reduce the need for major road construction. The Highways Agency are expected to report back in the middle of 2004, which will enable a decision on the way forward.

  A38
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many fatal accidents have occurred on the A38 in Devon between Marsh Mills roundabout, Plymouth and Ivybridge in the past five years. [129704]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There have been a total of five fatal accidents on the A38 in Devon between Marsh Mills roundabout, Plymouth and Ivybridge, in the past five years. There were two fatal accidents in 2001 and three fatal accidents in 2002.

  Air Transport
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to prevent airlines from intentionally overbooking flights; if he will issue guidance to airline companies on appropriate(a) levels of compensation and (b) alternative arrangements for passengers unable to board flights they booked; and if he will make a statement. [129217]

  Mr. McNulty
  Overbooking is an accepted practice among full-service scheduled airlines. On any particular flight there is likely to be a proportion of passengers, mainly from those holding flexible tickets, who do not check in. On the basis of statistical evidence from previous flights, airlines estimate the probable number of no-shows and overbook accordingly. On the great majority of flights no passengers are denied boarding, and by reducing the number of empty seats overbooking keeps fares lower than they would otherwise be. This practice is widely accepted by passenger organisations and by regulators as being in the best interests of consumers generally.

  In the comparatively small proportion of cases where denied boarding occurs, existing Community legislation requires Community air carriers to provide prescribed minimum levels of financial compensation, in addition to offering passengers a choice between re-routing and reimbursement. In December 2001 the European Commission presented a proposal for a regulation to increase levels of compensation to passengers denied boarding, as well as to require the provision of assistance to travellers affected by cancellations for commercial reasons or delays. Political agreement on this proposal was reached at Transport Council in December 2002, and it is currently subject to conciliation procedures involving the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission.
  505W
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to require signs at airports which are in English to carry equivalent information in other major European languages. [129250]

  Mr. McNulty
  The International Civil Aviation Organisation recommend that, as far as possible, symbols alone should be used without words and that, where words are found to be essential, the choice of languages should be determined having regard to the particular needs of air travellers and the general public. We consider that airport operators are best placed to judge whether any language other than English would be beneficial in conjunction with particular signs, and that it is not necessary or desirable to impose requirements on them in this respect.

  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of the revenues of airports at(a) Luton, (b) Heathrow, (c) Gatwick and (d) Stansted derive from parking charges. [128936]

  Dr. Howells
  In the case of Luton Airport, in the fiscal year to 31 March 2003 the proportion of car park revenue to total revenue was 21 per cent. For Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, the proportions were, respectively, 6 per cent., 9 per cent., and 20 per cent.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) pilots and (b) cabin crew have been diagnosed with deep vein thrombosis in each year since 1997. [129797]

  Mr. McNulty
  Based on an analysis of cases of venous thromboembolism (deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism) between 1990 and 2000, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) estimates that there is an incidence in pilots of 0.2 per 1,000 per year. The annual incidence for the northern European population as a whole is 1.6–1.8 per 1,000 per year. Records are not kept by the CAA on the health of cabin crew as this group, unlike professional pilots, are not required to have routine regulatory medical examinations.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what plans he has to implement a public awareness campaign on the risks of travel-related deep vein thrombosis; [129798]

  (2) what advice is available to British air travellers on travel health, with particular reference to measures to prevent travel-related deep vein thrombosis; and if he will make a statement. [129799]

  Mr. McNulty
  Advice on health and travel is widely available to the public in the Department of Health's 'Health advice for Travellers' booklet. The Government issued specific advice on travel-related deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in 2001, which has been made available to the public through NHS Direct, the internet, the airlines and health services. All UK long-haul carriers have produced information for their passengers, in pamphlets, videos or announcements, incorporating material contained in the Government's advice.

  The Department of Health has commissioned research, jointly funded with UK airlines, to evaluate the public perception of the risk of DVT and the awareness and use of information sources relating to DVT. One of the tasks of the new Aviation Health Unit
  506W
  that my Department is setting up within the Civil Aviation Authority will be to consider the results of this research as part of its remit to recommend and offer advice to air passengers and crew on aviation health issues.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the possible effects on the health of airport workers if an additional runway were to be built at Gatwick. [128998]

  Dr. Howells
  Analysis of air quality impact of options included in the consultation "The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom" is related to community exposure to ambient emission levels. This comparative analysis for strategic purposes is not intended to be exhaustive and no formal assessment has been made for the purposes of the White Paper. Airports, like other employers, are subject to Health and Safety requirements.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assessment he has made of(a) aircraft crossing runways, (b) wake vortices, (c) high ground, (d) turbulance from flying through a cutting and (e) proximity of the main railway line from building (i) one and (ii) two additional runways at Gatwick; [129000]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the risk of wake vortices from the building of a close parallel runway at Gatwick. [129005]

  Dr. Howells
  All the factors you have mentioned have been appropriately taken into account in the development of the options presented in the consultation. The constraints imposed by each factor vary in relation to each option. For instance, wake vortices are less of a problem where there is greater distance between two runways (i.e. the wide spaced two runway option). In the close parallel option, their potential effects can restrict operations to the dependent segregated mode (resulting in reduced movement capacity).

  Further information is contained in the Optioneering report for Gatwick, Stansted and Southampton airports, which was included in the package of SERAS documents made available as part of the consultation (document reference numbers 51 and 66). Although this information relates to options which differ somewhat from those presented in the consultation document, the differences between the options are small in this respect. The information therefore remains valid.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of aircraft using the proposed new wide spaced runway at Gatwick would need to cross the existing runway to reach the terminal buildings. [129001]

  Dr. Howells
  This information is not available. It would depend on the precise way in which the runways would be operated and the balance of aircraft parking space between and north of the runways.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what impact to the public safety zone related to the proposed new wide spaced runway at Gatwick would have on use of the main London to Brighton railway line. [129002]
  507W
  Dr. Howells
  The impact of the Public Safety Zone (PSZ) for the proposed wide-spaced runway on the use of the London to Brighton railway line is likely to be small. The focus of PSZs is on the risks associated with residential property and places where people congregate for significant time. These risks are greater than for road and rail traffic passing through the zones as the time spent stationery is relatively short.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by how much the high ground to the west would reduce the runway length available for take-offs in relation to the proposed new wide spaced runway at Gatwick. [129003]

  Dr. Howells
  Information on how the high ground to the west of the airport would reduce the runway length for take-offs is given in the Optioneering report for Gatwick, Stansted and Southampton airports, and included in the package of SERAS documents made available as part of the consultation (document reference number 51). Page 25 of the report states that the TODA (take-off distance available) would be reduced to about 2,550m. Although this information relates to a slightly different runway location it should be regarded only as an estimate and, therefore, remains broadly valid.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies he has made of the alternative plans produced by BAA for a close parallel runway at Gatwick; and what asessment he has made of the additional environmental impact of these plans. [129004]

  Dr. Howells
  As with all alternative options put forward during the consultation, we are considering these carefully.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much earth would need to be removed to make the proposed new north runway at Gatwick level with the rest of the existing airport. [129102]

  Dr. Howells
  This information is contained in the Optioneering report for Gatwick, Stansted and Southampton airports, and included in the package of SERAS documents made available as part of the consultation (document reference number 51). Page 28 of the report states that an estimated 18 million cubic metres of material would need to be removed to create a platform 1100 million wide. The corresponding draft layout plan for Gatwick with a possible new northern runway is shown in the associated document of figures, also available (document reference number 66, figure 4.4).

  Freight Transport
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the rail lines operated for freight purposes only, giving the mileage length of each line identified; and what assessment has been made of the potential use of each line for passenger traffic. [129251]

  Mr. McNulty
  The information on the first two points is contained in Appendix D of the "Review of Freight Charging Policy: Consultation on Costs", published by the Office of the Rail Regulator in November 2000. A copy of this document is obtainable from the Office of the Rail Regulator.
  508W
  There is no systematic assessment of the potential use of freight only lines for passenger traffic. Proposals submitted by local stakeholders to the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) are considered on a case by case basis, with each case being reviewed on its individual merits and against the SRA's planning criteria.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list in percentage terms the movement of freight within the United Kingdom by(a) road, (b) rail and (c) water for each year from 1996 to date. [129262]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information is in the following table.

  Percentage share of goods moved (tonne kilometres): United Kingdom

  Road

  Rail1

  Water

  Pipeline

  All modes2

  1996

  66

  6

  23

  5

  100

  1997

  68

  7

  20

  5

  100

  1998

  65

  7

  23

  5

  100

  1999

  64

  7

  24

  5

  100

  2000

  62

  7

  26

  4

  100

  2001

  64

  8

  24

  5

  100

  1Financial year figures.

  2 Figures for some years may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

  Harbour Revision Orders
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the laws regarding harbour revision orders; if he proposes to change them; and if he will make a statement. [130210]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We have no current plans to change the legislation governing harbour revision orders although we are always willing to consider changes either suggested to us or that stem from our own experiences in processing them.

  Public Transport
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he is making on the integration of public transport(a) timetables and (b) ticketing. [129455]

  Mr. McNulty
  My Department continues to support the traveline service, which offers integrated, multi-modal public transport route and timetable information through a single national telephone number. The service is now also available on the internet.

  The Transport Direct service will launch in early 2004. It will provide route, timetable and fare information for all modes of public and private transport and provide for the purchase of tickets. Transport Direct will initially be provided through an internet portal and, ultimately, it is hoped that access will also be possible via digital TV, mobile and WAP phones, other handheld devices and high street kiosks.

  Work is also continuing to encourage the PlusBus ticketing scheme that allows the addition of bus validity to national rail tickets. There are currently 102 stations participating in the PlusBus scheme, with a further 33 expected by the end of September 2003. A significant number of additions are expected next year.

  Road Deaths
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many traffic accidents resulted in a fatality in Crosby in each of the last five years. [129456]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Information is not available on the number of fatal traffic accidents in Crosby.

  The number of traffic accidents that have resulted in one or more fatalities in the local authority district of Sefton, which includes Crosby, are given in the table.

  Fatal Accidents

  1998

  7

  1999

  5

  2000

  8

  2001

  6

  2002

  9

  Shipping (Oil and Chemical Transfers)
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what regulations apply(a) within UK waters and (b) beyond the 12 mile limit, for the ship to ship transfer of oil and other chemicals. [129160]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Regulations specific to ship to ship transfer operations within UK waters, remain in draft form as a Statutory Instrument and Merchant Shipping Notice at this time. No specific regulations apply beyond the 12 mile limit.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what contingency plans are in place for dealing with spillages within and beyond the 12 mile limit from ship to ship oil and chemical transfers in Lyme Bay; and if he will make a statement. [129161]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Within the 12 mile limit of UK waters, transfers comply with draft legislation and include contingency planning for oil spills, mainly through the mechanism of Ship's Oil Pollution Emergency Plans (SOPEPS). Where cargoes being transferred are of a particularly persistent nature, appropriate oil recovery, collection and containment measures are also required in the form of a recovery vessel on stand-by throughout the operations.

  Beyond the 12 mile limit, but within the UK's Pollution Control Zone, which can stretch up to 200 miles off shore, pollution resulting from ship to ship transfers would be treated in the same way as marine pollution from any other source.

  Any Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) response would follow the National Contingency Plan for Marine Pollution from Shipping and Offshore Installations and would be tailored to the circumstances of the incident.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many incidents of oil and chemical spillage have been reported as a consequence of ship to ship transfers of oil and chemicals off the UK coast in each of the past five years. [129162]
  510W
  Mr. Jamieson
  There have been no incidents of oil and chemical spills as a consequence of ship to ship transfer operations off the UK coastline in any of the past five years.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many ship to ship transfers of oil and chemicals took place off the UK coastline in each of the last five years(a) in total and (b) broken down by Government office region. [129163]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A break down of the number of ship to ship transfers off the UK coastline in the last five years is given in the table:

  Year

  Total

  Broken down by Government office region

  1999

  1

  Scottish waters

  2000

  1

  South west

  2001

  5

  4 South west

  1 East

  2002

  3

  2 East

  1 South west

  2003 to date

  5

  3 South west

  2 East

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how his. Department monitors the ship to ship transfer of oil and chemicals off the UK coast. [129164]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are only two locations outside harbour limits and within UK waters where ship to ship transfers are allowed to take place, namely off Lyme Bay, Dorset and Southwold, Suffolk. The industry has accepted current craft regulations governing these transfers as a common standard.

  Agents for ship to ship transfers have to make an application to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency's (MCA) counter pollution branch at least 72 hours prior to the proposed transfer taking place. Permission for the transfer to proceed is only given after thorough assessment and may include limitations or specific requirements. Copies of the draft Statutory Instrument and Merchant Shipping Notice are supplied to the applicant for reference.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how his Department enforces regulations covering the ship to ship transfer of oil and chemicals off the UK coast(a) within the 12 mile limit and (b) beyond the 12 mile limit. [129165]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The regulations governing ship to ship transfers are currently in draft form through Statutory Instrument, The Merchant Shipping (Ship to Ship Transfers) Regulations 1999 and Merchant Shipping Notice 1739, Ship to Ship Transfers of Dangerous or Polluting Cargoes at Sea. Although these regulations remain in draft form, industry has accepted them as good working practice and their contents are applied when assessing and vetting applications for ship to ship transfers within UK water.

  There are no regulations controlling ship to ship transfer activities beyond the 12 mile limit.

  Thameslink 2000
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the future of the Thameslink 2000 project. [129320]

  Mr. McNulty
  Progress on Thameslink 2000 is dependent on securing approval of the necessary planning and other powers under the Transport and Works Act. The Strategic Rail Authority and Network Rail are currently working to address design deficiencies identified at public inquiry. If a viable and economic solution can be found, a revised proposal will be submitted for consideration in the TWA process.

  Traffic Calming
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions his Department has held with each of the emergency services regarding traffic calming schemes; and if he will make a statement. [128793]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department wrote to all local field operatives in the emergency services on 2 September 2003 encouraging them to work with local authorities whenever new traffic calming schemes are proposed. Similar letters were also sent to every local authority reminding them of the legal requirement to consult the emergency services wherever road humps are introduced. This letter also strongly urged local authorities to consult the emergency services when all other traffic calming measures are proposed.

  Rail Performance Statistics
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the most recent rail performance indicators from train operating companies. [129068]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Strategic Rail Authority publishes rail performance statistics in the quarterly National Rail Trends (NRT) and six-monthly On Track publications. Copies of both publications are placed in the Library of the House. The next edition of NRT will be published on 19 September 2003 and provide performance data for the quarter April to June 2003.

DEFENCE

  Afghanistan
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on NATO's leadership of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. [129034]

  Mr. Hoon
  Since 11 August 2003, NATO has given enhanced support to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Kabul, including providing the Headquarters for the Force. NATO has made an excellent start in its new role and the Alliance is now looking at ways to make the ISAF still more effective.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on security operations in Afghanistan. [129067]
  512W
  Mr. Ingram
  Coalition operations against remnants of the Taliban and their terrorist supporters continue, especially in the South and East of Afghanistan.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on military support for the government of Afghanistan. [129069]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have nothing to add to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 8 September 2003,Official Report, column 10.

  Aircraft Carriers
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which aircraft will be used on the new aircraft carriers. [128534]

  Mr. Ingram
  The primary aircraft for the Future Aircraft Carrier (CVF) will be the Short Take Off Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant of the Lockheed Martin F35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). CVF will have the capacity to operate a wide range of aircraft including that selected to provide maritime airborne surveillance and control and helicopters in a wide variety of roles that could include anti-submarine warfare, attack, surveillance and support. As CVF will be built to an innovative and adaptable design, it will be capable of modification to operate future generations of air platforms, such as aircraft requiring a catapult launch and arrested recovery.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the estimated conversion cost is for the Eurofighter Typhoon to operate from the new aircraft carriers. [128536]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 20 May 2003,Official Report, column 678W.

  British Army Training Unit Suffield
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the importance of the Canadian BATSU facility for the British Army. [129491]

  Mr. Ingram
  The British Army Training Unit Suffield (BATUS) facility fulfils a valuable role in the training of units and formations to bring them to the required readiness state.

  Campaign Medals
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the medal for those who served in the Suez Canal Zone between 1951 and 1954 will be available; and what arrangements have been made for its presentation. [129305]

  Mr. Caplin
  The four medal offices are preparing to issue medals to eligible veterans pending final agreement of the qualifying criteria. Stocks of the Naval General Service Medal 1915–62 and the General Service Medal 1918–62, their associated ribbons and the new clasp are being prepared by the medal offices in anticipation of that approval by Her Majesty. Once eligibility has been confirmed, the medal will be posted to the recipient.

  Chatham Dockyard (Radiation Records)
  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many former Chatham Dockyard workers have received their radiation dose records. [129735]

  Mr. Caplin
  241 workers have received radiation dose record summaries under the Ministry of Defence Radiation Workers Counselling Scheme.

  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many former Chatham Dockyard workers have been given estimated radiation dose records. [129736]

  Mr. Caplin
  It was necessary to enter estimated external doses into the statutory records of those radiation workers likely to receive higher radiation doses (called classified persons) when the film badge issued to these workers was lost or damaged. In such circumstances an estimated dose was entered onto an individual's dose record by entering doses from direct reading dosimeters worn by the individual. On the rare occasions when no dosimeter information was available, a calculation was made based upon time of exposure and radiation dose rates in areas where the individual worked. Since these details were entered onto individual records and there was no requirement to record the number of such events centrally, the numbers could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Compensation (Asbestosis)
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the average compensation per person paid by his Department to claimants suffering from asbestosis was in each of the last three years. [129706]

  Mr. Caplin
  The amount paid in compensation and the associated legal costs of cases brought against the Ministry of Defence are not in general recorded separately and could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost. The average amount paid in compensation and legal costs by the MOD to claimants suffering from asbestos related disease for the last three years was as follows:

  £

  2000–01

  35,556

  2002–02

  26,644

  2002–03

  36,233

  Contracts
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many contracts issued by his Department in the last five years have included no UK build. [128538]

  Mr. Ingram
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will ensure that all contracts awarded by his Department include a provision that a minimum of 50 per cent. of the work will be carried out in the UK K. [128539]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 13 January 2003,Official Report, columns 405–06W.

  Service Personnel (Religious Faith)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the armed forces profess(a) Christianity, (b) Judaism, (c) Islam, (d) Hinduism and (e) other faiths; how many chaplains from each faith are attached to the forces; and if he will make a statement. [129322]

  Mr. Caplin
  The numbers of armed forces personnel with the following recorded religion are:

  Religion

  Number

  Christianity

  191,985

  Judaism

  65

  Islam

  280

  Hinduism

  140

  Other

  925

  Note:

  Figures have been rounded to prevent disclosure of sensitive personal data and exclude those with no recorded or declared religion.

  There are 295 full-time commissioned chaplains in the armed forces, drawn from the main Christian denominations to which the majority of Service personnel belong. They have a responsibility to offer spiritual, moral and pastoral care to all Service personnel and their families, irrespective of religion or belief. The relatively small number of personnel from faiths other than Christianity, serving in a wide range of units and locations in the United Kingdom and overseas, does not at present justify the appointment of dedicated clergy from those faiths, but the position is kept under review. Leading members of the Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim and Sikh faiths have been appointed to act as religious advisers to the armed forces.

  Iraq
  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate the Department has made of(a) the number of Iraqi ammunition dumps and (b) the quantity of munitions in the British sector. [125699]

  Mr. Ingram
  As of the 3 September, the following caches of munitions have been found in the United Kingdom Area of operations:

  Number of caches

  Size

  Estimated quantity unexploded ordnance

  Types

  111

  Small

  500–1,000

  Various

  61

  ISO Container

  1,000–5,000

  Various

  8

  Multiple ISO Container

  5,000–10,000

  Various

  9

  Small Compound

  Over 10,000

  Various

  8

  Large Compound

  Over 100,000

  Various

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British casualties there were(a) during the conflict and (b) since the conflict in Iraq. [127391]

  Mr. Ingram
  As of 9 September United Kingdom Forces had suffered 49 fatalities, 33 during the conflict and 16 since. One member of the Defence Fire Services had also died after the conflict ended.
  515W
  Fifty-three personnel had been wounded, 40 during the conflict and 13 since. We only record centrally the number of wounded who received hospital treatment. Those that received local treatment and then returned to duty are not recorded.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his Answer of 17 July 2003,Official Report, column 484W, on Iraq (friendly fire incidents), if he will make the reports and recommendations of these investigations available to hon. Members and the public when inquiries are completed; and if he will make a statement. [128520]

  Mr. Ingram
  The purpose of the internal Service inquiries being carried out into these incidents is to establish the facts; to discover whether any shortcomings in Service equipment or procedures caused or contributed to the incident; and, where necessary, to make recommendations to prevent a recurrence. To encourage witnesses to come forward freely and speak with the utmost candour, we do not publish reports in their entirety; this has been the policy of successive governments. The reports are, however, made available to HM Coroners to help them determine the cause and circumstances of death.

  I am prepared, however, to make a summary of the report's conclusions available to the House in this instance, but only after all other related proceedings such as disciplinary action are entirely complete. To do otherwise would be to risk prejudicing those other proceedings.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are to retrieve and render safe cluster bombs and other munitions used by allied forces during the recent military action in Iraq; how much of this work will be carried out by non-governmental organisations; and if he will make a statement. [128527]

  Mr. Ingram
  The United Kingdom and other Coalition Armed Forces and Non-Governmental Organisation teams have been engaged in Explosive Ordnance Disposal tasks since before the end of the conflict in Iraq. This Unexploded Ordnance includes not only that fired or dropped by Coalition Forces, but also much from the Iraq-Iran war, as well as mines laid, ordnance fired or dropped, and stores of ammunition and other ordnance left by Iraqi military and paramilitary forces.

  In the UK's Area of Responsibility, 1,500 tasks involving the destruction of over 146,000 munitions have been completed.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many coalition forces(a) were killed in the Iraq conflict and (b) were injured in the conflict and are still receiving treatment; and how many of these were from friendly fire. [128942]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 11 September 2003]: As of 9 September 2003, 49 United Kingdom armed forces personnel and one member of the Defence Fire Service had died since the start of coalition military operations against Iraq. 39, all from the armed forces, were killed in action or subsequently died of wounds received and 11 died in non-battle accidents or from natural causes.
  516W
  Of the fatalities, three have been confirmed as being caused by 'friendly fire' and three others remain under investigation.

  We only record centrally the number of wounded who received hospital treatment. Those that received local treatment and returned to duty are not recorded. As of 9 September 2003, UK forces had suffered 53 wounded. We do not hold central records of how many remain under treatment.

  We do not hold data on the numbers of fatalities and casualties suffered by coalition partners.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent requests he has received from the United States Government for the use of British military facilities in respect of the military action in Iraq. [129070]

  Mr. Ingram
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence received a formal request on 18 November 2002 from the United States Government for assistance in any potential military action against the regime in Iraq. This was one of some 50 requests made by the US to a range of potential coalition partners. Subsequently, the Government have set out to Parliament the nature of their contribution to military action in Iraq on a number of occasions.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many reservists are deployed on operations in Iraq. [129071]

  Mr. Caplin
  As at 1 September 2003 there were 2,453 reservists deployed on operations in Iraq.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much finance has been allocated to UK-funded operators responsible for cleaning UK unexploded ordnance used in the recent invasion of Iraq. [118021]

  Mr. Ingram
  Providing a safe, secure and risk free environment for the Iraqi people is a key aspect of restoration activity for the coalition. The responsibility for developing a programme for the removal of landmines rests with the Iraq Mine Action Centre (IMAC) and not the UK military. While the Ministry of Defence has not therefore allocated Defence funds to demining operators for the cleaning of UK unexploded ordnance, we have provided personnel to help the process. The UK and the Iraq Mine Action Centre are in the process of marking and documenting around 400 unexploded ordnance sites.

  The UK has made a significant effort to educate the local population in its area of operations about the dangers of mines and unexploded ordnance. We have, with the support of UNICEF and the ICRC, developed a Theatre Mine Risk Education Programme.

  A poster and leaflet campaign continues and head teachers in Basrah have been briefed so that they can educate the children. In addition to this, local radio stations are informing the local population about unexploded ordnance and encouraging them not to tamper with anything that has either been marked as or may look like unexploded ordnance.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of recovering unexploded ordnance in Iraq. [118325]
  517W
  Mr. Ingram
  The United Kingdom and other coalition explosive ordnance disposal teams in the UK's area of responsibility have completed over 1,500 tasks and destroyed over 146,000 individual munitions. We do not record types of munitions destroyed. 197 caches or storage sites of unexploded ordnance (UXO) have already been identified:

  Number of caches

  Size

  Estimated quantity of unexploded ordnance

  Types

  111

  Small

  500–1,000

  Various

  61

  ISO Container

  1,000–5,000

  Various

  8

  Multiple ISO Container

  5,000–10,000

  Various

  9

  Small Compound

  Over 10,000

  Various

  8

  Large Compound

  Over 100,000

  Various

  A full survey of sites contaminated with unexploded munitions has been underway since June. The survey has been conducted in concert with other coalition forces, demining companies and with non-Government organisations.

  Joint Intelligence Committee
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether(a) secret and (b) top secret material produced by the Joint Intelligence Committee has been shown to any official in his Department who has not been cleared to see material at these levels of classification since 1997. [129649]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Ministry of Defence controls protectively marked material, including Top Secret and Secret material produced by the Joint Intelligence Committee: material is made available only to individuals who have been appropriately cleared and have a need to know the information. No incidents of unauthorised access to protectively marked Joint Intelligence Committee material by Ministry of Defence officials have been reported.

  Military Personnel
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his Department's policy is on releasing names of military service personnel to marketing companies. [129526]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence does not release names of military, or civilian personnel, to marketing companies.

  NATO Scientific Programme
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from the Master of St. Edmund's College, Cambridge, on NATO's scientific programme; and if he will make a statement. [128268]

  Mr. Ingram
  Defence Ministers have not received representations from Professor Sir Brian Heap, Master of St. Edmund's College, Cambridge. Professor Heap has, however, corresponded with my colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office with regard to NATO's scientific programme.

  Overseas Deployments
  Mr. Key
  To ask t he Secretary of State for Defence if he will list current overseas deployments of Navy, Army and Air Force Institution (NAAFI) units; and how many staff are involved in each. [120738]

  Mr. Caplin
  Current Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes (NAAFI) locations, and associated personnel numbers, outside the United Kingdom are as follows:

  Country

  Staff numbers

  Germany

  980

  Kuwait/Iraq

  39

  Afghanistan

  4

  Cyprus

  3

  Kosovo

  3

  Bosnia

  3

  Saudi Arabia

  2

  Kenya

  2

  Falkland Islands

  2

  Gibraltar

  2

  Belize

  1

  Brunei

  1

  Ascension Island

  1

  The list covers permanent NAAFI undertakings in overseas garrisons as well as Expeditionary Forces Institute (EFI) deployments in support of military operations. The personnel figures shown for each location relate to the number of United Kingdom or United Kingdom Based Contract (UKBC) personnel in post and exclude locally paid staff. The figures for Germany exclude 45 UKBC personnel working for NAAFI financial services and 505 with NAAFI support services.

  In addition, some 60 NAAFI personnel serve with the Naval Canteen Service (NCS). NCS personnel serve on ships deployed in a range of locations around the United Kingdom as well as elsewhere, including the Gulf.

  Army Equipment Purchases
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of Army personnel he estimates purchase their own(a) boots, (b) shirts, (c) vests, (d) jackets, (e) bergens and (f) trousers. [129493]

  Mr. Ingram
  In common with many individuals, and as a matter of personal choice, some soldiers will purchase work-related items of clothing or equipment but none are advised to do so. Specific records are not maintained, but the subject features in the Army's Continuous Attitude Survey (CAS). The latest CAS indicates the following percentages for Army personnel who purchase their own items of clothing.

  Clothing

  Percentage

  (a) boots

  3

  (b) shirts

  1—

  (c) vests (T-shirts)

  1.5

  (d) jackets

  8.0

  (e) bergens

  2.3

  (f) trousers

  1.3

  1 No statistics.

  Relocations
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the investment appraisal of the possible relocation sites for(a) the Joint Services Adventurous Training (Gliding) and (b) the RAF Gliding and Soaring Association Centres. [129300]

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

  Ro-ro Vessels
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what status the six ro-ro ships are accorded within the Royal Navy; and if he will make a statement. [128340]

  Mr. Ingram
  The six Joint Rapid Reaction Force ro-ro are not part of the Royal Navy. They are commercial vessels, sponsored by the Ministry of Defence. They were built and are owned and operated, under a Private Finance Initiative, by AWSR Shipping, a commercial consortium. They are manned by Merchant Navy seafarers, who are members of the Sponsored Reserves List of the Royal Naval Reserve, and are therefore liable for call-up when the situation dictates.

  In the same way as for Royal Navy ships, threat assessments are carried out and the appropriate level of protection is provided to the ro-ro, when considered necessary. Such protection may include a United Kingdom Service escort party on-board or accompanying Royal Navy ships.

  Rosyth
  Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what classification is given to the MOD estate at Rosyth; what this estate consists of in respect of the dockyard and the former naval base; and what plans there are to reclassify the defence estate at Rosyth. [111152]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 6 May 2003]The Rosyth estate consists of:The HMS Caledonia Site
  Married quarters (retained by the Defence Housing Executive (DHE))
  Storage/warehousing properties within the former dockyard port, South Arm Jetty (currently occupied by QinetiQ)
  Forthview House complex housing Defence estates and the Pricing and Forecasting Group.
  The Rosyth site was classified as a core site in the review that concluded in March. However, core sites classification is not static and therefore subject to change in response to evolving Defence needs. Subject to this, there are currently no plans to reclassify the defence estate at Rosyth.

  Security Clearance
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the levels of security clearance to which officials of his Department are subjected before they are allowed to see the different categories of classified material. [129648]
  520W
  Mr. Hoon
  The levels of security clearance that Ministry of Defence officials need in order to be granted access to classified material are those which apply across Government. They are set out in HM Government's statement of vetting policy, as announced to the House on 15 December 1994,Official Report, columns 764–66W.

  Women (Front-line Deployment)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the deployment of women into front line positions. [129492]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement made on 22 May 2002,Official Report, column 363W, by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. Women are not restricted from deployment into front line positions but, for reasons of combat effectiveness, they are excluded from close combat posts. Further information may be found in the report, "Women in the Armed Forces", which may be found on the Ministry of Defence website at: www.mod.uk/ issues/women

PRIME MINISTER

  Alastair Campbell
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Prime Minister whether Mr. Alastair Campbell was the subject of the developed vetting procedure. [129774]

  The Prime Minister
  Information relating to personnel records, including those relating to recruitment, promotion and security vetting, are not disclosed under part 2, exemption 8 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had regarding the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands with President Kirchner; what the outcome of those discussions has been; and if he will make a statement. [129907]

  The Prime Minister
  I last met President Kirchner at the Progressive Governance Summit on 13 to 14 July 2003. We did not enter into discussions concerning the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. The United Kingdom position on this is well known and remains unchanged; the Falklands will remain British for as long as that is the wish of the Islanders.

  Hutton Inquiry
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those categories of information that have been provided to the Hutton Inquiry which are not normally made available(a) to Parliamentary Select Committees and (b) in response to Parliamentary Questions; and if he will make a statement on the reasons for the different approaches to information disclosure. [128596]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government are committed to co-operating fully with the Hutton Inquiry. Relevant papers are being provided to the Inquiry. The decision on which papers to make public is a matter for the Inquiry. In respect of a small number of papers, there
  521W
  may be issues about the need to keep certain information confidential, for instance, because of national security. Where necessary, the papers are provided to the Inquiry on the understanding that certain text will be suitably redacted before being made public.

  Information provided in response to PQs and Select Committees will continue to be decided as appropriate in accordance with the Ministerial Code, the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information and Information and Departmental Evidence to Select Committees.

  Iraq
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Prime Minister on what dates prior to the recent conflict with Iraq he met the heads of each of the armed forces to discuss the proposed conflict. [129222]

  The Prime Minister
  I discussed the situation in Iraq with the heads of the armed forces at a meeting on 15 January 2003; the Defence Secretary and the Chief of the Defence staff were also present. Subsequently, the views of the Chiefs of Staff were represented to me by the Chief of the Defence Staff, whom I met regularly prior to the conflict.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Prime Minister which weapons the Prime Minister was referring to in his foreword to the Government's Iraq dossier when he made the statement that military planning allows for some of the weapons of mass destruction to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them. [129840]

  The Prime Minister
  It was judged that the chemical and biological munitions concerned would be deployed with battlefield systems such as artillery, multiple-launch rockets and mortars.

  Ministerial Code of Conduct
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what procedure is in place to handle complaints about the failure of a Prime Minister to adhere to the Ministerial Code of Conduct. [129258]

  The Prime Minister
  It is for individual Ministers—including the Prime Minister—to account to Parliament for their actions and decisions.

  Multi-national Chairman's Group
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent meeting with the Multi-National Chairman's Group; and if he will place in the Library the minutes and the agenda of the meeting. [129930]

  The Prime Minister
  I met with the Multi-National Chairman's Group on 2 September 2003 and discussed a range of economic and business environment issues.

  Public Inquiries
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Prime Minister what the total cost to the public purse has been of each public inquiry which has exceeded £1 million since 1997. [129712]
  522W
  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) on 12 June 2003,Official Report, columns 987–88W.

  Security Service Advice
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister under what circumstances the security services provide advice to him on ministerial(a) appointments and (b) conduct. [129256]

  The Prime Minister
  Advice provided by the security services in relation to ministerial appointments and conduct is exempt from disclosure under exemptions 1(a), 2 and 8(a) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  World Trade Talks (Cancun)
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with leading British businesses ahead of the Cancun trade negotiations; and if he will make a statement. [129389]

  The Prime Minister
  In preparing for the 5th World Trade Organisation Ministerial conference in Cancun, my ministerial colleagues have had regular and extensive discussions with British businesses from those industry and service sectors who have an interest in the Doha Development Agenda.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will make a statement to the House on the conference on her return from Cancun.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Cathedrals (Financial Support)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners what representations the Church Commissioners have made to the Government about the public financial support available to cathedrals. [129577]

  Mr. Bell
  The Church Heritage Forum, on which the Church Commissioners are represented, aims to forge new partnerships with local, central and regional Government and press the case for greater financial support for the Church's built heritage. Discussions are in hand and the Forum aims to report next summer.

  Church Income
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners what proportion of the Church's income came from collections in the last five financial years. [129578]

  Mr. Bell
  I understand from the Archbishops' Council that total giving through standing order, payroll giving and cash, amounting to £282 million in 2001, accounts for roughly one-third of the Church's overall income. This proportion has not changed significantly over the last five years.

  Bishops' Emoluments
  Norman Baker
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners what percentage of the Church Commissioners' total expenditure was spent on bishops' emoluments in each year from 1999. [127220]

  Mr. Bell
  The Commissioners are responsible for funding the emoluments of all diocesan, suffragan and full-time assistant bishops as part of their support for bishops. Emoluments include the stipend paid to each bishop, employer's national insurance contributions and pension contributions.

  The Commissioners' annual spending on bishops' emoluments from 1999 is shown in the table in monetary values and as a proportion of their total expenditure.

  Number of bishops with use of a driver

  Percentage of bishops

  Total cost (calendar years) (£)

  Equivalent at May 2003 prices (£)

  Number of part- time drivers

  Number of full—time drivers

  2000

  32

  28

  306,318

  325,698

  23

  9

  2001

  35

  30

  336,595

  350,700

  27

  8

  2002

  34

  30

  324,145

  333,895

  27

  7

  2003

  32

  28

  not yet available

  n/a

  25

  7

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Norman Baker
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners what the Commissioners' policy is in respect of genetically modified crops. [127227]

  Mr. Bell
  The Church Commissioners do not permit the growing of genetically modified crops on their land. This policy reflects advice offered by the Church of England's Ethical Investment Advisory Group in 2000, endorsed by the Commissioners and available in full on the Church of England's website at http:// www.cofe.anglican.org/view/gmos.rtf. The House of Commons Library holds a copy.

  The group will keep its advice to the Church Commissioners under review in the light of any new evidence, and scientific peer group commentary upon it, arising from the three-year programme of farm scale trials. The Church Commissioners will consider any new advice offered by the group in due course.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners what the total annual expenditure on bishops' residences was in each year from 1998. [127221]

  Mr. Bell
  The Church Commissioners' expenditure on bishops' housing and office premises in each year from 1999 is as follows:
  524W
  The Commissioners also fund bishops' office and working costs, and housing and office premises costs for diocesan bishops.

  Bishops' emoluments

  £ million

  As a percentage of Commissioners' total expenditure

  1999

  3.5

  2.2

  2000

  3.5

  2.2

  2001

  3.8

  2.4

  2002

  4.0

  2.4

  Norman Baker
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners how many and what percentage of bishops had the use of a chauffeur in May(a) 2000, (b) 2001, (c) 2002 and (d) 2003; what the total cost was in current prices in each year: and how many chauffeurs in each year were (i) part-time and (ii) full-time. [127217]

  Mr. Bell
  The position is as follows:

  £ million

  1998

  3.0

  1999

  3.3

  2000

  3.0

  2001

  3.3

  2002

  3.4

  As is indicated in note 13 to the Commissioners' annual financial statements, these costs cover building maintenance and repairs, external property management costs, staff costs including salaries and pensions, council tax, insurance and other running costs, Lambeth Palace Library running costs, support services, depreciation, rent paid and rental income. Capital expenditure on existing houses or on acquiring replacement houses is not included.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION

  Sunday Elections
  Bob Russell
  To ask the hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission if the commission will evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of holding local and national elections on a Sunday. [129579]

  Mr. Viggers
  The commission has evaluated a number of local election pilot schemes which featured voting over a period of days—including, in some instances, Sundays. The commission has no plans at present to undertake a wider review of the issues involved.

  Disabled Voters
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission if he will make a statement on the rights of disabled voters to vote by proxy. [129580]

  Mr. Viggers
  This is not a matter for the Speaker's Committee, but I understand that a person who by reason of blindness or other physical incapacity cannot reasonably be expected to go in person to the allotted polling station or to vote unaided there, has a statutory right to vote by proxy for an indefinite or particular period.

  The hon. Member will be aware that all voters, disabled or not, are entitled to request a postal vote.

  Electronic Voting
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission what assessment the commission has made of the privacy of data concerning votes cast electronically in elections; and if he will make a statement. [129581]

  Mr. Viggers
  In its evaluation of the May 2003 electoral pilot schemes, the commission highlighted the importance of ensuring the confidentiality of vote data in electronic voting. The commission concluded that the level of security in the 2003 pilot schemes was sufficient, but recommended further data encryption requirements for future pilot schemes.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Mesopotamia (Antiquities)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assistance has been provided by her Department in protecting the antiquities of Mesopotamia. [129564]

  Tessa Jowell
  Officials from my Department were among the first civilians sent to Iraq after the war. They worked within the Coalition Provisional Authority to re-establish the Iraqi Culture Ministry. They also worked on clarifying numbers of items missing from the Iraq museum and on implementing measures, to help prevent on-going looting from archaeological sites.

  We have also implemented UNSCR 1483 in reaction to the prohibition of the import of trade in unlawfully removed Iraq cultural property.

  Subtitled Films
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps she is taking to increase the number of subtitled films screened in the UK. [129565]

  Estelle Morris
  The UK Film Council, charged by the Government to create a sustainable British film industry, has announced a cinema access programme to improve access to cinemas by people with hearing and sight impairments. £500,000 of lottery money has been allocated to this programme, of which £350,000 will be used to supply up to 75 local cinemas across England 526W
  with subtitling and audio-description equipment, and £60,000 will be used to provide sub-titled and audio-described film prints for use in cinemas.

  Olympic Bid
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she expects to announce the name of the chief executive officer of the 2012 London Olympic bid; and if she will make a statement. [129566]

  Tessa Jowell
  The appointment of the chief executive officer of London 2012 Ltd., the company established to take forward the bid to host the Olympic Games in London in 2012, is a matter for the company itself.

  I understand that Barbara Cassani, chair of London 2012, is currently considering candidates for the post.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the committee structure for London's 2012 Olympic bid. [129569]

  Tessa Jowell
  The Board of London 2012 Ltd. has been tasked as the bid committee to prepare the bid to host the 2012 Olympics in London. While a number of executive posts to he board remain to be filled, the board members recently announced by London 2012 Ltd. are as follows:

  Barbara Cassani—Chairman

  Mike Power—Chief Operating Officer

  Neale Coleman

  Simon Clegg OBE

  Mike Brace

  Matthew Pinsent CBE

  Craig Reedie CBE

  Sir Steve Redgrave

  HRH The Princess Royal

  Mary Reilly

  Derrick Anderson

  Patrick Carter

  Charles Allen

  Sir Howard Bernstein

  Lord Paul of Marylebone

  Dalton Grant

  A stakeholder's Panel of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Mayor of London and Chair of the British Olympic Association has also been established. The stakeholder's panel will have the final right of approval over London's applicant city questionnaire and candidature file.

  London 2012 Ltd. will also be establishing a Bid Forum which will allow London 2012 to consult and seek advice from a wider constituency of interested parties from across London and the country.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the extent to which the Olympic bid will enhance regional sports facilities. [128654]

  Tessa Jowell
  My Department has assessed that should the UK win the right to host the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games they will provide the opportunity for a lasting legacy for communities
  527W
  through the investment by visiting teams in enhanced sporting facilities for training and preparing for the Games.

  In addition I announced in July that during the bidding phase, community facilities across the UK will be improved through further funding of £100 million from the New Opportunities Fund. In England this will be joined with £31 million from Sport England to provide a fund for community sports facilities in each region.

  This investment will be used together with the Olympic Bid to galvanise enthusiasm and encourage and sustain increased participation in sport in our communities.

  Mr. John Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) how the statement in the Government's response to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee report on A London Olympic Bid, Cm 5867, that special funding streams to meet Olympic costs should be closed by 2013–14, accords with her statement on 15th May,Official Report, column 481, on the length of time that the special London council tax precept will run; [128084]

  (2) how long the London council tax precept to contribute to the cost of a London Olympic Games will last; at what level it will be set each year; and what the proceeds will be. [128085]

  Tessa Jowell
  The Memorandum of Understanding between the Government and the Mayor of London, as published in the response to the Select committee, makes clear that "the Government and Mayor's expectation I that special funding streams to meet Olympic costs should be closed, having provided the necessary amounts, by 2013–14, except that where the Greater London Authority has borrowed to meet capital costs of the Olympics it may be necessary to extend the period during which the Olympic precept is levied to reflect the requirements of the prudential framework for capital finance."

  Within that Memorandum, London is required to contribute up to £550 million towards the cost of the staging of the Games, with provision for a further £75 million if needed. The Mayor has said that he will raise this from the London Council Tax from an additional £20 a year charge, or 38p a week, on Council Tax for a band D property, likely to begin in 2006–07 if the hid is successful. On the current tax base it is estimated that this would arise the required £550 million in ten years and a further £75 million within another two years if necessary. However, the Mayor has also advised that during the period from 2006–07 the tax base will increase and so that time period may reduce. In addition, the funding package for the Games allows a £1.2 billion contingency over and above Arup's estimates of required public subsidy for staging the Olympics. The time period for collection of Council Tax would also reduce if all contingencies were not required, and it is the Mayor's expectation that special funding streams should have closed, having provided the necessary amount by 2013–14. In the unlikely event that the full funding package is required, and the GLA has to
  528W
  borrow to meet capital costs of staging the Olympics then the period of special funding may extend beyond that dated as allowed for in the Memorandum.

  My statement to the House on 15 May on the length of the time that the special London council tax precept would run presented the Government's assessment of a possible worst-case scenario. The Memorandum of Understanding, as I have explained, makes provision for such an eventuality. However, current expectations are that this will not be the se and that special funding streams should be capable of being closed by 2013–14. The Mayor has also advised that current expectations are that in the unlikely event that the full London contribution were required this could be raised in less than 12 years.

  Tourism
  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment has been made of the number of(a) domestic and (b) overseas tourists in England this summer. [129567]

  Mr. Caborn
  The latest figures show that the number of domestic tourist trips in England which include an overnight stay were 31.4 million between April and June 2003.

  Figures for overseas tourists visiting England this summer will be available in January 2004. The latest figures for Britain show that, in the three months from May to July 2003, there were 6.9 million visits by overseas residents.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of Stat for Culture, Media and Sport, what arrangements are in place to promote(a) England and (b) Britain overseas as tourist destinations. [129558]

  Mr. Caborn
  VisitBritain promotes the whole of Britain overseas, including England, as a tourist destination with £35.5 million Government funding this year and additional partnership funding from the industry. Their current campaigns include a campaign in the United States worth approximately £2 million and a £4 million "City Breaks" campaign in Europe launched last week.

  Mr. Best
  To ask the Minister for State and Culture, Media and Sport what discussions her Department has had with regional development agencies on their progress in co-ordinating regional tourism strategies. [129570]

  Mr. Caborn
  I recently met the new Chair of the South West Regional Development Agency (who leads for the RDAs on tourism) and discussed the strategic role which the RDAs have been given in the reformed arrangements for tourism. I am looking forward to a forthcoming meeting with all the RDA Chairs to discuss progress. We have issued guidance to the RDAs on how tourism should be covered in their Corporate Plans and Regional Economic Strategies, which includes working together with each other within the new national framework for tourism strategy and marketing and have commented on draft Corporate Plans and related strategies in the light of this.

  Analogue Television
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what her estimate is of the switch-off date for analogue television; and if she will make a statement. [129568]

  Tessa Jowell
  The criteria set for switchover are that: everyone who can currently get the main public service broadcasting channels in analogue form must be able to receive them on digital systems; switching to digital is an affordable option for the vast majority of people; and as a target indicator of affordability, 95 per cent. of consumers must have access to digital equipment. The objective of the Digital Television Action Plan Project is to ensure these criteria are met so that we can, if we choose, take the decision to proceed to full switchover by ordering the switching off by 2010 of analogue terrestrial transmissions.

  Horseracing Industry
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, if she will make a statement on the Office of Fair Trading's proposals on the British horseracing industry. [129571]

  Mr. Caborn
  The OFT has made no proposals for the racing industry. It is conducting an enquiry into racing's rules and regulations and has issued a Rule 14 notice. That notice points to those areas that appear to restrict or distort competition. The British Horseracing Board and the Jockey Club have now responded and the process will continue until the OFT hands down a final ruling.

  BBC Charter
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the process for renewal of the BBC's charter. [128891]

  Tessa Jowell
  The Government will announce how it intends to conduct the Charter Review before the end of the year. I can give a commitment now, however, that the process will be both wide-ranging and thorough, that public debate will form a critical element of the review, and that there will be opportunities for parliamentary scrutiny.

  Food Expenditure
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much was spent on food by her Department and by each agency for which it is responsible in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03; what proportion of that food by value was produced in the United Kingdom; what guidance she has issued to encourage the procurement of home-grown food; and if she will make a statement. [129383]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) does not directly buy food substances. DCMS opened a staff restaurant on 2 April 2001 and employs a catering organisation to provide the required service. The service provider is encouraged by the Department to purchase ethically and environmentally sound goods where this is practical.
  530W
  Additionally, the Royal Parks Agency does not operate a system of buying food directly.

  Television (Foul Language)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will take powers to prevent the use of obscene, abusive and insulting language on television; and if she will make a statement. [129440]

  Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 11 September 2003]:Responsibility for what is broadcast on television rests with the broadcasters and the organisations which regulate broadcasting—the Governors of the BBC, the Independent Television Commission and the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority. They are independent of the Government and responsible for safeguarding the public interest in broadcasting. In carrying out their responsibilities, these authorities have a duty to ensure that programmes contain nothing which offends against good taste and decency or is likely to be offensive to public feeling. They also maintain guidelines for programme-makers on the standards which should be observed. This guidance includes advice on the use of language and timing of programmes and recommends when warning announcements about programmes should be made. In addition, the Broadcasting Standards Commission acts as a forum for public concern.

  The Communications Act 2003 establishes a new regulatory framework for broadcasting and the communications industries, including the creation of a single regulatory body for the communications industries, the Office of Communications, which will have similar responsibilities for broadcast content. Viewers who are offended by television programmes should complain to the relevant broadcaster and, in the case of serious breaches of the regulatory codes, to the regulator.

  Gatwick Airport Expansion (Listed Buildings)
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many Grade I, II, and II* listed buildings would (a) be left without public access and (b) need to be demolished under each of the different proposals to expand runway capacity at Gatwick airport. [129007]

  Mr. Caborn
  If a close parallel runway were built three Grade II* and four Grade II buildings would be demolished, rising to five Grade II* and 12 Grade II buildings under the wide-spaced option and 6 Grade II* and 18 Grade II under the two runway option. No Grade I buildings would be affected under any proposed option. We do not hold information about the number of buildings likely to be left without public access.

  Private Museums
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what financial support she provides for private museums; and if she will make a statement. [129727]

  Estelle Morris
  Independent museums with charitable status are eligible to apply for status as a Registered Museum, under Resource's Registration Scheme. This makes them eligible for support under a wide range of
  531W
  initiatives, including the Renaissance in the Regions programme, the Museum Development Fund, and, if its collections are designated as being of 'outstanding importance', the Designation Challenge Fund.

  Privately owned collections, however, are not eligible for Registered status and do not receive such financial support.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on her policy on linking the value and number of National Lottery constituency awards and constituency deprivation. [129830]

  Estelle Morris
  All parts of the country should have access to Lottery funds. Many areas suffering wider social and economic deprivation need extra support to develop and put in good applications which are more likely to be successful. The fairshare initiative, bringing together funding from the New Opportunities Fund and Community Fund, specifically seeks to target areas of the UK which were most deprived, and which have not received their 'fair share' of Lottery funding. In addition, the Lottery Funding Decision Document, published in July, contains a number of proposals to make it easier for people to apply for Lottery funding, particularly those in disadvantaged communities. These include the creation of a new distributor, which will focus on improving the quality of life in communities by tackling disadvantage and social exclusion.

  Sport England
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what criteria Sport England Exchequer uses to allocate grant aid to national governing bodies; and if she will make a statement. [128778]

  Mr. Caborn
  The process for Exchequer grant allocations to National Governing Bodies of Sport from Sport England is currently under review, the outcome of which is expected towards the end of October.

  To date Sport England Exchequer grants are made available to those National Governing Bodies of Sport that are recognised as leading the development of their sport in England. Sport England investment in National Governing Bodies is based on the ability of the National Governing Body to deliver increased numbers of
  532W
  participants in the sport, to retain involvement in the sport either as participant, coach, official or volunteer, and to achieve publicly recognised levels of success.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the additional level of Exchequer Funds is that has been made available to support the World Class Performance Programme contained in the recommendations of the Cunningham Review for Elite Sports. [130364]

  Mr. Caborn
  Following the Spending Review 2002, this Department has made available to UK Sport an additional exchequer allocation of £4.7 million in 2004–05 and £4.7 million in 2005–06, to enable them to take forward some of the recommendations of the Elite Sports Funding Review.

  Government Art Collection
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much has been spent by the Government in each year since May 1997 on acquiring works of art; and where each work acquired is held. [129281]

  Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 11 September 2003]: In the seven Financial Years since 2 May 1997 the Government Art Collection has spent a total of £1,111,500 from its Programme Vote on the purchase of works of art. This breaks down as follows:

  £

  2 May 1997 to 1998

  137,000

  1998–99

  127,000

  1999–2000

  179,000

  2000–01

  130,500

  2001–02

  158,000

  2002–03

  241,000

  1 April to 11 September 2003

  139,000

  These works of art are currently located in some 55 Government buildings in the UK and around the world, as part of the Collection's remit in promoting British art and culture to visitors to these buildings.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much has been realised by the Government through the sales of works of art in each year since May 1997. [129280]

  Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 11 September 2003]:The Government Art Collection has sold no works of art from its holdings since May 1997.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Meat Imports
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of EU import controls in preventing the import of meat from areas of high risk into the United Kingdom. [128060]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  European Community law sets out the import conditions which must be met by all meat imported into the community from third countries. These conditions do not permit meat to be imported from areas where veterinary controls cannot guarantee that the meat poses negligible disease risk to human or animal health. Defra veterinary experts and the Food Standards Agency are fully engaged in negotiations to develop Community import conditions. Should the disease situation in an exporting country change, for example if a new outbreak of disease is notified, the European Commission will introduce safeguard measures to control imports so that there is no increased risk of disease as a result. Pending these changes to community rules, in such a situation individual member states are permitted to introduce unilateral provisions to control imports. The Government take such unilateral action whenever the situation demands it.

  Community import rules require all meat imported from third countries to enter the community via specified Border Inspection Posts where it is subject to veterinary examination to ensure the import conditions are being observed. The system of veterinary examination is operated by local authorities and is monitored by Defra and the European Commission to ensure effective controls are in place.

  The Government have produced an Annual Review of Controls on Imports of Animal Products April 2002–March 2003 which concentrates on the action against illegal imports. This has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Gatwick Airport (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty)
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty lie within 15 miles of Gatwick airport; and what assessment she has made of the impact on these AONB's from new flight paths to the proposed new runways at Gatwick. [129008]

  Alun Michael
  Parts of four Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty lie within 15 miles of Gatwick airport. The Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty concerned are the Kent Downs, Sussex Downs, High Weald and Surrey Hills. We have worked closely with the 534W
  Department for Transport to ensure that the noise impact of the proposed new airport developments is given full consideration. Taking the 57dB contour as the onset of significant community annoyance, the options for a single close parallel or wide parallel runway are likely to have a minimal impact on the surrounding Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The option of building two additional runways at Gatwick would have a greater impact on the Surrey Hills and High Weald Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

  Cattle Passport Scheme
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the operation of the cattle passport scheme. [129065]

  Alun Michael
  The cattle passport scheme is operated by the British Cattle Movement Service (BCMS) and became part of the Rural Payments Agency on 1 April 2003. The cattle passport scheme has been in operation for over six years and the national cattle database contains the details of the 9.7 million animals that make up the national herd. We are currently investing a further £12 million to upgrade the system and improve its performance.

  BCMS operates to ISO 9001:2000 standards, is registered with the British Standards Institute and its operating practices have received the Kite mark. In addition to paper reporting systems, we have provided online facilities via a website for cattle keepers to use. BCMS are constantly striving to improve their service and efficiency.

  Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000
  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 13 May 2003,Official Report, column 142W, on the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, if she will set out the timetable for the implementation of regulations under Part I of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. [129973]

  Alun Michael
  The following table records the progress we have already made towards bringing the regulations into force and our timetable for completing the process. As I explained in my answer of 13 May, the precise timing may vary but we are firmly committed to ensuring the necessary regulations are made to allow the new right of public access under the Act to be rolled out as planned. Regulations enabling persons to dedicate land for access came into force on 1 September and I expect to lay regulations relating to the exclusion or restriction of access soon.
  535W

  Regulation

  Section>

  Consultation commenced (not later than)

  Date regulations in force (not later than)

  Regulations regarding mapping of access land and consultation on draft maps

  Section 11

  March 2001 (ended June 2001

  1 November 2001

  Regulations regarding issue of provisional maps, appeals, and issue of conclusive maps

  Section 11

  November 2001 (ended 8 February 2002)

  29 July 2002

  Regulations regarding the establishment of LAFs and the appointment of members

  Section 94(part V)

  July 2001 (ended October 2001)

  7 August 2002

  Regulations on correcting minor errors and omissions in provisional and conclusive maps

  Section 11(2)(1)

  October 2002 (ended 7 November 2002)

  21 July 2003

  Regulations regarding dedication of land for access

  Section 16

  January 2002 (ended 15 April 2002)

  1 September 2003

  Regulations relating to exclusion or restriction of access under Chapter 11, including appeals (but not emergencies)

  Section 32

  December 2001 (ended 22 March 2002)

  October 2003

  Regulations on removal or relaxation of restrictions on access land

  Paragraph 7, Schedule 2

  (ends October 2003)

  December 2003

  Regulations to exclude access in emergencies

  Section 31

  October 2003

  February 2004

  Regulations on appeals relating to notices

  Section 38

  October 2003

  February 2004

  Regulations on references to public places in existing enactments

  Section 42

  October 2003

  February 2004

  Regulations regarding review of conclusive maps

  Section 11

  February 2004

  August 2004

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) special advisers, (b) press officers, (c) civil servants, (d) advisers to civil servants and (e) permanent staff were working for her Department in each year since 1996. [126481]

  Alun Michael:
  Defra came into being in June 2001 and the following information relates to the period since then.

  (a) The Secretary of State has two Special Advisors.

  The Department employs an Environmental Advisor, who reports to the Director for Environment Protection Strategy.

  Ewen Cameron, who is also Chair of the Countryside Agency, is the Rural Advocate, arguing the case on countryside issues and for rural people at the highest levels in Government and outside. While this role has no formal line of accountability, Sir Ewen works closely with me as Minister of State for Rural Affairs on a range of issues of rural proofing and also has access to the Secretary of State and other senior members of Government.

  Dr. Chris Fay holds the title Emissions Trading Champion. Reporting to the Director for Climate, Energy and Environmental Risk, he assisted the Government in recruiting participants to the UK's voluntary Emissions Trading Scheme launched in April 2002, and plays a role in communicating with business on emissions trading issues.

  Lord Haskins acted as Rural Recovery Co-ordinator during the latter part of the foot and mouth disease outbreak in 2001. His role was to help local authorities and other agencies plan for the economic recovery of Cumbria, and to consider what lessons were also applicable to other areas affected by the outbreak. Lord Haskins began work on 14 August 2001 and reported to me in October 2001.

  (b) When Defra was established in June 2001 there were 19 press officer posts. In March 2002 there were 20, in May 2002 there were 22 and as at September 2003
  536W
  there are 20 press officer posts. These figures include the post of Head of News but not that of Director of Communications.

  (c) and (e) This information is available in Table C of the annual publication Civil Service Statistics, which covers permanent staff numbers in each department and agency from 1996 to 2002. Copies of the publication are laid in the Libraries of both Houses. The latest edition, based on April 2002 data, was published on 24 July 2003. The figures will include press officers, although they are not separately identified. The total number of permanent and casual civil servants on both a head-count and a full-time equivalent basis at 1 April 2002 is available in Table A of Civil Service Statistics. Full-time equivalents are preferred to head-counts when examining trends over time. Also, the number of permanent staff is preferred as a basis when looking at trends as casual staff numbers reflect short-term responses to changes in workloads.

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

  (d) The term "advisers to civil servants" is not one that is recognised.

  Export Refunds
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the most recent annual amounts of export refund provided through the EU for the export of(a) fruit, (b) vegetables and (c) sugar; and if she will list the amounts in sterling per pound weight. [128819]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 10 September 2003]: EU expenditure on export refunds in 2001, the latest year for which full information is available, was as follows:
  Fresh fruit and vegetables—36.1 million euros
  Processed fruit and vegetables—14.8 million euros

  The rates of export refund vary by product and over time and the cost per pound weight is not readily available.

  Fallen Stock
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the effect of a ban on the disposal of fallen stock. [129113]

  Alun Michael
  The Animal By-Products Regulations 2003 permit hunt kennels to continue collecting fallen stock; however they will be required to upgrade to knackers' yard standards if they wish to collect fallen stock for the purposes of feeding to hounds. The effect of a ban on hunting would depend on decisions made by those who currently offer a service and on choices made by farmers leading to takeup of the national scheme. Most hunts already make a charge and there is no reason why such a service should not continue as a business opportunity when hunting wild mammals with dogs is banned.

  DEFRA

  CEFAS

  CSL

  PSD

  FTE

  %

  FTE

  %

  FTE

  %

  FTE

  %

  Scotland

  77.6

  1.17

  0.0

  0.00

  11.0

  1.70

  0.0

  0.00

  England, excluding G London

  3,707.4

  56.14

  524.7

  100.00

  636.9

  98.30

  174.2

  100.00

  Greater London

  2,680.8

  40.59

  0.0

  0.00

  0.0

  0.00

  0.0

  0.00

  Wales

  135.2

  2.05

  0.0

  0.00

  0.0

  0.00

  0.0

  0.00

  Northern Ireland

  0.0

  0.00

  0.0

  0.00

  0.0

  0.00

  0.0

  0.00

  Overseas

  3.0

  0.05

  0.0

  0.00

  0.0

  0.00

  0.0

  0.00

  Total

  6,603.9

  100.00

  524.7

  100.00

  647.9

  100.00

  174.2

  100.00

  RPA

  VLA

  VMD

  FTE

  %

  FTE

  %

  FTE

  %

  Scotland

  0.0

  0.00

  44.0

  3.40

  0.0

  0.00

  England, excluding G London

  3,370.9

  99.94

  1,218.3

  94.15

  119.3

  100.00

  Greater London

  0.0

  0.00

  0.0

  0.00

  0.0

  0.00

  Wales

  0.0

  0.00

  31.7

  2.45

  0.0

  0.00

  Northern Ireland

  2.0

  0.06

  0.0

  0.00

  0.0

  0.00

  Overseas

  0.0

  0.00

  0.0

  0.00

  0.0

  0.00

  Total

  3,372.9

  100.00

  1,294.0

  100.00

  119.3

  100.00

  Due to the complexity of the department and the wide range of business areas that it covers, a break down of these figures in terms of responsibilities that apply to geographical areas could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The following non-departmental public bodies and independent statutory bodies are under the remit of Defra:

  Executive

  Agricultural Wages Board for England & Wales

  Agricultural Wages Committee

  Apple and Pear Research Council

  British Potato Council

  Countryside Agency

  English Nature

  Environment Agency

  Food From Britain Council

  Home Grown Cereals Authority

  Horticulture Development Council

  Horticulture Research International

  Joint Nature Conservation Committee

  Departmental Staff
  Annabelle Ewing

  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many jobs under the remit of her Department in(a) the core department and (b) executive agencies are in (i) Scotland, (ii) England, excluding Greater London, (iii) Greater London, (iv) Wales, (v) Northern Ireland and (vi) overseas, broken down by (A) whole-time equivalent jobs and (B) the percentage per individual department, body or organisation; if she will break down the figures in terms of responsibilities which apply to (1) England, (2) England and Wales and (3) the UK as a whole; and if she will list the non-departmental public bodies and independent statutory bodies for which information is not held centrally. [127308]

  Alun Michael
  The following table shows the number of permanent staff in Defra and its executive agencies that are located in the regions specified as at 1 April 2003.

  Meat and Livestock Commission

  Milk Development Council

  National Forest Company

  Regional Flood Defence Committee

  Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew

  Sea Fish Industry Authority

  UK Register of Organic Food Standards

  Wine Standards Board

  Advisory

  Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment

  Advisory Committee on Consumer Products and the Environment

  Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances

  Advisory Committee on Packaging

  Advisory Committee on Pesticides

  Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment

  Agricultural Dwelling House Advisory Committee

  Air Quality Expert Group

  Committee of Investigation for Great Britain

  Committee on Agricultural Valuation

  Committee on Products and Processes for use in Public Water Supply

  539W

  Committee on Radioactive Waste Management

  Consumers Committee for Great Britain

  Darwin Advisory Committee (the Darwin Initiative)

  Expert Group on Cryptosporidium in Water Supplies

  Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards

  Farm Animal Welfare Council

  Government-Industry Forum on non-food uses of crops

  Hill Farming Advisory Committee

  Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS) Appeals Panel

  Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB

  Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council

  Pesticide Residues Committee

  Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee

  Royal Commission on Environment Pollution

  Science Advisory Council

  Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC)

  Sustainable Development Commission

  Sustainable Development Education Panel

  Veterinary Products Committee

  Veterinary Residues Committee

  Water Regulations Advisory Committee

  Zoos Forum

  Tribunals

  Agricultural Land Tribunal

  Dairy Produce Quota Tribunal

  Plant Varieties and Seeds Tribunal

  Commons Commissioners

  Simplified procedure GIF values for certain perishable goods in pounds sterling per 100kg net Effective period 29/08/2003 to 11/09/2003

  SPV Code

  Description

  Value/ 100kgs (£s)

  Value/pence per pound

  1.10

  New potatoes

  0.00

  0

  1.30

  Onions (other than seed)

  15.00

  6.8

  1.40

  Garlic

  75.25

  34.14

  1.50

  Leeks

  28.35

  12.86

  1.60

  Cauliflowers

  0.00

  0.0

  1.70

  Brussels sprouts

  0.00

  0.0

  1.80

  White cabbages and red cabbages

  36.21

  16.42

  1.90

  Sprouting broccoli or calabrese (Brassica oleracea L. convar.botrytis (L) Alef. Var. italica

  42.50

  19.28

  1.100

  Chinese cabbage

  37.55

  17.03

  1.110

  Cabbage lettuce (head lettuce)

  0.00

  0.0

  1.120

  Endives

  0.00

  0.0

  1.130

  Carrots

  12.56

  5.70

  1.140

  Radishes

  63.91

  28.99

  1.160

  Peas (Pisum sativum)

  222.41

  100.88

  1.170

  Beans:

  1.170.1

  Beans (Vigna Spp. Phaseolus spp.)

  65.88

  29.88

  1.170.2

  Beans (Phaseolus ssp. Vulgaris var. Compressus Savi)

  64.90

  29.44

  1.180

  Broad beans

  0.00

  0.0

  1.190

  Globe artichokes

  0.00

  0.0

  1.200

  Asparagus

  1.200.1

  -green

  174.04

  78.94

  1.200.2

  -other

  150.99

  68.49

  1.210

  Aubergines (eggplants)

  54.99

  24.94

  1.220

  Ribbed celery (Apium graveolens L. var dulce (Mill) Pers.)

  54.76

  24.84

  1.230

  Chantarelles

  503.43

  228.35

  1.240

  Sweet peppers

  73.05

  33.14

  1.250

  Fennel

  0.00

  0.0

  1.270

  Sweet potatoes, whole, fresh (intended for human consumption)

  66.01

  29.94

  2.10

  Chestnuts (Castanea spp.), fresh

  0.00

  0.0

  2.30

  Pineapples, fresh

  69.60

  31.57

  2.40

  Avocados, fresh

  116.74

  52.95

  540W
  Public corporation
  British Waterways Board
  Covent Garden Market Authority

  Lantra
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with representatives from Lantra on the delivery of its strategic plan. [130541]

  Alun Michael
  I have met the Chairman and senior directors of Lantra on several occasions to discuss a range of matters relating to Lantra's activities, including progress towards meeting the organisation's strategic objectives, and I will continue to do so.

  Levies
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the levies. expressed in sterling per pound weight, are for(a) fruit. (b) vegetables and (c) sugar. [128821]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 10 September 2003]EU import duties on fresh fruit and vegetables are set for a range of products on an ad valorem basis. For some products, an additional or minimum sum based on an amount per kilo is payable. The relevant duty rate is applied to the customs value which is normally based on the price actually paid or payable for the goods. However, for certain products, simplified rules are in place which allow a standard unit value to be used as the customs value; these are updated fortnightly. The simplified procedure values in force from 29 August to 11 September are as follows:
  541W

  Simplified procedure GIF values for certain perishable goods in pounds sterling per 100kg net Effective period 29/08/2003 to 11/09/2003

  SPV Code

  Description

  Value/100kgs (£s)

  Value/pence per pound

  2.50

  Guavas and mangoes, fresh

  103.37

  46.89

  2.60

  Sweet oranges, fresh

  2.60.1

  -Sanguines and semi-sangunes

  29.89

  13.56

  2.60.2

  -Navels, Navelines, Navelates, Salustianas, Vernas, Valencia lates, Maltese, Shamoutis, Ovalis, Trovita and Hamlins

  32.33

  14.66

  2.60.3

  -Others

  29.94

  13.58

  2.70

  Mandarins (including tangerines and satsumas), fresh; clementines, wilkings and similar citrus hybrids, fresh:

  2.70.1

  -Clementines

  57.05

  25.88

  2.70.2

  -Monreales and Satsumas

  46.00

  20.87

  2.70.3

  -Mandarins and wilkings

  52.41

  23.77

  2.70.4

  -Tangerines and others

  47.05

  21.34

  2.85

  Limes (Citrus aurantifolia), fresh

  49.40

  22.41

  2.90

  Grapefruit, fresh:

  2.90.1

  -white

  35.49

  16.10

  2.90.2

  -pink

  62.00

  21.12

  2.100

  Table grapes

  0.00

  0.0

  2.100

  Water melons

  16.51

  7.49

  2.120

  Melons (other than water melons):

  2.120.1

  -Amarillo, Cuper, Honey Dew (including Cantalene), Ontenient, Piel de Sapo (including Verde Liso), Rochet, Tendral, Futoro

  85.16

  38.63

  2.120.2

  -other

  107.39

  48.71

  2.140

  Pears

  2.140.1

  Pears—Nashi (Pyrus pyrifolia)

  0.00

  0.0

  2.140.2

  Other

  0.00

  0.0

  1.250

  Apricots

  146.89

  66.63

  2.160

  Cherries

  330.01

  149.69

  2.170

  Peaches

  0.00

  0.0

  2.180

  Nectarines

  0.00

  0.0

  2.190

  Plums

  0.00

  0.0

  2.200

  Strawberries

  272.15

  123.45

  2.205

  Raspberries

  210.99

  95.70

  2.210

  Fruit of the species Vaccinium myrtillus (Bilberries)

  285.76

  129.62

  2.220

  Kiwi fruit (Actinidia chinensis Planch)

  120.14

  54.50

  2.230

  Pomegranates

  216.14

  98.04

  2.240

  Khakis (including Sharon fruit)

  236.07

  107.08

  2.250

  Lychees

  128.96

  58.50

  The current import duty on (non-preferential) sugar imported into the EU is 419 euros per tonne. This equivalent to about 13p per pound.

  Light Pollution
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps are being taken to deal with light pollution, with particular reference to domestic security equipment not requiring planning permission. [128413]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Defra considered the control of nuisance caused by security lighting in its recent consultation "Living Places—Powers, Rights, Responsibilities".

  The paper sought opinions as to whether the Government should introduce new regulations for the positioning of external lighting (including domestic or security lighting, but excluding street lights); and whether the remit of the statutory nuisance regime should be extended to include such lighting. The consultation period closed on 14 February. A summary of the comments received to this consultation exercise has now been published. Most respondents felt that the statutory nuisance regime would be the most effective option, but issues were highlighted regarding the need to identify a feasible means of assessing external light for enforcement purpose. Copies of the summary report
  542W
  have been placed in both houses, and it is also available at: www.defra.gov.ukenvironment/consult/pubspace/index.htm.

  The House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology recently held an inquiry into light pollution and astronomy. This focused on the effectiveness of measures taken to reduce the impact of light pollution on astronomy and considered what further steps, if any, are required. The outcome of the inquiry will be published in due course and will be made available on the House of Commons' website.

  The Government will consider its future course of action taking into consideration any recommendations and conclusions emerging from the Select Committee's inquiry and from Defra's recent consultation exercise.

  Sheep Dip
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the extent to which farmers use arable cypermethrin for sheep dip; what the implications of its inappropriate use are in terms of risk to(a) the environment, (b) animal health and (c) human health; and if she will make a statement. [129185]
  543W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 11 September 2003]Cypermethrin is included as an active ingredient in 12 products currently authorised for use as veterinary medicines, including a number of sheep dips. All of these products have been fully assessed against a number of statutory criteria designed to assure their safety, quality and efficacy for this use.

  However my officials are currently investigating reports that suggest that a number of farmers may be purchasing an arable form of cypermethrin for use illegally to dip sheep. Although these investigations are at an early stage we have identified a number of sheep farmers in the Ceredigion region of South Wales who do not grow arable crops but who recently have purchased arable cypermethrin products.

  The arable product has been assessed for use as a pesticide, not as a sheep dip. It is not possible accurately to quantify the risks to the environment, animal health or human health from the illegal use of arable cypermethrin products as sheep dips as more information is required on how the product has actually been used. We are trying to collect this information and will carry out a risk assessment as soon as we are able. However, from the limited information currently available, our main concern relates to the potential environmental damage that might be caused by the inappropriate use, and disposal, of such products.

  Training Opportunities (Countryside)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what training opportunities are available for those working in the countryside. [130588]

  Alun Michael
  With the exception of schemes targeted at particular industry sectors, such as the Vocational Training Scheme provided under the England Rural Development Programme, people working in the countryside are entitled to the same wide and diverse range of training opportunities as people working elsewhere. The pattern of provision varies from place to place. Issues which are specific to the countryside, such as access to training for people living in remote rural areas, are being examined in the Department's Learning Skills and Knowledge Review.

  Urban Commons
  Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what types of development are permissible on land designated as urban common under the Law of Property Act 1925; and whether such development requires approval by the Secretary of State; [129436]

  (2) under what circumstances the erection of fencing is permitted on land designated as registered urban common under the Law of Property Act 1925. [129437]

  Alun Michael
  Under the provisions of section 194 of the Law of Property Act 1925, the Secretary of State's consent is required for any works which prevent or impede access to any land which, on 1 January 1926, was subject to rights of common. Such consent is separate from any other consent that might be needed, for example, under planning legislation.
  544W
  It is not possible to say what types of work might receive the Secretary of State's consent, or in what circumstances such consent might be granted. Each application is treated on its individual merits after full consideration of all relevant factors. Details of any proposed works would have to be advertised in the local press.

  Varroa
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research her Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on chemical resistant varroa mites; and what plans she has to contain the spread of varroa mites. [113257]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Controlling varroa is still the single most important challenge to UK beekeeping today. The pest is now endemic across much of the UK. Defra (and MAFF before it) has been funding a range of measures applied by the National Bee Unit under the Department's bee health programme, and R&D to better equip beekeepers to manage varroa infestations in their colonies ever since it was first detected in Devon in 1992. These measures include the provision of a free diagnostic and inspection service as well as training and education to enable beekeepers to become self-reliant in controlling the mite through improved bee husbandry.

  The Department has not yet commissioned any R&D on resistant mites, although current research investigating biological control methods for varroa is extremely relevant given the presence in England and Wales of varroa mites resistant to Apistan and Bayvarol, until recently the only two varroacides authorised for use in the UK.

  As has been demonstrated on the Continent, the varroa mite will develop resistance to most chemicals applied to control it; the spread of resistance is therefore inevitable. However, with foresight, the National Bee Unit began implementing a surveillance programme monitoring apiaries for signs of resistance in early 2000. As a result, the UK has been one of only a few countries that has been able to detect resistance before it has become fully established, thus enabling us to take action to help beekeepers treat affected colonies at an early stage. Although resistance is more widespread this year, the recent introduction on the UK market of a new treatment for varroa is welcome. Unlike Apistan and Bayvarol, the new product, Apiguard, is not based on a pyrethroid active ingredient and beekeepers will be able to use this, along with other controls, in particular Integrated Pest Management, which we are strongly advocating, to combat pyrethroid resistant mites.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Music Piracy
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what assessment she has made of the effect of web music piracy on(a) music sales and (b) the cost of legally purchased music; [128132]

  (2) what action she is taking to prevent web music piracy.[128133]
  545W
  Mr. Timms
  We have studied various and somewhat contradictory assessments that have been made by others considering the effect of music piracy on the internet on music sales and the cost of legally purchased music. These suggest that reliable evaluation of the relationship would be difficult. Moreover, my understanding is that much illegal file sharing on the internet is illegal private copying rather than piracy which further adds to the difficulty of an evaluation.

  Although UK copyright law already provides strong protection for those who own rights in music, our implementation in the UK of the EU Copyright Directive will clarify these rights and introduce criminal offences for internet music piracy, that is wilful illegal transmission of music on the internet when conducted at least on a commercial scale. The increasing availability of legitimate music tracks on the internet should also assist in encouraging those engaged in illegal private copying to desist and the clarification of the law resulting from the Copyright Directive should enable the music industry to trade online with even greater confidence.

  Civil Relationships Registration Scheme
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the rights which a married couple have, but a couple under the proposed civil relationships registration scheme would not have. [129235]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 11 September 2003]The consultation paper on civil partnership explains the main proposed rights and responsibilities that the Government has identified as important for same-sex couples who choose to register their partnerships. We are currently consulting on whether there are any significant rights and responsibilities not mentioned in the paper that should be addressed.

  Coal Investment Aid
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many applications have been received in respect of coal investment aid; from which companies the applications were received; how many applicants have been successful; and what aid was awarded in respect of each application. [129214]

  Mr. Timms
  14 applications were received by 31 July 2003. Details are on the DTI website at: www.dt.gov.uk/ energy/coal/invest_aid/index They are still being assessed and no aid has yet been awarded.

  Corporate Responsibility Bill
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consultation her Department is holding on the Corporate Responsibility Bill; which companies have been informed of this consultation; and which other stakeholders have been asked for their views. [127967]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department is not holding or planning any consultation on the Corporate Responsibility Bill though we have received views from MPs and the public.

  Illegal Imports
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the import of products produced in illegal ways in the United Kingdom. [127596]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 8 September 2003]All imports to the United Kingdom must be in compliance with the controls and conditions laid down in national or European Community legislation.

  Langage Power Station
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the time period for commencement of the construction of the gas fired power station at Langage, Plymouth expires; and if she will make a statement. [129705]

  Mr. Timms
  14 November 2005. The consent and associated planning permission of 15 November 2000 make clear that development must begin within five years for the permissions to remain valid.

  Mineworkers' Compensation
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much money the Government paid to the Union of Democratic Mineworkers for processing vibration white finger and respiratory coal health claims. [129201]

  Nigel Griffiths
  None.

  Ministerial Visits
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the occasions since 1997 when ministers from her Department have accompanied British firms on visits overseas to promote export marketing and sales, indicating the name of the minister and the country visited in each case. [128406]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 9 September 2003]Ministers take every opportunity to accompany British firms on visits overseas in order to help increase trade and investment opportunities, and boost British exports.

  For example, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry led a senior business delegation to India in January 2003. I and my hon Friend, the Under-secretary of State for Small Business also led trade missions to India in November 2002 and February 2003 respectively.

  My hon. Friend, the Minister for Trade and Investment, led a senior business delegation to China as part of the Prime Minister's visit in July 2003. His predecessor, my noble Friend Baroness Symons, now the Minister for State for the Middle East led a business delegation to Brazil in March 2002.

  My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame North the then Minister of State for Energy and Construction, supported the UK presence at the Caspian Oil and Gas show in Azerbaijan in June 2003. He also went to Houston, USA in May 2003 for the Offshore Technology Conference (where over 100 UK companies were exhibiting); to Brazil in September 2002 for the Rio

  547W
  de Janeiro Oil and Gas Show; and to Stavanger, Norway, in August 2002 for the Offshore Northern Seas Exhibition.Full information on all visits is not, however, recorded centrally in the form requested and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Nuclear Safety
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will undertake an assessment of safety at nuclear power stations following the recent heatwave; and if she will make a statement. [128769]

  Mr. Timms
  No. Assessment of safety of UK nuclear installations is for the operators licensed by the safety regulator, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Since all the UK nuclear stations that were operating during the heatwave depend on sea water, not river water for their cooling, the rise in the temperature of the cooling water remained well within the limits allowed by the various plant safety cases. HSE maintained regulatory vigilance during this period and was satisfied that safety case limits were not threatened by the hot weather.

  Royal Mail
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions have taken place with Royal Mail representatives regarding the use of railways to transport mail; and what measures have been taken to reduce redundancies. [128243]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department meets Royal Mail on a regular basis to discuss a range of issues, including progress on the transport review.

  Royal Mail envisage that the implementation of the whole transport review will impact on around 2,500 jobs across various parts of its distribution operation, including around 150 in rail.

  Royal Mail will seek to achieve any job losses through natural wastage and redeployment of staff within other parts of Royal Mail.

  Royal Mail has advised that it has not ruled out the use of rail in the future, and is still talking to a number of rail freight operators who believe they can offer a commercially viable rail solution.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) (what funding the Government provided for the development of partnership working between Royal Mail and trades unions representing employees in its United Kingdom Mails division in(a) 2002–03 and (b) 2003–04; [128530]

  (2) what representations her Department has made to the management of Royal Mail on the development of partnership working in Royal Mail; [128531]

  (3) what asessment she has made of progress in developing partnership working between the management and trades unions in Royal Mail. [128532]

  Mr. Timms
  Royal Mail were awarded £50,000 under the Partnership at Work Fund in 2002–03 to introduce partnership working at regional, national and area level with the Communication Workers Union and the Communication Managers' Association.
  548W
  The Department meets Royal Mail on a regular basis to discuss a range of issues including progress on developing partnership working. Good progress has been made in setting up a Partnership framework since Lord Sawyer's review in 2001, but there is still some way to go and the current process has stalled. The Department, wherever possible, continues to encourage the management and unions to take forward the Partnership approach set out by Lord Sawyer.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the expenditure by Royal Mail on external consultancy services was in(a) 2000–01, (b) 2001–02 and (c) 2002–03. [128533]

  Mr. Timms
  Expenditure by Royal Mail on external consultancy services is an operational matter for the company. I have, therefore, asked the Chief Executive of Royal Mail to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions has she had with industry stakeholders with regard to Postcomm's proposed terms of access to Royal Mail services. [129195]

  Mr. Timms
  Ministers regularly receive representations on a range of postal issues. Access pricing policy is, however, a matter for the regulator. The regulator is currently examining the results of its public consultation on this issue, to which a number of industry stakeholders have commented. A full list of respondents and details of representations received are shown on their website: http://www.postcomm.gov.uk

  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many lorry movements in and out of Royal Mail terminals have taken place in each of the last three years. [129690]

  Mr. Timms
  This is an operational matter for Royal Mail Group plc. I have therefore asked the Deputy Chairman of Royal Mail to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Science and Engineering (Women Employees)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many women work in the science, engineering and technology industries in the UK and what percentage of all workers in those industries were women in each of the last 10 years. [127658]

  Mr. Timms
  Data are only available for spring 2001, 2002 and 2003. The information requested is not available in a consistent basis prior to spring 2001, due to a change in the occupation classification used in the Labour Force Survey, from SOC90 to SOC2000.

  Women employed in science, engineering and technology occupations—United Kingdom, springs (March to May) 2001, 2002 and 2003

  Not seasonally adjusted

  March to May

  Thousand

  Percentage1

  2001

  335

  14.1

  2002

  337

  14.6

  2003

  302

  12.8

  1Women as a percentage of all employed in science, engineering and technology occupations.

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey.

  Telecommunications
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment her Department has made of the number of telecommunications-related jobs that have been lost to overseas competition in the last six years; and if she will make a statement. [129388]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department of Trade and Industry has not made an assessment of whether any telecoms related jobs have been lost to overseas competition in the last six years. Despite a severe global downturn in the telecoms industry that has resulted in the loss of a number of telecoms related jobs world-wide, official statistics suggest that employment in telecoms in Great Britain has been relatively stable.

  Employment in the GB1 telecommunications industry

  Employment (thousand)

  1998

  194

  1999

  209

  2000

  236

  2001

  248

  2002

  2236

  2003

  3238

  1Data for GB do not include Northern Ireland.

  2Data as at December 2002.

  3Data as at March 2003.

  Sources:

  1998 to 2001 figures: Annual Business Inquiry Data, Industry 64.2, Telecommunications 2002 to 2003 Labour Market Trends (Monthly Report) July 2003.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Modern Apprenticeships
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the percentage of young people in modern apprenticeships who are from(a) one parent families and (b) households in receipt of housing benefit. [129120]

  Alan Johnson
  The Youth Cohort Study (YCS) for England and Wales provides information on the activities of young people who have completed compulsory education. For the cohort of 16 and 17-year-olds who completed their compulsory education in 2001, the YCS estimates that 20 per cent. of those on Modern Apprenticeships were from lone parent families. The proportion of young people from lone parent families for the cohort as a whole was 22 per cent. The YCS does not collect information about the receipt of housing benefit.

  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average pay of young people on Modern Apprenticeships was in the last year for which figures are available, broken down by job type. [129121]

  Alan Johnson
  The rate of pay for a Modern Apprentice is agreed by the employer and the individual apprentice. Modern Apprentices are either paid a wage by their employer or receive a training allowance. The minimum training allowance is £40 per week.
  550W
  The Youth Cohort Study (YCS) for England and Wales provides information on the activities of young people who have completed compulsory education. According to the YCS, for the cohort who completed compulsory education in 2001, the average pay for 16 and 17-year-olds who were either waged or paid a training allowance was £88 per week. For the cohort who completed compulsory education in 1999, the corresponding rate of pay for 18 and 19-year-olds was £133 per week.

  The YCS does not collect information by job type for Modern Apprenticeships.

  Specialist Teaching (Sign Language)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools in the UK specialise in teaching those who are hard of hearing; what funding is afforded to them; where sign language is taught in state schools; and if he will make a statement. [128251]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department does not hold this information for Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. In England, there are 1,088 maintained special schools, of which 13 have hearing impairment as their primary category of need, and three have hearing impairment as their secondary category of need. In addition, there are eight non-maintained special schools which specialise in hearing impairment.

  According to a survey conducted by the British Association of Teachers of the Deaf (BATOD) in 2000, of the 25,019 children taught by teachers of the deaf, 67 per cent. were in mainstream schools, 14 per cent. in units attached to mainstream schools, and 19 per cent. in special schools.

  In maintained special schools, funding is usually related to a set number of places, with the individual place cost determined by the complexity of learning needs that the school has to address. The average budget share for a pupil in a maintained special school is £10,800. Government support for non-maintained special schools comes primarily from the Devolved Capital Formula, the Standards Fund and School Standards Grant.

  The Department does not hold records centrally indicating where sign bilingualism is taught in schools. However, the BATOD survey suggested that sign bilingualism was used by 6 per cent. of children (601 in schools for the deaf and 410 in units attached to mainstream schools).

  Adult Non-vocational Courses
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the extent to which provision of adult non-vocational courses meets the needs of the community in West Herts; and what representations he will make on this issue.[129145]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 11 September 2003]The Learning and Skills Council has responsibility for planning and funding non-vocational adult education provided through local education authorities. The local LSC for Hertfordshire has recently commissioned a
  551W
  Strategic Options Review of West Hertfordshire College, which is due to report at the end of September 2003. Nationally we recently reaffirmed our intention to safeguard such courses and opportunities for all adult learners, 21st Century Skills, Realising Our Potential, July 2003.

  Animal Experiments
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps he is taking to enable students studying for science degrees and doctorates to avoid taking part in animal experiments they do not wish to participate in. [129268]

  Alan Johnson
  Higher education institutions in the UK are independent, autonomous bodies and are responsible for the content and delivery of their own programmes. Students with particular concerns about aspects of course content would need to discuss this with their prospective university before deciding to enrol. However, independent bodies like the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare can offer advice and guidance to universities and individuals on the welfare and ethical use of animals in education and science.

  Early Literacy Programme
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 25 Jun 2003,Official Report, column 777W, on the Early Literacy Programme, when the 'Go Karts' early literacy support video was withdrawn from use; and for what reasons the video was withdrawn. [128544]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The 'Go Karts' sequence was one of a number included in the Early Literacy Support (ELS) video made available to local authorities in September 2000, as part of the first national training of Reception and Year 1 teachers and teaching assistants. The specific purpose of this sequence was to provide training to Reception teachers about the ELS programme. Revisions were made to the video and training materials that were sent to schools in September 2001, specifically to support the implementation of the programme in Year 1.

  Learning and Skills Council
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) whether the Learning and Skills Council National Contracting Service is required to take account of existing contractual agreements and relationships that a local Learning and Skills Council and local providers already have with industry when issuing contracts to national providers; [129417]

  (2) at what stage of the process local Learning and Skills Councils and providers will be informed of the intention to issue a contract through the Learning and Skills Council National Contracting Service; [129418]

  (3) if he will list by (a) value of contract and (b) region, the contracts that have been issued by the Learning and Skills Council National Contracting Service to fund, or part fund, employer-based learning; [129419]

  (4) how many contracts have been issued by the Learning and Skills Council National Contracting Service to offer free training for a qualification; how
  552W
  many of these were in areas where an existing locally-based contract was already present; and if he will make a statement. [129420]

  Alan Johnson
  These are matters for the Learning and Skills Council. John Harwood, the Council's Chief Executive, will write to my hon. Friend with the information requested and place a copy of his reply in the Library.

  Further Education
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills for what reasons(a) further education tuition for adults to Level 2 will be free and (b) tuition to Level 3 will be charged for. [129698]

  Alan Johnson
  In making decisions about public funds we have to prioritise so that funding is targeted where it will make the most difference. Over 7 million adults in the workforce in England do not possess level 2 or equivalent qualifications. These individuals are more likely to lack the foundation of skills they need for employability, and are less likely to get a secure, well paid job. In contrast, the higher wages paid to people with qualifications above level 2 offer a greater incentive for both individuals and employers to invest in learning. The entitlement to free tuition for individuals studying for a first full level 2 qualification, to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, will enable individuals to achieve a level of educational attainment that will provide them with a with a platform of skills for employability, enable them to improve their position in the labour market and increase their chances of undertaking further learning.

  This focus on using public funds to help people reach level 2 should be seen within a wider strategy which encourages up-skilling and re-skilling at all levels. To that end, the Government will provide increased support for individuals developing their skills and qualifications at level 3 in priority sectors and to meet specific regional skills needs. We believe that this is the fairest way to manage participation in further education, and make productivity gains with public investment.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether, subject to access requirements, universities will be able to charge top-up fees for Foundation Degrees. [129730]

  Alan Johnson
  Foundation Degrees are, and will be subject to the same funding arrangements as other Higher Education qualifications.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether the Office of Fair Access will be empowered to consider the adequacy of(a) financial and (b) pastoral support available to students at higher education institutions. [129763]

  Alan Johnson
  We said in "Widening Participation in Higher Education" that the role of the Office for Fair Access would be to consider and approve universities' access agreements, where an institution intended to charge variable fees in excess of the standard fee (currently £1,125) for any of their courses. Institutions
  553W
  will draw up their own agreements, which must set out the fee levels they wish to charge and the courses to which higher fees will apply; the outreach work they plan to undertake; the bursaries and other financial support they will make available; and the milestones against which they intend to measure progress towards their widening participation ambitions. These are the features which OFFA will consider.

  Student Income and Expenditure Survey
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he plans to publish the latest Student Income and Expenditure Survey. [129702]

  Alan Johnson
  The Department has received a draft report of the 2002/03 Student Income and Expenditure Survey from the contractor and is currently considering comments from the steering committee; including representation from the NUS and UUK. The Department will announce a date for publication once a finalised report has been received from the contractor.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what account is taken when assessing levels of tuition fee payments of the number of children within a family intending to go to university that the student's parents will have to support. [129094]

  Alan Johnson
  Support for dependent students under 25 in higher education is based on a financial assessment of their parents' gross income in the previous financial year. In the academic year 2003/04, parents will not make any contribution to their children's support if their residual income is below £20,970 a year.

  Where there is more than one child in higher education, the total parental contribution is limited to the amount that would be assessed if there were only one student child. The parental contribution is then apportioned between the number of children in the family studying a course of higher education. Therefore, where parents have more than one student child, there is no higher assessed parental contribution to make to their student support.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what controls are in place on the level of tuition fees for Masters Degree courses; and whether financial assistance is available for those unable to pay. [129095]

  Alan Johnson
  The Government do not regulate the levels of fee charged for Masters Degree courses: it is for Higher Education Institutions to decide what level of fee they will charge. The Government do not make available assistance in the form of grants for fees for students undertaking Masters Degrees. The research councils and the Arts and Humanities Research Board provide a number of studentships and research grants each year for postgraduate students, including some on Masters courses depending on the field of study. These are allocated on a competitive basis.

  University Entry Criteria
  Rob Marris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many United Kingdom 554W
  universities accept (a) vocational and (b) work-based learning qualifications as entry criteria; and if he will make a statement. [129524]

  Alan Johnson
  Universities are taking into account an increasingly wide range of evidence when making decisions about a candidate's suitability. The extent to which vocational and work-based learning qualifications are taken into account varies from course to course, but they are particularly relevant for more vocationally orientated courses such as foundation degrees. However, this is a matter for universities and we have no figures on the number of courses for which vocational or work-based qualifications are taken into account in assessing a student's suitability.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Micro-finance
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what action he is taking to increase support for micro-finance through the World Bank. [129859]

  Hilary Benn
  The Department for International Development provides extensive financial and technical support for the development of microfinance globally. Much of this work involves collaboration with The World Bank. DFID is an active member of The Consultative Group to Assist the Poorest (CGAP), a 29-member organisation of donors and private foundations committed to the spread of best practice and the expansion of microfinance worldwide.

  CGAP is based in Washington DC, and is supervised by the World Bank, its largest shareholder. DFID currently chairs CGAP's Executive Committee, and works with the organisation in many developing countries to help commercialise microfinance institutions, extend their outreach to more clients, and diversify the range of financial services they offer poor clients from credit to savings, insurance, leasing and remittances.

  DFID also collaborates with World Bank officials in several of its country programmes including Uganda, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan. This involves coordinating programmes to develop the financial sector, and to mainstream microfinance into the formal banking system. DFID also supports programmes of the International Finance Corporation (IFC) in the World Bank Group in the Balkans, Africa, South Asia, China and the Mekong. These programmes improve the policy and regulatory environment for small enterprise development, and support the expansion of private banks and non-governmental organisations that provide microfinance services.

  Afghanistan
  Mrs. Liddell
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development (1) what improvements have been introduced in Afghanistan to ensure improved heath care for women and children in the last year; [129683]
  555W
  (2) what assistance the Government have provided towards improved maternity and neonatal care in Afghanistan. [129691]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The Afghanistan Transitional Administration has asked donors to concentrate on a few key areas of the reconstruction effort where they can have most impact. In response to this the UK is concentrating on building the capacity of the Afghan Government, humanitarian aid and programmes to support the development of income generation.

  We also fund Afghanistan's reconstruction effort through multi-lateral channels. The UK is the fourth largest donor to UNICEF and provided £44 million overall funding in 2002. We provide 19 per cent. of the European Union's £282 million package of reconstruction support for Afghanistan for 2003–04, of which £17.5 million is programmed for the health sector to help reduce infant and maternal mortality by providing a basic health care package. We are also contributing towards the World bank's Afghanistan Health Sector Emergency Reconstruction and Development Project, which aims to help expand delivery of basic health services and work to ensure equitable access, particularly for women and children.

  Since April 2002 the European Commission has worked with the United States to rebuild 72 hospitals, clinics and women's health care centres, revise the national curriculum for midwives and vaccinate 4.3 million children against measles. Over 2003 and 2004, the EC will channel support through the Government to deliver health services to 3 million people and help to reduce the unacceptably high levels of child and maternal mortality.

  UNICEF has supported Emergency Obstetric Care services in 20 districts and refurbished Malalai hospital, the largest maternity hospital in Kabul with 15,000 deliveries every year. UNICEF plans to launch other facilities in Kandahar, Herat and Jalalabad to build up the maternal health infrastructure.

  Although health is not a key area of our bilateral support, we have funded consultants to the MoH to assist with policy and planning. One of these consultants played a major role in developing the country's interim health strategy.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what recent assessment he has made of the clearing of landmines in Afghanistan. [130298]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  At the end of 2002 an estimated 850 square kilometres of land in Afghanistan were still contaminated with anti-personnel and anti-tank landmines, as well as bombs dropped from aircraft and other explosive devices, such as mortars, which fail to detonate on impact but are still capable of exploding when they are touched or moved. As many as 300 people per month were injured or killed by landmines and unexploded ordnance last year.

  The United Nations Mine Action Service (UNMAS) is responsible for co-ordinating 15 non-governmental organisations on behalf of the Government of Afghanistan for the clearing of mines and unexploded
  556W
  ordnance. We have provided £5.3 million funding to UNMAS over the last three years for their clearance operations in Afghanistan.

  Since 1989, 754 square kilometres of minefields and former battle areas have been cleared or declared safe. In addition, the programme has overseen services that taught more than 2.4 million people how to identify and avoid mines and unexploded ordnance. In 2002 alone, the programme cleared mines and unexploded ordnance from about 111 square kilometres of land.

  The Mine Action Programme for Afghanistan recently announced Afghanistan could be free from the threat of landmines and unexploded ordnance by 2012 if clearance operations continue at current levels and if international donor support is sustained.

  Agricultural Produce (EU Reforms)
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what assessment has been made of the impact of EU reform of the(a) sugar, (b) oil, (c) cotton, (d) tobacco and (e) olive oil regimes on trade exports to the United Kingdom from (i) least developed countries covered by the Everything but Arms agreement and (ii) non-least developed countries in sub-Saharan Africa. [128615]

  Hilary Benn
  The Commission is analysing a number of options for reform of the EU sugar regime although, to date, no formal proposals have been made. DFID has already undertaken its own analysis on the impact on developing countries of the four families of reform options suggested by the Commission earlier this year. In addition, DFID has commissioned a study to explore the potential need for adjustment assistance for ACP countries with preferential access to the EU sugar market that may lose out from a reform of this regime. This analysis includes both least developed and non-least developed countries in sub-Saharan Africa. This study will be presented to the Commission.

  As agreed at the Luxembourg Council (June 2003), the Commission is expected to release a second round CAP reform proposal covering olive oil, tobacco and cotton in autumn 2003. The reforms will be based on the approach and objectives of the June 2003 CAP reform. On receipt of these reform proposals, DFID will consider the issue of assessing their implications for developing countries. There have not been any recent changes to the EU oil seeds regime nor are there expected to be.

  International Conference on Population and Development
  Mrs Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development whether the Government intends to reaffirm its commitment to the International Conference on Population and Development's Programme of Action. [128388]

  Hilary Benn
  The Government remains firmly committed to the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD)'s Programme of Action, including the target of achieving access to reproductive health for all by 2015. Reproductive Health continues to be a priority for DFID. We are convinced that reproductive health and rights are vital
  557W
  to making progress to attaining the Millennium Development Goals to combat HIV/AIDS and reduce maternal and child mortality. We also consider it a basic right of women and men to exercise informed and responsible choice in matters relating to their sexual and reproductive health.

  The Government will continue to work with the international community to ensure that reproductive health receives the priority it demands. We plan to produce a public policy statement on reproductive health before the end of the year.

  Iraq
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what further steps will be taken(a) to provide ongoing development and humanitarian aid for the reconstruction of Iraq and (b) to address the needs of the communities there. [128273]

  Hilary Benn
  The Department for International Development has now committed £198 million towards humanitarian and reconstruction assistance in Iraq. This money is being used to support essential services such as health care, food supply, electricity, water and sanitation, and to undertake reconstruction and mine clearance work. The aim is to achieve real and rapid improvements to the lives of ordinary Iraqi citizens. Most of the funding is channelled through United Nations agencies, the Red Cross and Red Crescent movement and NGOs, which have the capacity and experience to implement humanitarian and development programmes effectively on the ground. DFID is also financing projects managed by commercial companies. £20 million was recently approved for spare parts, equipment and rehabilitation work to improve service delivery in the power, fuel and water sectors in southern Iraq.

  Future allocations will be considered in view of social and economic needs assessments under preparation by the UN, World Bank and IMF.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what measures the Department is taking to rebuild Iraq's seed supply. [128608]

  Hilary Benn
  The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) is focusing its current activities in Iraq on the procurement and distribution of seed and other inputs for the winter planting season, which is the immediate priority for Iraqi farmers. DFID has provided £1,500,000 to FAO to support agriculture in conflict-affected areas of southern Iraq, including the provision of seed. In the longer term, priorities may include the creation of grain banks.

  Sierra Leone
  Mrs Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what progress is being made towards the alleviation of poverty in Sierra Leone. [129445]

  Hilary Benn
  There is insufficient data available since the end of the civil war to show trends in poverty reduction. In 2001, The Government of Sierra Leone 558W
  published an Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy, focused on re-establishment of security and economic recovery. The Government hopes to complete a full Poverty Reduction Strategy by mid-2004. It will be the basis for targeting Government and donor resources on poverty reduction. The preparatory process includes a household expenditure survey and sector studies that will provide information on the extent and depth of poverty, a baseline for future monitoring and poverty reduction measures. We are providing extensive support to the preparation of the strategy.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefit Applications
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what estimate he has made of the average time taken to deal with an application made using the Pension Credit telephone application line; [128745]

  (2) what targets he has set for dealing with applications made using the Pension Credit telephone application line. [128746]

  Mr. Pond
  The average time to complete a Pension Credit application for customers using the telephone application line is currently about 20 minutes. Reliable information on the time taken to process applications is not yet available. However, the Department's published Service Delivery Agreement includes a three-year target to ensure that Pension Credit applications are processed on average within 10 days once the necessary information and evidence has been obtained.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will require the Child Support Agency to provide evidence of its assessment of the financial status of(a) the parent in care and (b) the absent parent to either of the parties concerned if they request it. [127290]

  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 Mr. Brian Jenkins, dated 15 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 if he will require the Child Support Agency to provide evidence of its assessment of the financial status of (a) the parent in care and (b) the absent parent to the parties concerned if they request it.
  The Agency is only concerned with the financial status of a parent with care and a non-resident parent to the extent to what this is relevant in meeting their statutory functions.
  An award notification is sent to both parties following a new or fresh calculation of maintenance liability. This notice provides information to enable both parties to understand how the amount has been arrived at, including the relevant income information. If either party wants to know more about the decision or they disagree, the notification advises them to contact the Agency who will then explain the decision in detail and answer any questions the client may have.

  International Labour Organisations
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what plans the Government have to ratify(a) the International Labour Organisation Seafarers' Welfare Convention 163 (1987) and (b) the International Labour Organisation Seafarers' Welfare Recommendation 173 (1987); and if he will make a statement; [128754]

  (2) if he will list International Labour Organisation conventions which the United Kingdom has (a) declined to sign and (b) not yet signed; and if he will make a statement. [128756]

  Mr. Pond
  The Government have no plans to ratify ILO Convention 163 for the reasons given in the 1989 White Paper (Cm 658), and notes that only 12 member states of the ILO have so far ratified. There is no procedure for ratifying an ILO recommendation. The United Kingdom is addressing the issue of seafarers' welfare by participating actively in ILO discussions aimed at consolidating the existing body of ILO maritime instruments within a new single instrument.

  ILO conventions which UK has not ratified or has ratified and subsequently denounced

  Convention number

  Date of adoption

  Title

  Denounced

  1

  1919

  Hours of Work (Industry)

  3

  1919

  Maternity Protection

  4

  1919

  Night Work (women)

  25.01.1937

  5

  1919

  Minimum Age (Industry)

  07.06.2000

  6

  1919

  Night Work Of Young Persons (Industry)

  04.10.1947

  7

  1920

  Minimum Age (Sea)

  07.06.2000

  9

  1920

  Placing of Seamen

  10

  1921

  Minimum Age (Agriculture)

  07.06.2000

  13

  1921

  White Lead (Painting)

  14

  1921

  Weekly Rest (Industry)

  15

  1921

  Minimum Age (Trimmers and Stokers)

  07.06.2000

  18

  1925

  Workmen's Compensation (Occupational Diseases)

  29.04.1936

  26

  1928

  Minimum Wage-Fixing Machinery

  25.07.1985

  27

  1929

  Marking of Weight (Packages Transported by Vessels)

  30

  1930

  Hours of Work (Commerce and Offices)

  33

  1932

  Minimum Age (Non-Industrial Employment)

  41

  1934

  Night Work (Women) (Revised)

  04.10.1947

  45

  1935

  Underground Work (Women)

  26.05.1988

  47

  1935

  Forty-Hour Week

  52

  1936

  Holidays with Pay

  53

  1936

  Officers' Competency Certificates

  54

  1936

  Holidays with Pay (Sea)

  55

  1936

  Shipowners' Liability (Sick and Injured Seamen)

  57

  1936

  Hours of Work and Manning (Sea)

  58

  1936

  Minimum Age (Sea) (Revised)

  59

  1937

  Minimum Age (Industry) (Revised)

  62

  1937

  Safety Provisions (Building)

  63

  1938

  Statistics of Wages and Hours of Work

  27.05.1987

  71

  1946

  Seafarers' Pensions

  72

  1946

  Paid Vacations (Seafarers)

  73

  1946

  Medical Examination (Seafarers)

  75

  1946

  Accommodation of Crews

  76

  1946

  Wages, Hours of Work and Manning (Sea)

  77

  1946

  Medical Examination of Young Persons (Industry)

  78

  1946

  Medical Examination of Young Persons (Non-Industrial Occupations)

  79

  1946

  Night Work of Young Persons (Non-Industrial Occupations)

  88

  1948

  Employment Service

  06.08.1971

  89

  1948

  Night Work (Women) (Revised)

  90

  1948

  Night Work of Young Persons (Industry) (Revised)

  93

  1949

  Wages, Hours of Work and Manning (Sea) (Revised)

  94

  1949

  Labour Clauses (Public Contracts)

  20.09.1982

  560W
  A total of 65 ILO conventions, including all of the 'core' ILO conventions, which cover freedom of association and the right to organise and collective bargaining;; the elimination of forced and child labour; and the ending of discrimination in employment, are in force in the UK. We also observe in principle many of the requirements of unratified conventions. The ILO has recognised the need to keep its instruments under review and recently withdrew or shelved 27 out of date conventions, while next year's conference will consider the withdrawal of 16 out of date recommendations. The ILO has also recognised the importance of a coherent approach to labour standards including through the proposed new consolidated maritime instrument and the general discussion at this year's International Labour Conference which for the first time was based on an integrated approach, taking account of all existing ILO instruments in the area of occupational safety and health.

  The table shows the ILO conventions which the United Kingdom has not ratified or has ratified and subsequently denounced. In recent years a number of conventions have been denounced automatically due to ratification of new, more up-to-date conventions which subsume the requirements of earlier instruments. We will continue to review unratified conventions.
  561W

  ILO conventions which UK has not ratified or has ratified and subsequently denounced

  Convention number

  Date of adoption

  Title

  Denounced

  95

  1949

  Protection of Wages

  16.09.1983

  96

  1949

  Fee-Charging Employment Agencies (Revised)

  99

  1951

  Minimum Wage Fixing Machinery (Agriculture)

  16.08.1994

  101

  1952

  Holiday with Pay (Agriculture).

  16.08.1994

  103

  1952

  Maternity Protection (Revised)

  106

  1957

  Weekly Rest (Commerce and Offices)

  107

  1957

  Indigenous and Tribal Populations

  109

  1958

  Wages, Hours of Work and Manning (Sea) (Revised)

  110

  1958

  Plantations

  112

  1959

  Minimum Age (Fishermen)

  113

  1959

  Medical Examination (Fishermen)

  117

  1962

  Social Policy (Basic Aims and Standards)

  118

  1962

  Equality of Treatment (Social Security

  119

  1963

  Guarding of Machinery

  121

  1964

  Employment Injury Benefits

  123

  1965

  Minimum Age (Underground Work)

  125

  1966

  Fishermen's Competency Certificates

  127

  1967

  Maximum Weight

  128

  1967

  Invalidity, Old-Age and Survivors' Benefits

  129

  1969

  Labour Inspection (Agriculture)

  130

  1969

  Medical Care and Sickness Benefits

  131

  1970

  Minimum Wage Fixing

  132

  1970

  Holidays with Pay (Revised)

  134

  1970

  Prevention of Accidents (Seafarers)

  136

  1971

  Benzene

  137

  1973

  Dock Work

  139

  1974

  Occupational Cancer

  143

  1975

  Migrant Workers (Supplementary Provisions)

  145

  1976

  Continuity of Employment (Seafarers)

  146

  1976

  Seafarers' Annual Leave with Pay

  149

  1977

  Nursing Personnel

  152

  1979

  Occupational Safety and Health (Dock Work)

  153

  1979

  Hours of Work and Rest Periods (Road Transport)

  154

  1981

  Collective Bargaining

  155

  1981

  Occupational Safety and Health

  156

  1981

  Workers with Family Responsibilities

  157

  1982

  Maintenance of Social Security Rights

  158

  1982

  Termination of Employment

  159

  1983

  Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (Disabled Persons)

  161

  1985

  Occupational Health Services

  162

  1986

  Asbestos Convention

  163

  1987

  Seafarers' Welfare

  164

  1987

  Health Protection and Medical Care (Seafarers)

  165

  1987

  Social Security (Seafarers) (Revised)

  166

  1987

  Repatriation of Seafarers (Revised)

  167

  1988

  Safety and Health in Construction.

  168

  1988

  Employment Promotion and Protection against Unemployment.

  169

  1989

  Indigenous and Tribal Peoples

  170

  1990

  Chemicals

  171

  1990

  Night Work

  172

  1991

  Working Conditions (Hotels and Restaurants)

  173

  1992

  Protection of Workers' Claims (Employer's Insolvency)

  174

  1993

  Prevention of Major Industrial Accidents

  175

  1994

  Part-Time Work

  176

  1995

  Safety and Health in Mines

  177

  1996

  Home Work

  179

  1996

  Recruitment and Placement of Seafarers

  181

  1997

  Private Employment Agencies

  183

  2000

  Maternity Protection

  184

  2001

  Safety and Health in Agriculture

  185

  2003

  Seafarers' Identity Documents

  Notes:

  1. Conventions 5, 7, 10, and 15 were denounced as a result of ratification of the Minimum Age Convention 138 (1973).

  2. Convention 63 was denounced as a result of ratification of the Labour Statistics Convention 160 (1985).

  3. Convention 18 was denounced on ratification of the revised Workmen's Compensation (Occupational Diseases) Convention 42 (1934).

  Employment (People with Learning Disabilities)
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many adults with a learning disability were in unpaid employment in England for each year 562W
  since 1997; what percentage this represents of people with a learning disability known to social services; and if he will make a statement. [127125]

  Maria Eagle
  The information is not available.
  563W
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the Government schemes intended to help adults with a learning disability move into paid employment; and if he will make a statement. [127126]

  Maria Eagle
  Adults with learning disabilities are able to access the full range of services provided by Jobcentre Plus. In addition Jobcentre Plus offers a range of programmes specifically tailored to the needs of disabled customers. These are, Access to Work, Work Preparation, Workstep and New Deal for Disabled People. These programmes are all aimed to help customers with disabilities, including learning disabilities, move into paid employment.

  Access to these programmes is through Disability Employment Advisers (DEAs), who are based in Jobcentre and Jobcentre Plus offices. DEAs work closely with employers, employees and disabled people looking for work.

  Workstep is the employment programme most suitable for many people with learning disabilities. Workstep provides tailored support for people with disabilities who have more complex barriers to finding and keeping work. It provides the support and opportunity for people to progress to unsupported employment where this is the right option for the individual. Of the 21,500 people accessing support through Workstep, 37 per cent. have a learning disability.

  Pensioners (Means-tested Benefits)
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of pensioners were in receipt of means-tested benefits for each year between 1992 and 2002; and if he will make a statement. [128550]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The answer is in the table.

  Pensioner beneficiaries of means-tested benefits1 as a percentage of the population: Great Britain May 1992 to May 1999

  Beneficiaries aged 60 and over of means-tested benefits

  Percentage of the population aged 60 and over

  1992

  Not available

  Not available

  1993

  4,320,000

  36.9

  1994

  4,180,000

  35.8

  1995

  4,060,000

  34.7

  1996

  3,940,000

  33.6

  1997

  3,810,000

  32.5

  1998

  3,670,000

  31.1

  1999

  3,540,000

  29.9

  2000

  3,420,000

  28.7

  2001

  3,380,000

  28.3

  2002

  3,290,000

  27.6

  Notes:

  1. From 1993 to 1999 means-tested benefits included in the table are Income Support (IS), Jobseekers Allowance (Income Based) (JSA(IB)), Housing Benefit (HB), Community Charge Benefit (CCB)/Council Tax Benefit (CTB), Family Credit (FC) and Disability Working Allowance (DWA).

  2. From 2000 to 2002 means-tested benefits included in the table are IS, JSA(IB), HB and CCB/CTB. FC and DWA were replaced by Working Families Tax Credit and Disabled Persons Tax Credit in October 1999 and are therefore not included in the figures for 2000, 2001 and 2002.

  3. Overlaps between benefits have been removed.
  564W
  4. Great Britain HB/CTB figures include estimates for local authorities that have not responded.

  5. CTB data excludes Second Adult Rebate cases.

  6. HB data excludes any Extended Payment cases.

  7. Percentage for population has been calculated using the revised ONS population estimates for age group 60 and over, for 1993 to 2001.

  8. Figures (except DWA) are based on 1 per cent. and 5 per cent. samples and therefore subject to sampling variation.

  9. Beneficiaries of a benefit unit are the sum of claimants and their partners.

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre 5 per cent. and I per cent. samples

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what targets he has set for converting Minimum Income Guarantee claimants to Pension Credit. [128741]

  Mr. Pond
  The Department has a Service Delivery Agreement to maximise payments of Pension Credit from October 2003 by, among other measures, converting all existing Minimum Income Guarantee recipients automatically to Pension Credit. The process of conversion is on course to be completed by October 2003.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many operators work on the Pension Credit telephone application line; and what plans he has to increase this number; [128738]

  (2) how many call centres deal with Pension Credit telephone applications; and what their locations are;[128739]

  (3) whether calls to the Pension Credit telephone application line will be handled by private contractors. [128750]

  Mr. Pond
  The Pension Credit application line currently has just over 1,100 whole-time equivalent staff, rising to around 1,500 when Pension Credit is implemented in October 2003. The application line is based at four sites in Cardiff, Dearne Valley, Derby and Newcastle. The Pension Service is working in partnership with Ventura, an experienced provider of contact centre services. Ventura is providing expertise in the running of the operation and also providing the staff and facilities to handle calls at the Dearne Valley site.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions who has been awarded the contract for developing the new IT system to deliver Pension Credit; what the estimated contract value is; and on what date he expects the system to become operational. [128747]

  Mr. Pond
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 8 July 2003,Official Report, column 762W.

  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners he estimates will benefit from the pensioners' credit in Eltham; and what the average gain will be per pensioner(a) in the UK and (b) in Eltham. [129412]
  565W
  Mr. Pond
  The information requested is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows.

  Estimates of Pension Credit entitlement are not available at individual constituency level due to insufficient sample cases in the survey data used. However, around half of all pensioner households nationally will be eligible for Pension Credit, and the average gain per year will be around £400.

  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he is taking to encourage pensioners to claim the pensioners' credit. [129413]

  Mr. Pond
  The Pension Service began writing to pensioner households in April, to explain Pension Credit and to invite advance applications. In addition, around 1.8 million people in receipt of the Minimum Income Guarantee have been told that they will be transferred automatically to Pension Credit ready for payments to be made from October 2003. By June 2004, all pensioner households will have been contacted. These direct mail arrangements are being supported by a national TV and press advertising campaign, which began on 3 September. The Pension Service is also working with partner organisations at national and local level to encourage take-up of the new entitlement. The Pension Credit freephone application line, which became operational on 7 April, enables our trained staff to help pensioners through the application form and complete it for them over the telephone. Friends and family can use the application line and apply on a pensioner's behalf.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Agriculture Training
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many and what percentage of the workforce in agriculture hold vocational qualifications at NVQ Level 3 or higher in Northern Ireland. [128277]

  Mr. Pearson
  Information is not available on numbers in the total agricultural labour force with vocational qualifications at NVQ Level 3 or higher. The information that is available is summarised as follows.

  The social survey of farmers and farm families (excluding hired workers) carried out in 2000–01 indicated that:

  7,029 farmers and regular family workers on family farms (18.9 per cent. of total) had general qualifications (excl. apprenticeships) at or above NVQ Level 3 or equivalent—as well as vocational qualifications in all disciplines, this includes "A" Levels and other non-vocational qualifications;

  9,347 farmers and regular family workers on family farms (25.1 per cent. of total) had general qualifications (incl. apprenticeships) at or above NVQ Level 3 or equivalent;

  2,131 farmers and regular family workers on family farms (5.7 per cent. of total) had agricultural qualifications at or above NVQ Level 3 or equivalent.
  566W
  In 2000, the EU Farm Structure Survey indicated that 3,888 farmers, family and regular hired workers (6.4 per cent. of workforce) had undertaken a formal agricultural course of less than two years and 2,101 people (3.5 per cent. of workforce) had undertaken a formal agricultural course of more than two years duration. However there was no assessment of level of qualification.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many business development training places for farmers there were in each Northern Ireland constituency in the last year for which figures are available. [R] [128278]

  Mr. Pearson
  During the 2002–03 financial year a total of 3,617 business development training places were available for farmers on the Good Business Sense training programme.

  The management information system operated by the College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise cannot allocate the total places available according to Northern Ireland constituency. The following table illustrates the breakdown according to county.

  Number of training places provided per county

  Good business sense

  County Antrim

  482

  County Armagh

  420

  County Down

  900

  County Fermanagh

  765

  County Londonderry

  300

  County Tyrone

  750

  Total training places

  3,617

  Autism Services
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to standardise the services available to sufferers of autism in different parts of Northern Ireland, with particular reference to applied behaviour analysis provision for schoolchildren. [116374]

  Jane Kennedy
  Children with an Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) represent a continuum of need, ranging from mild impairments, to the more severe. The Education and Library Boards (ELBs) provide specialised support to schools with pupils with ASD and the Department of Education is aware that there is a degree of variation in assessment and provision across the Province. Work is currently under way between the Department and the ELBs in order to standardise practice by producing criteria which will be common across the board areas.

  In line with the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety's "Priorities for Action 2003/04" the Health and Social Services Trusts, in consultation with the ELBs, are developing costed proposals to enhance diagnostic, assessment and support services.

  Applied Behaviour Analysis (ABA) is one of a range of interventions used in working with children with Autistic Spectrum Disorder and all of the Boards' Educational Psychologists receive training in ABA techniques as part of their degree qualification.
  567W
  The Report of the Task Group on Autism, published in May 2002 states that:
  "The Task Group finds preference for no single approach but concludes that single methods by themselves may not address effectively the triad of impairments associated with ASD. The Group concludes that intervention programmes should be child-centred rather than method-centred, and should address the observed and unique needs of the child and any variation in these which occurs over time and across settings and situations."

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland pursuant to his answer of 13 May 2003,Official Report, column 194W, on autism, whether the proposed Centre of Excellence for Autism will provide regular respite care for sufferers across the province. [116620]

  Jane Kennedy
  There are no plans to offer respite care for parents and children with Autism at the proposed Centre of Excellence. The centre is planned as an educational facility.

  Beef Exports
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the total tonnage of beef exports in Northern Ireland was in each of the last seven years. [115272]

  Mr. Pearson
  There has been only limited exports of beef from Northern Ireland in each of the last seven years. Exports of 260 and 400 tonnes were made under the Export Certified Herd Scheme in 1998 and 1999 respectively. Northern Ireland companies have either recently been approved, or are at an advanced stage leading to approval, under the Date Based Export Scheme. To date, only an insignificant tonnage of beef has been exported but it is expected that volumes will increase as new contracts are secured and more companies are fully approved in the coming months.

  BSE
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps have been taken to achieve separate moderate BSE status for Northern Ireland.[115273]

  Mr. Pearson
  Until last week the definition of BSE moderate risk status was 100 BSE positive cases per million adult cattle aged over 24 months. Northern Ireland incidence of positive cases of BSE for the period May 2002 to April 2003 is 112 positive cases per million adult cattle aged over 24 months. In view of this incidence level it was not possible for Northern Ireland to seek separate BSE moderate risk status.

  At the Annual General Meeting of the World Animal Health Organisation (OIE) in Paris on 18–23 May, the EU proposed and the OIE accepted that, taking into
  568W
  consideration the active BSE monitoring programmes in place, and their efficiency at detecting BSE cases, the definition of "moderate risk status" should be doubled to 200 cases per million adult cattle aged over 24 months.

  The current BSE incidence rate in the UK is above the 200 cases per million requirement but on current trends should drop below the 200 cases threshold by the end of the year. Taking Northern Ireland alone, we are already below the 200 threshold.

  While the development at OIE is welcome, before the UK or any region can be classified as having moderate risk status, this needs to be recognised in EU legislation. This may not necessarily be straightforward.

  Discussions are taking place with the European Commission on how best to present a case that all the criteria for moderate risk status are met. This is being taken forward on a UK basis but I will wish to consider making a separate case for Northern Ireland if progress on the UK case is delayed.

  Causeway Health and Social Services Trust
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what payments have been made by the Causeway HSS Trust to former employees of the Trust, by way of settlement for cessation of employment for reasons other than age retirement or retirement on medical grounds; when each payment was made; what the individual amount of each payment was; and for what the payments were made, in financial years(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03. [128345]

  Angela Smith
  The details requested are set out in the following table:

  Date of payment

  Amount

  Purpose

  2001–02

  January 2002

  22,034

  Redundancy

  March 2002

  4,250

  Constructive dismissal settlement

  2002–03

  February 2003

  1,500

  Unfair dismissal settlement

  March 2003

  1,750

  Constructive dismissal settlement

  February 2003

  750

  Unfair dismissal settlement

  Mature Students (Child Care Support)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Irelands how many mature students are in receipt of child care grants in Northern Ireland. [128279]

  Jane Kennedy
  In the 2002/03 academic year, 135 mature students aged 25 or over and domiciled in Northern Ireland received the grant in accordance with the Education (Student Support) Regulations (Northern Ireland).

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many instances the Child Support Agency in Northern Ireland has recorded of(a) deliberate evasive action to prevent the agency securing maintenance payments through (i) deduction from earnings and (ii) deduction from benefits and (b) preventing court action for enforcement through non-co-operation. [116096]

  Mr. Browne
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Northern Ireland Child Support Agency. I have asked the chief executive to respond to the hon. Gentleman's question directly. A copy of the letter will be placed in the Library.

  Freedom of Information
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the electronic document and electronic record management systems which have been procured by the public authorities listed in Parts Ito V of Schedule 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for which he is responsible. [116395]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The following NI public authorities listed in Parts I to V of Schedule 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for which I am responsible have procured Electronic Document and Records Management Systems.

  The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment purchased 50 licences for electronic document and record management (EDRM) software from Objective Corporation UK Ltd. in February 2003 to support the implementation of the Department's first major e-business project in Corporate Regulation Branch.

  Invest NI, having tendered for supply of an EDRM system, have selected and purchased Meridio release 3.3 from Meridio Ltd. in March 2003.

  Entrepreneurship/Education
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps are being taken to promote greater integration of entrepreneurship and education in Northern Ireland. [128288]

  Mr. Pearson
  In March 2003, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, in partnership with the Department of Education and the Department for Employment and Learning, published "Enterprising Education"—the Entrepreneurship and Education Action Plan.

  Exchequer funding

  £

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Total

  Soccer

  50,000

  50,000

  50,000

  59,000

  52,500

  261,500

  11100,000

  1500,000

  600,000

  Gaelic games

  30,000

  30,000

  30,000

  30,000

  45,000

  165,000

  Rugby

  16,000

  16,000

  16,000

  16,000

  24,000

  88,000

  Cricket

  20,000

  20,000

  20,000

  20,000

  26,330

  106,330

  Total

  116,000

  116,000

  116,000

  225,000

  647,830

  1,220,830

  1These figures indicate the funds allocated to Soccer from the Football Development Centre Programme for 2001–02 and 2002–03.

  570W
  Fully integrating entrepreneurship and education will take time and concentrated effort by a range of key stakeholders. The primary purpose of Enterprising Education is to establish an initial framework of action to provide a strong foundation for moving forward the integration process. The long-term goal is to ensure that every learner, including life-long learners, is given the opportunity to build the skills and develop the attributes which equip any individual to make a unique, innovative and creative contribution in the world of work.

  The Action Plan, which will establish benchmarks, is the first stage in a longer-term process and will inform future decision-making. Progress will be reviewed on an annual basis and each Department will continue to promote the benefits of strengthening business/education links within their respective Departments and the wider circles in which they operate.

  A copy of the Action Plan can be viewed or downloaded at www.detini.gov.uk.

  Environmental Appraisals
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many of the Department's policies have been screened for their environmental impact since June 2001; how many environmental appraisals have been conducted, and on what policy issues; and what information has been published about these screenings and appraisals. [124715]

  Angela Smith
  Since June 2001, Northern Ireland Departments have carried out 37 regulatory impact assessments of policies associated with a range of legislative proposals. However, to date, there have been no free standing environmental appraisals of departmental policies.

  Sport Funding
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much public funding was allocated to(a) soccer, (b) Gaelic games, (c) rugby and (d) cricket in Northern Ireland in the last five years. [115700]

  Angela Smith
  The Sports Council for Northern Ireland (SCNI) is responsible for the development of Sport in NI including the distribution of public funding to individual sports.

  The following tables provides information from each source of funding distributed by SCNI for the five year period 1998–2003 for the four sports of soccer, Gaelic games, rugby and cricket.
  571W

  Lottery funding

  £

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Total

  Soccer

  677,073

  816,616

  942,492

  642,710

  609,131

  3,688,022

  Gaelic games

  2,703,811

  1,303,185

  1,694,182

  1,025,420

  689,962

  7,416,560

  Rugby

  155,526

  100,784

  312,053

  144,000

  76,860

  789,223

  Cricket

  215,298

  212,837

  282,500

  57,202

  16,000

  783,837

  Total

  3,751,708

  2,433,422

  3,231,227

  1,869,332

  1,391,953

  12,677,642

  Safe Sports Grounds

  The money provided by the Safe Sports Ground Programme was made available from financial year 2000–01 for the three sports of soccer, Gaelic games and

  £

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Total

  Soccer

  —

  —

  1,206,809

  784,003

  415,188

  2,406,000

  Gaelic games

  —

  —

  622,085

  350,833

  507,082

  1,480,000

  Rugby

  —

  —

  136,843

  140,612

  68,536

  345,991

  Total

  —

  —

  1,965,737

  1,275,448

  990,806

  4,231,991

  Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP)

  The following table shows the total allocation from EU Structural Funds from 1998 to date across various departments, for the four sports. DFP has worked

  £

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003 to date

  Total

  Soccer

  6,325

  17,984

  —

  159,500

  —

  110,800

  194,609

  Gaelic games

  304,005

  10,000

  1,000

  —

  —

  —

  315,005

  Rugby

  —

  6,500

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6,500

  Cricket

  —

  25,250

  —

  —

  —

  —

  25,250

  Total

  310,330

  59,734

  1,000

  159,500

  —

  10,800

  541,364

  1This figure of £10,800 reflects the award allocated by DFP for soccer from 2003 to date, this award was made under the Measure 3.2 of the EU Programme for Peace and Reconciliation

  Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DA RD)

  The following table details DARD's funding for the four sports for five-year period 1998–2003. In addition to the figures provided in the table, DARD has allocated

  £

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Total

  Soccer

  1,270

  2,835

  —

  —

  —

  4,105

  Gaelic games

  —

  145

  8,557

  1,885

  111,118

  21,605

  Rugby

  1606

  21,760

  —

  11,878

  —

  4,244

  Cricket

  —

  —

  4,067

  —

  —

  4,067

  Total

  1,876

  4,640

  12,624

  3,763

  11,118

  34,021

  1This expenditure relates to grants payable under the Woodland Grant Scheme, which encourages the creation of new woodland and the sustainable management of existing woodland.

  2This amount was allocated to a Gaelic athletic club to help in the promotion of rugby through coaching and exhibition match.

  Department of Education

  £

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Total

  Soccer

  422.06

  857.31

  102.00

  —

  —

  1,381.37

  Gaelic games

  300.00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  300.00

  Total

  722.06

  857.31

  102.00

  —

  —

  1,681.37

  572W
  rugby. The following table shows the funding that was allocated for these sports for the three-year period 1 April 2000–31 March 2003.

  under the assumption that public funding encapsulates funding through the public purse, including EU structural funds.

  £899 in 1998–99 for sport in general, including soccer and cricket, DARD have been unable to provide a detailed breakdown of this amount in respect of each sport referred to.
  573W
  Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI)

  The following table details the grant payments made by the Northern Ireland Tourist Board (NITB) for each of the four sports for the periods in question.

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Total

  Soccer

  6,750

  6,400

  7,200

  8,800

  13,500

  42,650

  Gaelic gamesߞ

  ߞ

  ߞ

  500

  —

  500

  Rugby

  680

  600

  —

  —

  —

  1,280

  Cricket

  —

  1,500

  —

  2,000

  —

  3,500

  Total

  7,430

  8,500

  7,200

  11,300

  13,500

  47,930

  Health
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the percentage uptake rates were of(a) primary immunisation, (b) breast screening and (c) cervical screening in Northern Ireland in each of the last three years. [128282]

  Angela Smith
  (a) The uptake rates for primary immunisation at 12 months and 24 months in the October/December quarter for each of the last three years were as follows:

  Percentage

  At 12 months

  October/December 2000

  93.88

  October/December 2001

  94.60

  October/December 2002

  94.35

  At 24 months

  October/December 2000

  96.18

  October/December 2001

  95.86

  October/December 2002

  96.73

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many consultations there were for the mentally ill in the community in each Northern Ireland health trust in each of the last three years. [128284]

  Angela Smith
  The information requested is not available.

  Estimates for the financial year 2001–02 suggest that there were approximately 186,000 contacts with the mentally ill by community psychiatric nurses. In addition, there were approximately 27,500 contacts with the mentally ill by clinical psychologists in either a community or a hospital setting.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) child and (b) adolescent in-patient psychiatric beds there were in each Northern Ireland health trust in each of the last three years. [128285]

  Angela Smith
  The table shows the average number of available beds open overnight by health trust in the child and adolescent psychiatric specialty. It is not possible to supply data for children and adolescents separately.

  Trust

  2000–01

  2001–02

  12002–03

  Green Park

  20.0

  20.0

  20.0

  South and East Belfast

  6.0

  6.0

  10.5

  Northern Ireland Total

  26.0

  26.0

  30.5

  1 Provisional

  High Technology/Telecommunications Industries
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action is being taken to support Northern Ireland's(a) existing and (b) new (i) high technology and (ii) telecommunications industry and entrepreneurs; and if he will make a statement. [128294]

  Mr. Pearson
  Invest NI has focused significant resources in these areas in its overall drive to support existing companies to become more innovative and competitive and to encourage the formation of new, entrepreneurial, business starts. Support for existing hi-tech and telecommunications companies during 2002–03 resulted in companies bringing forward business proposals representing a total investment of almost £109 million, against which Invest NI offered £14.3 million in support. In addition, the Agency assisted the formation of 74 new, potentially high growth companies in these sectors.

  In driving forward this work, Invest NI uses a broad range of measures designed to help all companies, both existing and new starts, increase their capability. These include fostering greater innovation, increasing levels of R&D, developing external trade and utilising a variety of other business improvement tools.

  During its first year of operation, Invest NI played a key role in establishing the Northern Ireland Science Park and it also provided £26 million to assist the establishment of 17 centres of research excellence, the majority of which are focused on high technology sectors. In addition, Invest NI has drawn up a series of Sector Strategies aimed at maximizing the economic development potential for a range of industrial sectors including hi-tech and telecoms.

  This work provides an important demonstration of Invest NI's commitment to engage with companies, higher and further education establishments, centres of research excellence, science parks and other research organisations in developing hi-tech start-up businesses. In addition Invest NI is working closely with the education sector and others to encourage entrepreneurship in Northern Ireland.

  Horses
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether horses in Northern Ireland are defined as agricultural animals by Northern Ireland Departments; and if he will make a statement. [R] [128420]
  575W
  Mr. Pearson
  Under NI legislation, the horse is not classified as an agricultural animal. This mirrors the position in the other parts of the UK.

  The Report "Vision for the future of the agri-food industry" included a number of recommendations relating to the equine sector. One of these was that the redesignation of the horse as art agricultural animal should be pursued in the longer term. In the Vision Action Plan which I published in November 2002, I highlighted that there were wider issues to consider and that these would be discussed with the industry in due course.

  I have recently established an Equine Stakeholder Group, one of whose early tasks will be to advise on a comprehensive study of the equine industry in Northern Ireland. This will run in tandem with a similar study in Great Britain. The designation of the horse will be an aspect of both studies.

  The overall rating system in Northern Ireland is currently subject to a major policy review. A Policy paper on existing and potential non-domestic reliefs and exemptions will be published in late autumn. That paper will include consideration of the need for the introduction of any exemption or relief for the equine industry.

  Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further steps will be taken by the(a) Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and (b) Eastern Health and Social Services Board to address the funding imbalance of the Down Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust; and if he will make a statement. [128311]

  Angela Smith
  A target has been set, by the Department, in "Priorities for Action 2003–04", that all HSS Boards should have strategies to address locality equity issues prepared by March 2004 and work is ongoing on this. I understand that the Eastern Health and Social Services Board intend to publish their latest assessment of the locality equity position within their area in the autumn. It is their policy, endorsed by the Department, to ensure that existing services are maintained and to address equity issues by levelling up resources through skewing new money to populations that are currently receiving less than their target share. For example the population of the Down Lisburn area gained by some £1.5 million through such a skewing strategy in 2003–04. It should be noted that equity assessments are based on the needs of a population living in an area and not on the funding of any specific Trust.

  Locality equity is a priority for the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety but it must be balanced by the need to ensure that existing service provision is not destabilised. This results in change being phased in over a period, usually some 3–4 years.

  Literacy/Numeracy
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action is being taken by 576W
  Northern Ireland Departments to address adult basic literacy and numeracy problems; and if he will make a statement. [128280]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Department for Employment and Learning (DEL) launched the Essential Skills for Living Strategy and Action Plan in October 2002. The strategy aims to support 25,000 adults to improve their literacy and numeracy skills by 2005.

  The Department has established an Essential Skills Committee comprising key stakeholders from Government Departments, business and industry, the further education sector and the voluntary and community sector to take the strategy forward. It has developed also a framework of qualifications through the universities for all levels of essential skills tutors. During 2002–03, Queens University successfully delivered the Certificate in Management and Teaching of Literacy to 70 tutors and a further 66 have enrolled for the course in 2003–04. The Department launched a major promotional campaign in May 2003, with the aim of engaging a wide range of learners to improve their essential skills.

  Plans are in place to liaise with the Northern Ireland Departments to ensure essential skills is taken into account in the design and delivery of their policies and programmes. The Department of Finance and Personnel, for example, is developing a strategy and action plan for the delivery of essential skills throughout the Northern Ireland civil service. The Northern Ireland Prison Service has worked with DEL to enhance essential skills provision for prisoners and the Social Security Agency has been actively involved in considering new approaches to encourage benefit claimants to improve their essential skills. Pilot exercises using financial incentives and new essential skills screening tools are planned for January 2004.

  Northern Ireland Fishing Task Force
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made by the Northern Ireland Fishing Task Force; and when it intends to publish its overall findings. [113488]

  Mr. Pearson
  As a response to the December 2002 EU Agriculture and Fisheries Council decision, and the NI fishing community's reaction to it, I set up in January a Taskforce for South Down which is made up of officials from relevant NI Government departments, local councils and representatives of both the fish producers and processors to consider the wider socio-economic effects of the Council decisions and to identify whether there were more steps Government might take to address particular difficulties.

  To help inform its work, the Taskforce undertook a consultation exercise with public meetings in Kilkeel, Ardglass and Portavogie. In addition Taskforce representatives have met with the Tri-Council Fisheries Working Group and with the NI Fisheries Harbour Authority. The Taskforce has also received 15 written submissions. A survey of producers and processors is also being undertaken to obtain information and views from the industry.

  The Taskforce will be assessing all the information collected and views received with a view to publishing its findings in the summer.
  577W
  Finally, the Taskforce will also be following closely the work of the Cabinet Office Strategy Unit established by the Prime Minister to look at the medium to longterm issues facing the UK sea fishing industry. I am a member pf the Steering Group for this exercise. Along with the local representatives on the Stakeholder Advisory Group I shall ensure that the Northern Ireland perspective is properly covered in the Strategy Unit's work.

  Policing Board/Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made towards negotiating a Memorandum of Understanding between the Policing Board and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission; and if he will place a copy of the memorandum in the Library. [114149]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Policing Board is committed to developing and maintaining effective working relationships with all other statutory authorities, including the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. It is committed to meeting its statutory duty of carrying out all its functions having regard to the need to co-ordinate its activities and co-operate with other statutory authorities.

  The Policing Board has not entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with any statutory authority and is content that it can play its part in maintaining working relationships, including with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, without the need for a Memorandum of Understanding.

  This issue was most recently discussed at a meeting between representatives of the Policing Board and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission when both parties gave a commitment to follow good practice in sharing relevant documents and research; where appropriate to consult over and above legislative requirements, and to assist one another in the fulfilment of those statutory duties that relate to human rights issues.

  Primary Schools
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will increase the proportion of funding to the primary school sector; and if he will make a statement. [116045]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Government recognises that the current differential in funding between primary and post-primary funding in Northern Ireland is too wide. The Local Management of Schools Common Formula, scheduled to come into operation in April 2004, contains a number of factors by which resources can be more effectively targeted and it is intended to use these over the initial years of the formula to reduce the funding differential.

  In recognition of the issue the Budget Addition allocations for 2003–04, given to schools on top of their formula budget, were for the first time weighted in favour of the primary sector. This has resulted in an additional £1 million being provided for primary schools this year.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many road accident fatalities there were in each of the past 10 years; and how many there were in the UK. [122545]

  Angela Smith
  The table provides information on the number of road fatalities in Great Britain and Northern Ireland for the past 10 years.

  Fatal casualties 1992–2002

  Great Britain

  Northern Ireland

  1992

  4,229

  150

  1993

  3,814

  143

  1994

  3,650

  157

  1995

  3,621

  144

  1996

  3,598

  142

  1997

  3,599

  144

  1998

  3,421

  160

  1999

  3,423

  141

  2000

  3,409

  171

  2001

  3,450

  148

  2002

  3,431

  150

  School Examinations
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the timetable is for the replacement of the eleven plus examination in Northern Ireland. [112910]

  Jane Kennedy
  I announced on 24 April 2003 the establishment of a Working Group to provide advice and recommendations on options for future arrangements for post-primary education, including the development of alternative transfer arrangements with a view to the current transfer tests being withdrawn as soon as practicable. The Working Group will report by 31 October 2003.

  Pupils currently in P5 and P6 will sit the existing Transfer Tests and decisions about transfer arrangements for subsequent cohorts of pupils will be taken when the advice of the Working Group has been considered. Parents and teachers of pupils currently in P4 will be advised in good time of their transfer arrangements.

  Schools Finance
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the difference in funding per pupil is between primary schools and post-primary schools in Northern Ireland; and what recent representations he has received on the difference in funding. [119461]

  Jane Kennedy
  In 2001–02 financial year the difference in funding per pupil between primary and post-primary schools in Northern Ireland was £934.

  Department officials met with a delegation from the Primary Principals' Association of Northern Ireland on 25 March 2003 and a number of letters have also been received from elected representatives, primary schools and parents of primary school pupils.

  Social Security Appeal Tribunals
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he will take to ensure that
  579W
  social security appeal tribunals which have to be re-listed are not delayed because of the non-availability of panel members; and if he will make a statement. [116838]

  Mr. Browne
  The Appeals Service (NI) is required to re-list all adjourned appeals before the same Tribunal panel following a Direction from the President of Appeal Tribunals. As a result of additional resources being allocated to The Appeals Service (NI) and the appointment of 25 additional Tribunal members the average clearance time for all appeal types has reduced from 22 weeks during April 2002 to 16 weeks during March 2003. The Appeals Service (NI) is currently reviewing the procedures for the re-listing of appeals that have previously been adjourned to further reduce the time taken to reach a final determination and to prioritise appeals that have to be re-listed before the same Tribunal.

  Sports Funding
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland pursuant to the answer of 9 April 2003,Official Report, column 251W, why funding has not been allocated to the Northern Ireland Cycling Federation in the last three years. [114156]

  Angela Smith
  The Sports Council for Northern Ireland has not allocated any funding to the Northern Ireland Cycling Federation over the last three years because it is not the recognised governing body of cycling within Northern Ireland.

  Decrease in number of full time teachers in schools losing posts

  Increase in number of full-time equivalent teachers in schools gaining posts

  Net change in number of full-time equivalent teachers

  Education and Library Board Area

  1999/2000–2000/01

  2000/01–2001/02

  1999/2000–2000/01

  2000/01–2001/02

  1999/2000–2000/01

  2000/01–2001/02

  (a) Primary schools

  Belfast

  67.2

  79.2

  54.7

  40.4

  -12.5

  -38.8

  Western

  70.2

  70.1

  64.5

  87.2

  -5.7

  + 17.1

  North-Eastern

  86.6

  65.5

  72.4

  117.1

  -14.2

  +51.6

  South-Eastern

  60.7

  61.1

  93.7

  97.9

  +33.0

  +36.8

  Southern

  100.6

  101.8

  90.5

  74.3

  -10.1

  -27.5

  (b) Secondary schools

  Belfast

  31.0

  35.3

  68.5

  68.5

  +37.5

  +33.2

  Western

  22.6

  51.1

  76.5

  29.8

  +53.9

  -21.3

  North-Eastern

  37.2

  31.6

  71.3

  69.4

  +34.1

  +37.8

  South-Eastern

  21.3

  30.6

  72.4

  60.5

  +51.1

  +29.9

  Southern

  27.6

  58.1

  49.8

  40.6

  + 22.2

  + 17.5

  Ulster Scots Academy
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in making available support for an Ulster-Scots Academy. [115762]

  Angela Smith
  Officials are currently considering options for ensuring that the commitment in the Joint Declaration by the British and Irish Governments in April 2003 is fulfilled. Officials will make recommendations to Ministers in due course.

  SCOTLAND

    Beef Farming
    Mr. Peter Duncan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people are employed in the beef
    580W

    Stevens Inquiry
    Mr. McNamara
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the overview and recommendations of the report by Sir John Stevens on the murder of Mr. Patrick Finucane, published on 17 April. [110861]

    Mr. Paul Murphy
    Sir John Stevens's report is to the Chief Constable and he will no doubt wish to study it. We will also be examining his findings most carefully.

    Sir John has indicated that specific criminal investigations continue and that files will be sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions (NI). The criminal justice process must take its course.

    Teachers
    Mr. Dodds
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many teaching posts will be lost in the primary sector in the next 12 months. [118017]

    Jane Kennedy
    The requested information is not yet available. Decisions on staffing levels are taken by the Boards of Governors of individual schools.

    Mr. Dodds
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) primary and (b) secondary school teaching posts were lost in each year since 1997 in each education and library board. [118018]

    Jane Kennedy
    The requested information is only available for the period 1999/2000–2001/2. For completeness the number of posts gained is also given

    farming industry in Scotland; when he last met representatives of the Scottish beef farming industry; and what his assessment is of its prospects. [127844]

    Mrs. McGuire
    The Scottish Executive's agricultural census in 2002 recorded 32,608 people working on Scottish farms with beef cattle.

    Agriculture policy in Scotland is a devolved matter for the Scottish Executive; representatives of the agriculture sector, including the beef farming industry, regularly meet Scottish Executive Ministers. The reformed Common Agricultural Policy announced on 26 June provides the basis for a sustainable future for the beef industry in Scotland.

    Fishing Industry
    Mr. Peter Duncan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many are employed in the fishing industry in Scotland. [128015]
    581W
    Mrs. McGuire
    Fisheries Departments estimate that there were 5,707 full and part-time fishermen working in Scotland at the end of 2002. Estimates of employment in the fish processing industry are produced as part of the economic surveys carried out by the Sea Fish Industry Authority, whose latest estimate is that the processing industry in Scotland supports 7,200 full-time equivalent jobs.

    Official Engagements
    Mr. Peter Duncan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many official engagements he has undertaken as Secretary of State for Scotland since his appointment. [128017]

    Mr. Darling
    I have undertaken a number of official engagements since my appointment as Secretary of State for Scotland and I will continue to do so.

    Over-30-months Scheme
    Mr. Peter Duncan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he was consulted by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs prior to the decision to lift the Over Thirty Month Scheme in 2004. [127845]

    Mrs. McGuire
    My right hon. Friend and I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues on a wide range of issues.

    Quality Meat Scotland
    Mr. Peter Duncan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the transfer to the Scottish Executive of Quality Meat Scotland; and what payments are outstanding to(a) Quality Meat Scotland and (b) the Scottish Executive in respect of the transfer. [127865]

    Mrs. McGuire
    These are matters for the Scottish Executive.

    Sewel Motions
    Mr. Peter Duncan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many requests for Sewel motions have been exchanged between the Scottish Executive and his Department since 1999; how many have been rejected; when they were rejected; for what reasons; and what plans the Government has to review the procedures for dealing with Sewel motions. [128011]

    Mrs. McGuire
    Responsibility for tabling and the terms of Sewel motions rests with the Scottish Executive under the Memorandum of Understanding. Discussions with the Scottish Executive on Sewel motions are a normal part of the development of the legislative programme. To date, 43 Sewel motions have been agreed to by the Scottish Parliament since devolution.

    The Government keep all procedures in relation to the devolution settlement under review.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Air Weapons
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many(a) deaths and (b) injuries involving air weapons there were in each of the last five years; [128342]

    (2) how many criminal offences, broken down by category, involving (a) replica guns and (b) air weapons, there were in each of the last five years. [128343]

    Caroline Flint
    The latest available numbers of recorded crimes by offence category in which imitation weapons and air weapons were used are given in the tables. A weapon is said to be used in an offence if it is fired, used as a blunt instrument or in a threat.

    Number of offences in which imitation weapons were used

    Violence against the person

    Robbery

    Burglary

    Criminal damage

    Other offences

    19971

    186

    16

    3

    38

    1998–99

    354

    163

    14

    2

    33

    1999–2000

    495

    228

    22

    3

    65

    2000–01

    494

    227

    15

    17

    34

    2001–02

    773

    277

    31

    87

    33

    1 Calendar year: other years to end of March

    Number of offences in which air weapons were used

    Violence against the person

    Robbery

    Burglary

    Criminal damage

    Other offences

    19971

    1,449

    99

    51

    5,798

    109

    1998–99

    1,937

    83

    81

    6,362

    202

    1999–2000

    2,438

    91

    20

    7,330

    224

    2000–01

    2,217

    116

    32

    7,674

    188

    2001–02

    2,366

    161

    22

    9,559

    232

    1Calendar year; other years to end of March

    There was a change in counting rules for recorded crime on 1 April 1998, which would have had the effect of increasing the number of offences counted. Similarly, some police forces adopted the principles of the National Crime Recording Standard in advance of its national implementation on 1 April 2002, and this may also have tended to increase the number of crimes counted, particularly in 2001–02.

    The number of deaths and injuries resulting from recorded air weapon offences in the last five years are given in the following table:

    Fatal injuries

    Serious injuries1

    Slight injuries

    1997

    0

    129

    1,065

    1998–99

    0

    133

    1,381

    1999–2000

    0

    171

    1,806

    2000–01

    1

    166

    1,654

    2001–02

    2

    166

    1,741

    1 A serious injury is one which necessitated detention in hospital or involved fractures, concussion, severe general shock, penetration by a projectile or multiple wounds.

    Al Mujaharoon
    Mr. Dismore
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the action he proposes to take over the planned Magnificent 17 conference organised by Al Mujaharoon. [129328]
    583W
    Mr. Blunkett
    [holding answer 11 September 2003]: Al-Muhajiroun represents neither the British Muslim Community nor its views.

    We absolutely reject its offensive statements, as have the vast majority of Muslims living in the UK.

    However, we have a long-standing and important tradition of free speech in this country people have a right to air their views, however unpalatable they may be to others. But we also have tough legislative powers to catch those who cross the line from legitimate debate and comment, into inciting violence, or who commit offences motivated by racial or religious hatred. We tightened these powers in the Anti-Terrorism and Security Acts (2001). Police can and do use these powers. Every word and every statement that representatives of AI-Muhajiroun make is closely monitored by the appropriate authorities.

    Bailiffs
    Gregory Barker
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases were prosecuted and how many convictions there were in each year since 1997 concerning(a) debts or payments in arrears and (b) abusive and illegal behaviour by bailiffs. [126950]

    Paul Goggins
    The information requested is not collected centrally by the Home Office.

    Asylum Seekers
    Clare Short
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers are being provided with accommodation under Section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. [125078]

    Asylum applications received in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, initial decisions, removals and voluntary departures, nationals of Somalia, 1998 to 20021

    Initial decisions2 3

    Cases considered under normal procedures

    Backlog clearance exercise

    Applications received

    Total initial decisions

    Recognised as a refugee and granted asylum

    Not recognized as a refugee but granted exceptional leave

    Total refused

    Grants of ELR under backlog criteria4,5

    Non compliance refusals under backlog criteria4,6

    1998

    4,685

    2,805

    2,330

    375

    100

    —

    —

    19997

    7,495

    350

    130

    55

    1 20

    35

    5

    20007.8

    5,020

    11,325

    5,310

    3,575

    2,365

    55

    15

    20019

    6,420

    8,430

    2,910

    1,995

    3,525

    —

    —

    200210

    6,540

    6,735

    2,515

    1,405

    2,815

    —

    —

    1Figures rounded to nearest 5, with "*"= 1 or 2, and "—" = 0.

    2 Information is of initial determination decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.

    3 The refusal figures for each year do not necessarily relate to the applications received in the same year.

    4 Cases decided under pragmatic measures aimed at reducing the pre '96 asylum backlog.

    5 Includes cases where asylum or exceptional leave has been granted under the backlog criteria.

    6 Includes some cases where the application has been refused on substantive grounds.

    7 May exclude some cases lodged at Local Enforcement Offices between January 1999 and March 2000.

    8 Cases considered under the normal procedures may include some cases decided under the backlog criteria.

    9 Revised figures.

    10 Provisional figures.

    Note:

    From October 2000, the source for date on decisions changed. The nationality breakdown is therefore not directly comparable with previous months.
    584W
    Beverley Hughes
    Reliable information on the numbers of cases receiving support under Section 4 of the 1999 Act is currently unavailable, because of the difficulty of ensuring that the information is accurate. We are working with the YMCA to establish more frequent reporting that will enable us to produce accurate figures.

    Information on the number of applications for the National Asylum Supports Service (NASS) support and the numbers of asylum seekers currently being supported by NASS can be found on the website http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html.

    Jeremy Corbyn
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people from Somalia(a) sought asylum, (b) were granted asylum, (c) were granted exceptional leave to remain, (d) have made applications which are still outstanding and (e) have made applications for asylum which have been refused and have been subsequently removed from the United Kingdom in each of the last five years. [127513]

    Beverley Hughes
    The tables provide the available information, showing the number of asylum applications, initial decisions and removals of Somalis for the last five years. Initial decisions do not necessarily relate to applications made in the same year. Nor do removals necessarily relate to initial decisions or appeal outcomes in the same year.

    Information on asylum applications, by nationality, awaiting an initial decision is unavailable. This could be obtained only at disproportionate cost by examination of individual case records.

    Information on the number of asylum applications, initial decisions and removals is published quarterly on the Home Office website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html.
    585W
    The latest available data on removals of Somali nationals who have sought asylum at some stage are given in the table.

    Removals and voluntary departures1 of Somali principal asylum applicants2, 3

    Number

    19984

    35

    1999

    n/a

    2000

    n/a

    20014.5

    25

    20024 6

    50

    n/a=Nationality data are not available for 1999 and 2000 due to data quality issues on IS enforcement databases.

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

    2 Figures rounded to nearest 5, with "*" = 1 or 2, and "—" = 0.

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

    4 Data for 2001 and 2002 have been estimated due to data quality issues.

    5 Figure may include a small number of dependants leaving under Assisted Voluntary Return Programmes.

    6 Provisional figures.

    Note:

    From October 2000, the source for data on decisions changed. The nationality breakdown is therefore not directly comparable with previous months.

    Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
    Mr. Denis Murphy
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many victims of crimes received payments from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme in each of the last five years; and how much was paid out. [127251]

    Paul Goggins
    The data in the table have been provided by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.

    Number of awards

    Total value (rounded to nearest £ million)

    1998–99

    46,240

    195

    1999–2000

    43,495

    206

    2000–01

    39,011

    206

    2001–02

    41,351

    233

    2002–03

    42,688

    232

    Criminal Records Bureau
    Mrs. Brooke
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people having passed the Prison Service recruitment selection process are awaiting clearance by the Criminal Records Bureau; and if he will make a statement. [123309]

    Paul Goggins
    On 2 September 2003, the Criminal Records Bureau had 202 outstanding applications for disclosure of criminal records submitted by Her Majesty's Prison Service. However, it is not possible to identify from the Criminal Records Bureau database how many of these are as a result of recruitment 586W
    exercises and how many result from internal redeployment and promotion. This information could only be obtained at a disproportionate cost.

    The Criminal Records Bureau was set up to assist in the safer recruitment of people working with children and vulnerable adults. It has the capacity to issue 60,000 disclosures a week and is currently meeting its service levels, issuing 90 per cent of standard disclosures within two weeks and 90 per cent of enhanced disclosures within four weeks.

    The Prison Service uses the Criminal Records Bureau to obtain an additional check for those working with children under 18 years of age as required by the Protection of Children Act 1999.

    Faith Communities
    Mr. Goodman
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements are in place to consult faith communities about the work of Government; and if he will make a statement. [128951]

    Fiona Mactaggart
    [holding answer 11 September 2003]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) on 30 June 2003, Official Report, column 12W.

    The Review of the Government's Interface with the Faith Communities is making good progress and we are due to report at the end of the year.

    Internet Grooming
    Mr. Jim Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken to promote awareness and safe internet usage, with particular reference to younger people. [126940]

    Paul Goggins
    [holding answer 8 September 2003]: Over the last two years, the Home Secretary's Task Force on Child Protection on the Internet has run and evaluated two successful national awareness campaigns. The campaigns sought to raise awareness of Internet safety measures, via cinema, television and radio advertising, national newspapers, online advertising on teen websites and chatrooms, and sponsorship activity. The core messages that were conveyed were that: children/young people should not give out their address, email, mobile or other contact details, that they should never attend a face-to-face meeting unaccompanied by an adult, and that people may lie about their identity. The task force also issued a 'Keeping your child safe on the Internet' leaflet and 200,000 copies of the leaflet were distributed via doctors surgeries and as an insert in the Department for Education and Skills magazine Parents + Schools.

    The Home Office also runs two websites, thinkuknow.co.uk and wiseuptothenet.co.uk. The former is aimed at children and young people and the latter is aimed at parents. The Department for Education and Skills, Superhighway website and guidance, includes advice on all aspects of Internet safety such as walled gardens, firewalls, user contacts and net smart rules. Their revised guidance also includes advice on e-mails for students, filtering systems, school websites and chatrooms.

    Passports
    Mr. Wray
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he has put in place since 1999 to speed up the process of renewing a passport. [128093]

    Beverley Hughes
    Since 1999, the UK Passport Service (UKPS) has put in place a number of measures which have all contributed to speeding up the process of renewing a passport.

    The UKPS has increased capacity by 30 per cent. through increased staffing, and the opening of a seventh passport office in Durham in March 2000. It opened its new London office in June 2000 which provides much improved service to its customers. The UKPS has extended the working hours of its public counters which open longer on weekdays, and on Saturdays, and introduced a guaranteed one-day and one-week services, available by appointment for those customers who need an urgent renewal service. The UKPS Service Standard has been set to process 99.5 per cent. of all correctly completed passport applications within 10 days and this is being consistently achieved throughout this year. To encourage renewal customers to apply early at less busy times, the UKPS has introduced a facility whereby customers can be credited on their new passport with the unexpired validity of their old passport, up to a maximum of nine months.

    The UKPS has also improved the guidance to customers wishing to renew their passport. Page 1 of the information guide, which accompanies the passport application form, has a separate and clearly highlighted statement on what sections of the form to complete for renewals, and other relevant advice, to make completion of the form and its accurate submission easier. Finally, the UKPS has established a Call Centre, which handles passport inquiries 24 hours a day, seven days a week; and has enhanced its website (www.passport.gov.uk) to enable, among other things, e-mail inquiries, and online renewal application form completion. These measures all help customers to complete their applications accurately and to use the correct application channel to meet their needs.

    Probation Service
    Mr. Keith Bradley
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many probation service staff were employed in the last five years; and how many staff there were in each grade for these years. [126810]

    Paul Goggins
    The information requested is as follows:

    Number of Probation Staff 1.2

    London

    1997

    1996

    1999

    2000

    2001

    Chief Officer

    54

    55

    53

    54

    42

    Deputy Chief Officer

    15

    13

    13

    12

    18

    Assistant Chief Officer

    207

    203

    201

    213

    223

    Area Manager

    40

    45

    49

    49

    53

    Regional Training Staff

    6

    24

    40

    48

    37

    Senior Practitioner

    73

    69

    85

    130

    143

    Senior Probation Officers

    1,020

    989

    1,023

    1,065

    1,106

    Probation Officers

    5,734

    5,773

    5,532

    5,437

    4,789

    Trainee Probation Officers

    —

    229

    523

    564

    1,096

    Probation Service Officers

    1.919

    2,027

    2,502

    2,869

    3,566

    All Other Staff

    4,900

    4,585

    4,650

    4,798

    4,716

    Total

    13,968

    14,012

    14,671

    15,239

    15,789

    588W
    1Figures given as full-time equivalents.

    2 Figures as at 31 December 2001, the figures for 2002–03 are currently being processed and analysed and will be available in due course.

    Note:

    Figures obtained from data collected for RDS Probation Statistics 2001.

    Restorative Justice
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to extend the use of restorative justice, with particular reference to(a) mediation and (b) reparation; and if he will make a statement. [126818]

    Paul Goggins
    The Government's restorative justice strategy, issued on 22 July 2003, sets out proposals to extend the use of restorative justice, including mediation and reparation to victims and the community.

    The Government aims to maximise the use of restorative justice in the Criminal Justice System, where we know it works well, to meet victims' needs and to reduce re-offending, and in society at large to resolve disputes and build strong, active communities. The strategy will also encourage more high quality, visible reparation by offenders to the community. The key link between restorative justice and reparation is that both are ways the offender can take responsibility for the harm they have caused and put it right. Both are ways that the Criminal Justice System can bring visible benefits to victims and other ordinary citizens, and be seen to be responsive to their needs. In practice, restorative justice can often lead to the offender making reparation to their victim, or to the wider community.

    The launch of this strategy (which can be found on the Home Office website) marks the start of a 12-week consultation process. Officials have been working closely with criminal justice practitioners and the voluntary sector to develop the restorative justice strategy. Comments on the consultation paper are welcome.

    West Sussex Safe House Project
    Brian Cotter
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions his Department has had with West Sussex county council over the future of the West Sussex Safe House Project; and if he will make a statement. [129089]

    Beverley Hughes
    We understand that West Sussex are considering closure of the safe house. It is, of course, for local authorities to decide how best to provide support and services for children in need in its area, including accommodation for children who are the victims of trafficking. There is no current specific earmarked funding for services of this nature. Instead, Government funding is allocated to councils with social services responsibilities on the basis of the needs of their populations. It is, therefore, for councils, working in partnership with relevant local stakeholders, to determine their spending priorities on the basis of local needs. A National Asylum Support Service grant reimburses local authorities for the extra costs incurred for the care of unaccompanied asylum seeking children.
    589W
    West Sussex recognise that a body of expertise has been built up in the safe house over the last two years. They plan to close the safe house and use this expertise in the form of training and support packages for carers of young people assessed as being at risk of being trafficked. Currently, the safe house caters only for 17 and 18-year-old girls. There are also concerns that its location has become widely known, thus undermining the security of the service provided. West Sussex feel that by closing the safe house they will be able to offer a service to all children at risk from traffickers, including boys and under-16s and address the security concerns that have arisen.

  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Andrew Wang
    Dr. Tonge
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from Taiwan regarding Mr. Andrew Wang. [129762]

    Mr. Rammell
    It is the Government's policy not to make public announcements on individual extradition requests that may or may not have been received. This is to ensure that any on-going investigations by relevant law enforcement agencies are not jeopardised in any way.

    However, the UK is not, at present, able to establish extradition arrangements with the Taiwanese authorities as HMG does not recognise Taiwan as a state.

    Arms Promotion (Czech Republic)
    Mr. Menzies Campbell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer of 14 July 2003,Official Report, column 48W, on arms promotion activities, if he will list the Ministers carrying out promotion activities in the Czech Republic, the dates on which such conversations took place and the transactions which were discussed; and if he will make a statement. [129510]

    Mr. Straw
    [holding answer 11 September 2003]: I refer the right hon. Member to my previous answer on 9 September 2003, Official Report, column 282W.

    I discussed the proposed sale of Gripen fighter aircraft by a UK/Swedish consortium on 25 January 2002 with my then Czech counterpart, Jan Kavan, and informally on other occasions. Ben Bradshaw met the Czech Defence Minister, Stanislav Tvrdik, on 5 March 2002 where they discussed the Gripen proposal. I am not aware of any other meetings during 2002 where Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers discussed UK arms exports with Czech colleagues.

    Brazil
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Britain's relations with Brazil following the election of President Lula. [129076]

    Mr. Rammell
    UK-Brazil relations are good and continuing to develop. I visited Brazil in December 2002 to start the formal process of engagement with the new 590W
    government, and my noble Friend the Leader of the House of Lords (Lord Williams) represented Her Majesty's Government at President Lula's inauguration. The Brazilian Track, Minister, Furlan visited the UK in March. I led the UK delegation at the latest round of bilateral High Level Political Talks in Brasilia in May. President Lula paid a successful first official visit to the UK in July for the Progressive Governance Summit. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister held substantive of bilateral talks with him.

    Chechnya
    Mr. Ivan Henderson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment he has made of the situation in(a) Chechnya and (b) the Caucasus Region. [129584]

    Mr. Rammell
    We continue to monitor the situation in Chechnya and in the Caucasus. We have noted the steps the Russian Government is taking to establish a political process in Chechnya and welcomed the constitutional referendum held in March 2003. We continue to believe that the success of the political process will be dependent on the thorough and consistent implementation of the political and civil rights set out in the new constitution. While recognising the serious threat posed by terrorism in the region, we remain concerned about the security and human rights situation in Chechnya and the surrounding republics. We also note with concern the bombings in recent months throughout the North Caucasus.

    Conflicts in and between the countries of the Southern Caucasus pose challenges for regional security and stability and the prospects for regional cooperation. As a member of the Group of Friends of the UN Secretary General on Georgia, the UK is participating in the process to find a political settlement to the Abkhazia dispute. On Nagorno Karabakh our policy is to support any solution acceptable to both parties, and capable of delivering a lasting political settlement. We support the efforts of the OSCE Minsk Group in this regard. Her Majesty's Government's Special Representative for the Caucasus region. Sir Brian Fall, is actively addressing these problems and will work closely with his newly-appointed EU colleague.

    Colombia
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the political situation in Colombia. [129077]

    Mr. Rammell
    After over a year in power, President Uribe continues to receive much support from the Colombian people. His government is still battling guerrilla and paramilitary groups which commit appalling human rights violations funded by illegal drug production, extortion and kidnapping. We support his efforts to tackle these problems and to develop a fully functioning democratic state throughout Colombia based on social and economic reform and sustainable economic development. At the same time we underline the need in so doing to respect the rule of law, human rights and the safety and welfare of its citizens. There is still much to do.

    Cyprus
    Mr. Love
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many residents from the occupied part of Cyprus have been(a) granted and (b) refused a visa to visit the UK in each year since its introduction; and if he will make a statement. [127811]

    Mr. Mullin
    The information requested is as follows:

    Visitor visa applications

    Received

    Issued

    Refused

    Other

    1998

    7,819

    7,286

    413

    120

    1999

    7386

    6,900

    452

    34

    2000

    6,782

    5,603

    284

    895

    FY 2001–02

    5,831

    5,060

    135

    636

    FY 2002–03

    6,593

    5,400

    470

    723

    The column referring to 'other' may include those unresolved applications which have been deferred pending further inquiries and have been carried over to the following year. Applications may also be withdrawn during processing but still count as an application received. Posts are also required to count all applications received (for example, a mother and her three children on one passport may count as four applications but only one entry clearance may be issued). Not all of the applicants who apply in the "TRNC" are "Turkish Cypriots". From 2001 Posts began reporting statistics by financial rather than calendar year.

    European Union
    Mr. Spring
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the rights of national parliaments to(a) hold up and (b) veto proposals from the EU Commission, as contained in the report of the Convention on the Future of Europe. [129129]

    Mr. MacShane
    The proposal in the draft Constitutional Treaty, to introduce a mechanism to enforce the subsidiarity principle, represents a significant step forward in the role that national parliaments will have in EU business. It provides, for the first time, a Treaty-based power for national parliaments to question EU legislative proposals on the basis of subsidiarity. If more than a third of national parliaments considered a proposal at odds with the principle of subsidiarity, the Commission would have to review it; and would in practice find it very difficult to ignore those parliaments' views.

    This proposal will help to ensure that the EU only legislates when it adds value to the actions of the individual Member States.

    Mr. Spring
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many visits there have been to the Government's website regarding consultation on the future of the EU; how many have responded with comments; and what percentage have expressed support for an EU constitution. [129130]

    Mr. MacShane
    The Government's online consultation on the draft EU Constitutional Treaty has received over 27,000 readings and 985 contributions so far. The consultation does not aim to measure support for the 592W
    draft EU Constitutional Treaty but to enable discussion of the main policy issues we expect the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference to address.

    Mr. Spring
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how far the Government's objectives for the EU of(a) simplification of the Union's instruments and (b) more democracy, transparency and efficiency in the EU have been met by the proposals of the Convention on the Future of Europe. [129132]

    Mr. MacShane
    The Convention's draft text meets most of the Government's objectives. It succeeds in simplifying the Union's instruments by streamlining them and defining them more clearly.

    The Convention's draft also proposes more democracy, transparency and efficiency by, for example: making it clear where the Union can and cannot act; reinforcing the role of national parliaments in policing the principle of subsidiarity; providing for greater openness in the meetings of the Council of Ministers; replacing the Maastricht "three pillars" system with a single Treaty structure: and setting up a Chair of the European Council.

    Food Expenditure
    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much was spent on food by his Department and by each of the agencies for which it is responsible in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03; what proportion of that food by value was produced in the United Kingdom; what guidance he has issued to encourage the procurement of home-produced food; and if he will make a statement. [129371]

    Mr. Rammell
    The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) expenditure on food consumed in the UK in 2002–03 amounted to approximately £550,000. Information about 2001–02 expenditure and the proportion of food produced in the UK could only be provided at disproportionate cost. It is only in 2002–03 that we have started to centrally compile this data.

    FCO purchasing policy is to buy goods and services on the basis of value for money and through competition unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary. We are currently reviewing our arrangements for buying food for UK consumption as part of a review of public sector food procurement which is being led by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. That review will include examination of whether UK and small producers are being given a proper chance to win contracts.

    British Detainees (Guantanamo Bay)
    Miss McIntosh
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the US Administration regarding the fate of British nationals detained at Guantanamo Bay; and if he will make a statement. [129626]

    Mr. Rammell
    My right hon. Friend the Attorney General has recently held a number of rounds of talks with the US Administration. His objective has been to ensure that the British nationals detained at Guantanamo Bay. if prosecuted, are assured of fair
    593W
    trials that meet generally recognised principles, wherever those trials take place, and to make clear our opposition to the death penalty. We are discussing a number of options with the US Government. The possibility of repatriating the detainees remains under discussion. Further talks are planned for the near future.

    Immigration and Asylum
    Mr. Hesford
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the new EU states about immigration and asylum. [129603]

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

    Iraq
    Mr. Ancram
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his statement of 8 September 2003 on Iraq, with regard to the post-conflict reconstruction effort in that country, how many contracts for reconstruction projects were in place with companies prior to 27 July 2003; how many contracts for reconstruction projects were placed with companies between 27 July and 8 September 2003; how many of the reconstruction projects agreed prior to 27 July 2003 are under way; how many reconstruction projects placed with companies after 27 July 2003 are under way; how many of the reconstruction projects agreed prior to 27 July 2003 are complete; and how many of the reconstruction projects agreed after 27 July 2003 are complete. [129283]

    Mr. Straw
    15 contracts for reconstruction projects were in place with companies prior to 27 July 2003; one contract for a reconstruction project was placed between 27 July and 8 September 2003; 12 of the reconstruction projects agreed prior to 27 July 2003 are under way; one reconstruction project placed after 27 July 2003 is under way. These long-term contracts are not yet complete.

    This answer relates to primary contracts from the US and British Governments. Several hundred subcontracts exist.

    Paul Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what countries have promised to provide troops to the coalition force in Iraq; how many were originally promised; and how many are deployed in Iraq from each country. [129745]

    Mr. Rammell
    In addition to 11,000 UK and 140,000 US forces, over 30 countries are committed to join the Coalition in Iraq. The following countries are already deployed; Italy (3,000), Netherlands (1,100), Denmark (420), Lithuania (88), Czech Republic (330), Romania (510), Norway (140), Bulgaria (480), Dominican Republic (300), Hungary (300), Mongolia (250), Poland (2,300), Slovakia (120), Spain (1,250), Thailand (26), Ukraine, (1,800), Albania (70), Kazakhstan (25),594W
    Uzbekistan (135), Georgia (69), Macedonia (25), Azerbaijan (150), Moldova (42), Estonia (43), Latvia (142), Honduras (366), E1 Salvador (415), Nicaragua (111), South Korea (675) and the Philippines (55).

    Portugal will send 130 military police and New Zealand 44 engineers (for humanitarian and reconstruction assistance) later this month to assist the UK area. Tonga are also expected to deploy troops and Thailand and Denmark are committed to send further forces at a later date.

    Israel
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the impact of recent developments in Israel on the peace process. [129061]

    Mr. Rammell
    The renewal in mid-August of the familiar cycle of violence in Israel and the Occupied Territories has set back the peace process. But the vast majority of Israelis and Palestinians want an end to this violence and a lasting peace. The will of the international community to work for peace remains strong. We must encourage all parties to overcome the current difficulties, implement the roadmap and realise its vision of a two-state solution. To do this, the new Palestinian leadership must act with renewed determination to stop the suicide bombers, and Israel must stop targeted killings.

    Mr. Meacher
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will press the Israeli Government 1 o stop further seizures of land from Palestinians. [130379]

    Mr. Rammell
    My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary have raised with the Government of Israel, the UK's concerns about the seizure of Palestinian land. We deplore both continuing settlement activity and land appropriation and the isolation of Palestinian villages for construction of the 'security fence'. Our embassy in Tel Aviv and FCO officials have also raised this matter with Israel and will continue to do so; lasting peace can only be achieved through a negotiated settlement and not unilateral actions.

    Pakistan
    Mr. Wray
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions have taken place with representatives from Pakistan regarding the persecution of Christians; and what has been done to encourage the Pakistani administration to stop such activities. [129096]

    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    We remain concerned about the treatment of Christians and misuse of the blasphemy laws in Pakistan. The EU made clear its concerns and raised specific cases with the Pakistan authorities on 7 February 2003 and again on 23 June 2003. We will remain engaged and continue to urge Pakistan to pursue laws and practices to protect Christians and other religious minorities against discrimination, intimidation and attacks.

    Peter Bleach
    Dr. Tonge
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made with the Government's request to release Mr. Peter Bleach from India; and what action will be taken if Mr. Bleach is released into UK custody by the Indian authorities. [129761]

    Mr. Rammell
    During his visit to the UK in June, the Indian Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. L K Advani, gave assurances to my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary that he would take a fresh look at Mr. Bleach's case. Our High Commission in New Delhi continues to make representations to the Government of India about Mr. Bleach's case.

    In the event of Mr. Bleach's release, we understand the Indian Ministry of Home Affairs and Ministry of External Affairs will notify our Posts in Kolkata and New Delhi, where consular officers stand ready to make the practical arrangements for Mr. Bleach's return to the UK.

    The British Deputy High Commission in Kolkata remains in close contact with Mr. Bleach about his case. Our consular staff in Kolkata will continue to visit Mr. Bleach regularly and do all they properly can to help him, and will let him know immediately of any developments.

    Somali People (Entry Clearance)
    Jeremy Corbyn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements are made at UK diplomatic posts in(a) Kenya and (b) Ethiopia for entry clearance applications to be made by Somali people to travel to the UK. [129743]

    Mr. Mullin
    Due to a specific threat, our High Commission in Nairobi has introduced security restrictions to those entering the High Commission compound.

    As a result, the Visa Section is currently only able to accept applications for entry clearance from those who hold appropriate documentation confirming their nationality and identity.

    The documents currently accepted by the High Commission in Nairobi are:
    national passports issued by a competent authority of a Government recognised by the British Government;
    stateless documents issued by a competent authority of a Government recognised by the British Government; and
    Kenyan national identity cards.
    This requirement applies to all visitors to the High Commission and is not aimed specifically at a particular nationality. However, since the collapse of the central authority in Somalia in 1991, there has been no reliable body authorised to issue marriage or birth certificates, passports or any other form of identification. Therefore, these restrictions affect the majority of Somali nationals who wish to apply at our Visa Section in Nairobi for entry clearance to the UK.

    The High Commission is keeping the security situation under close review and the restrictions will be in place no longer than necessary. However, UK visas and the Visa
    596W
    Section in Nairobi are actively reviewing the procedures to try and identify ways for Somali nationals without documentation to submit applications that are compatible with maintaining security.

    Our embassy in Addis Ababa does not face the same security issues as our High Commission in Nairobi. The Visa Section in Addis Ababa is able to accept applications from all Somali nationals, even those without documents. Applications can be made in person or through an agent. Applicants are then allocated a date to attend the Visa Section for an interview.

    Tibet
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment has been made of the human rights situation in Tibet. [129468]

    Mr. Rammell
    We remain concerned about the human rights situation in Tibet and encourage China to continue dialogue with the Dalai Lama's representatives.

    My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised our concerns with Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing on 25 June. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister raised Tibet with the Chinese leadership during his visit to China from 20–22 July.

    Embassy officials visited Tibet at the end of August and discussed a range of issues with local government officials.

  TREASURY

    Audit Requirements
    Mr. Gardiner
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will bring the audit requirements for industrial and provident societies in line with those of registered companies. [129273]

    (2) if he will amend the requirement on industrial and provident societies wanting to publish interim accounts to undertake a full audit. [129274]

    Ruth Kelly
    The Government is keen to see, where appropriate, a level playing field between industrial and provident societies and companies. We continue to examine the options for taking forward this agenda. However, in order to provide for a strategic, consistent and up-to-date approach between companies and societies, the Government believes that the general modernisation of industrial and provident society legislation in this area should be considered in light of the Department of Trade and Industry's Company Law Review.

    Bruemark Ruling
    Richard Ottaway
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total sum of money deposited with the Bank of England by frustrated liquidations has been since the Bruemark Ruling in June 2001. [129221]

    Ruth Kelly
    The information requested is not available to the Treasury.

    Computer Fraud
    Dr. Cable
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [128801]

    John Healey
    The risks of computer fraud, computer theft and unauthorised access to information held on computer are taken very seriously by the Chancellor's Departments and they are active in raising awareness of those risks and managing them, though most of the expenditure on doing so forms part of existing budgets for business as usual rather than being separately identified. Therefore the information requested is not available in the form requested.

    Corporation Tax
    Mr. Laws
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the revenue raised by the March 1998 Budget decision to abolish advanced corporation tax and introduce quarterly payments of corporation tax, for each year from 1998–99 to 2005–06; and if he will make a statement. [130147]

    Dawn Primarolo
    Estimates of the impact on the Exchequer of the abolition of ACT and introduction of quarterly instatement payments were quoted in the 1998 Budget report.

    Mr. Laws
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his latest estimate is of the cost of the changes to the statutory corporation tax deduction for share schemes announced in the Pre-Budget Report November 2002; what the purpose is of the changes; and if he will make a statement. [130234]

    Dawn Primarolo
    The provision to introduce a statutory corporation tax relief for employee share acquisition announced in the November 2002 Pre-Budget Report was brought into effect by Schedule 23 of Finance Act 2003. The estimate of exchequer costs to provide the statutory relief is in the Final Regulatory Impact Assessment published on the 10 April 2003 and remain unchanged, growing to around £95 million by 2007–08. The purpose of the statutory relief is to encourage and enable companies to set-up or expand employee share schemes by removing the need for complex arrangements solely to obtain a CT deduction. It levels the playing field between the use of cash and equity as remuneration and provides a modern, simple and fair system. It gives certainty to companies in terms of timing and amount of relief, reduces administration and compliance costs.

    Correspondence
    Mrs. Roe
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will reply to the letters from the hon. Member for Broxbourne of(a) 16 June, (b) 15 July, (c) 13 August and (d) 9 September relating to her constituent, Mrs. Julia Cuxson-Jones of Cheshunt. [129833]

    Dawn Primarolo
    The Inland Revenue replied on behalf of the Chancellor on 15 September 2003.
    598W
    Mrs. Roe
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will reply to the letters from the hon. Member for Broxbourne of(a) 16 June, (b) 15 July, (c) 13 August and (d) 9 September relating to her constituent, Mrs. Louise Stevens of Cheshunt. [129834]

    Dawn Primarolo
    The Inland Revenue replied on behalf of the Chancellor on 15 September 2003.

    Mrs. Roe
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will reply to the letters from the hon. Member for Broxbourne of(a) 16 June, (b) 15 July, (c) 13 August and (d) 9 September relating to her constituent, Mr. J.A. Russell of Cheshunt. [129835]

    Ruth Kelly
    I wrote to the hon. Lady on 10 September.

    Developing Countries
    Mr. Barry Gardiner
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assessment he has made of the extent of(a) illegal property ownership and (b) illegal working patterns in developing countries; and what assessment he has made of the impact in each case on the ability of developing countries meeting their international financial obligations; [129314]

    (2) what assessment his Department has made of the impact (a) property rights and (b) a formalised system for establishing property ownership has on the ability of developing countries (i) to improve their economic position and (ii) o fulfil their international debt repayment obligations. [129325]

    John Healey
    There is widespread consensus that weak property rights are a key barrier to private sector development, economic growth and poverty reduction by, for example, deterring foreign investment, discouraging people from investing in their land, and preventing them from using it as collateral for loans.

    Almost all of the world's poor are engaged in some form of private sector activity, with most in the informal sector. Private sector policy must therefore support the development of small, medium and micro enterprises in both the formal and informal sectors.

    The ability of a country to meet its international financial obligations depends on a range of factors that will support private sector development and economic growth, including sound macroeconomic policies that ensure the level of debt remains sustainable.

    There are many other factors that are important to securing greater investment, raising growth rates and reducing poverty including: the quality of governance, the level of corruption, crime and political instability; access to credit and finance; the quality of infrastructure; and the macroeconomic environment. The ability of a country to meet its international financial obligations also depends on sound macroeconomic policies that ensure the level of debt remains sustainable.

    The UK Government supports various initiatives to help developing country governments identify and create the right conditions for private investment and growth

    Employer-loaned Computers
    Mr. Laws
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the revenue cost each year of
    599W
    the tax relief on employer-loaned computers, as introduced in the 1999 Budget, for each year from 1999–2000 to 2005–06; what assessment he has made of the economic value of this relief; and if he will make a statement. [130143]

    Dawn Primarolo
    Information on which to base up-to-date estimates of the cost of this exemption is not available.

    Employment
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his most recent estimate is of the number of people in Crosby who are in(a) temporary and (b) part-time employment. [129462]

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

    Letter from Colin Mowl to Ms Claire Curtis-Thomas, dated 15 September 2003:
    The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question about part-time and temporary employment in Crosby. I am replying in his absence. (129462)
    The Labour Force Survey (LFS) gives estimates of part-time and temporary employment rates, but not the numbers of people, for Parliamentary Constituencies. The latest available estimate, for the twelve month period ending February 2002, is that 24.9 per cent of the employed population resident in Crosby were working part-time. The LFS sample size is too small to give reliable estimates of temporary employment for Crosby.

    Enterprise Investment Scheme
    Mr. Laws
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his latest estimate is of the cost of reducing the minimum holding period for(a) investments under the Enterprise Investment Scheme and (b) for venture capital trusts, as announced in the March 2000 Budget, for each year from 2000–01 to 2005–06; what economic benefits have resulted from these changes; and if he will make a statement. [130127]

    Dawn Primarolo
    The forecast cost of reducing the minimum holding period for investment in the Enterprise Investment Scheme and Venture Capital Trust scheme was given in the Financial Statement and Budget Report 2003 (HC 500).

    In April 2003, the Inland Revenue published research into the EIS and VCT schemes carried out by PACEC and the Centre for Business Research at the University of Cambridge (available at http://home.inrev.gov.uk/inland revenue/research/report.pdf). This research concluded that both schemes have met their objectives of encouraging more investment by individuals in smaller, high risk trading companies, which in turn has increased their potential to grow and become successful. The research did not measure the benefits of the holding period change specifically, but found that, of those existing investors that were aware of any changes made to the schemes, up to half would be more likely to invest through the schemes in future as a result.

    Enterprise Management Incentives
    Mr. Laws
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what his estimate is of the total revenue cost of 600W
    introducing enterprise management incentives in the March 2000 Budget to allow smaller high risk companies to issue the tax-advantaged share options to key staff, for each year from 2000–01 to 2005–06; what assessment has been made of the economic benefit of this scheme; and if he will make a statement; [130128]

    (2) what the total cost of the Enterprise Management Incentives is for each year from 2001–02 to 2005–06; what assessment has been made of the benefits of this scheme; and if he will make a statement. [130131]

    Dawn Primarolo
    Estimates of the exchequer cost of tax and national insurance relief on options granted under Enterprise Management Incentives (EMI) were published in Budget 2000 for 2000–01 to 2002–03 (Table A.13). The additional costs of subsequent changes to the EMI rules were published in Budget 2001 (Table A.13) and the pre-Budget report 2001 (Table B4). These estimates are of the taxable salary sacrificed in lieu of EMI option grants and no further estimates have been made on this basis.

    Each year, estimates of the tax and national insurance relief cost of gains made by employees upon exercise of their EMI options are published in Inland Revenue Statistics on the Revenue's website at:www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats/emp_share_schemes/menu.htm. Only a very small number of employees exercised their options in the early years of EMI, so the estimated costs were negligible for 2000–01 and 2001–02. These costs will rise as the scheme matures.

    As stated in the Full Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA), published in March 2000, a full review of the success of EMI will take place during 2005. In the meantime, the Inland Revenue continues to monitor the administration, take-up, and exchequer costs of the initiative. To date, around 4,000 companies have granted EMI options to around 60,000 employees.

    Mr. Laws
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his latest estimate is of the cost of the expansion of the Enterprise Management Incentives announced in the 2001 Budget for each year from 2000–01 to 2004–05; and if he will make a statement. [130133]

    Dawn Primarolo
    The information requested is contained in the Financial Statement and Budget Report 2001.

    Household Debt
    Dr. Cable
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to tackle the levels of household debt in the UK. [129935]

    Mr. Boateng
    I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Mr. Jenkins) on 16 June 2003,Official Report, column 40W and 30 June 2003, Official Report, column 52W.

    Individual Learning Accounts
    Mr. Laws
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the total cost of tax reliefs on individual learning account contributions for each year from 2000–01 to 2005–06; and if he will make a statement. [130141]
    601W
    Dawn Primarolo
    Information on which to base up-to-date estimates of the cost of these exemptions is not available.

    Inheritance Tax
    Mr. Tynan
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to make changes to the inheritance tax regime to reflect recent trends in property price inflation, with particular reference to the value of the principal residence of the deceased. [129719]

    Dawn Primarolo
    My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer considers all taxes as part of his annual Budget judgment.

    Lung Cancer
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people died as a result of lung cancer in(a) England and (b) Northern Ireland in 2002. [129481]

    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. Curtis-Thomas, dated 15 September 2003:
    The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your question concerning lung cancer deaths in (a) England (b) Northern Ireland in 2002. I am replying in his absence. (129481) The latest year for which data are available is 2001, whose figures are shown in the table below.

    Mortality for malignant neoplasm of trachea, bronchus or lung1. (a) England (b) Northern Ireland, 20012

    Northern Ireland

    England

    Number of deaths

    26,894

    782

    Age-standardised rate3 per 100,000

    40.4

    41.4

    1Selected using code C33-C34 from the International Classification of Diseases Tenth Revision.

    2 Data are for occurrences of death per calendar year for England and registrations of death per calendar year for Northern Ireland.

    3 Directly age-standardised to the European Standard Population.

    National Insurance Fund
    Paul Flynn
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the surplus expected in the National Insurance Fund in March 2004. [129717]

    Dawn Primarolo
    I refer my hon. Friend to Table 2 on page 7 of the Report by the Government Actuary on the drafts of the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2003 and the Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating and National Insurance Funds Payments) Order 2003.

    North Sea Fiscal Regime
    Mr. Laws
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his latest estimate is of the cost of abolishing the North Sea royalty for each year from 2003–04 to 2005–06; what the reasons were for this decision; and if he will make a statement. [130235]
    602W
    Dawn Primarolo
    North Sea Royalty was abolished from 1 January 2003 as part of the package of measures introduced by the Chancellor in his 2002 Budget to modernise the North Sea fiscal regime. Along with the other measures in the package its abolition will promote long-term investment in the North Sea, make the tax regime more closely linked to profits and ensure a fairer return for the nation from profits derived from a national resource. The estimated cost of abolition is given in the table A2 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report 2003 [HC 500].

    Customs Detector Dogs
    Michael Fabricant
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the answer of 6 March by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs,Official Report, columns 952–53, how many food sniffer dogs are available at (a) airports and (b) seaports. [129143]

    John Healey
    I refer the hon. Gentlemen to the answer I gave him on 10 September. The additional information requested on the deployment of detector dogs is not available; exemption 4 (Law Enforcement and legal proceedings) of the, Code of Practice on Access to Government Information applies to all such information about Customs anti-smuggling activities.

    Premium Bonds
    Sir Teddy Taylor
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many unclaimed prizes from premium bonds there are; and what their cumulative value is. [128876]

    Ruth Kelly
    There are 390,3521 bonds outstanding that amount to £23 million1 unclaimed Premium Bond prizes.
    1Figure correct as of the 1 September 2003.

    Regional Pay
    Mr. Salmond
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which public sector workers will be affected by his plans on regional pay. [127214]

    Mr. Boateng
    All departments and agencies across the public sector are expected to consider how regional and local pay flexibilities apply to their workforce, except where an exemption has been specifically allowed, or where responsibility lies with the devolved administrations.

    Research and Development Tax Credit
    Mr. Laws
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the cost of the research and development tax credit for each year from 1999–2000 to 2005–06; what assessment he has made of the additional research and development expenditure which has occurred because of this policy; and if he will make a statement. [130145]

    Dawn Primarolo
    Latest estimates of the cost, on an accruals basis, of the research and development tax credit for each year from 2000–01 to 2002–03 are available on the In land Revenue's website at http://www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats/taxexpenditures/q_t06_1.htm.

    Residential Property Sales
    Mr. Laws
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his latest estimate is of the number of annual residential property sales of(a) under £100,000, (b) under £200,000, (c) under £300,000, (d) under £400,000, (e) under £500,000, (f) under £600,000, (g) under £750,000, (h) under £1 million and (i) over £1 million; and if he will make a statement. [130151]

    Dawn Primarolo
    Estimates of the number of residential property sales in 2002 are given in the table:

    Price band (£s)

    Number of transactions £000s

    Under 100,000

    777

    100,000–199,999

    425

    200,000–299,999

    160

    300,000–399,999

    47

    400,000–499,999

    21

    500,000–599,999

    6

    600,000–749,999

    5

    750,000–1,000,000

    4

    Over £1 million

    4

    Total:

    1,450

    Source:

    Survey of Property Transactions

    Savings
    Sir Teddy Taylor
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the amount of savings certificates and savings deposits issued through the Post Office which are unlikely to be claimed or cashed. [128877]

    Ruth Kelly
    We estimate that there is a potential £710 million forgotten or unclaimed funds held in matured Savings Certificates, and £525 million forgotten or unclaimed deposits held in savings accounts (where no transactions have been made in the last five years).

    Special Advisers
    Mr. Tyrie
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many occasions between 31 March 2002 and 31 March 2003(a) departmental and (b) non-departmental special advisors have travelled abroad in an official capacity; what places were visited; and how much each visit cost. [126661]

    Ruth Kelly
    Between 31 March 2002 and 31 March 2003 special advisers in the Treasury Department travelled abroad on official business on eight occasions, at an average cost of £4,330 per trip. Countries visited are USA on 19–22 April 2002, 30 May to 2 June 2002, 3–5 September 2002, 26–30 September 2002 (x 2), 5 March 2003; France on 11 September 2002 and 16 January 2003. All travel by special advisers is undertaken in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code and the Civil Service Management Code.

    Tax Credits
    Mr. Webb
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many child tax credit recipients have made an application for reassessment; and of that number how many were on the basis of(a) the award being an overpayment and (b) the award being an underpayment. [122699]
    604W
    Dawn Primarolo
    Awards of child and working tax credits are adjusted if claimants report a change in the circumstances on which the award is based. Claimants may also ask for their award to be adjusted to reflect their expected income for the current tax year.

    The tax credits award for 2003–04 is initially based on the family's income for the tax year 2001–02. The final tax credits award will be based on 2003–04 income if it is lower, or more than £2,500 higher, than 2001–02 income. Even if income does rise, the first £2,500 of the rise is ignored in finalising the award. To allow awards to be adjusted to reflect current income, claimants can ask during the year for their tax credits to be based on their expected 2003–04 income, which is checked against actual income after the year end.

    Table 6.1 of "Child and Tax Credits Quarterly Statistics. July 2003" shows the number of families with awards who have asked for their awards to be adjusted to reflect their expected 2003–04 income. This publication is available on the Inland Revenue website, at www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats/personal-tax-credits/ menu.htm.

    Dr. Kumar
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people who are eligible for each of the new tax credits have yet to apply; and how many(a) applications have been received and (b) eligible people there are in (i) the Teesside region and (ii) the Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland constituency. [128670]

    Dawn Primarolo
    In total, 6 million families are expected to receive new tax credits. Already, after just 5 months, over 5.8 million families are benefiting, which is over 95 per cent. of those expected to be reached over the entire year.

    The available estimates of the number of families in each local authority and constituency receiving child and working tax credit appear in "Child and Working Tax Credit Statistics. Geographical analyses. July 2003". This is on the Inland Revenue website, at www.inlandreveneue.gov.uk/stats/personal-tax-credits/menu.htm.

    Estimates of the numbers of people expected to receive new tax credits are not available below the regional level.

    Dr. Cable
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people are in receipt of(a) child tax credit and (b) working tax credit, in each London constituency; how many claims are outstanding; and if he will make a statement. [128758]

    Clive Efford
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many families in Eltham have benefited from the child tax credit; and what the overall amount paid out through the credit to families in Eltham was in the last 12 months; [129430]

    (2) what the average gain of families in Eltham has been from the child tax credit; [129431]

    (3) how many families he estimates will benefit from the working tax credit in Eltham; and what will be the average gain per family (a) in the UK and (b) in Eltham. [129433]
    605W
    Adam Price
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in the Carmarthen East and Dinefwr constituency are in receipt of(a) child tax credit and (b) working tax credit; and how many claims are outstanding. [129215]

    Dawn Primarolo
    The available estimates of the number of families in each local authority and constituency receiving child and working tax credit appear in "Child and Working Tax Credit Statistics. Geographical analyses. July 2003". This is on the Inland Revenue website, at www.inlandreveneue.gov.uk/stats/personal-tax-credits/menu.htm.

    Any claims outstanding are ones where the Revenue is awaiting for further information, or are being verified. There is no breakdown of such claims by constituency.

    Statistics on average awards will be published after the end of the tax year, when awards have been finalised.

    Clive Efford
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to encourage families to claim(a) the working tax credit and (b) the child tax credit. [129434]

    Dawn Primarolo
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on 10 February 2003,Official Report, column 604W, regarding child tax credit. Since that date further publicity has included television, press, radio and online advertising as well as direct mail.

    Third World Debt
    Mr. Laurence Robertson
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on progress with cancellation of Third World debt by(a) the UK and (b) other countries. [129744]

    Mr. Boateng
    The UK government have been at the forefront of the international debate on debt relief issues, and continues to press for the rapid and full implementation of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative.

    Of the 38 countries that stand to benefit from enhanced HIPC debt relief, there are now 27–23 from Africa and 4 from Latin America—that already benefit from debt relief, which will amount in total to over $70 billion. This is a significant step towards achieving the $100 billion commitment made at the Cologne summit in 1999, and will reduce their debts to below the average for developing countries. For these 27 countries, the UK is providing 100 per cent. relief on their debts. Furthermore, the Chancellor has announced that any payments from countries yet to reach Decision Point would be held in trust for the day they can be returned to fund poverty reduction. Since 1999, the total UK commitment to multilateral institutions such as the World bank, the African Development Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to support the HIPC initiative has been $474 million.

    At their recent Summit in Evian, G8 governments reaffirmed their commitment to the HIPC initiative. They recognised the need to encourage and assist eligible countries in taking the steps necessary to complete the HIPC process. They urged the IMF and World bank to intensify their efforts to secure full
    606W
    participation of all creditors in the initiative, and reaffirmed their objective of ensuring debt sustainability for countries reaching completion point. Following on from discussions at Evian, the Chancellor will be working with other G7 Finance Ministers to agree the methodology for calculating the amount of "topping-up" debt relief available to countries. The UK has been pushing for a change in the rules of HIPC to exclude additional voluntary bilateral debt relief from the calculation of topping-up at Completion Point and the Chancellor will be working with other G8 Finance Ministers to review mechanisms to encourage good governance and the methodology for calculating the amount of topping-up debt relief available to countries—a measure that could provide an estimated $1 billion extra debt relief to HIPCs. In addition, the Treasury and the Department for International Development is seeking international support to establish the International Finance Facility, which could raise $50 billion annually to fund the Millennium Development Goals. This money could be disbursed in the form of concessional loans and grants, including debt relief.

    Water Efficient Technologies
    Mr. Laws
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his latest estimate is of the effects of the introduction of enhanced capital allowances for water-efficient technologies; what assessment has been made by the Treasury of such effects; and if he will make a statement. [130236]

    Dawn Primarolo
    The information requested is contained in Table A 1 (page 185) of the Financial Statement and Budget Report 2003 [HC 500].

    Actual Exchequer cost will depend upon take-up of the qualifying technology products. It is too early to comment on the actual take-up of thepolicy and the related effects.

  CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

    Immigration Work (Legal Practices)
    Jeremy Corbyn
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many legal practices specialising in immigration work have ceased to offer their services in the last two years citing insufficient income from legal aid as a reason. [127393]

    Mr. Lammy
    Neither my Department, nor the Legal Services Commission, maintain records on the number of legal practices specialising in immigration work that have ceased to offer their services citing insufficient income from legal aid as a reason. However, the number of organisations with contracts to provide publicly funded immigration and asylum legal services has increased over the last two years from 548 to 644.

    Legal Services Commission
    Huw Irranca-Davies
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs whether the Legal Services Commission uses a cost-benefit analysis when deciding whether to grant legal aid. [128813]
    607W
    Mr. Lammy
    The Legal Services Commission assesses applications for Community Legal Service funding (formerly civil legal aid) against a means and a merits assessment under the Funding Code approved by Parliament. The only exceptions are public law Children Act cases and hearings before the Mental Health Review Tribunal, for which funding is available on a non-means, non-merits basis. A cost-benefit test is an important part of this assessment. The Code imposes different types of cost-benefit test according to the nature of the case. Broadly the criteria seek to ensure that public funding is only available in circumstances where a privately paying client would be prepared to litigate.

    A cost-benefit test is not used when deciding whether to grant publicly funded legal representation in criminal cases. The only test in determining whether an individual should be publicly funded is whether it is in the interests of justice, as required by article 6 of ECHR.

    Huw Irranca-Davies
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what plans the Department has to review the guidelines used by the Legal Services Commission in making decisions on the allocation of legal aid. [128814]

    Mr. Lammy
    The Legal Services Commission is responsible for granting public funding in civil cases. The merits criteria for the public funding of individual civil claims are contained in the Commission's Funding Code, which is established under the Access to Justice Act 1999. The criteria themselves are supported by detailed decision-making guidance which is regularly reviewed and updated by the Commission.

    There are plans to issue a consultation paper later this year to consider whether changes to the Funding Code should be made. Any changes would be implemented on or after April 2004.

    Sheriffs
    Mr. Dismore
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many(a) Sheriffs and (b) Under Sheriffs are (i) women and (ii) from minority ethnic communities; and if he will make a statement. [129318]

    Mr. Leslie
    Of the 51 High Sheriffs in England and Wales that the Privy Council is responsible for appointing (that is, excluding Lancashire, Greater Manchester, Merseyside and Cornwall) 16 (31 per cent.) are women. The responsibility for appointing Under Sheriffs lies with High Sheriffs, and the Privy Council has no responsibility for them. Information on the ethnic background of nominees for High Sheriff is not supplied to the Privy Council. Appointment panels have now been set up, in all areas, and they have been asked to ensure that the pool from which nominees are drawn includes people from as wide a variety of backgrounds as possible.

  DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

    Alconbury Airfield
    Mr. Djanogly
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will make a decision on the application by Alconbury Development Ltd. concerning the Alconbury airfield. [129685]

    Keith Hill
    My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is currently consulting parties about whether material changes have occurred since the inquiry into the appeals, relating to development at Alconbury Airfield, closed. The deadline for responses is 13 October. Any representations made will then be circulated for comment, giving a further period within which final comments may be made. The decisions on the appeals will be made as soon as possible after that. The exact timing will, however, depend on whether any matters arise from the reference back.

    Local Authority Housing
    Bob Russell
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will set out his reasons for refusing to allocate additional funds to those local authorities who choose not to establish arm's length management operations for their council housing. [129306]

    Keith Hill
    The Sustainable Communities Plan made it clear that there are three options open to local authorities seeking additional investment in their housing stock: Stock transfer, the Private Finance Initiative and the establishment of an Arms Length Management Organisation (ALMO).

    The range of options is needed so that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister can increase the quality of social housing alongside the achievement of other priorities. Additional resources are directed to options that will improve performance and service quality at the same time.

    Bob Russell
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the local authorities which have conducted ballots amongst their housing tenants for arm's length management operations; and what(a) the turn-out in each case and (b) the percentage votes for and against was. [129307]

    Keith Hill
    The information requested is tabled as follows:

    Percentage

    Local authority

    Turnout

    In favour

    Not in favour

    ALMO round 1

    Derby

    48

    88

    12

    Hounslow

    35

    83

    17

    Kirklees

    47

    81

    19

    Rochdale

    46

    90

    10

    Stockton

    44

    93

    7

    ALMO round 2

    Barnsley

    25

    57

    43

    Carrick

    61

    96

    4

    Colchester

    57

    76

    24

    Leeds—East

    35

    83

    17

    Leeds—North East

    41

    88

    12

    Leeds—North West

    42

    89

    11

    609W

    Percentage

    Local authority

    Turnout

    In favour

    Not in favour

    Leeds—South

    39

    91

    9

    Leeds—South East

    40

    88

    12

    Leeds—West

    38

    90

    10

    Waltham Forest

    49

    85

    15

    Bob Russell
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will allocate additional funds to local authorities whose tenants have voted in favour of the establishment of arm's length management operations. [129308]

    Keith Hill
    Allocation of funds to a local authority under the Arms Length Management Organisation (ALMO) Programme is subject to two conditions: the council obtaining approval from the Secretary of State under section 27 of the Housing Act 1985 to delegate its housing management functions to an ALMO, for which tenant support is a key criterion; and the ALMO gaining at least a 2* from the Housing Inspectorate. We confirm the allocation of funds when both of these conditions are satisfied.

    Census Forms
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many people have been prosecuted for not filling in their census forms in(a) Crosby and (b) the UK. [129452]

    Ruth Kelly
    I have been asked to reply.

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

    Letter from Colin Mowl to Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
    The National Statistician and Registrar General for England and Wales has been asked to reply to your recent question asking how many people have been prosecuted for not filling in their census forms in (a) Crosby and (b) in the UK. I am replying in his absence.
    In England and Wales there were 38 prosecutions for refusal to complete and return a census form. There was one prosecution in the Crosby constituency. Scotland and Northern Ireland conducted their own Censuses and prosecution for refusal to complete and return a census form was the responsibility of the respective Registrars General of these countries.
    The Office for National Statistics followed a policy of only prosecuting in cases where it had obtained clear and sufficient documentary evidence of a refusal to return a completed Census form.

    Correspondence
    Mrs. Roe
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will reply to the letters from the hon. Member for Broxbourne of(a) 19 June, (b) 15 July, (c) 13 August and (d) 9 September relating to correspondence from Hertfordshire county council. [129832]

    Yvette Cooper
    I replied to the hon. Member on 11 September.

    Disability Grants
    Lynne Jones
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make it his policy that no elderly or disabled person should wait more than six months for an assessment of 610W
    needs, the provision of finance and the execution of works required under disability facilities grant arrangements; and if he will make a statement. [128898]

    Yvette Cooper
    Disabled Facilities Grants (DFGs) are administered by local authorities who are under a statutory duty to notify an applicant on whether or not their application is approved as soon as is reasonably practicable, but no later than six months after the date of application. The grant is payable on completion of the works. Authorities have a statutory power to delay payment if they are under financial pressure but in these cases this must not be beyond 12 months from the date of grant application.

    We have recently consulted on new Office of the Deputy Prime Minister/Department of Health draft guidance on delivering housing adaptations for disabled people, which sets out the Government's view of best practice on service delivery. This includes target times for the complete delivery process including needs assessment, processing of the application and the completion of building works. These target times will depend on the complexity of, and priority attached to, individual cases but the guidance suggests that the maximum target time for the entire process should in any event be no more than 260 working days and only 80 working days in high priority cases.

    We are currently considering responses to this consultation and hope to issue final guidance to local housing and social service authorities before the end of this year.

    Dispute Resolution
    Dr. Kumar
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what developments there have been in the introduction of alternative dispute resolution methods into public sector contracts; and if he will make a statement. [128669]

    Phil Hope
    On 23 March 2001, the Lord Chancellor published a formal pledge committing Government Departments and agencies to settle disputes by Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) techniques. As part of that pledge, Departments are committed to including appropriate clauses in their standard procurement contracts on the use of ADR to settle disputes arising under those contracts. The document "Dispute Resolution Guidance" issued by the Office of Government Commerce and available on their website at http://www.ogc.gov.uk/sdtoolkit/reference/ogc_library/generic_guidance/dispute.pdf contains further details on the pledge, and includes at Annex B model clauses relating to ADR.

    Fire Sprinklers
    Dr. Stoate
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make it a legal requirement for fire sprinklers to be installed in all new dwellings; and if he will make a statement. [129118]

    Phil Hope
    The Building Regulations apply to most building work undertaken in England and Wales, typically the erection, extension or material alteration of a building. Part B of the Building Regulations sets out the requirements for fire safety and is supported by Approved Document B which provides guidance on measures that will meet these requirements,
    611W
    A major review of Part B and its supporting Approved Document is due to commence in early 2004. As part of this review it is our intention to consider the potential of extending the existing provisions for sprinkler protection under the Building Regulations to new residential premises, including dwellings. The proposals will be subject to a full public consultation, and will be supported by a Regulatory Impact Assessment.

    General Permitted Development Order
    Matthew Green
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what changes have been made to Class B under Part 4 of the General Permitted Development Order since September 2001. [128528]

    Keith Hill
    There have been no changes to Part 4, Class B of Schedule 2 to the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) since September 2001. In January 2002 the Government published a consultation paper on possible options for change to the temporary use provisions. Due to the high level of public interest in the matter of temporary uses, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister made an interim announcement on 21 August 2002 that there would be no change to existing provisions.

    Housing
    Mr. Sanders
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assistance he can give to areas with high house prices and low incomes to increase housing affordability; and if he will make a statement. [129156]

    Keith Hill
    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister published the "Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future" on 5 February. This set out a range of measures to create conditions in which private house builders can increase supply and to make the best use of the existing housing stock.

    In addition funding for the Housing Corporation's Approved Development Programme in 2003–04 has been increased to around £1.5 billion—an increase of £500 million on last year—to enable housing associations to provide homes for both rent and low cost home ownership. In all the Government will be providing around £5 billion for investment in affordable housing by 2005–06. Decisions on the allocation of these funds will be based on recommendations from the regional housing boards based on priorities identified in regional housing strategies.

    The Sustainable Communities Plan announced that the Home Ownership Task Force would be examining all the various home ownership programmes and the scope for better targeting and design. The task force is due to report in the autumn.

    Housing Development (Sewerage Networks)
    Mr. Gardiner
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what inspections local authority planning officers are required to carry out to ensure that new housing developments are correctly connected to sewerage networks. [129870]
    612W
    Keith Hill
    Planning policy guidance note 23 "Planning and pollution control", which was published in 1994 clearly states that the arrangements for sewage disposal are capable of being a material consideration in planning applications and appeals. It advises that local planning authorities may need to refuse planning permission where they are not satisfied about the adequacy of sewerage infrastructure or they may be able to impose conditions to ensure that suitable arrangements are in place. Examples of the types of conditions are given in Department of the Environment Circular 11/95 "The use of conditions in planning permissions".

    The consideration given to sewage disposal when determining planning applications will depend on the circumstances. Local authority planning officers are only responsible for enforcing planning conditions that have been imposed. In many circumstances there will be no need to impose planning conditions related to sewerage arrangements.

    However, Part H of the Building Regulations 2000 requires the provision of an adequate system of drainage to carry foul water from appliances within the building to a prioritised list of alternative foul water outfalls (public or private sewer, septic tank or a cesspool). Enforcement of the Building Regulations 2000 is by local authority building control departments or approved inspectors. Where a connection is to be made to a public sewer, under the Water Industry Act 1991, there is a duty to notify the sewerage undertaker and provision for the undertaker to inspect the connection.

    Local Rates
    Mr. Wyatt
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister under what powers local authorities may charge a local rate on new build houses when the roads, drains and play areas have not been adopted by that local authority. [129175]

    Keith Hill
    Local taxation on domestic property has been in the form of council tax since 1993–94. Currently local authorities have no power to vary council tax across their areas because roads, drains and play areas have not been adopted. However, subject to parliamentary approval, the Local Government Bill will provide a discretionary power for local billing authorities to offer locally determined council tax discounts.

    Park Homes
    Mr. Dismore
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he expects to consult on measures affecting park homes which require legislation. [129301]

    Yvette Cooper
    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister set up the Park Homes Working Party to consider the need to change existing legislation. The Working Party's we considered recommendations and consulted on in 2001. Options for changes to the law are currently being considered.

    Planning
    Mr. Wyatt
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what sanctions can be used by(a) his Department and

    613W
    (b) members of the public if a section 106 planning gain for a new primary school is not then taken up by the planning authority. [129177]

    Keith Hill
    There are no powers for my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister or members of the public to enforce s106 agreements directly.

    Planning obligations made under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by section 12 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991) are either agreements between the local planning authority and persons with an interest in the land or undertakings given by persons with an interest in the land relating to the matters set out in section 106 (1) (a)–(d):

    (a)restricting the development or use of the land in any specified way;

    (b)requiring specified operations or activities to be carried out in, on, under or over the land;

    (c)requiring the land to be used in any specified way; or

    (d)requiring a sum or sums to be paid to the authority on a specified date or dates or periodically.

    The planning obligation can only be enforced by the local planning authority against the person who entered into the obligation or any person deriving title from the person who entered into the obligation. The relevant powers are set out at section 106 (5) and section 106 (6). There is no power for the Secretary of State or any other person to enforce the obligation.

    Mr. Wyatt
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what powers a local authority has to prevent further buildings by a developer where the houses recently built by the company on that site which have many snags per house still to be resolved. [129178]

    Phil Hope
    There are no such powers.

    Mr. Wyatt
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many complaints about homes built by Redrow plc(a) in total and (b) on the Meads Estate near Bobbing have been received by NHBC Building Control Services Ltd. [129179]

    Phil Hope
    NHBC Building Control Services Ltd. is a subsidiary of NHBC (National House-Building Council), an independent company limited by guarantee. Questions regarding complaints made about developers or house builders to NHBC or its subsidiaries should he directed to NHBC.

    Regional Assemblies
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what powers existing regional assemblies have in relation to(a) the hiring of permanent staff and (b) the expenditure of public money. [129025]

    Mr. Raynsford
    Regional chambers (which style themselves assemblies) are voluntary. Some are companies while others are unincorporated bodies. Their arrangements for the hiring of permanent staff, are a matter for them and will vary between chambers, operating within the constraints ordinarily imposed by the law.
    614W
    Each regional chamber, or its accountable body, receives an annual grant from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and grant conditions in the funding agreement letters determine permitted expenditure.

    Regional Assemblies may derive other income through subscriptions from local authorities and other organisations (such as social and economic partners). Conditions that relate to the expenditure of this money is a matter for those funding bodies to decide.

    Social Exclusion
    John Robertson
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what action he is taking to tackle social exclusion among pensioners. [128134]

    Yvette Cooper
    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is working across Government to tackle pensioner poverty and social exclusion. Since 1997, our strategy for tackling poverty has been to target our help on the poorest pensioners through the minimum income guarantee, the new pension credit and winter fuel payments. The poorest third of pensioners households will have gained over £1,600 a year in real terms.

    The Social Exclusion Unit is taking forward a programme of work looking at impacts and trends in social exclusion. This will develop a clearer understanding of how Government policies work together to tackle social exclusion for particular groups, including older people. The programme of work includes a review of the evidence about the impact of policies on social exclusion among older people

    The Neighbourhood Renewal Unit aims to ensure that older people benefit from regeneration initiatives. The work of Local Strategic Partnerships should be informed by the views of all local groups, including older people. We are making £36 million available through the Community Empowerment Fund to make sure that under-rep resented groups are better able to have their voices heard at the local level.

    Fear of crime can itself be a cause of social exclusion, particularly among some older people. Neighbourhood Warden Schemes are showing early signs of reducing crime and the fear of crime across some of the most deprived neighbourhoods.

    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister recognises that it needs to know more about those older people who live within the most deprived areas. Following the recent consultation on updating the Indices of Multiple Deprivation, we will be creating an index of income deprivation among older people.

    The "Supporting People" programme offers vulnerable members of the community, including older people, the opportunity to improve their quality of life through greater independence, which can help to combat social exclusion. Through this programme we are promoting high quality, strategically planned housing-related sup port services that will enable older people to remain in their own homes for as long as possible.

    Voter Turnouts
    Mr. Denis Murphy
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the average voter turnout in the May 2003 local
    615W
    government elections was (a) where only traditional voting methods were used and (b) where postal ballots were piloted. [126451]

    Phil Hope
    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not hold the information requested centrally and it could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The Electoral Commission published their evaluation of the 2003 local electoral pilots on 31 July. According to their report, the average voter turnout across all local elections in 2003, including results from elections held on a pilot basis, was 34.9 per cent. The average turnout at elections where all-postal voting pilots were held was 49.4 per cent.

  HEALTH

    National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse plans to locate staff within the Government Office for the north-west during 2003. [128567]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse (NTA) was originally structured with a regional manager in nine areas across the country. In 2002, a review of the NTA found regional managers had been over stretched and were not always fully engaged, with Government offices.

    The board of the NTA, with the agreement of the Department of Health and the Home Office, decided that further resources and staff should be deployed in each of the regions, commensurate with the area and the number of drug action teams covered. Within the north-west, the regional manager has been joined by two deputy regional managers and one other additional member of staff. A third deputy regional manager is also being recruited.

    The Board also decided that collocating the NTA teams in the Government Office for the north-west would enable closer working with Government Office colleagues. Collocation of the north-west NTA team took place on 7 July 2003.

    Anti-TNF Therapy
    Mr. Amess
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he plans to take to ensure that health care trusts abide by National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidance on anti TNF therapy. [128678]

    Dr. Ladyman
    Clinicians have to make an independent clinical judgment, taking due account of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence's (NICE) advice and the strength of evidence which lies behind it. They may therefore depart from the advice if, in their view, the circumstances of the individual patient justify doing so. But they will be held accountable, through clinical governance arrangements, for their clinical decisions.
    616W
    The Commission for Health Improvement (CHI) and NICE have agreed a methodology for CHI to incorporate the monitoring of NICE guidance in its clinical governance reviews. Specifically, CHI now looks to see if national health service trusts have mechanisms in place to implement and comply with NICE guidance. CHI will also support and facilitate clinicians to discuss when NICE guidance is and is not followed on an individual patient basis.

    The Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection will be the main inspector of NHS services in the future. It will carry out inspection against clear national standards and we expect NICE guidance to be included in those standards.

    Mrs. Helen Clark
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to collect centrally information regarding the level of availability of anti TNF therapy to qualifying patients for each primary care trust. [129135]

    Dr. Ladyman
    The National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) recommended the use of anti-TNF therapy in March 2002. We have issued directions obliging strategic health authorities and primary care trusts to provide appropriate funding for treatments recommended by NICE. This is in line with our manifesto commitment to ensure that patients receive drugs and treatments recommended by NICE on the national health service if considered appropriate by their clinicians. The Commission for Health Improvement (CHI) and NICE have agreed a methodology for CHI to incorporate the monitoring of NICE guidance in its clinical governance reviews. Specifically, CHI now looks to see if NHS trusts have mechanisms in place to implement and comply with NICE guidance. CHI will also support and facilitate clinicians to discuss when NICE guidance is and is not followed on an individual patient basis.

    The Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection will be the main inspector of NHS services in the future. It will carry out inspection against clear national standards and we expect NICE guidance to be included in those standards.

    Broomfield Hospital (Waiting Times)
    Mr. Burns
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting time is at the accident and emergency department at Broomfield Hospital, Chelmsford; and what the equivalent figure was 12 months ago. [127438]

    Dr. Ladyman
    Information on average waiting times in accident and emergency departments is not collected centrally. Information on the proportion of patients who spend four or fewer hours in a major A and E department from arrival to admission, transfer or discharge has been available each quarter since July 2002.

    Information for Mid Essex Hospital Services National Health Service Trust, which runs Broomfield Hospital, is shown in the table.
    617W

    Quarter

    Percentage of patients who spent less than four hours in A and E

    2002–03

    2

    71

    2002–03

    3

    71

    2002–03

    4

    83

    Source:

    Department of Health form QMAE

    Information from Essex Strategic Health Authority indicates that the average waiting time in A and E at the trust for June 2003 was two hours and 22 minutes. The figure for June 2002 was three hours and 20 minutes.

    Care Home Beds (London)
    Dr. Cable
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the number of care home beds in London. [128765]

    Dr. Ladyman
    The number of care home places in Greater London as at 31 March 2001 was 47,430, an increase of four per cent, over the 1997 figures. This compares to a one per cent, increase for England over the same period. Figures for later years have been collected by the National Care Standards Commission and will be published this autumn.

    Carers
    Mr. Wray
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to identify family carers; whether he plans to create a family carers list; and what health, financial and other assistance can be granted to family members who care for relatives. [129104]

    Dr. Ladyman
    There are no proposals either to identify or create a list of family carers.

    As with all carers, family carers are entitled to an assessment to determine their needs as carers and eligibility for support. The Carers Grant, worth 100 million this year, provides money for local councils to provide short breaks and services for carers to enable them to continue in their caring role. Carers are also entitled to cash payments for carers' services to enable them to purchase the type of support they require and promote a better quality of life.

    Delayed Discharges
    Mr. Burns
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the most recent national delayed discharges figures which are available. [129844]

    Dr. Ladyman
    The latest figures on delayed discharge (June 2003), which have been placed in the Library, show that around 4,170 patients of all ages were occupying an acute bed with a delayed transfer at the end of the quarter. This is over 1,300 fewer patients than at the same time the previous year.

    Disabled Children (Family Support)
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many families with(a) severely disabled children and (b) severely learning disabled children have received family support in each year since 1997, broken down by local authority; and if he will make a statement. [125978]
    618W
    Dr. Ladyman
    Responsibility for the area now rests with my hon. Friend, the Minister for Children, at the Department for Education and Skills.

    I refer the hon. Member to the response given to him by my hon. Friend, the Minister for Children at the Department for Education and Skills (Margaret Hodge) on Monday 1 September. Official Report, column 716W,

    Health Professionals (Suicide)
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths from suicide were recorded of(a) doctors and (b) nurses in 2002. [129483]

    Ruth Kelly
    I have been asked to reply.

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

    Letter from Colin Mowl to Claire Curtis-Thomas, dated 15 September 2003:
    The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question concerning deaths from suicide among (a) doctors and (b) nurses in 2002. I am replying in his absence. (129483)
    The latest year for which data are available is 2001. I refer you to the answer given in the Official Report Volume Number 395 of 4 December 2002, column 910, to Evan Harris MP, which gives the information requested for that year.

    Health Protection Agency
    Patrick Mercer
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether resources for the Health Protection Agency's civil contingency planning will come from the NHS's general budget. [128664]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The Health Protection Agency's funding for civil contingency planning—like all of its other central funding—is from Section F (central and miscellaneous services) of the Department of Health's "Request for Resources 2 (RfR2)". The national health service's "general budget" is in "Request for Resources 1 (RfRI)".

    Patrick Mercer
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether stocks of emergency materiel for the Health Protection Agency will be funded from his Department's overall budget. [128665]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    It is not a function of the Health Protection Agency to stockpile material for national medical emergencies. Any such material procured centrally by the Department of Health is funded from the resources and moneys voted to it by Parliament in the Central Government Supply Estimates.

    Patrick Mercer
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health from what accounts the Health Protection Agency will be funded. [128668]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The Health Protection Agency is funded from the resources and moneys voted to the Department of Health by Parliament in the Central Government Supply Estimates. The relevant part is Section F (central health and miscellaneous services) of Request for Resources 2 (RfR2). The Main Estimates for 2003–04 were approved by Parliament on 6 May 2003.

    Health Service (Worcestershire)
    Mr. Luff
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the capacity of the medical assessment unit and the accident and emergency department at the Worcestershire Royal Hospital. [129310]

    Dr. Ladyman
    Worcestershire Royal Hospital is currently engaged in Wave 1 of the NHS Modernisation Agency Emergency Services Collaborative programme. Through this, we would expect the collaborative methodology to review and assess the impact and effectiveness of different parts of the emergency service, including any assessment units they may have.

    In July 2003, the Department of Health published a checklist for assessment units on the emergency care website at www.doh.gov.uk/emergencycare. This provides advice and recommends good operational practice. The type and size of assessment unit provided depends on the exact model of care adopted which should reflect local needs.

    The Department is currently carrying out a voluntary survey of emergency assessment and observation units within acute trusts across England.

    Mr. Luff
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the implications for children's health of the reduction in health visiting services in South Worcestershire. [129311]

    Dr. Ladyman
    It is for local organisations to determine the health visiting work force required to deliver local and national health priorities including child health. The proposals which have been put forward by South Worcestershire Primary Care Trust are based upon the commitment to provide a family-centred health visiting service which will work with individuals, families and communities to improve child health and tackle health inequalities.

    The Department of Health is currently funding a range of initiatives to support PCTs in promoting recruitment, retention and return to practice within the primary care nursing and health visiting work force.

    Heartburn
    Mr. Burns
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the connection between heartburn and cancer of the gullet. [127450]

    Dr. Ladyman
    Cancer of the oesophagus affects around 6,000 people a year in England and Wales, the majority of whom are aged 40 or over. Common symptoms of the cancer are heartburn and difficulty in swallowing. Most people also lose weight and about half have anaemia, which causes severe tiredness.

    Cancer of the oesophagus or gullet develops as a result of cell changes in the lining of the oesophagus. There are two main types of cancer of the oesophagus: squamous carcinoma, which is more common at the upper end of the gullet; and adenocarcinoma, which is more common at the lower end, particularly around the
    620W
    junction between the gullet and the stomach. There has been a recent increase in the proportion of tumours arising close to the junction of stomach and gullet, but the reasons for this are not yet known.

    We know that cancer patients need to be diagnosed and treated as quickly as possible. This is a very stressful and anxious time for them and they want a diagnosis of their condition as quickly as possible. The Government launched the NHS Cancer Plan on 27 September 2000. This sets out the first ever comprehensive strategy to tackle the disease. It is a major programme of action linking prevention, diagnosis, treatment, care and research.

    The Cancer Plan sets out new waiting time targets for cancer treatment. A two-week out-patient waiting time standard was introduced for all urgently referred suspected cancer patients in December 2000 and the most recent figures show that over 98 per cent. of all urgent referrals were seen with two weeks.

    By 2005, all cancer patients will wait a maximum of one month from diagnosis to treatment and a maximum of two months from urgent general practitioner referral to treatment. The Government's ultimate goal is that no patient should wait longer than one month from an urgent referral for suspected cancer to the beginning of treatment, except for a good clinical reason or through personal choice. It is planned to achieve this by 2008.

    However, past decades of under investment mean this goal is not yet within reach. We are making significant extra investment—an extra £570 million a year by 2003–04—the biggest ever single cash investment in cancer equipment, additional doctors and nurses working in new ways and modernisation through the Cancer Services Collaborative, which aims to cut out delays in the patient journey.

    Hospital-acquired Infections
    Paul Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes have taken place in the number of deaths from MRSA in each of the past nine years; and what changes in the number of deaths he expects to occur in the next three years. [129237]

    Ruth Kelly
    I have been asked to reply.

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

    Letter from Colin Mowl to Paul Flynn, dated 15 September 2003:
    The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question asking what changes have taken place in the number of deaths from MRSA in each of the past nine years; and what changes in the number of deaths are expected to occur in the next three years. I am replying in his absence. (129237)
    Information on deaths from MRSA is not routinely available but a recent research study published in the British Medical Journal identified the number of death certificates that mentioned MRSA as the underlying cause of death or as a contributory cause for the years 1993–1998. The table below gives figures from the study for these years.
    621W

    Number of deaths where MRSA was mentioned as the underlying or a contributory cause of death, England and Wales, 1993–98

    Number of deaths

    1993

    47

    1994

    88

    1995

    187

    1996

    290

    1997

    377

    1998

    398

    The Office for National Statistics is currently in the process of updating this study to cover the period 1999–2002. The results of this analysis will be published next year.

    It is impossible to put a firm figure to the number of people who die from MRSA because people are often very sick with a number of other conditions so the contribution of MRSA to the outcome in any particular case is uncertain. In addition, the underlying cause of death is most often the disease or injury which led them to be admitted to hospital, rather than the MRSA which may have complicated the course of the illness.

    It is not possible to predict what the figures will be for the next three years.

    Learning Disability Services
    Mr. Oaten
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the net expenditure was on learning disability by the national health service in each year since 1997–98. [126928]

    Dr. Ladyman
    The gross expenditure in the hospital and community health servicesince 1997–98 is shown in the table.

    £ million

    Expenditure on learning disability

    1997–98

    1,324

    1998–99

    1,365

    1999–2000

    1,421

    2000–01

    1,486

    It is not possible to exclude charges and receipts from the figures to produce a net expenditure figure. It is also not possible to determine the amount of primary care expenditure that is purely learning disability.

    Lymphoedema
    Mr. Laurence Robertson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the treatment of lymphoedema sufferers in(a) England and (b) Gloucestershire. [129028]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    [holding answer 11 September 2003]: The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) has issued guidance on the use of drugs for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and chronic myeloid leukaemia, but not on non-cancer related lymphoedema.

    NICE has recently updated the "Improving Outcomes in Breast Cancer Guidance", and that guidance made some recommendations about lymphoedema. These include that cancer networks should agree guidelines for identification and management of lymphoedema and that a lymphoedema service, staffed by nurses and physiotherapists who have experience in dealing with this problem, should be available for all patients who experience arm swelling or discomfort.
    622W
    In Gloucestershire, lymphoedema patients can access support from their general practitioner practice and community nursing staff. Lymphoedema patients with cancer can also access support from a practice-based dedicated specialist nurse.

    Medicines and Health Care Products Agency
    Mr. Oaten
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the consultants and their projects being used by the Medicines and Health Care Products Agency. [R] [128594]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    [holding answer 8 September 2003]: Consultants currently being used by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and the projects they are being used on are as follows:
    Accenture—Design and build of IT applications.
    Accenture—General Practice Research Database (GPRD) Accelerator Project.
    Charles Mackenzie—Enhancements to website applications.
    Hay Group—Design of Personal Development and Performance Management System.
    Oxford Group—Delivery of Management and Leadership Training programme.
    Red Ant Design—General Practice Research Database (GPRD) marketing and customer interface.
    TK Consultancy—Design and build of medicines enforcement case investigation system.
    Turner and Townsend—Post-merger co-location project.
    Unipart Advanced Learning systems—enhancements to device adverse incidents tracking system.
    Winton Nightingale—Management of staff restaurant contract.

    Mr. Oaten
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to appoint a Chief Executive to the Medicines and Health Care Products Regulatory Agency. [R] [128595]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    [holding answer 8 September 2003]: Professor Kent Woods, who has been appointed Chief Executive of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), will take up the appointment on 1 January 2004.

    Waiting Lists/Times Trust
    Mr. Burns
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people had been waiting for inpatient treatment in the Mid Essex Hospital Services Trust area in each of the last three months for which figures are available. [128871]

    Dr. Ladyman

    The number of patients waiting for elective in-patient admission at Mid Essex Hospital Services National Health Service Trust was 8,710 at the end of May 2003, 8,414 at the end of June 2003 and 8,299 at the end of July 2003.

    Source:

    Department of Health form KH07.

    Mr. Burns
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people had been waiting 13 weeks or more for an outpatient appointment in the Mid Essex Hospital Services Trust area in the last two available quarters. [128872]
    623W
    Dr. Ladyman
    The number of patients still waiting for a first consultant out-patient appointment following general practitioner written referral at Mid Essex Hospital Services National Health Service Trust was 450 at quarter 4 2002–03 and 578 at quarter 1 2003–04.

    Source:

    Department of Health form QM80.

    NHS Dentistry
    Mr. Hepburn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many NHS dental practices there were in(a) Jarrow constituency, (b) South Tyneside, (c) Tyne & Wear, (d) the North East and (e) the UK (i) in 1980, (ii) in 1990, (iii) in 2000 and (iv) on the latest dates for which figures are available. [128889]

    General Dental Service: Number of Ental Practices

    August each year

    1991

    1995

    19961

    2000

    2002

    20032

    England

    8,390

    8,269

    8,298

    8,474

    8,497

    8,596

    Northern Region

    1,136

    1,099

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Gateshead

    36

    35

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Newcastle

    68

    61

    —

    —

    —

    —

    North Tyneside

    33

    30

    —

    —

    —

    —

    South Tyneside

    23

    22

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Sunderland

    35

    33

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Northern and Yorkshire Region

    —

    —

    2,201

    2,176

    2,149

    —

    Gateshead and South Tyneside HA

    —

    —

    58

    58

    57

    —

    Newcastle and North Tyneside HA

    —

    —

    89

    95

    93

    —

    Sunderland HA

    —

    —

    33

    32

    33

    —

    Northumberland, Tyne and Wear SHA

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    230

    Gateshead PCT

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    32

    Newcastle PCT

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    61

    North Tyneside PCT

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    28

    South Tyneside PCT

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    23

    Sunderland Teaching PCT

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    36

    Jarrow Constituency3

    124

    11

    12

    12

    12

    11

    1Following the move from Family Health Service Authority (FHSAs) to Health Authority (HAs) in 1996, results are available by HA rather than by FHSA.

    2 Following the move from Health Authority (HAs) to Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) in 2001, results are available by Stategic Health Authority (SHA) and PCT rather than by region and HA.

    3 Constituency defined by current boundaries

    4 1990 figure.

    Source:

    Dental Practice Board

    Care Standards Act
    Mr. Hammond
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact on voluntary organisations concerned with the care of the elderly of the registration fee imposed by the Care Standards Act 2000. [130703]

    Dr. Ladyman
    The fees payable by care providers registered under the Care Standards Act were the subject of a wide-ranging public consultation in 2001. As part of the funding arrangements, we expect the costs associated with regulatory fee increases to be passed on by providers through increased fees to service users and commissioners of services. This would mean, for example, that local authorities would pay higher amounts and their financial settlements from central Government reflect this.

    The Government are committed to a review of the framework for regulatory fees in 2004. This review will include a further public consultation.
    624W
    (2) many dental practices there were in (a) Jarrow constituency, (b) South Tyneside, (c) Tyne and Wear, (d) the North East and (e) UK (i) in 1980, (ii) in 1990, (iii) in 2000 and (iv) on the latest date for which figures are available. [128897]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    The table gives the requested information for the number of general dental service (GDS) practices. The information is available from 1991. Information is given for 1995, 1996 and 2002 because of the changes in health administration areas.

    No information is available currently on the number of totally private dental practices. The Office of Fair Trading Report, The private dentistry market in the U.K. states that about 210 practices are totally private (para 3.30).

    Prosthetic Services
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment his Department has made of the ability of prosthetic services to meet the needs of users; and if he will make a statement. [128320]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    It is for primary care trusts to assess the ability of their prosthetic services to meet the needs of users, as part of their general duty to determine what level of resources to devote to the treatment of different conditions in their localities. Strategic health authorities are responsible for the performance management of primary care trusts.

    Linda Perham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he gives to hospitals with regard to skin colour matching in the provision of prosthetic limbs. [128274]

    Ann Winterton
    The National Health Service Purchasing and Supply Agency issues guidance on the availability of products, which enables skin colour
    625W
    matching in the provision of prosthetic limbs. It is for local clinicians and service providers to decide what products to use in individual cases.

    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding has been made available for silicone cosmesis for prosthetics users in each of the last three years; how much was made available to each of the prosthetics centres in each of the last three years; how many patients were treated; what plans he has for the future funding of this service; and if he will make a statement. [128322]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    Baseline allocations of £0.5 million in 2001–02, £1.5 million in 2002–03 and £2.0 million in 2003–04 were expected to be used for the provision of silicone cosmesis for artificial limbs. Spending on silicone cosmesis through the National Health Service Purchasing and Supply Agency, which probably represents most if not all spending on silicone cosmesis, was £81,858 for 2001–02, £410,479 for 2002–03, and £137,502 in the first quarter of 2003–04. Information is not held centrally on the sums made available to individual prosthetics centres, nor on numbers of patients treated with silicone cosmesis. In future years primary care trusts will remain free to determine what amounts from their baseline allocations to use for the provision of silicone cosmesis.

    Pulmonary Care
    Mr. Laurence Robertson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the provision of pulmonary rehabilitation services in Gloucestershire. [129027]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    [holding answer 11 September 2003]The National Institute for Clinical Excellence is currently developing a guideline on the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in primary and secondary care. It is due to publish the guideline in 2004. In January 2003 the Respiratory Alliance published their guidance, "Bridging the Gap", which aims to help primary care trusts (PCTs) to commission and deliver high quality allergy and respiratory care.

    In line with our policy of "Shifting the Balance of Power", it is up to PCTs, in conjunction with strategic health authorities (SHAs) to take this work forward. I have been advised by the Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire SHA that in Gloucestershire patients with COPD have access to support within the primary care setting and also secondary care services within the wider hospital respiratory team. The local PCTs in Gloucestershire are jointly funding a project post to look at ways in which delivery of the current service can be improved, and to consider the development of future initiatives including COPD rehabilitation.

    Redundant/Empty Hospital Buildings
    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost was of maintaining redundant and empty hospital buildings in each region in the last six years. [127335]

    Mr. Hutton
    Information on the cost of redundant and empty properties held by national health service organisations is not held centrally.
    626W
    Until these properties are sold they must be maintained both for health and safety reasons and to ensure the best price is obtained for them. Sales of these properties have generated considerable receipts for re-investment in the NHS in recent years, as shown in the table.

    £ million

    2001–02

    2002–03

    Receipts from sales

    160

    151

    Stroke Services
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 5 August 2003,Official Report, column 958W, on stroke services, how many and what percentage of hospitals have had a working specialist stroke unit in each (a) region and (b) strategic health authority in each of the last six years for which figures are available. [129122]

    Dr. Ladyman
    The most comprehensive source of information is the National Sentinel Stroke Audit, carried out by the Royal College of Physicians. The audit was commissioned by the national health service in 1998 and was last updated in 2002. The results can be found at http://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/pubs/strokeaudit 01–02. pdf.

    The 2002 audit shows that 73 per cent. of trusts that participated had a stroke unit, compared to 56 per cent. three years earlier. The audit shows that 80 per cent. of trusts that participated have a consultant physician with specialist knowledge of stroke who is formally recognised as having principal responsibility for stroke services. While it is recognised that some services need to increase their capacity, the audit notes that very significant improvements have already been made.

    Our major vehicle for further improving standards for stroke services is through the older people's national service framework (NSF), which sets specific milestones for improvement by 2004 of stroke services in primary care trusts, specialist services and general hospitals that care for people suffering from a stroke. Our document, "Improvement, Expansion and Reform", which sets for the NHS a priorities and planning framework for 2003–06, makes clear that implementation of the older people's NSF is a top priority and that the 2004 milestone around specialist stroke services is a key target.

    We monitor progress against the key milestones in the NSF. From the information gathered so far, we know that 83 per cent. of the hospitals which have replied now have plans to have a specialist stroke service in place by April 2004.

    Tooth Decay
    Mr. Hepburn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures the Department is taking to reduce the number of children with tooth decay. [128895]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    Due mainly to the introduction of fluoride toothpaste and the fluoridation of water in some areas of the country, there has, over the last 20 years, been
    627W
    a major improvement in oral health. Nearly 60 per cent. of 5-years-olds now have no experience of tooth decay. However, significant variations remain which, in areas where drinking water is not fluoridated, are strongly associated with economic and social deprivation. The Government are committed to reducing these inequalities and have made provision in the Water Bill, currently before Parliament, to give communities with
    628W
    high levels of tooth decay a real option of having their water fluoridated. We have also established the "Brushing for Life" scheme in areas of poor dental health, whereby families with young children receive free fluoridated toothpaste, toothbrushes and advice on oral hygiene when attending child health developmental checks at aged eight months and 18 months and three years.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Planning Policy (Rural Areas)
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill)
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) is today publishing a draft, for public consultation, of a new Planning Policy Statement (PPS) on Sustainable Development in Rural Areas in England. It is the Government's intention that the new PPS (PPS7) should, in due course, replace existing Planning Policy Guidance note 7 (PPG7),The Countryside—Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development (published February 1997).

  The December 2001 planning Green Paper, Planning—delivering a fundamental change, announced that, as part of its proposals for reforming the planning system, the Government intend to review all its planning policy guidance to see whether it is needed; to seek greater clarity; and to remove from national policy guidance advice on practical implementation and policies which are better expressed at a regional or local level. In line with these proposals, the ODPM, in close consultation with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), carried out a review of PPG7. The conclusion of this review was that there remains a strong requirement for a distinct set of national planning policies that address the particular circumstances of rural areas and the wider countryside.

  Consequently, a consultation draft of new PPS7 has been prepared, setting out key national planning policies for achieving thriving, sustainable rural communities, supporting development that meets the economic, social and recreational needs of all, and protecting the quality of the countryside and its landscapes. The PPS also recognises the importance of supporting a sustainable and diverse agricultural industry, and of the role of the tourism and leisure sectors in rural areas. When, in due course, they are issued in their final form, these policies will inform planning authorities, regional planning bodies and planning inspectors in carrying out their land use planning and development control responsibilities.

  In the meantime, the Government are seeking views on draft PPS7 from a wide range of interested parties. The consultation period will run for twelve weeks, closing on 12 December 2003. Copies of the consultation document are being made available in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Council Tax
  The Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire (Mr. Nick Raynsford)
  Despite above inflation increases in grant for all English local authorities in 2003–04, we were disappointed that the 38WS
  average council tax increase was 12.9 per cent. Having looked at the budget returns from all English authorities, we have considered very carefully whether to use our powers under part IVA of the Local Government Act 1992 to cap any local authority budgets. We have decided against doing so this year.

  Every local authority has a responsibility to its own taxpayers and electors. However, the Government are clear that the current trend in council tax rises is not sustainable. We will look at council tax rises very closely next year and we will also want to take account of the trend in increases over more than one year. Local authorities should be aware that we are prepared to use our targeted capping powers in 2004–05. In exceptional circumstances I do not rule out the possibility of capping authorities categorised as "good" or "excellent" in the current and future comprehensive performance assessments.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Sexual/Violent Offenders
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins)
  I am pleased to announce the publication today of the second annual report of the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (the MAPPA) of the 42 police and probation Areas in England and Wales.

  The MAPPA have made a significant difference to the way the police and probation protect the public from the risks posed by sexual and other violent offenders. The MAPPA were established by the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 and introduced in April 2001. As a direct result there is now greater consistency and robustness in arrangements to manage these offenders and an increasing involvement of other agencies.

  I am very pleased that the statutory arrangements we introduced are proving to be so effective. However, there is no room for complacency: to consolidate good practice we have included provision in the Criminal Justice Bill to formalise the involvement of other agencies in this very important area of public protection. I congratulate the police and probation services for their commitment and achievement in developing the MAPPA.

  Each annual report contains the number of MAPPA offenders in that Area. The total number has increased; as expected, some offenders remain within the MAPPA longer than a year, some for life or for as long as they present a serious risk of harm to the public. The total number of MAPPA offenders increased 12 per cent. to 52,809, of which 21,413 are registered sex offenders.

  For the first time annual reports contain information about the number of MAPPA offenders referred to the highest level of MAPPA activity—the Multi-Agency Public Protection Panels (MAPPPs). Offenders are referred to a MAPPP because they present a particularly high risk or difficulties. In England and Wales 2,843 offenders (5 per cent. of the total) were managed through referral to a MAPPP. Early indications are that the recidivism of offenders managed through MAPPPs is significantly reduced.
  39WS
  Public protection is one of this Government's highest priorities and the excellent work the police and probation services have done to improve it through the MAPPA deserves to be widely acknowledged.

  I have placed in the Library a copy of each Area report together with other background information about the operation of the MAPPA.

DEFENCE

  Armed Forces (Pension/Compensation Schemes)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin)
  The Ministry of Defence has completed its reviews of the current Armed Forces pension and compensation arrangements. We have taken account of views expressed during the public consultation in 2001, in particular those serving in the Armed Forces, those representing the ex-Service community and the recommendations made by the House of Commons Defence Committee in March1 2002. In reaching our decisions we have also taken account of the changes in policy likely to emerge from the Inland Revenue paper on tax simplification2. Our proposals are also consistent with the policies recently published by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions3. The new schemes are designed to be fairer, to reflect modern practice and to meet the needs of the Armed Forces in the 21st century, and offer a high level of assurance for Service personnel. The Government intends to introduce the primary and secondary legislation required to implement these new schemes as soon as Parliamentary time allows.

  A new Armed Forces Pension Scheme (AFPS) will be introduced for new entrants on 6 April 2005 and we will give current members of the Armed Forces the opportunity to transfer to the new scheme as soon as possible, but no later than 6 April 2007. This decision to transfer will be entirely voluntary for each individual member. The new AFPS will remain a defined benefit scheme but will be based on final pensionable pay and will provide the same benefits for officers and other ranks. There are substantial new arrangements for dependants:
  a death-in-service benefit of four times pensionable pay (increased from up to one and a half times pensionable pay previously);
  an increase of 25 per cent. in widow(er)'s pension compared to the current scheme;
  an extension of dependants' benefits to unmarried partners where there is a substantial relationship.

  These changes reflect key concerns raised during consultation and address the need to make proper provision for those who are left behind when personnel are killed in service.

  1HCDC Third Report: The MoD Reviews of Armed Forces Pension and Compensation Arrangements (HC 666)— 9 May 2002.
  HCDC Fifth Special Report: The MoD Reviews of Armed Forces Pension and Compensation Arrangements: Government's Response (HC 1115).
  2 Simplifying the taxation of pensions: increasing choice for all (December 2002).
  3 Simplicity, Security and Choice: working and saving for retirement—Action on occupational pensions (June 2003).
  40WS
  The scheme has retained its normal retirement age of 55, but preserved pensions will be paid at age 65. The current early Immediate Pension provision has been replaced with an Early Departure Scheme, which is expected to ensure compliance with expected revisions to Inland Revenue policy with respect to the earliest date at which normal pension benefits can be paid. The Early Departure Scheme will offer a similar structure of benefits to the Immediate Pension, but with changes which help to fund some improvements in pension benefits and the cost of pensioners living longer. Overall, the changes will be broadly cost-neutral, taking account of the steps taken to cover increasing longevity costs.

  The new compensation scheme will be introduced in April 2005 and will replace provisions under the War Pensions Scheme and attributable benefits under the current AFPS for incidents arising from that date. The new scheme reflects modern practice. It is fair, transparent, simple to understand and offers consistent outcomes, with more focus on the more severely disabled. It is a no-fault scheme. It provides a lump sum payment for pain and suffering, which is a new benefit not available under current arrangements. In addition, a Guaranteed Income Stream (GIS) will be awarded alongside higher level tariff awards for those who suffer significant loss of earnings capacity. Unlike the current arrangements, there will be in-service lump sum awards for pain and suffering, including for injuries resulting from war-like activities. Benefits will be provided for dependants where deaths result from service but will be extended to include unmarried partners, where there is a substantial relationship. There will be a time limit to claim of five years, with exceptions for late-onset conditions. Claims will be assessed using the "balance of probabilities" standard of proof, in line with civil law and common practice elsewhere. There will be an independent appeals tribunal system, compliant with European Convention on Human Rights, available for claimants who consider that their claim has not been handled fairly by the MOD.

  The Ministry of Defence will also be extending the provisions introduced on 20 March 2003 which provided benefits to unmarried partners for attributable deaths related to conflict. The current AFPS will provide attributable benefits to unmarried partners where there is a substantial relationship for all attributable deaths with an effective date of 15 September 2003. The current AFPS does not provide unmarried partner benefits for non-attributable deaths. but this benefit will be available under the new AFPS.

  I am making available more detailed information from the consultation process and further detailed explanation of the Schemes at http://www.mod.uk/ issues/pensions. A copy will be placed in the Library of the House.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  British Council
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Chris Mullin)
  Copies of the British Council's Trustees' Annual Report and Accounts for the financial year ended 31 March
  41WS
  2003 will be placed today in the Library of the House. During the period the Council received £151.5 million grant-in-aid from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Volcanic Activity (Montserrat)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Gareth Thomas)
  Further to the Statement on 17 July 2003,Official Report, column 86WS by my Hon. Friend the Minister of State for International Development, DFID has
  42WS
  continued to work closely with the Montserratian authorities to alleviate the impact upon the island community of the volcanic activity in Montserrat between 12 and 14 July. This had involved substantial volcanic ashfalls throughout the island. We and regional donors made immediate assistance available for procurement of emergency ash masks, medical and drinking water supplies, ash clearing equipment and other materials. The Government of Montserrat have since worked quickly and effectively, with our support, to clear ash from most roads and public facilities (schools, hospital etc). However, because the scale of the ashing has been far greater than previously experienced in Montserrat, we are currently helping Montserrat to assess costs and requirements of substantial work needed to complete the clean-up.

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

National Asylum Support Service
Lord Dholakiaasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will publish the independent review of the National Asylum Support Service.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the review of the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) was created to provide Ministers with an independent analysis of N.ASS. It is not usual to publish advice to Ministers. However, given the obvious interest in asylum issues, the key findings of the review team's report were published on 15th July. A further statement will be made on progress in actioning those conclusions, and we have not ruled out publication of the report in the future.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, the secrecy surrounding full publication of the report must be a matter of serious concern. The review and its terms of reference were announced to Parliament, and Parliament would appreciate a report being made to it. Instead, all we have is a summary of some of the key findings. Does the Minister accept that NASS has come under severe criticism from voluntary and statutory organisations and that there has been a very critical report from the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux? How will Parliament assess the progress being made unless it knows whether or not these issues have been identified and addressed by the Government?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we accept that a number of criticisms were made of NASS. Therefore, the review was established to ensure that Ministers and senior Home Office officials would receive an independent assessment of the way that NASS was operating. The Home Office and its Ministers have been delighted at the nature of the independent report. Now, we require a period to work through the findings of that report and to put into action, and deliver on, its key and important findings. That is what we want. We want NASS to be effective, as I am sure does the noble Lord. The recommendations in the internal report have been valuable in ensuring that NASS has a greater, better and clearer view of its sense of direction and purpose.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that many asylum seekers cannot be helped by NASS because they are in prison? Does he recall that in October 2001 the Home Secretary said that they were no longer to be imprisoned unless they had committed, or were
658
suspected of having committed, a crime? Therefore, will the Government review the representations that they have received, both from members of the legislative authority in Northern Ireland and from Scottish bishops, with a view to minimising the numbers held in detention in all jurisdictions?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we keep all these matters under very careful review at all times. However, I hear what the noble Lord has to say on the issue, and it is obviously a matter of continuing concern. I am confident that the Home Secretary gave that commitment fully cognisant of the fact that it was important to ensure that the minimum number of asylum seekers were detained in prison but, where they had to be detained, rightly it was because they had committed criminal offences.

Iraq: WMD Investigations
2.40 p.m.
Lord Redesdaleasked Her Majesty's Government:
Why information about the two vehicles suspected of being involved in the production of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is restricted under Exemption 1c of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have a duty to protect information provided in confidence by foreign governments. As I made clear in my answer of 8th September to the noble Lord, our continuing investigations into the suspect vehicles are based primarily on such information. For that reason, I am withholding the details under Exemption 1c of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, is not the Government's refusal to give the information an abuse of the code which the noble Lord has just mentioned because, in an earlier paragraph, the code refers to public interest? Obviously it is in the public interest to know whether the suspect vehicles were used as mobile weapons of mass destruction laboratories. If they were, that is rather odd because the vehicles are not mentioned in either the Foreign Affairs Select Committee report or the Intelligence and Security Committee report. If they have no links to the weapons of mass destruction programme in Iraq, then perhaps it is also in the public interest that we should know that vehicles which have British components on board were not being used for that purpose and that therefore the allegation should not be made.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I refute entirely that it is a wrong use of the code. We shall not release information passed to us in confidence by foreign governments, nor would we expect other governments to release information that we have provided to them in confidence. We have said that coalition forces are

659
actively pursuing intelligence leads, documentation and individuals connected with Iraq's WMD programmes. Gathering and collating evidence of WMD programmes from the various sources is a long and complex task. Frankly, the noble Lord needs to be a little more patient and to give the Iraq Survey Group time to complete its task on this and other issues. However, we intend to provide an update once we are in a position to do so. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said on 2nd July that the findings of the ISG should be publicly available.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, these two vehicles are most significant, having been mentioned in the US President's State of the Union address in January and having been referred to in the White Paper presented by the CIA and the DIA in the United States at the end of May 2003. Given that, can the Minister tell us something wholly within the sphere of Her Majesty's Government? Were the British-made components on the vehicles supported by any form of export subsidy and has that export subsidy been repaid or, in effect, is the United Kingdom still the legal owner of the component parts of those vehicles?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am not in a position to be able to answer the noble Baroness in the terms that she suggests. We currently assess that the vehicles were built in Iraq using Iraqi components and standard industrial components that had been obtained from several different countries, including the United Kingdom. The components of British origin would not have been restricted under the sanctions regime.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, when does the Minister expect a response from the Iraq Survey Group, which he mentioned?
Lord Bach: My Lords, we hope that the survey group will report as soon as possible, but we accept that it will take as long as is necessary to investigate the programmes. I notice that the Liberal Democrat Benches laugh at that answer. I believe they should think slightly more carefully about laughing at an answer like that. This matter needs very careful consideration so we do not jump to conclusions one way or the other. If they are suggesting by implication that there is some kind of cover-up here, they should be very careful indeed or put that allegation to me directly.
Lord Newby: My Lords, would the Minister care to comment on the suggestion that the two vehicles, far from being used to manufacture weapons of mass destruction, were used to manufacture hydrogen for use in barrage balloons?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I understand it is possible that the vehicles were used either for the manufacture of hydrogen or biological material, albeit both imperfectly.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. However, considering the Written Answer he
660
gave earlier, we believe that this is an abuse of the code. Therefore, we shall probably take this matter to the Ombudsman.

School Budgets
2.45 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildfordasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are confident that the quality of educational provision will not be affected by the budget problems encountered by schools during this current financial year.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, I am confident that head teachers are managing their budget in such a way as to safeguard the quality of their pupils' education in what is a difficult year for some schools. The Government are working hard with representatives of head teachers, LEAs and others to ensure stability in school funding for next year and beyond.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, perhaps I may press her a little further on the workload agreement, the first stage of which was due to be introduced in September this year. Is she aware that many schools which are struggling with deficit budgets and losing staff cannot possibly implement the workload agreement as it stands at present? Can she comment on how far they will be able to implement it with the new resources that the Minister promised on 17th July?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the details of the new resources will be brought before your Lordships' House at the earliest possible opportunity. The workload agreement is an integral and important part of our education policy. It is about ensuring that our teachers have time to teach and to use the support staff available to them as effectively as possible. In all circumstances where schools are reporting difficulties, we are working very closely with the National Association of Head Teachers, other teachers' unions and local education authorities to support them specifically to be able to implement this programme to ensure that we have the best possible opportunities for teaching in the classroom.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, the die seems to be cast this year for our schools. What about next year?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as I brought before your Lordships' House, on 17th July my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills spoke about the key priorities we have for the future. To recap briefly, we shall guarantee every school at least a minimum increase in funding. We are giving head teachers more time to plan via an amendment of the Local Government Bill

661
bringing forward the date of key announcements and reversing the planned cuts in the Standards Fund providing more than £400 million in 2004–05 and 2005–06. As I said, I shall give details to your Lordships' House at the earliest possible opportunity.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does the Minister agree that her Answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, ignored the fact that the Question concerns the difficulties which schools face this year? There is enormous complacency on the part of the department, which is ignoring the hardship and some of the ways in which teachers and head teachers are having to make the best of a very difficult job. The Minister went on to refer to next year. I believe that a great deal of support is needed here and now.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness; it is important to support schools this year. In my Answer I referred to the fact that we are working closely with our partners in education—education authorities, teachers' unions and so forth—to establish the current position and to ensure that we have support. We took action as soon as we realised the situation in giving an extra £28 million for those local education authorities with the lowest overall increases; an extra £11 million in London to help with London allowances; allowing more flexibility in the use of capital expenditure and in working closely with education authorities to ensure that as much money goes into schools budgets as makes sense. Also, we have worked with our partners in the LSC to ensure flexibility in terms of sixth-form education and that, where appropriate, licensed deficits could be allowed.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, is the Minister aware that despite the priority given by the Government to physical activity in schools, due to the current funding problems many schools are cutting swimming lessons for primary school children, for example, which I believe are very important, and that that is on top of losing teaching staff?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, on previous occasions in your Lordships' House we have discussed the amount of money the Government are putting into sport and PE. We have a commitment that we want 75 per cent of pupils to have the opportunity to have two hours of physical activity per week. Our commitment to ensuring that our primary school children have the opportunity to learn to swim is part and parcel of our education delivery plans. I should be interested if the noble Baroness has details, but it is important that schools are able, within the current framework, to ensure that children have these opportunities.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the Minister said that schools are authorised to go into deficit. What account is taken of the necessity of getting out of that deficit in the future and offsetting this year's overspend with next year's shortfall?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I was careful to talk about the circumstances. If a school were to go into deficit, it is very important that that has been established between the education authority and the school and is appropriate, and of course that a plan is in place to ensure that the school is able to get out of deficit. My right honourable friend will of course examine all these instances in the future, but, in general, our policy is that where that has been allowed, a plan to ensure that it does not continue must be part and parcel of what the schools do.

Criminal Records Bureau: Disclosure Checks
2.50 p.m.
Baroness Blatchasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they accept that the documentation required by the Criminal Records Bureau for the purpose of standard and enhanced disclosure checks is suitable for purpose.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, it is essential to have in place robust arrangements for checks to ensure so far as is practicable that people are not able to obtain a clean disclosure through falsely using another person's identity and that information is not revealed inadvertently to the wrong person. The CRB has therefore carefully developed arrangements for checks to authenticate the identity of disclosure applicants using documentary evidence of different types. These appear to be serving the required purpose, but are kept under regular review in the light of experience.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the Answer. I admit that I am subject to a standard disclosure clearance at the moment. I have to say that the experience I am having—I hope the noble Baroness would agree—simply shows that other people are right in their views that the CRB is something of a shambles at the moment.
My specific question to the noble Baroness is: when asked for a photo-identity card, why was my House of Lords security pass unacceptable to the CRB?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I say straightaway that the noble Baroness will be reassured that Members of this House are still treated as ordinary members of the community and are subject to the same rules. At the moment, I regret to tell your Lordships that, perhaps because of the relatively small numbers who attend this House, the pass which enables one to get into this House is not included in the authorised list for disclosure.

663
I can also reassure the noble Baroness that her application was treated with great expedition and care—and accuracy because of course the document produced was not within the rules.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I applied in June; I am still waiting for clearance. If that is expeditious, I wonder what taking a long time would be?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I make absolutely clear that it is of critical importance for those who apply to the CRB to comply with the rules and to fill in the form appropriately. I regret to tell the noble Baroness that her application form was not so completed.
Since the noble Baroness wishes to have an answer, I am happy to give one. The application was initiated by telephone on 21st July; the form was countersigned by the registered body on 18th August; the form was received by the CRB and immediately returned to the Department for Education and Skills because of insufficient identity validation on 20th August; the noble Baroness was then written to on 4th September; and the DfES wrote to the CRB on 8th September. It was received on 11th September asking whether the House of Lords pass was an acceptable identity document and for a reply by 19th September. A reply will be sent.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I wonder whether those exchanges will suffice to establish for the authorities that my noble friend is who she says she is.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am sure that one would want verification, but we would all be happy to verify that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is the noble Baroness. I am sure DNA would not be necessary.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, as a trustee of Age Concern Surrey, I, too, have had to go through the CRB procedures. I was somewhat surprised to discover that I had to produce my passport, my birth certificate, my marriage certificate, my driving licence and a utility bill addressed to me. That proved to be the most difficult since unfortunately our utility bills are addressed to my husband.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am very happy with the recitation given by the noble Baroness because she will know that the information provided by the CRB is of critical importance. It is the information upon which we rely to keep our children and those who are vulnerable safe. It is absolutely necessary that we have the best quality identification material available to make that verification possible.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, will the Minister say something about a serious aspect of a piece of work that most of us regard as extremely important? Certainly, in the Churches we have every reason to think that the CRB is doing something
664
extremely important for us all. I am increasingly concerned at the amount of staff time and particularly at the effect of the quite sudden and very large increase in charges made by the CRB on the work not only of Churches, but in particular of small charities. Are the Government keeping any kind of check on the effect of this admittedly extremely important piece of work on the other work of charities and Churches, because it is becoming a very serious matter?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I very much welcome the comments of the right reverend Prelate in relation to the importance of the Criminal Record Bureau's work. We take very seriously the amount of time spent. The right reverend Prelate should know that initially one form out of two was incorrectly filled in. Now the figure is one out of four. We are trying to give guidance, help and support to make sure that people can quickly and easily fill in these forms. I can reassure the House by saying that of course the applications of the volunteers who come forward are done for free. We will regularly keep the matter under review to see what more can be done to make the system even better than it is now.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, in order to speed up this process, which causes immense problems, could the Government take some action to develop a system which would make it routine for a prospective employee to take to an interview his CRB certificate along with other proof of identity and qualifications, and perhaps be reimbursed later where appropriate?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we are certainly looking at what can be done to make the system easier. The noble Baroness may know that the Government are looking to see whether we can take advantage of registered bodies and whether applications could be made first through them and then through to us. There are provisions in the Criminal Justice Bill which address that very issue. I can certainly reassure the noble Baroness that we are keeping this matter under careful consideration.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the CRB is a government agency. The noble Baroness has been kind enough to inform the House that the House of Lords pass is not acceptable identity for the CRB. She has not explained why. Would it not save, as the right reverend Prelate has explained, a great deal of staff time if the House of Lords pass was acceptable and should not the noble Baroness use her best offices to make it so?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I shall certainly raise the issue. But the noble Lord should know that the pass allows individuals to come into this building. We have tended to enable the use of documents which are of general availability. I regret to say that the general population still does not have access in an equal way to this House.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, the noble Baroness described a procedure of almost unbelievable complexity. She described a form which is still so obscure that one applicant in four finds it impossible to complete it correctly. She is describing a system which also makes frequent errors in clearing people who should not have been cleared, as well as not clearing those who ought to have been cleared. Is not the plain fact that this organisation is not under her control; that it has been contracted out through a quango to a company which has then subcontracted much of its operations to a second company which has subcontracted again to a third?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I do not accept what the noble Lord says about quality. In fact, the CRB is meeting its service provider requirements. I regret to have to tell the noble Lord that the reason that the form is not filled out correctly is often that those filling it out err—not because it is not plain; but because they err. We are doing everything that we can to ensure that that difficulty is cured. There is not the frequency of errors to which the noble Lord alludes. The system is working very well indeed. I agree that it did not work well last year; but this year, there has been a great deal of improvement and the CRB should be congratulated on its improvements to the system.

Fireworks Bill
3 p.m.
Read a third time.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. I should like to express my gratitude to Members on all Benches, who have been so supportive of the Bill.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale.)
On Question, Bill passed.

Northern Ireland (Monitoring Commission etc.) Bill [H.L.]
3.1 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill. If I may, I shall say a word about procedure. Should the Committee amend the Bill, copies of the Bill as amended will be available in the Printed Paper Office shortly after the end of Committee. Amendments for Report may be tabled between the end of Committee and 7 p.m.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [The Monitoring Commission]:
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass Lord Maginnis of Drumglass moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, after "activity" insert "including human rights abuses"
The noble Lord said: The amendment would simply insert in Clause 1(1)(a) after the words, "monitoring activity", "including human rights abuses". I hope that the Lord President of the Council will understand that although that is a simple amendment, it is rather important. The clause spells out the monitoring commission's task, which it states as,
"monitoring activity by paramilitary groups".
When we think of activity by paramilitary groups, we immediately tend to think of some sort of paramilitary activity, such as shooting at policemen or soldiers or at people who are politically opposed to them—the sort of activity that we experienced for nigh on 30 years. We tend to forget that there is a residual form of activity that is hard to define. That is the sort of activity that forces young men and boys to leave the country at a few hours' notice because they have run foul of those who still have tenuous—or perhaps not so tenuous—links with paramilitary organisations. Night after night, people are punished by being shot through the knees, ankles or elbows or are subject to assault by having large stones or cement blocks dropped on them. All such activity is deemed to be—and in some ways is—different from what we had from 1970 until comparatively recently. It does not receive the headlines that murder after murder after murder received, but none the less, it has a hugely intimidating effect on the community in which it occurs.
So I think that referring to "human rights abuses" is the easiest way to define what we mean. That should fall within the bailiwick of the monitoring commission, which can be achieved by the addition of those few words in Clause 1(1)(a), so that it reads:
"monitoring activity including human rights abuses by paramilitary groups".
I beg to move.
Lord Glentoran: I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, in his amendment. When I first read it, I wondered for a moment what he was getting at. He has now explained it clearly to the Committee and come to the conclusions at which I was arriving. I have some notes here citing examples of human rights abuses such as extortion, intimidation and blatant sectarianism of the most unpleasant sort, which forces people out of jobs, away from their homes and sometimes even out of the country.
It should not raise any fur or ruffle any feathers elsewhere in these islands to include those words. I think that most Members of the Committee will understand that the Bill has been negotiated between a number of parties, including the Irish Government and all the parties in Northern Ireland. I am in no way critical of that and do not mean to sound so. That process must continue and is the right process to

667
advance democracy in Northern Ireland. But at the same time, we should try to fill every potential gap and place every emphasis in a Bill such as this to ensure that there are no loopholes through which commissions can slip or decisions be avoided.
So for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, explained clearly, the activities that I have cited—in particular extortion and intimidation—should definitely be considered as abuses of human rights.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I add my strong support on both the issue of exiles, on which I have spoken many times in the Chamber and do not propose to do so again now, and that of children, because of what children are seeing every day of their lives. They are being brutalised and forced to watch others being brutalised. That issue is often lost sight of.. I strongly support the amendment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I do not argue with the aim of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, nor the spirit in which he moved it, but I must advise the Committee that it would not add in substance to the arrangements set out in the Bill.
I shall give chapter and verse briefly in a moment. This is not just a legalistic nit-pick, but the amendment is to the Bill, whereas, as I remind the Committee, the commission receives its functions from the agreement. Therefore, however much one sympathises with the thinking behind it, the amendment would have no legal effect. It is difficult to envisage a human rights abuse by paramilitaries which is not already covered by Article 4 of the agreement, especially when, as I remind the Committee, the list of activities set out in that article is not exclusive. It is difficult to envisage that any of the activities against individuals listed in the agreement would not involve an abuse of human rights in the broadest sense.
Article 4(a) directs the commission to,
"monitor any continuing activity by paramilitary including"—
I stress that word; the provision is not exclusive. To respond to some of the issues with which the noble Baroness, Lady Park, and the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, have been concerned, I remind the Committee that the evils of which the noble Baroness spoke are specifically already mentioned. The article refers to monitoring.
"any continuing activity including…
iii. punishment beatings and attacks and exiling".
It is all there. So if the amendment were carried it would have no legal effect. Fundamentally, in principle, it is not a good idea to have simply cosmetic amendments that have no legal effect.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I am grateful to the President of the Council for his explanation. Sometimes I feel that it is a heartbreaking task to try to bring about legislation in terms that ordinary members of society in Northern Ireland understand. Unlike the President of the Council and many other
668
learned Members of this House, most of us are not familiar with the legal niceties of legislation piled upon legislation.
Although I accept the noble and learned Lord's explanation, I should have liked a little more latitude in what we are trying to achieve. I shall have an opportunity perhaps to deal with some of the apparent contradictions in the Bill, and to ask again why the ordinary, law-abiding people of Northern Ireland, like myself, seem to have to strive for every little bit of comfort while those who have brought so much discomfort over 30 years appear to be spoon-fed and do not have to come to this House, or any other place, to be given the reassurances that they demand.
I do not wish to labour the point, so I shall conclude. As we go through the Bill, I hope that Members of the Committee will join me in trying to understand that the aim of every bit of legislation and every step taken should be to try to reassure ordinary members of society, who have battled against paramilitarism and gangsterism for the past 30 years. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Secretary of State's powers in relation to exclusion]:
3.15 p.m.
Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 4, line 4, leave out from the beginning to "the" in line 17.
The noble Lord said: This group of amendments is large, but, as every Member of the Committee will appreciate, it is the nub of today's debate in Committee. I shall speak to Amendment No. 2, and the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, shall speak to Amendment No. 3. Many of the other amendments are consequential to either Amendment No. 2 or Amendment No. 3. A possible exception is Amendment No. 16, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton. Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 16 are all variations on a theme.
Although Members on this side of the Committee do not oppose the Bill, we do not agree with the serious curtailment of the Secretary of State's powers to exclude political parties or Ministers who are in breach of the Good Friday agreement or any other international agreement relating to the operation of democracy in the Province.
We do not oppose the setting up of a commission in an advisory role; in fact, we support it. However, the commissioners are not answerable to any sovereign parliament. We made the point, as did the Minister from the Government's side, that strand one of the Good Friday agreement should not be interfered with by way of recommendations, or have anything done to it by anyone other than the two members of the commission appointed by the British Government. We support that; it is what the debate is about. A direct input, not advice, into the workings of a British Parliament is no business for those who are non-British.

669
We need to think very carefully about several areas. Politics in Northern Ireland have no boundaries. It is a unique sort of place, certainly within Europe. The Secretary of State and his team never know what sort of problem will land on their desks at any time throughout the 24-hour day—I see the noble and learned Lord smiling. Everybody who has been involved in politics in Northern Ireland over the past 30 years is only too well aware of that. In my opinion, security is always at the heart of it all.
The commission is about monitoring the activities of Ministers and political parties in relation to the Good Friday agreement. But that is not really what it is about; it is about monitoring the activities of paramilitaries and terrorists and their relationships with political parties and Ministers. That is why it is very important that the sovereignty issue, and who has freedom of action to move and to make decisions, is kept very clear.
On the same relationship, I am concerned that, when asked at Second Reading about certain security matters, the noble and learned Lord said very clearly—it is recorded in Hansard—that the chief constable would remain responsible as the number one premier adviser on security matters to the Secretary of State. In the light of that, the Secretary of State must be free to take what actions he considers right in relation to the advice given to him by the chief constable, the general commanding at the time, or others. If those reported happenings that he needs to deal with relate directly to the political parties or a particular Minister, it seems unsatisfactory to have a situation where the Secretary of State can do nothing until he has sought the advice of the monitoring commission. That is to be avoided.
I am well aware that the amendment that we have tabled to try to correct the matter is tough, straightforward and will do just that. The minor amendments are consequential to it. I believe firmly that, on these issues, the Government have no right—they have the power but no moral right—to delegate this sort of decision-making process to an appointed quango.
I made that comment in a rather derogatory way, but I do not wish in any way to demean the stature of the people whom we are very fortunate to have on the commission. All four are well known in their own fields, and I am sure that they are of the highest integrity. But perhaps that is why they will find it extremely difficult, on occasion, to reach a joint conclusion. They come from four very different fields of operation and from three different nations—I could say three-and-a-half—and they are strong, capable, competent and intelligent people who will make up their own minds. I fear that it is possible, even likely, that there will be times when they cannot provide unanimity of advice. The Secretary of State still holds responsibility and must hold responsibility for making the necessary decisions.
I think that I have gone on long enough at this stage. The argument is quite clear: is it right for the Government to delegate their responsibility for
670
operations, actions and advice and remove certain powers from the Secretary State in the Bill? I beg to move.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: In rising to support the tenor of what the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said, I want to address Clause 3 specifically and the consequential Clauses 18 and 25 in particular. My purpose is exactly the same as that of the noble Lord. Lord Glentoran—to prevent a certain situation arising. I do not question the honour of any one of the four members of the monitoring commission—I know three of them, but I do not know the American. They are people of considerable ability, who have an opportunity to monitor and advise the Secretary of State. However, government should be governed and executive authority should not be vested in a quango in situations such as this one. That is a reality, and it disappoints me that, again and again, when it comes to Northern Ireland issues, there appears to be a let-out for the Government if we jump this way and another one if we jump in the opposite direction.
If I read this Bill correctly, the Secretary of State does not have the power to make a decision at variance with that of the monitoring commission. None the less, page 4, line 17 of the Bill states that, if the commission finds that action should be taken, there is no obligation on the Secretary of State to accept that advice. It states that,
"the Secretary of State may by direction",
not "shall". However, if I remember correctly, the whole debate in Hillsborough leading up to the joint declaration was delayed considerably on that issue; that is, whether the Secretary of State would act on any positive direction coming from the monitoring commission in respect of ministers or junior ministers—or parties—who were,
"not committed to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means; or…[have] failed to observe any other terms of the pledge of office".
I believe that, when the joint declaration was made, there was an obligation once again on the Secretary of State to act according to any positive direction given by the monitoring commission. However, in the Bill brought before this House there is only an option.
Can it be that, on one hand, there is no freedom for the Secretary of State to work positively ahead of the commission if he feels that some elements within the Assembly are not committed to non-violence and so forth, and, on the other, that there is no obligation if the commission feels—and finds and rules—that that is the situation? I hope that I have put that clearly and that the noble and learned Lord the Lord President of the Council follows my argument. I hope that he will specifically address how we can have an option at each end of the question that militates against ordinary law-abiding people.
Neither the Ulster Unionists, the DUP nor the SDLP caused the working of the Assembly to fail. That is generally accepted. I have my own difficulty with the attitude of the Democratic Unionist Party, which was very keen to see the Assembly brought

671
down and to move in that direction, but now appears not to be able to get back quickly enough. There is a selfish, party-political interest, but that is not what I am talking about. Irrespective of whether we have an election tomorrow, in a month, or in six months' time, I am talking about safeguarding the democratic rights of the people of Northern Ireland in general within the Assembly process.
Unless we get some change in this clause in terms of the Secretary of State's executive responsibilities, there will be no purpose in this Bill, because we will drift as we have before to the point at which the democratic process can be pulled down, worn away and undermined. I would like to believe that that is not the intention of the Government—of either your Lordships' House or what will ensue in another place. However, it is puzzling and disheartening for me that specific commitments given to those who are law abiding—I hope that your Lordships will notice that I do not talk about Unionists or nationalists but those who are law abiding—are eroded before they can even be implemented, whereas those who want to work outside the law appear to have no difficulty in bending ears and getting decisions made that do not even have to be brought before this House or another place for consideration. That will be the harsh reality, unless something can be done to remedy the flaw.
On Friday, the noble and learned Lord the Lord President of the Council congratulated me on being statesmanlike. That was unusual: I have been congratulated on many things but I am not particularly noted for diplomacy. I would like to proceed along the path that the noble and learned Lord the Lord President of the Council has mapped out for me, but I must say, in all seriousness, that that will be impossible if we do not move in a direction that facilitates the vulnerable and the law-abiding people who are able and determined to make Northern Ireland work.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Smith of Clifton: I noted that, in speaking to the amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, referred to what he called the uniqueness of Northern Ireland and said that the issues that came before the Secretary of State were not to be found elsewhere. I was slightly surprised at that. When he is not here, the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, spends most of his time in Spain, and I would have thought that the Minister of the Interior in Spain would, from time to time, have the same sort of issues on his desk. However, I stand to be corrected.
Northern Ireland is unique, in the sense that it needs an international dimension to its conflict management. Hence the need for the commission, which we support. We do not want the commission to be in any way reduced in its proposed role or functions. As I said at Second Reading, we would not support the sort of broad amendments proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Maginnis of Drumglass. We think that they, as it were, over-enhance the role of the Secretary of State and diminish the contribution that the commission could make, if, in some unfortunate circumstance, it has to.
672
I have therefore proposed a compromise amendment. It is Amendment No. 16, and I propose to divide the House on it, if necessary. Our amendment would allow the Secretary of State to act in very unusual—almost extreme—circumstances. We accept that there is a gap in the Bill and that one could just conceivably think of a crisis situation that required immediate action and in which neither the Assembly nor the commission could meet in time to deal with the matter. That is the rationale behind my amendment, and I will put it to a Division.
Lord Tebbit: I always have some concern when powers granted to Ministers are put into commission in any way that makes them subject to authorities outside the House. I am not making a European point—we know all about that—but speak in this narrower context. To help me decide on my attitude towards the amendments, will the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, tell me whether there are any powers that the Secretary of State may today use unilaterally—in any circumstances—which he might be restrained from using under the Bill? Are there any powers that the Secretary of State would be granted by the Bill which he could, similarly, be restrained from using because of the activity or non-activity of the commission?
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I shall try to set an example in brevity. I cannot help feeling—and regretting—that Her Majesty's Government have strayed such a long way from the view of a distinguished Labour Prime Minister, the late Harold Wilson, who declared that the governance of Northern Ireland was a matter for the Parliament of the United Kingdom alone.
Lord Fitt: I said at Second Reading that I had reservations about denuding the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland of his powers. I can put pointed questions to the noble and learned Lord the Lord President of the Council. The four main political parties in Northern Ireland were involved in the discussions that led to the introduction of the Bill. Can the noble and learned Lord tell us which of those parties agreed with the legislation and which vehemently opposed it? I was not at the meetings, but I feel certain that the Democratic Unionist Party, the Official Unionist Party and the Alliance Party—if it was there—would have had reservations about the Bill but would have gone some way to support it. Sinn Fein has already indicated that it will not touch the Bill with a bargepole and that it does not want such legislation on the statute book in any shape or form. Why are we writing into the Bill all sorts of safeguards to enable Sinn Fein to disregard the Bill as a whole? That is exactly what we are doing. I have great reservations about that.
I was in the Northern Ireland Parliament for many years. Sinn Fein will laugh at the idea that someone might be suspended for two weeks, a month or six weeks. It is not like what happens at the other end of this building when Mr Speaker suspends a Member for a day or two days—a week, maybe—for being unruly.

673
In Northern Ireland, it is more serious. First, on what ground could a Member of the Assembly be suspended? Will it be that he is not fully in support of the campaign to end violence? Will words be part of the infringement of the regulations? In Northern Ireland, words can be lethal and have been lethal over the past 30 years. It is not only the gunman who pulls the trigger or the person who lays the bomb who are guilty of violence: it is the people who point the gun in a particular direction and influence the mentality of the young men who join paramilitary organisations. Words can be lethal.
Let me put that into words. What will happen if a member of Sinn Fein, the republican party, who is also a member of the Executive in Northern Ireland, makes a highly inflammatory speech at a republican commemoration, of which they have many during the 365 days of the year? Such a person might make a highly inflammatory speech at, say, a Wolfe Tone commemoration—the main one at which such speeches are made—that could push another young fellow from the back streets of Belfast into taking up the gun or the bomb and supporting his cause by violence. What will happen to the person who made that speech? Will the monitoring commission say, "We regard that speech as incitement to hatred and an incitement to violence? How long should we suspend the speaker for? A fortnight? Three weeks? A year?". Sinn Fein will not take that seriously and will make the same sort of incitement speeches at every IRA commemoration during the year. I find that difficult to accept.
I wish that I could say that I was 101 per cent behind the Bill and would go through the Lobby in support of it—but I have deep reservations about it. The situation would not be any better than it was before the suspension of the Assembly. It was obvious that no political party in the Assembly was going to vote for the suspension of another, given the existence of the two tribes. The SDLP were not going to vote for the exclusion of Sinn Fein. The official Unionist Party would not vote for the exclusion of the DUP, and so on.
We are no further forward than before we were faced with this legislation, which I would not like to see go through and for people to laugh at it. I said recently that it is like a sticking plaster covering a sore; I am certainly of that opinion. In the final analysis, it should be as the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, said, and he was right to quote from Harold Wilson. At a time of much political and violent turbulence in Northern Ireland, Harold Wilson spoke to me in the Tea Room. He said that they can say what they like, but Northern Ireland is governed under Section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920. There have been many political changes and international treaties, but I believe that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland should maintain or allocate to himself the criterion that he will be the one who decides which political
674
party or political personality should be suspended from the Assembly because of their non-support for a non-violent society in Northern Ireland.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I support the proposal. I cannot help feeling that the Government ought not to have any difficulty in accepting it. The noble and learned Lord the Lord President of the Council referred me to the agreement. I refer him to Article 7 of that agreement, which refers to the commission recommending action. Clearly in other parts of the agreement, it is there to monitor, to observe, to make reports and to recommend.
We are worrying about who has the executive power—an unfettered executive power. That must be the Secretary of State, who, among other things, could balance issues arising from the report on the question of paramilitary activity against the requirement of security normalisation—on which we shall undoubtedly be pressed again and again by Sinn Fein to act. I cannot help feeling that the agreement makes it perfectly plain that the monitoring commission—infinitely valuable though it will be because it is impartial, detached, and not involved—nevertheless is an advisory commission and not an executive one. That is the point we must stick to.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I recognise that these amendments are generally put forward or supported by supporters of the agreement and in the spirit of making it work more effectively. I did not mean to cause lasting damage to the reputation of my noble friend Lord Maginnis by accusing him of being statesmanlike.
I do not think that the contended-for effect would be brought about. The question has been put—not in these words but by necessary implication, certainly by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth—about whether these are ideal solutions. In his brief and telling intervention, the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, made, I think, essentially the same point. I do not pretend that these are ideal solutions because I do not know of any solutions which are ideal in the context of Northern Ireland. They are the best that we can achieve. That is a very important prize.
The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, asked: what does the present Bill do? On various occasions, it has been suggested that it constrains the range of powers available to deal with breaches of fundamental agreement commitments, such as a return to paramilitary activity. I think that that was the specific point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. That is not so. The existing powers available in those cases remain intact. The Assembly retains its powers of exclusion under Section 30 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, although it will be given the ability to make those powers more flexible and supplemented by a range of other measures.
Under that section, the Secretary of State can still require the Assembly to consider a resolution to exclude a party or individual, whether or not there is

675
an IMC report. It is true that he must have regard to such a report, if there is one, before he exercises that power. But that is stating the obvious; it would be quite extraordinary if he did not do so. I underline to your Lordships that the Secretary of State's powers are extended. He can cause the Assembly to consider resolutions for reducing pay or allowances or for marking the Assembly's censure.
Your Lordships have referred to a power by which the Secretary of State may bring about exclusion or other consequences, as envisaged in the Hillsborough proposals. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, is right. It is a constrained power, but it is a new power. It is a strong power intended to be available as a last resort if other mechanisms fail. I think that I indicated on Friday last—but I repeat—the steps envisaged. If there is an IMC report, there would be a range of discussions which would, in particular, involve the Implementation Group of pro-agreement parties.
It is explicit in the Bill that there must have been an unsuccessful attempt in the Assembly to take steps in the light of that report. Where there is a failure to take steps, it would be for the British Government, in consultation with the Irish Government and the political parties, to resolve the matter in a manner consistent with the report of the IMC. So the reserve power is intended to be just that: a power of last resort.
Where there has been a report of the IMC with recommendations for action, and other avenues have led to no resolution of the issue, it would be our intention that this power would be exercised in a manner consistent with the IMC recommendations. We would seek to give effect to that faithfully, with the approval of this House and another place. But I repeat: we are constraining no existing power. We are providing for a means where there is an independent body of very high quality, repute and expertise, to give conclusions which it offers to the Assembly. If the Assembly fails, the Secretary of State has that reserve power.
If we get to that situation, we shall be in a very serious position indeed. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, has correctly said on many occasions that it is for the people of Northern Ireland to seek to control their own affairs. We ought to trust them to do the best they can, of their own accord, to resolve these matters. Quite often the complaint that I hear in Northern Ireland, which may have more than a grain of truth in it, is that the British Government constantly interfere too much, despite apparently having given power to Northern Ireland for locally elected representatives to discharge their own functions. The Minister should not be the first resort. If we are going to entrust power to an Assembly, we must trust that Assembly.
In principle, I do not think that the argument of sovereignty bites. Quite often, in giving powers to Ministers, Parliament imposes conditions—very often strict conditions—on their exercise. These amendments go too far. If we take this route, there is a serious danger
676
of undermining the worth, the virtue and the perceived value of the commission. I invite your Lordships not to do so.
If an unconstrained power of exclusion was given to the Secretary of State, that would be a substantial departure from the 1998 agreement in one of its most sensitive areas. I am not using this in a pejorative sense, but I sympathise with the compromise sought by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, who spoke of constraints of time. I find it difficult to imagine circumstances in which it would be possible for the Secretary of State to find himself in a position to conclude that that was a correct way forward.
I know that noble Lords are doubtful about this approach. All I would say is that on the many occasions we have very fully debated the affairs of Northern Ireland, what I regard as the overwhelming majority of your Lordships have constantly made the point that you cannot seek to be a functioning member of the Assembly or the Executive in Northern Ireland while at the same time holding on to paramilitary activity. Time and time again noble Lords have said that there are many good and decent people in Northern Ireland who are concerned about this. The Bill provides a legitimate and proportionate response to those legitimate questions.
No one would suggest that those on the international monitoring commission are anything other than first rate. We know their names, their backgrounds and their CVs. The commission is a very useful addition to the armoury required in Northern Ireland eventually to bring about what we all wish for; namely, a decent, democratic, orderly and stable society. I should have thought that your Lordships would welcome this response from the Government because it chimes entirely with the spirit of what has been said in the past.
I am going to suggest to your Lordships that none of these proposals is accepted because they all share the central defect. Certainly I shall advise my colleagues to vote against them. However, finally I turn to the specific questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, about who agreed and disagreed to these proposals. We had hoped and still do hope that the Hillsborough proposals as a whole would command broad support. We did not take specific votes either generally or on individual elements of the package. Sinn Fein will not be able to ignore the IMC. Potentially its reports may lead to the severest sanctions.
The noble Lord also asked about incendiary speeches. It seems to me that, within the discretion and judgment of the IMC, the kind of activity referred to by the noble Lord is certainly activity that would be relevant and within the commission's remit. It would have to come to a conclusion on whether the sanctions under Article 4 should bite.
I have taken a little time to respond because of the seriousness of these matters. This is a large grouping of amendments and noble Lords have put different degrees of emphasis on different aspects. However, my position is that I am not able to accept any of the

677
amendments. Should noble Lords require or be willing to receive any advice, then my advice is to vote against them.
Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble and learned Lord for his customary brilliant summing-up of our debate. We learn to expect that of someone in his profession, but in particular from himself.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I have tabled two further amendments that seek to achieve similar aims to that of Amendment No. 2. I should like to quote a remark made to me not long ago in private by a very learned Member of this House during a discussion concerning other matters: commissions make politically correct decisions and end up doing the wrong thing. All noble Lords should remember that and bear the comment in mind.
I shall support the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton. but at this point I shall withdraw my Amendment No. 2.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass Lord Maginnis of Drumglass moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 4, line 4, leave out from beginning to end of page 5, line 5, and insert—

"(1) The Secretary of State may, having regard to any report of the Monitoring Commission, any relevant proceedings in the Assembly and any other relevant matter, if he is satisfied that a Minister or a junior Minister is not committed to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means; or has failed to observe any other terms of the pledge of office, by direction, exclude the Minister or junior Minister from holding office as a Minister or junior Minister for such period of not less than three months and not more than twelve months beginning with the date of the direction. or as the direction may provide.

(2) The Secretary of State may, having regard to any report of the Monitoring Commission, any relevant proceedings in the Assembly and any other relevant matter, if he is satisfied that a political party is not committed to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means; or is not committed to such of its members as are or might become Ministers or junior Ministers observing the other terms of the pledge of office, by direction exclude members or the political party concerned from holding office as a Minister or junior Minister for such period of not less than six months and not more than twelve months beginning with the date of the direction, or any as the direction may provide.

(3) The Secretary of State may, having regard to any relevant proceedings in the Assembly, before any period of exclusion comes to an end extend it for a further period, in the case of an exclusion under section 30(1) or subsection (1) of this section of not less than three months and not more than twelve months, or in the case of an exclusion under section 30(2) or subsection (2) of this section for a further period of not less than six months and not more than twelve months, if he is satisfied that the Minister, junior Minister, or political party as the case may be, is not committed to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means; or is not committed to observance of the terms of the pledge of office."

The noble Lord said: I should very much like to see this Bill move quickly through the House so that it can achieve what has been suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams. I note that he picked up the point I made about the option for the Secretary of State to act or not to act according to the recommendations of the commission. Although I cannot remember his exact words, I believe the noble
678
and learned Lord said that he would find it difficult to envisage an occasion when the Secretary of State would react differently from any recommendation made by the commission. If that is exactly what the noble and learned Lord means then he will give me an unequivocal assurance that the Secretary of State shall so act, rather than may so act, within that particular aspect of the Bill. If the noble and learned Lord is unable to give the assurance, then I have to look at past experience.
I know that the disarmament commission was a different type of body dealing with a technical issue but, sadly, over a number of years, it has not brought about any significant impact for ordinary people. Nor has there been any reassurance. Again, everything done by the Government and the ordinary, law-abiding people of Northern Ireland is covered by legislation, whereas everything done by the Government to remove our defences against terrorism is done through a nod arid a wink. In fairness to the people of Northern Ireland. I cannot give up my endeavour and the endeavours of my party to try to ensure more watertight legislation. Hence it is with some regret, but of necessity, that I want to seek the opinion of the House on Amendment No. 3.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): I should point out to the Committee that: if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 4 to 11 inclusive.
3.57 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 89; Not-Contents, 158.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Flather, B.

Astor, V.

Fookes, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Freeman, L.

Attlee, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Blatch, B.

Geddes, L.

Blood, B.

Glentoran, L.

Bowness, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Howe, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Burnham, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Byford, B.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Caithness, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Jopling, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Kimball, L.

Cockfield, L.

Kingsland, L.

Cooke of Islandreagh, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Lane of Horsell, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Liverpool, E.

Cuckney, L.

Luke, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Lyell, L.

Denham, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Maginnis of Drumglass, L. [Teller]

Elton, L.

Fitt, L.

Marlesford, L.

679

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Seccombe, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Selborne, E.

Moynihan, L.

Selsdon, L.

Naseby, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Noakes, B.

Slim, V.

Northbrook, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Northesk, E.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Onslow, E.

Stewartby, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Peel, E.

Swinfen, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Plumb, L.

Tebbit, L.

Prior, L.

Thatcher, B.

Renton, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Trumpington, B.

Rotherwick, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Waddington, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Wakeham, L.

Wilcox, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Addington, L.

Golding, B.

Ahmed, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Goodhart, L.

Amos, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Ampthill, L.

Goudie, B.

Andrews, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Harrison, L.

Bach, L.

Hayman, B.

Barnett, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Berkeley, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Hooson, L.

Billingham, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Blackstone, B.

Hoyle, L.

Borrie, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Brookman, L.

Hylton, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Carter, L.

Islwyn, L.

Chorley, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Christopher, L.

Jones, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Jordan, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Levy, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Crawley, B.

Lipsey, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Ludford, B.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Dean of Thomton-le-Fylde, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Desai, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Dholakia, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Dixon, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Dubs, L.

McNally, L.

Eatwell, L.

Maddock, B.

Elder, L.

Marsh, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Ezra, L.

Methuen, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B

Mishcon, L.

Falkland, V.

Mitchell, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Morgan, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Fearn, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Filkin, L.

Moser, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Northover, B.

Gale, B.

Orme, L.

680

Palmer, L.

Simon, V.

Parekh, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Paul, L.

Stern, B.

Pendry, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Taverne, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Puttnam, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Radice, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Tordoff, L.

Redesdale, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Rendell of Babergh,B.

Varley, L.

Rennard, L.

Walmsley, B.

Richard, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Weatherill, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Rooker, L.

Whitaker, B.

Roper, L.

Whitty, L.

Russell, E.

Wigoder, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

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

Sheldon, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.8p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 4 to 15 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Lord Smith of Clifton Lord Smith of Clifton moved Amendment No. 16:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
"SECRETARY OF STATE'S POWERS IN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES
"After section 30A of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (c. 47) there is inserted—
"30B SECRETARY OF STATE'S POWERS IN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCE

(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 30A, under exceptional circumstances the Secretary of State may by direction temporarily exclude a Minister or junior Minister.

(2) An exclusion under subsection (1) shall only remain in effect until either—

(a) a report from the Commission has been made; or

(b) the Assembly has considered a resolution under 30(1) or
(2); or

(c) a period of two weeks has elapsed.

(3) In subsection (1) "exceptional circumstances" include where—

(a) there is insufficient time for the Commission to make a report; and

(b) there is insufficient time for the Assembly to consider a resolution under section 30(1) or (2).

(4) A direction made under this section shall be in writing and shall be laid before Parliament after the direction is given.""

The noble Lord said: For the reasons I have given at Second Reading and earlier today in this debate, I intend to press the amendment to a Division. As I see it, the Bill is, very appropriately, a 50:50 Bill that gives comfort to the Unionist community and the nationalist community. We on these Benches believe that there is a lacuna in the sense that there could be

681
exceptional circumstances that call upon the Secretary of State to act; hence my amendment to that effect. I beg to move.
4.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 16) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 129; Not-Contents, 117.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Liverpool, E.

Astor, V.

Lucas, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Ludford, B.

Attlee, E.

Luke, L.

Blatch, B.

Lyell, L.

Blood, B.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Bowness, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

McNally, L.

Burnham, L.

Maddock, B.

Byford, B.

Maginnis of Drumglass, L.

Caithness, E.

Marlesford, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Methuen, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Cockfield, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cooke of Islandreagh, L.

Moynihan, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Naseby, L.

Crathorne, L.

Noakes, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Northbrook, L.

Cuckney, L.

Northesk, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Northover, B.

Denham, L.

Onslow, E.

Dholakia, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Peel, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Elton, L.

Plumb, L.

Ezra. L.

Prior, L.

Falkland, V.

Rawlings, B.

Fearn, L.

Redesdale, L.

Fitt, L.

Rennard, L.

Flather, B.

Renton, L.

Fookes, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Freeman, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Roper, L.

Geddes, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Glentoran, L.

Russell, E.

Goodhart, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Seccombe, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Selborne, E.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Selsdon, L.

Hooson, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Howe, E.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Slim, V.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Smith of Clifton, L. [Teller]

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Jopling, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Kimball, L.

Stewartby, L.

Kingsland, L.

Swinfen, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Tebbit, L.

682

Thatcher, B.

Ullswater, V.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Waddington, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Wakeham, L.

Tordoff, L.

Walmsley, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Wigoder, L.

Trumpington, B.

Wilcox,B.

Tugendhat, L.

Williams of Crosby, B

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hylton, L.

Amos, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Ampthill, L.

Islwyn, L.

Andrews, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Jones, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Jordan, L.

Bach, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Barnett, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Berkeley, L.

Levy, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Lipsey, L.

Billingham, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Blackstone, B.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Borrie, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Brookman, L.

Marsh, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Carter, L.

Mishcon, L.

Chorley, L.

Mitchell, L.

Christopher, L.

Morgan, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Orme, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Palmer, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Paul, L.

Crawley, B.

Pendry, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Prys-Davies, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Puttnam, L.

Desai, L.

Radice, L.

Dixon, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Dubs, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Eatwell, L.

Richard, L.

Elder, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Rooker, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Sawyer, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Sheldon, L.

Filkin, L.

Simon, V.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Gale, B.

Stern, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Golding, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Thornton, B.

Goudie, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Varley, L.

Harrison, L.

Warnock, B.

Hayman, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Whitaker, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Whitty, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hoyle, L.

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

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.21 p.m.
Clause 6 [Reduction of remuneration]:
[Amendments Nos. 17 to 19 not moved]
Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 7, line 45, at end insert—
"( ) Before exercising the power under this section, the Secretary of State shall take full account of the recommendations of the Monitoring Commission."
The noble Lord said: I hope that Amendment No. 20 is self-explanatory and that the Government might think it worth noting. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Of course this is unexpected and has brought tears to everyone's eyes. If I may—if it is convenient to noble Lords, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran—I shall take a view on this and be in a position to express an opinion on Report, which is not very long away. So if the noble Lord will not press it on this occasion, I undertake to give it consideration within the next hour or so.
Lord Glentoran: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 21 to 23 not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Reduction of financial assistance]:
[Amendments Nos. 24 to 28 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Secretary of State's directions: procedure etc]:
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostynmoved, as a manuscript amendment, Amendment No. 29A:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause—
"Secretary of State's duty to prepare reports

(1) The Secretary of State shall report on the operation of—

(a) the agreement mentioned in section 1(1), and

(b) so much of this Act as amends the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (c. 47).

(2) The first report under this section shall be in respect of the period of twelve months beginning with the passing of this Act.

(3) Subsequent reports under this section shall be in respect of the period of twelve months beginning with the end of the previous reporting period.

(4) Each report under this section shall be prepared as soon as practicable after the end of the period to which it relates.

(5) A report under this section shall include any additional information which the Secretary of State thinks it appropriate for the report to include.

(6) The Secretary of State —

(a) lay a copy of each report under this section before each House of Parliament, and

(b) publish each such report in such manner as he thinks fit."

The noble and learned Lord said: I hope that it has been convenient to the Committee for me to deal with this in this way. I am speaking, if I may, to Amendments Nos. 29A and 31, which derive originally from what was originally numbered Amendment No.
684
30 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Smith of Clifton and Lord Glentoran. To summarise very briefly but I think fairly, they wished to have a biannual report—which caused some difficulty; some noble Lords thought that that was once every two years while some of us thought that it was once every six months. However, as they say, I have always been in the position of wanting to accommodate reasonable requests.
What we agreed, if this is to the Committee's satisfaction, is as follows. There were drafting deficiencies in the original amendment. Accordingly, having discussed it with the two noble Lords this morning, I undertook to have a perfected amendment, Amendment No. 29A, which deals with the Secretary of State's duty to prepare reports. The first report,
"shall be in respect of the period of twelve months beginning with the passing of this Act …Subsequent reports … shall be in respect of the period of twelve months beginning with the end of the previous reporting period".
There is a duty in subsection (4) to prepare each report,
"as soon as practicable after the end of the period",
and the Secretary of State is obliged to,
"lay a copy of each report under this section before each House of Parliament",
and to,
"publish …in such manner as he thinks fit".
Amendment No. 31 would essentially ensure that the reporting arrangements would cease, of course, with any order to cease the effect of the Secretary of State's new powers in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. So in respect of Amendment No. 29A, I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): It may be convenient for the Committee if, contrary to the advice of the Companion, I do not read out the full text of the amendment. Copies are available at the Table of the House and on the Government, Opposition and Liberal Democrat Benches.
Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble and learned Lord for his and the Government's co-operation in producing Amendment No. 29A, which we felt was very necessary. I was anxious throughout to try to tie in the international agreement—to which reference has been made, but which is not yet ratified—as much as possible to the Bill so that the Bill neatly reflected it.
The Committee will have noticed that in the Bill there is not much demand on the Government, from wherever it may be coming, to report to this Parliament on the happenings, results and workings of the Bill. I feel that at least once a year is a reasonable time. Although—unlike the noble Lord, Lord Smith, who I am sure spent a lot of time in Yorkshire—I was the one who totally misread it, getting my Spanish mixed up with my English, I assure the Committee that I spent most of August in the Province. I still live there although I sometimes wonder with the amount of time that I spend here, among your Lordships in your Lordships' House. Having said all that—and I hope

685
that my noble friend Lady Anelay is ready to pursue this afternoon's proceedings—I again thank the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: In speaking to these amendments I declare my interest as the independent reviewer of the Terrorism Act 2000. Indeed, I take advantage of that role to speak publicly on an aspect that has caused some concern and which I believe is resolved by these amendments.
As the independent reviewer of the Terrorism Act, I prepare a separate report annually on the operation of Part VII of the Terrorism Act 2000. Part VII contains the provisions which apply to Northern Ireland alone and are renewable on an annual basis. I have received some concerns from outside about the possibility of the independent monitoring commission being yet another reviewer of what is happening in Northern Ireland politically and in relation to terrorism. Alternatively, I have received the concern that the arrival of the independent monitoring commission will make redundant some reviews which some people regard as valuable in relation to the affairs of Northern Ireland. Some academic commentators have expressed concern about the overlapping activities of the various reviewers, reporters and commentators, no one more eloquently than Professor Clive Walker of Leeds University, a very eminent author on the Terrorism Act 2000.
It may be as well, in a moment or two, to remind your Lordships that there are people or bodies who monitor complaints against the military. There is an excellent reviewer of the holding centre in relation to those arrested on suspicion of terrorism. There is an independent Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland who carries out reviews of police activity. There is the statutory Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. There is myself as the independent reviewer of the Terrorism Act, and there are many other non-statutory reviews, including the valuable work of many academic and, indeed, some very good journalistic commentators, too. So there is no shortage of people monitoring and reviewing what is going on in Northern Ireland in relation to decommissioning, anti-terrorism law, the fairness of the political process and human rights, among other matters.
The independent monitoring commission is yet another body that will review important aspects of life in Northern Ireland. I and, I believe, many other reviewers or monitors involved in the affairs of Northern Ireland, recognise that it could become all embracing if it is able in due course to carry out the full remit of its responsibilities under the 2003 Hillsborough agreement. 1 and, I suspect, other reviewers, hope that it will eventually become all embracing. We look forward to being declared redundant in the name of normalisation, for that is the name of the game which underpins the Hillsborough agreement.
If Northern Ireland is ever to receive the blessing of normality, we shall depart with thanks for having enjoyed part of bringing that normality about. The blessing of normality in my judgment would be that
686
state of public order liberated from the extraordinary presence of political terrorism which is our good fortune day to day in the rest of the United Kingdom but which is not the good fortune of Northern Ireland day to day as yet.
The independent monitoring commission, unlike all we other reviewers, has a strong imprimatur from the international community. It has the advantage of external membership and the great advantage of being created by international treaty obligation. Those are all advantages over any role I perform and they are advantages over the roles performed by the other monitors and reviewers to whom I referred.
Normalisation would rid Northern Ireland watchers of the burden of having to read a multiplicity of reports. That would be a good thing but, above all, our departure would signify that normalisation to which I referred. I want to take this opportunity to allay in public the concerns of all those who contacted me and suggested that there would be an inconvenient multiplicity of reviewers and monitors which would work against the public interest. In my view the plurality of the reviewing mechanisms and the number of them is a guarantee of rigour in reviewing the process towards normalisation. In any event the future work of the independent monitoring commission, at least in its first two years, is bound to be focused upon decommissioning. It will not have either the time or the resources to impinge upon the work that others do.
I therefore wish to reassure those from outside and inside this building who expressed misgivings about the addition of the independent monitoring commission that I certainly see no difficulty in that regard. I look forward to working with it. Others who are involved in this matter who have spoken to me also look forward to working with it and see no difficulty whatever arising in that regard.
The proposals in Amendments Nos. 29A and 31 are much tidier than the original amendments that were drafted. It seems to me that the reporting system will also have the advantage of providing a thermometer of how normalisation is working in Northern Ireland. I and the other reviewers and monitors will read that thermometer in the hope of viewing our own early demise.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I want to say only that as a regular reader and admirer of the noble Lord's reports I sincerely hope that he will continue to write them and that they will not be regarded as in any way unnecessary.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: The Minister indicated the conciliatory purpose of the proposed new clause but he is almost certainly unconscious of another respect in which he has been conciliatory. On the Licensing Bill the Government put down very definitive and abrupt deadlines for certain actions which had to be taken by those affected by the Bill. When I on a number of occasions moved amendments to add the words "as soon as practicable", those amendments were rejected by

687
the Government. Subsection (4) of the proposed new clause in Amendment No. 29A includes the words "as soon as practicable". I am not so immodest as to imagine that there is any connection between my proposed amendments to a previous Bill and the Government's Amendment No. 29A, but I am delighted that in future I shall have a precedent which I shall be able to quote back to the Government, not least because the contents of the report which is envisaged are sufficiently predictable that a more precisely calibrated deadline could have appeared appropriate.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: We do things better in Northern Ireland, I think. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for his generous and, indeed, magisterial review of this area to which he has contributed so greatly. I cannot improve on what he said.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
Clause 10 [Short title, commencement and repeals]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved, as a manuscript amendment, Amendment No. 31:
Page 15, line 42, after "3" insert "and (Secretary of State's duty to prepare reports)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 4.40 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 4.37 to 4.40 p.m.]

Criminal Justice Bill
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Brougham and Vaux) in the Chair.]
Clause 76 [Restrictions on publication in the interests of justice]:
[Amendments Nos. 135F and 135G had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 135GA:
Page 49, line 32, leave out "may" and insert "must"
The noble Lord said: We commence further consideration in Committee on a rather soft ball. As Members of the Committee will see, the proposal is that the word "may" in subsection (1) be replaced by the word "must", and that we exclude subsection (3), which gives the court discretion to,
"make an order under this section only if it appears to it necessary in the interests of justice to do so".
I am really seeking an explanation of why those discretions exist. As the Bill is framed the Court of Appeal has to take a decision,
"that the inclusion of any matter in a publication"—
when a retrial is ordered—
"would give rise to a substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice".
That is the decision that the court makes. Having made that decision, in what conceivable circumstances would it be right not to order that the matter be not published? I have racked my brains in trying to think of such circumstances. What is the purport of subsection (3) that such an order should be made only if it appears to be,
"necessary in the interests of justice"?
What other sort of publication do the promoters of the Bill have in mind?
We have tabled the amendments in a spirit of puzzlement, to find out exactly what they mean. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I rise briefly to support the amendment in its probing nature. What are the circumstances in which the Government expect the Court of Appeal would not make such an order? That is indeed puzzling.
It might be appropriate if I explained to the Committee why some amendments no longer appear on the Order Paper. Late last week, I withdrew Amendments Nos. 135F and 135G, which would have preceded this group, and I withdrew others towards the end of Thursday's business. Today I give notice that I shall not move Amendments Nos. 137A to 137D. I have given notice of that intention to the Bill team.
All noble Lords will have been concerned last Thursday to learn that two days in Committee in the Criminal Justice Bill this week were to be jeopardized—to make a very poor pun—by half that time being taken away for the Northern Ireland legislation today and half taken away for the Fire Services Bill on Thursday. Therefore, I have gone as far as I can in withdrawing some of the more probing amendments, leaving my core amendments.
It makes one feel concerned about Government business at this stage of proceedings if we are to lose significant time for debate on the Criminal Justice Bill.
The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith): I take note of the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. I had notice through the Bill team that she would not move the group that includes Amendment No. 137A, and that Amendments Nos. 135F and 135G had been withdrawn. I note what she says about time, but this is already the sixth day of Committee and there is more to come, so there is certainly a substantial amount of time in which to debate these issues.
I turn to Amendment No. 135GA, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and Amendment No. 135GB, which covers the same area—the area of the court's discretion. On this occasion, I find myself on the side wishing to uphold the court having discretion, rather than being mandated to do something. In other areas, we have found ourselves on the other side of that debate. What essentially lies behind the argument is the question of the circumstances in which the court might take the view that it was inappropriate or necessary in the interests of justice to make a reporting restriction order, notwithstanding that the other condition was satisfied.
It is not for me to envisage all the circumstances in which the court would take the view that it was unnecessary or appropriate to make such an order—particularly as we are referring to the Court of Appeal. I can certainly think of two, but I would not want them to be thought of as exhaustive. One circumstance might be where the court was of a view that there had been such publicity already and that it was unnecessary to make an order restricting further publicity. That might or might not be connected with the second reason that I have in mind as a possibility—that the court might take the view, and the defendant might himself take the view, that it was important for there to be some publicity so that other witnesses, yet unknown, might be persuaded to come forward after learning about the case through the press.
Those may not be the examples that would arise in a particular case. My fundamental point, which is the reason for resisting the amendments, is that the Court of Appeal can be trusted to have the appropriate ability to take into account all relevant factors and to decide when reporting restrictions are necessary in the interests of justice. On this occasion, I would resist trying to put a straitjacket on the Court of Appeal rather than leaving it to its very good sense and discretion.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: The noble and learned Lord is using my language when he refers to discretion, the absence of a straitjacket, and so on. That is the sort of thing that we have been saying throughout the passage of the Bill.
One reason why double jeopardy is so contentious is that the decision of the Court of Appeal might get such publicity as inevitably to prejudice a further trial. The points raised by the noble and learned Lord could be taken into account by the Court of Appeal in deciding whether there was a substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice. However, once it has come
690
to that conclusion, I cannot see why there should be any further publicity, which might very well affect the fairness of a further trial.
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his response and I shall take the amendment away and think about it to see whether it is a matter that I wish to return to on Report. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 135GB not moved.]
Clause 76 agreed to.
Clause 77 [Retrial]:
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 135GC:
Page 50, line 43, after "be" insert "for the qualifying offence"
The noble Lord said: I shall speak to this amendment and the others in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Dholakia that are grouped with it. I shall also consider whether the clause should stand part of the Bill at all. It is our view that the provisions are unsatisfactory in any event. At an earlier stage we opposed double jeopardy, save in very limited circumstances, as Members of the Committee are aware.
Even though there may be only a limited retrial in certain circumstances, the provisions concern me very much. When an application is made to the Court of Appeal under Part 10, and particularly under Clause 70, the application is made by a prosecutor for "quashing a person's acquittal" and,
"ordering him to be retried for the qualifying offence".
When we look at what is to be retried, however, it seems as though the intention is to have a trial on a broader basis. Under Clause 77(1), the person ordered to be retried must have a trial,
"on an indictment preferred by direction of the Court of Appeal".
Under subsection (5), however, that indictment,
"may relate to more than one offence, or more than one person, and may relate to an offence which, or a person who, is not the subject of an order or declaration under section 71".
There, in terms, the Court of Appeal may make an order that goes much wider than the original application.
The other unsatisfactory element here—the Committee discussed the matter under Amendment No. 135BB—is that the new rules of evidence envisaged in the Bill will apply to that retrial. Consequently, it seems quite possible for a retrial to be ordered following the quashing of an acquittal on a different basis from that before, because the rules of evidence that apply will be different, under subsections (6) and (7).
Normally when one has a retrial, it is for the original offence and the law is taken as at the time of the original trial. That is the current situation as I understand it. Under the Bill, an entirely different procedure is to apply. Fresh evidence that would not have been admissible at the old trial will be admissible under the provisions, which makes it even more

691
unsatisfactory and unacceptable that any retrial should take place at all. I look forward to hearing the Minister's explanation. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I shall speak to my Amendment No. 135H, which is grouped with Amendment No. 135GC. I make it clear that it is a probing amendment and that we do not support the Clause 77 stand part debate.
One can readily imagine the circumstances in which the DPP and the police might consider it convenient to try an additional person on the same indictment as a person who is to be retried, perhaps where new DNA evidence implicates both an acquitted person and his or her accomplice who had not been tried before. However, what circumstances do the Government have in mind in relation to allowing the indictment to contain additional offences in respect of the original accused person who faces a retrial? Would those offences have to be new ones of which he had never been acquitted, or would the order for retrial on one offence allow related offences of which an accused had been acquitted to be retried as well?
Lord Goldsmith: The group—Amendments Nos. 135GC, 135GD, 135H, 135HA and 135HB and Clause 77 stand part—has three aspects to it. The first relates to what is to happen when an order is made by the Court of Appeal.
There would be two consequences of Amendment No. 135GD, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and Amendment No. 135H, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, if they were accepted. First, they would prevent the court from issuing an indictment against more than one defendant if all the defendants listed on the indictment had not previously been tried for the offence. As the noble Baroness said, that would mean that, for example, if new and compelling evidence came to light that suggested another person as well as the original suspect was guilty of the crime, it would not be possible to try the two together.
One could envisage circumstances in which the evidence that had come to light indicated not only that the original defendant was guilty, but that he had a partner or accomplice—perhaps someone engaged in a joint enterprise with him—who was guilty of the offence. There would be enormous difficulties if one prevented the trial taking place with that other person involved as well. Of course, the other person has no double jeopardy complaint to make in relation to the matter, as he has not been charged with or tried for the offence before. To prevent the indictment from covering that other defendant seems wrong. It would prolong the retrial process and delay the opportunity to reach the outcome that justice demanded.
The other effect—bringing a different charge against the original defendant along with the charge for which the Court of Appeal's leave is needed—was particularly referred to by the noble Baroness. There could be circumstances in which evidence had come to light that, in addition to the original charge, the
692
suspect was credibly believed to be guilty of some other offence as well, one that it would be appropriate to have tried at the same time. If it were an offence with which he had not been charged and was not an alternative verdict to the original offence of which he had been acquitted, there would again be no issue of double jeopardy because the person would not have been previously tried and acquitted of that offence.
I assure the Committee that we are not attempting to get round the requirement that, where there has been a qualifying offence of which there has been an acquittal, all the safeguards and requirements that apply to that need to be satisfied before that offence can be the subject of a further charge. The amendments would prevent it being possible to add another defendant who had not previously been tried, or another charge that had not previously been the subject of an acquittal and in relation to which the principle of autrefois acquit would not apply.
The second category was dealt with briefly by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, in relation to his Amendments Nos. 135HA and 135HB. I shall take a moment to explain them, which I hope will help the Committee to see that there is no problem behind the provisions.
The present position under Schedule 2 to the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 is that a transcript of the evidence of a witness who testified at the original trial can be admitted as evidence in retrials, which can currently be ordered; for example, where the Court of Appeal has found that a conviction was unsafe. That is subject to whether the parties agree and whether the judge is satisfied that the witness is dead or unfit to give evidence; or that all reasonable attempts to find him and secure his attendance have been made without success.
Therefore, there is already provision in existing legislation on retrials for transcripts of evidence of witnesses who testified at the original trial to be admitted. Noble Lords will be aware that there are certain other circumstances where they can be admitted, such as where it can be shown that a witness, through fear, is not prepared to give evidence, having given a qualifying statement.
The provisions of Clause 109(2), which are referred to in subsection (6), are not put in quite the same terms, but they largely cover the existing area where transcripts on retrials may be allowed. I do not want to pre-empt the important debate that I know will take place on Part 11, which relates to hearsay. The consequences of that debate, whatever they are, will follow from that. However, the provisions to which the noble Lord referred do not introduce, in terms of evidence, material other than is referred to in subsection (6), which is certain hearsay evidence; that is, transcripts in those circumstances or in the circumstance identified in Clause 107(1)(d)—a further category. That is where the court is satisfied that despite the difficulties there may be in challenging the statement, it would not be contrary to the interests of justice for it to be admissible and the witness is for some other reason not available, subject to the requirement of the court.

693
I am sure that the noble Lord would not wish to undermine the principles under which the courts can in certain circumstances use trial transcripts for a retrial. One consequence of his amendment would be that a trial transcript could not be used even if it pointed to the innocence of the accused. That relates to all circumstances in which transcripts are to be available. The existing law recognises that where there is to be a retrial, it is desirable to have available the evidence that was available at the first trial. It may help the accused; it may help the prosecution. That is what the provisions are designed to do.
There are of course safeguards in Part 11. We will come to those when that is debated, including in Clause 119 the safeguard that the court retains the residual discretion under Section 78 of PACE to exclude evidence in the interests of fairness. It also includes a duty under Clause 118 to stop a trial where a conviction would be unsafe, because the prosecution's case is based wholly or partly on unconvincing hearsay. We will come to all of that, I am sure, when we debate Part 11. At this stage, the principal issue is whether in certain circumstances it should be possible at the retrial to use transcripts of the evidence that was given at trial, as the existing law allows.
Amendment No. 135HB would delete Clause 77(7). This is a rather technical point and perhaps I may briefly draw your Lordships' attention to Clause 124, which updates the provision for the admission of transcripts and depositions in retrials that can currently be ordered by the Court of Appeal; for example, where a conviction is quashed because it is unsafe and a Court of Appeal orders a retrial. The provisions of Clause 124, as noble Lords will see, reflect precisely that in Clause 77(6).
It has long been a principle that witness depositions are not admissible as evidence at retrials if the witness gave evidence at the original trial. As Members of the Committee will know, in certain circumstances a deposition may be admissible at an original trial, but if the witness gave evidence at the trial, that evidence, rather than a deposition. would be admissible. It may be the only occasion on which the evidence has been tested—or certainly extensively tested—during the course of the trial by cross-examination. We intend simply to apply the same principle to retrial—that the deposition, which might otherwise be admissible, should not be admissible in place of the provisions relating to transcripts of evidence. I hope that that answer gives the noble Lord some comfort.
Finally, Clause 77 stand part appears in the group. We have previously debated at some length in Committee the objections in principle that have been raised to this part of the Bill. Clause 77 is critical to the double jeopardy provisions because without it the rest of that part does not work. I do not intend, on this occasion, to rehearse the arguments that have already been made in Committee. Maybe we will come back to the issue at a later stage, but that is not for me to say. To put our position on the principle of double jeopardy briefly, there has been a consensus for reform. The Lawrence report,
694
the Law Commission, the Home Affairs Select Committee and Sir Robin Auld backed the reform in principle. It will apply only in the most serious cases—we have yet to debate what the final list of cases should be—and will be subject to important safeguards. It will apply only in exceptional circumstances. Those, in brief, are reasons in principle for supporting it. I give way to the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
5 p.m.
Lord Renton: I should have spoken sooner and before the noble and learned Lord rose. Perhaps I may make a few points now which I am sure are relevant to the Question whether Clause 77 stand part In my opinion, it must stand part. We would be leaving a terrible void in the Bill if we did not have it or something like it. Between now and Report, I hope that the noble and learned Lord or the Minister responsible will consider some minor redrafting. In four subsections, (1), (3), (6) and (7), instead of referring to "retrial", the text refers to "trial". It must refer to "retrial" for the sake of clarity and to avoid confusion. Also, in subsection (4), reference is made to,
"a bar to his being tried for the qualifying offence".
That must obviously read "retried". I hope that those simple drafting amendments will be made on Report.
There is a further matter that should delay any decision which your Lordships might wish to make about Clause 77. First, I refer to subsection (6)(a), where we find that,
"Evidence given at a trial pursuant to an order under section 71(1) or (3) must he given orally if it was given orally at the original trial".
It then says,
"unless …section 109 applies".
I believe that we must consider Section 109 very carefully and rather sceptically because it enables hearsay evidence to be produced which is not admissible at present. We must consider that controversial point very carefully as it would, of course, affect the meaning of Clause 77.
Secondly, I want to make one other point that arises from what the noble and learned Lord said. He referred very properly to the effect of Clause 124 on this clause. That is another matter which would affect the final composition of Clause 77.
Lord Goldsmith: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention and for his support for Clause 77 to stand part. I shall carefully consider—and have carefully considered—his comments on the drafting. At present, it appears to me that the matter is sufficiently clear but, as always, I shall ensure that it is examined.
I turn to the noble Lord's comment on subsection (6). which refers to Section 109. Previously I may not have been as clear as I should have been about this matter Largely, Section 109 replicates the existing procedure for the admission of transcripts at retrials which can be

695
ordered. That is not the case completely but, as I said, under the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, transcripts of witnesses who gave evidence at the original trial may be admitted in certain circumstances, including a number of the circumstances set out in Section 109.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: Perhaps I may alert my noble and learned friend that, before the Report stage, I shall table an amendment seeking to leave out the whole of Part 10 of the Bill. I give notice that the entire issue of double jeopardy is, in my view, a departure from principles of a profound kind, and this Chamber should be given the opportunity to vote against such a departure. I shall have that amendment placed before this House prior to Report so that no one is taken by surprise.
Lord Goldsmith: We would not be taken by surprise if we were given notice that the noble Baroness was going to oppose the Question whether clauses stand part. I believe that she made her position perfectly plain on a previous occasion.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Perhaps I may deal, first, with the offence aspect. As I pointed out to the noble and learned Lord when I moved the amendment, the application to the Court of Appeal under Clause 70 is for an order that the person whose acquittal is quashed should be retried for the qualifying offence. That is what the application is for—it is for a retrial for the qualifying offence.
What concerns me—particularly having regard to the noble and learned Lord's reply—is that a person could be acquitted of offence x, have that acquittal quashed, be ordered to be retried for offence x, but then, on the indictment that is then produced for the retrial, find that he is charged with offence y arising out of the same facts. If the noble and learned Lord can give me an assurance that the retrial that will take place will be a retrial of the qualifying offence—namely, offence x—that would greatly assuage my fears in relation to the provisions of subsections (1) and (5). Perhaps the noble and learned Lord would like to consider that point first.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Goldsmith: I shall consider that and I shall ensure that I write to the noble Lord. But if the noble Lord is concerned that the defendant might be tried in relation to some other offence, then, in any event, there is no need for the Court of Appeal to give leave for that. The defendant can be tried for the other offence if he has not been acquitted of it or if there are circumstances where there might have been an alternative verdict to the original offence for which he was tried. But if it was not an alternative verdict to the offence for which he was tried, then, in any event, the doctrine of autrefois acquit would not prevent him being tried for it.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: As I understand the principle of autrefois acquit, it refers not simply to the
696
offence for which the person has been acquitted but to any offence that arises out of the same facts. That is my understanding, but perhaps we can give the matter further thought.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for following my thoughts on the evidence aspect. It really does appear—particularly when one has regard to Clause 107(1)(d)—that the retrial will take place under different and separate evidential rules. Those rules include the possibility of hearsay evidence being admissible. Therefore, if a person has been acquitted of an offence at one moment, his acquittal is quashed, he is retried and he then faces an entirely new set of principles for that retrial. That seems to me to be fundamentally unfair. It is one further reason for supporting, to a large extent, the application that the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, will make on Report.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General a question. In his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, did I understand him to say that one effect of the noble Lord's amendment would be that it would be impossible to add a further defendant to any separate indictment when a retrial had been ordered? If I did hear him say that, is he imagining circumstances in which a further defendant could he added so that a person who had been tried and acquitted as a single defendant could then have an order made for his retrial and find himself one of several defendants? That would probably substantially change the nature of the case in which he was involved.
Lord Goldsmith: I did say to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, that one of the effects of his amendment would be to prevent an additional defendant being added to the indictment. The example that I gave would he one in which the further new and compelling evidence—because new and compelling evidence there would need to be in order to justify the application to the Court of Appeal—might show that the defendant had not been, as had perhaps been alleged at trial, acting alone but acting with another. One could envisage circumstances in which the evidence now showed in a compelling way that a murder or some other serious offence that had been committed was in fact the result of two or more people acting together. In those circumstances, it would be right that the defendant should be tried not on his own but with the other person or persons who the new and compelling evidence now indicated were also responsible for the crime.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: Would there be any duplication on the adding of a further defendant, or does the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General envisage that that may happen in any case? Alternatively, would it be the case that, for some reason, the other defendant was not available to be tried at the time of the original trial? It seems to me

697
that, as the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General has accepted, it will change substantially on his retrial the nature of the case against a man who has been acquitted.
Lord Goldsmith: Again, I shall give further thought to this matter. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, there are two points. First, these other defendants have no defence against being tried in any event. They have not been tried before. Therefore, there is no reason that they can put forward based upon the fact of the first defendant's acquittal to say that they should not be tried. Whether they have some other grounds for saying that they should not be tried arising from the circumstances of the case is not a matter for today.
Secondly, the Court of Appeal will have to be satisfied that it is right for the order to be made in relation to the first defendant. So, both of them are covered, it would seem to me, by those points.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: Can the noble and learned Lord assure the Committee that in its final form the law will be so drawn that the Court of Appeal will know that there are other defendants who will or may be tried? If that is not the case, how can the Court of Appeal decide whether it is fair for the defendant whose acquittal has been quashed to be tried with the other defendants?
Those of us who conduct criminal cases have been in many trials in which the evidence against co-defendants has been the subject of applications about the fairness of the trial against one's client. In such circumstances one often makes applications for severance. They are not usually successful but very, very occasionally they are. If an order has been made by the Court of Appeal that the previously acquitted defendant should be retried, the retrial judge will be very inhibited against ordering severance unless the Court of Appeal has had the opportunity of considering all the circumstances, including that there will be co-defendants in the retrial.
Lord Goldsmith: I hear what the noble Lord says. I shall not, while on my feet and without consideration or advice, give the assurance for which he asks. I shall certainly consider the point. I think he makes more of it than is justified but I shall certainly consider it and come back to the issue one way or another.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Would the noble and learned Lord also take into account the fact that the new and compelling evidence could not be derived from the confession of a co-accused because that would not be evidence against a person whose acquittal was quashed? Nevertheless, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, pointed out, the presence of co-defendants giving evidence, perhaps in a cut-throat defence, would have a marked difference upon the way in which that trial was carried out.
698
The more one goes into these provisions for abolishing the centuries old rule of double jeopardy. the more one realises the wide possibility of miscarriages of justice arising. No doubt we shall come back to that.
Lord Goldsmith: The question of what happens when there are co-defendants and defendants is something which exists at the moment. It does not arise as a result of the retrial provisions in this part of the Act.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: Perhaps I may press the noble and learned Lord to reply to the query from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, on the Benches opposite, about whether in retrial, perhaps years after events, new rules of evidence or newly abandoned rules of evidence will mean that a very different kind of trial will take place. It may be that one would start reviewing all kinds of cases and—in the light of the fact that if the Bill goes through, previous convictions and hearsay will now be evidence in cases—reconsider many past convictions in the light of new rules of evidence. Is that what will happen?
Lord Goldsmith: We have had this debate. It arose in relation to Clause 72, which makes plain under subsection(5) that,
"it is irrelevant whether any evidence would have been admissible in earlier proceedings against the acquitted person".
That has been the subject of discussion. It does not arise under this clause. What arises under this clause is the admissibility of transcripts of evidence which has been given at trial. That is all that arises under this clause. It may be, I know not, that we shall come back to Clause 72 at a later stage but I do not intend to go over those arguments again now.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Clearly, we shall have a huge debate on this on Report. I note that the noble and learned Lord said, "at the moment". I am sure that he will reflect upon the answers he has given. I do not intend to press the amendment for the moment and beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 135GD to 135 HB not moved.]
[Amendment No. 135J had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
On Question, Whether Clause 77 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: I indicated on a previous occasion that I had telephoned the Public Bill Office about tabling amendments. However, my intention to table an amendment to delete Part 10 would fulfil my objective rather than opposing the Question whether Clause 77 stand part. Therefore, I shall not press it.
Clause 77 agreed to.
Clause 78 [Authorisation of investigations]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johnsmoved Amendment No. 136:
Page 52, line 22, leave out "and"

699
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 136 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 137. As is obvious from even the most cursory glance, Amendment No. 136 is simply a technical drafting amendment to make sense of Amendment No.137, which is consequential upon and part and parcel of Amendment No. 136. Indeed, when the amendments were tabled in another place, perhaps the Public Bill Office there was a little less precise than our own very careful people here. So I am sure that we have the superior approach in this House.
We have been discussing safeguards which are required in this very sensitive and difficult area; that is, the relaxation of double jeopardy rules. Amendment No. 137 addresses the question of whether there should be judicial authorisation of a reinvestigation into an acquitted person's case. Indeed, we say that there should be just such a safeguard.
Clause 78 requires the police to obtain the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions before taking certain major steps in the reinvestigation of cases where new evidence has come to light or where there are reasonable grounds to believe that further investigation will give rise to new evidence.
The whole process of retrial does indeed give rise to many concerns, some of which have been expressed today, but which were expressed in greater detail at our previous session on 17th July. If we do go ahead with relaxing the rules on double jeopardy, we on these Benches say that we must have the highest level of safeguards to ensure that the process works as fairly and effectively as possible. It is our view, therefore, that the DPP should seek the authorisation of a Crown Court judge before deciding that an acquittal is not a bar to a retrial and giving his written consent to investigation. The DPP could make an ex parte application to a judge and secure the court's sanction of the process, which, as we have heard on previous occasions, is bound to have a drastic effect upon the lives of the acquitted person and, indeed, upon the victim and all the families involved.
The changes to the rules of double jeopardy would make a massive alteration to our basic principles that currently govern the grounds on which someone can be arrested and investigated. When my honourable friend Dominic Grieve raised this matter in another place as long ago as January of this year, the Minister suggested that the problem could be solved by the use of judicial review of the DPP's decision. Since January we have taken advantage of the Government's rather leisurely stroll through the Bill until it now reaches a race towards the end. I have in mind that, indeed, the Government delayed the second and third days on Report in another place because they put in such a substantial number of new clauses. Some were for very good reasons, but there has been some delay at earlier stages of the Bill.
We have considered the Minister's response since that early stage and we are still not convinced that judicial review provides the appropriate safeguard. It is too cumbersome and comes too late. We prefer the
700
route of judicial control because that refers the matter to a person who is seen to be independent of the Government in a way that the DPP is not. However great that person's abilities may be, he will still be seen by some as a state administrator making a highly sensitive decision.
Our amendment does not introduce some kind of cumbersome mechanism: it is the reverse; it is intended as a simple safeguard, which we hope fends off the need for time-consuming judicial reviews and unnecessary stress on those who should perhaps not be brought for retrial. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Goldsmith: It may be helpful to say a few words about Clause 78 and what it covers in order to put the amendment in context. Clause 78 allows the police to reinvestigate an acquitted person in respect of the qualifying offence of which he has been acquitted only with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The DPP must consider in giving his consent—subsections (4), (5) and (6)—whether the person's acquittal acts as a bar to a retrial before giving his consent to reinvestigate. He must not give his consent unless he is satisfied that—subsection (6)—as a result of the investigations there is, or is likely to be, sufficient new evidence to warrant the conduct of the investigation and that it is in the public interest for the investigation to proceed.
The steps which therefore require consent are set out in subsection (3)—the arrest or questioning of the acquitted person; a search of him or his premises; a search of a vehicle owned by him; a seizure of anything; or taking his fingerprints or a sample from him. The application itself is subject to the further safeguard that the application must be made—subsection (4)—by an officer who, if we are talking about the Metropolitan Police or the City of London Police, is of the rank of commander or above, and in any other case of an assistant chief constable.
Those safeguards appear to us to be very substantial. They come of course before the safeguard of the requirement that there is ultimately an application by the DPP that he has considered the case personally and which is accepted by the Court of Appeal. We do not see—and are not persuaded to accept the amendment therefore—the necessity and the desirability of adding an additional requirement that the DPP should have to seek the leave of a Crown Court judge.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. To enable the Committee to determine its views on these amendments, can he explain what is meant in Clause 78(3)(a) by "question him"? Does it mean question him under caution or does it include such methods as merely asking informal questions or obtaining a witness statement without his being questioned under caution? It would

701
perhaps seem logical that no form of questioning should be permitted without the consent of the DPP under the scheme that the Government have in mind.
Lord Goldsmith: At the moment I read it as I suspect the noble Lord reads it. It states "question him" without qualification. But I shall take the issue away to see whether there is any suggestion to the contrary. If that is right, it assists in demonstrating the significance and strength of the safeguards that are being put in place.
The point on the amendment is this: the Director of Public Prosecutions is more than senior and experienced enough to take a decision on whether the police should, in re-opening an investigation into an acquitted person, take the steps which are set out in subsection (3). Having him do that provides a very important but sufficient safeguard to prevent the acquitted person being harassed by the police, because that is what one seeks to protect the acquitted person against. At this stage of the reinvestigation, it is quite appropriate for the decision to be taken by the prosecuting authorities rather than the courts.
To involve a Crown Court judge in proceedings at this stage would make the proceedings more cumbersome. The layers of safeguard that have already been included are more than sufficient. As to the critical decision of whether or not a retrial should be permitted, of course we do not leave it to a Crown Court judge to decide. That will be, after personal consideration by the Director of Public Prosecutions, for the Court of Appeal. At the end of the day, that judicial scrutiny will be a very important safeguard for the individual. So I cannot accept the amendment and invite the noble Baroness not to press it.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. He was a little too quick for me at the beginning because I had intended to support both this amendment and the next substantive one. With the permission of the Committee I shall do so now. I was waiting to hear whether there would be any support for the amendment from the Liberal Democrat Benches, but that did not happen.
The Committee may remember that I do not oppose Part 10 of the Bill, root and branch, as do some noble Lords on these Benches. But I see a risk of great injustice in individual cases, especially if the power to order a retrial is to be exercised retrospectively under Clause 69(6)—for example, in respect of a committal before the Act comes into force.
I gave an example of a case of a man acquitted of a crime five or 10 years ago, before the Act comes into force. He then makes a clean breast of the issue in private to his wife. In my view—a view I expressed at the time—it would be quite wrong for such a person to be deprived of his existing—accrued—right not to be tried again by retrospective legislation. Surely, that should be axiomatic.
702
When he came to reply on this point, the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General did not, with great respect, deal with the issue very satisfactorily because he did not deal with it as a point of principle, which of course it is. Instead he was content to give an example from the other end of the spectrum—the Dunlop case. In that case—the Committee may remember—the man admitted within a few days of his acquittal that he had committed the perfect crime and bragged about it in a public house. The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General said that he would not be able to look the mother of that victim in the face unless he could tell her that the Act would apply to her.
The contrast between the two cases—the case I put before the Committee and the one put before the Committee by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General—shows as clearly as anything could the need for these amendments. There will not be, as the Attorney-General accepts, many of these retrospective cases. Indeed, I doubt whether there will be many cases under these retrial proceedings altogether. But what surely is needed right at the outset is a means of distinguishing the cases where there is some merit—the example given by the noble and learned Lord—and the cases where there is no merit, the kind of case, for example, which I cited. That decision should be taken long before the case reaches the Court of Appeal and should be taken before ever the investigation under this clause starts, because the investigation itself in a case where there is no merit could cause grave injustice.
An ex parte application to the judge at the very start of the investigation seems the ideal way to achieve that objective—to distinguish at the outset between the cases where there is merit and those where there is none. I therefore hope that, although the Government have said that they will not, they will accept the amendment or at least reconsider it. It could not possibly do any harm; indeed, it could do nothing but good as it would take the initial and all-important decision from the hands of the Director of Public Prosecutions and place it in the hands of a Crown Court judge, where it belongs.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Perhaps I may seek similar indulgence, not having risen to speak al the right time. I support the effective amendment in this grouping of two, but for a slightly different reason from that principally advanced by my noble friend on the Front Bench. I do not think that there is any view in the country that the Director of Public Prosecutions is other than independent of the Government. We all know that he is by statute superintended by the Attorney-General, but that is by the Attorney-General acting in his judicial capacity, not in his capacity as a partisan member of the Government.
I support the amendment because I suggest that it is needed to provide a measure of protection for the director. He is head of the Crown Prosecution Service and one criterion that will have to be fulfilled if the process is to work is that the evidence that is sought to be adduced was not reasonably available to the CPS, the police or the prosecutor at the time. It is a measure

703
of necessary—or at least desirable—protection for the DPP, who is to that extent slightly parti pris, that the process cannot proceed to the next stage unless it has the consent of a judge of the Crown Court obtained on an ex parte application. I suggest to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General that on that basis the amendment warrants acceptance.
Lord Goldsmith: I hope that I did pause and that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, missed the opportunity, but, given that both he and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, commented on it, I say simply that I shall not deal again with retrospection. I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord thinks that I did not deal with it satisfactorily; that may be simply because we take different views on the matter. If we return to it we shall have another opportunity.
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for confirming that, as he knows from his experience holding the office which I am privileged to hold now, the Director of Public Prosecutions is most certainly independent of government and can be trusted to make difficult decisions. That is the final point. The noble and learned Lord suggests that the director might welcome the protection of going to a Crown Court judge.
Well, the director and his senior staff have to take many difficult decisions all the time. They are frequently misunderstood, sometimes unpopular; it is the nature of the public prosecution service that they must make those difficult decisions, applying the evidence objectively, considering it impartially and deciding in accordance with the statutory tests of the Code for Crown Prosecutors. This case is no different.
5.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for giving way. I do not quite understand why the Government are reluctant to insert a judicial figure into the process, given that that would make clear that the Government regarded a decision to undertake a second investigation of an acquitted person as much more serious than one to undertake a prosecution of a person who has not yet been acquitted. The fact that the Director of Public Prosecutions is a person who can be trusted to make difficult decisions is not in question. What is in question is how we make clear, if the Bill is to be enacted, how much more seriously we regard a decision to re-open a case—it will be a serious case by dint of what the Government have in mind.
Lord Renton: Before the noble and learned Lord replies, it should be borne in mind that the amendment suggests that the leave of a judge of the Crown Court should be obtained on an ex parte application. That makes it very different from many judicial decisions, which must be made after hearing both sides.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Before the noble and learned Lord replies, the value of the provision—my initial reticence should not be taken as a sign that we do not support the amendment—is that it makes it absolutely essential for the director and the police to make their case without going to question the acquitted person once again, so that their case does not depend on a re-questioning of the acquitted person but that everything is in place before the DPP's consent is given. That is the value of it.
Lord Goldsmith: The amendment seems to have gathered much support in all parts of the Committee—except, I make clear, the Government Benches, where we remain resistant to it.
I answer the right reverend Prelate in this way: the provisions make very clear that this is a more serious business. In order to prosecute someone, even for a serious offence, one does not need a senior police officer—a commander or assistant chief constable—to decide that investigations can be opened; one does not need the Director of Public Prosecutions personally to decide whether the case should go ahead; one certainly does not need a Court of Appeal to decide that it is a proper case before an indictment can be lifted. There is more than enough in the Bill to illustrate how importantly the Government take the need for safeguards; the safeguards are there.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee, who have brought different perspectives to what I thought was a fairly modest and straightforward amendment. As the debate gathered speed, I gathered education, but also resolve. In the development of a relaxation of a rule by which we are all entering new territory, no one can be thought to have experience. However good a DPP is, this will all be new for everyone taking part. This is one safeguard that we need at the beginning of the process. I intend to test the opinion of the Committee.
5.48 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 136) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 132; Not-Contents, 112.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Burnham, L.

Addington, L.

Byford, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Caithness, E.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Astor, V.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Attlee, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Biffen, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Blatch, B.

Chalfont, L.

Bowness, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Colwyn, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Cooke of Thorndon, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

705

Craigavon, V.

Moynihan, L.

Crathorne, L.

Newby, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Denham, L.

Northbrook, L.

Dholakia, L.

Northesk, E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Onslow, E.

Erroll, E.

Palmer, L.

Fearn, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Ferrers, E.

Patel, L.

Fookes, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Peel, E.

Fowler, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Freeman, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Plumb, L.

Geddes, L.

Prior, L.

Glentoran, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Goodhart, L.

Roper, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Greenway, L.

St.John of Bletso, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hayhoe, L.

Seccombe, B.[Teller]

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Selborne, E.

Hooson, L.

Selsdon, L.

Howe, E.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Sharples, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Hylton, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Jacobs, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Jopling, L.

Stern, B.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Stewartby, L.

Kingsland, L

Strathclyde, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Swinfen, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Taverne, L.

Liverpool, E.

Tebbit, L.

Lloyd of Berwick, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Lucas, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Luke, L.

Tordoff, L.

Lyell, L.

Trumpington, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Tugendhat, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Ullswater, V.

Waddington, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

McNally, L.

Wakeham, L.

Maddock, B.

Walmsley, B.

Mancroft, L.

Walpole, L.

Mar, C.

Weatherill, L.

Marlesford, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Wilcox, B.

Methuen, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Worcester, Bp.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Ahmed, L.

Carter, L.

Amos, B.

Christopher, L.

Andrews, B.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Bach, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Barnett, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Crawley, B.

Berkeley, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.[Teller]

Blackstone, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Blood, B.

Desai, L.

Borrie, L.

Dixon, L.

Bragg, L.

Donoughue, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Brookman, L.

Dubs, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Elder, L.

Burlison, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

706

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Mitchell, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Morgan, L.

Filkin, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Orme, L.

Gale, B.

Parekh, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Golding, B.

Pendry, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Goudie, B.

Puttnam, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Radice, L.

Grocott, L.[Teller]

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Rea, L.

Harrison, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Richard, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Rooker, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

L. Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Hoyle, L.

Sawyer, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Shelton, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Simon, V.

Islwyn, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Jones, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Jordan, L.

Tomlinson, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Turnberg, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Turn of Camden, B.

Lipsey, L.

Varley, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Whitaker, B.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Whitty, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

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

Marsh, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.58 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 137:
Page 52, line 23, at end insert ", and
(c) he has sought leave from a judge of the Crown Court on an ex-parte application."
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 137 is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 78, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 79 [Urgent investigative steps]:
[Amendment No. 137A not moved.]
Clause 79 agreed to.
Clause 80 agreed to.
Clause 81 [Bail and custody before application]:
[Amendments Nos. 137B and 137C not moved.]
Clause 81 agreed to.
Clause 82 [Bail and custody before application]:
[Amendment Nos. 137D not moved.]
Clause 82 agreed to.
Clauses 83 to 89 agreed to.
Baroness Anelay of St Johnsmoved Amendment No.137E.
After Clause 89, insert the following new clause—

Criminal Justice Bill

  CHAPTER A1 89A CRIMINAL EVIDENCE RULES
  (1) There are to be rules of court (to be called "Criminal Evidence Rules") governing the use of evidence in the criminal courts.

  (2) Criminal Evidence Rules are to be made by a committee known as the Criminal Evidence Rules Committee.

  (3) The power to make Criminal Evidence Rules includes power to make different provision for different cases or different areas, including different provision—

  (a) for a specified court or description of courts, or

  (b) for specified descriptions of proceedings or a specified jurisdiction.

  (4) Any power to make or alter Criminal Evidence Rules is to be exercised with a view to securing that—

  (a) the criminal justice system is accessible, fair and efficient, and

  (b) the rules are both simple and simply expressed."

  The noble Baroness said: It is fortuitous that the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, is the Minister responding to this group of amendments, because she will recall the time that we spent on the Courts Bill, when the Government introduced several clauses that set into statute rules committees. The short explanation of our purpose is to ask the Government to explain why a rules committee with regard to evidence will not also be set in statute. I beg to move.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am happy to respond, and will try to do so fully, so that I can explain how we will make the provision work.
  Amendment No. 326, which has not yet been printed, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and the noble Baroness, would establish a criminal evidence rules committee. The amendment is based on provision in the Government's Courts Bill—as the noble Baroness said—for a criminal procedure rules committee. However, the remit for the committee proposed by this amendment would be rules of court governing the use of evidence. We fear that this amendment may be based on a misunderstanding, although from what the noble Baroness said, she may be seeking only clarification.
  We are entirely sympathetic to the proposal that rules of court should be made by a rules committee in future. However, that is already the effect of provisions in the Courts Bill, as I have mentioned. That Bill fully empowers the new criminal procedure rules committee to make rules of court for criminal proceedings.
  Rules of court deal with a level of detail about practical and procedural matters that it would be inappropriate to include in primary legislation. They therefore cover the detail of, for example, notice of appeals to the Crown Court, the jurisdiction to award costs and applications for witness' summons. They also cover rules in support of evidential matters—rules
  708
  governing applications for leave to adduce previous sexual history evidence under Section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, applications for special measures directions for witnesses also under the 1999 Act and applications for evidence to be given through live link from abroad under Section 32 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
  Provision for rules of court relating to evidence are also made in this Bill—in Clause 104, for example, which provides for rules to be made for a defendant to give advance notice of his intention to rely on the bad character evidence of a co-defendant. Clause 125 also provides for rules to be made in relation to notice requirements when a party wishes to adduce hearsay evidence. Those are all matters that, in the future, will properly fall under the scope of the criminal procedure rules committee. That strikes the right balance in allowing appropriate matters of practice and procedure to be dealt with by the new committee, while maintaining Parliament's current role in relation to changes in the substantive law.
  Therefore, although I absolutely agree with the thrust of the amendment that rules of court should be dealt with by a rules committee, I do not consider that it is necessary for a separate committee to be set up for that to be achieved. I do not believe that that was what the noble Baroness proposed. I think that she just wanted me to confirm that the hours and hours that we spent on the Courts Bill will not be wasted. I can assure her that they will not. I hope that that explanation of the role of the new criminal procedure rules committee reassures noble Lords and that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister because she has been able to provide the further clarification and certainty for which I hoped. We spent goodness knows how many hours and days on the Courts Bill, as the Minister said. The difficulty is that, when that Bill returns to us from another place, we will not have the opportunity to ask the questions that I just asked with regard to the criminal procedural rules committee, because we did not have this Bill before us when we debated that Bill, so I could not ask questions within that context—hence the rather peculiar reasons for tabling these amendments today.
  It is also important that the Minister's clarification and explanation are available to those practitioners who will read this Bill and will want to see how Clause 104 in particular will ultimately operate. I am grateful to the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 137F to I37J not moved.]
  Clause 90 ["Bad character"]:
  Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 138:
  Page 60, line 38, leave out "or tends to show"
  The noble Lord said: the amendment concerns—
  Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
  Lord Kingsland: The amendment concerns the expression "tends to show" in Clause 90(1), Part 11 of the Bill. The relevant part of clause states:
  "For the purposes of this Chapter, evidence of a person's bad character is evidence which shows or tends to show that…he has committed an offence. or…he has behaved, or is disposed to behave, in a way that, in the opinion of the court, might he viewed with disapproval by a reasonable person".
  The intention of the amendment is to probe the expression "tends to show". It seeks to probe not only the degree of probability that the Government have in mind but whether its scope could include an acquittal, in circumstances in which it was admitted that an offence was committed other than that on the indictment. I beg to move.
  Lord Renton: I warmly support the amendment. In criminal cases, those concerned should never judge things on a balance of probability. All the time, proof by the prosecution must put matters beyond doubt. "Tends to show" would raise doubts. Therefore, my noble friend Lord Kingsland is quite right.
  Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I support the amendment because the clause permits the admission of evidence of behaviour as evidence of had character in circumstances that are dangerously tentative. The words "tends to show" perform the greater part of the mischief. Although they are not the whole of it, they are bad enough.
  Let us suppose that we, as prosecutors, are addressing the defendant and we are explaining our attitude to this part of our case. We might say that we rely on this aspect of the defendant's behaviour because it tends to show that he or she is disposed to behave in a way that,
  "might be viewed with disapproval by a reasonable person".
  That would have to be,
  "in the opinion of the court"
  in this clause. However, how can one be more tentative than to conjure up a concept that "tends to show" not that the defendant has behaved in the way alleged, but that he is disposed to have behaved in a way that it suits the Crown to allege, and which might—not must—be viewed with disapproval by a reasonable person?
  I have not been sufficiently diligent to look up whether the expression "tends to" is to he found in the criminal law. It may be that, in proper circumstances, it is, but it certainly ought not to appear here, for the reasons that the noble Baroness has given and I have sought to enhance.
  Lord Thomas of Gresford: We support the amendment because we do not understand who will decide. Presumably, it is the judge, in the first instance, because there is a reference to,
  "the opinion of the court".
  710
  The judge to whom applications for the admission of evidence of bad character are made must carry out an inquiry into whether the evidence that is relied on by the prosecution,
  "tends to show that he…is disposed to behave, in a way that…might be viewed with disapproval by a reasonable person".
  not by the judge. The judge is set an almost impossible task. The provision could refer to all sorts of evidence that may be before the court.
  The most relevant matter—the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, briefly referred to it—is whether the evidence tends to show that a person,
  "is disposed to behave, in a way that…might be viewed with disapproval",
  if he has faced a trial and been acquitted of an offence. If evidence of acquittal is to be introduced as evidence of bad character, we have run a coach and horses through the entire corpus of the English criminal law as we have known it over centuries.
  Lord Carlile of Berriew: I too support the amendment. Criminal cases are tried by an evaluation of evidence. When the evidence is given, the jury is instructed in legal directions by the judge on how to evaluate certain types of evidence. It would be interesting to know whether the Government have asked the judges who draft the specimen directions for the Judicial Studies Board whether they have attempted to produce a specimen direction whereby a jury could have explained to it how it is supposed to evaluate something that is not evidence, in the sense in which that word is generally understood.
  Will the noble Baroness tell us how the Government expect juries to be directed to evaluate such material? In common with others who spoke, I suggest that it cannot be done in a sensible and just way.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: I hope that my noble friend will think again about the provision. I speak in the main as a supporter of the Government but the provision is inequitable. All I ask is that my noble friend thinks about it again.
  I have been much persuaded by the arguments adduced by the Opposition and by the Liberal Democrats. A prima facie case has been made that the matter should be thought about again and brought back to the House on Report.
  The Lord Bishop of Worcester: I too hope that the amendment will be made. The words "bad character" are difficult, when applied to the subsection. There are people who behave in ways that might be thought likely to be,
  "viewed with disapproval by a reasonable person",
  but who do so only in certain circumstances. I think, for example, of people who behave in certain ways under extreme provocation but who would not behave in those ways otherwise.
  It is extremely difficult to know how to decide whether certain sorts of behaviour tend to show something; that is, are witness to a tendency to behave in such a way in all circumstances or, in particular, in

  711
  circumstances relevant to the issue under trial. It is a doubtful characteristic to introduce by way of mere words, such as "tends to show".
  6.15 p.m.
  Lord Borrie: It is, in a way, unfortunate that we are discussing the amendment in the context of Clause 90. As everybody has said in the debate so far, the phrase "bad character" is given an extraordinarily wide definition in Clause 90. I refer to what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said: the key thing is whether evidence of bad character is admissible. For that, we must see Clause 92, for the non-defendant's bad character, and Clause 93, for the defendant's bad character. There is a list of requirements that must be satisfied for the evidence of so-called bad character to be admissible in court. That is what is important.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Is my noble friend speaking for or against the amendment?
  Lord Borrie: I was trying to be helpful.
  Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: Like the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, I had intended to reserve anything that I wanted to say until we debated Clauses 92 and 93. However, as we have gone into the area already, I must say, without hesitation, that this is the most dangerous part of the Bill. It is thoroughly bad, and I hope that it will be thrown out as a whole. However, I shall stick to the amendment for the moment.
  How vague can we be? The Bill refers to evidence that "tends to show" that a person has behaved in a way that,
  "in the opinion of the court, might be viewed with disapproval by a reasonable person".
  How on earth is a judge to explain to a jury that it must be satisfied that a piece of evidence "tends to show" that such behaviour,
  "might be viewed with disapproval by a reasonable person",
  not by them or by anybody else, but, apparently, by "a reasonable person"? With respect, I think that the whole clause is nonsense.
  Lord Ackner: What about the person who can be shown to have set out to commit an offence but then to have decided that he will not, after all, because something has appealed to his conscience? He has behaved in a way that showed that he was disposed but decided to change that. Is he to have his character put in in that way? Once one is disposed, can one not cancel that disposition?
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: First, I add my voice to those of noble Lords who said, "Hear, hear", when the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, reappeared at the Dispatch Box. I hope that the House will allow me to say what pleasure it gives us to see him back securely in his place.
  Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The noble Lord was as telegraphic in his delivery as ever, but some of the
  712
  issues that have been raised by noble Lords have widened the debate. It may be helpful if I give a broader exposition of the Government's position, to respond, in particular, to the import of what the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, asked for. He said that it was a probing amendment.
  Before I go into detail, I shall sound a note of caution. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said that admitting evidence of acquittal to court hearings would drive a coach and four through current provisions. That was echoed by the noble Lord. Lord Carlile of Berriew, and others. I should remind the House that, in the case of R v Z, which is part of our jurisprudence, it is already permissible.
  It is already the case that evidence relating to charges for which the defendant has been acquitted can be admitted into evidence. That follows the ruling made by the House of Lords in the case of R v Z in 2000. Our proposals preserve the effect of that judgment. It will therefore be possible to admit evidence from previous cases if it is relevant to the current charge, even if the defendant had been acquitted in the previous proceedings. The evidence might be relevant, for example, to lend weight to the victim's account in the current case or to give the lie to the defendant's explanation. However, the court will be able to exclude such evidence if its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value.
  Lord Kingsland: I apologise to the noble Baroness for intervening so early in her response. Perhaps she could clarify something about the recent House of Lords decision on acquittals. In Clause 90(1), the expression "tends to show", under subsection (1)(a), relates to the phrase,
  "he has committed an offence".
  I assume that it would be improper, or not intended by the Government, under Clause 90(1)(a), that an acquittal be adduced in evidence: it would apply only to Clause 90(1)(b).
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The noble Lord is right, but it is important that we start with that point. It is clear that there seems to be an imprecise understanding of what our current jurisprudence actually holds. It is important for us to have clarity in relation to these matters because it is possible to become unnecessarily excited. I am sure that there is sufficient to become excited about, but we should restrain ourselves to those matters which deserve it.
  This is an extremely important part of the Bill; namely, the new statutory rules for the admission of evidence of bad character. Therefore, I do not detract from anything said by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, or others in that regard. At this stage, we are concerned with the ambit of the new rules; that is, what evidence should have its admissibility determined under this scheme?
  One of the aims of this part of the Bill is to achieve a degree of clarity and certainty in an extremely complex area of law. We therefore wish to establish a clear scope to the scheme. Clause 90 sets out what evidence

  713
  is covered by the new rules by providing a statutory definition of evidence of had character. All Members of the Committee who have spoken will know well that currently there is no statutory definition of "bad character".
  Amendment. No. 138, standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbots, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, and Amendment No. 139, standing in their names and that of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, both seek to restrict this definition. The combined effect of those two amendments would be to limit the definition of bad character evidence so that the evidence must show that the defendant has committed an offence. Essentially, that would mean evidence of previous convictions.
  It might be helpful if I deal with the general issue of why we consider it important to have a wide definition relevant to both amendments, and then with the particular issues raised by Amendment No. 138. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who mentioned the wide definition, but it was echoed by a number of other Members of the Committee.
  Current law already recognises that evidence going beyond previous convictions should be capable of admission in appropriate circumstances. We wish to ensure that that can continue to be the position. It would be a grave mistake to limit the law in the way suggested—a point to which I shall turn shortly.
  I should however emphasise that the definition of had character in Clause 90 sets out only what evidence is covered by the scheme; it does not make this evidence admissible. Admissibility is determined by Clause 92, in the case of non-defendants, and Clause 93, for defendants. The sole purpose of Clause 90 is to define "bad character"—the details of which I am sure we shall discuss in due course, and which I can anticipate. It does not impinge on whether that bad character will be admissible in evidence. Clauses 92 and 93 set out clearly the circumstances where this evidence can be adduced and appropriate safeguards. Therefore, a wide definition is desirable. Evidence that is caught by the definition can be admitted only where it meets the requirements laid out in the remainder of the scheme.
  In particular, we do not wish to suggest, by narrowing the definition, that such evidence falls outside statutory rules. It is important to recognise that such evidence, while capable of being highly probative and therefore properly admissible in appropriate circumstances, might also be very prejudicial. It is therefore important that particular rules should apply to its admissibility.
  On that, it is important to remember that the new statutory scheme is intended to deal comprehensively with evidence of bad character. To that end, Clause 91 abolishes the current common law rules in this area, and current statutory provisions are also repealed. So we are starting from scratch. As a result, the common law rule which excludes the admission of evidence of misconduct is swept away, as well as the current
  714
  exceptions to that prohibition, such as the similar fact rule. I note that Her Majesty's loyal Opposition has not put its name to amendments which would retain the current law. Members of the Committee will know that there has been a great deal of debate about lack of precision and that we now need this comprehensive overhaul of the system.
  In the absence of particular rules to regulate the admission of this potentially prejudicial evidence, it is essential that it is covered by the scheme. By drawing the definition widely, we ensure that it is admitted only when appropriate and subject to the safeguards that apply under the scheme.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: So why does my noble friend not include the words, "subject to Clauses 92 and 93"?
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: We shall deal with the precise nature of Clauses 92 and 93, but their whole purpose is to constrain Clause 90. The way in which it is drafted makes that clear. Clause 90 gives a definition of "bad character". Clause 91 abolishes the common law rules which currently restrain the admissibility of bad character. Clause 92 gives the basis upon which bad character evidence will be admitted in the case of a non-defendant. Clause 93 gives the basis on which bad character for defendants will be admissible. If it falls outside Clauses 92 and 93, it will not be admissible. We believe that that makes it clear.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: I am sorry; no doubt, I am being obtuse. My noble friend has not replied to my criticism. Clauses 92 and 93 are all important in defining the non-defendant's bad character and the defendant's bad character. Would it not be an improvement—that is why I intervened before—if the noble Baroness were to refer in Clause 90 to those particular provisions?
  6.30 p.m.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am more than happy to consider that suggestion, but perhaps I may invite my noble friend to turn to Clause 92(1). A definition of "bad character" is given in Clause 90, and if we look further to Clause 92(1) it states that:
  "In criminal proceedings evidence of the bad character"—
  to which we have already referred as defined in Clause 90—
  "of a person other than the defendant is admissible if and only if".
  The circumstances are then set out, in accordance with the normal precision of drafting.
  Turning to Clause 93(1) on page 62, something very similar is set out:
  "In criminal proceedings evidence of the defendant's bad character is admissible if, but only if".
  The basis on which evidence of that bad character may be admissible is thus made clear. So I hope that my noble friend will agree that the way the legislation is drafted is how he would wish it.

  715
  I see that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, is anxious to intervene. I shall give way.
  Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. All that she has said is helpful, but as yet not quite helpful enough. She has explained that Clauses 92 and 93 set out the rules respectively for the admissibility of a non-defendant's bad character and a defendant's bad character. However, she has not yet addressed our criticism of what the Act defines as "bad character". Our criticism is that, while I hesitate to use the word "absurdly", the Bill is grotesquely tentative and vague.
  The point has been made. It is not enough to say that it is important to have a scheme; of course it is. It is not enough to point out the rules set out under Clauses 92 and 93 unless the complaint of what is defined as "bad character" is addressed. That is what we hope to hear.
  Lord Carlile of Berriew: Pursuant to the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, can the noble Baroness explain why it is necessary at all to include a definition of "bad character" in the Bill? Surely the question asked by the court is this: is character relevant? Does it matter if it is bad character or good character? Surely the clauses should contain provisions that set out when "character" is relevant.
  I have a strong suspicion that the inclusion of "bad character" as defined is more a response to media pressure than to anything else. I also strongly suspect that if the Government continue to try to define "bad character" they will run into the problem governments always encounter when they try to define abstract qualities.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I believe that I have answered the question, but I am more than happy to clarify the position. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, have asked why this is drawn so widely. We are doing so because we have to catch as much evidence as we can which could then be made subject to the provisions of Clauses 92 and 93. If we were to draw this in a more narrow fashion, much of the evidence on which dispute before the court is likely to arise as regards whether the prejudicial value is more weighty than the probative quality may not be caught within the scheme.
  The whole point is that we are getting rid of the old common law rules and, therefore, the break that they provide will not be in place. We need to cast the net in relation to bad character very wide indeed so that the rules that limit the admissibility of such bad character apply to the biggest possible catchment, as it were, of evidence. We need the wide definition. That is the purpose here.
  I had assumed that the intention of the amendment and, for that matter, Amendment No. 139, which we shall discuss more fully, is to restrict the kind of bad
  716
  character evidence that can be admitted. I have just outlined why we think that that would be highly undesirable. While evidence of previous convictions may well be the kind of evidence that is most likely to be adduced, it is important to recognise, as does the current law, that evidence going wider than previous convictions can have probative value and that, in appropriate circumstances, this evidence should be capable of being admitted.
  I should therefore like to turn to the kind of evidence that is covered by the reference to evidence that "tends to show" that a person has committed an offence or acted in a particular way. This is the issue raised by, among other noble Lords, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester. This part of the definition would be removed by Amendment No. 138. The mischief that it seeks to address is that, in particular in the case of criminal conduct, if a person has not been convicted of an offence, it might be difficult to say that evidence relating to that charge shows that he has committed an offence; yet the evidence might be highly relevant.
  Examples of where it might be appropriate to admit such evidence include circumstances where evidence on a number of charges being tried concurrently is cross-admissible in respect of the other charges. It might also be appropriate to admit evidence relating to charges on which the defendant was acquitted. as I have already cited in the example of R v Z. It would be unfortunate if an argument were to be accepted that, because a person has not actually been convicted of the offence, it cannot be said that the evidence shows that he has indeed committed such an offence and it is therefore excluded.
  That would represent a severe restriction on what is currently admissible. Evidence of the kind described can be admitted under the common law rules and, indeed, many of the landmark cases in the development of the "similar fact" rule involve evidence of this kind. I am sure that those noble Lords with experience of the criminal law will know very well the cases of Boardman in 1974, DPP v P in 1991 and R v H in 1995. Those are all examples of important cases in the development of the common law similar fact rule and all involve admission of evidence other than previous convictions. Those three cases were all concerned—
  Lord Carlile of Berriew: With respect to the noble Baroness and deferring to the presence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, how on earth can she cite DPP v P in support of Clause 90(1)(b)? DPP v P does not offer the remotest justification for this kind of provision. No doubt I shall be subject to harsh correction if I get this wrong, but DPP v P provides for evidence to be admitted if it is probative; that is, relevant and probative, not of the bad character of the accused, but of the offences with which he has been charged: the index offences. That is a million miles from the citation that the noble Baroness is trying to make.
  Lord Lloyd of Berwick: I support entirely what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. The same applies to the case of R v Z, referred to by the

  717
  noble Baroness. That case is referred to in the Explanatory Notes and I have taken the opportunity to look at it. It really has nothing to say in support of a wide definition. R v Z was a case where the argument concerned double jeopardy; that is, whether the previous acquittal meant that the person could not be tried again. The evidence was admissible on ordinary similar fact evidence grounds as established in DPP v P and in subsequent cases with which I know the noble Baroness is familiar.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I have sought to respond to the questions raised about the species of evidence which goes beyond the proof of conviction. A number of noble Lords have pointed out that we can understand the admissibility of conviction, but not other evidence which goes more widely and "tends to show".
  My whole point here is that if one looks at DPP v P, Boardman and R v Z, they go beyond mere conviction and are included in additional information which the court deemed it proper to admit into evidence. They would fall into the category of material which tended to show—as similar fact evidence tends to show—but is not evidence of an actual offence. The noble Lord will know the case of Boardman particularly well for that reason. That was the whole point of adducing the similar fact evidence. It was not that the person had been convicted and found guilty of previous offences, but the similar fact evidence from those earlier issues was important to verify guilt.
  I am not talking about the definition; I am dealing quite clearly wall the argument that species of evidence that fall outside convictions should be excluded. So if you exclude the words "tends to show" and you abolish under Clause 91 the previous rules under the common law, you are left with issues such as similar fact which would otherwise be excluded.
  I know perfectly well that is not what the noble and learned Lords, Lord Lloyd and Lord Mayhew, intend. Indeed, I know that even the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, who sits on the Liberal Democrat Benches, would not wish to see that. I am seeking to explain why the regime of "tends to show" is cast more widely than the simple stricture of having to prove a conviction and no more. That is why these cases are important. I see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, nodding in understanding if not in agreement.
  Lord Lloyd of Berwick: In sympathy.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: In sympathy? I shall take it as agreement. I shall take what I can get.
  As noble Lords will know, the three cases I have cited were all concerned with multiple allegations where the evidence of one complainant was held to be admissible in respect of other charges. Indeed, the first major attempt at laying down similar fact principles was the case of Makin as far back as 1894. That case also involved evidence of had character other than previous convictions. It involved a charge of the murder of a baby and evidence that the bodies of 13
  718
  other babies had been found buried in the garden of the defendant's house and previous properties was admitted to rebut a defence of accidental death.
  This strand of the definition also covers evidence relating to charges on which the defendant has been acquitted. I have already mentioned the case of R v Z. If Amendment No. 138 were to he accepted, it would remove from the definition much valuable evidence that is already recognised as being admissible under the current law. Such evidence should be covered by the scheme and it is important that the definition should ensure that that is the case.
  I hope that that explanation of this part of the clause has reassured noble Lords that the amendment can be withdrawn. I look forward with joy to the debate on Clauses 92 and 93.
  6.45 p.m.
  Lord Thomas of Gresford: As I understand the noble Baroness, she is saying that the words "tends to show" are the statutory means of dealing with similar fact evidence. I have not understood that. It is a very interesting concept. I suggest that the Minister goes away and considers whether, if similar fact evidence is to be given a statutory form, it should appear specifically in the Bill so that we know what we are talking about. I had thought that,
  "tends to show that [a person]…is disposed to behave, in a way that…might be viewed with disapproval by a reasonable person",
  could cover someone who went clubbing at night and stayed in bed until one o'clock the following day. But if it is supposed to be similar fact evidence, let us have it.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I put this point to my noble friend the Minister with great humility because it breaks a self-denying ordinance that I have imposed upon myself. Although I am a lawyer I am not mainly experienced in criminal law, and with such august authorities in the Committee it is perhaps intemperate of me to put even a small point.
  I have no similar experience of the criminal law hut I have a great deal of experience of what people say, which tends to show that I am disposed to behave in a manner which might be viewed with disapproval by what they call "reasonable persons". In fact, I have spent quite a large part of my life showing to those who claim to be reasonable persons within that formula that their view could perhaps be challenged.
  I have not gone clubbing to the hours referred to by the noble Lord, or usually stayed in bed, but I have equivalent experiences, with which I shall not bore my noble friend on the Front Bench. Does she realise that this is not about going beyond convictions? I have listened very carefully—I do not think we are discussing Amendment No. 139—and this is about entering new territory where, without bothering to read all the words, "tends to show" is really quite extravagant.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I do not believe that it is. I make no comment on my noble friend's

  719
  Behaviour—perish the thought—but he can be reassured that even if he did have a character which tended to show to a reasonable person what we have just outlined, it would be admissible in evidence only if it fell within Clause 92, if he was a witness in a case, or Clause 93 if he was a defendant. So my noble friend would have the security of knowing that the limitations in Clauses 92 and 93 in respect of any of that information or evidence would bite.
  Lord Morris of Aberavon: Perhaps the noble Baroness can ease my mind on the point of the phrase "tends to show". Does it seek to express the common law as regards similar facts as it is now, or does it extend it?
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: It seeks to encapsulate the common law as it currently stands and also to extend it in a way that gives greater clarity and modernises and updates the position. For example, it is right that much of what is in Clause 93 is already reflected in some detail in the jurisprudence, the case law, with which we have had to deal for many years.
  Noble Lords—particularly those who have the wonderful pleasure of mastering Archbold —will know that the section on bad character is quite extensive and that the case law is quite complex. Practitioners should be forgiven for not knowing each and every nuance of it. For example, there are many who are not familiar with R v Z, of which we have had perhaps a mild demonstration today.
  Lord Kingsland: I find that in this—dare I say it?—distastefully populist Bill there are many poisoned chalices. Chapter 11 contains pure strychnine. I have every sympathy with the Minister. She said in the course of her response to my amendment that clarity and certainty were crucial in this complex area of the law. If that is so, I am bound to say that the Government have got off to a very bad start in Clause 90.
  I gather that the Minister is not inclined to accept the generous offer of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton, to go away and reconsider.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: Lord Clinton-Davis.
  Lord Kingsland: Lord Clinton-Davis. I beg his pardon most humbly. I certainly ought to have known that. Is that so?
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: This, of course, is Committee, and I hope to be able to explain the Government's scheme fully and comprehensively to noble Lords so there can be a better understanding about it. Of course I will listen very carefully to everything that is said, and we will reflect upon it before the Bill comes back on Report. That is in relation to each and every clause. If the noble Lord is asking whether we will specifically resile from any of it,
  720
  I, like noble Lords, will have to listen to all the debate and give it some mature consideration, but I can certainly give the noble Lord no promise.
  Lord Kingsland: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. Relating that to the contents of her response to what noble Lords have said, I feel compelled to test the opinion of the Committee.
  6.51 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 138) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 113; Not-Contents, 90.

  Division No. 4

  CONTENTS

  Ackner, L.

  Kingsland, L.

  Addington, L.

  Lane of Horsell, L.

  Allenby of Megiddo, V.

  Linklater of Butterstone, B.

  Anelay of St Johns, B.

  Liverpool, E.

  Arran, E.

  Livsey of Talgarth, L.

  Astor, V.

  Lloyd of Berwick, L.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Luke, L.

  Barker, B.

  Lyell, L.

  Blatch, B.

  McColl of Dulwich, L.

  Bowness, L.

  Mackay of Clashfern, L.

  Bridgeman, V. [Teller]

  Mc Nally, L.

  Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

  Maddock, B.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Marlesford, L.

  Burnham, L.

  Mayhew of Twysden, L.

  Byford, B.

  Methuen, L.

  Carlile of Berriew, L.

  Montrose, D.

  Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

  Moynihan, L.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Newby, L.

  Chalfont, L.

  Newton of Braintree, L.

  Chalker of Wallasey, B.

  Noakes, B.

  Colwyn, L.

  Northbrook, L.

  Cope of Berkeley, L.

  Northesk, E.

  Craig of Radley, L.

  Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

  Craigavon, V.

  Onslow, E.

  Crathorne, L.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Denham, L.

  Pearson of Rannoch, L.

  Dholakia, L.

  Peel, E.

  Dixon-Smith, L.

  Elliott of Morpeth, L.

  Razzall, L.

  Fearn, L.

  Renton, L.

  Ferrers, E.

  Roberts of Conwy, L.

  Fookes, B.

  Roper, L.

  Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

  Rotherwick, L.

  Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

  St John of Fawsley, L.

  Freeman, L.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

  Geddes, L.

  Seccombe, B. [Teller]

  Glentoran, L.

  Selborne, E.

  Goodhart, L.

  Selsdon, L.

  Goschen, V.

  Sharp of Guildford, B.

  Gray of Contin, L.

  Sharples, B.

  Habgood, L.

  Shutt of Greetland, L.

  Harris of Richmond, B.

  Smith of Clifton, L.

  Hereford, Bp.

  Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

  Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

  Stern, B.

  Hooper, B.

  Stewartby, L.

  Howe, E.

  Strathclyde, L.

  Hunt of Wirral, L.

  Tebbit, L.

  Hylton, L.

  Thomas of Gresford, L.

  Jenkin of Roding, L.

  Thomas of Walliswood, B.

  Jopling, L.

  Tordoff, L.

  Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

  Trumpington, B.

  Kilclooney, L.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  721

  Ullswater, V.

  Walpole, L.

  Waddington, L.

  Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

  Wakeham, L.

  Williams of Crosby, B.

  Wallace of Saltaire, L.

  Winchester, Bp.

  Walmsley, B.

  Worcester, Bp.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Ahmed, L.

  Grocott, L.[Teller]

  Amos, B.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  Andrews, B.

  Hollick, L.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Ashton of Upholland, B.

  Howells of St. Davids, B.

  Bach, L.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Berkeley, L.

  Islwyn, L.

  Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

  Jay of Paddington, B.

  Blackstone, B.

  Jones, L.

  Borrie, L.

  King of West Bromwich, L.

  Bragg, L.

  Lea of Crondall, L.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Lipsey, L.

  Brookman, L.

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

  Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

  Burlison, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L.

  Campbell-Savours, L.

  McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

  Carter, L.

  MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

  Christopher, L.

  Massey of Darwen, B.

  Clark of Windermere, L.

  Merlyn-Rees, L.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Morgan, L.

  Cohen of Pimlico, B.

  Palmer, L.

  Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

  Patel of Blackburn, L.

  Crawley, B.

  Pendry, L.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  Pitkeathley, B.

  Davies of Oldham, L.[Teller]

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Dixon, L.

  Radice, L.

  Donoughue, L.

  Rea, L.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Dubs, L.

  Renwick of Clifton, L.

  Elder, L.

  Sainsbury of Turville, L.

  Erroll, E.

  St. John of Bletso, L.

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  Sawyer, L.

  Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

  Scotland of Asthal, B.

  Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor)

  Simon, V.

  Temple-Morris, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Tomlinson, L.

  Faulkner of Worcester, L.

  Turnberg, L.

  Filkin, L.

  Varley, L.

  Gale, B.

  Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

  Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

  Whitty, L.

  Golding, B.

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

  Goldsmith, L.

  Gordon of Strathblane, L.

  Winston, L.

  Goudie, B.

  Woolmer of Leeds, L.

  Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
  Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 139:
  Page 60, line 40, leave out paragraph (b).
  The noble Lord said: As it turned out, much of the debate with respect to Amendment No. 139 has already taken place. Could I expedite matters by asking the Minister whether she would be prepared, in the light of the previous vote, to undertake to reconsider the wording of Clause 90(1)(b) and to return with a much more specific expression that would cover the circumstances in which bad character could be evidence in the Bill and, therefore, subject to the rules on admissibility? I beg to move.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: We shall of course consider the consequences of the previous vote. The point of casting the net wide on subsection (1)(b) was so that as much as possible could be caught and bound by Clauses 92 and 93. We did not wish it to be argued, particularly if were moved Clause 91, that proof of bad character was outside the statutory scheme, therefore outside Clauses 92 and 93, so that the restrictions placed on admissibility did not catch that evidence. That would mean that the balance that the court would have to strike to ascertain its probative value would somehow be avoided.
  Of course, as is always the case, we shall go away and consider our position. However, the whole purpose of casting the net so wide was so that we would catch as much as possible, so that the process would be subject to the constraint and restraint that we seek to impose in Clauses 92 and 93.
  Lord Kingsland: I thank the Minister for her reply. Perhaps I could explain why I continue to be worried by the inaccuracy of Clause 90(1)(b).
  The noble Baroness has referred to the restraints in Clauses 92 and 93. Clause 92 refers to the non-defendant's bad character while Clause 93, which is the more important one, refers to the defendant's bad character. The difficulty is that Clause 93 contains very few constraints on the ability of the prosecution to put bad character in evidence. In Clause 93(1)(a) to (11), five of those eight sub-categories go in automatically. Only three are subject to the discretion of the judge, and then only if the defence applies and invites the judge to exercise that discretion. That is a world away from the existing situation.
  The reason, therefore, why the definition of bad character is so important in Clause 90 is because the protection for the defendant in Clause 93 has become so weak—as a result of the way in which the Government, themselves, have drafted the Bill. Therefore, I must ask the Minister for a clear and specific undertaking on Clause 90(1)(b) if I am to avoid asking again for the opinion of the Committee. Could the Minister say, very telegraphically, whether she is prepared to give me that undertaking? If she is not prepared to give me that undertaking, I shall ask for the opinion of the Committee.
  Lord Renton: It is a great advantage to have my noble friend with us again, not only because he is always bright and lucid but because on this matter he has emphatically pointed out how useless the expression is that he wants left out. Can Members of the Committee imagine, when deciding on criminal responsibility, using the expression, "disposed to behave"? What can it mean? It can only be very vague. And how are we to interpret,
  "might be viewed with disapproval by a reasonable person"?
  It could be said,
  "even by a reasonable person".
  Those sorts of expression must not be allowed to remain in the Bill.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The only undertaking that I can give is that we shall, of course, look at the

  723
  matter. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, wishes to hear anything more from me. I note what he says in relation to Clause 93, but invite his attention to subsections (3) and (4). Subsection (3) states:
  "The court must not admit evidence under subsection (1)(d),(e) or (h) if, on an application by the defendant to exclude it, it appears to the court that the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it".
  Subsection (4) states:
  "On an application to exclude evidence under subsection (3) the court must have regard, in particular, to the length of time between the matters to which that evidence relates and the matters which form the subject of the offence charged".
  There is the protection to which I referred. I can say only to noble Lord who speaks for the Opposition from the Dispatch Box that we shall, of course, consider these issues between now and Report stage. It would be open to the noble Lord to divide the House on Report if he felt that we could not assist him or take the matter further. I cannot give him any further undertaking than that.
  Lord Thomas of Gresford: I merely make the point that I made before—that this appears to be an attempt to bring a similar fact evidence rule into the provisions. It simply does not work, and it has got to go. If the noble Lord chooses to vote, we shall be with him.
  Lord Kingsland: I am most grateful to the Minister for her response but, in the circumstances, I feel that I must invite the Committee to divide.
  7.9 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 139) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 102; Not-Contents, 81.

  Division No. 5

  CONTENTS

  Ackner, L.

  Elliott of Morpeth, L.

  Addington, L.

  Fearn, L.

  Anelay of St Johns, B.

  Ferrers, E.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Flather, B.

  Barker, B.

  Fookes, B.

  Bell, L.

  Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

  Blatch, B.

  Geddes, L.

  Bridgeman, V. [Teller]

  Glentoran, L.

  Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

  Goodhart, L.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Goschen, V.

  Burnham, L.

  Gray of Contin, L.

  Byford, B.

  Harris of Richmond, B.

  Carlile of Berriew, L.

  Hereford, Bp.

  Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

  Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Hooper, B.

  Chester, Bp.

  Hooson, L.

  Colwyn, L.

  Howe, E.

  Cope of Berkeley, L.

  Hunt of Wirral, L.

  Craig of Radley, L.

  Hylton.L.

  Craigavon, V.

  Jenkin of Roding, L.

  Crathorne, L.

  Jopling, L.

  Denham, L.

  Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

  Dixon-Smith, L.

  Kilclooney, L.

  724

  Kingsland, L.

  Renton, L.

  Lamont of Lerwick, L.

  Roberts of Conwy, L.

  Lane of Horsell, L.

  Roper, L.

  Linklater of Butterstone, B.

  Rotherwick, L.

  Liverpool, E.

  St John of Fawsley, L.

  Lloyd of Berwick, L.

  Seccombe, B. [Teller]

  Luke, L.

  Selborne. E.

  Lyell, L.

  Selsdon, L.

  Mackay of Clashfern, L.

  Sharples, B.

  Mackie of Benshie, L.

  Shutt of Greetland, L.

  McNally, L.

  Smith of Clifton, L.

  Maddock, B.

  Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

  Marlesford, L.

  Stern, B.

  Mayhew of Twysden, L.

  Stewartby, L.

  Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

  Strathclyde, L.

  Montrose, D.

  Tebbit, L.

  Moynihan, L.

  Thomas of Gresford, L.

  Newby, L.

  Thomas of Walliswood, B.

  Newton of Braintree, L.

  Tordoff, L.

  Noakes, B.

  Ullswater, V.

  Northbrook, L.

  Waddington, L.

  Northesk, E.

  Wakeham, L.

  Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

  Wallace of Saltaire, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Walmsley, B.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Walpole. L.

  Pearson of Rannoch, L.

  Williams of Crosby, B.

  Peel, E.

  Winchester, Bp.

  Razzall, L.

  Worcester, Bp.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Gordon of Strathblane, L.

  Ahmed, L.

  Goudie, B.

  Amos, B.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Andrews, B.

  Grocott, L. [Teller]

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  Ashton of Upholland, B.

  Hollick, L.

  Bach, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Howells of St. Davids, B.

  Berkeley, L.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Blackstone, B.

  Islwyn, L.

  Borrie, L.

  Jay of Paddington, B.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  King of West Bromwich, L.

  Brookman, L.

  Lea of Crondall, L.

  Burlison, L.

  Lipsey, L.

  Campbell-Savours, L.

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Carter, L.

  Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

  Clark of Windermere, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

  Cohen of Pimlico, B.

  MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

  Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

  Massey of Darwen, B.

  Merlyn-Rees, L.

  Crawley, B.

  Morgan, L.

  Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

  Patel of Blackburn, L.

  Pendry, L.

  Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde. B.

  Pitkeathley, B.

  Dixon, L.

  Radice, L.

  Donoughue, L.

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Dubs, L.

  Renwick of Clifton, L.

  Elder, L.

  Sainsbury of Turville, L.

  Erroll, E.

  Sawyer, L.

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  Scotland of Asthal, B.

  Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

  Simon, V.

  Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor)

  Temple-Morris, L.

  Tomlinson, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Turnberg, L.

  Faulkner of Worcester, L.

  Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

  Filkin, L.

  Watson of Invergowrie, L.

  Gale, B.

  Whitty, L.

  Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

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

  Golding, B.

  Goldsmith, L.

  Woolmer of Leeds, L.

  Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
  7.19 p.m.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes): The Question is whether Clause 90, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill.
  Lord Ackner: This is designed to be the coup de grâce before we have an intake of a little refreshment.
  We have perhaps overlooked, because it seems such a long time ago, the Second Reading. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice took the unusual step, so that it would not be said that he had detained the House too long, of placing in the Library of the House a memorandum which represented not only his views but the views of all the High Court judges and the views of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. Therefore, the material which is to be found there is, I think, the shortest way of my dealing with this. It is to be found on page 4 of the memorandum, headed "Evidence of Bad Character, Part II, Chapter 1". Paragraph 12 states:
  "This part abolishes the common law rules and introduces new rules which require greater disclosure of evidence of bad character in the course of proceedings than would have been required hitherto"—
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: For the convenience of the Committee, perhaps the noble and learned Lord could indicate to which clause he is speaking. As I understand it, we are still on Clause 90.
  Lord Ackner: I am speaking to Clause 91.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Question that I put to the Committee was whether Clause 90, as amended, should stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 90, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 91 [Abolition of common law rules]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 91 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Ackner: I do apologise. I shall take as read what I said. in the hope that Hansard will put it in. I had reached paragraph 13, which is where the meat begins. It states:
  "The provisions as a whole are extremely confusing and will prove very difficult to interpret. They will result in lengthy arguments in court, more appeals and more scope for technical errors on the part of the trial judge that could give rise to convictions being overturned. Evidence that would previously have been considered neither admissible nor relevant will apparently be treated as both admissible and relevant.
  The definition has two limbs. First, evidence that the person 'has committed an offence'. There is no difficulty here. However, it is then provided that evidence 'which shows or intends to show that…he has behaved or is disposed to behave in a way that, in the opinion of the court, might be viewed with disapproval by a reasonable person' is also evidence of bad character. This latter test of had character is far more uncertain than it should be and is likely to give rise to a prolonged argument during a trial as to whether particular conduct falls within it. Furthermore it is likely to lead to appeals (see clause 90).
  An example of the sort of complications that are likely to arise as a consequence of chapter I is provided by clause 96. That clause is designed to introduce into a trial an issue as to whether a defendant has a propensity to commit an offence or a propensity
  726
  to be untruthful and then allow evidence of had character to he given. This evidence of propensity is particularly dangerous. A trial should relate to whether an accused has committed an offence or is untruthful and not questions as to whether the defendant has a propensity. Again the judiciary consider this provision is likely to complicate proceedings and prolong trials without any benefit. (It is appreciated that evidence as to a propensity to he untruthful is limited by clause 97.)
  Another curiosity relates to the provisions as to the defendant's bad character. The judge is allowed to exclude evidence of had character if it would have 'such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it', but this discretion does not apply to all the situations where evidence of had character can be admitted. In addition. the clause addresses when the judge is to exclude the evidence. It would be preferable if this clause and many similar clauses gave the judge a discretion to admit such controversial evidence and not to exclude it. (clause 93(3)).
  The situations not included are set out in subclauses (c), (f) and (g). Sub-clause (c) refers to 'important explanatory evidence'. Sub-clause (f) relates to evidence that has substantial probative value in relation to an important matter in issue between the defendant and a co-defendant. Sub-clause (g) is evidence to correct a false impression given by the defendant. What is not clear is whether the general discretion of a judge to exclude evidence because its prejudicial value exceeds its probative value is excluded. If it is intended to be excluded, then it certainly should not be".
  Those were the views of the senior judiciary, a High Court judge and the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. It is a clear indication that the clause is not one that should be allowed to exist. Although this matter will end inevitably in a Division, Divisions are unnecessary because the whole clause should he swept aside.
  Lord Renton: I warmly support what the noble and learned Lord has said. I hardly need to remind your Lordships that for generations—not by statute but under the common law—it has been against the rules of our courts to admit evidence of bad character in proof of a fresh offence. Criminal cases in our system have over the years avoided injustice to a remark able extent. But if we simply let in evidence of bad character and there is a hit of doubt about the case which the prosecution has put forward, is there not then a danger that the jury may well say, "Yes, well, the prosecution case was not very good but this man is no good: he has been convicted before. Let us convict him"? That would be terrible injustice. That is why I support the noble and learned Lord.
  Lord Cooke of Thorndon: I, too, support the opposition to Clause 91 of my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner. On another controversial issue—that pertaining to jury trial—I have unsuccessfully, and against fearful odds, supported the Bill in principle. But so far I have not been reconciled to the excessively complex provisions of this chapter. To me they are redolent of a drawing board in a government office rather than the flesh and blood reality of a criminal trial.
  The existing common law of England and Wales as to the admissibility of similar fact evidence was liberalised in England by the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House in the 1991 case already referred to this evening—Director of Public Prosecutions v P— in a

  727
  speech delivered by the Lord Chancellor as he then was, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, whom it is a delight to see present tonight.
  Previously it had been understood that the test for admissibility was whether the evidence showed conduct by the defendant strikingly similar to the conduct now charged. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, held that the striking similarity test was too narrow. The question is always whether the evidence has sufficient probative force on the present charge to justify its admission, notwithstanding that it prejudices the accused by showing that he is not of good character. Mere propensity is not enough. There must be relevance and probative value such that to deny the jury the full picture would be an affront to common sense.
  In the course of his speech, the noble and learned Lord recognised that the law of New Zealand had already undergone a similar development, citing certain New Zealand cases. Since P, English and New Zealand law have marched hand in hand on the subject. The sufficient probative value test prevails and is calculated to do justice. Being a question of degree, it is uncertain in the sense that it requires a judge to exercise judgment on the facts of particular cases. However, the law is necessarily full of grey areas where such judgments are essential. Judges are appointed to judge, not to apply automatically inexorable formulae. By comparison with tests suggested in the Bill, the evolved common law is at least more certain, simpler and fairer.
  I shall briefly make that good by referring to two key provisions in the Bill. Clause 93(3) states that the court must not admit certain evidence if,
  "on an application by the defendant to exclude it, it appears to the court that the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it".
  Apparently, "some adverse effect" on fairness would not be enough. "Such" seems to require something blatantly unfair. Be that curiosity as it may, in posing a test concerning unfairness in a particular case, the provision would require a discretionary judgment, wider if anything than the probative value test.
  Clause 96(1)(a), on whether certain evidence is admissible, includes within the qualifying matters,
  "the question whether the defendant has a propensity to commit offences of the kind with which he is charged, except where his having such a propensity makes it no more likely that he is guilty of the offence".
  That provision does not specify who is to adjudicate when admissibility has to be decided on the "no more likely" question. Obviously at that stage, it could only be the judge. It also seems obvious that that will present for the courts questions of degree subtly different from the question posed by the case of P—questions novel, difficult and contentious.
  In the light of such intricacies—I have given but two examples—the Bill will be improved if the chapter is simply omitted. It was dismaying to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, say that it was an extremely important part of the Bill.
  7.30 p.m.
  The Lord Bishop of Worcester: I should like to oppose the Question that Clause 91 stand part of the Bill. I do so because I have an uneasy feeling that it is somewhere near both the heart of the matter with which the Bill is an attempt to deal and the flaws that, frankly, I think are in it.
  I dare to say from these Benches that I have the sense that the wisdom of the common law arises from a fundamental Christian conviction about the use of inductive logic in relation to human beings. That is to say that it is possible to make inductive statements of a scientific sort about all sorts of issues, but that human beings have to be considered in a rather different way. It is extremely worrying, but we all know that we have within ourselves a tendency to make inductive judgments about human beings—"That's the sort of person who might well have done such-and-such"—on grounds that have subsequently proved extremely prejudiced.
  Therefore, in thinking about the clause, we ought to be very aware of the doctrinal history that lies underneath our common law and our practice. We must be very careful that we do not give validation to ways of thinking about human beings to which we are all prone but which, in our human wisdom, we have thought inappropriate to make deciding factors when it comes to people's liberty.
  Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: I, too, support the views expressed. I want to remind the Committee that when we discussed juries the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, told a wonderful story about how he as a young lawyer was sitting in Bow Street magistrates' court when someone was brought in and tried. The basis on which the magistrate reached his conclusion that the man was guilty was that he was clearly a tramp. The accusation was that he had sidled up to someone and taken his wallet. What came to light afterwards was that the man had gone back to his house and found his wallet in the pocket of a suit, and that it had not been stolen at all. However, the magistrate expressed the view at the time that the tramp was exactly the kind of person that he suspected would be up to such an activity.
  The problem is that even judges and magistrates, never mind juries, can be very easily misled into thinking that someone is the kind of person who might commit a particular sort of offence. I had the opportunity of discussing that with some judges from South Africa recently. They reminded me that, even under apartheid when judges alone and not juries tried cases, they made a very clear rule and stuck to it that people's previous convictions would not be put before the judges. They knew how strongly that could act against the interests of those on trial.
  Like others, I feel very strongly that the clause may be one of the most offensive parts of the Bill, and I ask that the Government think again.
  The Earl of Erroll: It is with great temerity that I, a layman, speak in the debate, but I do so because I did jury service a year ago. We have to be careful about

  729
  thinking of juries as a bunch of people who can be easily influenced and have the wool pulled over their eyes.
  I have great respect for juries as a result of my service, because everyone took their duties very seriously. Yes, in the jury room there was the usual split of two for hanging, two for acquitting, and eight undecided who then went one way or the other and the matter was dealt with. However, we wanted more information, because huge arguments went on in court without us present about what we were and were not to be allowed to hear. It was very frustrating, because it was as if we were idiots, and we were not.
  The perfectly sensible people on juries are quite capable of filtering information and are probably less cynical than the judge and magistrates. They might have a more realistic view of who and what can be trusted. We are perhaps getting too frightened of putting too much control into place.
  My second point is that if we are going to replace common law, which is a body of wisdom that has built up, by a rule-based system, that would be difficult and dangerous. One can draw those rules so tight that suddenly a lot of evidence cannot be presented in front of a jury. I would prefer to see a system which is more widely drawn. That is why I supported the Government on the previous two amendments.
  Initially, we need a system that probably allows more evidence to be presented to juries. We will filter it down, as we did with common law, into something that is sensible later. If we have a rigid, rule-based system on day one which does not allow anything to be presented to juries, they will become even more frustrated. In one case where I sat as a juror, the judge became so fed up with us passing notes and asking questions that he had to tell us to stop and try the case on the evidence presented by two adversarial lawyers who I did not think were doing a very good job; and nor did the jury.
  Lord Kingsland: The debate on Clause 91 has covered almost every other clause in Part 11, except Clause 91, but your Lordships need not apologise because Clause 91, in its context, invites that kind of debate. It is important to distinguish the definition of bad character from the rules of admissibility that relate to its role in a trial. Although Clause 91 refers to the rules of admissibility, I understood the noble Baroness to be saying that it referred also to the definition.
  We have discussed, so far, only the definition in Clause 90. As far as that is concerned, I am wholly in agreement with what each and every one of your Lordships has said in the debate. As far as issues of admissibility are concerned, I would prefer to wait until we discuss Clauses 92 and 93 to express an opinion.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I thank all those who have participated. We take very seriously the comments of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Ackner and
  730
  Lord Cooke, not least because they have a wealth of experience, and I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said in support.
  I shall explain why we think that the common-law rules should no longer remain. It goes to the root of the issue raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester who said that the "inductive logic" does not apply in relation to human beings.
  We are not seeking to set out a rigid structure which will not be amenable to jurisprudential development by the courts. We know from looking back at every other piece of statute that Parliament proposes, that, in the end, in terms of interpretation, the courts have the habit of disposing. This is not the end of the common law, but it is a removal of the common-law rules that have hitherto applied. Our intention is that a scheme should be introduced in the Bill that will provide a comprehensive statutory basis for the admission of bad-character evidence and replace the existing statutory and common-law provision in that area. We have already touched on some of the complexities which that marriage has brought about, some of them not always happy in union.
  It has been widely accepted that the current law is confusing and difficult to apply and that there is a clear case for reform. At present, the law relating to the admissibility of a defendant's previous misconduct or criminal disposition is contained in a variety of common-law rules and statutory provisions, added to and adapted in a piecemeal fashion over a number of years. That haphazard and fragmentary approach has left the law as a highly complicated set of rules.
  The Law Commission in its report, Evidence Of Bad Character In Criminal Proceedings, concluded that:
  "The present law suffers from a number of defects…they constitute a haphazard mixture of statute and common-law rules which provide inconsistent and unpredictable results, in crucial respects distort the trial process, make tactical considerations paramount and inhibit the defence in presenting its true case to the factfinders whilst often exposing witnesses to gratuitous and humiliating exposure of long-forgotten misconduct".
  Noble Lords will find that quote in the Law Commission's report, Law Com No. 273, at paragraph 1.7.
  When Lord Justice Auld looked at the criminal courts in his review, he noted that,
  "it has long been acknowledged that the law in this area is highly unsatisfactory in its complexity and uncertainty".
  One needs to refer only to the relevant chapters in criminal evidence textbooks, such as Archbold or Blackstones, to see the volume of case law to which this difficult area of the law has given rise in the courts, and the convoluted rules that have been produced as a result.
  The fundamental issues are still being debated and we will debate them under Clauses 92 and 93. We are not expunging the common law of England and Wales. We are removing the common-law rules, which refer to had character, and replacing them with a statutory

  731
  framework that will be applied and will in due course come to be looked at—
  Lord Thomas of Gresford: The Minister referred to the Law Commission and spoke about setting up a statutory structure. Will she explain why she has not followed the Law Commission in important respects? For example, the Law Commission set out proposals that evidence of had character, whether it be of the defendant or some other person, should be admissible only if the court gives leave for it to be adduced. The Law Commission also concluded that evidence of bad character should be admitted only in such circumstances when it is in the interests of justice for it to be admitted, taking into account its prejudicial effect. In significant ways, which no doubt will be expanded upon in later debates, the Government have moved away from the Law Commission and it is rich that the noble Baroness chooses to quote the commission in support of the proposals.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I hear what the noble Lord said about it being rich; it is also right. We have introduced and applied many of the Law Commission's recommendations. Your Lordships will know that the drafting, for example, of Clause 93(3) is drawn from Section 78 of PACE. That drafting has already been considered and interpreted to include the tests in the common law, under which probative value and prejudicial effect are weighed against each other. We have adopted that drafting precisely because it has been interpreted in that way and so as to be clear.
  To take up the point of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke, the court will come to look at those issues. It will be the judge who has to determine what the probative value of any evidence will be when an application is made to that judge. Clause 93(3) is in place. The noble and learned Lord will know, as other noble Lords appreciate, that courts throughout the country are asked every day to make just such judgments as to which pieces of evidence should be admitted and which pieces should not. We do not seek to change the ordinary functioning of the judicial process, but clarity can be—
  Lord Kingsland: I apologise to the noble Baroness for interrupting her. I rise in support of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and his observations about the Law Commission. It is true, of course, that the Government have followed the Law Commission in certain respects. But in other respects the Government have chosen to ignore what the Law Commission said—most importantly, in relation to Clause 93 and the way in which the bad character evidence can be admitted. I say with great respect to the noble Baroness that, far from echoing the Law Commission, the Government have reversed the way that the Law Commission believes these issues should be dealt with, at least so far as concerns matters of admissibility.
  732
  Of course, this is a matter for debate under Clause 93. I do not want to anticipate that debate by getting into the detail; but I hope that the noble Baroness recognises that, so far as concerns Clause 93, the Government and the Law Commission are a long way apart.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I hear what the noble Lord says. He is right: we shall have an opportunity to debate both Clause 92 and Clause 93. I anticipate that. if the earlier debates foreshadow the latter. we shall debate those for quite some time.
  The scheme introduced in this part of the Bill sets out clearly the circumstances in which the evidence of bad character can be given. The Bill will therefore provide greater certainty and clarity to the law and encourage the admission of such evidence where it will properly assist the courts. I believe that we need to take on board very powerfully what was said about the need for juries to have proper information available to them so that they can make an informed judgment. We believe that the Bill will do that.
  I am sure that noble Lords will have different views on the circumstances in which this type of evidence should be admissible and, as I said earlier, I look forward to that debate. But while the circumstances in which evidence of bad character is admissible under the current law have informed our proposals, the scheme introduced by the Bill is intended to create a new statutory regime.
  Clearly, to enable the scheme to be the authoritative statement of the law in this area, it is necessary to abolish the current common law governing the admissibility of such evidence. Therefore, Clause 91 abolishes the common law rules—not the common law but the common law rules—governing the admissibility of bad character evidence. That will include the abolition of the general exclusionary rule prohibiting the use of evidence of a defendant's previous misconduct or other disposition, as well as the rules providing exceptions to this principle, such as the "similar fact" doctrine.
  Obviously, not only the common law but also statute deals with the admission of bad character evidence—in particular, Section 1(2) of the Criminal Evidence Act 1898, which governs the cross-examination of the defendant on his had character. These, too, need to be repealed in order to complete the process of putting the law on a new footing, and that is dealt with in Part 4 of Schedule 31. I hope that both the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Kingsland, will agree that the Law Commission believes that such a replacement of the rules was merited and well founded. That is all that Clause 91 seeks to do.
  Lord Ackner: Your Lordships have been most patient and must, by now, be very hungry. I wish to say only that nothing in my proposal in any way suggests that there should not be amendments. Clearly much

  733
  needs to be done, but this is not the way to do it—hence, my Question. I should like to test the views of the House accordingly.
  7.54 p.m.
  on Question, Whether Clause 91 shall stand part of the Bill?
  *Their Lordship divided: Contents, 83; Not-Contents, 36.

  Division No. 6

  CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Grocott, L.

  Ahmed, L.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  Amos, B.

  Hollick, L.

  Andrews, B.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Howells of St. Davids, B.

  Ashton of Upholland, B.

  Hoyle, L.

  Bach, L.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Berkeley, L.

  Islwyn, L.

  Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

  Jay of Paddington, B.

  Blackstone, B.

  Jones, L.

  Borrie, L.

  King of West Bromwich, L.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Lea of Crondall, L.

  Brookman, L.

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Burlison, L.

  Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

  Campbell-Savours, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L.

  Carter, L.

  McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

  MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

  Clark of Windermere, L.

  Massey of Darwen, B.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L,

  Morgan, L.

  Cohen of Pimlico, B.

  Pendry, L.

  Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

  Pitkeathley, B.

  Crawley, B.

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  Rooker, L.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Sainsbury of Turville, L.

  Dixon, L.

  Sawyer, L.

  Dubs, L.

  Scotland of Asthal, B.

  Elder, L.

  Simon, V.

  Erroll, E.

  Skidelsky, L.

  Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor)

  Temple-Morris, L.

  Tomlinson, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Turnberg, L.

  Faulkner of Worcester, L.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  Filkin, L.

  Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

  Gale, B.

  Watson of Invergowrie, L.

  Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

  Whitaker, B.

  Golding, B.

  Whitty, L.

  Goldsmith, L.

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

  Gordon of Strathblane, L.

  Goudie, B.

  Winston, L.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Woolmer of Leeds, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Ackner, L.

  Hooson, L.

  Addington, L.

  Hylton, L.

  Allenby of Megiddo, V.

  Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

  Barker, B.

  Linklater of Butterstone, B.

  Burnham, L.

  Mackie of Benshie, L.

  Carlile of Berriew, L.

  McNally, L.

  Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

  Chalfont, L.

  Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

  Chester, Bp.

  Onslow, E.

  Cooke of Thorndon, L.

  Palmer, L.

  Fearn, L.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Harris of Richmond, B.

  Renton, L.

  Hereford, Bp.

  Roper, L.

  734

  Shutt of Greetland, L.

  Wallace of Saltaire, L.

  Smith of Clifton, L.

  Walmsley, B.

  Stern, B.

  Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

  Thomas of Gresford, L.

  Winchester, Bp.

  Tordoff, L.

  Worcester, Bp.

  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

  [*The name of a Lord who voted in both Lobbies has been removed from the voting lists.]
  Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 91 agreed to accordingly.
  8.4 p.m.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving that Motion I suggest that the Committee begin again not before four minutes past nine.
  House resumed.

Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Modification) (No. 2) Order 2003
Lord Williams of Mostynrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd July be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, as your Lordships know, following suspension on 15th October, Section 1 of the Northern Ireland Act 2000 came into force. By virtue of the schedule to that Act there is a power to legislate by Order in Council. That power was limited to the first six months of suspension but can be extended for a period of six months at a time. The House agreed an extension in April. This second order, therefore, provides for a further renewal of these powers for six months from 14th October 2003.
A number of your Lordships who have an interest in Northern Ireland made very firm representations, to which I hope I paid careful attention, that we need a sensible period of time to be able to reflect on and discuss, if necessary informally, new legislation before it comes before Parliament as an Order in Council.
We have done our very best, where practicable, to allow a twelve-week consultation period, as I promised your Lordships earlier, for new legislation before it is laid before Parliament as an Order in Council. As your Lordships know, that has already been done in respect of proposals for draft orders on employment and partnerships, and similar consultation is underway with draft legislation on gambling and licensing. Such an approach will give your Lordships ample opportunity to influence legislation before it is finalised. I recognise that many noble Lords will regard this further continuance as a regrettable necessity; a necessity I suggest it is. I beg to move.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, we accept that this is a consequential effect of the suspension of the Assembly. We express our thanks and appreciation to the Lord President of the Council for giving us this substantial consultation period. We have no objections.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, we too thank the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House for the consideration he has always shown in matters concerned with Northern Ireland. However, for the second time we find ourselves having to renew this order. It is most unfortunate that we have to do so. It is our fervent hope and expectation that this will be the last time we have to renew it.
The order runs to 14th April 2004. Long before then we anticipate that elections will have been held and that the Assembly is once again sitting in Northern Ireland and dealing with its own devolved legislation.
As my noble friend Lord Smith of Clifton reminded the House last Friday, we on these Benches supported the Government's case, albeit reluctantly, to postpone elections in the spring of this year. We gave fair warning then and subsequently that we would not be willing to do so again. Can the noble and learned Lord give us any idea when those elections might be called? It is vital that we are able to give all the people of Northern Ireland hope that very soon they will once again be able to manage their own affairs without having continually to look towards Westminster.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount and the noble Baroness. I agree with the noble Baroness and know that noble Lords on the Opposition Front Benches hold the same view. We want Assembly elections as much as anyone. I have repeated my approval of the observations made on many occasions by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton. We very much hope—I cannot go further—that elections will he possible this autumn.

Partnerships etc. (Removal of Twenty Member Limit) (Northern Ireland) Order 2003
8.9 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostynrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 7th July be approved.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that this House approve the Partnerships etc. (Removal of Twenty Member Limit) (Northern Ireland) Order 2003, a draft of which was laid before this House on 7th July 2003.
736
The purpose of the order is to amend the Northern Ireland law and to bring in provisions in line with those already in force in Great Britain through, as your Lordships will remember, the Regulatory Reform (Removal of 20 Member Limit in Partnerships etc.) Order 2002.
The 20-member partnerships are a historical relic. They interfere with the proper conduct of efficient business in Northern Ireland. They are a historical relic because in the 19th century, in particular, certain companies made a point of having a very large number of memberships so that it was virtually impossible for someone who was aggrieved to sue because there were so many potential defendants. To sue a deed of settlement company under common law, the aggrieved party had to be able to name all the shareholders. That was simply exploited, which was the historical origin of the 20-member limit. It is not appropriate any more. The size restriction was introduced as long ago as the Joint Stock Companies Act 1844.
The DTI has consulted extensively. It had overwhelming support. The restriction imposes burdens. It prevents the expansion of business through the introduction of new partnerships, restricts the development of multi-disciplinary and international partnerships and is quite inappropriate in a society which, in Northern Ireland, is becoming much more dynamic and innovative. I hope your Lordships will agree not only the detail, but the principle behind this order. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 7th July be approved.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Lord President for giving us the historical context to this issue. It is clearly right that Northern Ireland should be brought into line with United Kingdom law on this subject. We have no objection.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has amply outlined the reasons why the order has been deemed necessary. It is right that we should encourage enterprise and remove restrictive barriers to business in Northern Ireland—barriers that have been in place, as the noble and learned Lord has very helpfully told us, since the 18th and 19th centuries in order to restrict the extent to which partnerships were open to abuse.
There has been wide consultation on the order with no apparent dissent. Therefore, it must be absolutely right to give Northern Ireland partnerships the same regulatory framework as those which operate throughout the rest of Great Britain. We, too, support the order.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful.

Northern Ireland (Monitoring Commission etc.) Bill [H.L.]
8.12 p.m.
Standing Order 47 having been dispensed with, Report received; Bill read a third time; an amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 9.4 p.m.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.13 to 9.4 p.m.]

Criminal Justice Bill
9.4 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 92 [Non-defendant's bad character]:
On Question, Whether Clause 92 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Carlile of Berriew: If it is permissible, I have a question to raise with the Minister about Clause 92; it would be helpful if she could provide an answer. Under Clause 92, the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses is limited, because one will be able to cross-examine a prosecution witness about their bad character only if that evidence would fall within the criteria set out in the clause.
As the noble Baroness knows, it is a common occurrence for defence counsel to cross-examine a prosecution witness about offences of dishonesty on that person's record, even if the witness is not being accused of taking part in the crime alleged against the defendant, and even if the crime alleged is not one of dishonesty. One of the most common ways of attacking the character—the credibility—of a prosecution witness is by cross-examining him on his record. Sometimes, that is a telling form of cross-examination. Reading Clause 92, it appears—I hope that I shall be told that this is wrong—that it will no longer be possible for a defendant to attack the credibility of a prosecution witness by revealing in cross-examination a series of convictions for dishonesty.
If that is the case, that would remove an important shot in the defendant's locker and deprive the jury of one way in which prosecution witnesses can be assessed. Sometimes, especially in fraud cases or those in which obtaining by deception is alleged, for example, prosecution witnesses can look and sound very convincing but, as the noble Baroness knows, once their record of social security fraud or stealing from old ladies is revealed in cross-examination, they look a very different kind of witness.
738
Can the Government assure us that it will still be possible to do that? If it is not clear, will the Minister reconsider? It is plainly a matter of common sense that that type of attack on prosecution witnesses' credibility ought to remain possible.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I further suggest the converse case, and ask whether the Government intend not to permit cross-examination of a defence witness about character. Frequently, defence witnesses, especially alibi witnesses, are not of good character and the prosecution enjoy themselves by producing the whole of their criminal record and putting the unfortunate witness through it, although it has no relevance to the evidence which the witness is giving. I should like the assurance that what applies to prosecution witnesses applies also to defence witnesses.
Another matter that I should like to raise under the clause is why evidence of bad character of a witness requires the leave of the court, whereas the bad character of a defendant does not. Can the Government give any explanation of that discrepancy?
Lord Kingsland: I respectfully agree with what both the noble Lords, Lord Carlile of Berriew and Lord Thomas of Gresford, said. I place my concern in the context of what their Lordships said. It worries me that it is much more difficult for the defendant to get admitted evidence of bad character against a prosecution witness than it is for the prosecution to get evidence of bad character admitted against the defendant. Under Clause 93 it is much easier to get a defendant's bad character put in evidence than it is a non-defendant's character under Clause 92. The Government ought to correct that inequity on Report.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I shall deal first with the credibility issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. My response applies equally to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. I can reassure Members of the Committee that Clause 92(1)(b) enables evidence to be given that is probative of the matters in issue. That will cover evidence going to a witness's credibility, be they prosecution or defence. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, whether or not a witness is to be believed will have an important bearing on their testimony and the facts to which it relates. Therefore, provided that the evidence is not of a trivial value, it will be admissible. The purpose of defining Clause 92 as relating to "Non-defendant's bad character" is to do precisely that. Any witness, be they for the Crown or the defence, will be subject in the same way to Clause 92.
I hear what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and mooted by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, about the difference between the witness's position and that of the defendant. The critical question regarding defendants is whether the probative value of the evidence is outweighed by its prejudicial effect. That ensures that only evidence that will properly assist the jury, rather than distract them, is admitted. However, as only the

739
defendant in the case is at risk of conviction, the test is apt only for their protection. Members of the Committee will see that in Clause 93(3). I said earlier that the reason that the provision had been included was that the test is already well understood and can be applied. We did not seek to change the test, so it is echoed in Clause 93(3).
It is, however, still important that defendants should not be able to introduce trivial or irrelevant evidence of a non-defendant's bad character. To protect non-defendants from such attacks, a test of enhanced relevance is proposed.
I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord about the difference between the two provisions and reassures him.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I regret to say that I do not feel reassured. I am sure that the noble Baroness is aware of the concerns expressed about whether the provisions accord with the European Convention on Human Rights. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has expressed a strong view that there is no equality of arms as a result of those clauses. I am sorry that that has not been taken on board in the Bill. I will consider the Minister's response, but the matter will undoubtedly recur.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: Before we determine the matter, perhaps I might ask the Minister to reflect on the matter, for two reasons. First, as she knows, in a criminal trial one cannot adduce evidence that goes to credit alone. It is not a matter in issue in the trial. I have a concern about whether the words of subsection (1)(b) would in themselves allow cross-examination as to credit on the basis of a witness's previous convictions, when the witness's credit is not a matter in issue in the trial in the conventional sense.
The second matter that I ask the Minister to reflect on is the effect of subsection (3) on subsection (1)(b). Earlier in our debates, the Minister said that there was a lot of material in Archbold about the existing law on had character. During the dinner break, I nipped into the Library and looked in Archbold 2003. There are 15 pages—pages 1135 to 1150—on a body of law that has existed in its present form since, at least, the Criminal Evidence Act 1898. Fifteen pages for 105 years of law is not bad.
It seems to me, looking at subsections (1)(b) and (3), that we will have 15 pages of Archbold on that narrow subject in two or three years, if we are not careful. I urge the Minister to be certain that we are not unintentionally making the law worse, before she tries to persuade the Committee that we should definitely accept the clause.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: We will consider the matter, but it is our understanding that the way in which Clause 92(1)(b) should be interpreted would enable evidence to be given that is probative of the matter in issue. That will cover evidence going to the
740
witness's credibility. That is our understanding of the clause. I do not suppose that the noble Lord wants me to reconsider that, as it seems to accord with what he would wish. If our understanding were to change, on reflection, I will, of course, come back on the matter, but I do not think that the noble Lord would want me to.
Clause 92 agreed to.
Clause 93 [Defendant's bad character]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 140:
Page 62, line 10, after first "if" insert "it has direct relevance to issues in the case"
The noble Lord said: I want to say immediately that our view of the expression "issues in the case", as contained in the amendment, is that it is narrower than the definition provided by the Government in Clause 96(1)(a) and (b). In Clause 96, the Government include, as an issue between the defendant and the prosecution, the question of whether the defendant has,
"a propensity to commit offences of the kind with which he is charged".
We disagree.
At the end of the sitting before dinner, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, raised the question of the compatibility of the Government's proposals with the views of the Law Commission. The Law Commission has expressed a view on the scheme of Clause 93, and it is contained in paragraphs 6.64 and 6.65 of its report Evidence of Bad Character in Criminal Proceedings. The report says:
"it is axiomatic that only relevant evidence should be admitted. Not all evidence for bad character is relevant to the issue of guilt. The admission of irrelevant bad character evidence might not matter, if it were not prejudicial; but often it is. It can lead to a person being convicted on inadequate evidence, or where the fact-finders are not in fact sure that the charge has been made out. Therefore, bad character evidence which is not relevant should in our view be excluded as a matter of course, not merely as a matter of discretion. We therefore favour a general rule excluding bad character evidence (subject to exceptions) rather than a general inclusionary rule, subject to a discretion to exclude".
The position taken by the Law Commission is diametrically opposed to that taken by the Government.
The issue of relevance is of central importance as a gateway to admitting any bad character evidence. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: I would like to ask a nave layman's question. This clause and the preceding one, Clause 92, both say that:
"all parties to the proceedings agree to the evidence being admissible".
When would that agreement be reached—in open court, in chambers or in some previous negotiation, before the trial?
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: If I may, I will deal with the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, first. The agreement over evidence can be reached at any of the times mentioned by the noble Lord. Noble

741
Lords will know that, when the matter is committed, evidence is served by the prosecution, and it may be agreed that that is an appropriate way. As the trial continues, evidence may come up and the defence and prosecution may together agree that it is appropriate and pertinent that certain information goes forward. It would always be possible of course, if they were to make an application to the judge for the evidence of a witness to go in, for example, that the court could conceivably disagree with the balance. However, if both parties were to agree that would be unlikely to happen it would go in. Timing need not be a matter of difficulty.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, spoke extremely succinctly to the amendments. In posing his questions, he asked a wide and broad question, so it is only right that I should give him a comprehensive answer.
Clause 93 goes to the heart of the new statutory rules on bad character and deals with the circumstances in which evidence of a defendant's bad character will be admissible in criminal proceedings. To set the context for the debate on these and subsequent amendments, it might assist the Committee if I say a few general words about this provision.
We have already had several useful debates, not least the one in the context of Clause 91, about the abolition of the common law rules on bad character and about letting the law stand as it is. Your Lordships will know that we do not believe that that would be an acceptable course to take. At present, the law is contained in a variety of forms that we touched on before the short adjournment, and, rightly, it was generally thought by all that amendment was needed. The difficulty and complexity of the current structure brought this area of law no credit, either to the courts and practitioners or to the public at large. An area of the law as important as this cannot be the preserve simply of experts. It may also have a chilling effect on the application of the law inhibiting the admission of relevant evidence even when this is appropriate and justified. Both Sir Robin Auld and the Law Commission have offered substantial criticism of the current state of affairs.
Leaving the law in its current state, therefore, is no longer an option. A new statutory scheme is required. The amendments relate to what form that statutory scheme should take. Therefore, our intention is to set out, as clearly as we can, a new scheme for admitting bad character, building on recognised concepts in the current law, but stating them in a comprehensive and coherent fashion—accessible to all and capable of straightforward application.
The scheme we propose consists of three key elements. The first is a new inclusionary rule that a defendant's bad character is admissible if it meets one or a number of conditions. The plethora of rules that have developed over the previous century or more, couched on an exclusionary basis and unclear in their application, inhibit the admission of this evidence, denying fact finders relevant material for determining the cases before them. That cannot be right. We must
742
ensure that the framework for admitting this sort of information in the future facilitates, rather than restricts, the hearing of relevant evidence.
Therefore, our starting point is that the new scheme should be one of inclusion, which promotes the hearing of relevant evidence by the courts where it is appropriate and justified. We believe that it is right to place more trust in our juries and magistrates to reach common sense decisions on the basis of the widest range of relevant evidence, unless there are good reasons for exclusion in the circumstances of the case. The Bill sets out a new framework for the admission of a defendant's bad character, under which the basic rule is one of inclusion rather than exclusion.
The second element of the scheme is a number of categories of admissibility. The Bill sets out eight categories, which are intended to cover all evidence that might be relevant in a case and to provide a straightforward and clear statement of admissibility. They reflect evidence that is admissible or is admitted under current law.
Paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 93(1) cover circumstances in which the defendant is content for the evidence to be admitted. Such evidence is admissible at present. Clause 93(1)(c) covers important explanatory evidence. Common law also already recognises that evidence of bad character can be admitted outside the similar fact rule as background evidence. I shall return to that shortly in the context of Amendment No. 141.
Clause 93(1)(d) is intended to create a presumption that certain convictions will be relevant to a case and therefore should be admitted, unless their probative value is outweighed by their prejudicial effect. We wish to make the new statutory scheme for evidence of bad character as straightforward and as accessible as possible. That presumption is intended to reflect the fact that, generally speaking, convictions for the same or a similar offence will be most relevant to issues in the case. Again, we shall have a chance to debate that more fully shortly.
Clause 93(1)(e) builds on current law, which enables evidence of a defendant's previous misconduct to be admitted where it is relevant to the question of Built. It still takes more than 40 pages of one of the leading books, Cross and Tapper on Evidence, to describe the rules governing this area of the law. A clear restatement of the law is certainly needed. I do not want to play one-upmanship with the noble Lord's 15 pages of Archbold: he and I both know that Archbold may be the Bible, but others look elsewhere for the New Testament.
Paragraphs (f), (g) and (h) of Clause 93(1) cover matters that are dealt with by common law and the Criminal Evidence Act 1898. For example, in relation to co-defendants, a defendant may, under common law, adduce evidence relating to a co-defendant's had character if it is relevant to his defence. A defendant is also entitled to cross-examine a co-defendant on his record under the 1898 Act if the co-defendant has given evidence against him.

743
Evidence is also admissible under common law in cross-examination of witnesses and in rebuttal to correct any misleading claims made by, or on behalf of, the defendant to be of good character. Such a claim also means that the defendant can be cross-examined on his record under the 1898 Act. I know that many of those issues are very familiar to Members of the Committee. Finally, the 1898 Act also enables a defendant to be cross-examined on his record if he attacks the character of a prosecution witness. Paragraphs (f), (g) and (h) of subsection (1) make provision to cover similar circumstances in the future.
The third element of the scheme is a test for excluding evidence where admitting it would create unfairness; that is, its probative value would be outweighed by its prejudicial effect. This represents an important safeguard to protect the interests of defendants. It is not the only one included in the scheme and we shall have an opportunity at a later point to discuss others, such as those in Clauses 98 and 100.
We shall also have an opportunity shortly to debate in more detail the terms of the exclusionary test, so I will not take up much of the time of the Committee at this point. However, I mention it to provide noble Lords with a clear overall picture of the new rules governing a defendant's bad character.
To conclude, therefore, we believe that there is a wide consensus that the current law is unsatisfactory. Clause 93 represents a new departure with a comprehensive, statutory scheme that brings together all the rules in this area and restates them in a clear and coherent way. This will bring clarity to an obscure area of law, representing a better balance in the system than does the current complexity and uncertainty.
I turn now to the two specific amendments in this group. Amendment No. 140 inserts a general requirement that evidence of a defendant's bad character be of "direct relevance" to issues in the case. We do not agree that this would be a helpful addition to the Bill. It sets out carefully the basis on which a defendant's bad character should be capable of admission. All of these are circumstances in which the evidence will have a clear bearing on the case, either in assisting the defendant fully to put his case or in helping the jury to understand and determine the issues in the proceedings. That might be because it goes directly to issues relevant to the defendant's guilt or those that have a bearing on those issues by going to the defendant's character and credibility in appropriate circumstances.
A requirement for relevance is already clearly reflected in the various heads of admissibility where evidence is being admitted as probative to the issues of the case. It is explicitly mentioned in paragraphs (e) and (f) as evidence that is relevant to issues between prosecution and defence, or between co-defendants. Here, it is not clear what a requirement of "direct" relevance would add.
The issue of relevance also underpins the presumption created by paragraph (d) in favour of admitting convictions for the same or a similar offence. That
744
provision is of course also subject to the exclusionary test in Clause 93(3), under which probative value will be assessed against prejudicial effect. However, to add a further requirement of "relevance" as a condition for the provision being met would undermine the clarity and simplicity of approach that this presumption is intended to achieve. I think that it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke, who said earlier in the debate that probative value is now the guiding principle, both in New Zealand and over here. We do not intend to change that because there still has to be an assessment of the probative value.
On the other hand, we think that the amendment is likely to cause confusion. In the case of explanatory evidence, for example, Clause 85 requires the evidence to be such that, without it, the court or jury would find it impossible or difficult properly to understand other evidence in the case. Evidence in this category is not admitted because of its probative value to the issues in the case, but rather to put other evidence in its proper context so that it can be understood. Evidence can be admitted on this kind of basis under the current law, and it is not clear what a requirement for "direct relevance" would add in these circumstances, other than confusion over the proper reason for admitting this kind of evidence and questions of whether the evidence needed to meet some further requirement of being probative.
A requirement of direct relevance is also likely to add confusion where evidence is being adduced by a defendant who may wish to make a clean breast of his record at the outset to demonstrate that he is putting his cards on the table or to counter any presentational disadvantage in it coming out piecemeal in cross-examination.
A number of noble Lords will know the kinds of incidents to which I refer, particularly where a defendant says, wish to tell the court that I have these convictions. I have always pleaded guilty. I am not pleading guilty this time because I did not do it". It would be most odd if the court were to rule that the defendant could not present his case in such a way because his bad character was of insufficient direct relevance to the issue.
Difficulties might also arise in the context of evidence admitted to address a misleading claim of good character or in response to a defendant's attack on the character of another. These categories reflect circumstances in which bad character evidence is admissible under the current law and represent important categories for such evidence, ensuring that the jury receives a balanced picture of the character of the defendant where he seeks to give a misleading impression about himself or further his case through attacking a witness.
But it is not clear what additional purpose would be served by requiring the evidence also to be directly relevant. What additional requirement would this impose? It would be very odd if this evidence could only be admitted in these circumstances if it was also directly relevant to the defendant's guilt.

745
The amendment reflects a concern that irrelevant bad character information should not be adduced. We understand that concern. Indeed, it is laudable. However, the Bill makes careful provision on the circumstances in which a defendant's bad character can be admitted. A blanket provision for "direct relevance" would cut across this and not aid clarity.
Amendment No. 141 would delete the provision for evidence to be admissible as "important explanatory evidence". The common law already recognises that evidence of bad character can be admitted outside the similar fact rule as background evidence. For example, in the case of Sidhu ((1994) 98 Cr App R 59), the defendant was charged in relation to conspiracy to possess explosives in England. A video showing the defendant apparently leading the activities of a group of armed rebels in Pakistan was admitted as evidence of a "continual background of history". And in the case of Stevens ([1995] Crim LR 649), evidence of previous occasions on which the defendant had assaulted the victim was admitted as part of the background to a charge of murder.
As the Court of Appeal explained in the case of Pettman (1985 unreported):
"Where it was necessary to place before the jury a continual background of history relevant to the offence charged, and that account would be incomplete or incomprehensible if not given in its totality, evidence forming part of that account should not be excluded merely because it established the commission of an offence with which the accused was not charged. A conclusion to the contrary. requiring events to be viewed in total isolation from their history, would make it difficult for the jury to do its job".
So, in terms of our current jurisprudence, there is already a vehicle through which such evidence can be admitted where probative.
However, the Law Commission identified in its 2001 report that there was considerable difficulty with defining the boundaries of this kind of evidence and that it was often confused and conflated with evidence admissible as part of the res gestae—that is, matters that are closely bound up with the facts of the offence in time, place or circumstance—and that admissible under the similar fact rule. It therefore recommended making clear distinctions between evidence to do with the facts of the offence, evidence admissible because of its explanatory value and evidence admissible because of its probative value. We have sought to reflect that division in the way in which we have crafted these provisions.
The Bill takes that opportunity and makes clear provision for evidence to be admitted where its value to the case is in helping the jury to understand the other evidence that is being presented. In these circumstances, it is difficult to describe the evidence as "probative" because, strictly speaking, it does not prove an issue relating to guilt. but sets other evidence in context. We believe that this should be separately recognised to avoid the confusion that has arisen under the current law. We do not, therefore, consider that it would be appropriate to remove paragraph (c). I therefore resist the amendments and invite the noble Lord to consider and withdraw them.
746
I have tried to be as comprehensive as I can at this stage because I know we will be picking up various issues when we come to each specific section. I hope I will not have to repeat this, but I hope that it will help noble Lords to see the context in which we frame all the provisions and how they will sit.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: It is very helpful that my noble friend the Minister has outlined the way in which the Government are approaching this issue because many people outside the Chamber do not know. They do not understand what this is all about.
The question asked by the noble Lord. Lord Hylton, touched on this in some way. I was asked earlier, outside the Chamber, by a noble Lord from these Benches to explain how, in Clause 93(1)(a), all parties to the proceedings could agree to the evidence being admissible. He said, "Who could complain about that?" The answer is that no one currently complains about that. Frequently in trial, the parties—the Crown and the defence—will put their heads together. The defence will ask for a formal admission in writing that can be given to the jury on all sorts of matters. One such matter might be to tell the jury that the accused person, who is charged with robbery, has never been in trouble in his life save once, when he was only 17 and was convicted of shoplifting. That is done on the basis that giving the jury that information will help them to see that he is not a man who commits burglary regularly and that they may speculate if it is not provided. But it is done by way of agreement.
The general public do not seem to understand that in many circumstances the defendant's bad character is already placed before the jury. It is being presented by the Government as though this never happens. It happens on a regular basis, but on good reasoning.
It has been admitted tonight, and I hope it will be given some coverage, that we are seeing something that has never happened before. Instead of the presumption to exclude, we are seeing the presumption to include—to put convictions in. That is a disgrace. It is a disgrace that the Government should be lowering themselves to that level. It is a source of sadness to many of us that that is happening. It is a volte face; it flies in the face of principle that has been developed over many years to protect those who stand trial. It should be a source of shame to those on these Benches and to the Front Bench that they should be arguing this, and arguing that it has been put forward to make simple that which is complex. What dissembling. It has nothing to do with making simple what is complex; it is to do with putting people's previous convictions in front of juries in order to increase convictions. Shame on you.
Let it be clear to all those who will look at the record of this debate and vote at a later stage what this is about. That is why most of us are saying that this amendment should be made to the Bill. Judges, lawyers and every justice organisation in the country are outraged and shocked that the Government should think of doing this. Shame!
9.45 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: There is not much that one can say after that, save this: that the measure is contrary to the Law Commission's proposals; it is a break with hundreds of years of tradition; and it is being proposed entirely for the reason given by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, to put convictions in front of juries. We have had no explanation why the onus is now on the defendant, who only in certain circumstances may challenge the admission of convictions, and yet in other instances, as listed, is not able to do that. Absolutely no justification has been given for that at all.
I was brought up to believe that evidence that is relevant is admissible and that which is irrelevant is not admissible. It is terribly simple. I have never had any problems in advising clients about putting their character in. One knows that if one attacks a prosecution witness, the character is going to go in. One knows all the circumstances when the character is going to go in, and there are no problems about it.
If there are 15 pages in Archbold and 40 pages in that much battered volume, Cross and Tapper On Evidence, dealing with the subject, that is simply to illustrate what is an attack on another person's character; what is a false impression given by a defendant; what is an important matter in issue; and what is important explanatory evidence. All the issues that arise in the simple common law structure that we have at the moment—those issues for decision by the judge—will still be there. I reject the concept that people will read this statutory framework in a local pub and be satisfied that they understand the law a lot better. That is a ludicrous way of defending a completely unacceptable proposition by the Government.
Lord Kingsland: I shall not ask the Committee to divide on the amendment tonight, but I hope that the Minister has listened carefully to the remarks of all the Members of Committee who spoke, with which I totally agree. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 141 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Gould of Potternewton): Before calling Amendment No. 142, I must inform Members of the Committee that, if Amendment No. 142 is carried, I cannot call Amendment No. 143 for reasons of pre-emption.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 142:
Page 62, line 16, leave out paragraph (d).
The noble Lord said: I believe that I am right in saying that Amendment No. 142 refers to Clause 92(1)(d). The issue concerns the way in which the Government intend to define the expression "the same category". That is dealt with in Clause 95(1), which says that,
"two offences are of the same category as each other if they belong to the same category of offences prescribed for the purposes of this section by an order made by the Secretary of State".
748
It is unsatisfactory that the matter should be dealt with by order; the categories should appear in the Bill.
Moreover, Clause 95(2) states that offences of the same category can merely,
"consist of offences of the same type".
According to Explanatory Note 336, it will be sufficient for evidence to be admissible under the same type test if, for example, the old and the new offence are offences of violence. Therefore, to compound the admissibility of evidence of bad character, which does not go to any issue in the trial, Clause 95(2) allows for the admission of evidence of past offending, which in its detail may be remote from the offences in issue. I beg to move.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I fully appreciate that, when dealing with the Committee stage of such a Bill, one often becomes confused as to the effect of particular amendments. However, I have always regarded this amendment as almost the most important of all in highlighting objections to the Bill. I support everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, said. It seems to me that Clause 93(1)(d) will make it far easier than ever before to put in the evidence of a defendant's previous convictions. Like her, I ask myself why the Government are doing it. The only answer I can think of is that they want to increase the conviction level but not necessarily the justice of those convictions. If,
"evidence of the defendant's conviction for an offence of the same description, or of the same category, as the one with which he is charged",
is to be part of the future burden of proof, there is a real risk that many people will be convicted on the basis of their past rather than the offence they are alleged to have committed.
Is it seriously said that the trial of a 50-year-old man charged with burglary—perhaps he put his hand through a window on a summer's afternoon to take something that was readily available—could in cross-examination include evidence that, at age 14, with others, he committed an offence of burglary? Such a proposal reeks of the danger and possibility that people will be convicted on their past rather than on the evidence. Individuals and juries could well put undue importance on a person's previous convictions.
Such convictions could be put before the jury without the leave of the judge. It is true that subsection (3) says the court may not admit that evidence if there is an application by the defendant to exclude. However, those very words, as against the necessity of persuading the judge to allow the evidence to be introduced, imply that we are changing the burden of proof.
I listened with interest at an earlier stage to the speech by the Minister, for whom I have great respect and regard. She said that the Government are doing nothing here but putting into statutory form the rather complicated position concerning similar fact evidence. With respect, I think that they are doing more than that. They are not only putting it into statutory form; they are substantially reversing it by changing the burden of proof.

749
As has been made clear in almost all our debates this evening, beginning with that on the wording of Clause 90, the Government ought to look back and see whether they can relate the wording concerning admissible evidence of had character to that which currently applies in similar fact evidence. That requires two things. First, to be admissible, the evidence should he both relevant and probative. I do not find much reference to the words "relevant" or "probative" anywhere in Clause 93. That is why I said that, of this Bill as a whole with all its good parts and its bad parts, I believed the most disturbing was that which dealt with the wider ability to introduce defendants' convictions into an ordinary trial. I repeat that the danger is that it is motivated by a desire to see the number of convictions rise and to claim that as a success rather than by the justice of those individual convictions.
I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, is not present as I would have said this with greater ease if he were. I should love to know what would have been the reaction of the party opposite if a Conservative government had proposed matters of the kind we are discussing. We know where the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, stands on the matter. I suspect, although he is not here, that I might even know where the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, stands. Had a Conservative government proposed such matters, noble Lords opposite would have been out in the street howling about the extreme right-wing nature of a government that changed laws which had applied in this country for many years merely to attain a higher conviction rate.
I should particularly like to know where the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, stands. I remember when he was chairman of the Bar Council listening with some degree of infuriation to him speak morning after morning on the eight o'clock programme castigating the government of the day, which was a Conservative government. He said that the Bar Council was totally opposed to this or that measure which Michael Howard, or even milder people like the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, wanted to introduce. I did not necessarily always agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, when he said that he spoke for the Bar Council as a whole. However, I cannot help feeling that if he were on the Back Benches of the Opposition at the moment, together with the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, for whom I have great regard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland. for whom I have even more regard, they would quietly lead the objections to the changes that we are being asked to accept.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I hope that the Committee will permit another Queen's Counsel from north-east Wales to speak. I note that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, is standing behind the Bar. Perhaps he will speak on this matter. It is fundamental to the criminal justice system of this country that there is a presumption of innocence. That is where we all start from—that an offence has to be proved by the prosecution to the satisfaction of a magistrate or a jury.
750
If you introduce irrelevant past convictions into the equation, is it to be supposed for a moment that the presumption of innocence is the same for a man with those previous convictions as it is for a person of completely clean character? Of course, it is not. When you introduce something like that to distort the criminal justice system as it has grown up there will be miscarriages of justice. There have been so many well-known miscarriages of justice in this country over the past 10, 15 and 20 years that the confidence of the public in the investigation and prosecution of crime has been shaken. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew may have had the same experience, but, over the period of my professional life, I strongly suspect that acquittals are more readily to be obtained, particularly in certain parts of the country where miscarriages of justice have taken place because confidence in the police and in the investigation of crime and in the fairness of prosecutions has been undermined. Once you do that, you are hitting at the very root of justice.
We shall no doubt discuss the subsection in some detail at a later stage but noble Lords on these Benches wholeheartedly support the amendment.
10 p.m.
Lord Renton: I must point out before coming to paragraph (d)—the subject of the amendment—that it is in Clause 93(1), which refers to criminal proceedings in general. It does not make any distinction between those proceedings that decide guilt or innocence and those relevant to deciding on the sentence. That should be made clear. It could be quite easily done; we could have words at the beginning such as, "When deciding whether the defendant was guilty or innocent of the offence charged". What follows would be made clear, because on sentence we of course already have evidence of any previous convictions.
Paragraph (d) would be utterly unacceptable in achieving justice, and I warmly support what my noble friend said a little earlier. We get into a very confused situation if we do not regard the whole of subsection (1) as needing redrafting. When deciding innocence or guilt, we must stick to the present well-established system, which has achieved justice time and again.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: I agree with what has been said, particularly with the reasons given by my noble namesake about the importance of the principles at stake. If one reads Clause 93(1)(d) alongside Clause 95, as one must, it seems that a fundamental change is made by the provisions.
We have been using the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, as our template. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford and I have had the advantage of doing cases with and against the noble and learned Lord when we were all very much younger. I can almost hear the noble and learned Lord protesting to a judge, "But, my Lord, that only goes as to propensity. It is not evidence of the crime charged". The provisions, especially subsection (1)(d), make a presumption that evidence of propensity is evidence of

751
guilt of the crime charged. That is the absolutely fundamental change made here. It is a very dramatic change in the law.
The Minister cannot get away with trying to persuade this House—particularly this House, where there is a lot of experience of conducting criminal cases, which continues for many of us—that this is no more than a simplification or codification of the existing law to make it more comprehensible to ordinary people and juries. It is not. The Bar certainly does not think it is, and nor do solicitors. I am quite sure that the judges are as outraged as we are about it, and it promises immense and amoral complexity to the law.
Baroness Seccombe: I did not intend to speak in this debate, but it brought to mind an occasion when I sat as a magistrate on which we had been through all the formalities when a defendant was accused of theft from a shop. We came to the first witness—the owner of the shop. Having pointed out the defendant—the person connected with the offence—he was asked what drew his attention to the lady, to which the answer was, "I had seen her do it before". There was absolute consternation in the court, and the whole case was adjourned and had to be heard by another Bench. How glad I was, because it is so wrong that anyone, whether jurors or magistrates, should know about previous convictions.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: The Minister was having a pretty torrid time tonight and conducted herself with her usual coolness, sang-froid and courtesy, but would she be good enough to say what the reason is for the change? Is it, as we were given to understand earlier, in order to make simple what is at present complex, or is it something else and if so, what?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I say straightaway that I understand the anxiety that has been expressed about the new change. I may not share it, but I understand it, because any time one embarks on what appears to be a significant change from that which is known, loved and accepted, it provides us all with a challenge. I empathise with the statements made thus far, but I would like to respond directly to some of the questions raised by the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Carlile of Berriew—this was touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle—about the reason for the changes being made, and to seek to answer the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew.
The changes have not been made in order to generate more convictions for convictions' sake. The Government are as committed and as passionate about justice as any who have already spoken in the Chamber. However, it is right that we want to bring more people to justice justly and fairly. It would be wrong to fail to recognise that there is the perception outside the Chamber that we have not been able to get the balance just right and that many do not understand what our rules are, not least because of the way in which they have developed over a period of time—we
752
explored that earlier in debates—and because we have had fragmented development, which has not always been easy to follow. We are making a genuine attempt to put those provisions in one place to make them accessible.
I have listened with great care to everything that has been said, not all of it with the temperance with which I would perhaps have been more comfortable, but I understand the passion of those saying it. Passion, quite often, is the odd bedfellow of temperance. While I understand that, it would be quite wrong and unjust to accuse the Government of seeking to rebalance the system in a pernicious and unfair way. That is not what we intend.
If noble Lords would care to do the exercise that I have sought to do, by going through each and every provision, they will be comforted to find that there is already authority supporting virtually all that is in Clause 93. However, it is right that in Clause 93(1)(d), the Government are making an attempt to broaden the issue a little further. Amendment No. 141, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and spoken to so ably, as always, by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, would test the issue a little further. I have spoken in general terms about the new scheme.
Clause 93(1)(d) is intended to create a presumption that certain convictions will be relevant to a case and should therefore be admitted, unless their probative value is outweighed by their prejudicial effect. I know that sometimes, for the purposes of the beauty of the argument, it is almost convenient to forget about Clause 93(3), but we really should remember it because it is that which speaks of probative value. I take this opportunity to remind Members of the Committee of it because it states:
"The court must not—
therefore, we have a mandatory provision—
"admit evidence under subsection (1)(d)"—
about which we are now talking—
"(e) or (h) if, on an application by the defendant to exclude it, it appears to the court that the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it".
As I said earlier, that drafting of Clause 93(3) is drawn directly from Section 78 of PACE. The drafting has already been considered and interpreted to include the test in the common law under which probative value and prejudicial effect are weighed against each other. We have adopted that drafting precisely because it has been interpreted in this way and will be clear, rather than adopting a new form of words which may cause confusion.
Therefore, to be read into Clause 93(1)(d) is that nothing that falls within that category could or should be admitted unless it complies with the injunction set out in Clause 93(3)—that is, its probative value should outweigh its prejudicial effect. That is a principle with which we have all been comfortable for a very long time and have become increasingly so as the jurisprudence has developed.

753
I believe it would be quite unjust, even if one were to differ on whether it is right to go one stage further, as Clause 93(1)(d) appears to do, to say that that is for some pernicious or ill intent. It is not. The court still has the ability to hold burden.
However, I do not believe that we should run away from the idea that the things included in Clause 93 do not already impinge on the way in which our courts operate. They are an expression of the jurisprudence which we all respect and by which, if we are practitioners, we are bound.
As I said, the test is designed to reflect the existing position. Therefore, Clause 93(1)(d) and, indeed, our intention in including it in legislation is to create a presumption that certain convictions are relevant and should be admitted. That would not be conclusive but would provide a clear starting point for admissibility that reflects the reality of the operation of the similar fact rule.
I am aware that a separate amendment has been tabled specifically to limit this clause to convictions for the same offence and to remove the inclusion of convictions for a similar offence. That is Amendment No. 143 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, who I see nodding her assent. Although that amendment is in a different group, the amendment that we are considering—Amendment No. 142—would remove the admissibility of a conviction for both the same offence and a similar one. Therefore, perhaps I may say a few words about similar offences.
The case for extending this provision to convictions for similar offences is strong. Their probative value may be just as strong as convictions for the same offence—for example, if someone has previously committed actual bodily harm, the fact that he had previous convictions for grievous bodily harm should be admissible just as readily as a previous conviction for actual bodily harm. That is the case as the probative value lies not in the fact that the defendant committed that particular crime but in the nature of the offence. In this case, the probative value lies in the violence of previous offences.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Does the Minister not agree that that simply goes to propensity? We have always turned our face against evidence of propensity.
754
All she is saying is that the fact that you have assaulted someone before just proves propensity to assault somebody else.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: It does not go just to propensity. Indeed, the noble Lord will know that there are many cases that currently allow such evidence to be admitted. We are not going significantly further than that. As I say, the law in this area has been beset with complexity and confusion. The new statutory scheme is intended to set out a clear and predictable set of rules.
Clause 93(1)(d) promotes that aim by providing a clear and simple route to admissibility that will assist the courts and practitioners alike. I emphasise that Clause 93(1)(d) will remain subject to Clause 93(3), which means that probative and prejudicial have still to be weighed in the balance. That is an issue on which the judges of this country have always been entrusted with the ability to determine. I think that noble Lords in this debate will agree with me that they have determined it in a way which has always inured to the benefit of justice.
Lord Kingsland: I am much obliged to the noble Baroness. What she seems to be saying in a nutshell is, "Yes, Clause 93(1)(d) does go beyond the existing law"—I would suggest that it goes way beyond the existing law—"but we should not really worry about that because the defendant will have the protection of Clause 93(3) in relation to (d)".
That may or may not be true. We shall consider Clause 93(3) on another occasion not, I trust, tonight. But that is no excuse and no justification for the way that Clause 93(1)(d) has been drawn. It will allow offences that have nothing whatever to do with the offence with which a person is charged to be brought in evidence against them. Quite apart from the general principle of doing that, I can see no justification for the Government expanding the geography of the definition of had character to that extent.
I shall not invite the Committee to divide on this matter now. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment but I shall certainly return to it on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
House resumed.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes past ten o'clock.

  Judicial Appointments
  Judicial Appointments
  British Council Trustees: Annual Report and Accounts
  British Council Trustees: Annual Report and Accounts
  Multi-agency Public Protection Arrangements: Annual Reports
  Multi-agency Public Protection Arrangements: Annual Reports
  Iraq: Costs of Military Campaign
  Iraq: Costs of Military Campaign
  Planning Policy Statement: Rural Areas in England
  Planning Policy Statement: Rural Areas in England
  Local Authority Budgets: Capping
  Local Authority Budgets: Capping
  Economic and Social Research Council
  Economic and Social Research Council
  Tax Credits
  Tax Credits
  Asylum Seekers: Unsuccessful Candidates
  Asylum Seekers: Unsuccessful Candidates
  Public Sector Jobs
  Public Sector Jobs
  Inland Revenue: Self-assessment Tax Returns
  Inland Revenue: Self-assessment Tax Returns
  Immigration Advisory Services: Transfer of Funding
  Immigration Advisory Services: Transfer of Funding